Regional Boards > Central States

New I-44 OK-66 interchange in Tulsa area (Catoosa)

(1/5) > >>

A public meeting was held last week with two options. One perfectly fine and one pretty stupid but slightly cheaper.

Widen to 6 lanes, new bridges, ramps and in the non-stupid version fix the huge curve on the westbound lanes. Construction to start in 2024

Great Lakes Roads:
By the way, option 1 is their preferred alternative for the I-44/OK 66 interchange, and it's horribly outdated, especially since I-44 was rerouted in the 2000s...

This will be a huge improvement. The left exit from eastbound I-44 to eastbound OK 66 is ridiculously dangerous, and the huge curves that westbound I-44 makes are unnecessary. This often gets backed up, and along with I-44 soon being 6 lanes all the way between the turnpikes will make driving through Tulsa a breeze.

This is a product of when I-44 was routed that way to the abandoned section of the Will Rogers Turnpike.  You should have seen it when OK 66 branched off I-44 on the left and overpassed WB I-44.  There were some curves there as well as that WB US 412 to EB I-44/OK 66 merge.

If Option 1 is passed, this will be a huge improvement for the traffic flow on I-44/US 412 as well as for those exiting to OK 66.  The only drawback is the ramp from OK 66 WB to I-44 WB--it seems a bit sharp as it has to be routed around some wetlands and merge into a C-D lane.

Option 2 should not be used.  It keeps the interchange in the same footprint it is now, just moving ramps and I-44 WB a few yards for $5 million less than straightening I-44 WB and building a flyover right side exit for OK 66 EB.  When there is one disadvantage in one option verses four disadvantages in the other and it is, relatively speaking as far as road construction, a difference of "only" $5 million, then Oklahoma should "go big or go home".

IMHO, if they can't go with Option #1 they shouldn't bother doing anything at all. The Option #2 design is hardly any better than the existing road.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version