Interstate 44 has tolled segments. During the major cities that it goes through, the Interstate is free. At the edge of the cities, it is the end point of one of the turnpikes. How were these determined, and were the turnpikes ever shortened or Interstate realigned to provide free access to nearby businesses sprawling along the turnpikes? What happens if the cities expand near a turnpike? Would the turnpike have to be shortened or Interstate realigned? :confused:
The I-44 turnpikes were built during the 1950s and 1960s before sprawl was really much of a thing. Because they don't have as many exits as free interstates, there isn't really much of an incentive to build up next to them, so they don't really induce sprawl all that much.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2018, 02:40:32 PM
The I-44 turnpikes were built during the 1950s and 1960s before sprawl was really much of a thing. Because they don't have as many exits as free interstates, there isn't really much of an incentive to build up next to them, so they don't really induce sprawl all that much.
And they have service areas, so there's even less incentive to put restaurants and gas stations at the rural exits. I've noticed the same thing in Kansas.
What I find interesting is that as the I-44 turnpikes approach OKC (westbound) and Tulsa, they basically force I-44 to exit the through route and direct through traffic onto unnumbered toll roads.
Remember there being an "escape" heading WB in the NE corner of the state, so if you wished to take old 66, (state route 66) one could do that. Have hauled dual axle trailers through there in the past, and wished to avoid the axle toll rate. Was not in any rush. Those turnpikes (Rogers and Turner) are definitely pre Interstate (1956) and may even be late forties in vintage. Have always believed, since first traveling on them in early nineties, that a complete rebuild is warranted, with widening to outside, expansion of the median, and flattening of vertical curves, to produce a safer road.
The most obvious (or easiest) "escape" ramp I can think of along the I-44 turnpikes in Oklahoma is Exit 221B on the SW side of Tulsa for WB I-44. It's the turn off for OK-66 to Sapulpa. It's a left exit with 2 lanes no less. I have accidentally wound up on it a couple times over the years.
Every I-44 turnpike in Oklahoma has a last free exit escape ramp of sorts. I can understand truckers wanting to shun-pike the toll booths on I-44. As far cars, one will blow a lot more in terms of time by shun-piking I-44. And the extra fuel required for the added mileage, different speed zones as well as stop and go traffic in various towns would probably offset much of any cost savings gained by avoiding the tolls. Then there's the added chance of getting speeding tickets due to all the changing speed limits. The OHP doesn't mess around much when it comes to speeders on the turnpikes. But when you're on I-44 it's a lot easier to maintain a consistent and legal speed (especially if you have a Pike Pass for the toll gates).
I agree about the widening the Turner Turnpike. It should be at least 3 lanes in each direction 100% of the way between OKC and Tulsa. Sometimes I don't understand what the OTA is doing to that road. They've been doing a lot of asphalt overlay on it lately, but not doing much to add capacity.
I made it from one end of the 88 mile long Turner Turnpike to the other in 57 minutes once.
Nexus 5X
There are some businesses next to exits off the Creek Turnpike.
Nexus 5X
Quote from: bugo on July 01, 2018, 09:45:13 PM
I made it from one end of the 88 mile long Turner Turnpike to the other in 57 minutes once.
That's an average speed of 92 mph. Better hope the police don't read this forum!
The statue of limitations has run out.
Nexus 5X
Once upon a time, the three toll roads that today are part of Interstate 44 had their own exit numbers (sequentially numbered). In fact, all toll roads in Oklahoma had sequential exit numbers. The Interstate 44 toll roads went mileage-based first, while the other toll roads went mileage-based in 1997.
Quote from: bugo on July 01, 2018, 09:46:07 PM
There are some businesses next to exits off the Creek Turnpike.
Someone told me Cherokee Turnpike shut down the Concession stop. Any idea if this is true?
The service place on the Cherokee Turnpike was demolished about 5 or 6 years ago. At first I thought it might be re-built -like what happened in a couple other places such as the service plaza on I-44 near the Walters Exit. In this case it was just removed. I guess the vehicle count wasn't high enough to keep it in business.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 05, 2018, 05:06:03 PM
The service place on the Cherokee Turnpike was demolished about 5 or 6 years ago. At first I thought it might be re-built -like what happened in a couple other places such as the service plaza on I-44 near the Walters Exit. In this case it was just removed. I guess the vehicle count wasn't high enough to keep it in business.
Placing a service plaza on as short a turnpike as the Cherokee might not have been such a good idea with which to begin. In that situation, unless you have kids in the car who press you to stop at one -- or haven't calculated your remaining fuel accurately -- they're similar to a pit stop in a race -- you don't do it unless really necessary; another 15-20 miles and you're back on ostensibly slower full-access roads with services.
Didn't realize that the OK plazas functioned 24/7! Except for the possibility that the cops might be lurking in the parking lot looking for folks with off-hour munchies, that might be extenuating circumstances for plazas on lesser-traveled pikes. My night-driving routine involved bags of Cornnuts and Skittles plus a cooler full of Diet Coke; never counted on any place I actually liked being open after about 1 in the morning (this was before Carl's Jr. and In-N-Out spread nationwide).
The Turner Turnpike opened to traffic in 1953. The Will Rogers opened ca 1958. The H.E. Bailey opened in 1964.
Quote from: US71 on July 05, 2018, 12:01:55 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 01, 2018, 09:46:07 PM
There are some businesses next to exits off the Creek Turnpike.
Someone told me Cherokee Turnpike shut down the Concession stop. Any idea if this is true?
That is correct. The Cherokee Turnpike's service plaza was unusual in that it featured a Burger King. Most service plazas in Oklahoma have a McDonald's. Are there any service plazas left that don't have a McDonald's?
Nexus 5X
The one that was re-built just North of the Walters Exit on I-44 no longer has a McDonald's. The new EZ-GO convenience store building does have a little indie restaurant in it though: Back Forty Barbecue.
The day can't come soon enough for OTA to replace the old toll plaza nearby. The OK-5 bridge going over the top of it isn't in the best of shape; the pavement looks absolutely terrible. Not only do they need to build a new, modern toll plaza, they need to re-build that turnpike exit. There's a few other bridges along that stretch that look like they date back to the 1960's.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 06, 2018, 09:31:44 AM
The one that was re-built just North of the Walters Exit on I-44 no longer has a McDonald's. The new EZ-GO convenience store building does have a little indie restaurant in it though: Back Forty Barbecue.
The day can't come soon enough for OTA to replace the old toll plaza nearby. The OK-5 bridge going over the top of it isn't in the best of shape; the pavement looks absolutely terrible. Not only do they need to build a new, modern toll plaza, they need to re-build that turnpike exit. There's a few other bridges along that stretch that look like they date back to the 1960's.
Only the '60's??? We've got bridges on our Interstates dating back to 1946-47!!! (and one concrete sectional arch bridge dating from 1928 that I-5 was squeezed through!). But your point is made -- there's a shitload of 50+ year-old bridges across the country both on and off Interstates that have long surpassed their projected lifespan -- but who's got the $$ to address them all? It's sure not like the '60's, when 200 miles of freeway were being built in CA alone every year; now, Caltrans is lucky if they can support 2-3 major projects statewide at any given time -- and
those are spread out over several years or even decades (look at the Petaluma Narrows project!). And there's a better than even chance our gas tax increase will be repealed? Please! Voters seem to think that funding falls like manna from heaven whenever needed. But no one in a position of influence wants to be the one to butt heads with the congenital taxcutters and try to give the public a needed dose of reality:
"Nice freeway you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it!"
And yet we can expend $68 billion on "fantasy" trains, and trillions in Iraq.
Mmmm BBQ. Is it good 'q or is it average like Rib Crib (The McDonald's of BBQ)? Is it authentic Oklahoma barbecue?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 06, 2018, 09:31:44 AM
The one that was re-built just North of the Walters Exit on I-44 no longer has a McDonald's. The new EZ-GO convenience store building does have a little indie restaurant in it though: Back Forty Barbecue.
The day can't come soon enough for OTA to replace the old toll plaza nearby. The OK-5 bridge going over the top of it isn't in the best of shape; the pavement looks absolutely terrible. Not only do they need to build a new, modern toll plaza, they need to re-build that turnpike exit. There's a few other bridges along that stretch that look like they date back to the 1960's.
Nexus 5X
I couldn't tell you. I haven't eaten there (yet). Usually when I want some good barbecue in this region I just go to John and Cook's in Lawton.
Okay, let's say Tulsa is going to build a light rail system. For it to be effective, everyone in the city should be within a mile of a train station. This would likely come in the form of the section line roads. Tulsa's city limits start at 126th Street North all the way down to 121th Street South and it begins at 73rd West Avenue and goes as far east as South 257th East Avenue. That is a lot of rail lines and it will take lots of trains. This would cost a trillion dollars and would provide little benefit as most commuters will continue to use their cars. Adoption of a rail system would happen very slowly. It would be underutilized for decades. It would be the biggest boondoggle this state has ever seen, and this state likes its boondoggles and would be a parasite on the city budget.
Tulsa doesn't have the population numbers (particularly in the right demograhic brackets) to make a light rail system work at all. People in high income and upper middle class income brackets aren't going to lower themselves by using mass transit and risk riding with the common folk. And if the rail lines serve any low income zones then people in "better" neighborhoods won't want the rail line coming anywhere near them.
Tulsa is also seriously de-centralized. It does have an obvious downtown zone, but the city has many other places where people work and shop. And those destinations are spread all over the place.
If one were to at least pick some place to make a start on a light rail network, where could it even be built? I would think a line starting in/near Sand Springs, running thru Downtown, then East to Memorial Road where it would turn South and run parallel would be an obvious start. Good luck on getting ROW for the rail line and stations.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 13, 2018, 05:28:49 PM
Tulsa doesn't have the population numbers (particularly in the right demograhic brackets) to make a light rail system work at all. People in high income and upper middle class income brackets aren't going to lower themselves by using mass transit and risk riding with the common folk. And if the rail lines serve any low income zones then people in "better" neighborhoods won't want the rail line coming anywhere near them.
Tulsa is also seriously de-centralized. It does have an obvious downtown zone, but the city has many other places where people work and shop. And those destinations are spread all over the place.
If one were to at least pick some place to make a start on a light rail network, where could it even be built? I would think a line starting in/near Sand Springs, running thru Downtown, then East to Memorial Road where it would turn South and run parallel would be an obvious start. Good luck on getting ROW for the rail line and stations.
Whatever happened to the idea of using the old Midland Valley tracks (UP now?) SE to Broken Arrow for commuter rail? Once you get east of 169, it would appear to be feasible to build stations.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 13, 2018, 09:24:17 PM
A light rail line built along a city street will eat a minimum of two lanes just for the pair of railroad tracks. Additional space is needed for pole structures holding up overhead electrical lines. The stations are going to eat up quite a bit more space. It's one thing to build a light rail line along a street with modest traffic counts and even allow vehicles and the rail track to share the same lane. It's another thing entirely to attempt building light rail tracks down the lanes of an extremely busy arterial like Memorial Road. Portland's light rail line doesn't attempt any of that. Same of Dallas and other cities. If the road is busy enough then the light rail line has to be grade separated. That means either building the rail line as an elevated structure (pretty expensive) or putting it underground (ridiculously expensive).
When the San Jose LR was being planned in the mid-to-late '80's, the first thing that all parties agreed upon was that sharing lanes with vehicles was a
bad idea; except for cross-streets, there is easement separation for all lines. Whether in the median of a divided arterial (North First Street, Tasman, Capitol Ave.), a freeway (CA 85 & 87), or sitting alongside a commercial RR branch line (the Winchester line), some form of isolation is manifest.
For all the issues and criticism the system has taken over its 29 years of operation, VMT LR at least listened to its legal advisors on that one; virtually all incidents can be and have been chalked up to motorist/pedestrian error (and, unfortunately, an inordinate number of suicide-by-train incidents). As nearly 200 years of street running by U.S. railroads & transit systems have shown, such practice, regardless of train configuration, is a recipe for continuous problems.
Quote from: In_Correct on June 30, 2018, 09:52:57 AM
Interstate 44 has tolled segments. During the major cities that it goes through, the Interstate is free. At the edge of the cities, it is the end point of one of the turnpikes. How were these determined, and were the turnpikes ever shortened or Interstate realigned to provide free access to nearby businesses sprawling along the turnpikes? What happens if the cities expand near a turnpike? Would the turnpike have to be shortened or Interstate realigned? :confused:
There are segments of the Turnpike where if you get off at certain exits you will get a refund if you have the receipt.
You're suggesting TWO railroad tracks and the trains that travel on them can fit within a single 12' wide automobile lane?
:confused:
After about five minutes of hunting along Burnside to find where a train ran down the median, I found this GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/tw9C5t7iZLr. Also, good luck finding any aerial photography from that time period with a high enough resolution to see the lanes on that road.
And it's exactly how I thought. There is one lane plus a bike lane in each direction. It would appear that if there were no train tracks, there is enough ROW for four lanes plus a center turn lane, plus two bike lanes. So the light rail ate three lanes.
That's how it went when light rail was built along North Temple in Salt Lake City. Before, there were three lanes in each direction plus a center turn lane (https://goo.gl/maps/ZwXm8NnVxgQ2). The light rail ate three lanes, so there are now two lanes in each direction (https://goo.gl/maps/X9ZvzEi4YxP2). There was enough ROW left over on the sides to put in bike lanes.
On the other hand, when light rail was built on 400 South, it only ate the center turn lane, and there are still three lanes in each direction. But that required some expansion of the ROW on the south side, and the tracks have to wind back and forth to accommodate the various left-turn lanes.
The streets in Tulsa are too damned narrow as it is. Some roads are literally barely wide enough for a full sized pickup truck to stay in its lane. Take a drive on Lewis north of 41st if you don't believe me. Putting a fucking train track that nobody would even use would just make traffic unbearable. You're either trolling or you are insane.
Having driven or ridden (is that a word?) on Lewis between 21st and I44 for nearly 60 years, I can attest to the narrowness. No one wants to drive in the curbside lane because of the large dips for each storm drain. I've driven everything from a Plymouth Arrow to a Ford Econoline 15 passenger van down Lewis. ALWAYS had to firmly grasp the wheel with both hands. It became marginally better when Tulsa widened the intersections at 31st and 41st as you could time passing bigger vehicles for those areas.
OK, since no one else has provided any photos of Lewis between 21st and I-44 (and I've never been to that part of Tulsa), here's a Google Street View of it:
https://goo.gl/maps/Xrp8eFjbe2G2
https://goo.gl/maps/A5MBQ3axfLP2
It looks like a lot of older streets here, and there's not much room to shave from the sidewalks or parkway between the sidewalk and street (if it even exists).
How much anything does a bike lane move when it's 110° in Oklahoma like it's been this week?
You have a political agenda and you concoct ridiculous proposals and outlandish ideas and you are willing to lie and make things up to further that agenda, reason and logic be damned. You never own up to your lies and untruths when you are called out on them. You never admit that you are wrong.
You are hell-bent on removing automobile traffic lanes and replacing them with railroad tracks and bike lanes that nobody would use and you don't care how many commuters and motorists you harm in the process. If the local government implemented your batshit crazy ideas the city would grind to a halt. Traffic would become unbearable and commuters would sit in traffic for much longer than necessary and it would bring the quality of life down significantly. it would increase pollution while giving no real benefits.
You come up with looney ideas and silly proposals but you haven't once provided a pragmatic argument articulating why we should do this. You just think it would be neat to have choo choo trains bicycle lanes so you could ride your bike with training wheels all over town and you want to force your nihilistic vision on everybody even if they don't want it and it wouldn't benefit them. Your vision of a carless utopia with wide bike lanes and railroad tracks everywhere is nothing but a fantasy with no relation to reality. Come up with a detailed plan that would actually benefit working class Tulsans and give us a reason why we should do this and we'll listen to you. Until then you're just pissing in the wind. You say "what" but you have never said "why".
What would actually benefit the city would be things like new interchanges at I-44 and the BA, the BA and 169 and I-44 and US 75; improvements to the IDL and improved traffic signal timing. Empty bike lanes would just piss off motorists and make them resent bicyclists and would likely cause road rage incidents that would lead to the death of bicyclists.
I actually live in Tulsa which is something you have never proven. I have. I have to commute to and from work. I like to spend the least amount of time as possible commuting. I know that light rail would never work here and I have given reasons why it wouldn't work. I live about 15 miles from work and I work out in the country and s light rail system would have absolutely no benefit to me. Even if a train ran out this far I would still drive because I value my time and I like to spend his little time as possible commuting. As I've stated ad nauseam, Tulsa is not dense enough it is too sprawled out for mass transit to be practical.Tulsa is decentralized and doesn't have one single central business district, but rather many such districts scattered around the metropolitan area. Most Tulsans don't work downtown.
I'm not the only person who feels this way. A bunch of forum members have called you out on your lies and poked holes in your masturbatory fantasies. We make fun of and laugh at your ideas in the chat room and on Facebook. Come up with a "why" before you come up with ridiculous ideas.
So about my original question: They will just leave the turnpikes alone, and if development happens, hundreds of meters away from the turnpikes, but can still be seen while driving on a turnpike, ... those places will have to use the other roads such as S.H. 66, go to the edge of the turnpike, or use the nearest toll ramp in the middle of the turnpike? I checked again of the type of development approaching The Turnpike. It is mostly residential. They are not cut in half by The Turnpike. There are bridges over The Turnpike. But I suppose that if there is insufficient commercial development, there would not need to be exit ramps to them. The residential areas would not have a lot of traffic either.
Also, do the cities with Interstate 44 going through them encourage sprawl to the expressways instead?
Except Lawton, which has almost no development east of The Turnpike. The smaller towns also avoid development anywhere near The Turnpike.
About the reason to not build light rail because of the low population density:
I originally thought that if the cities limited the development near and along a Turnpike, the cities might increase population density.
But about the roads on Street View:
Those roads are too narrow to have what they already have! :-o
If they get widened, they should have turn lanes and shoulders. And perhaps the existing lanes should be widened. And sidewalks. But there does not seem to be that much room to do any widening. Are THESE roads considered ideal to add bike lanes and light rail?!
I am a fan of light rail, but hate the light rail system in Houston. It sounds like some people want to have something even WORSE than that. The light rail should be grade separated entirely, and certainly never share the same lanes as automobiles. And it must be at least double tracked.
If somebody wants to build a light rail for Tulsa, build them somewhere else, not on those example streets.
Seeing all these comments about bike lanes gives me an idea. There's a guy from NYC named Jason De Cesare who constantly rails about bike lanes on the various NYC and northeastern roads Facebook groups. I don't know him and am not friends with him, but some here might be. Somebody needs to invite him here. :popcorn:
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2018, 01:58:21 AM
How much anything does a bike lane move when it's 110° in Oklahoma like it's been this week?
It's been awful. I work outside but luckily I work graveyard shift and am only out in the heat from 6 to about 10 when the sun goes down and things start to cool off. I also work in the shade. I can't imagine having to do hard physical labor during the hottest parts of the day.
Quote from: rte66man on July 23, 2018, 07:52:32 PM
2 questions:
(1) - what vehicle do you drive?
(2) - what are you smoking?
I'm starting to think he is just trolling. He can't be that clueless.
Regarding light rail lines on city streets, obviously some basic geometry is being ignored with the "pro" argument of cramming a light rail line into a very tight space.
Doing that with Lewis Avenue in Tulsa is a non-starter. The zone between I-44 and Broken Arrow Expressway is predominately residential, which presents its own political problems. The ROW for this 4-lane street is narrow and any extra space is being consumed by the utility ROW and a single sidewalk. Even if just a single one way train track was built down that street two lanes would need to be consumed due to all the other things that come along with those rail tracks.
Most light rail tracks are standard 56.5" gauge. But the trains themselves consume a significantly larger footprint. Street/trolley cars are going to be at least 90" wide. Light Rail Train rolling stock can reach widths of 10 feet or more depending on the seating arrangements of the train cars. Then there's minimum turn radius requirements. Street car rail lines can handle turn radii at or under 60'. Light rail trains need turn radii at least 85' due to the longer length of train cars.
Light rail train stations, even modest ones built at grade, eat a good chunk of space -a lot more than any bus stop.
When a LRT line is double tracked and built along an urban street the train line may take over exclusive use of that street. Bryan Street & Pacific Ave in downtown Dallas is an example of this. West 13th Avenue in Denver (West of downtown) is one example of a double-track LRT going down the center of
what was a fully functional 2-way street. The train tracks carve a 36' wide footprint in the median. It's 77' wide from one edge of one side of 13th Ave over to the opposite edge. Lewis Ave ain't that wide. Plus the LRT along West 13th Ave has at least a couple grade separations and other barriers separating the rail line from vehicle/bicycle traffic. One grade separation is Wadsworth Station (50' wide, plus a 12' wide bike/walking path). West 13th Ave is almost useless to vehicles through that zone.
Quote from: In_CorrectExcept Lawton, which has almost no development east of The Turnpike. The smaller towns also avoid development anywhere near The Turnpike.
Most of Lawton's population is West of I-44, but there is a decent amount of development East of the Interstate. By the way I-44 from exit 30 to exit 46 is not tolled. Some of Lawton's biggest homes are on the East side in developments like Eastlake and Shelter Creek. MacArthur High is on the East side and is Lawton's 3rd largest public school. Two large casinos draw quite a bit of traffic on their own. The Gore Blvd crossing over I-44 is a serious traffic choke point. There's 3 stop lights in short succession. I avoid that part of Gore Blvd anytime near rush hour. A SPUI would make a big difference there. If I had my way, I'd not only convert that interchange into a SPUI, but I would convert the signaled intersection with Laurie Tatum Road into RIRO turns with the median blocked. That would solve that traffic problem.
QuotePortland can probably give you the numbers on that, since it gets just as hot there.
Portland is not as hot as Oklahoma. And that's easy to look up. The all time high temp ever recorded in Portland was 107°F (Aug 10, 1981). That city has posted high temps of 105°F or above only 9 times. I personally know Lawton has had far more days of 110°F+ heat than that. We've had 111°F and 112°F just this past week with multiple other days above 105°F. Portland has never had a summer with over 100 days of 100°F heat. I've seen it here in Lawton though (2011 being the most recent example).
Portland's averaging 80 degrees in July? When I was living there (1993-97) the average July temperature was about 74 degrees -- but warming seems to be doing its thing these days! I remember about three days in August in '96 when it got to about 102-103 degrees each day -- but that was about it. And hot summers were the exception to the remainder of the year; the place seems to get 180+ rain days per calendar year and is invariably overcast through the late fall and winter months.
IMO, LRT should be reserved for those urban areas that have (a) a substantial amount of employment in the central core in relation to the periphery, and (b) zoning ordinances in effect that allow relatively dense development along the spokes of a LRT network. Absent those two factors, attempting to deploy a rail system will likely be problematic in terms of both service area differentials and overall ridership. Neighborhoods neglected by LRT will invariably whine that their needs have been shortchanged, even if studies show that ridership will be less than needed to warrant such service. Now -- even if the city is fraught with narrow streets which would make LRT lines problematic (and B.U., eminent domain is best utilized sparingly and as a last resort -- otherwise, endless litigation will soon commence!), some sort of bus service -- preferably with electric vehicles -- could be safely substituted, provided some accommodation on streets with a bit of "surplus" area could be carved out for efficient intraurban travel -- i.e., a dedicated lane or two -- with some traffic signal coordination -- extending for several blocks at a time might work (it has in S.F. and parts of L.A.) to speed up bus transit enough to render it more attractive than a bus with constant and repeated dwell times at each intersection. "Tweaking" the street network for more efficient bus movement rather than completely revamping it as a LRT system would require may be a solution for mid-sized cities with less-than-optimal traffic patterns and/or arterial networks.
And -- for everyone's sake -- don't buy these huge-ass articulated buses with a turning radius similar to a cloverleaf ramp just to save a couple of bucks on drivers; deploy buses appropriately sized for your street configurations! Also, avoid trying to provide "saturation level" service (all streets have bus routes operating on a close schedule during daytime hours); this has been tried in several venues (particularly in greater L.A.) and while politically popular (give your constituents all the service they want), is an inefficient use of public funds (sorry.....your Aunt Annie will just have to work her schedule around a bus every 40 minutes rather than every 20!).
LRT is popular in some circles because it favors up-front deployment capital coupled with lower long-term labor costs, while bus systems generally tend to function in the inverse. But it's certainly not a universal panacea; it'll only work well in urban areas already physically amenable to such a network and willing to engage in such things as zoning alteration to provide a rationale for that network. Something tells me Oklahoma, at least in the near term, won't readily -- or willingly -- provide those criteria.
Quote from: bugo on July 23, 2018, 09:58:02 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2018, 01:58:21 AM
How much anything does a bike lane move when it's 110° in Oklahoma like it's been this week?
It's been awful. I work outside but luckily I work graveyard shift and am only out in the heat from 6 to about 10 when the sun goes down and things start to cool off. I also work in the shade. I can't imagine having to do hard physical labor during the hottest parts of the day.
It's been so bad this week it's put my oak tree on life support, which is pretty impressive considering that most of the time oaks don't give a shit about anything. I think the worst is over–I'm seeing a few green leaves here and there–but for a few days there it got downright crispy.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 24, 2018, 02:57:30 AM
It's been so bad this week it's put my oak tree on life support, which is pretty impressive considering that most of the time oaks don't give a shit about anything. I think the worst is over–I'm seeing a few green leaves here and there–but for a few days there it got downright crispy.
Yeah, those oaks are bad. They soak up all the sunlight from the maples and all...
(Wondering if anyone will get the reference.)
Quote from: bugo on July 24, 2018, 01:57:24 AM
https://www.google.com/search?q=average+temperature+portland+oregon&rlz=1C1AZAA_enUS752US752&oq=av&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j35i39j69i57j69i61l2.968j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Clearly these stats -- particularly the one concerning rainfall -- are from more recent years and likely reflect a warming trend; back in the mid-90's when I was up there, except for July and August there were considerably more "rain days" than indicated here. I can remember November 1994, when it rained for 17
straight days plus a few more scattered at the beginning of the month (the next month featured a few less days of rain, but much of it was freezing!). Haven't been up there for several years; but from what I've heard from friends the weather there
is warming up more than a bit, although it isn't approximating northern California as of yet (a long-term prognostication). Still, it'll likely never come close to the plains of Oklahoma for sheer summer heat!
Quote from: sparker on July 24, 2018, 05:04:33 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 24, 2018, 01:57:24 AM
https://www.google.com/search?q=average+temperature+portland+oregon&rlz=1C1AZAA_enUS752US752&oq=av&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j35i39j69i57j69i61l2.968j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Clearly these stats -- particularly the one concerning rainfall -- are from more recent years and likely reflect a warming trend; back in the mid-90's when I was up there, except for July and August there were considerably more "rain days" than indicated here. I can remember November 1994, when it rained for 17 straight days plus a few more scattered at the beginning of the month (the next month featured a few less days of rain, but much of it was freezing!). Haven't been up there for several years; but from what I've heard from friends the weather there is warming up more than a bit, although it isn't approximating northern California as of yet (a long-term prognostication). Still, it'll likely never come close to the plains of Oklahoma for sheer summer heat!
Climate data like this is typically calculated based on a 30-year average using the last three full decades, so the current climate averaging period is 1981-2010. As soon as we get through 2020, the climate data will be recalculated based on a 1991-2020 average.
Also, it's worth noting that the years that you remember may be outliers and not necessarily representative of the climate as a whole. As an example, if you came to Salt Lake City during the spring of 2011 you'd think they had rain like Seattle, and if you came in the summer of 2017 you'd think they had California-type summers. Both observations, while they did happen, are unrepresentative of typical weather.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 23, 2018, 11:35:20 PM
Quote from: In_CorrectExcept Lawton, which has almost no development east of The Turnpike. The smaller towns also avoid development anywhere near The Turnpike.
Most of Lawton's population is West of I-44, but there is a decent amount of development East of the Interstate. By the way I-44 from exit 30 to exit 46 is not tolled. Some of Lawton's biggest homes are on the East side in developments like Eastlake and Shelter Creek. MacArthur High is on the East side and is Lawton's 3rd largest public school. Two large casinos draw quite a bit of traffic on their own. The Gore Blvd crossing over I-44 is a serious traffic choke point. There's 3 stop lights in short succession. I avoid that part of Gore Blvd anytime near rush hour. A SPUI would make a big difference there. If I had my way, I'd not only convert that interchange into a SPUI, but I would convert the signaled intersection with Laurie Tatum Road into RIRO turns with the median blocked. That would solve that traffic problem.
I think he may be looking at the East Cache Creek floodplain. Small wonder there is little development there.
Yeah, developers can't build much in the area adjacent to Cache Creek just East of I-44. Several areas along there are prone to flood during heavy rains. I've even seen flooding bad enough that the East and West sides of Lawton were temporarily cut off from each other due to the 3 main road connections getting submerged.
There is a lot of trust land owned by the Comanche, Kiowa and Apache tribes on Lawton's East side. Much of that land is undeveloped. I can't remember the name of the property owner, but one guy has a lot of acreage on the East side and pretty much refuses to sell or do anything with it. Lots of East side residents (even some with deep pockets) are often frustrated by the lack of new retail stores, restaurants, etc opening on the East side. Some road improvement projects in progress or in the works might create more pressure to open the East side for more development. The I-44 & Rogers Lane interchange is being modified to improve traffic flow. Rogers Lane between I-44 and Flowermound Rd will be widened to 4 lanes (with a center turn lane in some spots) in two different construction stages. Flowermound Rd was upgraded over the past decade. SE 45th is currently being widened to 5 lanes from Lee Blvd up to the MacArthur school complex. NE Cache Rd by the Eastlake subdivision will likely be improved soon.
Lewis Avenue north of I-44 is a wealthy neighborhood. They would raise hell and throw a temper tantrum if the city proposed widening Lewis. They would throw an even bigger hissy fit if the city proposed building a railroad track down Lewis. Like it or not, the wealthy have influence and power in today's society and have more pull with the government than the poor does. There's no chance in hell it will happen.. Building a railroad track down Lewis is one of the most ridiculous and asinine ideas I've ever heard of my life. Peoria is a non-starter because the stretch between 31st and 41st is very narrow and the posted speed is 25 MPH. A thorough lite rail system will not come to Tulsa in any of our lifetimes. They might build a mile or two of token tracks but a usable system - never.
This reminds me of the current controversy going on with the Metropolitan Transit Authority in New York City. Some policy makers and a bunch of the general public want a lot of people at the MTA fired due to downward trends in ridership as well as maintenance and new project costs escalating higher. While I would not be surprised if there has been quite a lot of mismanagement going on at the MTA (not to mention poor customer service), it also needs to be mentioned that some conditions are way beyond the control of the MTA -like construction cost inflation compounded by trying to build in one of the world's most expensive cities.
Mass transit ridership is down in New York City? Hmm. Has any of the critics considered the slumping ridership might have everything to do with NYC's changing demographics? People have to be a whole lot richer (if not a whole lot whiter as well) to afford living there anymore. One thing I observed from living in NYC for 5 years: rich people don't take the subway. They don't ride the bus, ride bicycles or any of that other stuff either. Anyone who can afford to do so (and show off their "better than you" status) will at least take a cab, car service or even drive their own vehicle. Gentrification has spread through formerly rough areas of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. Younger "hipster" types of people might be into riding the bus or subway, using a bicycle or even walking. There's a bunch of those folks really trying to scrape by in order to live in a cool, globally cosmopolitan city -blowing up to 70% of their pay on rent. Not a whole lot left over from that to blow on subway fare.
Quote from: rte66man on July 05, 2018, 11:44:55 PM
The Turner Turnpike opened to traffic in 1953. The Will Rogers opened ca 1958. The H.E. Bailey opened in 1964.
Thanks for the info.
My first trip to Ft. Sill/Lawton from SW Ohio, must have been in 1958. I have tried to remember what year, 57 or 58. I was only about 9 but I still remember my parents being impressed with US 66 and then when we hit OK the turnpike from near the MO line to OKC. I do remember we went through Baxter Springs on 66 before getting on the turnpike. Don't remember why. I do believe the tolls were 50 or 75 cents.
Little did my small brain know we would move there in 1961. Dad was in the army. Remained there (except for 3 years in Germany) until my wife moved me to Texas 21 years ago. So I guess Oklahoma is my adopted home state. I wish I would have been paid by the mile for the number of times I have traveled those turnpikes.