Proposed US 412 Upgrade

[Scott5114]

So far, numbering the US 412 corridor as Interstate 42 is preliminary. There have been no official moves yet to give the 412 corridor any official designation. The only document giving the corridor a number is the one forementioned in this thread, and it will be some time before the 412 corridor officially gets a number proposed and picked. Until further notice, North Carolina's future Interstate 42 is the only official one that is being designated.

The Oklahoma Transportation Commission voted to establish the I-42 designation through the same procedure that establishes Oklahoma state highway numbers. So it is at least as official as a state highway would be on the Oklahoma side. (Obviously, to be signed, it still needs AASHTO and FHWA approval.)

https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/odot/web-files/Sept%2011%202023%20Minutes%20-%20signed.pdf

[bugo]

I looked up Interstate 42 on my Bing search engine and the only results that came up were about North Carolina's Interstate 42, not one about the future US 412 Interstate corridor in Oklahoma and Arkansas. While it may appear in Arkansas DOT documents, it is not yet an official designation. I stand by what I posted, although I do respect other posters' opinions.

At 10:35 in this video, the man clearly states that they are planning on signing US 412 as Future I-42. It isn't official with AASHTO or the FHWA yet, but all indications are that this road will indeed be signed as I-42, unless something changes, which is unlikely.

[sprjus4]

At 10:35 in this video, the man clearly states that they are planning on signing US 412 as Future I-42.

It isn't official with AASHTO or the FHWA yet

If AASHTO or the FHWA have not approved the designation, then it's not official yet nor will it be signed.

Once that approval happens, and hopefully AASHTO is wise to not approve the I-42 number, then it will be otherwise.

[Scott5114]

As shown above, in Oklahoma it is official at the state level, following the same process that would have been used if they had designated it OK-42 (though one already exists, not that that would stop them). All that is needed for that is the agreement of Messrs. Grimsley, Shannon, Freymiller, Dyson, Alexander, La Forge, and Peterson.

It just isn't official at the national level yet.

[swake]

As shown above, in Oklahoma it is official at the state level, following the same process that would have been used if they had designated it OK-42 (though one already exists, not that that would stop them). All that is needed for that is the agreement of Messrs. Grimsley, Shannon, Freymiller, Dyson, Alexander, La Forge, and Peterson.

It just isn't official at the national level yet.

And a designation is mandated by federal law. It doesn't have to be I-42, but there will be an interstate designation.

[sprjus4]

As shown above, in Oklahoma it is official at the state level, following the same process that would have been used if they had designated it OK-42 (though one already exists, not that that would stop them). All that is needed for that is the agreement of Messrs. Grimsley, Shannon, Freymiller, Dyson, Alexander, La Forge, and Peterson.

It just isn't official at the national level yet.

And a designation is mandated by federal law. It doesn't have to be I-42, but there will be an interstate designation.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be an interstate designation. Re-using I-42 is a poor choice, especially given there's a variety of other numbers available that are not duplicates.

[The Ghostbuster]

Like it or not, it looks like there will be two Interstate 42s. Unless one of us can convince the-powers-that-be to pick another number, it looks like we'll be overruled.

[abqtraveler]

Like it or not, it looks like there will be two Interstate 42s. Unless one of us can convince the-powers-that-be to pick another number, it looks like we'll be overruled.

I wouldn't say it's a foregone conclusion that US-412 will become I-42, just because Oklahoma's choice is 42. I can give you plenty of examples where a state proposes a certain number for an interstate designation and the FHWA and AASHTO assign a different number. Here are just a couple of examples.

- North Carolina originally requested I-36 for upgrading US-70 between I-40 and New Bern; the FHWA and AASHTO approved I-42 instead
- Back in the 1980s, Connecticut and Massachusetts requested that I-290 be extended over CT/MA-52 from I-90 in Auburn, MA to I-95 in Waterford, CT. FHWA and AASHTO rejected that request and subsequently approved I-395 for that stretch.

[swake]

Like it or not, it looks like there will be two Interstate 42s. Unless one of us can convince the-powers-that-be to pick another number, it looks like we'll be overruled.

I wouldn't say it's a foregone conclusion that US-412 will become I-42, just because Oklahoma's choice is 42. I can give you plenty of examples where a state proposes a certain number for an interstate designation and the FHWA and AASHTO assign a different number. Here are just a couple of examples.

- North Carolina originally requested I-36 for upgrading US-70 between I-40 and New Bern; the FHWA and AASHTO approved I-42 instead
- Back in the 1980s, Connecticut and Massachusetts requested that I-290 be extended over CT/MA-52 from I-90 in Auburn, MA to I-95 in Waterford, CT. FHWA and AASHTO rejected that request and subsequently approved I-395 for that stretch.

I hope so, because if I-42 sticks, there will be an interchange in east Tulsa where I-44, I-244 and I-42 all meet. That couldn't possibly be confusing could it?

[bugo]

I'd be surprised if AASHTO makes them change the number. AASHTO has bent over for North Carolina, rubber stamping requests for a ton of ridiculous Interstates, and has only made them change one number. It's not something that has been done a lot historically.

[The Ghostbuster]

AASHTO has also rubber stamped some ridiculous Interstate numbers in Texas as well, especially the 27E/27W and 69E/69C/69W suffix routes. In any event, I also doubt that AASTHO won't approve the Interstate 42 designation. Besides, it will be quite some time before we see any Interstate signs (or future Interstate signs) along the US 412 corridor. They better get a move on upgrading US 412 to Interstate Standards (especially between Tulsa and Fayetteville).

[sprjus4]

AASHTO has also rubber stamped some ridiculous Interstate numbers in Texas as well, especially the 27E/27W and 69E/69C/69W suffix routes.

Fairly certain both of those situations were Congressionally designated.

I'd be surprised if AASHTO makes them change the number. AASHTO has bent over for North Carolina, rubber stamping requests for a ton of ridiculous Interstates,

Such as?

and has only made them change one number. It's not something that has been done a lot historically.

AASHTO made them change I-89 to I-87, and I-36 to I-42. It was done with both of those additions.

AASHTO would be wise to change this so-called I-42 proposal to I-46 or I-48, to avoid unnecessary duplication.

[plain]

They obviously didn't care about duplication in I-87's case.

[sprjus4]

They obviously didn't care about duplication in I-87's case.

I guess in the case of sticking with north-south, there really wasn't any options. But I agree, I-89 or I-91 would've been better suited.

[abqtraveler]

They obviously didn't care about duplication in I-87's case.

I guess in the case of sticking with north-south, there really wasn't any options. But I agree, I-89 or I-91 would've been better suited.

I would have numbered the North Carolina I-87 either I-97 since most of it lies east of I-95, or perhaps some even number between 46 and 62, since the route is mostly east-west from Raleigh to Elizabeth City, with just the short stretch from Elizabeth City to Norfolk being north-south.

[Rothman]

Getting off-topic in this thread.

[bugo]

Getting off-topic in this thread.

OK moderator.

[edwaleni]

Stir the pot?

[The Ghostbuster]

That sign had been replaced with this future Interstate 42 sign when the Google Car went through in August 2018: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6311811,-78.5565571,3a,75y,102.57h,71.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVYH7L5-49K5IqpJNAJmZzw!2e0!5s20180801T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu. And even that sign was removed to accommodate construction of NC 540 when the Google Car last came through there in May 2023: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6311858,-78.5565714,3a,75y,101.31h,80.43t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPBEhERJ4xhK8TUg3reYMAA!2e0!5s20230501T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. If the Interstate 42 designation is ultimately the one chosen to be co-signed with US 412 along its Interstate 35-to-Interstate 49 segment, I expect it will be quite some time before we see any future Interstate 42 signs in Oklahoma or Arkansas. After all, it's only been about 2 and a half years since the legislation to designate that segment of the US 412 corridor as a future Interstate was introduced.

[Bobby5280]

If we do see any I-42 signs in Oklahoma it may be along the lines of I-69 in Mississippi: just one or more short segments signed.

I can imagine a scenario of the Cimarron Turnpike being signed as I-42 within the next couple or so years. It starts at I-35. That's one requirement. Most of the work is finished on converting the toll plazas to cashless operation. There's only a short stretch of road that still has the narrow grassy median. Once that's done it should qualify as Interstate quality. I can see certain people in Stillwater, particularly bosses at Oklahoma State University, exerting pressure on the state government to get that turnpike signed as I-42 and maybe even sign the Stillwater spur as an Interstate highway too.

In this scenario I-42 would end at the East end of the Cimarron Turnpike where US-64 splits from US-412. East of there the Sand Springs Expressway needs a good bit of work in order to get I-42 signed into downtown Tulsa.

[edwaleni]

Yes, I knew the sign was old and from North Carolina.

I just wanted to make some people laugh since the I number seems to be a big deal at the moment.

[Henry]

The way I see it, they may have no choice but to accept I-42, since most of it will be south of I-44, and thus the only number that fits the grid. Then it'll be the first time that the same future 2di is designated on two noncontiguous sections at the same time, with one in NC and the other in OK and AR.

[Bobby5280]

I-69 has disconnected future segments. The intention is to have them all connected from South Texas to Indianapolis one day. Hell may freeze over before I-69 gets built thru NE Mississippi, much less the segments across Southern Arkansas and NW Louisiana. It appears likely the I-69 routes in Texas will get finished before all the other stuff in Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana. Kentucky isn't taking their portion of I-69 seriously either.

Then we have the I-74 thing in North Carolina that probably will never be connected to the original one that ends in Cincinnati. Dual I-87 routes is another new one. We already had dual routes for I-76, I-84, I-86 and I-88. With that in mind, I don't think a duplicate I-42 in Oklahoma is going to be a problem. An I-42 route spanning I-35 in Oklahoma to I-49 in Springdale would be significantly longer than the Intra-state route in North Carolina. Plus, the I-42 route in Oklahoma would have some potential for expansion. It wouldn't be difficult at all (in terms of ROW acquisition) to extend I-42 West to Enid and then to Woodward. I strongly believe there should be a diagonal Interstate running from Oklahoma City to Denver. An I-42 route ending in Woodward would compliment such a route.

[vdeane]

The way I see it, they may have no choice but to accept I-42, since most of it will be south of I-44, and thus the only number that fits the grid. Then it'll be the first time that the same future 2di is designated on two noncontiguous sections at the same time, with one in NC and the other in OK and AR.

Measuring it out, it's roughly 50/50.  One could just as easily claim I-42 doesn't fit the grid and that I-46 would be better.

[swake]

The way I see it, they may have no choice but to accept I-42, since most of it will be south of I-44, and thus the only number that fits the grid. Then it'll be the first time that the same future 2di is designated on two noncontiguous sections at the same time, with one in NC and the other in OK and AR.

Measuring it out, it's roughly 50/50.  One could just as easily claim I-42 doesn't fit the grid and that I-46 would be better.

It's actually about 95 miles north of I-44, 5 miles would be concurrent and 90 miles south of I-44.

Just call it I-50

Most of the Cimarron could be signed now. As well as the section from OK-97 in Sand Springs to the I-44 split in Catoosa and the entire Cherokee turnpike. Altogether almost 100 miles can be signed immediately.