US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma

[Ned Weasel]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would venture a guess that any plans that involved a median barrier on the existing US 69 street facility would meet with howls of objections from the businesses along that route.  Those on the east side of the highway would piss & moan about their not being directly or readily accessible to SB traffic -- and vice-versa.  Although in reality it likely wouldn't work out that way, the prospect of losing up to 50% of one's business might not provide much in the way of salability when such a plan is presented locally.

Did you see all the jughandles in my drawing?  There's no 50% loss of business.  You just turn around to get to the other side.

Just a guess -- ODOT won't do a damn thing re the Muskogee section of US 69!  The bypass plan being summarily shot down by outcries from these same locals will likely render the agency "gun-shy" about any change to the status quo.  If called on the carpet about inaction down the line, they can simply point to these local activists and state that it was their decisions and activities that led to a continuation of a situation.  And they might well be correct -- despite the potential for traffic incidents under an uncontrolled-movement situation, the businesspersons owning & operating those roadside establishments may not see it as a pressing issue as long as customers can reach their front doors with relative efficiency.   First rule of public policy -- don't be seen as taking away or inhibiting that taken for granted by potentially affected parties.  De facto standards -- for better or worse -- tend to be taken into account by the public at least as much as de jure "official" criteria as formulated within public-sector circles.  If the potential benefits accrued from modifying US 69 through Muskogee for the sake of through traffic efficiency are viewed -- even anecdotally absent detailed data -- as detrimental to the businesses arrayed along that stretch, in all likelihood such modifications wouldn't see the light of day if the implementing agency is in any way sensitive to local public opinion -- and the actions regarding the bypass demonstrate that this is indeed the case here.     

Unfortunately, my gut instinct tells me you're probably right, and any improvements to US 69 through Muskogee will be of a more conventional, incremental nature than that I'm proposing.  That's why I put the drawing in Fictional Highways.  I think it's a good idea if you don't mind my saying so, but I recognize the improbability of it ever being implemented.

I will add however, that if you can point to any business in New Jersey that's been negatively affected by a median barrier creating a RIRO situation where drivers have to travel a bit in the opposite direction to access said business, which is a situation that occurs all over New Jersey (and in much of Pennsylvania, and in many other states, especially Michigan if you look at the way they use Michigan Lefts), then I'll re-consider my upgrade concept.

But I also realize that not all business owners are knowledgeable or curious enough to look at how these kinds of access management, safety improvement, and flow improvement designs actually work in the real world.  So I get that my Fictional Highways concept would likely be met with resistance.  That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, though.

[kphoger]

I would venture a guess that any plans that involved a median barrier on the existing US 69 street facility would meet with howls of objections from the businesses along that route.  Those on the east side of the highway would piss & moan about their not being directly or readily accessible to SB traffic -- and vice-versa.  Although in reality it likely wouldn't work out that way, the prospect of losing up to 50% of one's business might not provide much in the way of salability when such a plan is presented locally.

Did you see all the jughandles in my drawing?  There's no 50% loss of business.  You just turn around to get to the other side.

Pertinent portion bolded.  He wasn't saying they would lose 50% of their business.  He was saying they'd expect to lose 50% of their business.

Also, there's a range between 0 and 50.  It's reasonable to say some non-zero percentage of their business would be lost.

[Ned Weasel]

Pertinent portion bolded.  He wasn't saying they would lose 50% of their business.  He was saying they'd expect to lose 50% of their business.

I guess I misunderstood what he meant at first.

Also, there's a range between 0 and 50.  It's reasonable to say some non-zero percentage of their business would be lost.

If I was going back to grad school, that could probably be a master's thesis.  There are already studies on access management in general, but I'm not sure if the New Jersey style has been studied as rigorously as the general case.

[Scott5114]

If you do something like that, you spend a lot of money to piss off the business owners along the highway and the people wanting a freeway extension to be able to just skip over Muskogee.

You weren't kidding when you posted in another thread that you weren't good at the political side of things.

[Scott5114]

I think you're failing to understand that the people on US-69 do not care about Muskogee. They don't want to be in Muskogee, they don't want to buy anything in Muskogee, they don't want to visit the Muskogee County Courthouse. If Muskogee didn't exist at all they'd be perfectly happy with that solution. You could demolish the whole town and they'd consider that an improvement. They're coming from some point, probably Dallas, and they want to get to I-44 so they can follow that toward their destination, which is probably Kansas City or St. Louis. It's just that US-69 is the route that satisfies that condition and Muskogee happens to be an obstacle along it.

So talking about transit, or bike lanes, or jughandles is not going to address the underlying concern–there is lots of traffic passing through this city that wants nothing to do with it. You can improve transit and local bike lane/pedestrian options all you want but neither destination nor origin of the traffic is in Muskogee, so those will do very little to meaningfully change AADT. After all, someone going Dallas—St. Louis via Muskogee is not going to abandon their car at the south end of town to take a bus.

Sprawl isn't a meaningful concern because again, none of the people using US-69 are going to suddenly decide to move to Muskogee because there's a freeway. Muskogee is in the way of them getting to St. Louis, why would they move there?

It's clear that a bypass is the best tool here. Pity they didn't propose it far enough away from Muskogee that they didn't have to get public input from people in town so we could actually have it.

[kphoger]

It's just that there is a crap-ton of motels and especially restaurants along the corridor that probably only stay afloat because of that pass-through traffic needing to make a pit stop.

Build a bypass, then a Love's/Subway combo goes in at one end, and then nobody needs to stop in town anymore.

[Ned Weasel]

They're coming from some point, probably Dallas, and they want to get to I-44 so they can follow that toward their destination, which is probably Kansas City or St. Louis. It's just that US-69 is the route that satisfies that condition and Muskogee happens to be an obstacle along it.

Well, I'm sure I'll piss some people off by saying this, but I-35 is still there, off a bit to the west, waving its arms and saying, "Hey, what about me?"

True story:  When I drove a truck for a living, I didn't have required routes (except for the requirement of taking the dreadful Ambassador Bridge to get from Michigan to metro Toronto), but I did have strongly incentivized routes, because I was given assigned fuel stops and company policy required us to meet at least a certain percentage of these (I can't remember what the exact percentage was, nor what the penalty would be for failing to meet the policy, but it always at least looks good to follow the policy).  Well, here's the thing:  Whenever I had to drive from the Dallas area to Topeka, the Kansas City area, or somewhere in Missouri, I was almost always (if not always) given an assigned fuel stop that meant taking US 69 through Oklahoma.  If that were not the case, I most definitely would have taken I-35 instead (and then I-44 if going to Missouri, or I-335 if going to Topeka).  We had Elite Passes with no limit on tolls.  But since my assigned fuel stop put me on US 69 through Oklahoma, I suffered through US 69 through Oklahoma.  And I honestly don't care that they're only paying me for the mileage of the shortest route; I would have always preferred to use the freer-flowing, easier, and probably faster route.

Just checking drive times on Google:  For Dallas to Kansas City, MO, US 75->US 69->I-44->I-49 versus I-35->Kansas Turnpike are evenly matched (the former wins by a whole freaking minute).  For Dallas to Topeka, I-35->Kansas Turnpike comes out ahead of all the alternatives by more than 45 minutes.  For Dallas to Springfield, MO, US 75->US 69->I-44 wins over I-35->I-44 by 23 minutes, although the all-Interstate option will probably feel faster, and it's a question of how much stop-and-go are you willing to trudge through to save those 23 minutes.  For Dallas to St. Louis, MO, US 75->US 69->I-44 is again the winner, but I-30->US 67 is only behind by 2 minutes, and I-30->I-40->I-55 (the all-Interstate option) only adds 29 minutes.

So, point taken regarding Dallas to St. Louis, but we already have a lot of Interstates, and "how many more do we actually need?" is not an unfair question.

[I-39]

Wow, this thread has certainly blown up from the intent I started it with 3 years ago......... lot of Oklahoma hate here.

In all honesty, at this point, it's futile to try and upgrade the US 69 corridor any further.

[Scott5114]

They're coming from some point, probably Dallas, and they want to get to I-44 so they can follow that toward their destination, which is probably Kansas City or St. Louis. It's just that US-69 is the route that satisfies that condition and Muskogee happens to be an obstacle along it.

Well, I'm sure I'll piss some people off by saying this, but I-35 is still there, off a bit to the west, waving its arms and saying, "Hey, what about me?" [...] So, point taken regarding Dallas to St. Louis, but we already have a lot of Interstates, and "how many more do we actually need?" is not an unfair question.

The problem is that while I-35 is there, US-69 is a good enough route that it already draws a lot of trucks and traffic. This isn't a speculative "it would promote economic development if we had a freeway here" project. The traffic is already there, the question is how do you best serve that traffic and the city of Muskogee?

(Also, of note, most of my experience with US-69 was going Goldsby, OK → Springfield, MO, via I-35 → I-40 → US-69 → I-44. I was a broke college student and could barely afford the gas, much less tolls, so this was a good shunpike route that also avoided Tulsa.)

[rte66man]

All of this back and forth about the Muskogee bypass reminds me of the fights in the 60's and 70's over interstate routings.  Cities sued to ensure routes ran close enough to their cities to ensure survival (in their eyes). Some things never change.

[skluth]

(Also, of note, most of my experience with US-69 was going Goldsby, OK → Springfield, MO, via I-35 → I-40 → US-69 → I-44. I was a broke college student and could barely afford the gas, much less tolls, so this was a good shunpike route that also avoided Tulsa.)

I realize this statement is in parentheses, but it does raise a valid point of how many more people would shunpike the Turner Turnpike and most of the Will Rogers if US 69 was upgraded to freeway (or even non-stop expressway) status between I-40 and I-44.

[Ned Weasel]

I realize this statement is in parentheses, but it does raise a valid point of how many more people would shunpike the Turner Turnpike and most of the Will Rogers if US 69 was upgraded to freeway (or even non-stop expressway) status between I-40 and I-44.

I wouldn't be surprised if the OTA is looking at the US 69 corridor with dollar signs in their eyes.

[sparker]

I realize this statement is in parentheses, but it does raise a valid point of how many more people would shunpike the Turner Turnpike and most of the Will Rogers if US 69 was upgraded to freeway (or even non-stop expressway) status between I-40 and I-44.

I wouldn't be surprised if the OTA is looking at the US 69 corridor with dollar signs in their eyes.

If that were actually the case, the proposal that was forwarded about a decade ago to deploy a turnpike down the corridor would have gotten much more traction than it did.  Tolls or not, they're still probably gun-shy about anything in the Muskogee area -- but I'd place a bet on their willingness to do something from Caddo to McAlester as a tolled facility; they'd weigh the revenues/benefits against any political backlash from Atoka and Stringtown, and it's a better than even chance the toll road comes out on top.  I'd guess the northern end would dovetail into the INT (with, obviously, a free-flow interchange to northward US 69).  That would provide two paths from TX to I-40, splitting at the INT interchange (and, by extension, adding Tulsa to the mix, albeit with mixed facility level). 

At the risk of sliding into Fictional territory -- has anyone in OK circles ever considered extending the INT north and east of US 75 to at least the Creek Turnpike southeast of Tulsa?  That would accomplish much of what Scott suggested in a previous post -- an effective bypass of Muskogee that is far enough away from that city to obviate any objections -- and it would have the benefit of also obviating any significant or comprehensive improvements to US 75 north of there.  And as a facility radiating out from a populated area (Tulsa, of course) it would likely attract quite a bit of traffic and subsequently revenue.  And Muskogee shouldn't have cause to complain in any case -- their motel-laden street will still get the shunpikers!     

[Ned Weasel]

Just from looking at it on aerial, the only part of US 75 between I-40 and the Creek Turnpike that doesn't look like it could feasibly upgraded to a freeway is the part through Okmulgee.  [Fictional Highways]And there, it might be possible to line up a bypass within the OK 56 ROW, swing it northwest around the airport, and swing it southwest to near the Deep Fork River.[/Fictional Highways]  But the rest of that segment of US 75--honestly, it looks easier to upgrade that to a freeway than it was to upgrade US 54/400/Kellogg Avenue in Wichita, and that actually got done (slowly).

[sparker]

Just from looking at it on aerial, the only part of US 75 between I-40 and the Creek Turnpike that doesn't look like it could feasibly upgraded to a freeway is the part through Okmulgee.  [Fictional Highways]And there, it might be possible to line up a bypass within the OK 56 ROW, swing it northwest around the airport, and swing it southwest to near the Deep Fork River.[/Fictional Highways]  But the rest of that segment of US 75--honestly, it looks easier to upgrade that to a freeway than it was to upgrade US 54/400/Kellogg Avenue in Wichita, and that actually got done (slowly).

But that would require the perennially cash-strapped ODOT to plan and build a free (to the public) facility; one would think that a turnpike on new terrain to the east would provide revenue that isn't being accrued as of yet.  And it would connect to the turnpike system on both ends, so drivers would likely view it as a continuation of the roadway they selected in the first place, rather than "shit...I've got to get on a toll road!"  And seeing as how both Tulsa and OKC are "tollway central", it's familiar territory to both local users and non-local but regular turnpike drivers -- just another pike to add to the "family".

[Ned Weasel]

But that would require the perennially cash-strapped ODOT to plan and build a free (to the public) facility; one would think that a turnpike on new terrain to the east would provide revenue that isn't being accrued as of yet.  And it would connect to the turnpike system on both ends, so drivers would likely view it as a continuation of the roadway they selected in the first place, rather than "shit...I've got to get on a toll road!"  And seeing as how both Tulsa and OKC are "tollway central", it's familiar territory to both local users and non-local but regular turnpike drivers -- just another pike to add to the "family".

Or:

[Fictional Highways]Let the OTA take over US 75 between the Creek Turnpike and I-40.  If the AASHTO even cares anymore about US highways not being toll roads, designate an alternate US 75 somewhere else.  Or:  Truncate US 75 so its southern terminus is the Creek Turnpike or I-44, which works if you go with my new Fictional Highways idea that's actually in the Fictional Highways board: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27609.0 [/Fictional Highways]

By the way, I honestly think upgrading US 75 (whoever funds it and by whichever means) is the far better alternative, because any new highway running parallel to it would likely go through environmentally sensitive areas, and there aren't a lot of places you can squeeze it in between existing developments in the southern Tulsa suburbs--although there is a big golf course you could just take and let people play their golf somewhere else.

[sparker]

But that would require the perennially cash-strapped ODOT to plan and build a free (to the public) facility; one would think that a turnpike on new terrain to the east would provide revenue that isn't being accrued as of yet.  And it would connect to the turnpike system on both ends, so drivers would likely view it as a continuation of the roadway they selected in the first place, rather than "shit...I've got to get on a toll road!"  And seeing as how both Tulsa and OKC are "tollway central", it's familiar territory to both local users and non-local but regular turnpike drivers -- just another pike to add to the "family".

Or:

[Fictional Highways]Let the OTA take over US 75 between the Creek Turnpike and I-40.  If the AASHTO even cares anymore about US highways not being toll roads, designate an alternate US 75 somewhere else.  Or:  Truncate US 75 so its southern terminus is the Creek Turnpike or I-44, which works if you go with my new Fictional Highways idea that's actually in the Fictional Highways board: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27609.0 [/Fictional Highways]

By the way, I honestly think upgrading US 75 (whoever funds it and by whichever means) is the far better alternative, because any new highway running parallel to it would likely go through environmentally sensitive areas, and there aren't a lot of places you can squeeze it in between existing developments in the southern Tulsa suburbs--although there is a big golf course you could just take and let people play their golf somewhere else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBTR99sYBYQ

Golf course = fair game?!

[Scott5114]

And to the point raised above:  OK's the archetypal "red state"; soak-the-rich/business class concepts generally don't fly there -- at least currently.  But in the aftermath of COVID and other disasters (especially if wildfires plague western OK during heat waves), I'd expect that most anything would be on the table as revenue sources -- including those deemed politically problematic in "normal" times. 

Oklahoma's always had money problems, even in good economic times. After the state passed medical marijuana by referendum, there was some effort to water it down in the Legislature...until they saw just how much money it was bringing in, and then those bills quietly died.

[bugo]

One of the biggest problems in Oklahoma is the fact that many of its residents are cheapskates and don't want to pay their taxes. I have often said that Republicans are the reason we can't have nice things, and Oklahoma is a prime example.

[Plutonic Panda]

One of the biggest problems in Oklahoma is the fact that many of its residents are cheapskates and don't want to pay their taxes. I have often said that Republicans are the reason we can't have nice things, and Oklahoma is a prime example.

+1000000

[In_Correct]

In Oregon, they have that U.S. 97 which needs to be widened for connectivity and traffic purposes. I read the article referring to every body as: "Stake Holders" ... Every body that uses a Road is a Stake Holder. While there are many highways that still go through towns (and as at grade roads) ... that does not mean that they are supposed to be some parking lot system for the town. There are other large businesses, industries, theme parks, with their own streets ... but that is not quite the same thing. They are supposed to be isolated from the main highways, not smack dab in the middle of them.

I support The Economy by paying and driving the beautiful Toll Roads    in stead of visiting silly Muskogee.

[rte66man]

One of the biggest problems in Oklahoma is the fact that many of its residents are cheapskates and don't want to pay their taxes. I have often said that Republicans are the reason we can't have nice things, and Oklahoma is a prime example.

Not restricted to Oklahoma or Republicans. Everyone wants things (good roads, etc) but no one wants to pay for them as "their taxes are too high. Waste and fraud need to be eliminated before I agree to pay more."  I worked for the OK House in the 90's and I can tell you there isn't enough waste and fraud to pay for all of the things people want.

[US71]

One of the biggest problems in Oklahoma is the fact that many of its residents are cheapskates and don't want to pay their taxes. I have often said that Republicans are the reason we can't have nice things, and Oklahoma is a prime example.

The same could be said for Arkansas. Also, ARDOT wastes money on pet projects, like building half-mile state highways as corporate driveways.

[sparker]

One of the biggest problems in Oklahoma is the fact that many of its residents are cheapskates and don't want to pay their taxes. I have often said that Republicans are the reason we can't have nice things, and Oklahoma is a prime example.

Not restricted to Oklahoma or Republicans. Everyone wants things (good roads, etc) but no one wants to pay for them as "their taxes are too high. Waste and fraud need to be eliminated before I agree to pay more."  I worked for the OK House in the 90's and I can tell you there isn't enough waste and fraud to pay for all of the things people want.

Just another vicious circle.  Low-tax states, particularly in reference to corporate/business taxes, use those rates to attempt to entice employers.  Some businesses do come as a result, but they tend not to employ the level of personnel that significantly moves the state's overall employment level; much large-scale manufacturing (e.g., the Toyota plant in MS and the BMW plant in SC) utilizes extensive automation these days (capital being deductible while labor isn't).  So the corporations pay taxes at reduced rates compared with other states -- but the level of employment increase is marginal, so revenues from personal income taxes remain largely stagnant.  Of course, as a result services tend to be somewhat limited (offsetting, at least for most) the state's attractiveness) -- but those that are there cost money anyway.  But without the addition of "gainfully employed", whether from an existing un- or under-employed labor pool or by influx from elsewhere, the low corporate tax rates tend not to cover the states' expenditure level required to accommodate their presence (new access roads, new interchanges, etc.).  But taxes are, to coin the cliche', the "3rd rail" of politics in the states choosing to maintain them at low levels; the appearance of doing so, even to the detriment of addressing state needs, seems to be paramount.  So the politicos continue their practice of repeatedly trying to entice new corporate investment even though the overall revenues are neutral or marginal at best, while trying to placate the "working class" with social policy proclamations.  Not in any way a matter of public-sector waste, just the inability to raise sufficient revenue for the state's needs.   

[Bobby5280]

This ridiculous game of giving big companies tax giveaways is rampant on every level, from federal down to local. Some cities and towns are risking insolvency. They're giving long term tax holidays to new businesses as a means of attracting them to that location. Town and cities are pitted against each other to sweeten the deals. Meanwhile, those same cities and towns grow ever more dependent on individual taxpayers/employees. Those "little people" are getting squeezed harder than ever on basic living costs. I saw one headline a couple days ago that said over 50% of America's young adults (people under 30) were living with parents. This worsening structural imbalance in the tax base is not sustainable.