Quote from: 1995hoo on April 17, 2026, 11:56:49 AMWhat I meant was more in the nature of that I find it interesting to see the sorts of things we now view as substandard that were once thought to be reasonable. In other words, I'm not surprised to see substandard design, I just find it interesting to see what kinds of substandard designs were used.
Such as, for example, nothing but a
narrow strip of grass (https://maps.app.goo.gl/EujwX7twMfTtNs967) separating lanes of 75mph traffic on an Interstate in Oklahoma?
Quote from: kphoger on April 17, 2026, 12:18:12 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on April 17, 2026, 11:56:49 AMWhat I meant was more in the nature of that I find it interesting to see the sorts of things we now view as substandard that were once thought to be reasonable. In other words, I'm not surprised to see substandard design, I just find it interesting to see what kinds of substandard designs were used.
Such as, for example, nothing but a narrow strip of grass (https://maps.app.goo.gl/EujwX7twMfTtNs967) separating lanes of 75mph traffic on an Interstate in Oklahoma?
Wow. No barrier at all. Yup, I find that sort of thing interesting as well. Even the Pennsylvania Turnpike now has a median barrier.
Oklahoma is one of the nine states I have yet to visit.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 17, 2026, 01:53:56 PMQuote from: kphoger on April 17, 2026, 12:18:12 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on April 17, 2026, 11:56:49 AMWhat I meant was more in the nature of that I find it interesting to see the sorts of things we now view as substandard that were once thought to be reasonable. In other words, I'm not surprised to see substandard design, I just find it interesting to see what kinds of substandard designs were used.
Such as, for example, nothing but a narrow strip of grass (https://maps.app.goo.gl/EujwX7twMfTtNs967) separating lanes of 75mph traffic on an Interstate in Oklahoma?
Wow. No barrier at all. Yup, I find that sort of thing interesting as well. Even the Pennsylvania Turnpike now has a median barrier.
Oklahoma is one of the nine states I have yet to visit.
Old photo -- I believe all the H. E. Bailey Turnpike now has a paved median with either concrete or high-tension cable median barrier.
Go a couple clicks forward and a couple back and you will see what I mean.
Besides, it was built as a state-built turnpike and not an Interstate highway. Designated I-44 in the 1980s.
Quote from: Beltway on April 17, 2026, 02:18:42 PMOld photo -- I believe all the H. E. Bailey Turnpike now has a paved median with either concrete or high-tension cable median barrier.
Besides, it was built as a state-built turnpike and not an Interstate highway. Designated I-44 in the 1980s.
Correct on both counts.
Kind of like how the RPT was under the state Richmond–Petersburg Turnpike Authority before being designated I-95 in 1958.
It amuses me that the narrow grassy strip continued to be a good enough median for the H. E. Bailey Turnpike for more than thirty years
after it was designated as an Interstate.
My point was not whether something was built as an Interstate. I think most of us would probably agree that regardless of how it was classified when it was built, modern sensibilities would dictate that a highway with a 75-mph speed limit and a narrow strip of grass of the sort seen in that photo, with no other barrier, isn't a particularly safe design and that we would consider it "substandard" for that reason regardless of whether it's an Interstate, a US Highway, a German autobahn, or something else. In other words, "substandard" not with respect to any particular set of engineering guidelines, but in a general sense. (I recognize there are two-lane roads with 75-mph speed limits in Texas. I've never driven on any of them, though.)
Sometimes I forget how carefully you have to define every word to satisfy certain people. While I can be pedantic, I tend to think it's reasonable to assume people don't need every word defined for them to understand a comment.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 17, 2026, 11:56:49 AMI find it interesting to see the sorts of things we now view as substandard that were once thought to be reasonable.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 17, 2026, 02:38:45 PMMy point was not whether something was built as an Interstate. I think most of us would probably agree that regardless of how it was classified when it was built, modern sensibilities would dictate that a highway with a 75-mph speed limit and a narrow strip of grass of the sort seen in that photo, with no other barrier, isn't a particularly safe design and that we would consider it "substandard" for that reason regardless of whether it's an Interstate, a US Highway, a German autobahn, or something else. In other words, "substandard" not with respect to any particular set of engineering guidelines, but in a general sense.
But that's just it. The opening of the H. E. Bailey Turnpike predated the NMSL, which means, I think, it had a 70 mph speed limit when it opened. Our modern sensibilities about what is 'substandard' have changed since then.
Quote from: kphoger on April 17, 2026, 02:29:09 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 17, 2026, 02:18:42 PMOld photo -- I believe all the H. E. Bailey Turnpike now has a paved median with either concrete or high-tension cable median barrier. Besides, it was built as a state-built turnpike and not an Interstate highway. Designated I-44 in the 1980s.
Correct on both counts. Kind of like how the RPT was under the state Richmond–Petersburg Turnpike Authority before being designated I-95 in 1958.
That was almost immediate as being needed for I-95. Tolls were fully removed in 1992.
Quote from: kphoger on April 17, 2026, 02:29:09 PMIt amuses me that the narrow grassy strip continued to be a good enough median for the H. E. Bailey Turnpike for more than thirty years after it was designated as an Interstate.
More like a 20 foot median, and we would need to ascertain when it was rebuilt.
I scrolled through the whole Bailey on Google Satellite View, and it appears there are long sections of 36 foot and 60 foot grass medians, and that all of the narrow has been rebuilt.
The alternate question is why designate the Bailey as I-44 in the first place? It ends in Wichita Falls far from any other Interstate highway.
Quote from: Beltway on April 17, 2026, 03:19:04 PMThe alternate question is why designate the Bailey as I-44 in the first place? It ends in Wichita Falls far from any other Interstate highway.
I guess I've just always assumed it was so Fort Sill and Sheppard AFB were on the Interstate system.
For what it's worth, Oklahoma attempted several times to get the FHA to extend I-44 from Lawton to Abilene TX (I-20), but to no avail. Therefore, Oklahoma and Texas agreed to amend the extension request to end I-44 in Wichita Falls instead.
Interestingly, in looking into it, I found this from the FHA regarding an extension of I-44 along the H. E. Bailey Turnpike:
QuoteThe route will require the correction of safety elements consistent with current safety policies and standards. The following list of safety improvements should be accomplished to meet these policies and standards:
[...]
(b) Construct an inside shoulder.
(c) Widen the median or provide a continuous median barrier.
[...]
(h) Delete curbs unless they are absolutely necessary for drainage.
[...]
And also this nugget:
(https://i.imgur.com/NBgR0Cd.png)
Quote from: kphoger on April 17, 2026, 02:45:56 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on April 17, 2026, 11:56:49 AMI find it interesting to see the sorts of things we now view as substandard that were once thought to be reasonable.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 17, 2026, 02:38:45 PMMy point was not whether something was built as an Interstate. I think most of us would probably agree that regardless of how it was classified when it was built, modern sensibilities would dictate that a highway with a 75-mph speed limit and a narrow strip of grass of the sort seen in that photo, with no other barrier, isn't a particularly safe design and that we would consider it "substandard" for that reason regardless of whether it's an Interstate, a US Highway, a German autobahn, or something else. In other words, "substandard" not with respect to any particular set of engineering guidelines, but in a general sense.
But that's just it. The opening of the H. E. Bailey Turnpike predated the NMSL, which means, I think, it had a 70 mph speed limit when it opened. Our modern sensibilities about what is 'substandard' have changed since then.
Right. I agree with that last sentence. My point was that it is interesting to see what sort of design features used to be accepted that would not be accepted today. I'm not saying, "Man, those people were idiots for designing a road that way." I just find changing design standards to be interesting.
Quote from: kphoger on April 17, 2026, 04:08:35 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 17, 2026, 03:19:04 PMThe alternate question is why designate the Bailey as I-44 in the first place? It ends in Wichita Falls far from any other Interstate highway.
I guess I've just always assumed it was so Fort Sill and Sheppard AFB were on the Interstate system.
....
If it had been done in the latter part of the 1980s, I would have assumed it was so that it would be eligible for the 65-mph speed limit that was, at the time, restricted to rural Interstates only. But it looks like the designation came prior to that NMSL amendment.
Quote from: kphoger on April 17, 2026, 04:08:35 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 17, 2026, 03:19:04 PMThe alternate question is why designate the Bailey as I-44 in the first place? It ends in Wichita Falls far from any other Interstate highway.
I guess I've just always assumed it was so Fort Sill and Sheppard AFB were on the Interstate system.
For what it's worth, Oklahoma attempted several times to get the FHA to extend I-44 from Lawton to Abilene TX (I-20), but to no avail. Therefore, Oklahoma and Texas agreed to amend the extension request to end I-44 in Wichita Falls instead.
Some bases are not on the Interstate system. Forts Pickett, A.P. Hill and Dover AFB come to mind.
Texas would have to agree to that. Plus there was no superhighway there and most of the route was still 2-lane nonlimited-access highway. So they would have to built such a highway.
Quote from: Beltway on April 17, 2026, 05:37:48 PMTexas would have to agree to that.
Yes. They were in the discussions.
QuoteFor presentation at the commission meeting of April 7, 1975
During the interim period, we have been discussing this matter with the Texas Highway Department, and on an informal basis with officials from the Federal Highway Administration. Our discussions have been in the context of ending the proposed Interstate route at a connection with US 82 and US 277 at Wichita Falls rather than extending it initially all the way to Abilene. This concept has received favorable response from Texas.
Specifically, we are now requesting that the Highway Commission authorize the Department to prepare the necessary documents for submission to the Federal Highway Administration, requesting that the Interstate 44 (I-44) designation be extended, via I-35 and I-240, to the US 62 connection with the Baily Turnpike southwest of Oklahoma City, and extending southwesterly along US 62, H. E. Baily Turnpike, US 277, and the section of the H. E. Bailey Turnpike south of Lawton, connecting with US 277, extending on south across the Red River to its junction with US 82 in Wichita Falls, Texas.
The Department is of the opinion this is a logical addition to the Interstate System, and with the pending construction of the interchange at Rogers Lane and US 277 just north of Lawton, this will be a fully controlled access facility along the entire extents in Oklahoma. The Texas Highway Commission has agreed that upon approval of the designation, they will then take immediate steps to improve the section between the Red River and Wichita Falls to controlled access standards.
Quote from: kphoger on April 17, 2026, 06:28:56 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 17, 2026, 05:37:48 PMTexas would have to agree to that.
Yes. They were in the discussions.
QuoteFor presentation at the commission meeting of April 7, 1975
During the interim period, we have been discussing this matter with the Texas Highway Department, and on an informal basis with officials from the Federal Highway Administration. Our discussions have been in the context of ending the proposed Interstate route at a connection with US 82 and US 277 at Wichita Falls rather than extending it initially all the way to Abilene. This concept has received favorable response from Texas.
"Favorable response" is rather vague.
I drove that route back then (1972) and the rural sections had very low traffic and the 2 lane sections worked fine.
There also was a missing link about 5 miles long between the Bailey and the OKC freeway system. Served by an arterial highway.
QuoteQuoteThe [Okla.] Department is of the opinion this is a logical addition to the Interstate System, and with the pending construction of the interchange at Rogers Lane and US 277 just north of Lawton, this will be a fully controlled access facility along the entire extents in Oklahoma. The Texas Highway Commission has agreed that upon approval of the designation, they will then take immediate steps to improve the section between the Red River and Wichita Falls to controlled access standards.
The Texas Highway Commission agreed to upgrade the 12 miles between the Red River and Wichita Falls. Wichita Falls population in 1970 was about 97,000, much larger than the 50,000 desired threshold for national Interstate service.
So Texas connected that to the Bailey which ultimately would connect to the OKC Interstate system.
That is not an agreement to extend I-44 about 140 miles to Abilene which has Interstate service of its own.
Abilene already gets Interstate service to OKC via I-20 and I-35.
Actually I stepped thru this years ago -- probably 1980s --
Wichita Falls being the main reason for I-44 being extended there. About 97,000 population in 1970, and it gets Interstate service. Even though the vast majority is in Oklahoma, they already have a superhighway covering nearly the whole distance, needs to be connected to at least I-240.
So the city got Interstate connectivity even though it is just one direction. Lubbock in the same boat with I-27 (in the 1968 additions of 1,500 miles nationwide). Lubbock's 1960 population was about 128,000.
Quote from: Beltway on April 17, 2026, 08:16:19 PMAbilene already gets Interstate service to OKC via I-20 and I-35.
I-20 and I-35 adds around 50 miles and 50 minutes to the trip over US-277 and I-44.
That being said, with the exception of Anson, US-277 in Texas is a four lane 75 mph divided highway with town bypasses for the most part, so there is little need for any major improvements outside of bypassing Anson.
I still remember when I was a kid in 1982 seeing I-44 signs with a "Future" panel above the Interstate shield. They were visible in Wichita Falls going up to Burkburnett and along the H.E. Bailey Turnpike in Oklahoma.
Quote from: kphogerIt amuses me that the narrow grassy strip continued to be a good enough median for the H. E. Bailey Turnpike for more than thirty years after it was designated as an Interstate.
The portion of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike from the Medicine Park exit up to the OKC metro got equipped with a concrete Jersey barrier in the late 1990's. The Turner Turnpike and Will Rogers Turnpike got the concrete barriers during the same era. It's the portion South of Lawton that got neglected for another 20-plus years. The cable barrier system they finally installed looks pretty cheap compared to a normal Jersey barrier.
Quote from: BeltwayMore like a 20 foot median, and we would need to ascertain when it was rebuilt.
The narrow grassy medians on Oklahoma turnpikes like the H.E. Bailey were not 20 feet wide. They were more in the 12 foot wide range. When I drive on I-44 from Lawton to Wichita Falls the roadway seems a lot like driving on a 5-lane street. Instead of a center turn lane a cable barrier is present.
It's been a little over 10 years since the cable barrier was installed on that portion of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike. Oklahoma has some other turnpike segments with more recent cable barrier installs, such as recent work done on the Cimarron Turnpike to make it more compliant with Interstate standards (and the future I-42 designation).
Quote from: kphogerFor what it's worth, Oklahoma attempted several times to get the FHA to extend I-44 from Lawton to Abilene TX (I-20), but to no avail. Therefore, Oklahoma and Texas agreed to amend the extension request to end I-44 in Wichita Falls instead.
On the bright side, the 4-lane expansion TX DOT did on US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene would make it much easier to bring that highway up to Interstate standards if they wanted to do so in the future.
It's a shame the proposed Kell Freeway extension to the Holliday Bypass was not approved. I suppose it could be revisited in the future.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 18, 2026, 12:41:34 AMThat being said, with the exception of Anson, US-277 in Texas is a four lane 75 mph divided highway with town bypasses for the most part, so there is little need for any major improvements outside of bypassing Anson.
But that was completed less than a dozen years ago.
Quote from: Beltway on April 17, 2026, 08:16:19 PMThe Texas Highway Commission agreed to upgrade the 12 miles between the Red River and Wichita Falls ... That is not an agreement to extend I-44 about 140 miles to Abilene ...
Correct. Sorry if it sounded like I was saying otherwise. I haven't been able to hunt down anything about what Texas specifically was saying before 1975 about the Abilene extension, which is when they agreed to only extend it to Wichita Falls. I supposed it's possible that the reason Oklahoma hadn't previously been successful with the FHA was that Texas didn't want to upgrade the corridor, but that would just be conjecture.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 18, 2026, 01:18:59 AMThe portion of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike from the Medicine Park exit up to the OKC metro got equipped with a concrete Jersey barrier in the late 1990's. The Turner Turnpike and Will Rogers Turnpike got the concrete barriers during the same era. It's the portion South of Lawton that got neglected for another 20-plus years. The cable barrier system they finally installed looks pretty cheap compared to a normal Jersey barrier.
High Tension Cable Guardrail is much stronger than it looks.
The posts are sacrificial; the strength is in the tensioned steel cables. When a vehicle hits the system, the posts are designed to break away so the cables can "catch" the vehicle and absorb energy over a long distance. Properly tensioned cable systems routinely outperform W‑beam guardrail in preventing cross‑median crashes, and they can contain heavy pickups and SUVs that would blow through older designs.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 18, 2026, 12:41:34 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 17, 2026, 08:16:19 PMAbilene already gets Interstate service to OKC via I-20 and I-35.
I-20 and I-35 adds around 50 miles and 50 minutes to the trip over US-277 and I-44.
That being said, with the exception of Anson, US-277 in Texas is a four lane 75 mph divided highway with town bypasses for the most part, so there is little need for any major improvements outside of bypassing Anson.
289 miles via US-277 and I-44. So the 50 miles is not big percentagewise. However Google Maps does route it via US-277 and I-44. Several alternates but none via I-20/I-35.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 18, 2026, 01:18:59 AMThe narrow grassy medians on Oklahoma turnpikes like the H.E. Bailey were not 20 feet wide. They were more in the 12 foot wide range.
Not sure why Oklahoma did that. Penna. is the only other state that used such narrow turnpike medians.
Quote from: Beltway on April 17, 2026, 03:19:04 PMThe alternate question is why designate the Bailey as I-44 in the first place?
It was done to celebrate Oklahoma's 75th anniversary of statehood. Much like the meat cleaver was introduced to celebrate its centennial.
Oklahoma celebrates things in weird ways.
Quote from: Beltway on April 18, 2026, 10:38:02 PMNot sure why Oklahoma did that.
The government of Oklahoma is cheap.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 18, 2026, 11:22:31 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 17, 2026, 03:19:04 PMThe alternate question is why designate the Bailey as I-44 in the first place?
It was done to celebrate Oklahoma's 75th anniversary of statehood. Much like the meat cleaver was introduced to celebrate its centennial. Oklahoma celebrates things in weird ways.
Are you posting in "riff mode" or in "research mode"?
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 18, 2026, 11:22:31 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 18, 2026, 10:38:02 PMNot sure why Oklahoma did that.
The government of Oklahoma is cheap.
They built an extensive system of turnpikes to supplement the Interstate system. Oklahoma's turnpike system is 630 miles long.
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2026, 01:22:35 AMAre you posting in "riff mode" or in "research mode"?
"I-240 Section Changing to I-44". The Daily Oklahoman. October 9, 1982.
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2026, 01:22:35 AMThey built an extensive system of turnpikes to supplement the Interstate system. Oklahoma's turnpike system is 630 miles long.
The intent for most of this construction was more to do an end-run around Oklahoma constitutional requirements that prevent the state from taking on debt. ODOT is strictly held to a pay-as-you-go model, which is why it takes Oklahoma roughly a decade to complete projects that Nevada can get done in under a year—they can only spend money as it trickles in annually from the Legislature. That restriction does not apply to OTA, which is allowed to issue revenue bonds, as they have a revenue source that allows them to be repaid.
Some of the turnpike mileage in Oklahoma was constructed because there was a genuine need for it (either due to traffic counts, like the urban turnpikes, or as a safety improvement, as was the case with the Cherokee). Some was constructed due to political considerations (such as the Chickasaw, which could be charitably called the result of horse trading or less charitably as pork). All of it is cross-pledged against each other, meaning that the I-44 turnpikes effectively subsidize construction and maintenance of the rest of the system.
The Interstate 33 designation could have been used for the Wichita Falls-Oklahoma City corridor, although extending the Interstate 44 designation was likely done to give the three toll roads one number. Still, the H.E. Bailey Turnpike should've been upgraded to Interstate Standards, although it is not too late to do so.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 19, 2026, 02:54:58 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 19, 2026, 01:22:35 AMAre you posting in "riff mode" or in "research mode"?
"I-240 Section Changing to I-44". The Daily Oklahoman. October 9, 1982.
Interesting but several sources support Wichita Falls being the main factor, a ~97,000 population in 1960 with no Interstate highway service.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 19, 2026, 02:54:58 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 19, 2026, 01:22:35 AMThey built an extensive system of turnpikes to supplement the Interstate system. Oklahoma's turnpike system is 630 miles long.
The intent for most of this construction was more to do an end-run around Oklahoma constitutional requirements that prevent the state from taking on debt. ODOT is strictly held to a pay-as-you-go model, which is why it takes Oklahoma roughly a decade to complete projects that Nevada can get done in under a year—they can only spend money as it trickles in annually from the Legislature. That restriction does not apply to OTA, which is allowed to issue revenue bonds, as they have a revenue source that allows them to be repaid.
Some of the turnpike mileage in Oklahoma was constructed because there was a genuine need for it (either due to traffic counts, like the urban turnpikes, or as a safety improvement, as was the case with the Cherokee). Some was constructed due to political considerations (such as the Chickasaw, which could be charitably called the result of horse trading or less charitably as pork). All of it is cross-pledged against each other, meaning that the I-44 turnpikes effectively subsidize construction and maintenance of the rest of the system.
I have seen at least 5 Oklahomans bashing their state online in various forums in the past. Including their highways. Seems like a pretty decent state to me.
MD and PA have the same issue of high volume tollroads subsidizing low volume tollroads. Not sure what the solution is there when the latter are still quite useful.
Some do have very low volume, Cimirron highest ~9,000 and about half the length ~5,000. Surprising for what could be an Interstate highway connecting Tulas/I-44 to I-35 North.
https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/ota/documents/average-daily-traffic/2021/Cimarron%20ADT%202021.pdf
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2026, 02:06:03 PMInteresting but several sources support Wichita Falls being the main factor, a ~97,000 population in 1960 with no Interstate highway service.
Cite them, then.
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2026, 02:06:03 PMSeems like a pretty decent state to me.
Well, yeah, it seems pretty decent because you don't have to live there.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 19, 2026, 09:50:53 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 19, 2026, 02:06:03 PMInteresting but several sources support Wichita Falls being the main factor, a ~97,000 population in 1960 with no Interstate highway service.
Cite them, then.
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2026, 02:06:03 PMSeems like a pretty decent state to me.
Well, yeah, it seems pretty decent because you don't have to live there.
I think it's decent. But then again, I'm not everyone.
Quote from: CoreySamson on April 19, 2026, 11:58:45 PMI think it's decent. But then again, I'm not everyone.
As I understand it, you also live there in the capacity of a college student, so many of the functions of adult life you would be required to engage in were you a full-time Oklahoma resident are instead handled for you by Texas. If that weren't the case, I would expect your opinion would differ.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 19, 2026, 09:50:53 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 19, 2026, 02:06:03 PMInteresting but several sources support Wichita Falls being the main factor, a ~97,000 population in 1960 with no Interstate highway service.
Cite them, then.
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2026, 02:06:03 PMSeems like a pretty decent state to me.
Well, yeah, it seems pretty decent because you don't have to live there.
What's wrong with it?
. . . . .
The timeline doesn't support the anniversary explanation. Oklahoma's 75th was in 1982. The I‑44 extension and Bailey Turnpike designation changes were tied to AASHTO actions in the mid‑1980s, not any commemorative event. That's all in the AASHTO route logs and the Oklahoma Highway Commission minutes from that period.
The contents of that 10/9/82 Daily Oklahoman article have been quoted and summarized in multiple secondary sources over the years -- AASHTO route logs, OTA/ODOT archival summaries, and several transportation histories that reference the same administrative action. None of them mention a 75th‑anniversary motive. They all describe it as a routine renumbering following AASHTO approval of the I‑44 extension.
If the article itself explicitly ties the change to the anniversary, that line can be quoted. Otherwise, the documented record shows a functional routing decision, not a commemorative one.
Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2026, 02:08:19 AMWhat's wrong with it?
Enough that I spent a rather large sum of money to not have to live there anymore. I've written at great length on the subject on the forum; there's little need for me to rehash it yet again.
Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2026, 02:08:19 AMIf the article itself explicitly ties the change to the anniversary, that line can be quoted.
It does. However I no longer have access to the archive I pulled it from when I was in college, just the papers I cited it in. You (or anyone who has more patience for newspaper archives) are welcome to try and find an alternate means of accessing it, though.
EDIT: I have bothered someone on the wiki to pull the article via Newspapers.com. The version of the article they have does not include any mention of the "Diamond Jubilee". Yet my papers from 2007 cite that article to that exact phrase, plain as day. The only potential explanation I have is that there could be multiple editions of the same article that were published under the same title, possibly also in the
Oklahoma City Times—which was an evening paper owned by the
Oklahoman at the time—and I saw a longer edition than the one Newspapers.com has archived.
@kphoger, you've managed to pull some frankly ridiculous research tricks out of your hat before—want to give this one a crack?
Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2026, 02:08:19 AMThe timeline doesn't support the anniversary explanation. Oklahoma's 75th was in 1982. The I‑44 extension and Bailey Turnpike designation changes were tied to AASHTO actions in the mid‑1980s, not any commemorative event. That's all in the AASHTO route logs and the Oklahoma Highway Commission minutes from that period.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2026, 02:50:19 AM@kphoger, you've managed to pull some frankly ridiculous research tricks out of your hat before—want to give this one a crack?
No, not particularly. :-D
Really, I was just going by what's available in the AASHTO route numbering archives. But I'll note that, just in what I already posted from there, the decision to truncate I-44's extension from Abilene back to Wichita Falls dates back several years before 1982. The final document has a 1982 date, but it includes prior correspondence that I've already posted from 1975. Specifically this:
QuoteFor presentation at the commission meeting of April 7, 1975
Specifically, we are now requesting that the Highway Commission authorize the Department to prepare the necessary documents for submission to the Federal Highway Administration, requesting that the Interstate 44 (I-44) designation be extended, via I-35 and I-240, to the US 62 connection with the Baily Turnpike southwest of Oklahoma City, and extending southwesterly along US 62, H. E. Baily Turnpike, US 277, and the section of the H. E. Bailey Turnpike south of Lawton, connecting with US 277, extending on south across the Red River to its junction with US 82 in Wichita Falls, Texas.
Quote from: BeltwayHigh Tension Cable Guardrail is much stronger than it looks.
They're not strong enough. A couple weeks ago on April 8 there was a three person fatal collision on I-35 in Oklahoma. A lady lost control of her vehicle, went through the cable barrier in the median and hit an Oklahoma Highway Patrol vehicle head on. The lady had a child in her vehicle.
Quote from: BeltwayNot sure why Oklahoma did that. Penna. is the only other state that used such narrow turnpike medians.
Going back to my childhood, I remember the Pennsylvania Turnpike being narrow, but it had a physical barrier in the median. Maybe the barrier wasn't always there, but they did have the barriers in the 1980's.
Quote from: The GhostbusterThe Interstate 33 designation could have been used for the Wichita Falls-Oklahoma City corridor, although extending the Interstate 44 designation was likely done to give the three toll roads one number. Still, the H.E. Bailey Turnpike should've been upgraded to Interstate Standards, although it is not too late to do so.
While I wouldn't mind I-44 from OKC to Wichita Falls
and farther South being labeled as "I-33" the number change would create a bunch of headaches for people in the region. Any advertising or administrative documentation in both businesses and government would have to be updated to reflect the change.
I think the US-281 corridor from San Antonio to Wichita Falls could eventually be an "I-33" reliever route for I-35. But certain bits of idiocy happening along the corridor in some spots need to be remedied -which means developers need to stop building new condo buildings right up on the edge of the existing highway. It's not a city surface street. Assholes.
I-44 could still be extended to Abilene
and even San Angelo, despite decisions made nearly 50 years ago. If I-27 is built out to its ultimate aspirations (extended to Laredo) it could divert a lot of truck traffic off I-35. More trucks would use the Del Rio port of entry to bypass the crowded Laredo port and avoid the heavy traffic on I-35. That would end up pushing a lot more commercial traffic up thru Abilene and Wichita Falls. That would make an I-44 extension more justifiable.
I don't know why the town of Anson didn't get a freeway bypass similar to work done in Stamford, Haskell, Munday, Goree and Seymour
unless local residents there demanded such a thing NOT be built.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 20, 2026, 10:08:35 AMMore trucks would use the Del Rio port of entry
As someone who uses the Del Rio POE, may I just say thank you for convincing me to
not want an I-44 extension. :-P
Once I-27 gets built the Del Rio POE secret is going to get spilled anyway.
:bigass:
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 20, 2026, 10:30:40 AMOnce I-27 gets built the Del Rio POE secret is going to get spilled anyway.
I-27 has already been built. :awesomeface:
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2026, 02:50:19 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 20, 2026, 02:08:19 AMIf the article itself explicitly ties the change to the anniversary, that line can be quoted.
It does. However I no longer have access to the archive I pulled it from when I was in college, just the papers I cited it in. You (or anyone who has more patience for newspaper archives) are welcome to try and find an alternate means of accessing it, though.
EDIT: I have bothered someone on the wiki to pull the article via Newspapers.com. The version of the article they have does not include any mention of the "Diamond Jubilee". Yet my papers from 2007 cite that article to that exact phrase, plain as day. The only potential explanation I have is that there could be multiple editions of the same article that were published under the same title, possibly also in the Oklahoma City Times—which was an evening paper owned by the Oklahoman at the time—and I saw a longer edition than the one Newspapers.com has archived.
If there were multiple editions, that's fine -- but the only version anyone has been able to actually produce (including the Newspapers.com pull you requested) contains no reference to the Diamond Jubilee. Until someone can show the text of an edition that does, the claim rests entirely on a 2007 citation note with no verifiable copy behind it.
Newspaper articles often ran in different lengths across morning/evening editions, but the burden is on the person making the anniversary claim to produce the version that contains that language. Right now, the documented version shows a routine renumbering tied to the I‑44 extension to Wichita Falls, with no commemorative motive.
If someone can surface an edition that explicitly ties the change to the 75th anniversary, that would settle it. But absent that, the record we can actually verify doesn't support the claim.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2026, 02:50:19 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 20, 2026, 02:08:19 AMWhat's wrong with it?
Enough that I spent a rather large sum of money to not have to live there anymore. I've written at great length on the subject on the forum; there's little need for me to rehash it yet again.
Interesting state but I have no desire to move there. Those EF5 tornadoes that have devastated the OKC area are frigthening.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 20, 2026, 10:08:35 AMQuote from: BeltwayHigh Tension Cable Guardrail is much stronger than it looks.
They're not strong enough. A couple weeks ago on April 8 there was a three person fatal collision on I-35 in Oklahoma. A lady lost control of her vehicle, went through the cable barrier in the median and hit an Oklahoma Highway Patrol vehicle head on. The lady had a child in her vehicle.
There are always exceptions. Large trucks have punched thru concrete median barriers, and cars have rolled over them into oncoming traffic.
Modern 42 inch high thick designs are a recent advent. The older 32 inch high designs have the aforementioned cases. Large trucks can still roll over a 42 inch barrier.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 20, 2026, 10:08:35 AMQuote from: BeltwayNot sure why Oklahoma did that. Penna. is the only other state that used such narrow turnpike medians.
Going back to my childhood, I remember the Pennsylvania Turnpike being narrow, but it had a physical barrier in the median. Maybe the barrier wasn't always there, but they did have the barriers in the 1980's.
It had a double faced W-beam guardrail when I lived there in the 1970s. Still there in 1994 when I visited. Sometime later they replaced it with a concrete barrier.
Quote from: BeltwayInteresting state but I have no desire to move there. Those EF5 tornadoes that have devastated the OKC area are frightening.
FWIW, I think the "gorilla hail" we get is more of a widespread problem.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 20, 2026, 11:02:51 AMQuote from: BeltwayInteresting state but I have no desire to move there. Those EF5 tornadoes that have devastated the OKC area are frightening.
FWIW, I think the "gorilla hail" we get is more of a widespread problem.
Baseball size? Softball size?
Quote from: BeltwayBaseball size? Softball size?
YES.
Quote from: Beltway on December 31, 2025, 01:41:04 PMMy claim was simply that the phrase appears in the 1656 edition I consulted ... Once the correct 1656 digitization is identified, I can point to the exact leaf.
Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2026, 10:53:17 AMUntil someone can show the text of an edition that does, the claim rests entirely on a 2007 citation note with no verifiable copy behind it ... If someone can surface an edition that explicitly ties the change to the 75th anniversary, that would settle it. But absent that, the record we can actually verify doesn't support the claim.
hmmmmmmmmm......
Quote from: kphoger on April 20, 2026, 11:07:17 AMQuote from: Beltway on December 31, 2025, 01:41:04 PMMy claim was simply that the phrase appears in the 1656 edition I consulted ... Once the correct 1656 digitization is identified, I can point to the exact leaf.
Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2026, 10:53:17 AMUntil someone can show the text of an edition that does, the claim rests entirely on a 2007 citation note with no verifiable copy behind it ... If someone can surface an edition that explicitly ties the change to the 75th anniversary, that would settle it. But absent that, the record we can actually verify doesn't support the claim.
hmmmmmmmmm......
You are in a real roads thread -- not in Off Topic -- the standards are much higher.
Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2026, 11:09:26 AMYou are in a real roads thread -- not in Off Topic -- the standards are much higher.
The standard is 100% higher, you might say.
Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2026, 11:09:26 AMYou are in a real roads thread -- not in Off Topic -- the standards are much higher.
Overruled; observation is relevant to establish credibility.
"Impleasable... impleasable..." Scott cowered in terror at the frothing crowd of forum posters. They circled him like ravenous dolphins ready to devour a Baltimore bridge. "Show us your texts!" Cried an aggressive, knowledge-thirsty individual ready to claw the Medieval source from Scott's arms like 5-year-olds ODing on Dr. Pepper on Christmas morning. "I... am... the... Legacy... Steward..." Scott whimpered rocking himself to sleep.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 20, 2026, 12:51:58 PM"Impleasable... impleasable..." Scott cowered in terror at the frothing crowd of forum posters. They circled him like ravenous dolphins ready to devour a Baltimore bridge. "Show us your texts!" Cried an aggressive, knowledge-thirsty individual ready to claw the Medieval source from Scott's arms like 5-year-olds ODing on Dr. Pepper on Christmas morning. "I... am... the... Legacy... Steward..." Scott whimpered rocking himself to sleep.
You're talking about Scott Nazelrod, aren't you? Fer sure.
Hey, I did find this on a roadgeek website called ... umm, let's see ... called AA Roads:
Quote from: https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-044-txCity officials in Lawton and Wichita Falls long sought an extension of Interstate 44 via the tolled H.E. Bailey Turnpike southwest from Oklahoma City. The connection was desired both to benefit tourist traffic and industry and to add each city to the Interstate highway system.1 Previous proposals outlined extending I-44 south beyond Wichita Falls to Abilene. Those were requests were unsuccessful, so in 1975 Texas Highway Department, Oklahoma Department of Highways and Federal Highway Administration officials collaborated on a route south only as far as Wichita Falls. Viewed more favorably, this was also contingent upon bringing U.S. 277 up to controlled access standards by removing the at-grade intersection with Rogers Lane in north Lawton.2
Efforts to redesignate the H.E. Bailey Turnpike and U.S. 277 freeway south from Lawton into Texas as part of Interstate 44 continued into 1977. The Oklahoma Transportation Commission advertised bids on a $3.3 million interchange to replace the traffic light at U.S. 277 and Rogers Lane. Additionally construction was underway to add a second span adjacent to the two-lane bridge taking U.S. 277 across the Red River.2
1 — "Bailey 'Pike Change Eyed by State Unit." The Lawton Constitution (OK), April 9, 1975.
2 — "Interstate Hopes Alive." The Lawton Constitution (OK), October 16, 1977.
Quote from: kphoger on April 20, 2026, 01:22:37 PM
1 — "Bailey 'Pike Change Eyed by State Unit." The Lawton Constitution (OK), April 9, 1975.
Page 3:
QuoteThe Oklahoma Highway Commission has voted to seek the extension of I-44 designation from Oklahoma City southwest across the Texas border ...
Highway Commission Chairman J. C. Kennedy said ... that earlier attempts to get the route redesignated had been unsuccessful, since the requested redesignation extended all the way to Abilene. He said that discussion among the Oklahoma Department of Highways, the Federal Highway Administration, and Texas Highway Department officials had indicated that the shorter extension, only as far as Wichita Falls, was viewed more favorably.
Quote from: kphoger on April 20, 2026, 01:22:37 PM2 — "Interstate Hopes Alive." The Lawton Constitution (OK), October 16, 1977.
Page 6:
QuoteIn the meantime, Cong. Tom Steed of the Oklahoma Fourth District and Cong. Jack Hightower of Wichita Falls are working in Washington, D.C. to bring about designation of the Oklahoma City–Lawton–Wichita Falls toll and free road as an extension of I-44, the route of both the Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes from Joplin, Mo.
Whether the two congressmen can persuade the Department of Transportation to extend I-44 to Wichita Falls remains to be seen. Legislation might be necessary. J.C. Kennedy, former Oklahoma Transportation Department chairman ... former highway Chairman Charlie Payne, and other Lawtonians have worked for several years to bring interstate highway recognition to Lawton.
In terms of tourist traffic, industry, and other desirable benefits, an interstate highway means a great deal to a community. It would be especially satisfying to Lawton if such a feat were accomplished because this southwest Oklahoma hub city has had to fight every step of the way to obtain a modern highway link to the rest of the state and the nation.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2026, 12:10:47 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 20, 2026, 11:09:26 AMYou are in a real roads thread -- not in Off Topic -- the standards are much higher.
Overruled; observation is relevant to establish credibility.
Whatever -- the issue of the origin of OK/TX I-44 is not a hill to die on.
Especially when you live on the eastern seaboard.
Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2026, 02:29:23 PMthe issue of the origin of OK/TX I-44 is not a hill to die on
(https://media1.tenor.com/m/mga2w9f7-d8AAAAd/die-on-any-hill-die-on-this-hill.gif)
Quote from: kphoger on April 20, 2026, 02:32:17 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 20, 2026, 02:29:23 PMthe issue of the origin of OK/TX I-44 is not a hill to die on
xxxxxhttps://media1.tenor.com/m/mga2w9f7-d8AAAAd/die-on-any-hill-die-on-this-hill.gif
(https://i.postimg.cc/LXy2rhwx/One-day-on-the-bridge.jpg)
Quote from: Beltway on April 17, 2026, 03:19:04 PMThe alternate question is why designate the Bailey as I-44 in the first place?
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 18, 2026, 11:22:31 PMIt was done to celebrate Oklahoma's 75th anniversary of statehood.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 19, 2026, 02:54:58 AM"I-240 Section Changing to I-44". The Daily Oklahoman. October 9, 1982.
Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2026, 02:08:19 AMThe timeline doesn't support the anniversary explanation. Oklahoma's 75th was in 1982. The I‑44 extension and Bailey Turnpike designation changes were tied to AASHTO actions in the mid‑1980s, not any commemorative event. That's all in the AASHTO route logs and the Oklahoma Highway Commission minutes from that period.
... AASHTO route logs, OTA/ODOT archival summaries, and several transportation histories that reference the same administrative action ... all describe it as a routine renumbering following AASHTO approval of the I‑44 extension.
If the article itself explicitly ties the change to the anniversary, that line can be quoted. Otherwise, the documented record shows a functional routing decision, not a commemorative one.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2026, 02:50:19 AMI have bothered someone on the wiki to pull the article via Newspapers.com. The version of the article they have does not include any mention of the "Diamond Jubilee". Yet my papers from 2007 cite that article to that exact phrase, plain as day.
Even if some alternate version of the article specifically mentioned the Diamond Jubilee, that wouldn't mean it was the
reason for the I-44 extension. The signing of I-44 along the Bailey could have been part of the Diamond Jubilee celebration without that having been the purpose for its designation all along. Maybe the timing just happened to work out, so they incorporated the signing into the Diamond Jubilee celebration because it seemed appropriate.
Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2026, 10:39:02 AMEven if some alternate version of the article specifically mentioned the Diamond Jubilee, that wouldn't mean it was the reason for the I-44 extension. The signing of I-44 along the Bailey could have been part of the Diamond Jubilee celebration without that having been the purpose for its designation all along. Maybe the timing just happened to work out, so they incorporated the signing into the Diamond Jubilee celebration because it seemed appropriate.
Per my research using 1971 and 1972 road maps from two companies, the Texas section was built to freeway standards by then.
I do recall 2 miles of 8-lane freeway in Wichita Falls. So it looks like the only missing link then was to connect the Bailey to I-240.
Quote from: Beltway on April 21, 2026, 10:50:14 AMPer my research using 1971 and 1972 road maps from two companies, the Texas section was built to freeway standards by then.
I do recall 2 miles of 8-lane freeway in Wichita Falls. So it looks like the only missing link then was to connect the Bailey to I-240.
According to the AASHTO archives, the entire corridor in Oklahoma would "be a fully controlled access facility" once the "pending construction of the interchange at Rogers Lane and US 277 just north of Lawton" was completed. That was as of early 1975, and I'm not sure exactly what year the interchange there was completed.
Oklahoma stated in the same agenda item that Texas had already agreed to "take immediate steps to improve the section between the Red River and Wichita Falls to controlled access standards" once the I-44 designation had been approved. That's an interesting tidbit, considering that your map research shows it to have already been up to freeway standards three years earlier. Maybe there were just one or two little things that needed to be upgraded on the Texas side?
I'm looking at the 1971 aerial map now, and I see the following deficiencies:
— At-grade intersection of US-277 & Shallowfield Road (eliminated by 1984 aerial map via frontage road)
— At-grade intersection of US-277 & East Road (eliminated by 1983 aerial map via grade separation, current Exit #7)
— At-grade driveway access to commercial property just north of Bacon Switch Road on east side of US-277 (eliminated by 1983 aerial map via frontage road)
Hey, this is interesting...
The following improvements on US-277 in Texas were required before designation as I-44:
— Bridge widening between 8th Street and Loop-370 (now US-287-Bus)
— Median curb removal from 6th Street to US-287/Loop-235 interchange
— Guard fence rigidity improvements
— Gore area safety improvements
— Culvert safety improvements between main lanes and frontage roads
— Grade separation between Missile Road and Burkburnett (already discussed) and from Burkburnett to Red River
— Accel/decel lane additions at rest areas
— State line marker relocation
— Pavement improvement
— Signage updates
Once those improvements were done, I-44 in Texas would then be defined over FAP Route 194 as being "from 8th Street in Wichita Falls, North to the Oklahoma State Line at the Red River". This definition appears in multiple documents, and it also matches the map (see below).
Does this mean that the western terminus of I-44 is not actually the Falls Flyover system interchange of US-82/277/287/281—that the elevated portion between 8th Street and Kell Blvd isn't actually I-44 at all?
(https://i.imgur.com/VdzBztn.png)
Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2026, 12:21:51 PMDoes this mean that the western terminus of I-44 is not actually the Falls Flyover system interchange of US-82/277/287/281—that the elevated portion between 8th Street and Kell Blvd isn't actually I-44 at all?
That appears to be correct (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8949807,-98.4984932,3a,29.9y,64.63h,93.43t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDC0LcO6bw_iIsMxNb1q5_g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-3.431828170839225%26panoid%3DDC0LcO6bw_iIsMxNb1q5_g%26yaw%3D64.63055265889376!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDQxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) (note also that the exit numbers disappear at that spot as well).
There's also no mention of I-44 (or US-277, grrr) at the beginning of the viaduct here (https://maps.app.goo.gl/synHySfgM7ESzhZs9).
That's such a weird endpoint.
If this is indeed the case, and I-44 ends at 8th Street, then AARoads Maps and the AARoads wiki article on I-44 are both wrong.
It also, I suppose, means that the AARoads wiki article on US-82 should have I-44 removed as an intersecting route.
Does anyone have any information suggesting that I-44 was ever extended south of 8th Street?
On the TxDOT Roadways GIS map (https://gis-txdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/txdot-roadways/explore?location=33.908217%2C-98.499640%2C17), the portion north of 8th Street is listed as "IH 44", and the portion south of it is listed as "US 277". Yep, I'm pretty sure everything saying I-44 terminates at the Falls Flyover—or that I-44 and US-82 ever intersect—is just wrong.
The elevated portion between 8th Street & Kell was completed in summer 2001. I-44's never been signed on there as far as I know.
Signs on eastbound Kell (US 82 EB/US 277 NB) at US 281 have always said "TO I-44" which, to me, is also a sign (no pun intended) that I-44 does not start at Kell. I found a couple pictures I took in March 2005, before the flyovers were built directly connecting the freeways, and all signs said "TO I-44".
https://www.okroads.com/031805/us277atus287_01.JPG
https://www.okroads.com/031805/us277atus287_04.JPG
https://www.okroads.com/031805/us277atus82w.JPG
Signs at the north end of the elevated portion, past the 10th Street signal, said "EAST I-44": https://www.okroads.com/031805/us277ati44_03.JPG
Heading westbound on I-44, this sign from December 2003 at the north end of the elevated portion also does not mention I-44: https://www.okroads.com/121103/i44txexit1.JPG . This was before the flyover ramp directly connected US 277/US 281 SB to US 82 WB/US 277 SB so traffic headed to the Kell (US 82 WB/US 277 SB) had to use frontage roads through downtown Wichita Falls to the Kell frontage roads. The Kell Freeway ended just east of Brook Avenue at that time.
Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2026, 12:54:48 PMThat's such a weird endpoint.
Quote from: okroads on April 21, 2026, 01:44:09 PMThe elevated portion between 8th Street & Kell was completed in summer 2001.
Ah, thank you! Now it makes total sense. Yes, I see now on the historic aerials that 8th Street is where the freeway ended/began.
It would make more sense for I-44 in Wichita Falls to end at the Kell Freeway interchange. But that would have required renumbering a bunch of exit ramps, sign tabs, etc. -all to accommodate a pair of elevated highway bridges that run for just a few city blocks. So they never bothered with it.
Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2026, 11:34:57 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 21, 2026, 10:50:14 AMPer my research using 1971 and 1972 road maps from two companies, the Texas section was built to freeway standards by then.
I do recall 2 miles of 8-lane freeway in Wichita Falls. So it looks like the only missing link then was to connect the Bailey to I-240.
According to the AASHTO archives, the entire corridor in Oklahoma would "be a fully controlled access facility" once the "pending construction of the interchange at Rogers Lane and US 277 just north of Lawton" was completed. That was as of early 1975, and I'm not sure exactly what year the interchange there was completed.
Oklahoma stated in the same agenda item that Texas had already agreed to "take immediate steps to improve the section between the Red River and Wichita Falls to controlled access standards" once the I-44 designation had been approved. That's an interesting tidbit, considering that your map research shows it to have already been up to freeway standards three years earlier. Maybe there were just one or two little things that needed to be upgraded on the Texas side?
I'm looking at the 1971 aerial map now, and I see the following deficiencies:
— At-grade intersection of US-277 & Shallowfield Road (eliminated by 1984 aerial map via frontage road)
— At-grade intersection of US-277 & East Road (eliminated by 1983 aerial map via grade separation, current Exit #7)
— At-grade driveway access to commercial property just north of Bacon Switch Road on east side of US-277 (eliminated by 1983 aerial map via frontage road)
I don't recall all the exact details. It was a high-speed 4 lane highway that on first drive looked all freeway. But those aerial maps would clarify it.
Looks like I was wrong about a missing link at OKC. I got my 1971 Texas/Oklahoma AAA map that was with me on that 1971 trip. This shows it all freeway between I-35 in OKC and the Wichita Falls small freeway system (US-287 east-west and US-277 north-south).
H.E. Bailey Turnpike south of Canadian River, and Southwest Expressway north of the river. Uses a section of future I-240, and a future I-440 that appears on the map.
I do recall a toll-free section at Lawton and one at Chickasha.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 21, 2026, 06:39:17 PMIt would make more sense for I-44 in Wichita Falls to end at the Kell Freeway interchange. But that would have required renumbering a bunch of exit ramps, sign tabs, etc. -all to accommodate a pair of elevated highway bridges that run for just a few city blocks. So they never bothered with it.
Nah. They could just make the Falls Flyover interchange Exit 0 and call it good. Exits 1, 1A, and 1B are already south of mile marker 1 as it is anyway.
Quote from: Beltway on April 21, 2026, 06:46:19 PMI got my 1971 Texas/Oklahoma AAA map that was with me on that 1971 trip. This shows it all freeway between I-35 in OKC and the Wichita Falls small freeway system (US-287 east-west and US-277 north-south).
In 1971, there was still an at-grade intersection in Lawton, plus the couple of at-grade intersections in Texas that I already mentioned. At least. So, if your AAA map shows it as having been full freeway at that time, then they were overly optimistic.
Quote from: Beltway on April 21, 2026, 06:46:19 PMI do recall a toll-free section at Lawton and one at Chickasha.
The Lawton area is still a free portion. However, I don't think the same is true of Chickasha.
Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2026, 06:54:44 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 21, 2026, 06:46:19 PMI got my 1971 Texas/Oklahoma AAA map that was with me on that 1971 trip. This shows it all freeway between I-35 in OKC and the Wichita Falls small freeway system (US-287 east-west and US-277 north-south).
In 1971, there was still an at-grade intersection in Lawton, plus the couple of at-grade intersections in Texas that I already mentioned. At least. So, if your AAA map shows it as having been full freeway at that time, then they were overly optimistic.
The scale on the main map is large -- 14 miles is 1/2 inch. So it would be hard to show. The highway itself I would surmise was limited access right-of-way with a few at-grade intersections.
Quote from: Beltway on April 21, 2026, 07:00:43 PMThe scale on the main map is large -- 14 miles is 1/2 inch. So it would be hard to show. The highway itself I would surmise was limited access right-of-way with a few at-grade intersections.
Sometimes map makers are just overly optimistic. I once e-mailed Rand McNally because US-65 between Springfield and Branson was shown as a freeway the whole way, when in fact the highway south of Ozark–Nixa was (and is) very much
not a freeway. In either the next edition or the one after that, the error was corrected.
Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2026, 07:16:48 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 21, 2026, 07:00:43 PMThe scale on the main map is large -- 14 miles is 1/2 inch. So it would be hard to show. The highway itself I would surmise was limited access right-of-way with a few at-grade intersections.
Sometimes map makers are just overly optimistic. I once e-mailed Rand McNally because US-65 between Springfield and Branson was shown as a freeway the whole way, when in fact the highway south of Ozark–Nixa was (and is) very much not a freeway. In either the next edition or the one after that, the error was corrected.
AAA at least then used "controlled access" for the two black lines with red in between. An at-grade expressway could fit into that category depending on definition.
Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2026, 01:05:37 PMIf this is indeed the case, and I-44 ends at 8th Street, then AARoads Maps and the AARoads wiki article on I-44 are both wrong.
Well, geez, between this and the I-44 in OK article, it looks like I'm going to have a bunch of I-44-related stuff on my to-do list...
Quote from: kphogerNah. They could just make the Falls Flyover interchange Exit 0 and call it good. Exits 1, 1A, and 1B are already south of mile marker 1 as it is anyway.
If the terminus of I-44 was moved to the Kell interchange the Mile 1 marker would need to be relocated South about three quarters of a mile. The Holliday and Broad Street overheads span over half a mile. Add another couple or so tenths of a mile for ramps to get to the center of the Falls Flyover. That would shuffle things for Exits 1A thru 1D, 2, etc.
Quote from: kphogerIn 1971, there was still an at-grade intersection in Lawton, plus the couple of at-grade intersections in Texas that I already mentioned. At least. So, if your AAA map shows it as having been full freeway at that time, then they were overly optimistic.
When I was elementary school aged in the 1970's I seem to remember the highway having one or more at grade railroad crossings. I think there was one just South of the tri-level bridges at the Cache Road interchange. This would have been in the 1974-77 time frame.
Quote from: kphogerThe Lawton area is still a free portion. However, I don't think the same is true of Chickasha.
There is no toll to get on or off I-44 at the US-81 exit. But there are no other free exits adjacent to it.
It will be interesting to see how the US-81 bypass interchange with I-44 will be tolled once that interchange is built. OTA may just erect toll tag readers on I-44 North and South of that new interchange (kind of like what they've been doing with some other newly re-built turnpike exits).
In the Lawton Fort Sill area I-44 is toll free from Exit 46 by the Comanche Tribal Complex in Medicine Park down to Exit 30 (the OK-36 exit for Geronimo, Faxon and Frederick).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 22, 2026, 10:23:14 PMWhen I was elementary school aged in the 1970's I seem to remember the highway having one or more at grade railroad crossings. I think there was one just South of the tri-level bridges at the Cache Road interchange. This would have been in the 1974-77 time frame.
I think I see a grade crossing just north of Rogers Lane in 1970 on Historic Aerials: it crossed the highway in line with Tucker Road on Fort Sill, and
you can see the curve of where it used to run on Google satellite view (https://maps.app.goo.gl/YEf3wvpwyCMtoFgs5)). However, it appears to have been removed by 1975. The crossing
south of the tri-level (https://maps.app.goo.gl/k7QGizMoLxERMxL29), on the other hand, was already grade-separated in the 1970 view.
On cable barriers, I once worked for a guy who sung their praises and yes, when properly installed and maintained they are quite strong and perform well...
...BUT, if they get hit once, you have to re-tension the entire system (which my former boss admitted). So, despite the pros, that's why their implementation has been diminishing or restricted to certain situations.
Quote from: Rothman on April 23, 2026, 04:17:13 PMOn cable barriers, I once worked for a guy who sung their praises and yes, when properly installed and maintained they are quite strong and perform well...
...BUT, if they get hit once, you have to re-tension the entire system (which my former boss admitted). So, despite the pros, that's why their implementation has been diminishing or restricted to certain situations.
Tension zones are in the 1,000 to 2,000 foot long range on high-tension cable guardrail. Anchor footers are used to tie a segment terminus to the ground. That would be the only part needing to be retensioned.
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2026, 09:00:00 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 23, 2026, 04:17:13 PMOn cable barriers, I once worked for a guy who sung their praises and yes, when properly installed and maintained they are quite strong and perform well...
...BUT, if they get hit once, you have to re-tension the entire system (which my former boss admitted). So, despite the pros, that's why their implementation has been diminishing or restricted to certain situations.
Tension zones are in the 1,000 to 2,000 foot long range on high-tension cable guardrail. Anchor footers are used to tie a segment terminus to the ground. That would be the only part needing to be retensioned.
Eh, that just supports my point given how much easier box beam is to replace, in particular.
Quote from: Rothman on April 23, 2026, 09:07:16 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 23, 2026, 09:00:00 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 23, 2026, 04:17:13 PMOn cable barriers, I once worked for a guy who sung their praises and yes, when properly installed and maintained they are quite strong and perform well...
...BUT, if they get hit once, you have to re-tension the entire system (which my former boss admitted). So, despite the pros, that's why their implementation has been diminishing or restricted to certain situations.
Tension zones are in the 1,000 to 2,000 foot long range on high-tension cable guardrail. Anchor footers are used to tie a segment terminus to the ground. That would be the only part needing to be retensioned.
Eh, that just supports my point given how much easier box beam is to replace, in particular.
Same with W-beam, comes in 25 foot sections. But on high-tension cable guardrail they don't "re-tension the entire system."
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2026, 09:10:43 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 23, 2026, 09:07:16 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 23, 2026, 09:00:00 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 23, 2026, 04:17:13 PMOn cable barriers, I once worked for a guy who sung their praises and yes, when properly installed and maintained they are quite strong and perform well...
...BUT, if they get hit once, you have to re-tension the entire system (which my former boss admitted). So, despite the pros, that's why their implementation has been diminishing or restricted to certain situations.
Tension zones are in the 1,000 to 2,000 foot long range on high-tension cable guardrail. Anchor footers are used to tie a segment terminus to the ground. That would be the only part needing to be retensioned.
Eh, that just supports my point given how much easier box beam is to replace, in particular.
Same with W-beam, comes in 25 foot sections. But on high-tension cable guardrail they don't "re-tension the entire system."
25' < 1,000'
No, no, it has to be re-tensioned all the way to Joplin. Doesn't matter what highway it's on.
Quote from: Rothman on April 23, 2026, 09:17:41 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 23, 2026, 09:10:43 PMSame with W-beam, comes in 25 foot sections. But on high-tension cable guardrail they don't "re-tension the entire system."
25' < 1,000'
A large truck can destroy 200 feet of W-beam guardrail. And it is less effective than high-tension cable guardrail.
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2026, 12:00:32 AMQuote from: Rothman on April 23, 2026, 09:17:41 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 23, 2026, 09:10:43 PMSame with W-beam, comes in 25 foot sections. But on high-tension cable guardrail they don't "re-tension the entire system."
25' < 1,000'
A large truck can destroy 200 feet of W-beam guardrail. And it is less effective than high-tension cable guardrail.
200' < 1,000' and still easier to replace than cable...
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2026, 12:07:45 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 24, 2026, 12:00:32 AMQuote from: Rothman on April 23, 2026, 09:17:41 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 23, 2026, 09:10:43 PMSame with W-beam, comes in 25 foot sections. But on high-tension cable guardrail they don't "re-tension the entire system."
25' < 1,000'
A large truck can destroy 200 feet of W-beam guardrail. And it is less effective than high-tension cable guardrail.
200' < 1,000' and still easier to replace than cable...
Not necessarily. The cables are generally reusable and the weak posts are less expensive than the strong posts.
With W-beam the whole stretch needs to be replaced -- posts, blockouts and beams. More labor needed as well.
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2026, 12:11:19 AMQuote from: Rothman on April 24, 2026, 12:07:45 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 24, 2026, 12:00:32 AMQuote from: Rothman on April 23, 2026, 09:17:41 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 23, 2026, 09:10:43 PMSame with W-beam, comes in 25 foot sections. But on high-tension cable guardrail they don't "re-tension the entire system."
25' < 1,000'
A large truck can destroy 200 feet of W-beam guardrail. And it is less effective than high-tension cable guardrail.
200' < 1,000' and still easier to replace than cable...
Not necessarily. The cables are generally reusable and the weak posts are less expensive than the strong posts.
With W-beam the whole stretch needs to be replaced -- posts, blockouts and beams. More labor needed as well.
All I can say to that is the cost analysis of which guiderail type to use has been done by DOTs and it refutes this off-the-cuff idea of yours.
Question: If re-tensioning cable barriers is too cumbersome, has there been any study about layering guardrails? So, have an inner layer at the centerline of the median and an outer layer between the edge of pavement and the inner layer?
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2026, 06:59:35 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 24, 2026, 12:11:19 AMQuote from: Rothman on April 24, 2026, 12:07:45 AMQuote from: Beltway on April 24, 2026, 12:00:32 AMQuote from: Rothman on April 23, 2026, 09:17:41 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 23, 2026, 09:10:43 PMSame with W-beam, comes in 25 foot sections. But on high-tension cable guardrail they don't "re-tension the entire system."
25' < 1,000'
A large truck can destroy 200 feet of W-beam guardrail. And it is less effective than high-tension cable guardrail.
200' < 1,000' and still easier to replace than cable...
Not necessarily. The cables are generally reusable and the weak posts are less expensive than the strong posts. With W-beam the whole stretch needs to be replaced -- posts, blockouts and beams. More labor needed as well.
All I can say to that is the cost analysis of which guiderail type to use has been done by DOTs and it refutes this off-the-cuff idea of yours.
So where are these cost analyses that you are referring to?
You know that it varies widely depending on 1) AADT, 2) median width, and 3) barrier type.
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2026, 11:30:49 AMSo where are these cost analyses that you are referring to?
Albany, I'd imagine.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 24, 2026, 08:38:49 AMQuestion: If re-tensioning cable barriers is too cumbersome, has there been any study about layering guardrails? So, have an inner layer at the centerline of the median and an outer layer between the edge of pavement and the inner layer?
What's the need for this, though?
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2026, 03:38:12 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on April 24, 2026, 08:38:49 AMQuestion: If re-tensioning cable barriers is too cumbersome, has there been any study about layering guardrails? So, have an inner layer at the centerline of the median and an outer layer between the edge of pavement and the inner layer?
What's the need for this, though?
If re-tensioning cable barriers is less cost effective than a standard guardrail, but have better crash absorption than a guardrail, would layering guardrails fill the void between maintenance cost and crash absorption?
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 24, 2026, 04:03:05 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 24, 2026, 03:38:12 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on April 24, 2026, 08:38:49 AMQuestion: If re-tensioning cable barriers is too cumbersome, has there been any study about layering guardrails? So, have an inner layer at the centerline of the median and an outer layer between the edge of pavement and the inner layer?
What's the need for this, though?
If re-tensioning cable barriers is less cost effective than a standard guardrail, but have better crash absorption than a guardrail, would layering guardrails fill the void between maintenance cost and crash absorption?
Do we need better crash absorption than what box beam or other standard guiderail currently provides?
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2026, 12:00:32 AMA large truck can destroy 200 feet of W-beam guardrail. And it is less effective than high-tension cable guardrail.
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2026, 04:07:23 PMDo we need better crash absorption than what box beam or other standard guiderail currently provides?
Maybe?
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2026, 04:07:23 PMguiderail
Also: stop that. Stop pretending that's a word. I don't care if you
are from New York.
Quote from: kphoger on April 24, 2026, 05:48:44 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 24, 2026, 04:07:23 PMguiderail
Also: stop that. Stop pretending that's a word. I don't care if you are from New York.
PA uses it too. Apparently a court case forces us to.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 24, 2026, 05:56:47 PMQuote from: kphoger on April 24, 2026, 05:48:44 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 24, 2026, 04:07:23 PMguiderail
Also: stop that. Stop pretending that's a word. I don't care if you are from New York.
PA uses it too. Apparently a court case forces us to.
PennDOT mainly called it
guard fence in the 1970s and before.
Quote from: kphoger on April 24, 2026, 04:19:09 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 24, 2026, 12:00:32 AMA large truck can destroy 200 feet of W-beam guardrail. And it is less effective than high-tension cable guardrail.
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2026, 04:07:23 PMDo we need better crash absorption than what box beam or other standard guiderail currently provides?
Maybe?
I'm not hearing a lot of clamoring for it. Closest there was to that was a road meet attendee that told me all work zones should have temporary concrete barrier (which would be a huge expense...but it may save lives...despite the fact that reckless or under the influence drivers still find a way to kill people behind TCB...).
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2026, 12:00:32 AMQuote from: Rothman on April 23, 2026, 09:17:41 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 23, 2026, 09:10:43 PMSame with W-beam, comes in 25 foot sections. But on high-tension cable guardrail they don't "re-tension the entire system."
25' < 1,000'
A large truck can destroy 200 feet of W-beam guardrail. And it is less effective than high-tension cable guardrail.
And one might argue that continuous jersey barrier is more effective than that....
Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2026, 06:54:44 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 21, 2026, 06:46:19 PMI got my 1971 Texas/Oklahoma AAA map that was with me on that 1971 trip. This shows it all freeway between I-35 in OKC and the Wichita Falls small freeway system (US-287 east-west and US-277 north-south).
In 1971, there was still an at-grade intersection in Lawton, plus the couple of at-grade intersections in Texas that I already mentioned. At least. So, if your AAA map shows it as having been full freeway at that time, then they were overly optimistic.
Quote from: Beltway on April 21, 2026, 06:46:19 PMI do recall a toll-free section at Lawton and one at Chickasha.
The Lawton area is still a free portion. However, I don't think the same is true of Chickasha.
There has never been a free section in Chickasha. When the Bailey opened in 1964, there was only a half-diamond at US62 (entry NB and exit SB).
How about two cable barriers? :awesomeface:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MzHdx2xsFjNRYMLA7
That double cable barrier thing is kind of similar to this short segment in Lawton:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6140795,-98.380256,3a,75y,184.2h,79.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s31Z3tQQb8ow-YJB0tcVx0g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D10.404571383823097%26panoid%3D31Z3tQQb8ow-YJB0tcVx0g%26yaw%3D184.20334629662545!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDQyNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
That paved spot was originally created as a crossover point for past road construction where one set of lanes would be shut down and opposing traffic shifted to one lane on the other side. The cable barriers were installed later. I have seen OHP and local police use that as a turn-around point. The cables barriers are staggered so a vehicle can pass between them.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 28, 2026, 03:59:50 PMThat paved spot was originally created as a crossover point for past road construction where one set of lanes would be shut down and opposing traffic shifted to one lane on the other side. The cable barriers were installed later.
Yes, it's similar with the I-35 example I posted, although the crossover was actually an interchange between the exit and head-to-head traffic while one half of the Interstate was closed.
Here's the same spot (https://maps.app.goo.gl/VxAGn5rVUzC3JbWL6) during the road construction project.
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2026, 03:09:33 PMHow about two cable barriers? :awesomeface:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MzHdx2xsFjNRYMLA7
Exactly. There are a variety of treatments.
Segment of I-64 between Covington and Clifton Forge, Virginia.
A 15 foot grass median treated with 2 runs of high-tension cable guardrail. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Covington,+VA+24426/@37.7878003,-79.8961663,3a,37.5y,232.51h,85.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sv61R9Ka_PyqlCTMR00tZEQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.531754098587797%26panoid%3Dv61R9Ka_PyqlCTMR00tZEQ%26yaw%3D232.50995798701868!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x884cf662b2c74a1f:0x6d8ad3bcf2a9a7f3!8m2!3d37.7934585!4d-79.9939463!16zL20vMG1wMjU?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDQyNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D%5B/url)
Talk about a narrow median? Kanawha Boulevard in Charleston, W. Va. says hello.
(https://i.imgur.com/Bk4te4P.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/cBHy7sX.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/kqdWPvW.jpeg)
Quote from: The_Ginger on May 01, 2026, 08:33:55 PMTalk about a narrow median? Kanawha Boulevard in Charleston, W. Va. says hello.
Designate that as an Interstate, and then we'll talk.
Quote from: CoreySamson on April 19, 2026, 11:58:45 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on April 19, 2026, 09:50:53 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 19, 2026, 02:06:03 PMInteresting but several sources support Wichita Falls being the main factor, a ~97,000 population in 1960 with no Interstate highway service.
Cite them, then.
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2026, 02:06:03 PMSeems like a pretty decent state to me.
Well, yeah, it seems pretty decent because you don't have to live there.
I think it's decent. But then again, I'm not everyone.
It's OK
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2026, 12:10:47 PMQuote from: Beltway on April 20, 2026, 11:09:26 AMYou are in a real roads thread -- not in Off Topic -- the standards are much higher.
Overruled; observation is relevant to establish credibility.
And here, I was getting excited that maybe News broke about I 44 getting extended to I 20. Given the amount of replies a new post I should've known beltway was somehow involved.
Sorry about my messed up quote I don't know how to fix it. I've been playing around with it trying to fix it and I'm not sure how to do it.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 04, 2026, 12:41:06 AMSorry about my messed up quote I don't know how to fix it. I've been playing around with it trying to fix it and I'm not sure how to do it.
Fixed. The trick to them is that every quote tag needs to have a corresponding /quote tag—if there's a mismatch then what happened to you is what happens.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 04, 2026, 12:39:53 AMAnd here, I was getting excited that maybe News broke about I 44 getting extended to I 20. Given the amount of replies a new post I should've known beltway was somehow involved.
Actually, this is the roadgeekiest I've gotten on the forum in quite a while. I'm rather proud of this thread.
Quote from: kphoger on May 04, 2026, 09:17:30 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on May 04, 2026, 12:39:53 AMAnd here, I was getting excited that maybe News broke about I 44 getting extended to I 20. Given the amount of replies a new post I should've known beltway was somehow involved.
Actually, this is the roadgeekiest I've gotten on the forum in quite a while. I'm rather proud of this thread.
Oh, it's a good thread no doubt. I'm just saying I was away for a couple days and then this thread blew up and I'm just not surprised Beltway is involved.
I would have been more hopeful for an eventual Interstate upgrade of US-277 from Wichita Falls to Abilene if the Kell Freeway extension to the Holliday Bypass hadn't been derailed. The new terrain paths that were proposed would have removed some homes along the way. The currently proposed "solution" is a very modest upgrade of the existing non-divided 4-lane street, widening it to add a center turn lane. I think that area is the ugliest part of Wichita Falls. A bunch of corrugated metal buildings and other industrial stuff line the narrow road there. I'd kind of like to see an extension of Kell Freeway that just upgrades US-277 in place and relocates a bunch of that industrial stuff next to the road.
As far as I can tell there are no plans to add a freeway bypass around the town of Anson.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 04, 2026, 11:17:13 AMThe currently proposed "solution" is a very modest upgrade of the existing non-divided 4-lane street, widening it to add a center turn lane.
Do you have a link to those plans? I'd be interested to take a close look at it. Personally, I don't mind the business frontages, but the cross-traffic at a couple of spots could really use some improvement.
When I search online I can't find anything on the Kell project anymore, even the older materials that showed possible freeway alignments between the existing West end of the Kell Freeway and Holliday Bypass. I suspect all of that stuff has been removed from the TX DOT web site.
An I-49 extension to Abilene to me is a no-brainer. Connecting two cities of 100K+ population. Don't even need a shield, just bypass Anson and see where it goes.
I detect a lot of Tushka-Atoka-Stringtown energy with Anson, though.
Quote from: Road Hog on May 04, 2026, 05:54:28 PMAn I-49 extension to Abilene to me is a no-brainer.
As in, only someone with no brain would think extending I-49 to Abilene would be a good idea? Abilene is nowhere near I-49.
Quote from: Road Hog on May 04, 2026, 05:54:28 PMjust bypass Anson and see where it goes.
I detect a lot of Tushka-Atoka-Stringtown energy with Anson, though.
Has anyone since the 1970s, outside roadgeek circles, even proposed extending I-44 to Abilene?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 21, 2026, 06:39:17 PMIt would make more sense for I-44 in Wichita Falls to end at the Kell Freeway interchange. But that would have required renumbering a bunch of exit ramps, sign tabs, etc. -all to accommodate a pair of elevated highway bridges that run for just a few city blocks. So they never bothered with it.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 22, 2026, 10:23:14 PMIf the terminus of I-44 was moved to the Kell interchange the Mile 1 marker would need to be relocated South about three quarters of a mile. The Holliday and Broad Street overheads span over half a mile. Add another couple or so tenths of a mile for ramps to get to the center of the Falls Flyover. That would shuffle things for Exits 1A thru 1D, 2, etc.
To be honest, those mile marker and other sign changes seem like small potatoes. I-44 only has 15 miles in Texas. Exits 1, 1A, and 1B wouldn't even need to change numbers, either, because the new MM-2 would be just south of N. 8th St.
Quote from: kphoger on May 04, 2026, 06:01:21 PMQuote from: Road Hog on May 04, 2026, 05:54:28 PMAn I-49 extension to Abilene to me is a no-brainer.
As in, only someone with no brain would think extending I-49 to Abilene would be a good idea? Abilene is nowhere near I-49.
I was thinking the same thing. Not only is I-49 no where near Abilene, I would never see I-49 even entering Texas period. :bigass:
Obviously, Road Hog meant Interstate 44. I doubt the US 277 corridor needs an Interstate-Standard freeway constructed between Wichita Falls and Abilene. Then again, this is Texas, where any corridor can become an Interstate Highway.
Quote from: kphoger on May 04, 2026, 06:01:21 PMQuote from: Road Hog on May 04, 2026, 05:54:28 PMAn I-49 extension to Abilene to me is a no-brainer.
As in, only someone with no brain would think extending I-49 to Abilene would be a good idea? Abilene is nowhere near I-49.
Quote from: Road Hog on May 04, 2026, 05:54:28 PMjust bypass Anson and see where it goes.
I detect a lot of Tushka-Atoka-Stringtown energy with Anson, though.
Has anyone since the 1970s, outside roadgeek circles, even proposed extending I-44 to Abilene?
From the Tulsa World, July 17, 1993:
Quote(OTA) member Gilbert Gibson revealed he has met twice with Texas officials to encourage and extension of I44 from Wichita Falls to Abilene.
More to follow.
This one gives more details:
From the Abilene Reporter-News. (July 24, 1994). Newspapers.com. Retrieved May 5, 2026, from https://www.newspapers.com/article/abilene-reporter-news/196965343/
QuoteTaking toll on roads to NAFTA By DOUG WILLIAMSON Business Editor
If traffic is the deciding factor in a feasibility study due in August on the proposed Two Nations Turnpike, don't expect construction to start anytime soon. Texas Turnpike Authority officials aren't optimistic that the LOCAL traffic count would produce enough revenue to pay for the toll road from I-20 in Abilene to Interstate 44 in Wichita Falls. The final word won't come until release of a $144,970 feasibility study by Wilbur Smith Associates which is almost completed and will be given to authority officials in August. However, leaders in Abilene are touting the city as a future "crossroads of Texas". "The problem is traffic.
There's just not much traffic out there," said Jerry Shelton, director of administration for the Texas Turnpike Authority. "When we build something, normally we do it completely by revenue bonds. We are prohibited from receiving any state funds, so something has to be feasible financially before we can undertake it. We will wait and see how it looks but in that part of the state there's just not that much traffic. I hate to second guess the study but I don't think there's going to be enough traffic." That concern is shared by John Smolly, vice president of the division of Transportation Finance Technology for Wilbur Smith Associates, who is completing the feasibility study.
"The revenue potential will have to be determined at a current year level," said Smolly, who has not seen the traffic figures to determine the road's feasibility. "I don't know the construction costs, but because it is a low traffic density corridor it's going to be very close because roadway is not cheap to build. However, I imagine it's cheaper to build in West Texas than in highly urban areas and that will benefit the proposal." Charlie Dromgoole, president of the Abilene Chamber of Commerce, agrees it may be a close call, but he said Abilene's got a good chance of getting the road to NAFTA. Bill Senter, chairman of the chamber's transportation committee, said, "Sure there's not enough traffic today. But when you consider we are not just connecting cities, but also connecting countries, there will be plenty.' The Interstate 35 route is perceived as the hottest competition, but Senter pooh-poohs the idea.
"Whatever road they choose will have to be widened," he said. "Do you think they want to buy that land (right way) by the square foot through the cities, or by the acre out here? Shelton said even if traffic count doesn't show enough projected revenue for the project where estimated costs range from $85 million to $370 million, there are other options to building the new on passage. proposed road. "The Texas Turnpike Authority normally only builds projects where funds project enough revenue to make bond payments," Shelton said. "But legislation has changed so that now we can (build roads) in cooperation with other people even though our part of the costs must be paid strictly on the revenues expected from the toll facility." Among the options if traffic revenues won't pay for the construction costs: The Texas Department of Transportation could loan money for partial construction of the road.
A private group could come up with the shortfall. The federal government could put money on the tollroad development because it recognizes the proposal as a road that would aid in developing NAFTA corridors. "There are a number of alternatives," Shelton said. "But all of them would have to have some indication that there would eventually be enough traffic to make it worth the investment." There have already been offers of help. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has said they might kick in $10 million to help the project along SO it would connect into H.E. Bailey Turnpike across the border. Smolly that all the background work had been done on the feasibility study and the group was finishing modeling efforts before submitting the report in August. Senter said the crossroads concept could come to fruition with the border-to-border (NAFTA road) using Highway 277 from Wichita Falls to Abilene and 83 to Laredo and the Port-to-Plains Highway from Texline to Galveston. (Steve Ray of Harte Hanks Austin Bureau contributed to this report.)
Quote from: The GhostbusterObviously, Road Hog meant Interstate 44. I doubt the US 277 corridor needs an Interstate-Standard freeway constructed between Wichita Falls and Abilene. Then again, this is Texas, where any corridor can become an Interstate Highway.
Current traffic levels on that part of US-277 can't justify a full blown Interstate upgrade. However, considering the direction where the global economy is drifting in an increasingly
"multi-polar" world, traffic levels on US-277 could grow dramatically. The US will have to become less reliant on countries like China and relocate production and supply chains closer to home -like in Mexico.
TX DOT has already completed some of the hardest work on such a conversion. The towns of Holliday, Dundee, Seymour, Goree, Munday, Weinert, Haskell and Stamford have 4-lane divided bypasses -most of which are up to or near Interstate standards. It wouldn't take all that much work to bring those highway segments fully up to Interstate quality. The highway has been 4-lane divided between Wichita Falls and Abilene. The only exceptions are the undivided segments in Anson and the SW edge of Wichita Falls.
The segment of US-277 between Anson and Abilene would probably be fairly easy to convert into a freeway. It's currently 4-lane divided and flanked by frontage roads. Key intersections have frontage roads flaring out to make room for possible future exit ramps.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 06, 2026, 10:44:00 AMThe highway has been 4-lane divided between Wichita Falls and Abilene. The only exceptions are the undivided segments in Anson and the SW edge of Wichita Falls.
Haskell County feels left out.
Did you forget about the undivided stretches of US-277 to the north and south of Haskell?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/J1nz72hAsStDCDEk6
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qZTNuBAwkotEDhnF7
I measure about one mile of undivided highway to the north of Haskell and ¾ mile of undivided highway to the south of it.
Those undivided 4-lane segments on the North and South sides of Haskell are pretty brief. I'm guessing they were built like that to avoid taking any of the homes in those locations that were built a little too close to the highway.
On the South side of Haskell they could divert US-277 over the former railroad ROW and have an unobstructed path for a freeway upgrade. The short piece of freeway in Haskell would need some improvements to meet Interstate standards. Right now it basically looks like an undivided 4-lane highway with a center turn lane. A Jersey barrier in that center lane would solve a big part of the problem.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 06, 2026, 10:46:42 PMThe short piece of freeway in Haskell would need some improvements to meet Interstate standards. Right now it basically looks like an undivided 4-lane highway with a center turn lane. A Jersey barrier in that center lane would solve a big part of the problem.
Yes, that's why I didn't bring it up. I figured a Jersey barrier would be most of what's needed—although I don't remember how much of a left shoulder is required these days for Interstates.
I think the current standard for inner left shoulders on Interstates is 4 to 6 feet in width. IIRC the right shoulders need to be 10' to 12' in width.