I posted this in Midwest Roads, as more midwest states, versus Texas, would be affected by an expansion of I-45.
What do you guys think would be a good route if they ever decided to expand I-45? Seems a x5 needs a longer route (we can also address I-30 in another post).
My idea for I-45 would be as follows.
- Follow US 75 from its current terminus to Atoka, OK.
- Follow US 69 to its junction with I-44
- A new I-44/45 multiplex along 44's existing alignment.
- Two options here...Follow US 69 north from Miami, OK to Kansas City OR
- Follow US 71's alignment north to Kansas City
While I realize this may not be a high priority corridor, it'd at least be cool to see I-45 extended north through OK...but while I'm pipe dreaming, why not try and connect to the KC area? :-P
Any other ideas for I-45?
The idea sounds like a darn good one to me. I've envisioned I-45 being extended into Oklahoma along the route you've mentioned many times. IMHO, I'd keep I-45 along US 69 from Miami, OK to Kansas City though.
I don't think such a major route should have a terminus near some small town in central and eastern US. I would extend it to Tulsa at least, via US 75
I agree with this proposal. I've driven US75/US69 north of Dallas before. Beautiful drive, but the congestion in several towns (especially Muskogee) was annoying.
Considering it's rumored that I-49 is already slated, eventually, be completely north along US-71 to Kansas City, I would suggest continuing I-45 north in eastern Kansas to its final destination in KC.
Sykotyk
isn't that what I just said about I-45 following US 69 north of Miami, OK? US 69 runs through extreme eastern Kansas.
But do we really need two interstates that close and parallel to each other without a major uncrossable barrier in between? If the Kansas-Missouri border followed a decent sized river, I could see it, but otherwise someone should have just picked either US 69 or US 71 and upgraded one of them into an interstate.
I think it would be better to route I-45 up US 75 to the Indian Nation Turnpike, then up that turnpike to I-40, then build a new route along US 75 to the Creek Turnpike, overlay the Creek Turnpike to US 169/Mingo Valley Expressway, and then follow US 169 to Kansas City.
For any St. Louis-Dallas traffic, I would have an I-145 continue along US 69 up to I-44 east of Tulsa.
Question is, can you get ODOT to scrounge up the cash to do it? Otherwise you're looking at a turnpike, and the results are never pretty when OTA gets involved...
If I-45 is extended to Kansas City, why not have it replace I-29 from KC to Pembina, ND and the border?
That sounds like a plan HighwayMan, but it would be a grid-buster nonetheless :pan:
Quotebut it would be a grid-buster nonetheless
Like I-59, I-71, I-99, etc? :sombrero:
QuoteIf I-45 is extended to Kansas City, why not have it replace I-29 from KC to Pembina, ND and the border?
Because that's I-49's job.
QuoteIf I-45 is extended to Kansas City, why not have it replace I-29 from KC to Pembina, ND and the border?
I like it and maybe MB-75 in Manitoba could be renumbered as MB-45 :biggrin:
as for I-29 it could be re-assigned to another corridor like the US-81 corridor from Wichita to Nebraska
QuoteBecause that's I-49's job.
But wouldn't an I-x5 number be more important for such a cross country connection? (I-45).
Either way (I-45 or I-49) it would be a grid-buster :sombrero:. I favor I-45 because of Chris's suggestion that it would be a cross-country route that warrants the I-45 designation over the I-49.
or I-69 :-P
Sorry for bumping an old post but was just thinking about this yesterday. I-45 turns into US-75 and remains a freeway into Oklahoma, why has it not been extended?
Quote from: texaskdog on December 01, 2013, 09:02:25 AM
Sorry for bumping an old post but was just thinking about this yesterday. I-45 turns into US-75 and remains a freeway into Oklahoma, why has it not been extended?
Because Obama hates Oklahoma.
Quote from: texaskdog on December 01, 2013, 09:02:25 AM
Sorry for bumping an old post but was just thinking about this yesterday. I-45 turns into US-75 and remains a freeway into Oklahoma, why has it not been extended?
With other already-interstate-ish corridors being able to add Interstate labels to their sections due to the change in rules for connectivity, they could at least do I-45 north to say, Sherman at US 82, while we wait for some kind of pot-of-gold in OK. If the DOTters in OK could maybe at least fix the part up to Durant at US 70, then there would be an economic-development angle (the Choctaw Casino is along the highway near there); working on more northerly extensions afterward.
For some reason, other than some media reports I've seen from the Sherman area, there seems to be surprisingly little push from locals/lawmakers/whoever to extend I-45 farther north. I'm not sure why that is.
In Texas, US 75 is freeway all the way to the Red River bridge and beyond. A lot of it is substandard, especially through Sherman, but a rebuild is planned there sometime in the next decade.
In Oklahoma, much of 69/75 from the Red River to Checotah is already freeway-grade. Most of it is divided highway except for a few small towns – Tushka, Atoka, Stringtown, Kiowa, leaving out a couple – along the way. The problem is, these towns don't want to be bypassed. They like the sales tax revenue from businesses on the highway and they LOVE the revenue from speeders.
If ODOT wanted to, it could upgrade 69 the same way 71 was upgraded in Missouri. Just build some bypasses around those towns, get it to tie in to I-40 and that'll be enough to sign it as I-45. But the state of Oklahoma has no desire. This is a very busy truck route and it's crying for an upgrade. It's unfortunate.
Whatever US-69 in Oklahoma is called in the future, the road seriously needs an upgrade up to Big Cabin, OK where it meets I-44. The route has an unreal amount of truck traffic on it. That situation needs to be addressed over the long term.
I would certainly be in favor of calling a US-69 upgrade I-45, even with it bypassing the east side of Tulsa. That's the route that would be more sense for I-45 to be extended in the big picture view of the entire Interstate highway system. US-75 north of Henrietta could stand to be upgraded to a limited access highway, perhaps turning the Indian Nation Turnpike and US-75 into I-445.
It's true there is a lot of local resistance to upgrading US-69 to Interstate standards. But I think the resistance is coming from a point of ignorance. Towns notorious for speed traps often see their local economies diminish due to long distance travelers avoiding the route entirely. Long haul truckers accustomed to the route know how to deal with it. In the end they get less business from travelers and tourists yet the same amount of damage to their streets from all the trucks.
Some towns along US-69 would have to be bypassed if I-45 were to be extended to Big Cabin. Muskogee is the biggest one. There's too much built up alongside 32nd Street in Muskogee to convert that into a freeway. A few other towns along the route are small enough that it might be cheaper to buy up property in the ROW to upgrade the existing route.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 02, 2013, 12:09:01 PM
Some towns along US-69 would have to be bypassed if I-45 were to be extended to Big Cabin. Muskogee is the biggest one. There's too much built up alongside 32nd Street in Muskogee to convert that into a freeway.
SH 165 is the obvious route for said bypass. Though there were obvious plans to continue the freeway from the curve with the wide median near Summit - maybe that would tie into 165.
And Atoka definitely cannot be upgraded on the spot.
Something to think about: If I-45 is ever extended to Kansas City, then there'd be the argument of which of three routes (I-29, I-45 or I-49) should be extended beyond there, but then again, with I-49 now in the picture, this might be asking too much.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 02, 2013, 12:09:01 PM
Towns notorious for speed traps often see their local economies diminish due to long distance travelers avoiding the route entirely.
When I drive from Tulsa to Dallas, I take I-44 and I-35 through OKC because it is a much more relaxed drive than 75/INT/69/75. I don't avoid the direct route because of the speed trips so much, but because I hate slowing down and speeding up, and that road probably has 15 speed limit changes between McAlester and the Red River. It's easier to just cruise at 75 and know the slowest speed limit you will encounter is 60 through OKC.
I've always imagined I-45 going north from Dallas along US 75/US 69 to Big Cabin, OK, then following I-44 to the Lebanon, MO, area....then a new highway alignment (near MO 5) up to Camdenton and following US 54 through the Lake of the Ozarks and Jefferson City....a new alignment from Mexico connecting to I-72 near Hannibal (and possibly north from there to Iowa). This would put I-45 right between I-35 and I-55 and provide a north-south interstate route through Missouri midway between Kansas City and St. Louis.
My idea:
I-45, US 75, US 69, I-40, I-540, I-49, I-29.
Quote from: bugo on December 03, 2013, 12:35:54 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 02, 2013, 12:09:01 PM
Towns notorious for speed traps often see their local economies diminish due to long distance travelers avoiding the route entirely.
When I drive from Tulsa to Dallas, I take I-44 and I-35 through OKC because it is a much more relaxed drive than 75/INT/69/75. I don't avoid the direct route because of the speed trips so much, but because I hate slowing down and speeding up, and that road probably has 15 speed limit changes between McAlester and the Red River. It's easier to just cruise at 75 and know the slowest speed limit you will encounter is 60 through OKC.
You know, this makes me wonder why the hell they sent the INT to Hugo instead of making it follow US-75 to Durant. Was there really that much traffic headed from Tulsa to Paris, Texas?
Dayum. The INT has barely 1/10 the traffic US 69-75 gets south of their junction.
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/hqdiv/p-r-div/maps/aadt/2008/statemap.pdf
https://www.pikepass.com/PDF/Indian%20Nation%20Yearly%202008.pdf
If I-45 gets extended to Tulsa/I-44/Kansas City, then surely it's totally legit to renumber I-35E as a 3di? After all both cities would have major, through, N-S I-x5 routes.
Though I guess Fort Worth would want an I-45 loop, given Dallas would have an I-35 one.
Quote from: 1 on December 03, 2013, 04:56:36 PM
My idea:
I-45, US 75, US 69, I-40, I-540, I-49, I-29.
But you are aware that eventually the two pieces of I-49 will connect to each other. Maybe not in any of our lifetimes, but eventually.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 04, 2013, 09:20:51 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 03, 2013, 12:35:54 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 02, 2013, 12:09:01 PM
Towns notorious for speed traps often see their local economies diminish due to long distance travelers avoiding the route entirely.
When I drive from Tulsa to Dallas, I take I-44 and I-35 through OKC because it is a much more relaxed drive than 75/INT/69/75. I don't avoid the direct route because of the speed trips so much, but because I hate slowing down and speeding up, and that road probably has 15 speed limit changes between McAlester and the Red River. It's easier to just cruise at 75 and know the slowest speed limit you will encounter is 60 through OKC.
You know, this makes me wonder why the hell they sent the INT to Hugo instead of making it follow US-75 to Durant. Was there really that much traffic headed from Tulsa to Paris, Texas?
Politics
Politics exactly.
Basically, it was the whole "let's build a turnpike to spur economic growth few people would visit otherwise" kind of thing. Back in the early 1990s the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority board and some politicians, such as then-Governor David Walters, were promoting two turnpike projects that made absolutely no logical sense to build. One project was a Duncan to Davis turnpike and the other was a Clinton to Snyder turnpike. IMHO even if those turnpikes were built they wouldn't spur a whole lot of economic development at all, much less see rising traffic counts from long distance travelers and truckers. They weren't exactly "roads to nowhere," but they would not have complemented the overall Interstate highway system if they were built. The Indian Nation Turnpike, going to Hugo, doesn't complement the overall Interstate highway system.
I remember one argument for the Clinton to Snyder turnpike: eastern Oklahoma has US-75 so western Oklahoma needs a comparable highway to make things "fair." Here's the problem with that: US-75 is a direct link between Dallas and Tulsa. It goes from a very big point A to a pretty big point B. US-75 from Dallas to McAlester is along a very major trucking route (which US-69 takes up to I-44 at Big Cabin). The US-183 corridor in Western Oklahoma serves nowhere near as many people. Clinton to Snyder turnpike proponents tried to characterize the US-183 corridor as a major Mexico to Canada route and alternative/bypass to I-35 and I-29. The truth is not many people are going to use US-183 for a really long distance trip unless that is the fastest route (very unlikely if you have to drive clear up into Canada). US-183 makes a lot of strange time-wasting turns as its spans farm properties and prairies.
If anymore turnpikes (or free limited access highways) are going to be built in Oklahoma they need to be built in corridors that would better serve the overall highway system.
It makes sense to upgrade US-69 from the Red River to Big Cabin, OK and even go so far as to call it I-45. There's probably enough traffic on US-75 between McAlester and Tulsa to justify an upgrade there.
I think there is a huge "spoke" missing from the Interstate highway system between Denver and Oklahoma City. A direct, diagonal Interstate between those two cities would work very much like I-44 does and create a valuable, high speed link for the Pacific Northwest and Deep South. A turnpike from Oklahoma City to Woodward could at least lay the groundwork for the longer distance route. I imagine a route going up into Kansas, halfway between Liberal & Garden City, to Kit Carson in Colorado and ending in at I-70 in Limon, CO.
Taking that a big farther, that diagonal Woodward to Oklahoma City turnpike could be extended farther Southeast toward Texarkana to tie into the developing I-49 corridor. Purcell, Ada, Atoka, Antlers and Idabel could be linked by the turnpike. It could extend into Arkansas and meet I-49 near Ashdown.
I'm not sure if there's enough traffic to justify a western extension of the Cimarron Turnpike through Enid and to Woodward. But it would be easier to justify if a Denver to Oklahoma City Interstate highway was ever built.
Anyway, those are turnpike ideas that actually make logical sense as it pertains to the whole Interstate highway system. It makes a lot more sense than building some 90 degree spur off of I-35 or I-40 way out in the boonies and going to another place in the boonies.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 12, 2013, 12:26:15 PM
I think there is a huge "spoke" missing from the Interstate highway system between Denver and Oklahoma City.
This has always been missing. US 270 had to stairstep across southwestern Kansas: http://www.usends.com/mapguy/MapPgs/mapx70.htm
Nowadays I-135 probably carries much of this traffic, but US 270-412-287 is probably a good enough route for the truck trarffic it gets. The Oklahoma part of this is almost all 3+ lanes (the ODOT map shows 2 lanes with passing lane in blue) and US 287 in Colorado was recently rebuilt for high-speed traffic.
If SH 3 were rerouted between OKC and Watonga, this corridor would only have two numbers. (Or you could reroute and extend US 270, but would AASHTO approve the long overlap to Boise City?)
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 12, 2013, 12:26:15 PM
The Indian Nation Turnpike, going to Hugo, doesn't complement the overall Interstate highway system.
The segment north of McAlester is a part of the Tulsa-Dallas link and is an important part of the limited access highway system. The part south to Hugo is not so much.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 12, 2013, 12:26:15 PM
Taking that a big farther, that diagonal Woodward to Oklahoma City turnpike could be extended farther Southeast toward Texarkana to tie into the developing I-49 corridor. Purcell, Ada, Atoka, Antlers and Idabel could be linked by the turnpike. It could extend into Arkansas and meet I-49 near Ashdown.
A turnpike through the Ouachita Mountains?
Quote from: NE2 on December 12, 2013, 12:43:20 PM
Nowadays I-135 probably carries much of this traffic, but US 270-412-287 is probably a good enough route for the truck trarffic it gets. The Oklahoma part of this is almost all 3+ lanes (the ODOT map shows 2 lanes with passing lane in blue) and US 287 in Colorado was recently rebuilt for high-speed traffic.
The blue lines are not accurate. For example, parts of US 412 between US 281 and US 60 is shown as 3 lanes. In reality there are two relatively short 3 lane sections but most of the road is two lanes.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 12, 2013, 12:26:15 PM
Taking that a big farther, that diagonal Woodward to Oklahoma City turnpike could be extended farther Southeast toward Texarkana to tie into the developing I-49 corridor. Purcell, Ada, Atoka, Antlers and Idabel could be linked by the turnpike. It could extend into Arkansas and meet I-49 near Ashdown.
Eh, is there's any demand for that corridor, just extend the Indian Nation from Hugo to New Boston TX. Drivers who want a shorter route can use SH 3 from Shawnee through Ada-Atoka.
There isn't any demand on that corridor, above what OK-3 currently provides, right now for anything more than a 2 lane highway.
The situation could be different if an Interstate highway directly linking Denver and Oklahoma City existed. A Denver to Texarkana Interstate, running diagonally through Oklahoma (and OKC) would provide a direct route (via I-49) from the ports of New Orleans and that part of of the Gulf Coast to Denver and the Pacific Northwest.
Also this SE OK route, at the least the version of it I was imagining, would skirt the Southern edge of the Ouachita Mountains. The route wouldn't be without environmental concerns, such as passing to the North of Lake Hugo as it ran between Antlers and Idabel.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2013, 02:19:11 PM
A Denver to Texarkana Interstate, running diagonally through Oklahoma (and OKC) would provide a direct route (via I-49) from the ports of New Orleans and that part of of the Gulf Coast to Denver and the Pacific Northwest.
It's doubtful that this would be more direct than US 287/I-30/I-49/I-10.
It would be a more direct route, at least as long as the road alignment didn't take a bunch of the strange twists and turns being forced on the I-69 corridor. Traffic coming from Denver must drive straight South to Raton and then use US-64 and US-87 to Dumas, TX before picking up US-287 (also a mostly North-South route until it reaches Amarillo). Having family in the Colorado Springs and Denver areas I drive the "Ports to Plains" route regularly. It isn't very direct at all.
US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is another one of those routes that might be justified into being upgraded to full Interstate standards due to all the heavy truck traffic on it. I don't think it's quite to the level of what I see on US-69 between Dallas and Big Cabin, OK, but it is quite a lot. Even if US-287 were to upgraded to "I-32," the link between Denver and Oklahoma City would remain as a very obvious missing part of the Interstate highway system. If the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority started proposing new turnpikes this corridor should be near the top of the list on what they should address.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2013, 02:25:58 PM
It would be a more direct route, at least as long as the road alignment didn't take a bunch of the strange twists and turns being forced on the I-69 corridor.
Have you done the calculations? I've only done a few preliminary ones, but it looks like you'd need an assload of diagonals in all the right places.
Starting from Limon, CO all the way to Oklahoma City the route would need to be diagonal, straight as possible, and a great deal of it new terrain, as opposed to upgrading existing roads. There are very few SE to NW diagonal routes in that part of the country. Anyone wanting to drive from Oklahoma City to Denver is stuck taking a lot of N-S and E-W routes and adding a lot of mileage to the trip. It's all mostly a grid out there. East of I-35 there's plenty of diagonal routes going SW to NE. I think at least one major SE to NW route should be built.
US-287/US-40 between Limon, CO and Kit Carson, CO is one of the few roads along that imaginary route that would make any sense to upgrade rather than build a new terrain route alongside. From there to at least Woodward, OK the route would have to be on an all new alignment. It would pass near Sublette, KS, passing halfway between Liberal and Garden City. Even though the route would miss those bigger towns the residents in those communities would still have a much faster link to Denver & Oklahoma City.
OK-3 SE of OKC is a mostly diagonal route, but any turnpike built from Purcell to E of Idabel would need to be on a new alignment, particularly as a toll road.
I'd be pretty happy if only the Denver to OKC link could ever be built. A Denver to Texarkana route is a much longer shot, but I still think it would make sense for the overall Interstate system. Another thing I'd like to see is I-44 extended to at least I-20 in Texas (via US-277 mostly).
Oklahoma City is already crisscrossed N-S & E-W by I-35 and I-40. It would be kind of cool if it was crisscrossed diagonally too. OKC is arguably the geographic center of the Interstate highway system. This concept would do even more to underscore that.
The proposals to extend I-45 to KC via US69 or US75 to KC sound good. Maybe extend it to Tulsa via US75 and INT then run it straight north to junction with I-35 along US75. Maybe this was what was meant in an earlier post and I missed it.
I have always wanted to know why INT went to Hugo. :confused: I just thought there was some big shots who lived in Tulsa and wanted a quick ride to Lake Hugo to go fishing, or make a drug run.
I agree 100% that a turnpike in western OK running NS would be a waste. Being a former Okie and ridden on most of the NS routes out there several times, some very recent, they remind me of Nowhere Land. I don't remember even seeing an OHP on 183. I guess if they built one out there it would never have to be resurfaced because of over use.
When living in Lawton it was rumored at one time that I-44 would run to Altus. I guess the thinking was that it is an E-W interstate plus some dreaming in Altus.
Quote from: NE2 on December 13, 2013, 02:23:59 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2013, 02:19:11 PM
A Denver to Texarkana Interstate, running diagonally through Oklahoma (and OKC) would provide a direct route (via I-49) from the ports of New Orleans and that part of of the Gulf Coast to Denver and the Pacific Northwest.
It's doubtful that this would be more direct than US 287/I-30/I-49/I-10.
Maybe not, but you would be able to avoid the DFW metroplex. That plus the higher speed limits in rural areas would make it worthwhile for me.
Quote from: rte66man on February 05, 2014, 08:00:44 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 13, 2013, 02:23:59 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2013, 02:19:11 PM
A Denver to Texarkana Interstate, running diagonally through Oklahoma (and OKC) would provide a direct route (via I-49) from the ports of New Orleans and that part of of the Gulf Coast to Denver and the Pacific Northwest.
It's doubtful that this would be more direct than US 287/I-30/I-49/I-10.
Maybe not, but you would be able to avoid the DFW metroplex. That plus the higher speed limits in rural areas would make it worthwhile for me.
US 82 and US 69 around DFW is barely longer than through DFW.
Here's another factor that would make a diagonal Texarkana-Oklahoma City-Denver Interstate highway worthwhile:
The Panama Canal.
A major upgrade to the Panama Canal is under construction and set for completion sometime in 2015 or 2016. Once the upgrade is complete all but the very largest class of container ships will be able to navigate the canal. That's going to lead to a pretty big increase in shipping business at Gulf Coast ports. In terms of shipping lane distance, New Orleans is the nearest, most direct American port to/from the Panama Canal. That will put more import/export traffic onto the I-49 corridor. This diagonal SE/NW Interstate route I'm thinking of would tap directly into the I-49 corridor.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 06, 2014, 01:58:39 PM
In terms of shipping lane distance, New Orleans is the nearest, most direct American port to/from the Panama Canal. That will put more import/export traffic onto the I-49 corridor.
Since water transport is more efficient than road/rail, goods bound for Denver should dock at Houston, not New Orleans.
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2014, 12:15:01 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 06, 2014, 01:58:39 PM
In terms of shipping lane distance, New Orleans is the nearest, most direct American port to/from the Panama Canal. That will put more import/export traffic onto the I-49 corridor.
Since water transport is more efficient than road/rail, goods bound for Denver should dock at Houston, not New Orleans.
Better yet, make the Arkansas River navigable to Pueblo. Just a short haul up I-25 from there.
Quote from: Road Hog on February 07, 2014, 10:23:28 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2014, 12:15:01 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 06, 2014, 01:58:39 PM
In terms of shipping lane distance, New Orleans is the nearest, most direct American port to/from the Panama Canal. That will put more import/export traffic onto the I-49 corridor.
Since water transport is more efficient than road/rail, goods bound for Denver should dock at Houston, not New Orleans.
Better yet, make the Arkansas River navigable to Pueblo. Just a short haul up I-25 from there.
Don't know if that can be done, but the river is navigable up to Muskogee, Oklahoma by barges. Offload ships in New Orleans to barges that can go to Muskogee.
Of course, it may be easier to just have those barges go to Kansas City and use I-70 or the BNSF the rest of the way.
Wrong direction, how about expanding 45 south along the coast to Corpus?
There's two big problems with extending I-45 from Galveston down to Corpus Christi via the coastline.
1. The extreme 90 degree turn from Galveston would necessitate a completely different route number. It doesn't make any sense to have an Interstate highway make a big L-shape in its route.
2. I-69 will serve the purpose of being an Interstate link between the Houston and Corpus Christi areas.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2014, 03:20:59 PM
There's two big problems with extending I-45 from Galveston down to Corpus Christi via the coastline.
1. The extreme 90 degree turn from Galveston would necessitate a completely different route number. It doesn't make any sense to have an Interstate highway make a big L-shape in its route.
2. I-69 will serve the purpose of being an Interstate link between the Houston and Corpus Christi areas.
Well it will hook up with I-69E if that makes any sense!!! Plus I was thinking giant piers in the water
Quote from: Brandon on February 07, 2014, 10:34:45 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on February 07, 2014, 10:23:28 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2014, 12:15:01 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 06, 2014, 01:58:39 PM
In terms of shipping lane distance, New Orleans is the nearest, most direct American port to/from the Panama Canal. That will put more import/export traffic onto the I-49 corridor.
Since water transport is more efficient than road/rail, goods bound for Denver should dock at Houston, not New Orleans.
Better yet, make the Arkansas River navigable to Pueblo. Just a short haul up I-25 from there.
Don't know if that can be done, but the river is navigable up to Muskogee, Oklahoma by barges. Offload ships in New Orleans to barges that can go to Muskogee.
I believe that, using the Verdigris River, barge traffic can make it all the way to Catoosa (which is just east of Tulsa).
We have all mentioned how US 75 should be an extended I-45, but what about the US 69 corridor between I-44 and KC area? It will never be done being so close to I-49, but it would be a good path to take it farther north. Plus part of US 69 is freeway anyway as you get close to the Kansas City area it would have some already built for it.
Quote from: leroys73 on February 05, 2014, 04:24:51 PM
I have always wanted to know why INT went to Hugo. :confused: I just thought there was some big shots who lived in Tulsa and wanted a quick ride to Lake Hugo to go fishing, or make a drug run.
There is NO traffic on the Indian Nation Turnpike. That being said, there's not much traffic on the Muskogee Turnpike south ("east") of Muskogee or northern ("eastern") segments of the Creek Turnpike.
Quote from: Road Hog on February 07, 2014, 10:23:28 AM
Better yet, make the Arkansas River navigable to Pueblo. Just a short haul up I-25 from there.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Quote from: Brandon on February 07, 2014, 10:34:45 AM
Don't know if that can be done, but the river is navigable up to Muskogee, Oklahoma by barges. Offload ships in New Orleans to barges that can go to Muskogee.
Northwest of Muskogee, the Verdigris River is navigable to the Port of Catoosa, northeast of Tulsa. Ships would dock there, not in Muskogee. I'm not sure if there's even a port in Muskogee.
Quote from: bugo on February 10, 2014, 11:27:46 AM
Quote from: Brandon on February 07, 2014, 10:34:45 AM
Don't know if that can be done, but the river is navigable up to Muskogee, Oklahoma by barges. Offload ships in New Orleans to barges that can go to Muskogee.
Northwest of Muskogee, the Verdigris River is navigable to the Port of Catoosa, northeast of Tulsa. Ships would dock there, not in Muskogee. I'm not sure if there's even a port in Muskogee.
There is. There is also Port 33 between there and Catoosa.
Quote from: roadman65We have all mentioned how US 75 should be an extended I-45, but what about the US 69 corridor between I-44 and KC area? It will never be done being so close to I-49, but it would be a good path to take it farther north. Plus part of US 69 is freeway anyway as you get close to the Kansas City area it would have some already built for it.
If anything, I could perhaps see the US-69 freeway in Kansas extended 27 miles farther South to Pittsburg years from now if traffic levels increase. But, like you said, with I-49 being so close it's liable to draw Kansas City bound traffic from the US-69 corridor. The US-169 corridor between Tulsa and Kansas City is in the same situation, with even less miles of existing Freeway. I could maybe see a couple roads North of Tulsa being upgraded, such as US-75 to Bartlesville. A bunch of US-169 was built in mind for possible upgrades to four lane or even super highway configuration. With I-49 open between Joplin and Kansas City I'm sure a lot of drivers from Tulsa going to Kansas City would probably choose I-49 rather than US-169.
Here's what I think is an interesting question. Considering how many years it will probably take to finish I-49 in Arkansas, particularly the Texarkana to Fort Smith segment through the Ouachita Mountains, how will US-69 in Oklahoma look by the time I-49 is finished?
Depending on how political winds blow, I could see progress on I-49 in Arkansas lighting a fire under the rear ends of a few lawmakers in Oklahoma. It might persuade them to finally do something about US-69 between the Red River and I-44/Big Cabin.
Depends where traffic from Tulsa is headed to in Kansas City. Anywhere on the Kansas side, it probably makes more sense to take 69 or 169 than 49.
It is doubtful that I-49 will influence Oklahoma's priorities in any meaningful way. The current Oklahoma transportation focus is fixing dilapidated bridges. Any road improvements are done to add needed capacity or address safety issues–using transportation to fuel economic development is not really something that is done here.
The corridor I have long speculated is better for serious investment, partly because it is out of the area of influence of US 69 and I-49, is US 75 Tulsa-Omaha via Topeka. Considerable lengths of it are already built to freeway standard, such as the entirety of the route through Topeka (US 56 intersection in Osage County to NW 46th Street in Shawnee County, a distance of almost 30 miles), the length through Tulsa and its northern suburbs (measuring from NE corner of Tulsa downtown loop at I-244 interchange to north end of the US 75 Tulsa-area freeway at 96th Street North, a distance of almost 11 miles), and the length immediately south of Nebraska I-480 (Kennedy Freeway through Bellevue and south Omaha, approximately 12 miles). This is 53 miles of freeway, handling traffic through the most congested areas along the route, on a 382-mile itinerary following US 75.
Google Maps pegs US 75 Tulsa-Omaha as a 6h25m trip. In comparison, the parallel alternative via I-49 and Kansas City is nearly all freeway but is 459 miles in length and is a 6h40m trip. Bypassing Kansas City on I-435 through Kansas, which is necessary to convert this to an all-freeway itinerary, is 468 miles in length and 6h44m.
Clearly, there is some potential for time savings for Tulsa-Omaha traffic if US 75 is upgraded to a full freeway with rural speed limits of 70 in Oklahoma and 75 in Kansas and Nebraska, which is perfectly feasible given the terrain along the route. At a minimum one would expect a journey time reduction of about 55 minutes, or about 14% of the time spent on the existing route.
But is it economic to build a freeway in this corridor? To begin answering this question we need to estimate the minimum amount of traffic (the AADT in the least busy portions of the corridor) that is required to amortize the construction cost over a 25-year period. Since this is a back-of-the-envelope job, let's assume driving time is valued at $10/hour and traffic is level, just to avoid the complexity of dealing with compound growth. $20 million a mile gives a round $7.6 billion for the entire corridor. (This includes the 53 miles that is already freeway, but I justify this on the basis that bypasses of Bartlesville, Neodesha, Independence, Lyndon, Holton, Auburn, and Nebraska City are likely to come in at over $20 million a mile.) So the break-even traffic level is (7,600,000,000) / (25 * 365 * (55 / 60) * 10) = 91,000 VPD. Considering that this is about 30 times the current traffic level on some portions of US 75 in Kansas, I think the economic case for an all-freeway route is just not there.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2014, 03:20:59 PM
There's two big problems with extending I-45 from Galveston down to Corpus Christi via the coastline.
1. The extreme 90 degree turn from Galveston would necessitate a completely different route number. It doesn't make any sense to have an Interstate highway make a big L-shape in its route.
I-75 in Florida does the same thing at Naples and becomes Everglades Parkway and is posted East-West instead of North-South
Alligator Alley along I-75 isn't such a great example. That East-West segment is only about 80 miles in length. Proportionately it's a very small segment of I-75. And it wasn't originally part of I-75. It still made some sense for I-75 to be extended along Alligator Alley since that put its terminus into the Miami area, a major metropolitan destination.
Along the Texas coastline, it's more than 200 miles between Galveston and Corpus Christi. The existing I-45 route is only 285 miles long. There simply isn't enough justification to extend I-45 in a backwards dogleg 90 degrees toward Corpus Christi. I-69 is already going to carry a lot of Interstate traffic between Houston and Corpus Christi. Not many drivers in Houston would drive clear down to Galveston and then backwards toward Corpus. They'll take I-69 instead.
Over the long term, I can see parts of TX-35 being upgraded with more segments of freeway through places like Port Lavaca, Aransas Pass and Fulton. But I have a difficult time seeing justification for a complete Interstate link between Galveston and Corpus Christi running parallel to I-69. Such a link would be very difficult to build, especially if it was going to hug along the coastline and not take a bunch of strange turns and bends like the current route of TX-35. The TX-35 route has to do that since there are a number of wetlands, wildlife sanctuaries, swamps, etc. along the coast.
Considering how large Tulsa it, it is surprising it is not served by another 2di interstate. I think the case could be made for upgrading US 75 and US 69 to I-45 to Tulsa.
Most of US 69 south of McAlester and north of Muskogee can't be converted to freeway. A new terrain route will have to be built. The freeway portion between McAlester and Muskogee would need some serious updates to become and interstate. I'd rather see turnpikes built from the Texas line to McAlester and from Muskogee to Vinita.
Quote from: bugo on February 13, 2014, 03:06:28 AM
Most of US 69 south of McAlester and north of Muskogee can't be converted to freeway. A new terrain route will have to be built. The freeway portion between McAlester and Muskogee would need some serious updates to become and interstate. I'd rather see turnpikes built from the Texas line to McAlester and from Muskogee to Vinita.
South of McAlester, the freeway can follow the original divided expressway in rural areas. Frontage roads would be required to service residences and businesses already there that would be cut off by a controlled-access highway. Obviously bypasses would be needed where 69 goes through those little towns. But 69 is already freeway between McAlester and Checotah, and also around Durant.
Quote from: bugo on February 13, 2014, 03:06:28 AM
Most of US 69 south of McAlester and north of Muskogee can't be converted to freeway. A new terrain route will have to be built. The freeway portion between McAlester and Muskogee would need some serious updates to become and interstate. I'd rather see turnpikes built from the Texas line to McAlester and from Muskogee to Vinita.
Never happen. The politicos from that area have blocked all efforts to bypass the towns that aren't already bypassed (Atoka, Stringtown, et al). Can't see that changing anytime soon.
Trust me, I know there would be a lot of resistance. But there was a lot of resistance in the construction of the Creek Turnpike and the OTA got it done anyway. All it takes is a little political will.
US-69 between Colbert and McAlester wouldn't be all that difficult to upgrade to Interstate standards.
Political will would be required to buy up some property in smaller towns (like Calera, Tushka, Stringtown, Kiowa and Savanna) to expand US-69/75 along its existing ROW. It might be more expensive to bypass those towns. Larger towns like Atoka would have to be bypassed.
US-75 between I-40 and Tulsa would be more difficult to upgrade. Property would have to be bought and demolished in Henryetta to convert US-75 to Interstate standards. Same goes for Schulter and segments in Preston and Glenpool. Okmulgee is too big to convert US-75 through the center of town; it would have to be bypassed. Still, I think it's do-able.
Even if US-75 was made into an Interstate all the way to Tulsa, the need would still be pretty strong for US-69 to be converted into an Interstate up to Big Cabin. Muskogee, Wagoner, Choteau and Pryor Creek would have to be bypassed. The other parts of US-69 could be upgraded along the existing ROW.
Quote from: bugo on February 16, 2014, 03:52:09 AM
Trust me, I know there would be a lot of resistance. But there was a lot of resistance in the construction of the Creek Turnpike and the OTA got it done anyway. All it takes is a little political will.
You're missing the point. The Creek was done because it was on the plans since the 50's. Those big homeowners never had a chance as they ignored the plats. The Tulsa World did an excellent series on this about 20 years ago.
A parallel turnpike running generally to the east of 69 was proposed in the mid 90s. It was shot down so fast that it wasn't even brought up in committee. Even in this day of Republican domination of the legislature, there is ZERO change of OTA even proposing it much less of it getting approval. Little Dixie still has some stroke.
Personally, I would like to see it. I believe there is enough traffic to justify it as well.
I don't remember that turnpike proposal.
The ones I remember from the 1990s were those Duncan to Davis and Snyder to Clinton turnpike proposals. Those proposals were promoted heavily by then Governor David Walters. Ultimately a turnpike isn't worth building if the traffic counts would be so low the road would lose money hand over fist. Those two turnpikes would have.
I think US-69 could work as a freeway. Much of it between the Red River and McAlester could be upgraded in bits and pieces without being turned into a turnpike. The section going by Muskogee, Wagoner, etc. would need more new terrain mileage. If any part of it had to be a turnpike that would be it.
Quote from: rte66man on February 17, 2014, 06:27:30 PM
Quote from: bugo on February 16, 2014, 03:52:09 AM
Trust me, I know there would be a lot of resistance. But there was a lot of resistance in the construction of the Creek Turnpike and the OTA got it done anyway. All it takes is a little political will.
You're missing the point. The Creek was done because it was on the plans since the 50's. Those big homeowners never had a chance as they ignored the plats. The Tulsa World did an excellent series on this about 20 years ago.
A parallel turnpike running generally to the east of 69 was proposed in the mid 90s. It was shot down so fast that it wasn't even brought up in committee. Even in this day of Republican domination of the legislature, there is ZERO change of OTA even proposing it much less of it getting approval. Little Dixie still has some stroke.
Personally, I would like to see it. I believe there is enough traffic to justify it as well.
The politics of an area can change. This road might be built sooner than you think.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 17, 2014, 09:19:49 PM
I don't remember that turnpike proposal.
The ones I remember from the 1990s were those Duncan to Davis and Snyder to Clinton turnpike proposals. Those proposals were promoted heavily by then Governor David Walters. Ultimately a turnpike isn't worth building if the traffic counts would be so low the road would lose money hand over fist. Those two turnpikes would have.
I think US-69 could work as a freeway. Much of it between the Red River and McAlester could be upgraded in bits and pieces without being turned into a turnpike. The section going by Muskogee, Wagoner, etc. would need more new terrain mileage. If any part of it had to be a turnpike that would be it.
The reason you never heard of it was it never made it into a bill. It was an informal trial balloon that was floated to see if there was any support. The Little Dixie crowd plus the SW and NW rural boys said that OK had spent enough on getting 69 four laned. It was time for their areas to get some of the road gravy. That sentiment has not changed.
I like the idea of extending I-45 at least from Dallas to Tulsa. But due to I-49, a better idea than extending it to KC from there would be to extend it to Wichita, making a Tulsa-Wichita corridor. And I-45 would still fit ok in the grid.