I-240 extension in Oklahoma City

[webny99]

It seems to me that using Tulsa in St. Louis would be like using Springfield in OKC.

Springfield is plenty big enough and plenty far away from Tulsa to warrant control city status (and I also agree that Joplin should be used, especially north/eastbound).

[kphoger]

On the other hand, several times I've been on a road trip in southwest MO and texted someone back home in OK that I was passing through Joplin, only to get a response of "where is that?" ...

I suspect that sort of person wouldn't find any specific information about your location useful.  The only thing they'd understand would be "225 miles to go".

(My dad once called me when I was driving from KC to Wichita, he asked where we were, and I replied that we were in the four-letter creek stretch.  He knew what I meant.  ^{(1 2 3 4)} )

[The Ghostbuster]

I wonder how the exits will be numbered once Interstate 240 is a full beltway. Where will Mile 0 be, the same place it is now? On the other hand, I will be glad to see the goofy exit numbers on the Kickapoo Turnpike be eliminated (numbering them 130-149 was not my cup of tea).

[Plutonic Panda]

It seems to me that using Tulsa in St. Louis would be like using Springfield in OKC.

Springfield is plenty big enough and plenty far away from Tulsa to warrant control city status (and I also agree that Joplin should be used, especially north/eastbound).

That is ridiculous comparison and you know that. Using STL, a city with a metropolitan pop of 3+ million is nothing like OKC using Springfield skipping over a Tulsa a city that has a million in metro's population.

[Bobby5280]

I, for one, do not side with using St Louis as a control city on Eastbound I-44 as far away as Tulsa. Joplin is good enough there. Joplin may not be a major city like St Louis, but it is the next significant intersection in the highway network. That's the real point of control cities on big green signs.

I understand the context of using Tulsa at the beginning of I-44 in St Louis. But that's really an exception to control city protocol on signs across much of the Interstate system. Really, they could have listed Joplin or even Rolla and it would have been consistent with most control city usage elsewhere.

At major intersections with I-40 in Oklahoma City the control cities are Fort Smith for EB I-40 and Amarillo for WB I-40. Little Rock and Memphis are much larger cities than Fort Smith. But Fort Smith is a big enough town on a big enough intersection in the highway network. It's a long drive between OKC and Amarillo, but Amarillo is the WB control city for I-40 in OKC because there are no significant intersections in between.

I see the same treatment on I-25 in Colorado and Northern New Mexico. Pueblo, Trinidad, Raton, Las Vegas and Santa Fe are all control cities between Albuquerque and Colorado Springs.

[ethanhopkin14]

I, for one, do not side with using St Louis as a control city on Eastbound I-44 as far away as Tulsa. Joplin is good enough there. Joplin may not be a major city like St Louis, but it is the next significant intersection in the highway network. That's the real point of control cities on big green signs.

I understand the context of using Tulsa at the beginning of I-44 in St Louis. But that's really an exception to control city protocol on signs across much of the Interstate system. Really, they could have listed Joplin or even Rolla and it would have been consistent with most control city usage elsewhere.

At major intersections with I-40 in Oklahoma City the control cities are Fort Smith for EB I-40 and Amarillo for WB I-40. Little Rock and Memphis are much larger cities than Fort Smith. But Fort Smith is a big enough town on a big enough intersection in the highway network. It's a long drive between OKC and Amarillo, but Amarillo is the WB control city for I-40 in OKC because there are no significant intersections in between.

I see the same treatment on I-25 in Colorado and Northern New Mexico. Pueblo, Trinidad, Raton, Las Vegas and Santa Fe are all control cities between Albuquerque and Colorado Springs.

I used to think that about I-35 north out of Austin using Waco.  When I was a kid, Waco was nothing, but now I think it justifies being a control city. 

[sprjus4]

^ Given Dallas-Fort Worth is within 100 miles... I would strongly disagree.

Yes, Waco is a big city, but it's far smaller and not even comparable to a metropolitan area of 7.7 million.

[kphoger]

^ Given Dallas-Fort Worth is within 100 miles... I would strongly disagree.

Yes, Waco is a big city, but it's far smaller and not even comparable to a metropolitan area of 7.7 million.

What do you think about Waco as a control city heading south from D/FW?

[I-55]

^ Given Dallas-Fort Worth is within 100 miles... I would strongly disagree.

Yes, Waco is a big city, but it's far smaller and not even comparable to a metropolitan area of 7.7 million.

What do you think about Waco as a control city heading south from D/FW?

I would just use it as a secondary control both ways.

[Bobby5280]

Yes, Waco is a big city, but it's far smaller and not even comparable to a metropolitan area of 7.7 million.

Again, control cities aren't about population as much as they are intersection points in the highway network. In the case of Waco, it's an important junction point for traffic moving from Fort Worth down to either Houston or Austin.

If it was all about listing only the biggest cities on the signs that could be a slippery slope. We could end up with something ridiculous like San Antonio being listed as the control city for I-10 Eastbound going out of Phoenix. Cuz Tucson, Las Cruces, El Paso and any other control cities in use in between are just too small.

[sprjus4]

^ Horrible comparison. You're talking about cities much further away, as opposed to Waco which is within a 100 miles of the DFW metro.

Not to mention, DFW is a far major junction of interstate highways, I-20, I-30, I-35, and I-45 that is of importance to the system overall. Waco... not really.

[Rothman]

Engineers, DOTs, etc.:  Let's discuss alternatives based upon engineering merit or political feasibility.

AARoads:  Control cities are the most important aspects of our transportation infrastructure!

[Bobby5280]

Not to mention, DFW is a far major junction of interstate highways, I-20, I-30, I-35, and I-45 that is of importance to the system overall. Waco... not really.

TX-6 between Waco and Houston is a pretty important corridor within the Texas Triangle. Many people going through Fort Worth heading to Houston will often take I-35 to the TX-6 turn-off at Waco as an alternative to using I-45. That's a big reason why Waco gets control city status on I-35 signs.

AARoads:  Control cities are the most important aspects of our transportation infrastructure!

Not that any of it matters. We see the practices of how control cities are signed in the field. Any arguments in this forum will do zero to change that.

[Plutonic Panda]

Engineers, DOTs, etc.:  Let's discuss alternatives based upon engineering merit or political feasibility.

AARoads:  Control cities are the most important aspects of our transportation infrastructure!

I was going to post something extremely similar to this a couple hours ago and decided not to. It is funny.

[sprjus4]

TX-6 between Waco and Houston is a pretty important corridor within the Texas Triangle. Many people going through Fort Worth heading to Houston will often take I-35 to the TX-6 turn-off at Waco as an alternative to using I-45. That's a big reason why Waco gets control city status on I-35 signs.

Not saying it's not... but I find it hard to believe it's a "bigger" junction than DFW.

How is Waco relevant in this case heading north from San Antonio or Austin?

[Bobby5280]

It's not about listing only the most gigantic of highway junctions either. Lots of different highways cross I-35 between DFW and Austin. I already mentioned TX-6 crossing I-35 in Waco. US-84 crosses I-35 there too. US-77 merges/splits with I-35 in Waco. It's a legitimately big enough junction to rate control city status on big green signs -which is why TX DOT has already been doing that.

[kphoger]

How, exactly, did Waco end up in 'Central States'? ......

[SkyPesos]

How, exactly, did Waco end up in 'Central States'? ......

What do you think about Waco as a control city heading south from D/FW?

[kphoger]

Oh, that's right, it grew out of a conversation about what to sign in Saint Louis...

[NE2]

Control city sealioning...

[ethanhopkin14]

I just realized something while driving I-40 in Oklahoma yesterday:  The mid point of the entire route of I-40 is mile 214.925 in Oklahoma.  I-40 spawns I-240 at mile marker 165.  So if you are driving east to west, you are seeing all these children of I-40 along the way, then you get to the halfway point, then just 49.925 miles later, I-40 spawns it's last child.  Basically it spends almost exactly half of it's life childless.  The intersection of I-235 and I-40 just 13.1 miles west of I-40 and I-240 is the last time I-40 will ever encounter a 3di of any kind! 

There is nothing west of significance in Oklahoma from Oklahoma City.  Then it goes into Texas, a state who is 3di stingy.  Then it goes through the only 2 contiguous states with no 3dis.  Then goes through a very unpopulated part of California. 

Now this is all subject to change a little after I-240 is routed completely around Oklahoma City, but still amazing to think of. 

[Plutonic Panda]

I got to be honest, when I first saw this proposal I thought it be pretty cool OKC would have one of the longest beltways. But given the circumstances, I'm liking this proposal less and less every time I think about it...

[SkyPesos]

I thought it be pretty cool OKC would have one of the longest beltways. But given the circumstances, I'm liking this proposal less and less every time I think about it

That's the same thought I had when I found out that I-275 is the longest interstate beltway in the country. Though I'm disliking it nowadays for going too far out west, not being a functional bypass for I-75, and it's only barely better as a bypass for I-71.

[sparker]

I got to be honest, when I first saw this proposal I thought it be pretty cool OKC would have one of the longest beltways. But given the circumstances, I'm liking this proposal less and less every time I think about it...

IMO, the Interstate designation -- and the concept of a complete loop -- is pointless given the convoluted configuration of what's being proposed.  It's certainly not developmental in nature -- at least in terms of trying to promote commercial and/or housing along its length -- since most of the sections to receive I-240 signage that aren't presently signed traverse areas that already feature considerable exurban development, particularly in the case of the Kilpatrick.  While the Kickapoo section is less dense, there is still plenty of large-lot housing along its length.  But, frankly, it's not likely that anyone will utilize it as a full beltway; the usage pattern of any segment of the new and improved I-240 is unlikely to change as a result of the signage.  It seems like a regional "vanity" concept -- OKC now can boast that it has a beltway like "big league" cities -- even if it's more like "Frankenbeltway" than anything!

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^^ I'd much prefer the Kickapoo be signed as x35 when it can be extended to the north and south one day. No reason to jump the gun either as far as signage.

One proposal could be to sign the Kilpatrick as I-44 all the way to a new connection to SH-4 in Mustang. This would be a new freeway built from SH-4 at S.W. 89th north to the new Kilpatrick extension. Build SH-4 to interstate standards all the way to existing I-44 and redesign the interchanges to keep the mainline in tact.

That would create a new seamless connection if I-44 all the way from I-35 near Edmond to I-44 near Bridge Creek. Extend SH-74 south to H.E. Bailey Norman Spur and end it there. I don't know what to sign the HE Bailey Spur or the section of I-44 from SH-74 to I-35. Extend I-235 North to I-44(currently Kilpatrick). It removes a concurrency as well.

Again, sign the Kickapoo as I-635 when it is extended north and south to I-35.