Proposed US 412 Upgrade

[swake]

So with the I-344 and I-335 signs going up this month in central Oklahoma, when will ODOT reapply with a different interstate designation number for US-412? Since the designation of "I-42" was rejected as repetitive in the interstate system with I-42 in North Carolina.

[Bobby5280]

The powers that be have to approve a specific Interstate number well before any plans to install signage can be drafted. They haven't met to approve a specific number yet. We could be years from seeing an Interstate number applied to US-412 in Oklahoma.

[MikieTimT]

Crossposting from Arkansas' US 412 upgrade thread since ODOT likely will have the next public involvement meeting on or near the same date ARDOT is having theirs for our first glimpse of the Interstate upgrade alternatives.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?msg=2924705

Finally will see how they plan on connecting the east end of the Cherokee Turnpike to the Springdale Northern Bypass, having a Siloam Springs Bypass in the middle.

[splashflash]

Siloam Springs bypass

I kinda like Siloam Springs 6A, the bypass to the north starting at the east end of the Cherokee Turnpike.  https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/05448994c7fe4790a52bd6754dd9767f

Scroll across the top drop down menu bar to almost the end.

[MikieTimT]

Siloam Springs bypass

I kinda like Siloam Springs 6A, the bypass to the north starting at the east end of the Cherokee Turnpike.  https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/05448994c7fe4790a52bd6754dd9767f

Scroll across the top drop down menu bar to almost the end.

That's my preference too, but reading everything in the Story Map indicates that they aren't close to recommending anything to do with the Siloam Springs Bypass yet, but that it needs its own study.  This tells me that it'll take funding another study to narrow down the bypass, so given that we aren't anywhere near budgeting that study as of yet, the likelihood of it being either the southern alternative, or the northern buffer alternative is almost a certainty with the subdivisions going up north of town right now and assuredly in the future.  Still feels like we're a decade away, at least east of the Cherokee Turnpike.  Shame too, as we'd be driving on an interstate within about 6 years of finding the funding if they didn't do that stupid 6-laning of Siloam Springs back in '06 and did the northern bypass like made most sense.

[MikieTimT]

Looks like they'll do 6 interchanges and 5 overpasses on the limited access conversion of the Inola section along with the already planned I-44 redo and the necessary redo of the interchange with the Cherokee Turnpike section.  All the other section line roads get the cul-de-sac treatment with one parallel section line road getting extended to OK-88.

[splashflash]

No redo of the existing US 69 cloverleaf interchange from what I can see.  I think there was mention of upgrades to flyovers in earlier plans.  The Muskogee digging their heals in preventing a bypass possibly precluded upgrading US 69 or maybe a bypass is yet in the cards, just not shown in the current plans related to US 412.

[Bobby5280]

The existing US-412 cloverleaf interchange with US-69 is only designed for carrying local traffic moving North-South through Choteau. Any sort of freeway/turnpike upgrade along US-69 through there would have to be on a new bypass alignment, which would result in the need to build a different interchange. It would probably be yet another cloverleaf job too.

People in Muskogee and other locations along US-69 might not like the idea of their towns getting bypassed. Yet the need to do improvements on the US-69 corridor are only going to worsen as the DFW metro and other locations in Texas continue to grow. "Near-shoring" manufacturing from China to Mexico will also increase truck traffic levels on the US-69 corridor.

It's also possible traffic levels on US-69 could plummet once the I-57 corridor is completed between Little Rock and Sikeston. The combination of I-30 and I-57 could give truckers a decent alternative to get from points like DFW to locations like Chicago without having to put up with pulverized streets in Choteau or speed traps in Stringtown. And they would get to bypass St Louis as an added benefit.

[splashflash]

The existing US-412 cloverleaf interchange with US-69 is only designed for carrying local traffic moving North-South through Choteau. Any sort of freeway/turnpike upgrade along US-69 through there would have to be on a new bypass alignment, which would result in the need to build a different interchange. It would probably be yet another cloverleaf job too.

People in Muskogee and other locations along US-69 might not like the idea of their towns getting bypassed. Yet the need to do improvements on the US-69 corridor are only going to worsen as the DFW metro and other locations in Texas continue to grow. "Near-shoring" manufacturing from China to Mexico will also increase truck traffic levels on the US-69 corridor.

It's also possible traffic levels on US-69 could plummet once the I-57 corridor is completed between Little Rock and Sikeston. The combination of I-30 and I-57 could give truckers a decent alternative to get from points like DFW to locations like Chicago without having to put up with pulverized streets in Choteau or speed traps in Stringtown. And they would get to bypass St Louis as an added benefit.

If I-57 were successful in drawing long distance traffic off US 69 then the planned I-44 widening could be misspent unless northwestern Arkansas continues to grow at a tear.  Perhaps the growth of northwestern Arkansas itself would prompt ODOT (or OTA) to lean to an eastern bypass of Muscogee and that bypass would end at US 412, not loop back to US 69. 

Interesting that the people of Inola are quite in favour of an interstate upgrade your f US 412 while US 69 Corridor towns dug their heals in.  The money is now scheduled for interchange upgrades in Inola, the last in 2030.  Pretty quick progress for anew interstate. 

[Scott5114]

US-412 already bypassed Inola long ago, so Interstate upgrades are an improvement with no downside to them.