Interstate 42 (W)

[SEWIGuy]

It's very easy to draw a straight line from the diagonal of US-287 between Limon and Kit Carson to the diagonal of OK-3 from Fort Supply and Woodward down toward OKC. Straight shot from Kit Carson to Fort Supply. No mountains or other difficult terrain in the way. A diagonal highway linking Denver & OKC could be the western equivalent of I-44 linking OKC and St Louis. It's just flipping the diagonal highway 180 degrees. The route would be just as important, if not even more so due to the sheer lack of redundancy in Western super highways.

How do you know this? Are the various state DOTs advocating for this due to its obvious importance?

[rte66man]

It's very easy to draw a straight line from the diagonal of US-287 between Limon and Kit Carson to the diagonal of OK-3 from Fort Supply and Woodward down toward OKC. Straight shot from Kit Carson to Fort Supply. No mountains or other difficult terrain in the way. A diagonal highway linking Denver & OKC could be the western equivalent of I-44 linking OKC and St Louis. It's just flipping the diagonal highway 180 degrees. The route would be just as important, if not even more so due to the sheer lack of redundancy in Western super highways.

How do you know this? Are the various state DOTs advocating for this due to its obvious importance?

When OK was pushing even more turnpikes about 20 years ago, there was a proposal for one to run from US81/OK3 at Okarche on a diagonal to Watonga

69-1705-e
(15) A turnpike or any part or parts thereof beginning in the vicinity of Watonga and extending south and/or east to the vicinity of north and/or west Oklahoma City.

[vdeane]

The only way I-42 would get extended farther West to a point like Woodward was if I-42 was tying into another major corridor.

I-27?

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't think an Interstate designation on US 412 is warranted west of Interstate 35. If the need to upgrade the existing US 64/412 corridor (or further west) to freeway/tollway standards west of Interstate 35 is necessary, do it but adding an Interstate designation would be overkill.

[Molandfreak]

I don't think an Interstate designation on US 412 is warranted west of Interstate 35. If the need to upgrade the existing US 64/412 corridor (or further west) to freeway/tollway standards west of Interstate 35 is necessary, do it but adding an Interstate designation would be overkill.

How does it make any sense to continue a freeway but not an interstate designation? Unless there are unavoidable barriers preventing the freeway being built to standards, that's just silly.

[sprjus4]

I don't think an Interstate designation on US 412 is warranted west of Interstate 35. If the need to upgrade the existing US 64/412 corridor (or further west) to freeway/tollway standards west of Interstate 35 is necessary, do it but adding an Interstate designation would be overkill.

Neither is warranted or needed.

[JREwing78]

This might be educational:
https://www.odot.org/maps/aadt/2018/StateMapAADT.pdf

According to this, traffic pretty much evaporates on US-412 west of Enid, about where Oklahoma stops 4-laning the highway. Traffic doesn't really pick up until closer to Woodward, and only because of Woodward's relative importance in the area. There's no compelling need for even a limited-access bypass - because anyone going to Woodward is generally not going somewhere else.

Get far enough out from the gravitation pull of Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and what you have is basically local traffic. Having 4-lane access to Enid from the two largest cities in Oklahoma is plenty adequate. Woodward is lucky to have it's own 4-lane US-270 to connect it to OKC.

[Molandfreak]

This might be educational:
https://www.odot.org/maps/aadt/2018/StateMapAADT.pdf

According to this, traffic pretty much evaporates on US-412 west of Enid, about where Oklahoma stops 4-laning the highway. Traffic doesn't really pick up until closer to Woodward, and only because of Woodward's relative importance in the area. There's no compelling need for even a limited-access bypass - because anyone going to Woodward is generally not going somewhere else.

Get far enough out from the gravitation pull of Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and what you have is basically local traffic. Having 4-lane access to Enid from the two largest cities in Oklahoma is plenty adequate. Woodward is lucky to have it's own 4-lane US-270 to connect it to OKC.

I should clarify that I'm against any upgrades to the 412 corridor west of I-35 other than a bypass of Enid, but if they decide to do it, it would probably be under the guise of economic revitalization in the panhandle in an "if you build it, they will come" sort of way. It would siphon off some traffic from I-40 and, to a greater extent, OKC/Tulsa/NWA-Denver traffic using I-135 and I-70. And if they do it, it might as well have the accompanying interstate designation.

[Bobby5280]

How do you know this? Are the various state DOTs advocating for this due to its obvious importance?

It's simple geography that's very easy to see on a map. When the Interstate highway system was first designed much of America's population was concentrated in the Northeast US. The other large population zones were farther South and West. Decades later there has been a great deal of population migration. The highway system has done very little to adapt to that.

Great big holes are very easy to see on a map. The Interstate highway system has multiple diagonal routes that span from the Southwest to the Northeast, such as I-44. There are fewer diagonal routes running from Northwest to Southeast. Much such routes only exist East of the Mississippi River. I-84 from Salt Lake to Portland is about the only NW-SE Interstate route West of the Mississippi.

Denver is a major hub and gateway point in the highway system. But its access to points to the Southeast is pretty crappy. The only choices are driving East or South.

[MikieTimT]

Memphis, Little Rock and OKC seem to be the logical contenders for midcontinental interstate hubs for diagnonal growth of the IHS due to population shifts bringing the population center of the US ever closer to Springfield, MO.  OKC has better terrain prospects to the NW than either of the other 2 with Denver being a logical terminus, however, Memphis<->Kansas City through Springfield using US-63/US-60/MO-13/MO-7 is one that needs to find a way to happen as well as that would be even more heavily utilized in the shorter term with freight flows.  That would put the crossing of US-412 at Walnut Ridge, AR, making more and more sense to upgrade US-412 across the bootheel of MO from Hayti, around Paragould, to Walnut Ridge to terminate at I-57.

[JayhawkCO]

How do you know this? Are the various state DOTs advocating for this due to its obvious importance?

It's simple geography that's very easy to see on a map. When the Interstate highway system was first designed much of America's population was concentrated in the Northeast US. The other large population zones were farther South and West. Decades later there has been a great deal of population migration. The highway system has done very little to adapt to that.

Great big holes are very easy to see on a map. The Interstate highway system has multiple diagonal routes that span from the Southwest to the Northeast, such as I-44. There are fewer diagonal routes running from Northwest to Southeast. Much such routes only exist East of the Mississippi River. I-84 from Salt Lake to Portland is about the only NW-SE Interstate route West of the Mississippi.

Denver is a major hub and gateway point in the highway system. But its access to points to the Southeast is pretty crappy. The only choices are driving East or South.

And as I've mentioned in other threads, there is no reason for Colorado to do this. It doesn't make any more or less cargo go through Denver. IF this were built and didn't actually hit any of the cities in SE Colorado, it's very pointless from a Colorado perspective, but if you went far enough off of the "crow flies" path to hit those, it doesn't save any time over just going I-70->I-135->I-35. So we'd be spending a whole ton of money not to hit any population centers and also not save any time.

[vdeane]

It's worth noting that the diagonals don't just go from one end to the other with nothing in between.  They actually serve metro areas.  The closest I can find that fits what a Denver-OKC interstate would be is I-76, and I-76 is less than half the size, even assuming a Denver-OKC interstate would instead meet I-70 in Limon (which isn't far off the "crow flies" line).  And it would only be 100 miles shorter than I-35-I-135-I-70.  Unless Buffalo, OK and/or Ulysses, KS grow a LOT, I don't see it happening.

[JayhawkCO]

It's worth noting that the diagonals don't just go from one end to the other with nothing in between.  They actually serve metro areas.  The closest I can find that fits what a Denver-OKC interstate would be is I-76, and I-76 is less than half the size, even assuming a Denver-OKC interstate would instead meet I-70 in Limon (which isn't far off the "crow flies" line).  And it would only be 100 miles shorter than I-35-I-135-I-70.  Unless Buffalo, OK and/or Ulysses, KS grow a LOT, I don't see it happening.

The only other examples that are even close are I-82 (still hits the Tri-Cities and Yakima) and I-22 (Tupelo and New Albany). And, in the case of the latter, it was already up to interstate standards half of the way, and its AADT is at least three times of what US287 is in eastern CO.

[bugo]

How does it make any sense to continue a freeway but not an interstate designation? Unless there are unavoidable barriers preventing the freeway being built to standards, that's just silly.

Because it isn't a freeway and there are no current plans that I am aware of to make it one. And even if it were a freeway, having it end at the edge of a small metropolitan area would not be acceptable. There's really no reason to make US 64 between Enid and I-35 a freeway, because the expressway handles traffic very well.

[Molandfreak]

How does it make any sense to continue a freeway but not an interstate designation? Unless there are unavoidable barriers preventing the freeway being built to standards, that's just silly.

Because it isn't a freeway and there are no current plans that I am aware of to make it one. And even if it were a freeway, having it end at the edge of a small metropolitan area would not be acceptable. There's really no reason to make US 64 between Enid and I-35 a freeway, because the expressway handles traffic very well.

Yes, I'm not in favor of making it a freeway or any other improvements beyond an Enid bypass. This response was to The Ghostbuster saying that if it were to become a freeway beyond Enid to tie it into I-27, it shouldn't become an extension of I-42, which doesn't make sense to me.

[bugo]

Yes, if it is ever extended into the panhandle, it should definitely be I-42.

[sprjus4]

I-42 should only ever be extended beyond I-35 if it ties into a new north-south corridor (I-27, for example)... Besides that, there is no need to extend I-42.

Even if US-412, for whatever reason, is upgraded to freeway standards to Enid only, I-42 should still terminate at I-35. It is no different to how I-42 will terminate at I-49 in Arkansas, despite the proposed Springdale Bypass continuing to the east for several miles.

Either way, we're now reaching the level of fictional highways. I-42 is the proposed interstate highway along the US-412 corridor between I-35 and I-49, anything beyond that is fictional.

[SEWIGuy]

How do you know this? Are the various state DOTs advocating for this due to its obvious importance?

It's simple geography that's very easy to see on a map. When the Interstate highway system was first designed much of America's population was concentrated in the Northeast US. The other large population zones were farther South and West. Decades later there has been a great deal of population migration. The highway system has done very little to adapt to that.

Great big holes are very easy to see on a map. The Interstate highway system has multiple diagonal routes that span from the Southwest to the Northeast, such as I-44. There are fewer diagonal routes running from Northwest to Southeast. Much such routes only exist East of the Mississippi River. I-84 from Salt Lake to Portland is about the only NW-SE Interstate route West of the Mississippi.

Denver is a major hub and gateway point in the highway system. But its access to points to the Southeast is pretty crappy. The only choices are driving East or South.

So let me get this straight.

You claim that this proposed interstate would be just as important as I-44, an original interstate, not because an existing lesser highway that is over-crowded, or a DOT study of any sort, but because you looked at a map.

Not the most compelling argument I must say.

[SEWIGuy]

How do you know this? Are the various state DOTs advocating for this due to its obvious importance?

It's simple geography that's very easy to see on a map. When the Interstate highway system was first designed much of America's population was concentrated in the Northeast US. The other large population zones were farther South and West. Decades later there has been a great deal of population migration. The highway system has done very little to adapt to that.

Great big holes are very easy to see on a map. The Interstate highway system has multiple diagonal routes that span from the Southwest to the Northeast, such as I-44. There are fewer diagonal routes running from Northwest to Southeast. Much such routes only exist East of the Mississippi River. I-84 from Salt Lake to Portland is about the only NW-SE Interstate route West of the Mississippi.

Denver is a major hub and gateway point in the highway system. But its access to points to the Southeast is pretty crappy. The only choices are driving East or South.

And as I've mentioned in other threads, there is no reason for Colorado to do this. It doesn't make any more or less cargo go through Denver. IF this were built and didn't actually hit any of the cities in SE Colorado, it's very pointless from a Colorado perspective, but if you went far enough off of the "crow flies" path to hit those, it doesn't save any time over just going I-70->I-135->I-35. So we'd be spending a whole ton of money not to hit any population centers and also not save any time.

Eaxctly.

It's worth noting that the diagonals don't just go from one end to the other with nothing in between.  They actually serve metro areas.  The closest I can find that fits what a Denver-OKC interstate would be is I-76, and I-76 is less than half the size, even assuming a Denver-OKC interstate would instead meet I-70 in Limon (which isn't far off the "crow flies" line).  And it would only be 100 miles shorter than I-35-I-135-I-70.  Unless Buffalo, OK and/or Ulysses, KS grow a LOT, I don't see it happening.

Exactly.

[edwaleni]

The "diagonal" would essentially be from Amarillo to Raton.  Otherwise its 35>135>70 via Salina KS.

By that standard then maybe I-44 should never have been built. People driving from OKC to St Louis should have should have just been doing a big "L" shape via I-35 and I-70.

Both Denver and OKC are major hubs in the Interstate highway system. A direct, diagonal route between those two hubs would be beneficial to the overall highway system.

I-44 from St Louis to OKC replaced an existing major arterial (US-66) and there was already significant population and industry along the route, including a very large US Army base (Ft Leonard Wood).

A OKC<>DEN route would be a clean sheet route with no population, industry or other feeding activity for its use. Doing the calculations, it would save just less than 30 mins from OKC to Limon via Salina.

The only justification would be for resiliency (weather, bridge failure, etc) and capacity, and I am not aware of any capacity issues on I-135 beyond Wichita.

The only consideration would be to connect 2 large metros like many other highways have done and in todays world of highway budgets, I am sure there are routes that carry a higher importance on the priority chart.

[bugo]

Another advantage of a freeway in the Oklahoma panhandle is that I wouldn't have to drive through Kansas to get to Colorado.

[MikieTimT]

Another advantage of a freeway in the Oklahoma panhandle is that I wouldn't have to drive through Kansas to get to Colorado.

That's already what I do to avoid both KS and TX.  No freeway, but the existing roads other than in Enid and Guymon are relatively free flowing once west of Tulsa.

[Henry]

Another advantage of a freeway in the Oklahoma panhandle is that I wouldn't have to drive through Kansas to get to Colorado.

That's already what I do to avoid both KS and TX.  No freeway, but the existing roads other than in Enid and Guymon are relatively free flowing once west of Tulsa.

While it would be great to extend I-42 to I-27 (which, BTW, would obviously have no reason to go into KS at all) in the distant future, there is no need for that. Once the latter corridor develops, then this deserves to be revisited, but for now, I don't see it going any further west than I-35.

[bugo]

This is from the Oklahoma I-42 application. I wonder what the 3 segments are. Cimarron Turnpike, I-244 and what?

[Scott5114]

Cherokee Turnpike, probably.