I-44's Extension into Texas via the substandard H.E. Bailey Turnpike

[kphoger]

the issue of the origin of OK/TX I-44 is not a hill to die on

[Beltway]

the 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

[kphoger]

The 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.

"I-240 Section Changing to I-44". The Daily Oklahoman. October 9, 1982.

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.

... 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.

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[kphoger]

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.

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)

[kphoger]

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?

[vdeane]

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?

That appears to be correct (note also that the exit numbers disappear at that spot as well).

[kphoger]

There's also no mention of I-44 (or US-277, grrr) at the beginning of the viaduct here.

That's such a weird endpoint.

[kphoger]

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?

[kphoger]

On the TxDOT Roadways GIS map, 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.

[okroads]

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.

[kphoger]

That's such a weird endpoint.

The 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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[kphoger]

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.

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.

[kphoger]

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).

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.

I 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.

[Beltway]

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).

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.

[kphoger]

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

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...

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

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.

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.

The 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).

[kphoger]

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.

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).  However, it appears to have been removed by 1975.  The crossing south of the tri-level, on the other hand, was already grade-separated in the 1970 view.

[Rothman]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[Rothman]

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.

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.