Oklahoma

[Scott5114]

The portion of the Indian Nation Turnpike from McAlester to Henryetta could potentially be signed as an Interstate, either I-45 or I-43.

I-43 is taken, despite what the brilliant minds behind the I-343 designation seem to think. If you really want a new 2di I-47 is still free.

You know, it's funny that North Carolina tried to "steal" I-44 from Oklahoma (that was the original number they wanted for what is now I-87) and then Oklahoma "stole" I-42 from them.

[TheCatalyst31]

The portion of the Indian Nation Turnpike from McAlester to Henryetta could potentially be signed as an Interstate, either I-45 or I-43.

I-43 is taken, despite what the brilliant minds behind the I-343 designation seem to think. If you really want a new 2di I-47 is still free.

You know, it's funny that North Carolina tried to "steal" I-44, got I-42 instead, and then Oklahoma "stole" I-42 from them.

I assume nobody at AASHTO takes North Carolina interstate numbers seriously anymore.

[Scott5114]

I assume nobody at AASHTO takes North Carolina interstate numbers seriously anymore.

FTFY

[kphoger]

Maybe it will actually be within my lifetime that everyone realizes the grid doesn't matter.

[Rothman]

Maybe it will actually be within my lifetime that everyone realizes the grid doesn't matter.

May it never happen.

[Bobby5280]

I-43 is taken, despite what the brilliant minds behind the I-343 designation seem to think.

Uh, yeah, no shit? Really? Interstates 49, 69, 74, 76, 84, 86, 87 and 88 all say hello. I-39 would almost be another one if not for long overlaps with I-90 and I-94. The two I-69 routes may never be connected. It will be decades before the two I-49 routes get connected.

Interstates like I-76 in Colorado and I-86 in Idaho function almost like 3-digit Interstate routes. Several decades ago someone decided to give those routes more important sounding 2-digit numbers, probably because they seemed too long for 3-digit designations. And those numbers were already duplicated by routes farther East. So it's not like two separate Interstate routes carrying the same number is anything new.

Anyway, the whole idea of suggesting "I-43" for US-75 in Tulsa is to help make sense of the otherwise dumb-fuck choice to number the Muskogee Turnpike as I-343.

[The Ghostbuster]

The US 75 corridor from Henryetta to Tulsa would have to become completely freeway, before it would be given an Interstate designation, such as a southern Interstate 43. Deny the Interstate 343 designation and move on.

[Bobby5280]

Didn't the AASHTO already approve the I-343 number (when they approved the I-644 designation for the Creek Turnpike)?

[swake]

Didn't the AASHTO already approve the I-343 number (when they approved the I-644 designation for the Creek Turnpike)?

Yes, it's all approved and just waiting on the signs to be installed. Which was supposed to happen "within a few months" six months ago.

[The Ghostbuster]

Interstate 343 is a worse destination than Interstate 238. At least Interstate 238 has some legitimacy.

[kphoger]

I-238 at least had logic

I-238 isn't a random number

I-99, I-238, and I-97 have more justification than I-343 ever will.

Interstate 343 is a worse destination than Interstate 238. At least Interstate 238 has some legitimacy.

And, may I just add? that I-238's number at least makes some sense, whereas I-343's does not.

[Bobby5280]

I think it has already been said before, but an equivalent to I-238 being applied to the Muskogee Turnpike would be if they chose an I-351 number -which is the same as the current state highway number on that turnpike. The OTA didn't make that choice, instead they just pulled some completely irrelevant random number out of their asses.

It's just like some of the other odd crap they've been pulling lately with highway numbers. I still don't like "I-344" being applied to the Kilpatrick Turnpike. An odd number being designated on a loop highway is one complaint. But the bigger one is that we already had an OK-344 in the Tulsa area on the Gilcrease Expressway. I thought for sure that would turn into I-344 once the Gilcrease Expressway was completed. Nope!

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe they should've gone forward with the proposal to designate Interstate 240 as a full freeway/tollway beltway around Oklahoma City.

[swake]

Maybe they should've gone forward with the proposal to designate Interstate 240 as a full freeway/tollway beltway around Oklahoma City.

No no no no, you simply cannot do that. That would make sense and this is Oklahoma we are talking about.

[CoreySamson]

Maybe they should've gone forward with the proposal to designate Interstate 240 as a full freeway/tollway beltway around Oklahoma City.

No no no no, you simply cannot do that. That would make sense and this is Oklahoma we are talking about.

Although I don't like some of Oklahoma's road numbering proposals (!-343 included), I am extremely glad that the I-240 thing never happened.

[Bobby5280]

The Kilpatrick Turnpike should have been "I-440" -the number makes too much sense since it's a bypass connection between I-44 and I-40. I'm trying to think of possible excuses for why such an obvious numbering choice wasn't taken. Maybe there were concerns motorists might be confused by the number combinations on signage. Supposedly that's one reason why I-444 was never signed on the IDL in Tulsa. But I don't buy that; after there are locations along I-40 and I-44 where both numbers are visible on the same sign panel.

It's likely some "boss" at the OTA or a OK state politician demanded their favorite number be used. Or they just pulled the numbers out of their asses. Hopefully "I-343" will end up being an unsigned Interstate route. The designation can't make logical sense to anyone who is or is not a roadgeek. If I-343 is just something that is recorded in regulatory books and not actually used on signage that might be alright with me. But, y'know, "I-340" was available. Derp.

[Rothman]

The Kilpatrick Turnpike should have been "I-440" -the number makes too much sense since it's a bypass connection between I-44 and I-40. I'm trying to think of possible excuses for why such an obvious numbering choice wasn't taken. Maybe there were concerns motorists might be confused by the number combinations on signage. Supposedly that's one reason why I-444 was never signed on the IDL in Tulsa. But I don't buy that; after there are locations along I-40 and I-44 where both numbers are visible on the same sign panel.

It's likely some "boss" at the OTA or a OK state politician demanded their favorite number be used. Or they just pulled the numbers out of their asses. Hopefully "I-343" will end up being an unsigned Interstate route. The designation can't make logical sense to anyone who is or is not a roadgeek. If I-343 is just something that is recorded in regulatory books and not actually used on signage that might be alright with me. But, y'know, "I-340" was available. Derp.

There was some news story months ago where they explained how they came up with I-343.  My take on it was that they were idiots that somehow misinterpreted how the "grid" worked.  Fit right in with this forum's perception of Oklahoma.

[kphoger]

The Kilpatrick Turnpike should have been "I-440" -the number makes too much sense since it's a bypass connection between I-44 and I-40. I'm trying to think of possible excuses for why such an obvious numbering choice wasn't taken.

I get confused by too many similar numbers in one area.  40, 44, and 440 are way too similar for me to easily keep straight in my head.

[Bobby5280]

I get confused by too many similar numbers in one area. 40, 44, and 440 are way too similar for me to easily keep straight in my head.

No more than 2 of those route shields would be on a sign panel in a given location. Nashville seems to do okay with its I-40/I-440 interchanges.

There was some news story months ago where they explained how tbey came up with I-343.  My take on it was that they were idiots that somehow misinterpreted how the "grid" worked.  Fit right in with this forum's perception of Oklahoma.

I'd like to see that article...maybe. It might piss me off though. Oklahoma already has too many embarrassing things going on that induce a face-palm reaction.

[kphoger]

I get confused by too many similar numbers in one area.  40, 44, and 440 are way too similar for me to easily keep straight in my head.

No more than 2 of those route shields would be on a sign panel in a given location.

I didn't say anything about one sign panel.  I mean that I have trouble keeping straight in my head which number belongs to which highway generally in an area—whether they intersect or not.  This is why I dislike parent-child route numbering more broadly, and having those numbers be especially similar to another nearby route only makes it harder for me.

[hotdogPi]

440 looking similar to 40 and 44 is a complete coincidence; it's their least common multiple.

[vdeane]

The Kilpatrick Turnpike should have been "I-440" -the number makes too much sense since it's a bypass connection between I-44 and I-40. I'm trying to think of possible excuses for why such an obvious numbering choice wasn't taken.

It wouldn't have started with "3", which is apparently a requirement for toll routs in Oklahoma these days.  Makes one wonder if I-44 is going to be renumbered to I-3xx at some point.

[Bobby5280]

The OTA implicitly acknowledged its 3xx numbering system for Interstate-designated toll roads was stupid and very limiting via the I-644 designation that will be applied to the Creek Turnpike. I-335, I-340 and I-344 (and maybe I-342) are the only logical route possibilities under that 3xx concept. The random I-343 thing never should have been allowed.

Thankfully it's not really possible for the OTA to attempt something as intensely idiotic as re-numbering the primary I-44 route as I-344, even if they didn't already use I-344 on the Kilpatrick Turnpike (or OK-344 on the Gilcrease Expressway).

[Scott5114]

I get confused by too many similar numbers in one area.  40, 44, and 440 are way too similar for me to easily keep straight in my head.

No more than 2 of those route shields would be on a sign panel in a given location.

I didn't say anything about one sign panel.  I mean that I have trouble keeping straight in my head which number belongs to which highway generally in an area—whether they intersect or not.  This is why I dislike parent-child route numbering more broadly, and having those numbers be especially similar to another nearby route only makes it harder for me.

I like Nevada's numbering system in theory for how orderly it is, but in practice, I struggle to remember which highway is which. Look at the Mount Charleston area, for example. Reno has an intersection where 341 and 431 end at each other. Brilliant stuff.

Thankfully it's not really possible for the OTA to attempt something as intensely idiotic as re-numbering the primary I-44 route as I-344, even if they didn't already use I-344 on the Kilpatrick Turnpike (or OK-344 on the Gilcrease Expressway).

Just because it's not possible doesn't mean OTA won't try it anyway!

[Revive 755]

Thankfully it's not really possible for the OTA to attempt something as intensely idiotic as re-numbering the primary I-44 route as I-344, even if they didn't already use I-344 on the Kilpatrick Turnpike (or OK-344 on the Gilcrease Expressway).

Just because it's not possible doesn't mean OTA won't try it anyway!

Given AASHTO's massive disregard of the numbering rules with I-343 in Oklahoma I would not be surprised if they approved a second I-344 in Oklahoma.