AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma  (Read 16307 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6555
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:27:04 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #100 on: August 06, 2019, 04:39:32 PM »

Calera US-69 freeway conversion project begins this fall:

Quote
Press Releases
Monday, August 5, 2019

Big changes for US-69/75 as modernization project gets green light
August 5, 2019
PR# 19-030

After years of planning, countless hours in the design room and input from the public, the US-69/75 corridor in Bryan County is a giant step closer to a major reconstruction thanks to a federal FASTLANE Grant received in 2016.

The contract was awarded by the Oklahoma Transportation Commission at its August meeting to Duit Construction of Edmond at more than $150 million, with a significant $62 million coming from federal funds. This was the third largest grant awarded in the nation during the grant cycle and is one of the highest amounts of federally awarded grants in the department’s history. The project has financial incentives for different milestones and early completion, made possible by the federal grant.

The estimated three-yearlong project is anticipated to start as early as fall 2019 and will improve four miles of this corridor just north of the Texas state line between Chickasaw Rd. in Calera and US-70 in Durant.

“We are seeing interstate levels of traffic in this area and the massive changes made by this project will transform it into a modern, expanded freight corridor,” said Oklahoma Secretary of Transportation and Oklahoma Department of Transportation Executive Director Tim Gatz. “This is a critical step forward in Oklahoma’s transportation future. This modernization of US-69/75 means the highway will continue to grow as a major freight and travel corridor, especially as Texas continues its expansion south of the Red River.”

This project will improve accessibility on and off the highway, protect key interchanges, create one-way frontage roads and add a much needed rail crossing to the four lanes of traffic, all to alleviate traffic congestion and improve safety. This was a competitive grant process, these needs lead to Oklahoma's application being one of the 18 projects selected out of more than 200 submissions nationwide. The grant was a critical leg up to improving the commercial corridor.

“The current configuration simply can’t keep up with today’s heavy traffic demands, which is a concern not just for travelers but for the surrounding towns,” said ODOT Division Two Engineer Anthony Echelle. "We have a great opportunity to create a modern corridor capable of moving freight traffic efficiently and safely through the state without bogging down local communities."

            ODOT’s investment in highways and bridges is a statewide effort and will continue to improve Oklahoma’s transportation infrastructure from state line to state line. Before the announcement of this grant, only the right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation phases for this segment of US-69/75 were scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year 2023 and construction was not even included in ODOT’s Eight-year Construction Work Plan due lack of an available funding solution. Thanks to the FASTLANE grant, the project was able to be advanced to this year.

            Motorists are encouraged to plan for delays and use the travel tools provided by the department such as traffic advisories and following @OKDOT on Twitter and Facebook. Traffic advisories are posted at www.odot.org, which is also where motorists may sign up for traffic advisories to be sent via email when work begins.

- https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=277&article_id=53257

Tiny baby steps!  At this rate, US 69 will be Interstate standard as far north as I-40 by about 2065 or so! -- and the promise made in '91 with ISTEA will be fulfilled nearly three-quarters of a century later.  Outstanding! :rolleyes:
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1220
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 06:06:20 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #101 on: August 07, 2019, 09:15:14 AM »


Tiny baby steps!  At this rate, US 69 will be Interstate standard as far north as I-40 by about 2065 or so! -- and the promise made in '91 with ISTEA will be fulfilled nearly three-quarters of a century later.  Outstanding! :rolleyes:
Yeah, we'll see. OkDOT was conservative in asking for a budget increase when the state was recently handing them out, Stitt(the new governor) has said he wants to make Oklahoma a top ten state, and the recent house bill allots a 25 percent or so increase(IIRC) on highway spending over the last bill so maybe with all of that combination we'll get a surprise. I certainly won't hold my breath for it though.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2081
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:56:56 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #102 on: August 08, 2019, 12:38:06 PM »

A lot more has to be done with US-69 in South-Central OK. But it seems like the most of the state's road-building focus is just on urban projects in the metro OKC and Tulsa areas.
Logged

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9519
  • Sign Inspector

  • Age: 60
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: Today at 02:55:30 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #103 on: August 08, 2019, 01:32:09 PM »

A lot more has to be done with US-69 in South-Central OK. But it seems like the most of the state's road-building focus is just on urban projects in the metro OKC and Tulsa areas.

Not unlike Arkansas and I-49. The big cities get the attention while everything else gets to sit and wait.
Logged
Like Alice, I try to believe three impossible things before breakfast. --5th Doctor

Baloo Uriza

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1907
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Last Login: April 07, 2020, 09:34:41 AM
    • Mastodon
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #104 on: August 08, 2019, 10:14:26 PM »

A lot more has to be done with US-69 in South-Central OK. But it seems like the most of the state's road-building focus is just on urban projects in the metro OKC and Tulsa areas.

Not unlike Arkansas and I-49. The big cities get the attention while everything else gets to sit and wait.

To be fair, at least in Oklahoma, most of the state's area is pretty well served by an extensive network of two lane state highways tied together by a few dual-carriageway trunk highways.  The 81% of us that live in urban and suburban areas is underserved by a severe lack of urban transportation choice with ODOT largely assuming they can handle cities the same way they handle places like Sulphur...
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6555
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:27:04 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #105 on: August 08, 2019, 10:31:18 PM »

A lot more has to be done with US-69 in South-Central OK. But it seems like the most of the state's road-building focus is just on urban projects in the metro OKC and Tulsa areas.

Not unlike Arkansas and I-49. The big cities get the attention while everything else gets to sit and wait.

To be fair, at least in Oklahoma, most of the state's area is pretty well served by an extensive network of two lane state highways tied together by a few dual-carriageway trunk highways.  The 81% of us that live in urban and suburban areas is underserved by a severe lack of urban transportation choice with ODOT largely assuming they can handle cities the same way they handle places like Sulphur...

It's also probable that ODOT is struggling to keep up with the political pressures emanating from OKC and Tulsa for increased attention to their transportation system -- and are simply going by their historic "playbook" (which would invariably prioritize intercity rather than intracity priorities, with methodologies to match).  It's likely to take at least another generation until they can differentiate between the disparate needs of urban vs. rural mobility. 
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2081
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:56:56 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #106 on: August 12, 2019, 12:21:00 PM »

The thing with US-69 in Oklahoma, from the Red River to Big Cabin, is the highway serves a NATIONAL interest. It is a not a local, po-dunk road serving "Cletus" for his occasional trips to the bait shop. The road, as is, is too freaking dangerous for all the heavy trucks on it, the at-grade intersections, various speed zones, speed traps and other miscellaneous BS. That corridor needs to be upgraded to limited access, Interstate standards as much as possible.

The federal government is funding only a little over 1/3 of the $150 million project in Calera. The fed's share ought to be a quite a lot higher than that, given the fact most of the wear and tear on US-69 is coming from semi trucks out of state. It's not fair for Oklahoma's taxpayers to foot most of the bill on that specific stretch of highway.

As for dealing with the "severe lack of urban transportation choice" in OKC and Tulsa, that sounds like a veiled pitch for light rail lines and subway lines. Metro OKC is so spread out that a comprehensive light rail line there would cost tens of billions of dollars to build. The Tulsa metro is not much better and has fewer people too. Both cities do have bus networks. And even bus networks are struggling thanks to things like Uber. At any rate, mass transit is a totally different topic than the US-69 corridor in Oklahoma.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6555
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:27:04 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #107 on: August 12, 2019, 04:55:59 PM »

The thing with US-69 in Oklahoma, from the Red River to Big Cabin, is the highway serves a NATIONAL interest. It is a not a local, po-dunk road serving "Cletus" for his occasional trips to the bait shop. The road, as is, is too freaking dangerous for all the heavy trucks on it, the at-grade intersections, various speed zones, speed traps and other miscellaneous BS. That corridor needs to be upgraded to limited access, Interstate standards as much as possible.

The federal government is funding only a little over 1/3 of the $150 million project in Calera. The fed's share ought to be a quite a lot higher than that, given the fact most of the wear and tear on US-69 is coming from semi trucks out of state. It's not fair for Oklahoma's taxpayers to foot most of the bill on that specific stretch of highway.

As for dealing with the "severe lack of urban transportation choice" in OKC and Tulsa, that sounds like a veiled pitch for light rail lines and subway lines. Metro OKC is so spread out that a comprehensive light rail line there would cost tens of billions of dollars to build. The Tulsa metro is not much better and has fewer people too. Both cities do have bus networks. And even bus networks are struggling thanks to things like Uber. At any rate, mass transit is a totally different topic than the US-69 corridor in Oklahoma.

All well and good.  But quite a few states (notably my own) have functionally "merged" the pots of both local and statewide revenue/expenditure streams.  And the choice as to how to deploy said funds, particularly in urban areas, is left to the cities and/or local MPO's.  More and more that has meant a prioritization of transit over automotive facilities within those areas, so the disbursements reflect that.  But extra buses or dedicated bus lanes in Tulsa or OKC lowers the pot considerably in "low-tax" states like OK that look at the pool as a "zero-sum" situation.  So those transit measures in Tulsa will mean scrimping on projects elsewhere, such as the improvement of the US 69 corridor.  So while urban transit is a different topic per se, the revenue source for its funding is decidedly not.  Even a state with much of its political power residing in outlying areas like OK is faced with dealing with where an increasingly large number of its residents actually live -- meaning OKC and Tulsa, complete with their exurban sphere of influence.   And those residents, and their elected officials, see what is occurring in other urban venues and invariably push for some of those same amenities, which in the transportation area mean mass transit of some sort.  For a while, purchasing buses (which can be deployed, for the most part, on existing facilities) and increasing route scope and frequency will be seen as properly addressing the issue -- but eventually the call will be for higher-capacity facilities less prone to be rendered problematic by traffic -- meaning LR, commute rail, express busways on freeways, etc.  And even with federal grants and specified funding, much of the funds necessary to build these will come from the state's DOT revenue stream.  It's essentially the "squeaky wheel" concept writ large -- more people demanding transit in urban areas gets more attention than a bunch of out-of-state truckers looking to bypass a few traffic signals.   Yes, US 69 is a nationally-important commercial corridor -- but without sufficient revenue to "do it all", even a socioeconomically conservative state like OK has to make choices -- and here, the money will likely follow the population density. 
Logged

Baloo Uriza

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1907
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Last Login: April 07, 2020, 09:34:41 AM
    • Mastodon
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #108 on: August 12, 2019, 05:36:24 PM »

Yes, US 69 is a nationally-important commercial corridor -- but without sufficient revenue to "do it all", even a socioeconomically conservative state like OK has to make choices -- and here, the money will likely follow the population density.

If it's nationally important, the fed can pay for it.  Otherwise, we really need to be focusing 80% of the resources where 80% of the population lives.  Rural Oklahoma is overserved and urban Oklahoma underserved by ODOT.  And yeah, that's gonna mean a fair number of non-highway projects are overdue right now.  Cars work great for workmen and rural areas, but they don't scale down well to cities, even ones as large as Tulsa, OKC or literally any other first world city the size and population of either.
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6138
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 06:10:23 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #109 on: August 12, 2019, 06:11:46 PM »

Some idiot in the Tulsa Voice suggested they put 10% of all gas taxes towards bike lanes. Hello. 10% of the population doesn't use bike lanes. They are a nuisance to many of us with the way bikers ride like idiots.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2081
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:56:56 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #110 on: August 12, 2019, 06:22:16 PM »

Quote from: sparker
All well and good.  But quite a few states (notably my own) have functionally "merged" the pots of both local and statewide revenue/expenditure streams.  And the choice as to how to deploy said funds, particularly in urban areas, is left to the cities and/or local MPO's.  More and more that has meant a prioritization of transit over automotive facilities within those areas, so the disbursements reflect that.  But extra buses or dedicated bus lanes in Tulsa or OKC lowers the pot considerably in "low-tax" states like OK that look at the pool as a "zero-sum" situation.  So those transit measures in Tulsa will mean scrimping on projects elsewhere, such as the improvement of the US 69 corridor.

Much of the traffic on US-69 is long distance traffic moving from city to city or destined for cities. Smaller towns along the corridor get to deal with the effects and consequences of it. Cities are not isolated islands. They affect people in the rural and smaller town areas in between in a variety of ways.

Quote from: Baloo Uriza
If it's nationally important, the fed can pay for it. Otherwise, we really need to be focusing 80% of the resources where 80% of the population lives.

See the above response to Sparker. Much of our nations highway network is about connecting cities. That stretch of US-69 from the Red River to Big Cabin definitely falls into the serving cities to cities category.

Regarding resources and the fed "paying for it," the fed pays far less than it used to; that 90/10 model on federal highway funding is mostly a thing of the distant past. Most of the resources of which you speak were converted into tax cuts and other give-aways for campaign purposes. Add to that the conundrum of anything transportation related suffering from severe cost inflation. Passenger rail is by far the absolute worst in terms of insane inflation.

The United States isn't even laid out to support passenger rail anymore. Not by geography and very much not by culture. Like it not, the growth in most American cities has been tailored to automobile use. That especially includes newer cities like OKC and Tulsa. Hell, our modest LATS bus service in Lawton has been scaled back on service times and routes thanks to Uber and Lyft eating into their business.

Mass transit fans never want to own up to the fact that most people in most places would still prefer to drive a car to get from point A to point B if given the choice. They do so for a variety of motivations. Some of it is out of convenience and time savings. And a fair amount of it is out of income status. That's one of the factors hurting New York City's subway system now. Not only do they not remotely have enough money to fix that aging subway system, ridership has fallen due to massive demographic changes. That cuts the MTA's funding even worse. Many lower and middle income people, the ones who most rely on mass transit, are literally being priced right out of the region. The upper income and outright rich folks who make enough to live in NYC comfortably don't ride the freaking subway. This is a syndrome that is spreading to other "first world" cities.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5677
  • Last Login: April 07, 2020, 11:38:49 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #111 on: August 12, 2019, 06:50:47 PM »

The idea that since MPOs "control" funding in their areas that it means more funding is going to transit than roads is one that I find unfounded.  NHP and STBG funds are not used for transit, for example, and they are the lion's share of federal funds.  CMAQ is already restricted to the point that it is gladly handed over -- but that is not a function of the existence of an MPO.

MPOs also do not control state funding.  The TIP and STIP are to enable the use of federal funding.

So, I do not see transit robbing roads of funding, at least based on the idea of MPOs repurposing federal highway funds as transit funds.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Baloo Uriza

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1907
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Last Login: April 07, 2020, 09:34:41 AM
    • Mastodon
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #112 on: August 12, 2019, 07:07:23 PM »

Some idiot in the Tulsa Voice suggested they put 10% of all gas taxes towards bike lanes. Hello. 10% of the population doesn't use bike lanes.

Yet.  Not everyone driving wants to make every trip by car, it's just the only option available for most trips the way things are at the moment.  The bicycle infrastructure that exists doesn't have many routes that connect where people live to their social, work and shopping spaces right now.  No network effect at this time, but securing funding that helps improve the infrastructure long term will help get the network effect going and then you'll see a bigger move in mode share.
Logged

Baloo Uriza

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1907
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Last Login: April 07, 2020, 09:34:41 AM
    • Mastodon
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #113 on: August 12, 2019, 07:10:36 PM »

Regarding resources and the fed "paying for it," the fed pays far less than it used to; that 90/10 model on federal highway funding is mostly a thing of the distant past.

Well, then what's our motivation to expand a highway ODOT didn't want in the first place or they'd have built it before the US Highway System did?  Seems like a weird double down.

Hell, our modest LATS bus service in Lawton has been scaled back on service times and routes thanks to Uber and Lyft eating into their business.

Way to futureproof yourselves there, Lawton.  It's not "if" Uber and Lyft go under, but "when".  Remember pets.com?  Basically the same thing going on with those two.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1220
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 06:06:20 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #114 on: August 12, 2019, 07:13:13 PM »

Some idiot in the Tulsa Voice suggested they put 10% of all gas taxes towards bike lanes. Hello. 10% of the population doesn't use bike lanes.

Yet.  Not everyone driving wants to make every trip by car, it's just the only option available for most trips the way things are at the moment.  The bicycle infrastructure that exists doesn't have many routes that connect where people live to their social, work and shopping spaces right now.  No network effect at this time, but securing funding that helps improve the infrastructure long term will help get the network effect going and then you'll see a bigger move in mode share.
So we should just build a multi-billion dollar bike network on the hopes people will use it? I think it should be studied first how many would use it and the results would likely show so few would use it as a serious means of commuting it wouldn't be worthwhile.

I do think regional light-rail network in OKC would be viable for a few lines. A modest increase in the bike network including more bike lanes preferably two way protected. The infrastructure investment should be centered on cars and buses however.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1220
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 06:06:20 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #115 on: August 12, 2019, 07:14:19 PM »

Regarding resources and the fed "paying for it," the fed pays far less than it used to; that 90/10 model on federal highway funding is mostly a thing of the distant past.

Well, then what's our motivation to expand a highway ODOT didn't want in the first place or they'd have built it before the US Highway System did?  Seems like a weird double down.

Hell, our modest LATS bus service in Lawton has been scaled back on service times and routes thanks to Uber and Lyft eating into their business.

Way to futureproof yourselves there, Lawton.  It's not "if" Uber and Lyft go under, but "when".  Remember pets.com?  Basically the same thing going on with those two.
I highly doubt ride sharing services go anywhere.
Logged

Baloo Uriza

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1907
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Last Login: April 07, 2020, 09:34:41 AM
    • Mastodon
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #116 on: August 12, 2019, 07:25:21 PM »

So we should just build a multi-billion dollar bike network on the hopes people will use it? I think it should be studied first how many would use it and the results would likely show so few would use it as a serious means of commuting it wouldn't be worthwhile.

It's only about $75,000/lanemile for a bike lane.  Less if you're doing a road diet since the pavement's already there.  There's a lot of 2-2 that could easily be improved for everyone by shifting it to a 2-L-2 making the outside lanes 6 foot bike lanes to make room for the center turn lane.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1220
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 06:06:20 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #117 on: August 12, 2019, 07:30:25 PM »

So we should just build a multi-billion dollar bike network on the hopes people will use it? I think it should be studied first how many would use it and the results would likely show so few would use it as a serious means of commuting it wouldn't be worthwhile.

It's only about $75,000/lanemile for a bike lane.  Less if you're doing a road diet since the pavement's already there.  There's a lot of 2-2 that could easily be improved for everyone by shifting it to a 2-L-2 making the outside lanes 6 foot bike lanes to make room for the center turn lane.
You will quickly loose people at the cost but propose road diets en masse and you quickly kill any future cycling efforts for a long time. The roads will need to be expanded and more infrastructure than pavement will be needed. A fully built out bike network in Tulsa would be in the billions.
Logged

Baloo Uriza

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1907
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Last Login: April 07, 2020, 09:34:41 AM
    • Mastodon
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #118 on: August 12, 2019, 08:54:40 PM »

So we should just build a multi-billion dollar bike network on the hopes people will use it? I think it should be studied first how many would use it and the results would likely show so few would use it as a serious means of commuting it wouldn't be worthwhile.

It's only about $75,000/lanemile for a bike lane.  Less if you're doing a road diet since the pavement's already there.  There's a lot of 2-2 that could easily be improved for everyone by shifting it to a 2-L-2 making the outside lanes 6 foot bike lanes to make room for the center turn lane.
You will quickly loose people at the cost but propose road diets en masse and you quickly kill any future cycling efforts for a long time. The roads will need to be expanded and more infrastructure than pavement will be needed. A fully built out bike network in Tulsa would be in the billions.

You say that, but city council is not on your side there...been downtown lately?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6555
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:27:04 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #119 on: August 13, 2019, 12:51:00 AM »

The idea that since MPOs "control" funding in their areas that it means more funding is going to transit than roads is one that I find unfounded.  NHP and STBG funds are not used for transit, for example, and they are the lion's share of federal funds.  CMAQ is already restricted to the point that it is gladly handed over -- but that is not a function of the existence of an MPO.

MPOs also do not control state funding.  The TIP and STIP are to enable the use of federal funding.

So, I do not see transit robbing roads of funding, at least based on the idea of MPOs repurposing federal highway funds as transit funds.


MPO's aren't dictating the direction of funds; but in certain locations they have been given a significant amount of say in things (Portland [OR] metro is the notable exception to the rule; Metro -- functionally a MPO with very sharp teeth and the legislated freedom to bite as they will!) -- and lately most, particularly in metro areas well over 500K population (OKC & Tulsa both fit), have shown a decided preference for transit over automotive capacity expansion.   And their influence tends to affect the state -- often through STIP/TIP suggestions -- and local fund contributions more than the federal input -- much of which is legislatively specified these days although technically "block" funding (now almost exclusively devoted to state STIP-listed projects; see above!).   But in concert with the cities under their parvenu, MPO's can and do actively press their congressional representatives for as much funding as they can garner for their area -- and within the yearly federal outlay, that leaves less for areas with less vocal influence.

Well, then what's our motivation to expand a highway ODOT didn't want in the first place or they'd have built it before the US Highway System did?  Seems like a weird double down.

US 69 (and starting with its original iteration as US 73) was simply an upgrade of the railside service road for the M-K-T railroad, which was the most direct route from Kansas City to DFW.  Being a "straight arrow" (and the route of the "Texas Special" pre-Amtrak passenger service), it was a "natural" part of the regional highway network; besides, it provided commercial truck access to the towns that had sprouted up along the rail line, which dated from the 1890's.   It's not that ODOT doesn't want the route -- not by any means; it was simply left out of the original interstate network because MacDonald and associates felt that stringing OKC and Wichita into a single N-S "spine" was preferable to a more straight-line route that would have likely been "bent" in a way to serve Tulsa more directly (more a US 75/169 combination than one straight up US 69 to KC).  Nevertheless, it did get on the national radar back with 1991's ISTEA (as an "add-on" but otherwise unnumbered corridor), but ODOT -- and the OK state government as a whole -- has largely ignored it or, more likely, has put it on the shelf.  It'll take a lot of kicking and screaming (and by that I don't mean blowback from Atoka or Stringtown) from regional parties to get some sort of concerted effort going to upgrade the whole corridor.  It seems the official attitude is more or less "well, the corridor's being well used regardless of whether we sink a lot of money into it or not -- and since we don't have it to spare, the status quo is just fine for now!"  Ironically, a significant decrease in commercial traffic -- particularly if AR eventually completes I-49 just over the state line -- might prompt some sort of action quicker than the usual incremental increase in such traffic -- which would simply serve to underscore the viewpoint expressed above.     
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6138
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 06:10:23 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #120 on: August 13, 2019, 09:16:34 AM »

Some idiot in the Tulsa Voice suggested they put 10% of all gas taxes towards bike lanes. Hello. 10% of the population doesn't use bike lanes.

Yet.  Not everyone driving wants to make every trip by car, it's just the only option available for most trips the way things are at the moment.  The bicycle infrastructure that exists doesn't have many routes that connect where people live to their social, work and shopping spaces right now.  No network effect at this time, but securing funding that helps improve the infrastructure long term will help get the network effect going and then you'll see a bigger move in mode share.

The only Tulsans who ride bikes are the hipsters who ride along Riverside. Riding a bike is suicidal anywhere else in town. Bicyclists believe the rules don't pertain to them and they won't decide if they want to be a pedestrian or a vehicle. One night, I was in the right lane going down the one way I-44 frontage road and a future Darwin award winner was riding his bike, with no reflectors, down the road in the wrong direction. I honked my horn at him and probably yelled at him for being a fucking idiot but although this is an extreme example of idiotic bicyclists, I've seen them do plenty of other stupid things. Then when they do something stupid and get run over by a car, they blame the driver of the car when in fact it was the moron on the bicycle doing something monumentally stupid that led to their own demise.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6138
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 06:10:23 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #121 on: August 13, 2019, 09:25:37 AM »

The weather is so extreme and volatile in Oklahoma that a bicycle is not a practical form of transportation many days out of the year. It's either too hot or too cold, rainy, snowy, icy, tornadoey and generally unpleasant and unacceptable for an unprotected bike. This also pertains to motorcycles. Relying on a bicycle as your sole mode of transportation in Oklahoma is simply impractical.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1220
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 06:06:20 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #122 on: August 13, 2019, 12:11:45 PM »

So we should just build a multi-billion dollar bike network on the hopes people will use it? I think it should be studied first how many would use it and the results would likely show so few would use it as a serious means of commuting it wouldn't be worthwhile.

It's only about $75,000/lanemile for a bike lane.  Less if you're doing a road diet since the pavement's already there.  There's a lot of 2-2 that could easily be improved for everyone by shifting it to a 2-L-2 making the outside lanes 6 foot bike lanes to make room for the center turn lane.
You will quickly loose people at the cost but propose road diets en masse and you quickly kill any future cycling efforts for a long time. The roads will need to be expanded and more infrastructure than pavement will be needed. A fully built out bike network in Tulsa would be in the billions.

You say that, but city council is not on your side there...been downtown lately?
In order for a truly successful bike network to induce potential users you would need the network to extend well out of downtown.
Logged

Baloo Uriza

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1907
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Last Login: April 07, 2020, 09:34:41 AM
    • Mastodon
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #123 on: August 13, 2019, 02:25:43 PM »

So we should just build a multi-billion dollar bike network on the hopes people will use it? I think it should be studied first how many would use it and the results would likely show so few would use it as a serious means of commuting it wouldn't be worthwhile.

It's only about $75,000/lanemile for a bike lane.  Less if you're doing a road diet since the pavement's already there.  There's a lot of 2-2 that could easily be improved for everyone by shifting it to a 2-L-2 making the outside lanes 6 foot bike lanes to make room for the center turn lane.
You will quickly loose people at the cost but propose road diets en masse and you quickly kill any future cycling efforts for a long time. The roads will need to be expanded and more infrastructure than pavement will be needed. A fully built out bike network in Tulsa would be in the billions.

You say that, but city council is not on your side there...been downtown lately?
In order for a truly successful bike network to induce potential users you would need the network to extend well out of downtown.

Agreed.  There's a skeleton of routes to build from right now.  However, I think youre overstating the expense and understanding the demand for more transportation options for the folks in the under 70 crowd.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2081
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:56:56 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #124 on: August 13, 2019, 03:33:32 PM »

Quote from: Baloo Uriza
Well, then what's our motivation to expand a highway ODOT didn't want in the first place or they'd have built it before the US Highway System did?  Seems like a weird double down.

ODOT didn't want US-69? What's your source for that claim? It's not exactly a road to nowhere, given it directly connects McAlester and Muskogee to the DFW metro, not to mention providing the most direct road route from Dallas to St Louis and points farther in the Northeast US.

Quote from: Baloo Uriza
Way to futureproof yourselves there, Lawton. It's not "if" Uber and Lyft go under, but "when". Remember pets.com? Basically the same thing going on with those two.

LATS is stuck between a rock and hard place. You may think Uber and Lyft are going to go out of business but you have no reliable clue when that will happen, much less if it will happen at all. Neither does LATS. In the meantime they have to make hard adjustments today to keep the bus system from going bust in the short term.

Most people in Lawton don't care one way or the other about the bus system since they never use it. Some even consider the bus network to be a liberal waste of taxpayer money since some of its operations are subsidized by government money and its ridership is mostly of the poorer and darker classes of people. I think it's better for Lawton to at least have some kind of bus system. But the tax base here cannot absorb lots of red ink from a bus system operating deep in the red.

Quote from: bugo
The only Tulsans who ride bikes are the hipsters who ride along Riverside. Riding a bike is suicidal anywhere else in town. Bicyclists believe the rules don't pertain to them and they won't decide if they want to be a pedestrian or a vehicle.

There are obnoxious bike riders who don't observe traffic rules and even do stupidly risky things. But with that being said there is a much far larger problem: car drivers with their heads embedded in their digital asses. That's the main reason why I refuse to ride my trail bike on any "shared" bike paths in Lawton also used by vehicles. Way too many motorists are looking at their phones or other distractions in the vehicle rather than keeping their eyes on the road. That's what truly makes it suicidal to ride a bicycle along city streets. Hell, it's even risky just being a pedestrian. If it was up to me I would make fines and other punishments for distracted driving (particularly from mobile phone use) far more severe.

Compounding the problem further, there is a fringe element of people who antagonize people on bicycles. I wonder if that's out of some politically-driven motivation, thinking anyone on a "10-speed" wearing a helmet is some kale-eating liberal. Here in Lawton a fair amount of the criminal element pedals around on bicycles (smaller dirt bicycles usually), some of them stolen. That brings even more trouble to law-abiding people on bikes who do follow traffic rules. You're riding your own bike home and have people in the neighborhood watch calling the cops or putting you on blast all over Facebook.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda
In order for a truly successful bike network to induce potential users you would need the network to extend well out of downtown.

Lawton's bike "network" is going nowhere and being used by hardly anyone because it's nothing more than a few disconnected segments in different parts of town. And most of the "network" is nothing more than a few signs posted saying bicycles can use a full traffic lane on a given city street. Um, no thanks.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 03:35:36 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.