Proposed US 412 Upgrade

[US 89]

I-84 is a pretty important route since it moves a lot of traffic between Northwest metro regions (Seattle, Portland, Boise) to the hub in the SLC metro. Unfortunately from that point on Eastward the traffic movement is locked into a very limited and spread out grid. I think the US-6 corridor from the Provo area needs to be upgraded fully to Interstate standards down to I-70. Short bits of US-6 in that area are limited access, but most of it is either 2-lane or undivided 4-lane road. Still, that's the main route between the SLC and Denver metros.

I've said it many times before and I'll say it again. As someone who has lived in the greater Salt Lake City area for the majority of my lifetime and driven to Denver more times than I can count, this bolded statement is false. From city center to city center, it is about 10 minutes faster to use I-80/US 287/I-25, and this is the route most people use if speed is important. Sure, I-70/US 6/I-15 may be faster depending on exactly where in each metro you are starting and ending, and that route is undeniably more scenic, but it is at best complementary to I-80 through Wyoming. The biggest value it adds to the SLC-Denver corridor is in winter when there are blizzards in Wyoming and I-80 has to close.

I absolutely agree that the Spanish Fork-Green River segment of US 6 needs to be at least four-laned the whole way, but SLC-Denver isn't why. 6 is part of a whole inter-regional and even international corridor that goes from the Pacific Northwest to the ports of south and southeast Texas, as well as most of Mexico's larger cities. Should be paired with a complete four-lane of US 191 north of Monticello and US 491 as well.

[Bobby5280]

I absolutely agree that the Spanish Fork-Green River segment of US 6 needs to be at least four-laned the whole way, but SLC-Denver isn't why. 6 is part of a whole inter-regional and even international corridor that goes from the Pacific Northwest to the ports of south and southeast Texas, as well as most of Mexico's larger cities.

The vehicles heading thru SLC to Texas are most likely to take I-70 to Denver and then start trying to head South or Southeast. US-50 is the only other significant thru East-West route in Colorado; the portion between Pueblo and Grand Junction is less friendly to commercial vehicles than I-70. That positions Denver as the primary gateway between the Rockies and the Great Plains.

I-25 and I-70 are both insufficient as routes for vehicles to use to get from the Northwest & Front Range down to places like Texas and the Deep South. A completed Ports to Plains Corridor from Limon to the South will help some. It would certainly be a good alternative to heading over Raton Pass. But the Denver region needs a more direct diagonal route to the Southeast. That's why I keep pitching this Denver-OKC idea.

[sprjus4]

^ Every route variant, either going from I-80 west of SLC to I-25 south of Denver, or from I-84 northwest of SLC to I-70 east of Denver, shows I-80 to I-25 being at least 20 minutes faster than US-6 to I-70 across Colorodo.

[US 89]

I absolutely agree that the Spanish Fork-Green River segment of US 6 needs to be at least four-laned the whole way, but SLC-Denver isn't why. 6 is part of a whole inter-regional and even international corridor that goes from the Pacific Northwest to the ports of south and southeast Texas, as well as most of Mexico's larger cities.

The vehicles heading thru SLC to Texas are most likely to take I-70 to Denver and then start trying to head South or Southeast. US-50 is the only other significant thru East-West route in Colorado; the portion between Pueblo and Grand Junction is less friendly to commercial vehicles than I-70. That positions Denver as the primary gateway between the Rockies and the Great Plains.

I'm not denying that Denver is an important gateway, but that's simply not true for the vast majority of drivers coming from SLC or points further northwest - especially for commercial drivers. Either you take I-80 east and cross the continental divide in Wyoming, or you take US 6 to US 191 to 491, and you cross the divide either on US 550 or I-40. Outside of winter, no truck is going to choose the numerous steep mountain passes of I-70 in Colorado over the largely flat rolling terrain of I-80 in Wyoming. The crossings in New Mexico are pretty tame as well.

[Bobby5280]

Every route variant, either going from I-80 west of SLC to I-25 south of Denver, or from I-84 northwest of SLC to I-70 east of Denver, shows I-80 to I-25 being at least 20 minutes faster than US-6 to I-70 across Colorodo.

Is important to note US-6 between I-15 and I-70 currently sucks. So, yeah, there wouldn't be any time savings currently with taking that route to Denver vs I-80. If that portion of US-6 was upgraded to Interstate standards the situation might be different.

[US 89]

Every route variant, either going from I-80 west of SLC to I-25 south of Denver, or from I-84 northwest of SLC to I-70 east of Denver, shows I-80 to I-25 being at least 20 minutes faster than US-6 to I-70 across Colorodo.

Is important to note US-6 between I-15 and I-70 currently sucks. So, yeah, there wouldn't be any time savings currently with taking that route to Denver vs I-80. If that portion of US-6 was upgraded to Interstate standards the situation might be different.

There will never be time savings barring some type of weather or other incident. If you look at the actual mileage between city centers, the Wyoming route is 6-9 miles shorter than the Grand Junction route, depending on exactly what you do in Fort Collins. And even if you somehow got all of 6 to interstate standards through Price Canyon and Spanish Fork Canyon, the 70/6 route has a lot more mountainous (read: slower) mileage than 80 does.

[edwaleni]

Every route variant, either going from I-80 west of SLC to I-25 south of Denver, or from I-84 northwest of SLC to I-70 east of Denver, shows I-80 to I-25 being at least 20 minutes faster than US-6 to I-70 across Colorodo.

Is important to note US-6 between I-15 and I-70 currently sucks. So, yeah, there wouldn't be any time savings currently with taking that route to Denver vs I-80. If that portion of US-6 was upgraded to Interstate standards the situation might be different.

Soldier Summit, nuff said.

Can we get back to US-412?

[The Ghostbuster]

I would work on upgrading the Cimarron Turnpike and the Sand Springs Expressway to Interstate Standards before tackling the upgrades east of Interstate 44. When the upgrades to the US 412 corridor are initiated, one of the first things that should be done is to convert Exits 15 and 48 on the Cimarron Turnpike into diamond interchanges. Of course, I have no idea which of the corridor's upgrades would be tackled first, but I personally would focus on upgrading the western segments before the eastern segments.

[swake]

I would work on upgrading the Cimarron Turnpike and the Sand Springs Expressway to Interstate Standards before tackling the upgrades east of Interstate 44. When the upgrades to the US 412 corridor are initiated, one of the first things that should be done is to convert Exits 15 and 48 on the Cimarron Turnpike into diamond interchanges. Of course, I have no idea which of the corridor's upgrades would be tackled first, but I personally would focus on upgrading the western segments before the eastern segments.

The biggest upgrade needed to the west of Tulsa is building an interchange at Diamond Head road on Lake Keystone. ODOT held a meeting with residents last week on options. Currently the plan is for right of way acquisition and utility relocation in 2026 and construction in 2029.

https://tulsaworld.com/news/community/sand-springs/sand-springs-area-residents-weigh-in-on-u-s-412-diamond-head-drive-plan/article_b9aa801a-981e-11ee-a9d4-13c31d031979.html

There are a number of project slated for upgrades east of Tulsa between I-44 and the Cherokee turnpike with construction on some of them as soon as 2025.

[Bobby5280]

When the upgrades to the US 412 corridor are initiated, one of the first things that should be done is to convert Exits 15 and 48 on the Cimarron Turnpike into diamond interchanges.

The Exit 48 interchange is currently being re-built. The old obsolete ramps are being replaced with all new ones featuring much better curve geometry. Some of the early progress is visible in 3/2023 Street View imagery.

I expect OTA to replace the Exit 15 interchange as well. But Exit 48 had a considerably worse ramp design.

The biggest upgrade needed to the west of Tulsa is building an interchange at Diamond Head road on Lake Keystone.

That's the last remaining at-grade intersection on US-412 between Downtown Tulsa and I-35. It's almost not worth building an interchange, but US-412 provides the only road access to that neighborhood.

Another alternative would be improving the West 9th Street road the runs along the North side of US-412 and build a bridge or underpass to connect Diamond Head Drive to it. They could probably also extend Wekiwa Road from the Keystone Dam nearby to that neighborhood Diamond Head Drive serves. It would probably cost considerably less building that than building a diamond freeway interchange. Another problem is the trumpet interchange for OK-151 and at grade intersection with Diamond Head Drive are pretty close to each other. I really think it would be safer for other nearby streets to provide connections to Diamond Head Drive and then use the OK-151 interchange for access to US-412.

[bugo]

I sent an email to an ODOT representative asking why the I-42 application was withdrawn. I received a response earlier today:

The joint Oklahoma/Arkansas I-42 Route Numbering Application was withdrawn shortly before the AASHTO Fall Meeting when we were informed that the Route Numbering Committee had concerns that an I-42 in Oklahoma and Arkansas might cause confusion with the proposed I-42 in North Carolina and were planning to not allow the application to go through. The Committee was also concerned that since there are no current or future plans to connect the two segments of the proposed I-42 they would remain disconnected for the foreseeable future. Typically there is a question and answer time between the States and the Route Numbering Committee while they are making their recommendations, but that was not provided this year as the Route Numbering Committee met virtually only with its members leading up to the AASHTO Fall Meeting. The decision to temporarily withdraw the application was made in conjunction with both Oklahoma and Arkansas DOT leadership. We plan to resubmit this application for the AASHTO Spring Meeting following more communication with the Route Numbering Committee.

I also asked about there being an toll road called I-344 less than 100 miles away from a toll road called OK 344, and here is the response:

The Gilcrease Turnpike designation of SH-344 is a State Highway designation and was approved by the State Transportation Commission. A State Highway Designation only requires approval by the State Transportation Commission and the number part of a highway designation can sometimes be the same as a US Route or an Interstate. There are no plans to redesignate the Gilcrease Turnpike and that will remain its Highway Route Number. The designation of I-344, approved by the AASHTO Route Numbering Committee, is being applied to the John Kilpatrick Turnpike in Oklahoma City. This is part of the current effort to give numbered route designations to all unnumbered Turnpikes. This will help the traveling public better navigate Oklahoma's Highways and Turnpikes.

[Plutonic Panda]

Thank you for reporting back on that. Good stuff to know.

[sprjus4]

This will help the traveling public better navigate Oklahoma's Highways and Turnpikes.

Something tells me it's less confusing without numbers than having a "344" designation within 100 miles of each other, in the same state, on the same Turnpike system. But, it's Oklahoma so what do I expect.

The only reason it seems they pulled I-42 is because AASHTO was like, hey, let's avoid duplication several hundred miles apart, but internally ODOT sees it as fine.

[MikieTimT]

Good info.  Now, that begs the question about who is on the Route Numbering Committee, and whether there is a mechanism of public communication with it/them.

[rte66man]

I can't remember where I saw it, but I do recall seeing old maps of potential conceptual turnpikes in Oklahoma. One of them included a turnpike starting in the OKC metro and going NW to Woodward. Now that's not nearly as ambitious as a OKC-Denver diagonal highway corridor, but it would build out a pretty significant chunk of the route.

That was pat of the 90's plans to connect the State. OKC to Woodward, Davis to Duncan, etc.  None of them were remotely financially feasible so they died a quiet death.

[Bobby5280]

The OKC to Woodward thing I saw was actually part of an older plan. It wasn't part of that package of goofy turnpike proposals (Duncan to Davis and Clinton to Snyder).

[The Ghostbuster]

With the John Kilpatrick Turnpike becoming Interstate 344 (I agree this is a lousy number), and the Kickapoo Turnpike becoming Interstate 335, there should be no more unnumbered toll roads in Oklahoma. I guess we'll have to wait even longer to see what Interstate designation the US 412 corridor receives.

[Plutonic Panda]

US-412/Diamond Head Interchange: https://oklahoma.gov/odot/programs-and-projects0/public-meetings-and-hearings0/public-meetings-and-hearings/20231205.html

[Bobby5280]

Just as expected, the alternative to build a new road from Diamond Head Drive on East to the intersection with OK-151 and Wekiwa Road is the least expensive option. That's Alternative 2 in the Display Boards PDF. The main drawback to the concept is traffic impacts to the USACE office nearby.

Alternative 6 would be the most expensive option, but probably the safest. The trumpet interchange with OK-151 and US-412 would be replaced with a diamond interchange. A new access road along the North side of US-412 would be built; it would bridge over to the Diamond Head neighborhood.

It's interesting Alternative 4 requires the least amount of new ROW. But the new diamond interchange with Diamond Head Road would create weaving conflicts on US-412. The on-ramp for Diamond Head Road onto EB US-412 would have traffic weaving with vehicles exiting US-412 onto OK-151.

[Plutonic Panda]

Why even propose a diamond interchange with no braided ramps this close to a free flowing trumpet? Clearly ODOT doesn't want to build an interchange here.

[Bobby5280]

If I was going to bet on the outcome I'd choose alternative 2, simply because of the low cost.

Two interchanges closely spaced together with braided ramps would be quite expensive, probably even more expensive than the Alternative 6 proposal.

[Plutonic Panda]

Right it would be expensive but it would be the only "right" way of doing an interchange there if it's really worth it. Hence me thinking ODOT is not interested in building an interchange but simply removing the at grade intersection.

[Bobby5280]

I just don't think two interchanges there is a good idea. Weaving conflicts absolutely suck. A diamond interchange with Diamond Head Rd is going to be too close to the existing trumpet interchange with OK-151. Braided ramps can solve the problem, but at a very high cost in relation to the low number of people living there. It's wasteful extravagance. I think the Alternative 6 option is the best one out of the bunch (re-build the OK-151 trumpet interchange as a diamond interchange and build a new access road over to Diamond Head Road).

[swake]

I just don't think two interchanges there is a good idea. Weaving conflicts absolutely suck. A diamond interchange with Diamond Head Rd is going to be too close to the existing trumpet interchange with OK-151. Braided ramps can solve the problem, but at a very high cost in relation to the low number of people living there. It's wasteful extravagance. I think the Alternative 6 option is the best one out of the bunch (re-build the OK-151 trumpet interchange as a diamond interchange and build a new access road over to Diamond Head Road).

It's likely cheaper to buy out the houses and tear them all down than to go with option 6.

[Plutonic Panda]

Frankly I am partial to alternative 5. Now I know nothing about this area so I don't know if roundabouts are a good candidate for this or not but it seems like a good compromise. Semi free flowing interchange and minimal ROW. ODOT could even sell off additional ROW or keep it for a maintenance or storage area.