Proposed US 412 Upgrade

[swake]

So with the I-344 and I-335 signs going up this month in central Oklahoma, when will ODOT reapply with a different interstate designation number for US-412? Since the designation of "I-42" was rejected as repetitive in the interstate system with I-42 in North Carolina.

[Bobby5280]

The powers that be have to approve a specific Interstate number well before any plans to install signage can be drafted. They haven't met to approve a specific number yet. We could be years from seeing an Interstate number applied to US-412 in Oklahoma.

[MikieTimT]

Crossposting from Arkansas' US 412 upgrade thread since ODOT likely will have the next public involvement meeting on or near the same date ARDOT is having theirs for our first glimpse of the Interstate upgrade alternatives.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?msg=2924705

Finally will see how they plan on connecting the east end of the Cherokee Turnpike to the Springdale Northern Bypass, having a Siloam Springs Bypass in the middle.

[splashflash]

Siloam Springs bypass

I kinda like Siloam Springs 6A, the bypass to the north starting at the east end of the Cherokee Turnpike.  https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/05448994c7fe4790a52bd6754dd9767f

Scroll across the top drop down menu bar to almost the end.

[MikieTimT]

Siloam Springs bypass

I kinda like Siloam Springs 6A, the bypass to the north starting at the east end of the Cherokee Turnpike.  https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/05448994c7fe4790a52bd6754dd9767f

Scroll across the top drop down menu bar to almost the end.

That's my preference too, but reading everything in the Story Map indicates that they aren't close to recommending anything to do with the Siloam Springs Bypass yet, but that it needs its own study.  This tells me that it'll take funding another study to narrow down the bypass, so given that we aren't anywhere near budgeting that study as of yet, the likelihood of it being either the southern alternative, or the northern buffer alternative is almost a certainty with the subdivisions going up north of town right now and assuredly in the future.  Still feels like we're a decade away, at least east of the Cherokee Turnpike.  Shame too, as we'd be driving on an interstate within about 6 years of finding the funding if they didn't do that stupid 6-laning of Siloam Springs back in '06 and did the northern bypass like made most sense.

[MikieTimT]

Looks like they'll do 6 interchanges and 5 overpasses on the limited access conversion of the Inola section along with the already planned I-44 redo and the necessary redo of the interchange with the Cherokee Turnpike section.  All the other section line roads get the cul-de-sac treatment with one parallel section line road getting extended to OK-88.

[splashflash]

No redo of the existing US 69 cloverleaf interchange from what I can see.  I think there was mention of upgrades to flyovers in earlier plans.  The Muskogee digging their heals in preventing a bypass possibly precluded upgrading US 69 or maybe a bypass is yet in the cards, just not shown in the current plans related to US 412.

[Bobby5280]

The existing US-412 cloverleaf interchange with US-69 is only designed for carrying local traffic moving North-South through Choteau. Any sort of freeway/turnpike upgrade along US-69 through there would have to be on a new bypass alignment, which would result in the need to build a different interchange. It would probably be yet another cloverleaf job too.

People in Muskogee and other locations along US-69 might not like the idea of their towns getting bypassed. Yet the need to do improvements on the US-69 corridor are only going to worsen as the DFW metro and other locations in Texas continue to grow. "Near-shoring" manufacturing from China to Mexico will also increase truck traffic levels on the US-69 corridor.

It's also possible traffic levels on US-69 could plummet once the I-57 corridor is completed between Little Rock and Sikeston. The combination of I-30 and I-57 could give truckers a decent alternative to get from points like DFW to locations like Chicago without having to put up with pulverized streets in Choteau or speed traps in Stringtown. And they would get to bypass St Louis as an added benefit.

[splashflash]

The existing US-412 cloverleaf interchange with US-69 is only designed for carrying local traffic moving North-South through Choteau. Any sort of freeway/turnpike upgrade along US-69 through there would have to be on a new bypass alignment, which would result in the need to build a different interchange. It would probably be yet another cloverleaf job too.

People in Muskogee and other locations along US-69 might not like the idea of their towns getting bypassed. Yet the need to do improvements on the US-69 corridor are only going to worsen as the DFW metro and other locations in Texas continue to grow. "Near-shoring" manufacturing from China to Mexico will also increase truck traffic levels on the US-69 corridor.

It's also possible traffic levels on US-69 could plummet once the I-57 corridor is completed between Little Rock and Sikeston. The combination of I-30 and I-57 could give truckers a decent alternative to get from points like DFW to locations like Chicago without having to put up with pulverized streets in Choteau or speed traps in Stringtown. And they would get to bypass St Louis as an added benefit.

If I-57 were successful in drawing long distance traffic off US 69 then the planned I-44 widening could be misspent unless northwestern Arkansas continues to grow at a tear.  Perhaps the growth of northwestern Arkansas itself would prompt ODOT (or OTA) to lean to an eastern bypass of Muscogee and that bypass would end at US 412, not loop back to US 69. 

Interesting that the people of Inola are quite in favour of an interstate upgrade your f US 412 while US 69 Corridor towns dug their heals in.  The money is now scheduled for interchange upgrades in Inola, the last in 2030.  Pretty quick progress for anew interstate. 

[Scott5114]

US-412 already bypassed Inola long ago, so Interstate upgrades are an improvement with no downside to them.

[Great Lakes Roads]

IT'S OFFICIAL! US 412 between I-35 and I-49 is designated as... Interstate 42!

[sprjus4]

IT'S OFFICIAL! US 412 between I-35 and I-49 is designated as... Interstate 42!

You got a source?

[Great Lakes Roads]

IT'S OFFICIAL! US 412 between I-35 and I-49 is designated as... Interstate 42!

You got a source?

Yup, from the AASHTO Spring 2024 Meeting minutes:

Item 1: Arkansas, I-42
Action: Establishment of a new route
Reason for Requested Action: The establishment of a new Interstate route with connection to I-44/I-244 in Tulsa, OK.
Vote: Approve with Condition
Comments: As the segments are redesigned to interstate standards we will approve for each segment.

Item 11: Oklahoma, I-42
Action: Establishment of a new route
Reason for Requesting Action: Future route will be fully controlled access, divided, multi-lane facility with connection to interstate routes at both ends as well as I-44 and I-244 in Tulsa, Ok.
Vote: Approve with Condition
Comments: As the segments are redesigned to interstate standards we will approve for each segment.

[Molandfreak]

Booooooooooo! I knew I should have driven down to Madison to attempt to stop this!

So the pattern continues of AASHTO being nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever the states want. What's the point if they change their mind on making them renumber within months?

[Bobby5280]

Haha. So much for it being "I-50."

[Scott5114]

What's the point if they change their mind on making them renumber within months?

Having checked the documents again, there isn't actually anything about renumbering there. The last meeting was just "Approve with conditions" and "application withdrawn". Everyone assumed that was because of the numbering, but given that this one is "approve with conditions" and the condition is "as the segments are redesigned to interstate standards we will approve for each segment", it's entirely possible that was the condition last time too, while OK/AR withdrew the application for unknown, unrelated reasons.

[Bobby5280]

At this point the only segments of "I-42" that can be signed is part of I-244 from Downtown Tulsa to I-44 on the East Side of the City and then part of the Cimarron Turnpike from I-35 to the recently completed exit re-build at US-177. A few miles East of that point some old grassy median strips need to be replaced with proper barriers. The OTA is in the process of removing those grassy barriers. Farther East the exit re-build with OK-99 has been completed (visible in 4/2024 Google Earth imagery).

[LilianaUwU]

For once, other states steal a number from North Carolina.

[triplemultiplex]

I mean, why even have a numbering system if it's going to be ignored so thoroughly?
46 was the correct answer; I'm sorry.  Thank you for playing.

[The Ghostbuster]

I would have preferred the Interstate 46 designation, too. Existing US 412 is 83.4 miles-long west of Interstate 244, has a 10.3-mile duplex with Interstate 244, has a 5.2-mile duplex with Interstate 44, and is 90.3 miles-long east of Interstate 44. The Interstate 46 designation makes more sense since the future Interstate corridor along 412 is longer north of Interstate 44 than south of Interstate 44. However, I suspect that the Interstate 42 designation is the one that will ultimately be chosen for the corridor.

[sprjus4]

However, I suspect that the Interstate 42 designation is the one that will ultimately be chosen for the corridor.

Well, yeah... that's what AASHTO approved.

[Plutonic Panda]

So fucking dumb. I-50 was the logical choice even if any extension isn't happening in our lifetimes. Plan for the future. Just something we don't seem to be able to do anymore.

[Bobby5280]

I-50 is a vanity number. Especially for an Interstate highway as short and minor as this one is going to be. The damned thing is short enough to carry a 3-digit designation. In that respect, I don't mind the "I-42" thing. Plus, the sign posts with I-42 and US-412 shields will look kind of cool.

It appears some interests in OK and AR already settled on the I-42 number. The designation is mentioned in this news article from last October.
https://www.fox23.com/news/busy-tulsa-highway-could-become-oklahomas-newest-interstate/article_661988ba-6e11-11ee-9104-373d5129f7a5.html

The only thing they didn't try was signing the designation into law, like I-99 in Pennsylvania.

Disconnected duplicate Interstate numbers have been present in the system for decades. Duplicates of I-76, I-84 and I-86 have been around since the 1970's. Duplicate I-88 in Illinois was signed in the 1980's. The two different I-74 routes may never be connected. The same goes for I-99 in NY & PA (even though that would be much easier to tackle). NC is starting to build out its own I-87 which may not ever enter Virginia.

With all that being said, having two distinct I-42 routes is a small potatoes problem. We're probably not done with new duplicate Interstate routes being signed either. Since I-14 has been used up in the Killeen area that only leaves "I-12" as a possible Interstate designation between Austin and Houston. I think it's likely both the US-290 and TX-71 corridors will be improved to Interstate standards eventually. I can see I-12 being applied to one of those corridors.

[triplemultiplex]

This one just grates on me because there are plenty of available numbers they could have used that still fit the grid and would work just fine.  Why the hell they wanted a duplicate number is beyond logic.

"Come to our city; we're located on I-42!"
"Which one?"
"..."

[MikieTimT]

I-50 is a vanity number. Especially for an Interstate highway as short and minor as this one is going to be. The damned thing is short enough to carry a 3-digit designation. In that respect, I don't mind the "I-42" thing. Plus, the sign posts with I-42 and US-412 shields will look kind of cool.

It appears some interests in OK and AR already settled on the I-42 number. The designation is mentioned in this news article from last October.
https://www.fox23.com/news/busy-tulsa-highway-could-become-oklahomas-newest-interstate/article_661988ba-6e11-11ee-9104-373d5129f7a5.html

The only thing they didn't try was signing the designation into law, like I-99 in Pennsylvania.

Disconnected duplicate Interstate numbers have been present in the system for decades. Duplicates of I-76, I-84 and I-86 have been around since the 1970's. Duplicate I-88 in Illinois was signed in the 1980's. The two different I-74 routes may never be connected. The same goes for I-99 in NY & PA (even though that would be much easier to tackle). NC is starting to build out its own I-87 which may not ever enter Virginia.

With all that being said, having two distinct I-42 routes is a small potatoes problem. We're probably not done with new duplicate Interstate routes being signed either. Since I-14 has been used up in the Killeen area that only leaves "I-12" as a possible Interstate designation between Austin and Houston. I think it's likely both the US-290 and TX-71 corridors will be improved to Interstate standards eventually. I can see I-12 being applied to one of those corridors.

Here's the thing.  The current endpoints aren't the ultimate intended endpoints, so while it may seem minor right now, it's intended to go all the way to Nashville eventually, which changes the calculus somewhat on numbering.  Going all the way across northern Arkansas, the Missouri bootheel, and halfway across Tennessee, which is a very wide state, as wide as Oklahoma including the panhandle, the mileage goes up significantly.  I-35 over to I-65 is longer than several other "vanity" numbers in the IHS being more than 650 miles apart.

High Priority Corridor #8

That said, any thought to spend anything on US-412 limited access upgrades in Arkansas other than this current project needs to happen after HPC #1 (I-49 between Alma and Texarkana) gets completed.