This is what I remembered. Something was said at some point (I know, yay for details!) about there being a mistake and the clearance wasn't going to allow for traffic underneath. But it does appear that this will be rectified, I just didn't know what it meant for the flyover or if they're going to branch off the other ramp as part of this project.

The fix is probably something as simple as shifting westbound lanes slightly north and lowering the elevation a little before the roadway reaches the bridge.

I was just wondering about selling or giving away the Oklahoma Turnpikes. It probably won't happen, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Selling is highly unlikely, giving away is not happening.

When all this is finished, will the Kilpatrick Turnpike be sold or given to private owners.

It will never technically be done. lol

It will never technically be done. lol

Yeah, think about the Turner Turnpike. My dad told me that that thing was suppose to be free years ago. Not the case. They fund their own construction. No worries about federal funds coming in. Why would they want to sell off their jobs?

The reason for continual construction is simple: the legislation that authorized turnpikes in the first place, dating from the late 1940s and Gov. Roy Turner, provided that tolls would be collected only until the roads were paid off, and they would then become free.

By continually creating new construction, the OTA can prevent the roads from ever being paid off and therefore can continue to collect tolls.

The law of unintended consequences strikes again!!! (Or could it have been intentional all along?)

The reason for continual construction is simple: the legislation that authorized turnpikes in the first place, dating from the late 1940s and Gov. Roy Turner, provided that tolls would be collected only until the roads were paid off, and they would then become free.

By continually creating new construction, the OTA can prevent the roads from ever being paid off and therefore can continue to collect tolls.

The law of unintended consequences strikes again!!! (Or could it have been intentional all along?)

Also of interest would be who holds/controls the bonds - my memory is not 100% accurate, but if I remember correctly, a very small number of people are profiting from perpetual construction on the turnpikes keeping tolls in place.

BUT - with that said, I honestly do not object to tolls/use taxes. It is more fair for those who actually use the road to pay for it than someone who will never use it. I find it odd that a large portion of OK citizens scream bloody murder about taxes in general, but hardly make a sound about toll roads that are not even under the purview of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.

I may not have the OTA/ODOT relationship right. I would be interested in learning more if someone with knowledge of how the OTA is structured would chime in....

Get used to it, toll roads are going to become the norm as roads become more expensive to build and funding is always going to be lacking.

As far as the roads "going private" as Uncle Pete asked, that may have to do with some of the road building deals that Texas has used with Cintra/Zachry. I think most of those were 50 year contracts for Cintra/Zachry to build and operate but at the end of the 50 year contracts the roads revert back to the State of Texas. I don't think the OTA has ever entertained such proposals, doesn't mean they might not in the future but I think most states that have done such deals have the language in the contracts that the roads go back to the states after contract fulfillment.

If it keeps the road upkept and surrounding areas clean then I am all for toll roads

If it keeps the road upkept and surrounding areas clean then I am all for toll roads

I agree. Speaking of, why is the turnpike to Tulsa not better than it is (ala I-35 through Kansas)?

Uhh...because that's a totally different state...

Anyone know what they are doing in between I-40 & NW 39th on the Kilpatrick? It looks like they are adding an asphalt strip to make the shoulders wider. There has to be more to it than that.

I'm pretty sure they're adding the cable barrier to prevent crossover accidents. I think they're taking the barrier that they had just put in on the north side up by Mercy and reusing it here because they had to tear it out when they decided to widen the turnpike.

I'm pretty sure they're adding the cable barrier to prevent crossover accidents. I think they're taking the barrier that they had just put in on the north side up by Mercy and reusing it here because they had to tear it out when they decided to widen the turnpike.

I had a similar recollection.

Yeah, think about the Turner Turnpike. My dad told me that that thing was suppose to be free years ago. Not the case. They fund their own construction. No worries about federal funds coming in. Why would they want to sell off their jobs?


Sure - let's just get rid of all the Toll Roads and let the taxes go up that are necessary to build the roads we need ! Cool ! Does anyone "seriously" think they drive on "Free Roads" ever?

I wasn't implying that but more power to ya.

I honestly do not object to tolls/use taxes. It is more fair for those who actually use the road to pay for it than someone who will never use it. I find it odd that a large portion of OK citizens scream bloody murder about taxes in general, but hardly make a sound about toll roads that are not even under the purview of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.

I certainly don't object to the tolls / use taxes, either. I just think it should be lowered on days that there's construction going on.

Yeah, think about the Turner Turnpike. My dad told me that that thing was suppose to be free years ago. Not the case. They fund their own construction. No worries about federal funds coming in. Why would they want to sell off their jobs?

we as a state voted a long time ago to combine the turner with all the toll roads in the system ..

The reason for continual construction is simple: the legislation that authorized turnpikes in the first place, dating from the late 1940s and Gov. Roy Turner, provided that tolls would be collected only until the roads were paid off, and they would then become free.

By continually creating new construction, the OTA can prevent the roads from ever being paid off and therefore can continue to collect tolls.

The law of unintended consequences strikes again!!! (Or could it have been intentional all along?)

that was only for the turner it was to become free after it was "paid for" .... but we voted as a state to not do that and combine the turner with the rest of the system

The Turner was the very first, begun in 1948 I believe and completed in 1953, and the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority was created at that time to build and maintain it. The "free when paid off" rule applied to all highways operated by the authority, but at that time the Turner was the only one. When it turned out to be quite popular, the OTA was permitted to build more, and so far as I can determine, the "free when paid off" rule still applies to the OTA, not to the individual pikes. It's really irrelevant, since OTA and the legislature have made it quite plain that they will never be fully paid off. Less than half the income goes to servicing the debt.

They will be shutting down the ramp from kilpatrick westbound to Hefner southbound for 90 days as they dismantle and rebuild the support beam.

They will be shutting down the ramp from kilpatrick westbound to Hefner southbound for 90 days as they dismantle and rebuild the support beam.

Noticed the new pier going up the other day. Wow, thats a really expensive fix because the original contractor didn't do that pier the right way to allow for enough clearance.

Noticed the new pier going up the other day. Wow, thats a really expensive fix because the original contractor didn't do that pier the right way to allow for enough clearance.

I don't get this. If they're having to redo the support beam, why not take the team to move the whole ramp right there further west?

Instead of widening this thing, they should first have built the NB to WB flyover at LHP and the SB to EB flyover/cloverleaf at 235. These two are sorely needed, especially the one at LHP.

235 interchange is ODOT. This project is OTA. Two totally different entities.

235 interchange is ODOT. This project is OTA. Two totally different entities.

He is referring to kilpatrick and broadway extension I believe... Like south broadway to east kilpatrick.

He is referring to kilpatrick and broadway extension I believe... Like south broadway to east kilpatrick.

Edmond is officially ignoring Tulsa exists.

$54.8 million for this!? Wow!!!

Who pays? It goes from OTA's Kilpatrick to ODOT's LHP.

It seems like they should have just accepting that three lanes under the flyover would have been a pain and given the flyovers a dedicated lane like what happens at most interstate junctures. Plus it might have helped eliminate people mistakenly getting off on Portland or starting to and quickly swerving back on the road.

$54.8 million for this!? Wow!!!

Who pays? It goes from ota's kilpatrick to odot's lhp.

ota.

$54.8 million for this!? Wow!!!

Who pays? It goes from OTA's Kilpatrick to ODOT's LHP.

ota.
Yep, the original interchange cost was moved from the ODOT Parkway project to the OTA Kilpatrick project when the turnpike was given the go ahead.

Construction To Close Major Bridge On Kilpatrick Turnpike - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/19902556/construction-to-close-major-bridge-on-kilpatrick-turnpike)

http://newsok.com/busy-oklahoma-city-interchange-to-be-closed-for-up-to-three-months/article/3721987

Maybe I'm just so impressed with the interchanges that other states are able to build, but who designs most of our interchanges here in the city? Is it a single person for all or is it regional? Is Ridley the one that has ultimate approval of these clusters?

Might as well add in those north to west and east to south flyovers while they're at it!

So... why aren't they adding exits to the other highways as part of the Turnpike expansion? It seems really silly for you to have to get off at Memorial Road if you are going north on the Parkway and want to head west on the turnpike.

Yep...just said that dude 4 minutes before you :-)

Maybe I'm just so impressed with the interchanges that other states are able to build, but who designs most of our interchanges here in the city? Is it a single person for all or is it regional? Is Ridley the one that has ultimate approval of these clusters?

I also think their designs are terrible. What really kills me is that you can't go from southboundbound 235 to eastbound Kilpatrick. You have to go past, exit at 122nd, go under 235 and get back on 235 going north and then exit from the northbound direction onto eastbound Kilpatrick.

Worst of all, there is plenty of physical space to have done this right the first time.

Whose half-baked idea was this...and what committee accepted it? This kind of thinking screams small-time.

Maybe I'm just so impressed with the interchanges that other states are able to build, but who designs most of our interchanges here in the city? Is it a single person for all or is it regional? Is Ridley the one that has ultimate approval of these clusters?I KNOW!!!!! I mean how hard is it to just adopt the Texas interchange designs and just it get it done with. I'm not saying just go tear up every interchange in the city immediately, but if your gonna do it, DO IT RIGHT!!! haha..

I also think their designs are terrible. What really kills me is that you can't go from southboundbound 235 to eastbound Kilpatrick. You have to go past, exit at 122nd, go under 235 and get back on 235 going north and then exit from the northbound direction onto eastbound Kilpatrick.

Worst of all, there is plenty of physical space to have done this right the first time.

Whose half-baked idea was this...and what committee accepted it? This kind of thinking screams small-time.

Its more about not being needed the first time around. Especially ramps to and from the the Kirkpatrick turnpike west of the Lake Hefner Parkway. It didn't go that far out ten years ago.

If the OTA deemed it necessary, they could easily acquire the financing available to build these ramps unlike ODOT.

I KNOW!!!!! I mean how hard is it to just adopt the Texas interchange designs and just it get it done with. I'm not saying just go tear up every interchange in the city immediately, but if your gonna do it, DO IT RIGHT!!! haha..

This is what I'm thinking. I know the cost has got to be substantially higher, but for the love of all that is holy, do the interchange right and we won't have to keep screwing with it every 10 years when they inevitably become outdated again. Just build the flyover ramps and do the interchanges right when we're redoing them anyway! It's not that hard. I really wish we could get some new leadership at ODOT. I think that would help. Someone that hopefully will push for better design..?

This is what I'm thinking. I know the cost has got to be substantially higher, but for the love of all that is holy, do the interchange right and we won't have to keep screwing with it every 10 years when they inevitably become outdated again. Just build the flyover ramps and do the interchanges right when we're redoing them anyway! It's not that hard. I really wish we could get some new leadership at ODOT. I think that would help. Someone that hopefully will push for better design..?

See above, #151. This is OTA's project.

See above, #151. This is OTA's project.

Isn't OTA now headed by Ridley as well?

Yep. Though ODOT has no money in the LHP - KT project.

My guess as to why OTA doesn't build a 5 level interchange is cost. The High five in Dallas cost around a quarter billion dollars. Everything OTA does is predicated on cost, return on investment, number of users, etc.

If you don't like what they're building, don't drive on it, don't pay for it.

Yep. Though ODOT has no money in the LHP - KT project.

My guess as to why OTA doesn't build a 5 level interchange is cost. The High five in Dallas cost around a quarter billion dollars. Everything OTA does is predicated on cost, return on investment, number of users, etc.

If you don't like what they're building, don't drive on it, don't pay for it.

Here's the thing Bill. Since there are not adequate ramps (or ramps at all in certain directions) the cars exiting to change highways clog up the roads that I use in lieu of the turnpike. They should design something better.

Here's the thing Bill. Since there are not adequate ramps (or ramps at all in certain directions) the cars exiting to change highways clog up the roads that I use in lieu of the turnpike. They should design something better.

Who is "they"? OTA? ODOT? City of OKC?

Its more about not being needed the first time around. Especially ramps to and from the the Kirkpatrick turnpike west of the Lake Hefner Parkway. It didn't go that far out ten years ago.

If the OTA deemed it necessary, they could easily acquire the financing available to build these ramps unlike ODOT.

I'm talking Broadway Extension and Kilpatrick. You can't leave Edmond on Broadway Extension and go East on Kilpatrick. It was definitely needed when it was built. If planners at the time decided it wasn't...that is small time thinking. If you can't think 5 years ahead on a 2 year building cycle, you don't need to be near a construction project.

cjohnson - Your inference is that large numbers of people in Edmond have been pleading their case to OTA for 20 years (for a SB Broadway to EB Kilpatrick) ramp, and the OTA is simply ignoring them. I suspect that OTA runs a cost-benefit analysis on everything they do, but they haven't determined that there's adequate revenue to justify the cost of that exchange. Demand has certainly gone up since the KT was built, but so too has the cost of installing a ramp which would serve this purpose.

It's like two families and one makes $200,000 a year and the other $30,000 a year, but a gallon of milk still costs $3.50 to both.

The construction of these Texas interchanges would cost Oklahoma the same as it costs Texas. But we're the family that makes $30,000 a year. Texas can afford it and we can't.

It's like two families and one makes $200,000 a year and the other $30,000 a year, but a gallon of milk still costs $3.50 to both.

The construction of these Texas interchanges would cost Oklahoma the same as it costs Texas. But we're the family that makes $30,000 a year. Texas can afford it and we can't.

zoo - I think it's simply a matter of volume, not the per-capita income of Oklahomans versus Texans.

Yep. Though ODOT has no money in the LHP - KT project.

My guess as to why OTA doesn't build a 5 level interchange is cost. The High five in Dallas cost around a quarter billion dollars. Everything OTA does is predicated on cost, return on investment, number of users, etc.

If you don't like what they're building, don't drive on it, don't pay for it.

This is a ridiculous statement.

1) The High-5 in Dallas is a bad comparison. It handles 10x traffic on two of the most congested freeways in Texas.
2) Outside of street level traffic, the state does not give drivers another option for east-westbound traffic on the northside.
3) There has always been plenty of space for an eastbound ramp.

2811

I get that not doing it right the first time is driven by cost. But, in this case, it is ridiculous. Just wait a year or two until you can do something right that is so obvious.

zoo - I think it's simply a matter of volume, not the per-capita income of Oklahomans versus Texans.

I didn't mean that at all. I mean that Texas state coffers due to a population of 26 million is going to be able to afford the cost. The Texas style interchanges would cost us the same but we only have 4 million people. Texas is equivalent to 6 1/2 Oklahomas.

C.Johnson... Im not a part of OTA but I can pretty much assume their reason for not doing it is access to the turnpike from Eastern and access to I-35 via all those E-W routes. Whatdya think?

Here's the thing Bill. Since there are not adequate ramps (or ramps at all in certain directions) the cars exiting to change highways clog up the roads that I use in lieu of the turnpike. They should design something better.

As long as their is a charge to the turnpike their is going to be some percentage that just take memorial

When is this supposed to be finished? Sorry if this was mentioned elsewhere.

When is this supposed to be finished? Sorry if this was mentioned elsewhere.

I think in early summer....? It was to be a one year project IIRC.

Seems like they are making good progress on the kilpatrick to Hefner bridge... Looks like the steal beams are all back in place and its a matter of putting concrete back on there now. At this rate it could be finished around New Years.

Seems like they are making good progress on the kilpatrick to Hefner bridge... Looks like the steal beams are all back in place and its a matter of putting concrete back on there now. At this rate it could be finished around New Years.

It is still ridiculous that it is having to be redone at all. I wonder if that was the same company which installed the bridges incorrectly over the north canadian river.

It is still ridiculous that it is having to be redone at all. I wonder if that was the same company which installed the bridges incorrectly over the north canadian river.

I think this Kilpatrick to LHP change is just due to the fact that the Kilpatrick was originally designed and built as a 4 lane road. When they decided to expand it to 6 lanes, they needed a wider path for the extra 2 lanes on the road, thus the support column's angle had to be changed for the lane clearance.

It is still ridiculous that it is having to be redone at all. I wonder if that was the same company which installed the bridges incorrectly over the north canadian river.I agree that the river bridges are a joke. That contractor should never build another bridge. But the Kilpatrick-Hefner Parkway bridge I'm sure was built as it was designed. The designers apparently didn't consider the possibility of the Kilpatrick being increased to 6 lanes. Or that the increase would be inward and not done by adding outside lanes. Not the original bridge builders fault.

I agree that the river bridges are a joke. That contractor should never build another bridge. But the Kilpatrick-Hefner Parkway bridge I'm sure was built as it was designed. The designers apparently didn't consider the possibility of the Kilpatrick being increased to 6 lanes. Or that the increase would be inward and not done by adding outside lanes. Not the original bridge builders fault.

The Turnpike Authority has stated it was originally designed with the capacity to be widened to six lanes and their was a mistake during the construction with the bridge clearance. It was always planned to have the widening take place on the inside lanes.