Kilpatrick Turnpike to be widened
By Brian Brus
Journal Record
Oklahoma City reporter
Posted: 06:29 PM Tuesday, January 17, 2012

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Kilpatrick Turnpike in the northern part of the Oklahoma City metropolitan area will be widened from four lanes to six, Oklahoma Turnpike Authority officials said Tuesday.

The turnpike, the first phase of which was opened 20 years ago, is quickly running out of capacity for traffic, Deputy Director Tim Stewart said. Annual automobile growth has been 3 percent to 5 percent, and traffic has reached an average of more than 55,000 vehicles per day on its busiest section.

However, original plans allowed for that to happen someday, with extra space in the median intended for widening. So most of the work on the project won’t spill out to Memorial Road running parallel to the turnpike, Stewart said. No new right of way will be required.

The project, estimated at $60 million, is comprised of about eight miles from MacArthur Boulevard to Eastern Avenue, including eight bridges. Stewart said construction will replace the BNSF Railroad bridge as well, which raised some concerns from Oklahoma City Council members with the development of a commuter transit system in mind.

Authority officials said BNSF has asked for enough space for future expansion of a second track, but no intent has been clarified for commuter rail yet. The state Transportation Department is also working with BNSF and project managers.

City Hall for several years has been planning the development of a central hub for multimodal transit to include bus and rail. Some of the city’s MAPS 3 sales tax issue projects are expected to tie into the system, and the placement of a new convention center takes the hub into consideration.

Stewart said the authority will also provide a Kilpatrick Turnpike noise barrier near Eastern Avenue to protect the interests of The Oaks neighborhood nearby.

Final plans for the project are due Feb. 7, with bids awarded March 2. Construction is expected to begin in April. The full project will take two years to complete. Stewart said contract details will include clear periods during the heaviest holiday shopping traffic in November and December.

The authority was created by the state Legislature in 1947 to operate and maintain the turnpike system across the state, which now totals about 600 miles. The authority receives no tax revenues; all repairs and operations are paid by tolls, and major projects are covered by bonds that are also paid covered by tolls. Stewart said bond funds have already been secured to widen Kilpatrick and the work will not affect current toll rates. Cash plazas will remain in place.

How about before they do that, they finish bringing it further south to tie into the H.E. Bailey and Hwy 9? They also need to have a better way for drivers to get on the turnpike going west from Hefner parkway and south from the turnpike onto the parkway.

There's a rumor going around that some of the state's bridges are in less than satisfactory condition . . .

They also need to have a better way for drivers to get on the turnpike going west from Hefner parkway and south from the turnpike onto the parkway.Other than going 5 stories in the air what's wrong with that interchange?

No! Put that money towards the I-235 / I-44 interchange.. That is SO desperately more needed..

This is being funded by the turnpike authority.


There's a rumor going around that some of the state's bridges are in less than satisfactory condition . . .
Unless it is one of the turnpike bridges then it is not going a high priority to them and outside of widening turner then them doing a drastic increase in bridge work is unlikely.


No! Put that money towards the I-235 / I-44 interchange.. That is SO desperately more needed..
Pretty much all the money spent on the turnpike system comes from the turnpike system or loans that will be payed off by it's use, while they may pay for junctures with interstates, they do not pay for large projects not involving a turnpike at all. Besides the work planed for the i235/i44 juncture is fully funded through ODOTs budget plan.

double post. what snowman said

Other than going 5 stories in the air what's wrong with that interchange?

He said WEST, the ramp your referring to goes EAST. To go west, you have to get off on Memorial, go through three stoplights, then pay to get back on the turnpike to head west.

Yeah, a flyover would be very nice there for Nouthbound to Westbound traffic.

Just out of curiousity, why would you be upset if its five stories up? Those high flyover ramps minimize ROW costs significantly, especially now since that corner is so built up.

Ill take 20 stories of flyovers if it means no cloverleaf design

Yeah, a flyover would be very nice there for Nouthbound to Westbound traffic.

Just out of curiousity, why would you be upset if its five stories up? Those high flyover ramps minimize ROW costs significantly, especially now since that corner is so built up.

The northbound to eastbound fly over could have been done much shorter and using more of the run on the ground. So first less prone to icing, second costs less in original construction and third less costly to maintain over time. It probably was done so the eventual northbound to westbound flyover could split off of it and go over the westbound to southbound flyover but at this point the only benefit of the extra height is you have gravity on your side when you are getting to the points needing acceleration.

He said WEST, the ramp your referring to goes EAST. To go west, you have to get off on Memorial, go through three stoplights, then pay to get back on the turnpike to head west.

Oops! I must have been directionally challenged this morning. And I go by there every day.

I don't know why the article discusses the BNSF bridge... Kilpatrick goes over the tracks, not the other way around. I think the author is confusing the BNSF bridge that goes over 235 down by 50th Street, which would be an ODOT project as opposed to an OTA project.

I don't know why the article discusses the BNSF bridge... Kilpatrick goes over the tracks, not the other way around. I think the author is confusing the BNSF bridge that goes over 235 down by 50th Street, which would be an ODOT project as opposed to an OTA project.

It threw me off when I first read that part of the article but your suggestion makes sense.

I don't know why the article discusses the BNSF bridge... Kilpatrick goes over the tracks, not the other way around. I think the author is confusing the BNSF bridge that goes over 235 down by 50th Street, which would be an ODOT project as opposed to an OTA project.

The author is using the correct bridge, but not explaining it well. The bridge in question carries Kilpatrick over the tracks. The question is, will the bridge be long enough to allow 3 tracks underneath... will the abutments be separated far enough apart as to allow trains to pass below unimpeded.

The author is using the correct bridge, but not explaining it well. The bridge in question carries Kilpatrick over the tracks. The question is, will the bridge be long enough to allow 3 tracks underneath... will the abutments be separated far enough apart as to allow trains to pass below unimpeded.


Ummm, that's what I said...that it goes over the tracks on Kilpatrick.

And as far as tracks go, there's already a mainline track and a spur line track to the lumber place just north of 122nd St. They would only be asking for one more mainline track which probably would be shared exclusively between freight and commuter (if ever expanded north to Edmond). There is only one company in the US that has a three track main and that is Union Pacific up in Nebraska. BNSF doesn't need that in Oklahoma.

^^this is a completely different topic but I thought BNSF had 3 tracks on the Cajon Pass?

^^this is a completely different topic but I thought BNSF had 3 tracks on the Cajon Pass?

That's a co-op line, jointly used by Union Pacific and BNSF. Originally built by an AT&SF subsidiary, it was two lines and then I guess (and according to Wikipedia) a third main was added in 2003. Union Pacific has one line through there, although not always following the same path as BNSF, I believe. As far as triple tracking, I forgot about BNSF's Alemeda Corridor in LA, which is 11 miles of sub grade triple track to the Port of Los Angeles.

As far as Union Pacific's triple track mainline, I was only thinking of that due to the length of triple track which is roughly 110 miles. ;-)

Sorry for the distraction, back to topic.

Although "the fix was in", prior to my initial introduction to this particular project, just the other night, via a local TV news broadcast, my gut reaction was WPA/CCC Project[?].

Oh . . .
WPA: Worthless Pinheaded Appropriation
CCC: Clueless Corrupt Construction

I know my acronym dictionary is a little out of date, but WTF?

Whether its the Kilpatrick or other similar widenings in this region, the purpose of the widening is usually to alleviate rush hour traffic for 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes at night. Commuting time, typically 5 to 10 more minutes a day, is considered and accepted by those of us who chose to live and work in a location that would require us to drive it. And while the widening may lessen congestion (I don't believe it does, as more cars tend to show up), it encourages higher speeds, which increases the likelihood of life-ending accidents to occur. Which is worse - 10 minutes added to our days or $50 million and more traffic fatalities? I know what I would choose. And how will $5-7 gallon gas impact turnpike revenues?

Whether its the Kilpatrick or other similar widenings in this region, the purpose of the widening is usually to alleviate rush hour traffic for 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes at night. Commuting time, typically 5 to 10 more minutes a day, is considered and accepted by those of us who chose to live and work in a location that would require us to drive it. And while the widening may lessen congestion (I don't believe it does, as more cars tend to show up), it encourages higher speeds, which increases the likelihood of life-ending accidents to occur. Which is worse - 10 minutes added to our days or $50 million and more traffic fatalities? I know what I would choose. And how will $5-7 gallon gas impact turnpike revenues?

I think I know what your screen name means...

I think I know what your screen name means...

I think he or she is Kerry (Just the Facts) in disguise.

I think he or she is Kerry (Just the Facts) in disguise.

Haha, wouldn't surprise me.

This is being funded by the turnpike authority.


Unless it is one of the turnpike bridges then it is not going a high priority to them and outside of widening turner then them doing a drastic increase in bridge work is unlikely.


Pretty much all the money spent on the turnpike system comes from the turnpike system or loans that will be payed off by it's use, while they may pay for junctures with interstates, they do not pay for large projects not involving a turnpike at all. Besides the work planed for the i235/i44 juncture is fully funded through ODOTs budget plan.
This is correct, when Lake Hefner Parkway was being built the ODOT money was able to be moved from the partial interchange designed for Memorial Road due to the Kilpatrick Turnpike being funded and OTA money being used for the entire interchange that was built, that helped speed up completion of LHP. The reason why there was no LHP-NB -> KT-WB flyover built at the same time was the fact that the Kilpatrick Turnpike pretty much ended just west of Portland, the west extension came several years after the original leg from Portland to I-35 was completed.

They had an extension planned for the turnpike long before it terminated at Portland (cuing Oil Capital) so you think they would have planned for this like they do with most flyover ramps in Texas...

They had an extension planned for the turnpike long before it terminated at Portland (cuing Oil Capital) so you think they would have planned for this like they do with most flyover ramps in Texas...

Flyover ramps in Texas are not always preplanned. Do you honestly think that when the intersection of LBJ and North Central was constructed any flyovers were ever thought about. I don't think so. Also, do you have inside information on what the long term plans are for the Kilpatrick are? How do you know that plans weren't formulated long ago for future flyovers there?

Ok, you got me LJ, but sincerely, I was trying to bait Oil Capital! In all honesty, I was referring to a turnpike extension in Austin where the flyover ramps have extension ports on them for if and when future expansion occurs. I guess its not all interchanges, as the one you're referring to.

Ok, you got me LJ, but sincerely, I was trying to bait Oil Capital! In all honesty, I was referring to a turnpike extension in Austin where the flyover ramps have extension ports on them for if and when future expansion occurs. I guess its not all interchanges, as the one you're referring to.

I wasn't trying to get you. I just wanted to make a point that there is good and poor planning everywhere. OKC has no corner on that market.

Ok, you got me LJ, but sincerely, I was trying to bait Oil Capital! In all honesty, I was referring to a turnpike extension in Austin where the flyover ramps have extension ports on them for if and when future expansion occurs. I guess its not all interchanges, as the one you're referring to.

Sorry, I missed my cue. ;-) (But I honestly have no idea what you were expecting from me... not only did I miss my cue, I forgot my lines... )

Yes, that extension was long planned but at the time the project was done they only did a feasibility study for the flyovers, no engineering was done at that time because they thought the extension would be many years out. My dad was the project manager for the design firm on LHP and the Kilpatrick interchange projects.

The preplanned flyover is a relatively new thing and for the most part the only time those flyovers in Texas are preplanned is when they don't have the funds to do the entire project so they only complete one or two like the Ben White interchanges at I-35 and Mopac (both not too far from our house in Austin). Most the time the only full engineering done on the flyovers is the ramp abutment, the actually flyover(s) not being constructed has only had a preliminary design/engineering to make sure that it is feasible to be constructed in the future when the funds do come available. When the funding becomes available the remainder is fully engineered at that point. Only on a rare occasional are they completely designed and not built. Most of the time the DOT's don;t want to pay for engineering that may have to change due to codes/condition changes in the future.

One consideration on flyovers in Oklahoma --- ICE. It happens, but its very rare that the Dallas flyovers get any appreciable ice on them, but think about that stretch of road over by the Belle Isle area when its icy.

The preplanned flyover is a relatively new thing and for the most part the only time those flyovers in Texas are preplanned is when they don't have the funds to do the entire project so they only complete one or two like the Ben White interchanges at I-35 and Mopac (both not too far from our house in Austin).They may be relatively new to our area, but when I lived in the Los Angeles area back in 1959-62 there was a stub exit ramp near where the Hollywood Freeway turned west and became US 101. This ramp led to (the beginning of) a flyover, which eventually became the start of the Golden State Freeway but for the entire time I was out there just ended about four stories in the air. Certainly looks like some sort of pre-planning, more than 50 years ago...

They may be relatively new to our area, but when I lived in the Los Angeles area back in 1959-62 there was a stub exit ramp near where the Hollywood Freeway turned west and became US 101. This ramp led to (the beginning of) a flyover, which eventually became the start of the Golden State Freeway but for the entire time I was out there just ended about four stories in the air. Certainly looks like some sort of pre-planning, more than 50 years ago...
Much of it has to do with whether the budgets will allow them to be built. Just because they aren't built out in the first phase doesn't mean they haven't been pre-planned. Pretty much all interchanges are fully done in preliminary design to determine feasibility and for right-of-way acquisition, they may not be engineered or built due to budgetary concerns.

Back then CalTrans and TXDOT kind of led the industry in highway design, many standards of design were developed by them until the 80's. Botts Dots (those little raised lane dividers) were developed by a CalTrans engineer, I hate them, especially on the motorcycle in the rain but I digress. As time has gone on and things got more political than normal for those departments they seem to have lost their way with TxDOT a complete and utter mess that fell into Sunset Review a few years ago for a billion dollar accounting error among other things. They all seem to be in catch up mode more often than not now.

I still don't consider the flyover ramp to be the absolute pinnacle of mans achievements that some seem to.

One consideration on flyovers in Oklahoma --- ICE. It happens, but its very rare that the Dallas flyovers get any appreciable ice on them, but think about that stretch of road over by the Belle Isle area when its icy.

That's doesn't seem to be a problem with the tons of flyovers in Denver or Baltimore.

There's a difference. In Denver or Baltimore, when it's cold, it usually stays cold and snow is not constantly melting and forming ice, only to re-melt and then re-form more ice. I lived in Michigan as well, and Ice was a non-issue there as well.

I didn't say what I said without basis, it is worth consideration, given experiences I've had on elevated portions of road in OKC over the (many) years. If it's not a point for you, fine.

There's a difference. In Denver or Baltimore, when it's cold, it usually stays cold and snow is not constantly melting and forming ice, only to re-melt and then re-form more ice. I lived in Michigan as well, and Ice was a non-issue there as well.

I didn't say what I said without basis, it is worth consideration, given experiences I've had on elevated portions of road in OKC over the (many) years. If it's not a point for you, fine.

Denver, Michigan and Baltimore also have more a much higher priority given to plowing, salt, sand and other operations than ODOT. Though with it being a turnpike juncture it will likely have more resources allocated clearing it sooner than if it were a normal ODOT juncture.

My point is that its a "consideration" not a road-block.

Do you suppose that Highway Engineers are, even now, figuring out how to address the already atrocious DRAINAGE ISSUES adjacent to this highway--particularly between May and Meridian--that can only be made worse by "improvement" without proper planning?

"Highway Transportation Engineers" . . . (sounds like a seed for an interesting TV reality show, probably on PBS or The History Channel)

So after the Turnpike Authority pays for the widening of the turnpike, who pays for construction and lifetime maintenance of all the new city streets, waterlines, water treatment plant expansion, traffic lights, street lights, electricity for said lights, new police station, additional police cruisers, additional fire stations, additional fire trucks, additional firefighters, new sewer lines, new libraries, new library books, library staff, etc... that the expanded capacity will result in?

That's what is known as "a rhetorical question" . . . Isn't it?
(no feeble attempt at humor implied nor intended to drag down the conversation =)

Quick rhetorical response: Uh . . . I guess The Turnpike Users . . .
(and isn't it actually "the preferred form" to say: "...in which the expanded capacity will result." grammaticallywise? =)

Sidebar:
Why are tunnels being completely ignored in favor of flyovers?
I mean . . . Minneapolis has at least one tunnel . . .
(Oh. I forgot: Atrocious Drainage. And active clay soil.)

That's what is known as "a rhetorical question" . . . Isn't it?
(no feeble attempt at humor implied nor intended to drag down the conversation =)

Quick rhetorical response: Uh . . . I guess The Turnpike Users . . .
(and isn't it actually "the preferred form" to say: "...in which the expanded capacity will result." grammaticallywise? =)

This is being discussed as if the cost of the widening is the only cost that is involved.

Obviously that level of consideration is absurd.
(not "your" level . . . the planning/execution level)

Almost as absurd as having only one left-turn lane at the Memorial Road exit from the northbound freeway intersecting the East-West Turnpike in order to get onto the frontage road (Memorial). Until one letter to The Planner-Maintainers managed to get that corrected.

Hope springs eternal.
Hope The Planners take into account The Drainage.

Subliminal Plug:
Tunnels don't have to be sanded/salted nor have built-in (costly) heating/ice-melt systems designed-in.
(And don't forget The Drainage. =)

They are too busy planning how to do it without sitting down and deciding IF they should do it.

What does drainage have to do with the turnpike between May & Meridian? It is highly elevated for these two miles. I think it would be Memorial you would be concerned about (which is a whole other subject matter).

What does drainage have to do with the turnpike between May & Meridian?

You're joking . . . right?

It's all of the water shed from and blocked by the elevated roadway (Kilpatrick Turnpike) that causes flooding to the adjacent roadway and other areas to the north. I'm fairly sure that Meridian, south of Memorial, is also negatively impacted.

I'm not sure that you fully appreciate "the gravity" of the situation . . . unless you live here and actually have to drive the roads. When it's raining hard.

You're kidding right?! The only place I've seen flood along the Kilpatrick is south of Memorial on Pennsylvania ... yes, I actually live here. The only reason it floods is because of the residential and commercial run-off that uses those creeks that have always been there. The turnpike doesn't dam these creeks up, you sincerely believe that? The urban sprawl happened before the turnpike was put in so don't blame the roadway...SMH

OK . . . (OKisOK4me): We apparently have differing REAL LIFE observations and opinions.
(regarding "general hydrology and gravity" and such as that).
Or to put it differently . . . The Topic under discussion: "HighwayTurnpike'Improvements'".
Fine.

But we aren't Highway Transportation Engineers of OKC/ODOT.
Are we . . . ?

Urban Sprawl is not in my dictionary.
Drainage Concerns . . . different story.

There is also the German Word: pronounced "Schlimbesserung"
(Coined Word/Pre-Euro: it means making something worse by trying to make it better)

Perhaps we, together, need to investigate, with all best intentions and results in mind, the sellers and purchaser of The Ox Being Gored In Celebration of the expediture of OUR tax dollars in order to at least begin to approach consensus?
(Sorry . . . Flashback to The Book of Proverbs . . . Solomonistic Semi-Shar'a' version)

I apologize for my mistake (sorry for thinkin' geez . . another NIMBY =) . . .
You live/reside/pay taxes on property on the south side (no, not THAT "south side" just the south side of the Kilpatrick).
Occasionally, and semi-selfishly, I have to drive the frontage road on the north side.
Of the elevated highway. Again . . . i apologize for misunderstanding . . .

I never "blame a roadway" for anything.
Mostly I blame myself.
And engineers and whatnuts.

Is it that difficult to respond in normal sentences?

Is it that difficult to respond in normal sentences?

No, that would be easy. Hard is responding in haiku.

Especially Bus Related Haiku.
That has nothing to do with Public Transportation.
Within or without The Grid.

[DRAINAGE CONCERNS> DONT FORGET eM]

So after the Turnpike Authority pays for the widening of the turnpike, who pays for construction and lifetime maintenance of all the new city streets, waterlines, water treatment plant expansion, traffic lights, street lights, electricity for said lights, new police station, additional police cruisers, additional fire stations, additional fire trucks, additional firefighters, new sewer lines, new libraries, new library books, library staff, etc... that the expanded capacity will result in?

This reads like you are blaming the turnpike for growth in the City and makes it appear that you are against growth in OKC. Am I reading this correctly?

I think Kerry prefers to have OKC de-annex much of their suburban land and concentrate the population near the core.

This reads like you are blaming the turnpike for growth in the City and makes it appear that you are against growth in OKC. Am I reading this correctly?

The thing is, I believe there have been a number of instances where the projected sales tax growth to pay for new city services has not met expectations in the far flung areas.

Is it that difficult to respond in normal sentences?

He thinks people actually enjoy his rhymes

Is it that difficult to respond in normal sentences?

I agree, his responses which probably contain valuable information are so hard to read that I just skip them.

The thing is, I believe there have been a number of instances where the projected sales tax growth to pay for new city services has not met expectations in the far flung areas.

The City calculated that they fall $18 million short every year. The strategy of expanding infrastructure to spur development at the fringes is clearly not working. Growth should be focused where existing infrastructure already exists and is underutilized instead of building new infrastructure every few years.

The City calculated that they fall $18 million short every year. The strategy of expanding infrastructure to spur development at the fringes is clearly not working. Growth should be focused where existing infrastructure already exists and is underutilized instead of building new infrastructure every few years.

Could you point me to City documents that reference that the City falls short by $18 million every year? I have never seen that before. Also, what does the City have to do with adding lanes on the Kilpatrick? Seems to me that was a Turnpike Authority decision.

I know some people get butt hurt about the suburb areas, but how can you say that the turnpike, esp in NW OKC, has not increased development? There used to be literally nothing up there except Mercy. The decision to widen is clearly because there is no people driving on it and no development surrounding it
:doh:

Could you point me to City documents that reference that the City falls short by $18 million every year? I have never seen that before. Also, what does the City have to do with adding lanes on the Kilpatrick? Seems to me that was a Turnpike Authority decision.

I can't find it now but there was a stroy about it in the Oklahoman last year. Somewhere on OKCTalk there is a link to it. And while yes, the Turnpike Authority adds the lanes, the City is responsible for everything else the added capacity leads to, and they are responsbile for it forever. Imagne if all the growth along Memorial since 1980 had instead taken place where infrastructure was already in place. Imagine how many hundreds of millions - if not billions - would have been saved.

This might be the story but someone with archive access would have to look.

http://newsok.com/cost-of-oklahoma-city-growth-could-surpass-city-revenues-by-2016/article/3564528



Cost of Oklahoma City growth could surpass city revenues by 2016
By Michael Baker
Published: May 4, 2011


Oklahoma City can’t sustain the level and direction of current growth unless something is done to offset costs of developing the city’s outer regions, city officials were warned Tuesday.
People continue to move away from Oklahoma City’s core to outlying areas, Oklahoma City Planning Director Russell Claus said. Because those areas are undeveloped, it costs more to provide basic city infrastructure and services



Read more: http://newsok.com/cost-of-oklahoma-city-growth-could-surpass-city-revenues-by-2016/article/3564537#ixzz1kPdkE0yl