I really don't understand why they don't do the interchanges first and then the widening. If you add the flyover ramps and then the cloverleafs on the west side, widening everything will make the whole project come together faster. If you widen 235 up to 50th, you are still going to have a bottleneck at 44, it will just a be a little further north.

Finally. Even back in the '90s I wondered why that area of I-235 was only four lanes. It's about time they widen it.

Goes back further than that, it's been a cluster**** pretty much ever since I've been driving (1981). Really sad that it's going to take over 30 years to fix it.

I really don't understand why they don't do the interchanges first and then the widening. If you add the flyover ramps and then the cloverleafs on the west side, widening everything will make the whole project come together faster. If you widen 235 up to 50th, you are still going to have a bottleneck at 44, it will just a be a little further north.

I've been saying exactly this for years now. It makes zero damn sense that they rebuilt I-40 downtown and then out to El Reno, but the bridge to get over I-44 is still only two lanes. What the hell kind of planning is that? ODOT is seriously inept.

I've been saying exactly this for years now. It makes zero damn sense that they rebuilt I-40 downtown and then out to El Reno, but the bridge to get over I-44 is still only two lanes. What the hell kind of planning is that? ODOT is seriously inept.yeah... going from 5 lanes down to 2 is absurd.

so the majority of you people just want to spew crap like "you're just helping suburbia" "traffic in DC is bad" "there is no substance behind what you stand by" ....

alright... we'll see in 10 years where that gets us

Well, I can say what it will get us if we keep doing the same thing. We will keep seeing the same results. So, in ten years I fully expect us to have more people living farther away making longer commutes on bigger freeways.

I know you're young, but you are presenting the same solution that has been used for 50 years. It's pretty safe to say that this time around won't be any different.

What would also help is if people wouldn't drive slow in the middle or left lanes, if people learned how to yield to get on the highways and if people didn't yield to the people getting on the highways by either slowing down or getting in the other lane of traffic. So often I see people driving below the speed limit in all three lanes of traffic holding up the people behind them, or people having to get around slow people traveling in the middle lane. I don't know what happened in the last 15-20 years but it seems like everyone driving slow including OTR truckers are using the middle lane instead of the right lane.

Actually, the far right lane on an urban highway should only be used for those intending to exit the highway or for merging onto the highway. Through traffic should use the center lanes with slower traffic in the right/middle lane and other middle lanes or far left lane for passing. That said, I don't feel people should be driving 5 under the limit in those lanes. Of course, in a city like OKC, it doesn't help that a lot of freeways have ramps from other highways that enter from the left, so that traffic coming off the ramp at 55 mph is going to already be going slow in the left lane.

Actually, the far right lane on an urban highway should only be used for those intending to exit the highway or for merging onto the highway. Through traffic should use the center lanes with slower traffic in the right/middle lane and other middle lanes or far left lane for passing. That said, I don't feel people should be driving 5 under the limit in those lanes. Of course, in a city like OKC, it doesn't help that a lot of freeways have ramps from other highways that enter from the left, so that traffic coming off the ramp at 55 mph is going to already be going slow in the left lane.

It also doesn't help that no highway in this city maintains a consistent number of lanes for more than a few miles at a time. The OKC ODOT district needs to take a trip to Tulsa and look at how 169 and the new parts of 51 were built, then copy. Except for the still bad interchange of 51/169, those high ways are great. Dedicated enter/exit lanes and consistent lane count.

For that matter the city street would be much better if they actually put in left turn lanes.

for that matter the city street would be much better if they actually put in left turn lanes.

huh?

It also doesn't help that no highway in this city maintains a consistent number of lanes for more than a few miles at a time. The OKC ODOT district needs to take a trip to Tulsa and look at how 169 and the new parts of 51 were built, then copy. Except for the still bad interchange of 51/169, those high ways are great. Dedicated enter/exit lanes and consistent lane count.

For that matter the city street would be much better if they actually put in left turn lanes.

I don't think the DOT has different standards in other parts of the state.

It also doesn't help that no highway in this city maintains a consistent number of lanes for more than a few miles at a time. The OKC ODOT district needs to take a trip to Tulsa and look at how 169 and the new parts of 51 were built, then copy. Except for the still bad interchange of 51/169, those high ways are great. Dedicated enter/exit lanes and consistent lane count.

A lot of the lane variance of highways has to do with ours were built as segments at widely different times, which means different construction standards, then some parts of the highly used ones upgrades to decades later standards.

I44 is kind of bizarre in that they just branded multiple totally different highways in the metro as a single highway since it made a nice route bypassing the city center connecting major turnpikes. i235/Broadway extension looks far more logically designed if you consider what it will be, however it was a overarching project that started construction in the 70s and is only in the next several years will it have have touched every part on the way to Edmond bringing them inline plan due to how long it has taken to get the money.

I don't think the DOT has standards.Fixed that for you!

Here's a great map a friend sent me. I really like it. I'm going to modify it a bit later to add a few more arterial 6 lane roads and perhaps a light-rail route.

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/1234010_10204061659174296_6059590712053291071_n.jp g?oh=3168b9c01c9f46f05cf036ba40c38f76&oe=54AF975A

This would really help spur amazing growth around the metroplex. This map one of my friends sent, really inspired me to modify a new version a little later.

^^^

Why? Why would we need all those highways and highway-equivalent streets?

^^^

Why? Why would we need all those highways and highway-equivalent streets?
to help traffic move faster and stay ahead of the curve. They're eventually going to be built and that was the representation.

Here's a great map a friend sent me. I really like it. I'm going to modify it a bit later to add a few more arterial 6 lane roads and perhaps a light-rail route.

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/1234010_10204061659174296_6059590712053291071_n.jp g?oh=3168b9c01c9f46f05cf036ba40c38f76&oe=54AF975A

This would really help spur amazing growth around the metroplex. This map one of my friends sent, really inspired me to modify a new version a little later.

I like the freeway through the middle of Lake Draper. We've been needing that for a long time.

Oh man, so many things wrong about this. I guess it's fun to dream, right?

I might add my commentary in later, but we really need to let go of this notion that roads through nowhere spur growth. They are ribbons of concrete and have no magical powers to create jobs or livelihood.

I like the freeway through the middle of Lake Draper. We've been needing that for a long time.It doesn't go through Draper

smhlet me ask you something. . . is there any of it you would support?

Oh man, so many things wrong about this. I guess it's fun to dream, right?

I might add my commentary in later, but we really need to let go of this notion that roads through nowhere spur growth. They are ribbons of concrete and have no magical powers to create jobs or livelihood.they might be in the middle of nowhere right now, but did I say we should build every single highway shown right now? No I did not.

Is this just a persons dream or is it being looked at by ODOT? It looks to be putting the outer loop close to or through my place. Humm, 10 ac next to interstate, might make my place a bit more of a longterm investment. Hummm

Is this just a persons dream or is it being looked at by ODOT? It looks to be putting the outer loop close to or through my place. Humm, 10 ac next to interstate, might make my place a bit more of a longterm investment. Hummmno this was just a fantasy drawing

Perhaps but in case you haven't noticed, Oklahoma City IS growing. Pour concrete through a pasture doesn't necessarily mean you'll spur additional growth. What it can however do is subsidize low-density growth since pasture is really cheap to buy. The cost of the roads, sewer, water, police, fire, etc. though to service all that pasture and those single family homes will need to be built as well. There is no free lunch. So money that could be spent to support existing growth will get diverted.

Unless you propose that all that new growth pay their own way, I think it's time for cities to be MUCH more defensive of building infrastructure on the 'what if' and build to maximize returns on existing investments. For example, the billions (yes, billions) all of that would cost could be spent making the existing road network much better for everyone. We've got such a long way to go before we've even adequately maintained our existing network I just can't imagine spending tens of billions to add to the maintenance, public safety, and public transit deficit.

If spreading out and building highways through pastures leads to more money, then OKC should be one of the richest cities in the world.I can agree with this. Also, I am saying we need these highway right now. Like the outermost loop, I see that would be good for 30-40 years down the road. I would rather see light-rail before the outer loop.

to help traffic move faster and stay ahead of the curve. They're eventually going to be built and that was the representation.

Traffic doesn't need to move faster. I drove from eastern MWC to OCU for four years, then from Edmond to OCU for one year and Edmond to Tinker for four and almost never had a problem. I had numerous routes to choose from if something happened that delayed traffic but I didn't experience rush hour.

As for staying ahead of the curve... we've been doing that since the 1950s. At what point do we need to realize we're chasing the wrong curve?

to help traffic move faster and stay ahead of the curve. They're eventually going to be built and that was the representation.

No.

I think the interchanges need redone even if no new highways are built. It's crazy that this city has nice ten-lane highways fed by clover-leaf interchanges. Looking at this map, I would put a priority on the interchanges. Within 10-20 years the completed Kilpatrick loop might be more necessary. The outer loop is obviously in the distant future if it is ever needed.

Everyone supports OKC growth, but reality is that not all of that growth is going to be downtown. There WILL be suburban growth and it's never too early to start planning for the infrastructure that will be needed to support it.

I think the interchanges need redone even if no new highways are built. It's crazy that this city has nice ten-lane highways fed by clover-leaf interchanges. Looking at this map, I would put a priority on the interchanges. Within 10-20 years the completed Kilpatrick loop might be more necessary. The outer loop is obviously in the distant future if it is ever needed.

Everyone supports OKC growth, but reality is that not all of that growth is going to be downtown. There WILL be suburban growth and it's never too early to start planning for the infrastructure that will be needed to support it.

I don't think anyone one here is thinking it is a zero sum game= downtown or suburbs but not both. But how much is too much? When Oklahoma City covers more area than several countries. I don't think all of that has to be tied together with 6 lane arterial roads and three highway loops.

No.no what? Don't stay ahead of the curve? Don't support any suburban growth and help traffic move faster? No they aren't going to eventually be built?

Traffic doesn't need to move faster. I drove from eastern MWC to OCU for four years, then from Edmond to OCU for one year and Edmond to Tinker for four and almost never had a problem. I had numerous routes to choose from if something happened that delayed traffic but I didn't experience rush hour.

As for staying ahead of the curve... we've been doing that since the 1950s. At what point do we need to realize we're chasing the wrong curve?sit back and do nothing and we'll see how that'll turn out. I have faith our city leaders have a different mindset than you of just accepting what we have is ok and not doing anything until we get traffic like Austin. Yes, I am very familiar with Austin's set-up.

I don't think anyone one here is thinking it is a zero sum game= downtown or suburbs but not both. But how much is too much? When Oklahoma City covers more area than several countries. I don't think all of that has to be tied together with 6 lane arterial roads and three highway loops.We will eventually need three highway loops. I suppose you are stating you want to limit suburban growth but urban growth is free to grow as much it wants.

Is this just a persons dream or is it being looked at by ODOT? It looks to be putting the outer loop close to or through my place. Humm, 10 ac next to interstate, might make my place a bit more of a longterm investment. Hummm

The only parts even near something ODOT seriously looked at was a southwest extension of the Kilpatrick loop, from where it terminates at i40 down and around to i35. Though a key finding in the study was there was not enough political will to build it (even as a turnpike, given the status of the fund to build highways new loops almost have to be turnpikes).



to help traffic move faster and stay ahead of the curve. They're eventually going to be built and that was the representation.
The six lane roads will never need to be built, many of those of the six lane roads are in areas already built out, which are not the places that are likely to draw denser development in the future (in many areas the homeowners associations would forbid denser redevelopments even if it were desirable to a developer), it is unrealistic to expect what are local distributors to have vastly more traffic in the future. Newer suburban developments further out have trended to be more sparsely populated than prior developments going all the way back to the 40's so there is even less need for the presently undeveloped areas to be six lane roads than the existing places. Around a third parallel a freeway (less than a mile or two from it) so will not ever be the primary route that direction which gives it no reason to be that wide, like half are only a mile away from another six lane road which again if there is not a reason for one of them to be six lanes then you do not need two next to each other.

Freeways/Turnpikles - (a bit moot since there is not the political will for even half the expansion but) the Kilpatrick/middle loop east of i35 should be replaned entirely, not only does it hit lake Draper, there is a planned lake southwest of draper for the new pipeline it plows through like two or three miles as well, where it meets up with Turner it both has redundant areas that could be served by Turner for less money and cuts a lot of properties in the middle at odd angles (something that will at minimum tie you up in court for decades but also has killed a fair share of freeway projects). The outer loop is way too close to the Kilpatrick/middle loop, anything less than six miles is a joke.

It doesn't go through Draper

Plupan, look again. It does show a freeway crossing Lake Draper.

We will eventually need three highway loops.......

Says who?

no what? Don't stay ahead of the curve? Don't support any suburban growth and help traffic move faster? No they aren't going to eventually be built?

With the shortest commute time of almost any metro, you're right, we should def be worried about faster movement on highways. And no, they will never be built. Never like that map.

I like the idea of extending Kilpatrick from the I-40 terminus around to tie in with the H.E. Bailey. Or at least get past Mustang and tie into where Highway 4 picks up again south of Mustang. But like some have said, there is a lack of will to get this done and Mustang is building up with new development that would be in the way.

I like the part where the newly-reprieved Tower Theater and all of the hard revitalization work currently happening along NW 23rd is bulldozed to make way for six lanes of traffic.

It's a plan that destroys historic portions of the city so that you can get to the middle of nowhere even more quickly.

The map is great! A great way to bankrupt DOT and the state even faster. lol

Not that I agree with the map or not, but I don't see what the issue is with the outer highway going over a lake. Tampa has 6 highways / major roads going across Tampa Bay, Some of those are miles long. More expensive? Probably, but not unheard of and not uncommon for cities along the shores. San Fran, NYC, New Orleans, Miami, US 1 from the mainland to Key West have several.

Not that I agree with the map or not, but I don't see what the issue is with the outer highway going over a lake. Tampa has 6 highways / major roads going across Tampa Bay, Some of those are miles long. More expensive? Probably, but not unheard of and not uncommon for cities along the shores. San Fran, NYC, New Orleans, Miami, US 1 from the mainland to Key West have several.

It makes more sense to go over a lake/bay if it is a route that goes from a major city to another major city saving forty miles verses the alternative and is not as easily avoided as that area is. A loop (especially one that is a turnpike) serves a much more local/near-regional access, with a tiny percentage of drivers paying a premium to avoiding rush hour peaks on the freeway, it should have at least three to five miles of collection area on either side to draw traffic from, which would put it south of Draper & the future one to begin with (as 240 already serves most of the land around Draper).

Not only is it more expensive to build initially, it requires much more costly maintenance costs at a faster cycle. It also can hurt development/use of the lakes. It cuts down the area it serves, depressing possible revenue collection to offset maintenance/construction costs. Plus there is a chance the lakes would be drained for a construction project like this, putting the city at risk of water shortage till completed.

So maybe this? I want to note, really only the blue, light blue, and purple parts were really serious along with the widening.

I'll see if I can't do an cad rendering of a couple before I go to sleep. They won't be anything special, but give an idea.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10441065_10204207313215556_7954163949572043673_n.j pg?oh=72814fa2d5ebfcdb7e32c0e2abd86f94&oe=54D87CDD&__gda__=1424303496_046dcbee794e55121c002873a2e6a8c 3
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t31.0-8/10317639_10204207313255557_466401189090521004_o.jp g

Some key notes:

*The Norman and Edmond loops are the most important.

*The Bethany highway construction was an issue, but I did the measurements through Google Earth and in most places, there is enough room to build a 10 lane highway like the Crosstown, however, my version would only be 8 lanes, 4 lanes each way, which two lanes of service road each way before downtown Bethany and then the service roads end. I would place an elevated rail along the highway that would turn into a street car once it reaches downtown Bethany. The highway would be below grade and a park would be placed over the highway through downtown Bethany. The whole project shouldn't cost more than 1.5 billion dollars. The highway would then come at grade about a mile or so after/before downtown Bethany to the west. I'll post pictures showing the measurements, lane widths, and design of the highway soon.

*Every single one of the proposed highway expansions would start out at 4 lanes, except the Bethany highway.

Highway widenings or modifications:

I-240 from I-44 to I-35:

*widened to eight lanes
*Reconstructed in cement
*Service roads reconstructed in cement and widened to three lanes each way
*LED street lights added
*Exit and entry ramps completely reconfigured
*More landscaping and beautification

I-35 from I-40 to Highway 9

*widened to 4 lanes each way plus an HOV lane each way
*service roads widened to three lanes each way where possible and two way converted to one way(Ala Moore service roads)
*dedicated u turn on both sides, dedicated right turn, and dual left turn at all intersections on way service roads
*light-rail line added in the middle of the highway from downtown Norman to DT OKC
*LED lights added
*more beautification added

I-35 from I-40 to I-44

*reconstructed in cement
*widened to six lanes
*service roads made three lanes each way and made one way
*dedicated u turn on both sides, dedicated right turn, and dual left turn at all intersections on one way service roads
*more landscaping and beautification
*led lights

Airport road

*one lane each way added
*made into a toll road
*led street lights added

Hefner Parkway(existing portion)

*no widening
*more beautification added
*led street lights added
*made into a toll road

Kilpatrick Turnpike from MacArthur to I-40

*one lane each way added
*new service road built with two lanes each way
*dedicated u turn on both sides, dedicated right turn, and dual left turn at all intersections on one way service roads
*led lights added

Kilpatrick from MacArthur to 235(BE)

*no widening
*Service roads/Memorial(service road) reconstructed in cement and made three lanes each way
*dedicated u turn on both sides, dedicated right turn, and dual left turn at all intersections on service roads

I-35 from I-44 to 2nd(Edmond)

*all road interchanges reconfigured and reconstructed
*no widening
*led lights added
*service roads reconstructed in cement and made three lanes each way
*dedicated u turn on both sides, dedicated right turn, and dual left turn at all intersections on one way service roads

I-35 from 2nd St. to Waterloo

*one way service roads added; two lanes each way
*dedicated u turn on both sides, dedicated right turn, and dual left turn at all intersections on one way service roads
*Danforth interchange reconstructed
*2nd street interchange reconstructed
*Coffee Creek Rd. interchange added
*highway reconstructed in cement and made 6 lanes
*Waterloo interchange reconfigured and reconstructed
*Sorgum Mill Rd. interchange added


I-44 from I-40 to I-240

*reconstructed in cement to 8 lanes
*led lights added
*all road interchanges and bridges reconstructed in cement
*iconic bridge over Oklahoma river added
*bike trail and light-rail built along highway

I-40 from I-35 to Post Rd.(Midwest City)

*reconstructed in cement
*widened to eight lanes
*service road reconstructed in cement, made one way, and two lanes each way
*big public art and pedestrian bridge creating a park in front of Tinker AFB
*LED lights added

I-240 from I-35 to I-40

*one lane each way added
*led lights added

I-40 from Post Rd. to HWY 99

*one lane each way added

Interchanges

I-35/I-240 Interchange: 5 stack due to HOV lanes and service roads run through
I-35/I-40 ? stack.... just ramps reconfigured to right side of the highway and completely re-imagine of the portion of I-40 and I-35 segment. I will post renderings later.
Kilpatrick/235: both clover leafs turned into flyovers and missing ramp connections added(sb 235 to eb Kilpatrick)
Kilpatrick/Hefner Expressway: 4 stack(eventual 5 stack if Hefner and Kilpatrick ever get HOV) adding all missing ramp connections
Kilpatrick/I-35: completely reconstructed with all exits/entries made fly-overs to right side of highway
I-40/I-44: 4 stack

Again, all expansions would be tolled and interchanges either four or five stack depending on HOV lanes. All of the expansions would also start out at four lanes.


----------------------------

Please let me know what you agree with, if you agree with any of it, or would like to see. I fully expect a bunch of people getting at me for sprawl, unsustainable building etc. So, before you get at me for that, I want to say I'm not suggesting we do all of this right now and some of it may be 30-50 years down the road. The main part and focus of my plan is the Edmond and Norman loops as well as I-35 from DT OKC to Norman which I think should be taken care of before 2021. Light-rail is also a huge initiative that I think should be tied in with any future highway funding. Meaning any new highway that gets constructed or expanded should have to be matched with the equivalent light-rail or street car expansion.

I'll have to do the cad rendering a little later. I usually use infrastructure modeler, but it is freaking out on me lately for some reason. Very tired and only sleep until 10, so can't do the rendering now, bt I will later.

Humm, Waterloo highway and another going down Douglas. I guess I'll be living in the middle of an interchange. To let you know, Waterloo east of I-35 is building up with some somewhat pricey homes.( $300-550k range) I think it needs to be moved a bit more to the north say Simpson rd or Seward. By the time it would be built, it would be running through a built out area of homes on 1 ac+ lots.

So maybe this? I want to note, really only the blue, light blue, and purple parts were really serious along with the widening.

I'll see if I can't do an cad rendering of a couple before I go to sleep. They won't be anything special, but give an idea.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10441065_10204207313215556_7954163949572043673_n.j pg?oh=72814fa2d5ebfcdb7e32c0e2abd86f94&oe=54D87CDD&__gda__=1424303496_046dcbee794e55121c002873a2e6a8c 3
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t31.0-8/10317639_10204207313255557_466401189090521004_o.jp g

Some key notes:


Here's my plan for OKC. I consider it slightly more realistic than the massive number of freeways presented here.

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/546382882963024136/C685BE51CDB0F5FE71DFAD17E1628BFA7C833F78/

Here's my plan for OKC. I consider it slightly more realistic than the massive number of freeways presented here.

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/546382882963024136/C685BE51CDB0F5FE71DFAD17E1628BFA7C833F78/
Interesting. So when a future Norman and/or Edmond loop gets announced, I'll remember this.

Oh, and an east side new highway is already being planned.

One thing that I would change. The I-35/I-44 interchange doesn't need reconstruction in my opinion. I would reconstruct the I-40/I-44 interchange instead.

One thing that I would change. The I-35/I-44 interchange doesn't need reconstruction in my opinion. I would reconstruct the I-40/I-44 interchange instead.what I meant was if I44 was ever to be continued east which I'm sure will happen down the road.

I-44 already continues to the east... via the Turner Turnpike. I see what you're talking about, but I'm a bit perplexed as to why we would need to build an entire highway through the Spencer area. I-35, US 62, and I-40 already serve the east side fairly well, don't they?

I-44 already continues to the east... via the Turner Turnpike. I see what you're talking about, but I'm a bit perplexed as to why we would need to build an entire highway through the Spencer area. I-35, US 62, and I-40 already serve the east side fairly well, don't they?

I can see the point in having an east highway to connect Edmond to Tinker. That said, I think extending the Kilpatrick down to Norman would much more beneficial, allowing a much easier commute from Norman to NW OKC and vice versa. There just isn't strong enough growth currently in eastern Oklahoma county that I would think that freeway would be justified in the near term.

Assuming that any of this is remotely possible.......

Toll roads must have the traffic numbers and tolling volume to justify the initial investment, which are backed by bonds. Otherwise, you end up like the toll road in Austin (Texas SH 130) that was about 4 weeks away from defaulting this summer because it has so little traffic on it. Granted that was a standalone road by a private enterprise, whereas OTA is backed by cross bonding. Even still, I'd think they would be skittish on doing something like a toll loop largely through the middle of nowhere around Edmond or Norman; they actually declined to build a toll expanding the Gilcrease Expy in Tulsa for this very reason.

Also, I don't think Bethany would appreciate having most of its commercial district "eminent domain'ed" to build a freeway that adds zero extra capacity. Same with Mustang.

Interesting. So when a future Norman and/or Edmond loop gets announced, I'll remember this.

My money is still on the Bat Signal.

Here's my plan for OKC. I consider it slightly more realistic than the massive number of freeways presented here.

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/546382882963024136/C685BE51CDB0F5FE71DFAD17E1628BFA7C833F78/

More realistic and probably cheaper to build.

Assuming that any of this is remotely possible.......

Toll roads must have the traffic numbers and tolling volume to justify the initial investment, which are backed by bonds. Otherwise, you end up like the toll road in Austin (Texas SH 130) that was about 4 weeks away from defaulting this summer because it has so little traffic on it. Granted that was a standalone road by a private enterprise, whereas OTA is backed by cross bonding. Even still, I'd think they would be skittish on doing something like a toll loop largely through the middle of nowhere around Edmond or Norman; they actually declined to build a toll expanding the Gilcrease Expy in Tulsa for this very reason.

Also, I don't think Bethany would appreciate having most of its commercial district "eminent domain'ed" to build a freeway that adds zero extra capacity. Same with Mustang.

There be no buildings torn down in Bethany. I'll post more about that later.

As for the Eastside highway, I know what you're saying which is why I clearly said, it would be a highway that would be built down the road.

My money is still on the Bat Signal.

Ok. Considering it wouldn't even cost $1,000 to build a light that could shine a bat signal on low clouds, maybe you're right. Oklahoma isn't a very progressive state.

More realistic and probably cheaper to build.

100+ billion dollars worth of super talls, huge artificial Lake, floating blimps that shine light down. More realistic than a loop or expansion of some sort that I guarantee you, is going to be announced by 2021. OK buddy, say whatever you want to say to help you sleep at night.

I-44 already continues to the east... via the Turner Turnpike. I see what you're talking about, but I'm a bit perplexed as to why we would need to build an entire highway through the Spencer area. I-35, US 62, and I-40 already serve the east side fairly well, don't they?

You're abolsutely correct. I just meant probably closer to 2025-2030(ish) assuming development takes off in the eastern metro.