I know this has been talked about in other threads here and there, and I searched and couldn't find a dedicated recent thread so I thought I'd bring it up. I was reading through some material that happened to show the proposal and was just curious if this is ever going to happen in some shape fashion or form. I know where it was originally planned might not be feasible anymore due to the influx of homes in the area, but still, this is something that could be doable.

So is there some new form of the Outer Loop or has it been confirmed dead?

So is there some new form of the Outer Loop or has it been confirmed dead?

Dead. Even if someone at ODOT wanted to do it there isn't any money to do it, and there is never going to be. The only way this would ever happen is if the Turnpike Authority did it and I doubt they would ever find it cost effective (meaning it would never generate enough revenue to pay for itself).

It will happen. It just takes Oklahoma a lot longer to get these projects going, but it will happen sooner than most think at the current rate of growth and even if we grow faster.

Dead. Even if someone at ODOT wanted to do it there isn't any money to do it, and there is never going to be. The only way this would ever happen is if the Turnpike Authority did it and I doubt they would ever find it cost effective (meaning it would never generate enough revenue to pay for itself).

Kind of a shame really, would help with the Semi traffic. As it is right now they are just beating up the backroads where they are one giant pothole.

Dead. Even if someone at ODOT wanted to do it there isn't any money to do it, and there is never going to be. The only way this would ever happen is if the Turnpike Authority did it and I doubt they would ever find it cost effective (meaning it would never generate enough revenue to pay for itself).

I may be mistaken JTF, but I am uncertain if ability to pay for itself means too very much in the OTA decision making process.

Can't find the thread, but as of 2012, OTA canned this expansion citing "lack of political support."To be fair to the OTA, any new road would have to generate enough traffic/tolls to cover their bond payments. This is a big reason why the Gilcrease Expy extention was turned down.

If nothing else, it would be very hard to obtain the ROW at this point. Several subdivisions have been built right at the JKT/40 interchange and development has been trickling west of 44 south of the airport. In the future, Sara Rd/OK-4 could easily be turned into a high speed parkway and hook up with the HE Bailey Spur, allowing for a de facto bypass.

IMO the redo of the the 35/240 interchange will take a lot of pressure off truck traffic going through the middle of OKC. When it was designed 240 was the intended truck bypass but the current interchange is so dangerous a lot of them will just continue on 35 towards downtown.

Kind of a shame really, would help with the Semi traffic. As it is right now they are just beating up the backroads where they are one giant pothole.

Yep, but the mistakes of our interstate system were made long ago - and now we have to live with them (or without them as the case may be). We should have never wasted our money on urban interstates and instead did what the UK did. Their freeways rarely go into urban areas and when they do there are very few exits. Their system was design to get from city to city - not through cities. Also, they don't allow development at rural interchanges and gas and food are provided directly ON the freeway. It's too bad we went so far down the wrong road - metaphorically speaking.

I just find it ridiculous that trucks would rather go down roads like SW 104th and SW 119th where there are stop signs every mile. Parts of these roads are terrible and there used to be signs saying no truck traffic. Sounds like the police could have a field day writing tickets in a weeks time. I see at least 2 everyday on my drive home.

It will happen. It just takes Oklahoma a lot longer to get these projects going, but it will happen sooner than most think at the current rate of growth and even if we grow faster.

The plan would already have to be modified due to homes constructed since then, it is only going to be a matter of time before there is no longer a path of empty cheap land, if it is not doable budget wise when they are buying empty farmland then there is no way that it will be if they have to buy/destroy tons of homes.

They probably will have to destroy homes. They've done it before. That is really stupid to keep sprawling out and not reserve any ROW for freeways.

Well there are really only what, 4 miles of "problem" area between the end of the pike and the spur connection? And just a few problem spots further south. All in all, it's positioned pretty well....right now. You wait very long and it's only going to get worse.

BUT, there is a way to elevate it to make it work, but of course that does increase cost. Somewhere on the north side of Austin, i can't remember the highway, there are two sections of the state highway (and im not talking about the downtown stack) that travel on top of one another for a bit. One road acts as the street road and the highway is elevated on either side of it. What makes it different is HOW it's elevated. There's a single Y shaped structure down the middle of the road path that support 4 lanes of concrete on top of it in a narrow path (no median and not much shoulder). I think it was only like this for a few miles but it's been 10 years since i drove it. It solved difficult problems of the lower road needing access, but there being significant LARGE development that they couldn't remove in a cost-effective way. So stacking saved them money. Would it save OK money, probably not because we aren't talking about miles of large multi-story commercial structures. But just to say that there are options beyond just slapping 4 lanes of road there. And really, if they aren't stupid, they'll plan it for much more than 4 so it can be expanded INWARD later to add lanes and not require total reconstruction of the outside portions.

At the same time, i have to ask...do we really need it? If you're coming up 44, you can take the spur to 35 or up to Mustang already. You can take airport rd out to Mustang also. If you're trying to avoid the 44/40 junction, airport rd allows you to miss 90% of the traffic and you can just slide up McArthur or Council or something. It means you do stop at lights but it also doesn't cost you a toll. The east side loop probably would help to free up congestion more than this portion of the west side, but just like the west, it depends on what you're trying to connect. And out east, you're going to be spending a LOT more to build it because of the tree clearing and hills. Development in the areas that keep cropping up as the east loop space will cost quite a bit as well.

It will happen. It just takes Oklahoma a lot longer to get these projects going, but it will happen sooner than most think at the current rate of growth and even if we grow faster.

Ugh.

Do you have a factual analysis to prove that SW OKC needs a new loop? Are traffic counts on I-44 soaring?

Ugh.

Do you have a factual analysis to prove that SW OKC needs a new loop? Are traffic counts on I-44 soaring?what do you think will happen in 20-30 years when that area is completely built up and the sprawl is been further out and the traffic is horrible in that area? Why not plan now? If it isn't needed, then don't build it, but be smart and plan ahead so you don't have to get serious political action needed to tear down houses and businesses.

That's all I'm saying.

what do you think will happen in 20-30 years when that area is completely built up and the sprawl is been further out and the traffic is horrible in that area? Why not plan now? If it isn't needed, then don't build it, but be smart and plan ahead so you don't have to get serious political action needed to tear down houses and businesses.

That's all I'm saying.
Wanting it to happen because you see it as the best course of action in your head doesn't mean it's going to happen that way in actuality.

Personally, I don't see it happening.

Idk.... Knowing Oklahoma and the way things work here and how our roads and highways are funded, you're probably right.

On the other hand though, maybe we'll really boom and accumulate some of the worst traffic in the country like Austin. Time will tell I guess.

If traffic got too bad out that way, Airport Rd and I-40 can be widened fairly easily. Plus all of the numerous section line roads. This highway could have been built earlier but with now all of the development the ROW costs alone could easily make any new loop a nearly nine-figure affair. Seems like a huge waste of money for something that really won't be used that often. Hell, the western leg of the current Kilpatrick is fairly empty 90% of the time.

This reminds me...I recently found out that of all cities LUBBOCK TEXAS was planning on building a second outer loop. That's right, LUBBOCK in the middle of nowhere, adding maybe 1% in population a year, and near no major trucking/shipping routes. It will likely be a tollway and the sheeple are still eating it up. Sad to see these "loops as economic boom" arguments have not died yet.

HE Bailey Spur/Highway 9 connection in southwest Norman/Newcastle can be considered an Outer Loop, they are actually redoing the Highway 9/I-35 Interchange, as well as making it 3 lanes in some areas in southeast Norman. They could easily upgrade this area of highway to full 6 lane interstate access.

what do you think will happen in 20-30 years when that area is completely built up and the sprawl is been further out and the traffic is horrible in that area? Why not plan now? If it isn't needed, then don't build it, but be smart and plan ahead so you don't have to get serious political action needed to tear down houses and businesses.

That's all I'm saying.

Because sprawl won't be around in 20 years - well, at least NEW sprawl won't be. Existing sprawl will be shanty towns by then. Why not plan for the future now - indeed.

Idk.... Knowing Oklahoma and the way things work here and how our roads and highways are funded, you're probably right.

On the other hand though, maybe we'll really boom and accumulate some of the worst traffic in the country like Austin. Time will tell I guess.

And you just know that the boom is comin.. It's a-comin..

And you just know that the boom is comin.. It's a-comin..
What you don't think it is? 0_O

Because sprawl won't be around in 20 years - well, at least NEW sprawl won't be. Existing sprawl will be shanty towns by then. Why not plan for the future now - indeed.so what's your proposal?

so what's your proposal?

To not spend money we don't have on a freeway we can't afford. The Highway Trust Fund is broke trying to maintain what we already have and you seriously want to build more?

If traffic got too bad out that way, Airport Rd and I-40 can be widened fairly easily. Plus all of the numerous section line roads. This highway could have been built earlier but with now all of the development the ROW costs alone could easily make any new loop a nearly nine-figure affair. Seems like a huge waste of money for something that really won't be used that often. Hell, the western leg of the current Kilpatrick is fairly empty 90% of the time.

This reminds me...I recently found out that of all cities LUBBOCK TEXAS was planning on building a second outer loop. That's right, LUBBOCK in the middle of nowhere, adding maybe 1% in population a year, and near no major trucking/shipping routes. It will likely be a tollway and the sheeple are still eating it up. Sad to see these "loops as economic boom" arguments have not died yet.

Actually Lubbock Texas is growing at a 4.3% clip from 2010-2013 and at 15% from 2000-2010. Add in the fact the Cline shale is right there and what appears to be an easing of the drought out there its looking up for Lubbock.

That being said they have 0 need for an outer loop. They don't have that bad of traffic there. Every road is pretty much 6 lanes and on a perfect grid.

Actually Lubbock Texas is growing at a 4.3% clip from 2010-2013 and at 15% from 2000-2010. Add in the fact the Cline shale is right there and what appears to be an easing of the drought out there its looking up for Lubbock.

That being said they have 0 need for an outer loop. They don't have that bad of traffic there. Every road is pretty much 6 lanes and on a perfect grid.

There is only a couple spots where their suburbs are fully built up to two miles away from the loop they have, if they did want to allocate money to spend on making anything freeway grade in their area, highway 64 or 62 outside of their loop seems like that might be more useful. I would almost be surprised if TXDOT had not fully upgrading 87 to interstate standards all the way to i20 in the next ten to twenty years.

If you build a west outer loop, of course people will move out there. Here's a parable to help understand.

Let's say there's an island just off the coast. I could say "You know, based on this model, people will be moving onto this island in the next 10 years. We should build a road to this island." So the road is built..and guess what, people now have access to the island and are are moving there! It's a self-fulfilling prophesy and the people who built the road can say "See, our models were correct."

OKC does not, does not, does not have a traffic problem and absolutely no need for a west loop. Let's pay for and fix what we already have.

Off topic, but while speaking of Lubbock - I don't know about anyone else but it was a surprise to me when I found out Lubbock metro is 301,038 residents (estimated 2013 population). Of course a large chunk of that can be attributed to Texas Tech but still... quite a small city. I had no idea it was that large.

If you build a west outer loop, of course people will move out there. Here's a parable to help understand.

Let's say there's an island just off the coast. I could say "You know, based on this model, people will be moving onto this island in the next 10 years. We should build a road to this island." So the road is built..and guess what, people now have access to the island and are are moving there! It's a self-fulfilling prophesy and the people who built the road can say "See, our models were correct."...

Shhhh...PluPan doesn't believe in the principle of induced demand.

Geographer - I so wish more people understood that transportation systems drive development. It has throughout world history but it seems to be a totally foreign concept to a lot of people. For some reason people think the transportation exist in a location because that is where the people are, but it is the other way around - the people are there because that is where the transportation is.

My biggest issue is the I44/240 interchange is a mess and really constricted.

My biggest issue is the I44/240 interchange is a mess and really constricted.

I believe the 8-year plan (not sure where it is inside of that window) calls for widening of I-44 South bound to 3 lanes at 74th street all the way to 89th street.

That would turn the current configuration of 1 through lane to I-44 and 1 exit only, to 2 thru lanes and 1 exit. And would allow that 3rd lane (2nd thru) to have a mile to merge and zipper in.

Should help that interchange quite a bit.

I believe the 8-year plan (not sure where it is inside of that window) calls for widening of I-44 South bound to 3 lanes at 74th street all the way to 89th street.

That would turn the current configuration of 1 through lane to I-44 and 1 exit only, to 2 thru lanes and 1 exit. And would allow that 3rd lane (2nd thru) to have a mile to merge and zipper in.

Should help that interchange quite a bit.

Would make a massive difference IMO. As it is now this ends up affecting traffic for a few miles South of where SW74th. Seems as though traffic starts to straighten out past 104th and then it's not too bad.

Yep. The main source of the congestion on I-240/I-44 is the single lane to I-44 SB, having 2 thru lanes would make a huge difference.

What will never be fixed is the on ramp from 54th street. The second source of congestion is traffic trying to get onto I-240, having to get over into the lanes that continue on 240 and not the ones that split off toward I-44.

Wtf... That makes no sense..... People are moving out there regardless. Plus your Island scenario is different. We live on flat open land.... There is no water or any mountains or some other barrier to prevent us from sprawling....

People are only moving where there are roads. Do you know anyone who lives where there is no road?

Here we go again.:Smiley127

People are only moving where there are roads. Do you know anyone who lives where there is no road?

Daniel Boone? :)

People are only moving where there are roads. Do you know anyone who lives where there is no road?

Venice Italy.

People are only moving where there are roads. Do you know anyone who lives where there is no road?

There are plenty of people that live where there are no roads.

If they chose to move beyond the roads and City services, is it then a taxpayer responsibility to deliver these things to their door at great and disproportionate cost?

Geographer - I so wish more people understood that transportation systems drive development. It has throughout world history but it seems to be a totally foreign concept to a lot of people. For some reason people think the transportation exist in a location because that is where the people are, but it is the other way around - the people are there because that is where the transportation is.

You are absolutely right. Access is key to future development.

Daniel Boone? :)
Is he still living? "Do you know anyone who lives where there is no road?"

Venice Italy.
Their "roads" just happen to be water-based rather than ground-based. The principle still applies.

If they chose to move beyond the roads and City services, is it then a taxpayer responsibility to deliver these things to their door at great and disproportionate cost?
Absolutely not.

If they chose to move beyond the roads and City services, is it then a taxpayer responsibility to deliver these things to their door at great and disproportionate cost?
Should someone who lives by Quail Springs pay taxes for the maintenance of a street car or build/maintenance of a computer rail they will likely never use?

Daniel Boone? :)

Even he lived where he had access to transportation systems - rivers and walkable terrain. He didn't live where he couldn't get to and that is the whole point: people live where they can get to. Remove the access (and for 99.9999% all you have to do is remove the easy access) and people won't live there.

Should someone who lives by Quail Springs pay taxes for the maintenance of a street car or build/maintenance of a computer rail they will likely never use?

I think that is the whole point of Regional Transit Authority where those paying into the system will do so based on their proximity to the system. Of course, they will still get to ride it for the same fee as those who paid for it but what can you do.

If you want funding...then you need to support more taxes...simple.

If you want funding...then you need to support more taxes...simple.

I agree 100%. We need to start living within the limits of the tax revenue we are willing to pay.

Should someone who lives by Quail Springs pay taxes for the maintenance of a street car or build/maintenance of a computer rail they will likely never use?

You mean like having people that live in the outer OKC limits pay for the improvements downtown, in addition to having their tax dollars fund the location of private businesses?.

People are only moving where there are roads. Do you know anyone who lives where there is no road?
http://guerrillaworldpress.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/1397419253793.gif

I agree 100%. We need to start living within the limits of the tax revenue we are willing to pay.

People are willing to pay for things that will be good investments and improve their quality of life. MAPS has proved it here. What they don't want is idealists promoting dogma vs. real solutions. They will pay for freedom. They don't want to be told where they have to live, how they have to transport, who they have to live next to.

Economies that make infrastructure investments...road, airports, railways, seaports, canals, etc. historically have improved their economies and the opportunities for their participants, and overall well being of the people. Even China realized that restricting travel and personal freedom of movement was counterproductive....but it was good for control. Where I agree with you is the improvement of rail as an important component to movement and freedom, not as a throttle of personal choice. But, if we have to have limits because of costs, the public has a right to decide what they want.

Off topic, but while speaking of Lubbock - I don't know about anyone else but it was a surprise to me when I found out Lubbock metro is 301,038 residents (estimated 2013 population). Of course a large chunk of that can be attributed to Texas Tech but still... quite a small city. I had no idea it was that large.

I am assuming that's the metro's population. Lubbock itself is around 230K...not trying to split hairs here LOL. Its actually a nice town, better than Amarillo or Midland IMO. I hope I didn't make it out that its is some terrible place, its growing decently considering most of the panhandle and south plains is emptying out. Tech definitely helps them. But they absolutely do not need another freeway.

They will pay for freedom. They don't want to be told where they have to live, how they have to transport, who they have to live next to.


They are already being told where to live. Look at a zoning map. It tells people where they can live, where they can work, where they can be entertained, where they can worship, where they can shop, where they can attend a sporting event, where they can be treated for medical problems, how many people they have to live near, how big their home has to be, how much yard they are required to have, how many parking spaces must be provided, how tall their home can be, etc... and then they are told they must buy a car that cost as much as their annual income if they want to participate in life because all of those activities/land-uses are separated from each other by distance not easily overcome without a car. Is that the freedom you are talking about?

Anyhow - back to the west outer loop. The highway trust fund is broke, ODOT doesn't have enough money to cover the maintenance of our current roads, and no one wants to increase the gasoline tax to pay for this. In my book that makes this project dead. So if anyone wants to discuss building it - good luck, you're on your own. Peace out.

They are already being told where to live. Look at a zoning map. It tells people where they can live, where they can work, where they can be entertained, where they can worship, where they can shop, where they can attend a sporting event, where they can be treated for medical problems, how many people they have to live near, how big their home has to be, how much yard they are required to have, how many parking spaces must be provided, how tall their home can be, etc... and then they are told they must buy a car that cost as much as their annual income if they want to participate in life because all of those activities/land-uses are separated from each other by distance not easily overcome without a car. Is that the freedom you are talking about?

Stop trying to limit Rover's freedom.