Which could make sense as Norman needs another route north besides I-35, but I still don't see the point of it being that far east.

I am excited for the plate pay though. That'll be nice.

The further east you put it, the cheaper the land is.

Notice on the map that the turnpike actually continues a little south of I-40—this gives them a hook to extend it south toward SH-9 in the future, as shawnw suggested.

By the way, the construction of the I-40/Placeholder Turnpike interchange is apparently going to cause I-40 closures at some point, as a detour route for I-40 is posted along SH-9.

I find it interesting how the new eastern turnpike interchange with I-40 is getting flyovers and underpasses, while the western turnpike which is in a more populated part of town is a cloverleaf. Their building several miles worth of new road, can't spend a little bit more to do the interchange properly?

I find it interesting how the new eastern turnpike interchange with I-40 is getting flyovers and underpasses, while the western turnpike which is in a more populated part of town is a cloverleaf. Their building several miles worth of new road, can't spend a little bit more to do the interchange properly?
Another common complaint.

The further east you put it, the cheaper the land is.

Notice on the map that the turnpike actually continues a little south of I-40—this gives them a hook to extend it south toward SH-9 in the future, as shawnw suggested.

By the way, the construction of the I-40/Placeholder Turnpike interchange is apparently going to cause I-40 closures at some point, as a detour route for I-40 is posted along SH-9.

The future turnpike extension would likely travel due south of the I-40 interchange along 168th Ave. and connect to Hwy 9 just east of the Lake Thunderbird dam in Little Axe. The state would then have to upgrade Hwy 9 through Norman, or convert that section into a turnpike.

I-40 will be closed this evening and possibly Saturday evening as well.

"Eastbound and westbound I-40 will be closed between Choctaw Road and Harrah Newalla Rd. from 8 p.m. Friday to 6 a.m. Saturday and possibly again from 8 p.m. Saturday to 6 a.m. Sunday for demolition with cranes and wrecking balls of the Triple X Rd. bridge over the interstate as part of ongoing highway reconstruction and widening."

I am excited to have the turnpike in back yard. Good sights, sounds, and smells. Note the sarcasm, because I am not happy about it. However that is progress.

I bet there is little traffic on that East County toll road for quite some time so I bet it doesn't raise much noise or traffic.

I am excited to have the turnpike in back yard. Good sights, sounds, and smells. Note the sarcasm, because I am not happy about it. However that is progress.

I don't understand posts like this. You say you're not happy about it but then just go on and call it progress. So what is your stance? Do you support it or not?

I'm sure 5-10 years down the line your property values will be higher because of this road. If it becomes an I-x35 number, it will be worth even more(but don't hold your breath on that one).

I find it interesting how the new eastern turnpike interchange with I-40 is getting flyovers and underpasses, while the western turnpike which is in a more populated part of town is a cloverleaf. Their building several miles worth of new road, can't spend a little bit more to do the interchange properly?

I think the cloverleafs on the south side of the interchange are already there for the Kilpatrick.

There’s some beautiful land out east between Britton &164th in the area where the turnpike will run. Drive Luther Rd looking off to the west, or Peebly Rd looking off to the east now before it gets swallowed up and the beauty is gone for good.

I don't understand posts like this. You say you're not happy about it but then just go on and call it progress. So what is your stance? Do you support it or not?

I'm sure 5-10 years down the line your property values will be higher because of this road. If it becomes an I-x35 number, it will be worth even more(but don't hold your breath on that one).

Just because it is progress doesn't equate to happiness. If the turnpike literally is in your backyard, the increased noise and traffic destroys your residential property value.

The future turnpike extension would likely travel due south of the I-40 interchange along 168th Ave. and connect to Hwy 9 just east of the Lake Thunderbird dam in Little Axe. The state would then have to upgrade Hwy 9 through Norman, or convert that section into a turnpike.

I think you could be right about the first part, but I don't expect HWY 9 to be a part of this project. HWY 9 should have been made a controlled access HWY long ago before the area developed, but that ship has sailed. After 45 years, it's just too entrenched with local traffic and OU will never allow it as the University needs the direct access the current highway provides to the South Campus. Another clue is the millions just spent on the new interchange at I-35 that didn't even put an overpass over 24th Ave. SW like it should have.

The best case scenario is perhaps an upgrade from 4 to 6 lanes from 24th Ave. SE to I-35, but upgrading to toll or controlled access would be cost prohibitive, IMO. It would be actually cheaper just to buy the right-of-way south of 168th and HWY 9 and just continue to extend this Eastern Turnpike SSW over mostly open land to I-35 near Purcell.

Just because it is progress doesn't equate to happiness. If the turnpike literally is in your backyard, the increased noise and traffic destroys your residential property value.
I know but that is not what I’m asking. If the turnpike is in your backyard. Your property value will go up. Land around the Kirkpatrick turnpike is worth a lot more than what it was before the turnpike was built and you can thank sprawl for that.

If value is your only driver of happiness, it would be an easy answer.

I was in Tulsa yesterday and noticed several of the exits on the Creek turnkpike had toll-by-plate available. Eager to see this expanded.

I think you could be right about the first part, but I don't expect HWY 9 to be a part of this project. HWY 9 should have been made a controlled access HWY long ago before the area developed, but that ship has sailed. After 45 years, it's just too entrenched with local traffic and OU will never allow it as the University needs the direct access the current highway provides to the South Campus. Another clue is the millions just spent on the new interchange at I-35 that didn't even put an overpass over 24th Ave. SW like it should have.

The best case scenario is perhaps an upgrade from 4 to 6 lanes from 24th Ave. SE to I-35, but upgrading to toll or controlled access would be cost prohibitive, IMO. It would be actually cheaper just to buy the right-of-way south of 168th and HWY 9 and just continue to extend this Eastern Turnpike SSW over mostly open land to I-35 near Purcell.

It wouldn't have to be limited access at first, just connected to Hwy 9. Then as funding allows it can be converted to limited access. That wouldn't make sense to have it anywhere else.

I'm sure 5-10 years down the line your property values will be higher because of this road. If it becomes an I-x35 number, it will be worth even more(but don't hold your breath on that one).

Doubt that this will get an Interstate number—the only Interstate designation that OTA has ever applied for was the I-44 extension on the HE Bailey. It's more likely to get a SH-3xx number (probably SH-340 or SH-344) if anything.

It wouldn't get an x35 number anyway, as it doesn't connect to I-35 yet.

Doubt that this will get an Interstate number—the only Interstate designation that OTA has ever applied for was the I-44 extension on the HE Bailey. It's more likely to get a SH-3xx number (probably SH-340 or SH-344) if anything.

It wouldn't get an x35 number anyway, as it doesn't connect to I-35 yet.
True but I’m almost certain they plan to connect it to I-35 at least for the south part. It would appear they intend on building a small stub but doubt they put forth any real planning such as stopping future developments which will surely start sprouting up in this area that would be in the way m.

Let's assume it is made into a loop, just for the sake of argument. That's been the rumor since the very first section of the Kilpatrick was built. If this is indeed the case, having it cross/connect three interstates presents a difficulty naming the loop. Why assume it would be X35? X40 would be equally likely, would it not? Right now the turnpike that is being built is being presented as connecting I-40 to the Turner Turnpike, with the Kilpatrick extension doing a drunken dance north of Mustang, but eventually going into 152/Airport Road/I-44/I-240. So while it would be almost as convoluted as that path, could the argument not be made that X44 would also be in the running?

Unfortunately, I believe it is completely correct there will be no attempts made to keep the potential path of the loop available. This lack of foresight is exactly why the section near Mustang is going to take twists and turns and end up NOT taking the logical route of Sara/Highway 4.

I was in Tulsa yesterday and noticed several of the exits on the Creek turnkpike had toll-by-plate available. Eager to see this expanded.

This would be amazing! I've been preaching for years they should do away with toll booths and go to toll-by-plate system state-wide, like Texas (and many other states). They wouldn't have to pay people to sit in booths. Eventually, the system upgrade would pay for itself.

This would be amazing! I've been preaching for years they should do away with toll booths and go to toll-by-plate system state-wide, like Texas (and many other states). They wouldn't have to pay people to sit in booths. Eventually, the system upgrade would pay for itself.
Agreed. I hope this moves our system to be more like the Kansas Turnpike where you only pay when you exit or when the turnpike ends.

True but I’m almost certain they plan to connect it to I-35 at least for the south part. It would appear they intend on building a small stub but doubt they put forth any real planning such as stopping future developments which will surely start sprouting up in this area that would be in the way m.

It's unlikely that AASHTO would approve an x35 designation without concrete plans to connect it to I-35. They would probably approve a "corrected" designation like they did when NC applied for I-36 and AASHTO approved an I-42 instead.

It's unlikely that AASHTO would approve an x35 designation without concrete plans to connect it to I-35. They would probably approve a "corrected" designation like they did when NC applied for I-36 and AASHTO approved an I-42 instead.
Well, I'm sure OTA's version of concrete plans requires a piece of notebook paper, crayons, and an x saying this is where the freeway will be. LOL

It wouldn't have to be limited access at first, just connected to Hwy 9. Then as funding allows it can be converted to limited access. That wouldn't make sense to have it anywhere else.

I do agree if/when they build south from I-40, it will connect with Hwy 9. But I still stand by my previous opinion that the Hwy 9 corridor will never be the final leg to a connection with I-35.

Sure...it looks like a natural fit if you are just looking at a map, but that's not the case if you live or work in Norman. While the right-of-way definitely exists, the costs of all of the new interchanges that would have to be built to connect to OU South Campus (Chautauqua, Jenkins, and Imhoff), 12 Ave. SE, 24th Ave. SE, a complete rebuild of the Classen Interchange, and then the biggie at 24th Ave. SW are all cost prohibitive. Second, The City of Norman, OU, and the citizens who live in rapidly growing south Norman area will not stand for 2-3 years of construction traffic headaches a toll road project would most certainly cause on Hwy 9.

And people thought the opposition the citizens of Eastern Oklahoma County put up against the OTA was fierce?? That'll seem like a cakewalk compared to the uproar the OTA would get proposing a plan like this though the heart of the third largest city in the State. That's because Hwy 9 is a major arterial for local traffic and people who live in Norman depend on this roadway on a daily basis and have for years. We do not want nor will ever allow a toll road in Norman to replace Hwy 9, nor is there any way semi-truck and other bypass traffic currently travelling I-35 will ever be allowed to use an already crowded local Hwy 9 corridor as a bypass to OKC.

The OTA didn't even propose using a short stretch of the modestly developed Sara Rd. corridor to connect the Western Kilpatrick to SH4 although it makes total sense. Instead, we're getting the connection to Airport Rd. because it is the path of least resistance. The best bet is for the last leg of this Eastern Turnpike to go south from I-40, across Hwy 9 East of Thunderbird, and SSW through rural areas until merging with I-35. It is here that the OTA will find far less resistance from rural property owners with the main costs being the bridges over the river and the interchange with I-35 somewhere between Norman and Purcell.

The OTA didn't even propose using a short stretch of the modestly developed Sara Rd. corridor to connect the Western Kilpatrick to SH4 although it makes total sense. Instead, we're getting the connection to Airport Rd. because it is the path of least resistance. The best bet is for the last leg of this Eastern Turnpike to go south from I-40, across Hwy 9 East of Thunderbird, and SSW through rural areas until merging with I-35. It is here that the OTA will find far less resistance from rural property owners with the main costs being the bridges over the river and the interchange with I-35 somewhere between Norman and Purcell.

I agree, I think they can squeeze it between Nobel and Norman depending on how long it takes them to act.

I do agree if/when they build south from I-40, it will connect with Hwy 9. But I still stand by my previous opinion that the Hwy 9 corridor will never be the final leg to a connection with I-35.

Sure...it looks like a natural fit if you are just looking at a map, but that's not the case if you live or work in Norman. While the right-of-way definitely exists, the costs of all of the new interchanges that would have to be built to connect to OU South Campus (Chautauqua, Jenkins, and Imhoff), 12 Ave. SE, 24th Ave. SE, a complete rebuild of the Classen Interchange, and then the biggie at 24th Ave. SW are all cost prohibitive. Second, The City of Norman, OU, and the citizens who live in rapidly growing south Norman area will not stand for 2-3 years of construction traffic headaches a toll road project would most certainly cause on Hwy 9.

And people thought the opposition the citizens of Eastern Oklahoma County put up against the OTA was fierce?? That'll seem like a cakewalk compared to the uproar the OTA would get proposing a plan like this though the heart of the third largest city in the State. That's because Hwy 9 is a major arterial for local traffic and people who live in Norman depend on this roadway on a daily basis and have for years. We do not want nor will ever allow a toll road in Norman to replace Hwy 9, nor is there any way semi-truck and other bypass traffic currently travelling I-35 will ever be allowed to use an already crowded local Hwy 9 corridor as a bypass to OKC.

The OTA didn't even propose using a short stretch of the modestly developed Sara Rd. corridor to connect the Western Kilpatrick to SH4 although it makes total sense. Instead, we're getting the connection to Airport Rd. because it is the path of least resistance. The best bet is for the last leg of this Eastern Turnpike to go south from I-40, across Hwy 9 East of Thunderbird, and SSW through rural areas until merging with I-35. It is here that the OTA will find far less resistance from rural property owners with the main costs being the bridges over the river and the interchange with I-35 somewhere between Norman and Purcell.

ODOT did a study with alternate routes to put a highway that would connect the JKP Turnpike south around Will Rogers and taking it east and connecting it to I35 somewhere in the SW 34th, Indian Hills, and Franklin area. It met such fierce opposition they canned the whole thing. Same thing happened on an eastern loop study in the late 1990s.

I do agree if/when they build south from I-40, it will connect with Hwy 9. But I still stand by my previous opinion that the Hwy 9 corridor will never be the final leg to a connection with I-35.

Sure...it looks like a natural fit if you are just looking at a map, but that's not the case if you live or work in Norman. While the right-of-way definitely exists, the costs of all of the new interchanges that would have to be built to connect to OU South Campus (Chautauqua, Jenkins, and Imhoff), 12 Ave. SE, 24th Ave. SE, a complete rebuild of the Classen Interchange, and then the biggie at 24th Ave. SW are all cost prohibitive. Second, The City of Norman, OU, and the citizens who live in rapidly growing south Norman area will not stand for 2-3 years of construction traffic headaches a toll road project would most certainly cause on Hwy 9.

And people thought the opposition the citizens of Eastern Oklahoma County put up against the OTA was fierce?? That'll seem like a cakewalk compared to the uproar the OTA would get proposing a plan like this though the heart of the third largest city in the State. That's because Hwy 9 is a major arterial for local traffic and people who live in Norman depend on this roadway on a daily basis and have for years. We do not want nor will ever allow a toll road in Norman to replace Hwy 9, nor is there any way semi-truck and other bypass traffic currently travelling I-35 will ever be allowed to use an already crowded local Hwy 9 corridor as a bypass to OKC.


If you do it as a free road, I doubt you'll get much protest. Nobody in East Norman is really happy with Highway 9 the way that it is, because there's no other quick route across town. (I drive from East Norman to Newcastle every day and the part of the trip in Norman takes almost as long as the entire rest of the journey.) Upgrading Highway 9 links East Norman to the Interstate System. Spending the money on upgrades would be a good investment and give East Norman a shot in the arm economically.

They are really involved on the tie in with I-40 between Mustang Rd and Morgan Rd. They have all 3 lanes of eastbound I-40 shifted over and are ripping out the barrier wall for almost a full mile between i-40 and the eastbound service road from Mustang Rd to Sara Rd. Also tearing up the northeast quadrant for that tie in. They must be replacing the Sara Rd bridge over I-40, I can't see how they can build the JKT eastbound exit to I-40 without.

Years ago I lived in CT and used the Merritt Parkway. The Merritt was a beautiful mid-speed highway that has very strict restrictions on the types of vehicles that could use it and strict development restrictions to minimize congestion. It is a narrow, 4-lane limited access highly landscaped highway that carries a huge amount of traffic yet hardly is noticable until you are right on it. Access is every 2-3 miles instread of every mile and bridges cross it between the interchanges.

I wish someone would suggest something like this because it takes up approximately the space of a 6-lane divided city street with only occasional interchanges so the cost should be less than a traditional highway. This is what Edmond should build around the north side of town between I35 and hiway 74. It should also be what is built in east OK county instead of that silly tollway to nowhere.

Google Merritt Parkway Images for examples

Something like the Merritt Parkway would actually be more expensive because of the amount of landscaping and design work that would go into it.

This actually presumes that something like it could be built today. Federal geometric design specifications are a lot more strict for safety reasons. You have to have a "clear zone" on either side of a highway that contains no fixed objects like trees or utility poles—even road signs are built with hinges in the posts so that they are "crashworthy". Anything that isn't designed to collapse on being struck has to have a guardrail around it or some other form of crash attenuation like those yellow sand barrels. (Next time you're on a rural Interstate notice how far the fence is from the edge of the pavement—that's your clear zone.)

Because the Placeholder Turnpike is in a mostly rural area, the land is cheaper, making it more economical to simply buy the extra hundred feet of land or so to provide a proper clear zone than it would be to add all of the extra crash safety materials. Building a new "mid-speed" road (the Merritt Parkway has speed limits between 45 and 55) would be a much larger waste of money, because the north-south roads in the area have high enough speed limits that the difference wouldn't justify the cost of the new road.

So when are they tearing down the old railroad bridge?

So when are they tearing down the old railroad bridge?

If you're talking about the one over I-235, it's in the I-235 / I-44 interchange thread, but IIRC it's next weekend or the weekend following.

I apologize if they're somewhere in this thread and I've missed them, but does anyone have the plans for the Kilpatrick extension from I-40 around to Airport Rd.? I can't find the designs anywhere and would like to see how that's going to connect to I-40.

From a few pages back:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/turnpikes4.jpg

From a few pages back:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/turnpikes4.jpg
Thank you, David. Is there anything more focused on the actual interchange with I-40? They've recently started tearing up I-40 all the way to Morgan Rd., but I'm not seeing why that was necessary or how they're going to work around the bridge at Sara Rd.

Also, these cloverleafs are going to be a nightmare. When they can actually charge tolls, why in the hell can't the OTA put in flyover ramps?

Thank you, David. Is there anything more focused on the actual interchange with I-40? They've recently started tearing up I-40 all the way to Morgan Rd., but I'm not seeing why that was necessary or how they're going to work around the bridge at Sara Rd.

Also, these cloverleafs are going to be a nightmare. When they can actually charge tolls, why in the hell can't the OTA put in flyover ramps?

On those plans posted it shows the project extents due in fact go to Morgan RD. My guess would be auxiliary or acceleration lanes to get back to highway speed after the dumb f@cking cloverleaf ramps they built. :mad:

I agree with you a stack interchange would be better. Another thing that irks me is the lack of communication and transparency this agency and even OkDOT has at times. Most DOT's will give you renderings, multiple different plans drawn up specifically for the public to understand among other things.

On those plans posted it shows the project extents due in fact go to Morgan RD. My guess would be auxiliary or acceleration lanes to get back to highway speed after the dumb f@cking cloverleaf ramps they built. :mad:

I agree with you a stack interchange would be better. Another thing that irks me is the lack of communication and transparency this agency and even OkDOT has at times. Most DOT's will give you renderings, multiple different plans drawn up specifically for the public to understand among other things.

We are lucky to get what we have. ODOT is chronically underfunded for personnel.

We are lucky to get what we have. ODOT is chronically underfunded for personnel.

This is not an ODOT project though. This is a turnpike funded by bonds and tolls. For whatever reason they don't see the value in any elevated overpasses here, but they do see value in a turnpike in the middle of nowhere in eastern oklahoma county

This is not an ODOT project though. This is a turnpike funded by bonds and tolls. For whatever reason they don't see the value in any elevated overpasses here, but they do see value in a turnpike in the middle of nowhere in eastern oklahoma county
Exactly. This is why I don't understand why there are no flyovers - they shouldn't cite costs as they're going to toll for it!

This is not an ODOT project though. This is a turnpike funded by bonds and tolls. For whatever reason they don't see the value in any elevated overpasses here, but they do see value in a turnpike in the middle of nowhere in eastern oklahoma county

I think rte66man was referring to my comment about OkDOT not producing more renderings and such when presenting projects to the public.

...they shouldn't cite costs as they're going to toll for it!

Hopefully they're watching costs, regardless of whether it's paid by users or taxpayers!

Hopefully they're watching costs, regardless of whether it's paid by users or taxpayers!

That's not how toll roads work in Oklahoma. As long as so much as one mile, anywhere in the system, is not yet paid off, they can continue charging (and raising rates) on the ones that are paid off. They have no reason to watch costs other than to make sure they still owe something, somewhere.

Hopefully they're watching costs, regardless of whether it's paid by users or taxpayers!
Very fair point. To clarify, they should be able to build proper interchanges using the toll revenue, unlike ODOT, which is limited by the appropriations they receive. Watching costs would involve them not building an unnecessary eastern OK county turnpike.

That's not how toll roads work in Oklahoma. As long as so much as one mile, anywhere in the system, is not yet paid off, they can continue charging (and raising rates) on the ones that are paid off. They have no reason to watch costs other than to make sure they still owe something, somewhere.

“Paid off?” That has nothing to do with keeping tolls in place. Tolls pay for ongoing repairs & maintenance, troopers & employees, improvements & widening, and everything else that it necessary to maintain the system. Tolls will always be a part of turnpikes, just as taxpayer funds won’t.

“Paid off?” That has nothing to do with keeping tolls in place. Tolls pay for ongoing repairs & maintenance, troopers & employees, improvements & widening, and everything else that it necessary to maintain the system. Tolls will always be a part of turnpikes, just as taxpayer funds won’t.

I repeat, that is not how it works in Oklahoma. OTA doesn't even bother to try to cover this up (not that they could), so there's no reason to be ignorant of it.

https://www.pikepass.com/about/FAQs.aspx


6. Why is the Turner Turnpike not free?
The people of Oklahoma voted in 1954 to “cross-pledge” the turnpike system. By this action they voted to commit the tolls collected on all turnpikes to pay the debt service, maintenance and expansion for the turnpike system, not each individual road."


7. Where does the money go?
Uses of Funds for 2017
Debt Service $107,775,007
Capital Plan $113,127,924
Maintenance & Operating $89,888,069
$310,791,000

But was it sold this way? Of course not!

http://okcfox.com/news/ask-fox/ask-fox-was-the-turnpike-supposed-to-be-free-after-the-initial-debt-was-paid-off

http://kfor.com/2016/05/24/all-smoke-and-mirrors-decades-old-vote-prevents-oklahoma-turnpikes-from-ever-being-paid-off/

http://ktul.com/news/investigations/oklahomas-turnpike-tolls-unlikely-to-go-away

I repeat, that is not how it works in Oklahoma. OTA doesn't even bother to try to cover this up (not that they could), so there's no reason to be ignorant of it.

https://www.pikepass.com/about/FAQs.aspx


6. Why is the Turner Turnpike not free?
The people of Oklahoma voted in 1954 to “cross-pledge” the turnpike system. By this action they voted to commit the tolls collected on all turnpikes to pay the debt service, maintenance and expansion for the turnpike system, not each individual road."


7. Where does the money go?
Uses of Funds for 2017
Debt Service $107,775,007
Capital Plan $113,127,924
Maintenance & Operating $89,888,069
$310,791,000

But was it sold this way? Of course not!

http://okcfox.com/news/ask-fox/ask-fox-was-the-turnpike-supposed-to-be-free-after-the-initial-debt-was-paid-off

http://kfor.com/2016/05/24/all-smoke-and-mirrors-decades-old-vote-prevents-oklahoma-turnpikes-from-ever-being-paid-off/

http://ktul.com/news/investigations/oklahomas-turnpike-tolls-unlikely-to-go-away

It may have been sold that way, but someone would have to eat that operating expense to maintain the "free roads". The people at the capital don't even like paying for our existing "free roads".

Building an eastern oklahoma country turnpike certainly ensures that toll rates won't go down anytime soon

If I am thinking right it looks like they are re-using at least one if not all existing ramps to I-40 it looks like the extension joins south of I-40 so they are able to use existing exits and entrances.

On another note they started work this past week on the section that crosses County line road and goes back to Airport road. They have started dirt work and tore down one of the structures on the West side of county line. They have also buried some electric lines where the extension will cross 44th between Sarah and Morgan. I will see if I can get pics of these two spots today.

It may have already been discussed but...is it just me is or is the ODOT website a little difficult to find info on projects? For example, I was wanting to see any information about reworking Indian Hills road. From the home page at the site search bar i searched indian hills road (no quotes) and it had three results which didn't appear to have anything to do with Indian Hills Road. A search for "indian hills" (with quotes) has zero results. I then went to the link for the 8 year plan and seen from the little image which showed me I needed to pick the link for division 3. It opens a PDF and the first page doesn't even show I-35 on the map as a reference point. I went to page 2 as found I-35 but this page stopped at HWY 9 at the northern side. I then did a search for indian hills on the PDF and it took me back to page 1...after starting at the screen for a couple of minutes I seen what little box was highlighted. After zooming in to the box it appears the bridge will be done in FY2023. I'm sure the poor website design is justified to the budget cuts and such but it seems a bit complicated to find information about ongoing and upcoming projects. An intuitive interactive map would be really handy.

Meant to post previous post in odot thread...sorry.

This is greet and all, but I sure wish they would take all that money they've been collecting from the tolls and repair those wavy ass bridges out by Yukon. I don't know, maybe it's just me that gets absolutely infuriated every time I have to use those 
When I moved to Tulsa a few years ago one of the first things I noticed was that the creek turnpike over Haikey Creek has the exact same problem. I have no idea why they built a bridge like that more than once.

When I moved to Tulsa a few years ago one of the first things I noticed was that the creek turnpike over Haikey Creek has the exact same problem. I have no idea why they built a bridge like that more than once.

I was in Tulsa last weekend and went on this bridge you are referring to. I immediately thought "This is just like the one in Yukon"!

When I moved to Tulsa a few years ago one of the first things I noticed was that the creek turnpike over Haikey Creek has the exact same problem. I have no idea why they built a bridge like that more than once.

Because they have crappy engineers that can't figure out proper loads so the bridge will flatten out when the concrete's poured and then using those same engineers for the other bridge?

Kilpatrick Extension has a new map with dates of each segment that shows when they will begin construction.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/955/42094221472_2ae37d27d5_o.png

This is really heating up and quite the under taking. At sw 15th by MNMS its a huge mess. And I see they started clearing the path at sw 44th between morgan rd and sarah road and again on county line road just south of 44th.

I have a question about annual OTA audits, and in context of recent audits of the Oklahoma State Department of Health. Not conjecture - looking for facts. The OTA is audited every year, and I assume that it’s a thorough financial audit that would show improprieties like those found at OSDH if they existed. The grand jury and State Auditor both said that state laws or statutes prevent a comprehensive audit that was performed as part of this investigation. So - is OTA subjected to a comprehensive audit as SHOULD be performed, or an “audit lite” that might not find much? Looking for those who know.

Not part of driving OK forward plan, but as part of the OTA 5-year Capital Spending plan they are looking to "modernize" the Stroud (Hoback) service plaza for $9.5 million. I'm glad to see this, as the parking is tight and I hope it involves a fresher convenience store/restaurant. I was driving on the Florida Turnpike a few months ago and their service centers were large, bright, airy buildings with a large food court, ATM's, gift shops, and convenience stores. Obviously their traffic loads are much higher so I wouldn't expect that, but something a bit nicer than what we have would be great.

It has a project number for this year, but I couldn't find any documents yet. It might not have been put out to bid.

Here are some examples of the Florida stops:

http://www.fdot.gov/maintenance/restarea_pics/P80460.JPG
http://ak3.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/15650293/thumb/1.jpg
https://s3-media2.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/rT5cuLw_OOI9XjMRylSyXg/o.jpg

I have a question about annual OTA audits, and in context of recent audits of the Oklahoma State Department of Health. Not conjecture - looking for facts. The OTA is audited every year, and I assume that it’s a thorough financial audit that would show improprieties like those found at OSDH if they existed. The grand jury and State Auditor both said that state laws or statutes prevent a comprehensive audit that was performed as part of this investigation. So - is OTA subjected to a comprehensive audit as SHOULD be performed, or an “audit lite” that might not find much? Looking for those who know.
The financial audits of OTA are probably due to the fact they issue revenue bonds to finance construction. It is probably required by bond holders and financial entities for credit worthiness.

When we lived in Austin TxDOT faced a sunset review after acknowledgement of a billion dollar accounting error.

I have a question about annual OTA audits, and in context of recent audits of the Oklahoma State Department of Health. Not conjecture - looking for facts. The OTA is audited every year, and I assume that it’s a thorough financial audit that would show improprieties like those found at OSDH if they existed. The grand jury and State Auditor both said that state laws or statutes prevent a comprehensive audit that was performed as part of this investigation. So - is OTA subjected to a comprehensive audit as SHOULD be performed, or an “audit lite” that might not find much? Looking for those who know.

Audits, unless specifically set out in the engagement letter, are not designed to find fraud. If an auditor finds it, he notifies management and other necessary parties. Fraud audits are very, very narrow in scope. You want a comprehensive fraud audit of the OTA: it would bankrupt the OTA. I am not sure who audits the OTA (state or outside firm) but maybe having an outside firm audit them would be better (cast less shadow on the State Auditors).

Took these Saturday.

The first is the intersection of the turnpike and I-40. 2nd is north of SW 15th; 3rd is south of SW 15th.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/turnpike062318a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/turnpike062318b.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/turnpike062318c.jpg

I hope that bridge over that creek isn't bumpy like the big bridge further north on the turnpike.