This map is connecting at council and is a little over 5mi the rough draft that was shown with the presentation has it connecting at McArthur I think. If so that would add at least a mile probably. I can't see any other route for this other than the one pictured here.

I agree. I come up with around 6 miles at the most based on this route with a eastern terminus at MacArthur. The 7.1 mile distance from the OTA website still puzzles me.

My guess is by the time they reconfigure some of the on/off ramps and toll infrastructure that adds on some mileage.

ah I think I figured it out... 15th to 29th to 44th = 3, sara to morgan to countyline to council to rockwell= 4 so that is 7 miles

If this is being sold as a traffic congestion reduction measure they need to ban all new construction within 3 miles of every new interchange, lest all the new traffic reducing capacity is filled up with new demand.

I live over off of SW 44th and Council a route like this would be a very good choice as it does not displace any big neighborhoods just maybe a few familys that have land and a single house. I am all for this loop extension as it would speed up travel to and from the places I frequent.

I live in NW OKC and work at Hobby Lobby so I'm all for it no doubt!

http://www.elrenotribune.com/mustang_news/news/article_5026da76-7e78-11e5-9d76-6340c96ad53c.html

Where appropriate and during the daylight hours I would very much like to see an 85 MPH speed limit on Oklahoma’s turnpikes interstates and even a few 2 lane roads in select areas.

Texas has 85 MPH Speed limits in appropriate places…. we can too

Tthe Eastern bypass makes no sense if not extended to Norman. This is not a metro area commuter turnpike like the Kilpatrick turnpike or the Creek Nation turnpike in Tulsa. This is a trucker turnpike.

I agree, the east route seems to make a lot more sense as a phase 2. But Norman I-35 to I-240 or I-40 seems like it would be a much more useful road. Especially considering the amount of traffic on I-35 south of I-40 now. Really the should start of the end of the H.E. Bailey Spar and loop that around. Especially when you think about the rate of development in Norman and Moore vs East OK County, and what that will do for land costs.

Where appropriate and during the daylight hours I would very much like to see an 85 MPH speed limit on Oklahoma’s turnpikes interstates and even a few 2 lane roads in select areas.

Texas has 85 MPH Speed limits in appropriate places…. we can too

I love Texas speed limits and would like to see them here, especially on turnpikes. But going head to head at 85 MPH on a fairly busy 2 lane highway is pretty scary. If someone drifts across the line and you hit head on, you better just kiss your butt goodbye. That said, I drive it when I have the opportunity, I just hug the shoulder more than normal, which they actually have in Texas.

These outer loops are nothing new. ODOT has been trying to get them built since at least the 1990s

Outer Loop Plan Narrowed Officials Unveil Proposal for Southwest Portion | News OK (http://newsok.com/outer-loop-plan-narrowed-officials-unveil-proposal-for-southwest-portion/article/2654622)

I'm anxious to see the route planned for eastern Oklahoma County, because that's dense rural development.

I love Texas speed limits and would like to see them here, especially on turnpikes. But going head to head at 85 MPH on a fairly busy 2 lane highway is pretty scary. If someone drifts across the line and you hit head on, you better just kiss your butt goodbye. That said, I drive it when I have the opportunity, I just hug the shoulder more than normal, which they actually have in Texas.
That why I indicated select 2 lane roads….
I have driven thousands of miles in the OK panhandle… Those are the type of highways I'm talking about.
On a 40 mile day time trip it’s not uncommon to only see 5 to 10 other moving vehicles on a major highway in the western parts of the panhandle…

Those people face a much different set of road conditions than we do in central Ok

Still no official maps?

11720

This would be my best guess as the the general route the extension will take. They only need about 300 feet of width to run this. Once my contacts get plans in hand, I'm sure I can provide more information.

Ever since the Hwy 9 extenion was tied in at I-44/H.E. Bailey by Bridgecreek, I envisioned it going on up north through Mustang and tying in here at the Kilpatrick. There are some neighborhoods there that would be affected though.

11737 I took this map from http://media.wix.com/ugd/7181a5_aeb35ba3178b46eba24c5569a802528f.pdf and added my thoughts.

IMO Kilpatrick should be extended to HW 4. HW 4 already runs into H. E. Bailey which runs into HW9 south of Norman. I've said this for A LONG time now but HW9 south of the river should be extended over the river. Currently having one river crossing along I-35 is ridiculous and is a constant source of backups. East of Thunderbird add a spur up to I-40 and it would tie in at the Northeast OK County Loop which runs up to Luther/Jones. At that point you basically have a loop around the metro in all directions.

I agree with macfoucin, at least as far as the SW Loop goes. The Kilpatrick extension really needs to connect down to OK-4/Sara Rd, or replace it all the way to the HE Bailey Spur. That would make it an actually effective loop.

But then they could charge tolls for 7 miles :-P

Well, yeah... These projects are all OTA projects. Ergo, they'll be charging tolls on these new roads.

I'm hoping the SW Loop is going to alleviate some of the congestion on Mustang road. The Mustang Rd exit traffic on I-40 and southbound Mustang road traffic can get ridiculous in rush hour

I'm hoping the SW Loop is going to alleviate some of the congestion on Mustang road. The Mustang Rd exit traffic on I-35 and southbound Mustang road traffic can get ridiculous in rush hour
Do you mean I-40? I would assume that It wold alivate some of that. I am curious to see where they decide to put entrances/exits for the new turnpike segment. I feel like they will need at least one between the connecting points but none of the roads between them have an intersection that could handle the potential increase in traffic.

Well one thing I can say about the east loop, is that it does not do anything for anyone on a commute. If it goes far enough south to hit Norman-ish, then you'll at least get a good bypass for through traffic, but that's about it. It's too far east (by about half it's distance from 35) to make it helpful for anyone on a daily basis. At least the west side loop puts it in commute range for Mustang and Yukon folks. But they better not touch airport rd and try to slap some toll anyone on that sucker!!!! That's touching my FREE commuter road right there LOL. But seriously, the east loop is so far out east, that it can't' help but turn into a sprawl enticer. It's faster to commute when you build further out, near the turnpike, then build in a few more miles and half to travel to the road.

Well one thing I can say about the east loop, is that it does not do anything for anyone on a commute. If it goes far enough south to hit Norman-ish, then you'll at least get a good bypass for through traffic, but that's about it. It's too far east (by about half it's distance from 35) to make it helpful for anyone on a daily basis. At least the west side loop puts it in commute range for Mustang and Yukon folks. But they better not touch airport rd and try to slap some toll anyone on that sucker!!!! That's touching my FREE commuter road right there LOL. But seriously, the east loop is so far out east, that it can't' help but turn into a sprawl enticer. It's faster to commute when you build further out, near the turnpike, then build in a few more miles and half to travel to the road.
I see them tying into airport RD at council or McArthur and making the turnpike an exit/entrance ramp. inbetween Council and McArthur would be plausible for this as there is empty field to the west of the turn there.

Just remember, every congested lane today was built to relieve congestion. When does the dog stop chasing its tail? I would have thought it was when it finally figured out it couldn't catch it.

More capacity doesn't reduce congestion - less driving does.

Do you mean I-40? I would assume that It wold alivate some of that. I am curious to see where they decide to put entrances/exits for the new turnpike segment. I feel like they will need at least one between the connecting points but none of the roads between them have an intersection that could handle the potential increase in traffic.

yes, I-40. sorry. i corrected it with an Edit

One thing is for certain. If the same people that are in charge of road and turnpike planning are in charge of this project, it will not do any good. Having lived in other progressive cities, OKC metro area is joke and they need to maybe travel to other cities to see how to do things correctly. Worst planners in the US reside right here in this hole.

You have to be kidding. "Progressive" cities like Austin which is building toll roads like crazy? "Progressive" cities like LA and Charlotte and Orlando and Dallas and Atlanta and Denver? OKC actually has a pretty good highway system. Far better than many "progressive" cities that have far worse traffic.

One thing is for certain. If the same people that are in charge of road and turnpike planning are in charge of this project, it will not do any good. Having lived in other progressive cities, OKC metro area is joke and they need to maybe travel to other cities to see how to do things correctly. Worst planners in the US reside right here in this hole.
I don't even know what progressive means in this context. Progressive when it comes to highway development, progressive when it comes to urban design, progressive when it comes to having a lot of liberals...?

You have to be kidding. "Progressive" cities like Austin which is building toll roads like crazy? "Progressive" cities like LA and Charlotte and Orlando and Dallas and Atlanta and Denver? OKC actually has a pretty good highway system. Far better than many "progressive" cities that have far worse traffic.

Totally agree. You'll find that most states are building toll roads these days. And remember, this is a STATE issue, not a City. It has absolutely zero, nothing, nada, to do with the city. The state is building these through the turnpike authority. Last time I checked, cities weren't in the business of building highways.

I don't get the 'progressive' angle either, especially if your frame of reference is other US cities. Outside of the US, China, and some wanabe 3rd world countries - no one in the world is building new highway capacity on a sustantial scale.

One thing is for certain. If the same people that are in charge of road and turnpike planning are in charge of this project, it will not do any good. Having lived in other progressive cities, OKC metro area is joke and they need to maybe travel to other cities to see how to do things correctly. Worst planners in the US reside right here in this hole.

Oklahoma City has a much more extensive highway infrastructure than most cities its size. If anything is done poorly around here, I would say its the interchanges. They need to be rebuilt and stacked like TxDOT does. The highways themselves are just about right for the capacity that they handle. The only place I think widening is absolutely necessary is on I-235 going northbound into the I-235/I-44 interchange. These new highways, especially the eastern bypass, are unnecessary and will only encourage further sprawl.

Possible route of the Kirkpatrick extension?
FYI, the red route was just a joke route I drew for a friend that goes over his home. But the yellow doesn't see too far-fetched.
11757

*Edit*
Oops, just saw this post. Never mind. :o

11720

This would be my best guess as the the general route the extension will take. They only need about 300 feet of width to run this. Once my contacts get plans in hand, I'm sure I can provide more information.

I don't get the 'progressive' angle either, especially if your frame of reference is other US cities. Outside of the US, China, and some wanabe 3rd world countries - no one in the world is building new highway capacity on a sustantial scale.

Mostly because their urban systems are already pretty much complete. However, remember DFW just completed several B.illion dollars of toll road construction while building a light rail system. Also note other B.illions are being spent to widen and repair existing highways all over the country so construction is going on everywhere. As for everyone's contention on the east county road, I also have some qualms. At the same time there should have been a spur to run east and west along one of the main roads to connect with I-35. East OK County has always been neglected in the access department. The arguement can be made that east OK County can benefit from the economic development highways can bring.

Oklahoma City has a much more extensive highway infrastructure than most cities its size. If anything is done poorly around here, I would say its the interchanges. They need to be rebuilt and stacked like TxDOT does. The highways themselves are just about right for the capacity that they handle. The only place I think widening is absolutely necessary is on I-235 going northbound into the I-235/I-44 interchange. These new highways, especially the eastern bypass, are unnecessary and will only encourage further sprawl.

They are in the middle of a phased redesign/reconstruction on that junction (and widening 235 to six lanes), kind of bizarrely though there is like a two or three year gap between when the last work they did on it was completed and the next step they are doing on it.

Please someone make HWY 9 through Norman up to interstate standards...

Please someone make HWY 9 through Norman up to interstate standards...

One major thing to help that would be to remove the lighted crossings. Elevate those crossings and make a frontage if you need to....there's PLENTY room to do it. and that connection needs to flow seamlessly into 35, not stop at a light before the transition.

I often thought the same thing about Sooner Rd....

One major thing to help that would be to remove the lighted crossings. Elevate those crossings and make a frontage if you need to....there's PLENTY room to do it. and that connection needs to flow seamlessly into 35, not stop at a light before the transition.

I often thought the same thing about Sooner Rd....

It would make a lot of sense to do more of these targeted improvements, rather than building whole new freeways we DON'T need...

It would make a lot of sense to do more of these targeted improvements, rather than building whole new freeways we DON'T need...

It's not a freeway, Spartan. It's a turnpike. That is obviously much different. LOL

Please someone make HWY 9 through Norman up to interstate standards...

Let's not. It's already pathetic how unwalkable Norman is for a college town. Didn't realize it then because it felt normal, but sure would've been nice to live in a college town where you could walk places. It's more possible to do that in OKC than Norman now.

Let's not. It's already pathetic how unwalkable Norman is for a college town. Didn't realize it then because it felt normal, but sure would've been nice to live in a college town where you could walk places. It's more possible to do that in OKC than Norman now.

Updating it to highway standards would not make it any less walkable than it is now. If 9 is elevated at intersections then people can still walk under like 240 is, also that part of Norman is outside of where people would normally walk anyway. It isn't like we are trying to make Lindsey or Boyd a highway.

Please someone make HWY 9 through Norman up to interstate standards...

I do not think I have traveled on it anything but game days near kickoff/ending, what is it's normal traffic like? Do they do light synchronization on it through Norman?

This is similar to years ago on concrete roadways, Oklahoma didn't put in dowel bar between the various sections (the sections are about 10 ft long). So of course each section would sink or pitch differently and you'd end up with a road that felt like a washboard. Likely they finally changed the design code and have gone back and fixed most of the affected highways. This is why on a lot of concrete highways in the state you'll see something that looks like the picture below.

http://www.interstateimprovement.com/p7IGM_images/fullsize/DowelBarRetrofit_fs.jpg

A couple days late to the thread, but what exactly does this do?

I've seen it a lot, but I never actually figured out what it does or how it works.

They put metal rods in the slots to strengthen the road and make them last longer. Keeps them from having to replace the road as soon. They probably put them in areas where the concrete is starting to weaken or where they know that section of road gets heavy use.

A couple days late to the thread, but what exactly does this do?

I've seen it a lot, but I never actually figured out what it does or how it works.

The concrete is poured in sections, with no rebar. Back in the day they thought as long as it was built on prepared base (soil/gravel) that it would be fine. But over time the concrete settles into the soil differently, so you get a bump at every single seem. At highway speeds it creates a very rough ride.

So they went back to the old concrete roadways, jack hammered up the slots and placed "dowel rods" (rebar) in the slots to connect the two panels together. This keeps either side of the seem at the same height as they have to move together and helps transfer load from one panel to the next as vehicles pass. After they put in the dowel rods into the slot, they pour grout into the slot to hold in place and reestablish the road surface. Finally, they will grind the entire surface of the roadway to make it flat again.

New concrete roadways are built with the dowel rods already installed, and they run all the way across the seem not just in the tire tracks.

Some links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowel_bar_retrofit and Dowel Bar Placement | Pavement Interactive (http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/dowel-bar-placement/)

Very informative, thanks!

Turnpike expansion, upgrades will test timetable, engineers say | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2015/11/19/turnpike-expansion-upgrades-will-test-timetable-engineers-say-general-news/)

Panel moves forward with turnpike expansion plans - Tulsa World: Capitol Report (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/panel-moves-forward-with-turnpike-expansion-plans/article_761241e4-412d-536e-bb40-4f2951f363e6.html#user-comment-area)

Congress approves 5-year transportation bill | HeraldNet.com - Nation & World (http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20151204/NEWS02/151209631)

Oklahomans Start Petition To Stop Turnpike Expansion - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/30902753/oklahoma-residents-expressing-concern-over-future-of-turnpike-expansion)

Luther residents speaking out against proposed turnpike | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/news/Luther-residents-speaking-out-against-proposed-turnpike/37305014)

City Council supports turnpike expansion plans | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2016/01/05/city-council-supports-turnpike-expansion-plans-general-news/)

People around me in Choctaw/Harrah are losing their collective fecal matter over this right now. Leaving flyers on my porch and starting petitions...

Yeah. That's gonna help lol

Can you post them? I'm curious about their objections. Not judging just yet...

Here's their FB page, feel free to peruse.

https://www.facebook.com/StopTheEasternLoop/?fref=ts

City Council supports turnpike expansion plans | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2016/01/05/city-council-supports-turnpike-expansion-plans-general-news/)

warreng or Pete, would one of you mind posting the text of this article?

With the Choctaw residents complaining, I forsee the Kilpatrick Extension getting a lot of pushback. There is no good route to get through without an extreme zigzag. Entire neighborhoods would have to be taken out. I just don't see it happening. I don't see the rural representatives and Senators approving something that mostly benefits OKC and a little for Tulsa. Also Tulsa might feel OKC is getting a lot more and not vote for it.

I think it's going to happen.

People around me in Choctaw/Harrah are losing their collective fecal matter over this right now. Leaving flyers on my porch and starting petitions...

Yeah. That's gonna help lol

Just like 40 years ago. That is why there is no Eastern Loop today. I will dig up the references and post later.

They are going to announce possible alignments where it will be built late spring to early summer.


Property owners in the area of Driving Forward projects for the Southwest Kilpatrick Extension and Eastern Oklahoma County turnpikes recieved letters for surveys on private property. These surveys required the placement of black or white markings on their property for aerial surveying. The letter notes that "the location of the temporary aerial targets does not signify the location of where the future turnpike alignment will be located, rather it will be used for the purpose of gathering data to make an assessment of the optimal location of the turnpike alignment." The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has stated that no alignments have been set for any of the turnpike projects and that a decision on alignments will be announced in late spring, early summer.

- Driving Forward OK (http://www.drivingforwardok.com/#!Survey-letters-provided-to-private-property-owners-for-aerial-markings/tgcb1/568eefe50cf29139531f8bb1)

I just don't see it happening. I don't see the rural representatives and Senators approving something that mostly benefits OKC and a little for Tulsa. Also Tulsa might feel OKC is getting a lot more and not vote for it.
Does a decision about new turnpike locations require approval by rural legislators? This is an OTA project. The Tulsa area is slated for a significant amount of construction even if it's not as many miles as in the OKC area. How would Tulsa vote against it?

Does a decision about new turnpike locations require approval by rural legislators? This is an OTA project. The Tulsa area is slated for a significant amount of construction even if it's not as many miles as in the OKC area. How would Tulsa vote against it?

Good points and I believe The City of Tulsa has actually voiced their approval of the project.

Does a decision about new turnpike locations require approval by rural legislators? This is an OTA project. The Tulsa area is slated for a significant amount of construction even if it's not as many miles as in the OKC area. How would Tulsa vote against it?

While less of the projects new lane miles are in Tulsa's metro verse the number in OKC's metro, a couple of the projects are their most traveled long distant routes, which at least some have been calling for reconstruction/widening to for years.