New details about up-and-coming turnpike in eastern Oklahoma County | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2016/01/11/new-details-about-up-and-coming-turnpike-in-eastern-oklahoma-county/)


OKLAHOMA COUNTY, Okla. -- Progress is moving right along on the new turnpike in eastern Oklahoma County, despite protests from residents out there.

Turnpike officials say they’ve been placing X’s along the proposed route for aerial surveying.

The main area they’re looking at is a mile on either side of Peebly Road from I-40 to I-44.

And while they say "X" doesn’t necessarily mark the spot of the new highway, many homeowners say they’re a little too close for comfort.

I still think that there are at least 5 other places a turnpike should be built other than the North East loop. The state government just wants Oklahoma to become major through-way for trucks coming up from Houston after the new Panama Canal is finished. I have no idea how becoming a major hub for trucking helps us at all, and with I-49 getting built, I think that will shuffle a lot of trucks over there.

Some new info but nothing major.

Driving Forward OK (http://www.drivingforwardok.com/#!Area-of-Study-for-Northeast-Oklahoma-County-Loop-Narrows-to-Area-along-Peebly-Road/tgcb1/569441190cf20ee37c6ec3b9)

Where is I -49? I haven't heard about it. I guess being retired I'm living under a rock.Happens when you live by yourself out in the country.

The southern section of I-49 is from Lafayette through Shreveport to Texarkana, and the northern section is from Fort Smith through Bentonville and Joplin to Kansas City.

Well, wikipedia has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_49

With the route as displayed there, I don't think it makes a lot a sense as an alternate route up from Mexico. But then again, I don't run a shipping company so what do I know.

How stupid. With the inability of Oklahoma to maintain roadways currently, why the hell would we want to encourage more truck traffic?

Also, there is absolutely no reason for the eastern loop. Seriously, at what point does this nonsense of sprawling everywhere end?

Where is I -49? I haven't heard about it. I guess being retired I'm living under a rock.Happens when you live by yourself out in the country.

Here is there project website: Interstate 49 International Coalition :: Home (http://www.interstate49.org/)

If there is any new interstate I'd like to see it'd be a route from Denver to OKC to Shreveport(easy New Orleans access). I'd think there would be enough traffic using it to justify it and OKC would benefit the most.

I'd run it from from Colorado Spring's, to Woodward, to OKC, to Ada, then maybe to Durant or Paris, then straight to Shreveport.

The northeast loop makes sense if you look at it in the context of providing a beltway to Oklahoma City (like I-435 in Kansas City), something the Kilpatrick Turnpike extension to SH-152 also contributes to. If a beltway isn't going to happen, though, it's kind of pointless on its own. The only conceivable use it would have is allowing SB I-35 to EB I-40 (and WB I-40 to NB I-35) traffic to bypass Oklahoma City, and I don't really think that's a very commonly-used routing.

If you are trying to hack together an OKC beltway, you'd probably do the most good sooner by upgrading SH-9 between US-62/277 and Lake Thunderbird to a freeway. That section has traffic that would benefit from the upgrades now (though I do think that the traffic counts don't quite justify a freeway, there are safety and efficiency arguments to be made from eliminating the lights and crossroads). The northeast Oklahoma County loop would probably be one of the last pieces of the puzzle in that case.

The Oklahoma County loop might be more useful if it gets extended south to SH-9 in rural east Norman at some point. At least then it would have the use case of making it easier for Norman residents to get to Shawnee and the Tinker area, as well as continuing north to I-44 toward Tulsa and St. Louis.

How stupid. With the inability of Oklahoma to maintain roadways currently, why the hell would we want to encourage more truck traffic?

Tax revenue. Truckers have to spend money on gas and food as they pass through Oklahoma. Whether or not that makes up for the increased cost of maintenance, I don't know...

How stupid. With the inability of Oklahoma to maintain roadways currently, why the hell would we want to encourage more truck traffic?

Also, there is absolutely no reason for the eastern loop. Seriously, at what point does this nonsense of sprawling everywhere end?

While some posts are just laughable (I know it might be different if I lived there), I've been scratching my head about just how useful this highway would be. I have to agree with PP that a diagonal towards Colorado would get more traffic and be a better investment for truck traffic. The benefit for truck traffic is significantly shorter drive times. The investment is the possibility for new distribution centers and agri-business to the NW.

Well, wikipedia has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_49

With the route as displayed there, I don't think it makes a lot a sense as an alternate route up from Mexico. But then again, I don't run a shipping company so what do I know.

If they are worried about a new interstate pulling traffic from a Mexico route, i69 is probably what they would be more worried about. Assuming the lower half ever gets built, though some sections do combo well with i49 coming from Mexico (though where they work together the best it seems unlikely they would have been coming through here to begin with). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69

Well, wikipedia has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_49

With the route as displayed there, I don't think it makes a lot a sense as an alternate route up from Mexico. But then again, I don't run a shipping company so what do I know.

The expectation is that after the new Panama Canal opens, Houston will become one of the largest ports in the world as a ton of the California traffic starts coming into Houston. This will move a ton of truck traffic from East-West routes to North-South routes.

For some reason Oklahoma has always thought there was money in being a trucking hub, and I've never understood it. Look at the very cheap registration for trucks/trailers and the lack of weigh stations (starting to come back). Now, Oklahoma is trying to position to get a lot of the new Northbound trucks out of Houston.


Tax revenue. Truckers have to spend money on gas and food as they pass through Oklahoma. Whether or not that makes up for the increased cost of maintenance, I don't know...

Sales tax on hot dogs and subways sandwiches are pretty small, especially considering trucks can easily cross Oklahoma without stopping.

The northeast loop makes sense if you look at it in the context of providing a beltway to Oklahoma City (like I-435 in Kansas City), something the Kilpatrick Turnpike extension to SH-152 also contributes to. If a beltway isn't going to happen, though, it's kind of pointless on its own. The only conceivable use it would have is allowing SB I-35 to EB I-40 (and WB I-40 to NB I-35) traffic to bypass Oklahoma City, and I don't really think that's a very commonly-used routing.

If you are trying to hack together an OKC beltway, you'd probably do the most good sooner by upgrading SH-9 between US-62/277 and Lake Thunderbird to a freeway. That section has traffic that would benefit from the upgrades now (though I do think that the traffic counts don't quite justify a freeway, there are safety and efficiency arguments to be made from eliminating the lights and crossroads). The northeast Oklahoma County loop would probably be one of the last pieces of the puzzle in that case.

The Oklahoma County loop might be more useful if it gets extended south to SH-9 in rural east Norman at some point. At least then it would have the use case of making it easier for Norman residents to get to Shawnee and the Tinker area, as well as continuing north to I-44 toward Tulsa and St. Louis.

I agree that i makes sense as a part of an outer beltway. But it is probably the least important piece of that beltway. Looping from Norman around SH-9 NE to I-40 would make much more sense for local traffic and truck traffic. After this leg was built, going on up to I-44, then North I-35 would make sense.

For trucking, I would think that turning US-69 from McAlister to the State Line into a turnpike would make more sense.

Regarding trucks I really wish there would be a law prohibiting trucks from using the left lane and then have dedicated passing zones.

Regarding trucks I really wish there would be a law prohibiting trucks from using the right lane and then have dedicated passing zones.

Huh?

Huh?

Oops. I meant left lane.

It gets really annoying to see trucks using the left lane passing another trucker on the right only going 1-3mph faster than they are.

They always wait to do this when you are approaching them on cruise control, then juuuuust as you get close the guy in the back swerves over and you're blocked for 5 minutes while the guy in back just creeeeeps past the guy in front.

Yeah man it is one of the most frustrating things. Sometimes when I drive to OKC from L.A. I will literally see a line of cars like maybe 6-14 cars just lined up behind two semis.

Like why even go 2 MPH faster than the other trucker? I don't get it. If they are going 5-10 I can kind of understand, but I've tested it and have witnessed time and time again a trucker going 66-67 to pass one going 65. It's infuriating.

Like why even go 2 MPH faster than the other trucker? I don't get it. If they are going 5-10 I can kind of understand, but I've tested it and have witnessed time and time again a trucker going 66-67 to pass one going 65. It's infuriating.
Maybe so, but I try to find much more important things to get infuriated about. LOL
I tend to find things like that annoying instead of infuriating.

Well, I have a very heavy foot when it comes to cross country travel and it puts a hold on my show.

Yeah man it is one of the most frustrating things. Sometimes when I drive to OKC from L.A. I will literally see a line of cars like maybe 6-14 cars just lined up behind two semis.

Like why even go 2 MPH faster than the other trucker? I don't get it. If they are going 5-10 I can kind of understand, but I've tested it and have witnessed time and time again a trucker going 66-67 to pass one going 65. It's infuriating.

Don't blame the truckers. Blame the regulations. Most trucks run by companies are speed limited to 65MPH so it's not like the guy driving it can mosh the pedal and pass all the time.

The 1-2mph creep is often going to be due to calibration differences and such between the two trucks. If I go 70MPH in my vehicle, and the car next to me goes 70MPH, I can guarantee we won't be at the exact same speed.

If anything, back off and give the guy some breathing space so he doesn't feel like he's in an unsafe situation.

Well, I have a very heavy foot when it comes to cross country travel and it puts a hold on my show.
Yes, that is well documented here. :)

Don't blame the truckers. Blame the regulations. Most trucks run by companies are speed limited to 65MPH so it's not like the guy driving it can mosh the pedal and pass all the time.

The 1-2mph creep is often going to be due to calibration differences and such between the two trucks. If I go 70MPH in my vehicle, and the car next to me goes 70MPH, I can guarantee we won't be at the exact same speed.

If anything, back off and give the guy some breathing space so he doesn't feel like he's in an unsafe situation.Seriously?

I am most certainly going to blame it on the truckers. Sorry not sorry. There are regulations. Cool. I am sure there aren't regulations with certain trucks having to go one or two miles an hour faster than one right next to them holding up traffic.

If they are limited to 65, then the trucks should go 65. I understand there are calibration differences, but when I witness with my own eyes a truck taking almost 5-10 minutes to pass another 60 foot truck, it's like damn dude. It shouldn't take that long and if it is, either speed the hell up or just match the guys speed right next to you. What difference is 1-3 miles an hour faster going to make? 10-25 miles an hour faster, yeah. I get that.

The expectation is that after the new Panama Canal opens, Houston will become one of the largest ports in the world as a ton of the California traffic starts coming into Houston. This will move a ton of truck traffic from East-West routes to North-South routes.

For some reason Oklahoma has always thought there was money in being a trucking hub, and I've never understood it. Look at the very cheap registration for trucks/trailers and the lack of weigh stations (starting to come back). Now, Oklahoma is trying to position to get a lot of the new Northbound trucks out of Houston.

Ahh, I see what you mean.

I believe the intended word here was "regulators", as in many trucking companies install regulators on their fleet to keep their drivers from going over 65mph... This is done mostly for fuel economy reasons. Thanks to minor differences in calibration, one truck's regulator might be set for 65 but the actual max speed of the truck is 67, which results in these slow slow passes.

I believe the intended word here was "regulators", as in many trucking companies install regulators on their fleet to keep their drivers from going over 65mph... This is done mostly for fuel economy reasons. Thanks to minor differences in calibration, one truck's regulator might be set for 65 but the actual max speed of the truck is 67, which results in these slow slow passes.

To add to this (and I'm not defending the habit of holding up traffic for 5 minutes): if you are paid by the mile and you can get 2 extra miles on your paycheck on the hour every hour you might be motivated to pass that truck going 2 mph slower than you even if it makes everybody else mad behind you.

All of those things are cool and all, but what does that have to do with drivers? I still think they need to ban trucks from using the left lane except for certain areas.

I mostly just want a truck speed limit -10 MPH from cars like many other states have. I feel like trucks are much less of an issue when there is that segmentation...

That would be good too. I want both though. But I'd be happy with a truck limit like 55. That is how it is in California.

Studies have shown that split speed limits like that can actually be a safety hazard. They can create a large speed differential between trucks and cars. It can be dangerous when a driver doesn't realize another vehicle is moving at a slower speed and quickly comes up on them.

For trucking, I would think that turning US-69 from McAlester to the State Line into a turnpike would make more sense.


An attempt to do just that was made in the mid 90's. The Eastern boys shot that down faster than you can read this sentence. It didn't even get into the authorizations that were added.

For the more road geek minded, Title 69, Section 1705(e) is an interesting read. Every part of the State got to enshrine their wishlist into law.

Studies have shown that split speed limits like that can actually be a safety hazard. They can create a large speed differential between trucks and cars. It can be dangerous when a driver doesn't realize another vehicle is moving at a slower speed and quickly comes up on them.

Minimum speed limit is something like 55MPH anyways so I don't think it's a big deal.

An attempt to do just that was made in the mid 90's. The Eastern boys shot that down faster than you can read this sentence. It didn't even get into the authorizations that were added.

For the more road geek minded, Title 69, Section 1705(e) is an interesting read. Every part of the State got to enshrine their wishlist into law.

Would it hurt the speeding ticket business too much?

I drove from Portland to Albuquerque a few weeks ago to help a friend move. In California, especially in San Bernadino County in the Mojave desert, trucks were routinely going 80-85 mph. The truck speed limit was 65, cars 75 (I think). It was like driving in the Wild Wild West. We were doing 90-95 in his pickup, and still were getting passed and barely passing truckers.

Not all trucks have governors on them apparently... And not all truckers follow the speed limits. I've noticed in Oklahoma trucks seem to follow the speed limits much better. But even in Oregon with 55 Trucks and 65 mph cars, the trucks just keep up with traffic at 65-70mph...

Would it hurt the speeding ticket business too much?

You must have experience with the fine folks at Stringtown.;)

You must have experience with the fine folks at Stringtown.;)

Kiowa, actually. Luckily, my brother got a big ticket from a jerk cop in Kiowa, while I was with him before I was driving, so I learned my listen to not mess around with though little towns.

Perhaps as a result of that, a law passed in 1991 (ISTEA) requires that section of US-69 be made an interstate whenever ODOT requests it (which they have never done). Presumably it would be an extension of I-45 from Dallas.

I've had the experience of HAVING to drive 90 in San Bernadino county just to "almost kinda keep up for the most part". I hated it.

I like it. I usually drive a lot faster than that though. :P

Congressman Steve Russell Speaks At Oklahoma Turnpike Meeting - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/31060321/congressman-steve-russell-speaks-at-oklahoma-turnpike-meeting?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)

"As a homeowner from the area expected to deal with turnpike expansion in eastern Oklahoma County, Congressman Russell encouraged the room of protesters to approach the situation with civility and vowed to stand with them."

Turnpike plans funded | The Lawton Constitution (http://www.swoknews.com/area/turnpike-plans-funded)

The more I think about this Driving Forward, the more I think it's a crock of sh*t. There are things that the turnpikes legitimately need that the authority doesn't address, but we can find a billion (what the actual f***?) for a lot of senseless and unneeded expansion! It's such bullsh*t. For example, why does the interchange between the Kilpatrick turnpike and I-40 in west OKC rely on cloverleafs that lead to dangerous vehicle interactions. Why can't they find the money from toll revenue to put in a flyover ramps for the turnpike to reduce some of that cluster. Or where is the money to repair the bumpy bridges that their engineers didn't measure correctly on the Kilpatrick? Or where is the money for a westbound entrance to the Kilpatrick off the Lake Hefner Parkway without having to sit through the stop lights? Between ODOT and the OTA, transportation in this state is an effing joke.

Don't forget that you can't connect from South Broadway to East Bound Kilpatrick. So in all of true Edmond, there is ONE entrance onto the Kilpatrick East Bound. They need to add entrances and exits in all directions to at least Santa Fe, Bryant and Western. Not to mention the exits on May, Penn and Western now are horrible. And like you said, out of the 8 needed interchange connections, only 2 exist for Kilpatrick and 74.

Seriously who designed this thing?

The more I think about this Driving Forward, the more I think it's a crock of sh*t. There are things that the turnpikes legitimately need that the authority doesn't address, but we can find a billion (what the actual f***?) for a lot of senseless and unneeded expansion! It's such bullsh*t. For example, why does the interchange between the Kilpatrick turnpike and I-40 in west OKC rely on cloverleafs that lead to dangerous vehicle interactions. Why can't they find the money from toll revenue to put in a flyover ramps for the turnpike to reduce some of that cluster. Or where is the money to repair the bumpy bridges that their engineers didn't measure correctly on the Kilpatrick? Or where is the money for a westbound entrance to the Kilpatrick off the Lake Hefner Parkway without having to sit through the stop lights? Between ODOT and the OTA, transportation in this state is an effing joke.


No one is forced to drive on turnpikes. I suggest you don't. Don't give them any funds and they won't be able to perpetuate this nonsense. Then you can chill.

Great response Buffalo Bill! Have you had a pleasant career working for the OTA? I'm also curious which of those suggestions you have a problem with?

I think living in Portland has really changed my perspective on things. I actually am in favor of expanding the turnpikes. The whole idea of if you don't build it, there won't be traffic on it idea is flawed.

Portland has a terrible road system, and it hasn't slowed the growth of the city one bit. It just means the roads that are used are all congested.

The highways are clogged now, and so are the side roads. It takes me 30-45 mins to get home every day. It is so frustrating sitting through 4-5 signal changes, sometimes not even moving during a signal change because the cars on the next block have nowhere to go. It's awful. Public transit is great and all, but the light rail can only go so many places. The bus system is great but the buses are in the same traffic jams as the cars.

We need to aim be a balance between Houston and Portland. We don't need to emulate either city.

We already are copying Houston so we're good on that end.

Turnpike plans funded | The Lawton Constitution (http://www.swoknews.com/area/turnpike-plans-funded)

FYI this is an EXTREMELY misleading headline, bordering on propaganda, really.

They are not "funded" by any means. These are financed by OTA bonds backed by future toll revenue that have yet to be sold. And in doing so they must complete the final highway designs as well as any feasibility studies to show that they can cover the costs/expenses of the road construction and operation. So no, they are not close to being funded.

FWIW it is a good thing toll roads in OK are cross bonded because there is no way in hell half the roads generate enough traffic to pay for themselves. Ever been on the Chickasaw "Turnpike" near Ada? Frankly, I put it at 50/50 they will be able to sell bonds for the Eastern Connector or new Gilcrease. I just don't see how they will generate the traffic needed for either of these.

FYI this is an EXTREMELY misleading headline, bordering on propaganda, really.

They are not "funded" by any means. These are financed by OTA bonds backed by future toll revenue that have yet to be sold. And in doing so they must complete the final highway designs as well as any feasibility studies to show that they can cover the costs/expenses of the road construction and operation. So no, they are not close to being funded.

FWIW it is a good thing toll roads in OK are cross bonded because there is no way in hell half the roads generate enough traffic to pay for themselves. Ever been on the Chickasaw "Turnpike" near Ada? Frankly, I put it at 50/50 they will be able to sell bonds for the Eastern Connector or new Gilcrease. I just don't see how they will generate the traffic needed for either of these.

The Chickasaw Turnpike is a joke, the only good thing about it is a quicker way to get from Ada to Sulphur, if they build it the way it supposed to been, 4 lane all the way from I35 to I40, then it wouldn't be a problem, but our lawmakers are dumb that they build it the way it is today, Ada has been trying to get 4 lane access for a long time but our lawmakers just ignore us.

FYI this is an EXTREMELY misleading headline, bordering on propaganda, really.

They are not "funded" by any means. These are financed by OTA bonds backed by future toll revenue that have yet to be sold. And in doing so they must complete the final highway designs as well as any feasibility studies to show that they can cover the costs/expenses of the road construction and operation. So no, they are not close to being funded.

FWIW it is a good thing toll roads in OK are cross bonded because there is no way in hell half the roads generate enough traffic to pay for themselves. Ever been on the Chickasaw "Turnpike" near Ada? Frankly, I put it at 50/50 they will be able to sell bonds for the Eastern Connector or new Gilcrease. I just don't see how they will generate the traffic needed for either of these.

Do they even bother to split the projects bonds and designate which road they are on post cross funding? It seems all the funding rounds I have heard about all had bits all around the state (I am guessing for political need for approval).

FWIW it is a good thing toll roads in OK are cross bonded because there is no way in hell half the roads generate enough traffic to pay for themselves. Ever been on the Chickasaw "Turnpike" near Ada? Frankly, I put it at 50/50 they will be able to sell bonds for the Eastern Connector or new Gilcrease. I just don't see how they will generate the traffic needed for either of these.

That's why they are cross-pledged. The 2 cash cows (Turner and Will Rogers) pay for all the money losers (all the others). The Bailey breaks even due to the OKC to Chickasha section. As with most anything in OK, the turnpikes are a political trade-off.

btw, the Chickasaw is no longer a turnpike. OTA "gave" it to ODOT a couple of years ago.

We already are copying Houston so we're good on that end.
How is that? Our highway designs suck. Even the future interchanges are going to be half-assed.

How is that? Our highway designs suck. Even the future interchanges are going to be half-assed.

And take 15 years from the start of design to project completion.

How is that? Our highway designs suck. Even the future interchanges are going to be half-assed.

Our overall highway system is excellent as it currently is, it's just the interchanges that aren't well planned.

I think the turnpike improvements will be good. (But i honestly am torn on the east turnpike, I'm not sure how needed that one is). But we definitely need to finish the west loop.

Our overall highway system is excellent as it currently is, it's just the interchanges that aren't well planned.

I think the turnpike improvements will be good. (But i honestly am torn on the east turnpike, I'm not sure how needed that one is). But we definitely need to finish the west loop.
Capacity is pretty good for a city of 1.4 million. I will agree with you on that. But my main gripe is as you said, interchanges and things like left hand exits, lack of HOV lanes, poorly designed on/off ramps, no merging room, etc.

HOV lanes will be great for OKC, especially on I35 coming in from Norman - Moore area and the Broadway Extension, heck even I 40 in west OKC will be great for it.

HOV lanes will be great for OKC, especially on I35 coming in from Norman - Moore area and the Broadway Extension, heck even I 40 in west OKC will be great for it.

I don't think you're likely to see HOV lanes on I-35 in the metro area. There was an interview with the ODOT leader that said I-35 had been expanded to its max between Norman and OKC and it couldn't be widened further.

I don't think you're likely to see HOV lanes on I-35 in the metro area. There was an interview with the ODOT leader that said I-35 had been expanded to its max between Norman and OKC and it couldn't be widened further.That is complete BS. Not your statement, but the fact that they are trying to say that. I-35 has room to be 40 lanes if they wanted it to. ODOT just uses cheap lines to make it look like they are doing all they can do.

They try and use these lines also when saying we can't build flyovers because there isn't any room when other cities somehow are able to do it.

Like I said, a good temporary solution would be to remove the left hand shoulder on I-35 from downtown OKC to Norman and paint in an HOV and add a foot or so of cement on the right hand shoulder being that the right lane will likely have to be moved over an inch or so. You basically just repaint the lanes to have 3 regular lanes and one HOV lane in each direction at the expense of the left shoulder.