I fail to see how a highway in that corridor will alleviate I-35 traffic. It would be one thing if it started as a branch directly off of I35 and looped all the way around the city and connected back with I35. But to connect I40 and I44 -- that far out, I just fail to see why. I would be mad if I lived over in eastern Okla county. There's a certain way of life folks look for when they move out there. They like the country living yet so close to civilization. That part of the county is unique in that respect. It's their neighborhood so I would let them decide if they wanted it. Now I would have a different take if I believed that it would serve the greater good in being a loop as I previously described.


My concern about that corridor is the exact "future boom in development" that others in this thread are seeing as a positive. If it ends up as yet another highway surrounded by service roads, a few big box stores, and suburban development, that's going to do nothing but spread the city's maintenance costs ever more thinly.

Exactly.

Why doesn't ODOT and the Turnpike group get rid of the toll booths?? Go to the Texas model? Everyone pays either way. We then don't have to pay people to sit in a booth, therefore, saving money? Am I missing something?

Really saddened to see no updates to the Stillwater Spur/Cimarron Turnpike up north by me. The toll booths and areas are awful! You have to slow to 30 to go through. They're extremely narrow, especially for large trucks. Just sad to see expansion before we update our current facilities and tollways.

Why doesn't ODOT and the Turnpike group get rid of the toll booths?? Go to the Texas model? Everyone pays either way. We then don't have to pay people to sit in a booth, therefore, saving money? Am I missing something?

Really saddened to see no updates to the Stillwater Spur/Cimarron Turnpike up north by me. The toll booths and areas are awful! You have to slow to 30 to go through. They're extremely narrow, especially for large trucks. Just sad to see expansion before we update our current facilities and tollways.

They're working on it, that's part of the package for the Muskogee and HE Bailey TP's, is to update their old booths where EVERYONE has to slow down to at least having the high speed lanes for PikePass holders.

My concern about that corridor is the exact "future boom in development" that others in this thread are seeing as a positive. If it ends up as yet another highway surrounded by service roads, a few big box stores, and suburban development, that's going to do nothing but spread the city's maintenance costs ever more thinly.
Almost none of the new turnpike will be in OKC. So it won't do that at all

Almost none of the new turnpike will be in OKC. So it won't do that at all

Fair enough, but that does depend at least a little on where it is built. Looking at the city ward map as a guide, it has to at least start in ward 4, and depending on the northern end it some portion of it could be in ward 7.

This is just a guess, but I'm betting on the north end to be in the area of the Hogback Road interchange.

An interesting comment at the recent meeting in Choctaw.

Oklahoma transportation secretary admits agency missteps in turnpike plan near Choctaw | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/transportation-secretary-admits-agency-missteps-in-turnpike-plan-near-choctaw/article/5479818)



In other words your best option is to give us input about how this is done, not if it is done.

I don't get his reasoning. Wouldn't John Kilpatrick Turnpike already provide a north south route and be hooked up with 35 much easier than building an entirely new road out in the middle of nowhere?

Also, people actually drive from Tulsa to Dallas through OKC? Seriously, Take 75 to Indian Nation to 69. Easy as pie.

Also, people actually drive from Tulsa to Dallas through OKC? Seriously, Take 75 to Indian Nation to 69. Easy as pie.

Depends on where you are going in the DFW area. If we were going to Arlington or an place west of the Galleria, then 44 to 35 was way faster due to all the stoplights on 69 between McAlester and Durant. Fewer speed traps too.

I don't even think it's about saving time for driver's whose destination is NOT Oklahoma City, it's about freeing up capacity for local drivers (I think...).

I can't figure out what out of towners would actually benefit from this either.


DFW-Tulsa, After you deal with I-35 to I-40, it'd be quicker and much shorter to go up on 235 or 35.
Tulsa-DFW, Maybe, but it would be much longer and you'd still have to deal with the horrible I-40/I-35S interchange and the traffic on I-35S through Norman
I-40W-Tulsa, Again, it would be shorter and quicker to go up Kilpatrick, I-44, 235 or 35
Ft Smith-Wichita, You'd go through Tulsa.


I would love to see the traffic models for this and how it will relieve I-35 or I-235 at all. This will also be the 5th North-South Highway that is bound by I-40 on the south and the Turner/Kilpatrick on North. Only one goes farther North and only 2 go further South.

According to the traffic counts from ODOT, Sooner Road at 240 already has more traffic (16,900 cars a day and 32,300 at I-40) on it than they are predicting for this turnpike. I-35 at I-240 is running 10x the predicted amount, at 140,000 cars a day. Broadway in Edmond is at 52,400.

I am all for infrastructure getting built. I just don't see how this will benefit the metro compared to many other corridors that are very under served today. This will be the lowest traffic highway in OKC or Tulsa, and will not relieve the current highways in the metro.

Traffic Counts (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/Maps/aadt/index.htm)

Edit: I just looked up OTA's traffic counts (https://www.pikepass.com/media/AverageDailyTraffic.aspx). There is no way this turnpike will see anywhere near 15,000 cars a day any time soon. The OKC Terminus of the Turner is only pulling 28K a day and the Kilpatrick @ I-40 is only 21K/day.

This will have less traffic than the Creek in East BA, which is pulling 10K/day. Which is closer in and serves as a real bypass around Tulsa.

I do believe it will eventually connect to a true beltway around OKC. I don't know how it couldn't.

The problem is, this should probably be the last segment built on a grand loop, definitely not the first.

The meeting information in Mustang was officially posted for the Southwest loop.

Driving Forward OK (http://www.drivingforwardok.com/#!Turnpike-Meeting-Set/tgcb1/56c72df50cf2474324497446)

Also, people actually drive from Tulsa to Dallas through OKC? Seriously, Take 75 to Indian Nation to 69. Easy as pie.

Actually daily traffic counts show that truck traffic is much heavier on I35 and the Turner from the Dallas area up into Missouri compared to US69/75. From the counts one could conclude that a majority of tucking companies like the more controlled access that I35 and the Turner provide rather than US 69/75, which is an uncontrolled access facility. Not to say no trucks travel the 69/75 route..... But then again, spurring off of I35 and heading NE around OKC proper would be the way to go and help this truck traffic around the metro.

Also there is nowhere that I can find where any official discusses the future of eventually connecting this new turnpike to 35 as stated earlier. Back in the day when the JKT was built from I35 over to the Hefner Parkway, it was no secret that one day, when future traffic counts warrant, that the JKT was intended to extend down to I40. Then again, I'm wondering if this isn't some way to spur the eastern "outer loop" that was proposed by ODOT some 20 years ago that was shot down primarily eastern Oklahoma county communities -- Norman and MWC I remember were for it. Maybe the thought of putting a turnpike out in the east that doesn't connect 35 to anything, just maybe once that is built then after a few years transportation officials can come up with the "new idea" to bridge the gap and connect the new turnpike down to 35. It's more obstacle-laden for ODOT to just go in without public consent and build a new corridor. So maybe after that was shot down years ago, transportation officials wanted the issue to die down then have it reborn with the Turnpike Authority where they can just do what they want really even with public outrage. Really, it would be easier then for ODOT to take the "common sense" approach and say hey, let's bridge this gap! Let OTA put concrete up the noses of those that opposed the outer loop the most, then ODOT can come in and finish the rest in the communities that wanted it in the first place. LOL. Brilliant cronyism.

It's early, I'm rambling.

If you live in Tulsa, you're surrounded by turnpikes because most of the major roads in or out of T-town lead to a turnpike toll.

This route is what has been floating around the HOA and close to what has been posted earlier on this thread. If this is it, it will be about 200 yards from my house. The route makes sense, as in what it could be, because it weaves it way through the neighborhoods. We will see going on with the meeting tomorrow. I will report back from the meeting.

12261

Image is too blurry.

Almost none of the new turnpike will be in OKC. So it won't do that at all

You don't think development would leapfrog past OKC's city limits?

Here is a scan of the map presented at the public OTA meeting last night in Mustang. Within the bounds of the yellow lines is the study area for the alignment. Should be fairly obvious where it will begin and terminate.

12264

Here is a scan of the map presented at the public OTA meeting last night in Mustang. Within the bounds of the yellow lines is the study area for the alignment. Should be fairly obvious where it will begin and terminate.

12264

Saw that on FB last night. All I know is glad I don't live over there, cause you just know it's going to be a mess while it's being constructed and then noisy afterwards.

Saw that on FB last night. All I know is glad I don't live over there, cause you just know it's going to be a mess while it's being constructed and then noisy afterwards.

People don't realize how much sound is already generated by a combination of Mustang Road, I40, and being sandwiched between two different train routes. From their discussion last night I don't believe they have any large scale plans for running the alignment through existing established subdivisions. The best outcome will be to get more road improvements in area, better storm drainage, and as many trees as possible to attenuate the additional noise.

At this point, why don't they just run it down Sara Rd.? At least doing that, they could eventually connect it with HWY 4 south of 152 and connect to the Norman spur.

I've wondered that since this part of the loop was proposed. This really should be working toward a connection with OK-4 and not OK-152.

The pike is going to go about 100 yards from my house. The red line in the picture I posted is accurate.

I also initially though it would connect to OK-4 to create a loop. I believe it still may in the future.

The problem I see is connecting to 152 does alleviate the traffic build up at the 44/240 interchange that 152 feeds into. The planned turnpike will feed traffic to the same place, just from two different places.

Mr. riddley (spelling) said the plan is to have ODOT add a lane to 44 North of the interchange then go south to wherever. I still don't think that will change anything with the traffic build up

Mr. riddley (spelling) said the plan is to have ODOT add a lane to 44 North of the interchange then go south to wherever. I still don't think that will change anything with the traffic build up

This is typical of Ridley's poor practices. Add a lane before or after the interchange, but leave the interchange, which is the real choke point, the same. It just creates bigger problems.

The other point of the SW extension is to add another route to Will Rogers. Connecting to Hwy 4 only really doesn't solve that. Ideally they'd do both at some point.

This is typical of Ridley's poor practices. Add a lane before or after the interchange, but leave the interchange, which is the real choke point, the same. It just creates bigger problems.

I agree. The problem is 152 crosses traffic with 44 to get onto 240. There could be 20 lanes added and the problem would be the same. There needs to be a 44 West flyover, so 44 West traffic can stay on 44west without getting crossed by 152 traffic. All other traffic going wherever will be a merge.

The other point of the SW extension is to add another route to Will Rogers. Connecting to Hwy 4 only really doesn't solve that. Ideally they'd do both at some point.

There is not much traffic that goes to the Airport. Mr. Riddley even said 152 is underutilized.

I work around I40 and Meridian. The execs at our company that live in and around Gaillardia have taken to using the turnpike to to avoid the traffic on I44. The proposed alignment will allow traffic that is now using I44 and I40 to bypass those congested corridors and efficiently access the outer loop. As for connecting to highway 4, that can still be done by going westbound on 152 about 3.5 miles. Not ideal but hopefully in the future when Sara is widened, there will be an interchange to accommodate quick transit down Sara to the 4/152 junction.

There WILL be a connection to OK-4...eventually. When the 'new' spur of the Kilpatrick was finished around 15 years ago, everyone knew the plan was to 'someday' extend it, and here we are finally discussing it.

Unfortunately, in the meantime a subdivision was built directly in the most-likely path and that's part of what we're discussing. There's no telling what will be built by the time we discuss connecting Kilpatrick with OK-4 in 2030. This is exactly why I mentioned in another thread that we need to discuss things we KNOW are going to happen in advance, rather than wait a couple years too late and only then start discussing it.

There WILL be a connection to OK-4...eventually. When the 'new' spur of the Kilpatrick was finished around 15 years ago, everyone knew the plan was to 'someday' extend it, and here we are finally discussing it.

Unfortunately, in the meantime a subdivision was built directly in the most-likely path and that's part of what we're discussing. There's no telling what will be built by the time we discuss connecting Kilpatrick with OK-4 in 2030. This is exactly why I mentioned in another thread that we need to discuss things we KNOW are going to happen in advance, rather than wait a couple years too late and only then start discussing it.

Someone asked this question about what happened 15 years ago. Mr Ridley said he was part of the discussions back then and the problem was a lack of funding. I took the answer at face value. However, now that I think about it, should funding have been an issue because OTA is not using appropriated funds, they are using bonds.

There WILL be a connection to OK-4...eventually. When the 'new' spur of the Kilpatrick was finished around 15 years ago, everyone knew the plan was to 'someday' extend it, and here we are finally discussing it.

Unfortunately, in the meantime a subdivision was built directly in the most-likely path and that's part of what we're discussing. There's no telling what will be built by the time we discuss connecting Kilpatrick with OK-4 in 2030. This is exactly why I mentioned in another thread that we need to discuss things we KNOW are going to happen in advance, rather than wait a couple years too late and only then start discussing it.

It did strike me as odd they did not work with Mustang and OKC to keep the most natural path from getting permits to build on it, twenty years ago there should not have been much of an issue choosing a path, with recent development it would already be a pain connecting the two, ignore it for another 15 years and it will be even worse.


Someone asked this question about what happened 15 years ago. Mr Ridley said he was part of the discussions back then and the problem was a lack of funding. I took the answer at face value. However, now that I think about it, should funding have been an issue because OTA is not using appropriated funds, they are using bonds.
From what I had heard it was political will, which for an agency that does bonds, that can pretty much be the same thing.

Someone asked this question about what happened 15 years ago. Mr Ridley said he was part of the discussions back then and the problem was a lack of funding. I took the answer at face value. However, now that I think about it, should funding have been an issue because OTA is not using appropriated funds, they are using bonds.

You must remember that OTA is sometimes maxed out on their legal bond indebtedness. Back around 2000, that was the case.

I want to live 15 miles from the state's capital and largest city but also live on a horse ranch with no one around for 50 miles. It's a great place to live, but no one else is allowed to come anywhere close.

I want to live 15 miles from the state's capital and largest city but also live on a horse ranch with no one around for 50 miles. It's a great place to live, but no one else is allowed to come anywhere close.lol

That is what really irks me about a lot of these protesters is they simply don't want new growth.

I've even suggested to some that they check out new urbanism(even though I am not a fan of it) to help support their argument so they'd at least have somewhat of a point, but they simply don't want any growth. Sucks for them.

Thing is, you can't expect to live 15 miles or even 30 miles from the core of a major metropolitan area and expect a country lifestlye. A lot of cities will go out even further than that. There is no sense of pride with these people and I don't think they really care about their community, they just want what they have been used to. If they did care, then they would probably want this to happen as it would spur new economic development. Instead a bitching about it, they should make sure it doesn't turn into a boring bedroom community like Moore.

They can prevent sprawl by requiring certain zoning elements and work with property owners to develop their downtowns. Make sure the OTA provides landscaping and artwork. Put a hold on new zoning within a certain radius of the interchanges along the highway.

This tollway is going to give them more accessibility. That puts their downtown closer to Oklahoma City's downtown. They can use this to their advantage. Promote tourism and new restaurants and businesses so the new drivers that are going to be closer to their downtown can get off and spend money there.

If they don't want new subdivisions then zone everything for agricultural use or keep the current zoning as it is(I'm suspecting most of it is rural).

If you want a small town with cheap living and cheap land, there is no shortage of that in pretty much every part of Oklahoma. People from around the country aren't exactly competing to move here, so prices aren't that bad and it's easy to build.

I have tried making arguments with protesters and all I get in response is "I hope your house burns down in fire" . . . "Why don't you donate your house in Edmond to the OTA so they can build the turnpike through there" . . . "you're just a dick and don't care about anyone but yourself because you want this tollway built so you can use it" . . . "

I even responded to someone on the OTA FB page after someone made a comment about how it was some conspiracy that the sheriffs blocked the doors and after I responded and said that was probably due to fire and occupancy limit codes I got a response from another turnpike protester saying that I the conspiracy guy was smart and I wasn't so he is listening to the other guy and then they had a little back and forth between themselves(probably was the same guy with a different account) and I didn't even bother responding.

I get that there are some people out there with perfectly valid reasons as to why they don't want to see this built, but so far, everyone I have debated this with is just flat out irrational or someone who doesn't want growth and then resorts to trolling after they are unable to provide any counter arguments.

One other thing that really irks me about this is a lot of people are claiming their property is going to be affected but there is no set route. So I think the best solution is to wait and see where it is going before getting up in arms about whether ones property is going to be affected or not.

lol

That is what really irks me about a lot of these protesters is they simply don't want new growth.

I've even suggested to some that they check out new urbanism(even though I am not a fan of it) to help support their argument so they'd at least have somewhat of a point, but they simply don't want any growth. Sucks for them.

Thing is, you can't expect to live 15 miles or even 30 miles from the core of a major metropolitan area and expect a country lifestlye. A lot of cities will go out even further than that. There is no sense of pride with these people and I don't think they really care about their community, they just want what they have been used to. If they did care, then they would probably want this to happen as it would spur new economic development. Instead a bitching about it, they should make sure it doesn't turn into a boring bedroom community like Moore.

They can prevent sprawl by requiring certain zoning elements and work with property owners to develop their downtowns. Make sure the OTA provides landscaping and artwork. Put a hold on new zoning within a certain radius of the interchanges along the highway.

This tollway is going to give them more accessibility. That puts their downtown closer to Oklahoma City's downtown. They can use this to their advantage. Promote tourism and new restaurants and businesses so the new drivers that are going to be closer to their downtown can get off and spend money there.

If they don't want new subdivisions then zone everything for agricultural use or keep the current zoning as it is(I'm suspecting most of it is rural).

If you want a small town with cheap living and cheap land, there is no shortage of that in pretty much every part of Oklahoma. People from around the country aren't exactly competing to move here, so prices aren't that bad and it's easy to build.

I have tried making arguments with protesters and all I get in response is "I hope your house burns down in fire" . . . "Why don't you donate your house in Edmond to the OTA so they can build the turnpike through there" . . . "you're just a dick and don't care about anyone but yourself because you want this tollway built so you can use it" . . . "

I even responded to someone on the OTA FB page after someone made a comment about how it was some conspiracy that the sheriffs blocked the doors and after I responded and said that was probably due to fire and occupancy limit codes I got a response from another turnpike protester saying that I the conspiracy guy was smart and I wasn't so he is listening to the other guy and then they had a little back and forth between themselves(probably was the same guy with a different account) and I didn't even bother responding.

I get that there are some people out there with perfectly valid reasons as to why they don't want to see this built, but so far, everyone I have debated this with is just flat out irrational or someone who doesn't want growth and then resorts to trolling after they are unable to provide any counter arguments.

One other thing that really irks me about this is a lot of people are claiming their property is going to be affected but there is no set route. So I think the best solution is to wait and see where it is going before getting up in arms about whether ones property is going to be affected or not.

Yeh, but I wonder if you'd feel the same way if a turnpike was being planned to go through your neighborhood.

Hey the BigT the place you are describing is my place. No neighbors and Edmond to boot. And yes I'm about that close.

Yeh, but I wonder if you'd feel the same way if a turnpike was being planned to go through your neighborhood.

When I was a teenager the BA Creek Turnpike came through right next to my neighborhood, as in 100 yards away. It really wasn't a big deal. But that highway actually made sense, at least to SH 51. Once you get to SH 51, you might as well loop it all the way to I-44.

The Eastern turnpike is about number 30 on the list of needed infrastructure in the metro.

Yeh, but I wonder if you'd feel the same way if a turnpike was being planned to go through your neighborhood.I'm not sure. But I can say that these are mostly farm lands or extremely low density neighborhoods with houses with huge yards so there won't be mass relocations.

There will be plenty of people having to move, and because the OTA isn't stupid, they'll meander down the path of least resistance. They're not going to buy out and bulldoze my neighborhood (I'm dead bubble center of the current announced route), because that would be millions, and there's a trailer park 1/2 mile east of me that would be a fraction of the cost.

They're going to buy the cheap land and cheap houses where they can. And guess what? Those people are sometimes economically disadvantaged and moving will be a severe hardship. Or in the case of a trailer park, wouldn't see a dime of money, just a "your lease won't be renewed, GTFO" letter while the lot owner retires to Florida.

If they DO come through my house and my neighborhood...We're much better equipped, as a demographic, to go pick a fancy new place and start soliciting bids from moving companies.

So yeah...I can see why a lot of people are really upset about it. If I get the call, the wife and I are picking new school systems and new drapes. Other people are picking which bills to skip because the new place is going to require 1st + last + deposit.

Just my non-expert opinion on it.

But it 'could' be an opportunity for those lower income folks to perhaps come closer into the city. Maybe something could be worked out to where they could get a much better home in the inner city for the same cost they receive from ODOT (or less)? This assuming they want an urban living, but even if not there's PLENTY of rural communities surrounding the OKC Metro that are NOT and NEVER will be developed that they could easily move to. The surroundings may be different but I suspect there's little difference between E Oklahoma County burgs and Lincoln county towns. And they may could still just move a little bit further east but still be in Oklahoma County. ...

This isn't really rocket science and as Panda said, it's not like there's a lot of houses to relocate or neighbourhoods to destroy. ODOT should adopt the least path here and implement it quickly IMO so that the Metro is clearly defined - and integrated; as Panda mentioned, all suburbs could start to benefit from the rise of Downtown Oklahoma City by promoting their own downtown in the OKC tourism materials (here is our downtown and this is how to get here from Downtown OKC).

to me, this looks like a win-win-win for everyone (the Oklahoma City Metro, the E OK Suburbs, and the displaced rural residents).

‘I don’t care how many millions’: Family prepares to fight for land that might be needed for turnpike

By: Dale Denwalt The Journal Record March 4, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – Terry Loveday’s land has been in his wife’s family since the 1889 Land Run, but he’s worried a turnpike will force them to move.

The Eastern Oklahoma County Turnpike will connect Interstates 40 and 44. Engineers are plotting the highway’s course, which will likely take it between Luther Road and Triple X Road near Choctaw – and at least near Loveday’s home. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority spokesman Jack Damrill said the route may stray outside that 2-mile-wide corridor, but not for long.

Once the path is finalized, the OTA will begin making offers to acquire rights of way.

“This land is not for sale,” Loveday said. “I don’t care how many millions you want to give us; it’s worth more than that to just keep it in the family.”

Damrill said the OTA will pursue eminent domain when it cannot reach a deal with landowners.

Gov. Mary Fallin and state transportation officials announced the new turnpike last year as part of an $892 million, six-site expansion project. Other new sections of toll road will be placed in western Oklahoma City and Tulsa, while both cities will see reconstruction of 39 miles on existing turnpikes. The projects will be paid for with bonds issued by the authority. It already has the authority to issue the bonds and the money will be paid back with toll collections.

The OTA expects construction to begin on the highway east of Oklahoma City by late 2017, and the entire length of the turnpike could be finished by 2020.

On the other side of the proposed turnpike – and the other side of the argument – Mike Turek said he thinks the new construction will bring prosperity.

He owns Old Germany Restaurant in Choctaw. People have criticized his support for the project by noting his 40-year-old business is not in the way of the proposed route.

Mike Turek is owner of Old Germany Restaurant in Choctaw. (Photo by Brent Fuchs)
Mike Turek is owner of Old Germany Restaurant in Choctaw. (Photo by Brent Fuchs)

“But if it (was) I would pack up all my stuff, take the money they were going to pay me, which is going to be above fair market value, and build another one,” Turek said. “In the end, it’s just a structure.”

Turek said he thinks the roadway would help area businesses by increasing access, and spur growth.

Turek said he understands people who oppose the turnpike and urged them to participate in a committee that will be a sounding board for landowners in the area during the planning stage.

“We hope they can understand our side,” he said. “Cooler heads need to prevail.”

If landowners in the path of the highway refuse the state’s offers, the OTA will seek condemnation on the land through eminent domain laws. Once a condemnation request is filed, the district court sends out three assessors to estimate the property’s fair market value.

Damrill said that, typically, the prices agreed to during negotiation are higher than what court-appointed assessors decide.

“That’s why we hope people will negotiate with us, because they will get a higher price than if we have to go through the condemnation process,” said Damrill.

Loveday said his 10 acres isn’t much to look at; he and his wife are disabled. Nature has overgrown part of his property, but he said it benefits wild turkeys and Canada geese that pass through.

“If we’ve got to move, we’re going to have to try to make payments on a piece of property that we won’t be able to afford,” Loveday said. “They don’t make any more land. Once these tracts of land are taken away and a highway put on them – you can’t build on a highway.”

But it 'could' be an opportunity for those lower income folks to perhaps come closer into the city. Maybe something could be worked out to where they could get a much better home in the inner city for the same cost they receive from ODOT (or less)? This assuming they want an urban living, but even if not there's PLENTY of rural communities surrounding the OKC Metro that are NOT and NEVER will be developed that they could easily move to. The surroundings may be different but I suspect there's little difference between E Oklahoma County burgs and Lincoln county towns. And they may could still just move a little bit further east but still be in Oklahoma County. ...

This isn't really rocket science and as Panda said, it's not like there's a lot of houses to relocate or neighbourhoods to destroy. ODOT should adopt the least path here and implement it quickly IMO so that the Metro is clearly defined - and integrated; as Panda mentioned, all suburbs could start to benefit from the rise of Downtown Oklahoma City by promoting their own downtown in the OKC tourism materials (here is our downtown and this is how to get here from Downtown OKC).

to me, this looks like a win-win-win for everyone (the Oklahoma City Metro, the E OK Suburbs, and the displaced rural residents).

You think that somebody is going to pay poor people to move to the inner city?

L

O

L

Didn't know where to put this, but I feel like this should really be a warning to anyone who thinks putting toll roads in the middle of nowhere is a good idea:

Owner of tollway near Austin declares bankruptcy | www.mystatesman.com (http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/owner-of-southern-texas-130-section-files-for-bank/nqcLh/)

Didn't know where to put this, but I feel like this should really be a warning to anyone who thinks putting toll roads in the middle of nowhere is a good idea:

Owner of tollway near Austin declares bankruptcy | www.mystatesman.com (http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/owner-of-southern-texas-130-section-files-for-bank/nqcLh/)

As someone who lived in the area at the time and has driven on the road, I would like to contribute.

First of all, there is a difference between building a road where a road is needed, and letting a third party Spanish company build one where nobody asked for one just for the hell of it and then charge insane tolls that discourage what little potential use there is. As that article itself states, the section of 130 that is actually useful gets used.

Secondly...actually, you know what? I'm just going to stop there. Nothing I have to say about Cintra will ever make it past any sort of language filter. Let's just leave it at this was their plan the entire time and everyone knew it.

I understand the point you want to make but the situation is ENTIRELY different.

You think that somebody is going to pay poor people to move to the inner city?

L

O

L

Oh come on OGTS, can't you see the advantage of moving poor people into subsidized housing in an urban area? It would be great project. Hey, that's what we can call them - "The Projects". Sounds progressive, doesn't it? What could go wrong?

I wasn't thinking of projects guys, your minds are in the gutter.

Truth be told. MOST of these rural area residents are likely to be poor and their land likely to not be worth too much. All I mentioned was that this COULD be an opportunity for those impacted, to receive money that could get them something better in the city (if they so desired to move to the city). I was also stating i'd be in favor if the govt wanted to help expedite such a process, thereby adding to the inner city, improving the living standards of the relocated, and building the toll road as inexpensive as possible.

Rather than building the toll road through Nichols Hills, I see this as an example of potential good that could come - particularly after the road is built and new influx of patrons come to E OK County and the businesses (downtown OKC to E OK county downtowns idea).

Mind out of the gutter please. :)

I wasn't thinking of projects guys, your minds are in the gutter.

Truth be told. MOST of these rural area residents are likely to be poor and their land likely to not be worth too much. All I mentioned was that this COULD be an opportunity for those impacted, to receive money that could get them something better in the city (if they so desired to move to the city). I was also stating i'd be in favor if the govt wanted to help expedite such a process, thereby adding to the inner city, improving the living standards of the relocated, and building the toll road as inexpensive as possible.

Rather than building the toll road through Nichols Hills, I see this as an example of potential good that could come - particularly after the road is built and new influx of patrons come to E OK County and the businesses (downtown OKC to E OK county downtowns idea).

Mind out of the gutter please. :)

You seem to be a nice guy with good intentions, HOT ROD but you obviously haven't spent much time in that part of the city... there are a lot more affluent areas out there than poor and the vast majority of people that live out there are there because they prefer that lifestyle. My ex GF sold a 20 acre horse ranch just outside of Harrah for 750K+ and she would have laughed at you suggesting that she could buy a 3000sf condo downtown for that...

good point, the only areas I've been in E OK County weren't very well kept in around Jones and Harrah, and that was as a youngster.

I do apologize if anyone took my comments the wrong way. I am assuming that ODOT would select land that would be of less value and therefore the land owners might have a windfall or opportunity they otherwise might not have. No offense meant to anyone.

Eminent domain rocks...

I wasn't thinking of projects guys, your minds are in the gutter.

Truth be told. MOST of these rural area residents are likely to be poor and their land likely to not be worth too much. All I mentioned was that this COULD be an opportunity for those impacted, to receive money that could get them something better in the city (if they so desired to move to the city). I was also stating i'd be in favor if the govt wanted to help expedite such a process, thereby adding to the inner city, improving the living standards of the relocated, and building the toll road as inexpensive as possible.

Rather than building the toll road through Nichols Hills, I see this as an example of potential good that could come - particularly after the road is built and new influx of patrons come to E OK County and the businesses (downtown OKC to E OK county downtowns idea).

Mind out of the gutter please. :)

Poor people generally don't own land. They rent it and park a trailer on it. Probably rent the trailer as well. The landowner gets the money, the resident gets an eviction notice and their deposit back if they're lucky.

And again...You think somebody (OTA??) is going to pay poor people to move to the inner city? That's pretty laughable. I mean, why would they spend the money?...Oh... And you think those people WANT to move to the inner city? You might get a 3% take rate on that offer if you offered 90% off housing costs and free cable. People live out here on purpose.

again, I wasn't thinking necessarily of poor people. I was thinking of the land not necessarily being of tremendous value. The landowners likely had no opportunity to sell or develop but here comes ODOT with cash that could lend the landowner potential opportunity to relocate to the city - my preference being the inner city since it has many opportunities that are not expensive.

I think I probably misused poor because I wasnt thinking about poor people but instead about poor land/landowners without significant development opportunity sans the Turnpike.

OTA To Release Preliminary Alignment For Turnpike Expansion - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/31436944/ota-to-release-preliminary-alignment-for-turnpike-expansion)

OKLAHOMA COUNTY, Oklahoma - The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) will release a preliminary alignment for the Northeast Oklahoma County Loop Thursday evening at a public, community meeting.
The meeting will take place from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Harrah Church located at 101 S. Dobbs Road in Harrah, Oklahoma. The public will be able to speak one-on-one with engineers and right-of-way experts.

Right-of-way processes will begin over the next several months once a final alignment has been determined, OTA officials said. Right-of-way professionals will contact property owners directly affected by the alignment and will work with them to individualize and customize a plan to fit their needs.

Preliminary alignment links:
Driving Forward OK (http://www.drivingforwardok.com/#!Northeast-Oklahoma-County-Loop-Preliminary-Alignment-Announced/tgcb1/56e208a40cf26c26a9f2d4e3)

Yeah that Eastern Loop will be great for the local economies with only one exit the entire route.

Yeah that Eastern Loop will be great for the local economies with only one exit the entire route.

Do you honestly believe there will be only one exit the entire route, or is it more likely this is just what they say it is...a preliminary proposed route (heavy emphasis on the proposed, even heavier emphasis on the preliminary, since it isn't even narrowed to one choice yet), and once finalized, THEN they will decide where the exits go? No pun intended, considering this is about transportation, but wouldn't planning exits before planning the route be a bit like putting the cart before the horse?

Yeah that Eastern Loop will be great for the local economies with only one exit the entire route.

my understanding is that there will be access every two miles. i don't think that the interchange proposed for ne 23rd is going to be the only access point between i-44 and i-40. -M

I love how the State is just like "yeah we are building this" before having any kind of public meeting or community engagement about whether or not it should actually be built.

sprawl gonna sprawl.

I love how the State is just like "yeah we are building this" before having any kind of public meeting or community engagement about whether or not it should actually be built.

sprawl gonna sprawl.

The location of where this hooks up to 40 makes it seem like it is planned to eventually take this further south along Luther road to hwy 9 for eventual link to 35

^
from the people i've talked to, that's exactly what the long term goal is. the primary purpose of this route is to help alleviate capacity issues on existing interstates by providing a bypass for interstate traffic passing through oklahoma city. -M

^
from the people i've talked to, that's exactly what the long term goal is. the primary purpose of this route is to help alleviate capacity issues on existing interstates by providing a bypass for interstate traffic passing through oklahoma city. -M

My guess is that it won't change anything...

How many people take the Creek around Tulsa instead of just driving through? I know we stopped after a couple times because we realized it took more time and cost us more $$$.

^
from the people i've talked to, that's exactly what the long term goal is. the primary purpose of this route is to help alleviate capacity issues on existing interstates by providing a bypass for interstate traffic passing through oklahoma city. -M

This is what I don't understand though. Regardless if you are trying to bypass OKC coming from Tulsa eventually you'll have to work your way back to I-35 from I-240. Going from Purcell area connecting to I40 would seem the most logical first step for me in terms of getting revenue. The proposed first leg to me will be used little. Non local People traveling westbound I-40 trying to get to northbound I-35 would have already used the Muskogee and cimmaron turnpikes.