Do you slow down for speed bumps, or go over them full throttle?

Because a speed bump is in any way to a raised pedestrian crossing? Since when?


Full raised pedestrian crossings do work to slow folks down. They also prioritize pedestrians over traffic, and help folks with disabilities.

Would disagree with both. Clearly marking crosswalks, initiating lead intervals, not setting the crosswalks to "don't walk" as their default (as they are all over downtown), and lowering the speed limit - those are measures that prioritize pedestrians. Spending oodles of money building ugly raised pedestrian crossings OVER the road in question - I fail to see how that would do anything other than waste money on building something ugly (which we are pretty good at here - see: Boulevard). Would love to see some literature showing otherwise, though.

^ I don't think they're referring to crosswalks that go over the roadway. Raised crosswalks are essentially speed-humps (different from a speed-bump) with a crosswalk on it and are at grade with the sidewalk.

I could be wrong, but I think No1cub17 may be confused with what is being discussed. He may think a raised pedestrian crossing is like a little bridge over the street when in fact it is more like a speed bump that has been widened to the width of a sidewalk. A vehicle would have to slow down to cross it or suffer quite a bump when driving over it.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/11novdec/images/brum4.jpg

Because a speed bump is in any way to a raised pedestrian crossing? Since when?

Since always, since we are talking about something that looks like this:

http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Continuious-Footpath.jpg

I could be wrong, but I think No1cub17 may be confused with what is being discussed. He may think a raised pedestrian crossing is like a little bridge over the street when in fact it is more like a speed bump that has been widened to the width of a sidewalk. A vehicle would have to slow down to cross it or suffer quite a bump when driving over it.

Ding ding ding - I believe you are on the money,

Ding ding ding - I believe you are on the money,

I wasn't talking about a pedestrian overpass or bridge. The pictures shown above are what I was referring to. I also wouldn't mind to see something like Santa Monica BLVD. in West Hollywood how that street is designed.

http://kfor.com/2016/08/09/jones-wants-to-annex-five-square-miles-around-new-turnpike/

http://kfor.com/2016/08/09/jones-wants-to-annex-five-square-miles-around-new-turnpike/

And the drama continues...

Ding ding ding - I believe you are on the money,

Yeah, as was mentioned, the pictures above are what I was talking about. Not a bridge, but a large bump which enables to pedestrian to continue at grade from the sidewalk. It's good for ADA considerations, and it's significant enough that folks have to slow down (unless they have amazing shocks).

http://kfor.com/2016/08/09/jones-wants-to-annex-five-square-miles-around-new-turnpike/

This reminds me of when my father was fighting to annex Arcadia into Edmond in the early 80's. That wasn't successful then, but I think Jones may have more luck with unincorporated territory.

http://kfor.com/2016/08/20/lawsuit-filed-against-turnpike-expansion/

The lawsuit claims the way the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has been funding road projects is unconstitutional.

The wheels are in motion for turnpike expansion.

It's unfortunate for those in the path of the Turnpike to have to give up their properties--especially those who moved to that area to get away from growth & exhaust associated with big city growth.

Agree. I don't think it's unconstitutional but we will see what the courts say.

What an insane waste of time and money. "Multiple turnpikes" doesn't equal "multiple issues", it's one issue. The turnpike system. That article even says it, the bonds are to expand and renovate the turnpike system, literally the only reason the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority exists. Multiple issues would be "we need the money for the turnpike system, and the crumbling capitol, and to build storm shelters in schools, and clean Lake Thunderbird".

At this point the turnpike opponents know they've already lost and are just making stuff up hoping to inflate the cost of the project to the point where it will be abandoned. This isn't going to happen, their own rhetoric plainly states all it will do is extend the amount of time until the roads are "paid off". You want to tilt at windmills, try to get the concept of cross-funding repealed. At least that has a snowball's chance in hell of actually doing something.

I recall during the meetings I attended the OTA stated it would only take up to 300 feet of right away for the turnpike. It is now learned the OTA may buy up to 500 feet of right away if the county or city wants to build frontage roads. The OTA buys it and the count or city build s the frontage road. I may be naive but this is disingenuous on OTA's part in not informing the public up front during the meetings about the ability to buy 500 feet of right away.

http://kfor.com/2016/08/31/i-want-the-ota-to-get-real-and-stop-the-turnpike-residents-frustrated-as-ota-plans-for-more-development/

Oklahoma needs to retire some of these turnpikes; starting with the Turner Turnpike (88 mile stretch) between Oklahoma City & Tulsa. Move it from the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) and place it under the umbrella of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT).

What impact would this have on the economic growth of both cities.

Here's what I think. The Oklahoma Constitution should be changed by initiative petition (and subsequent vote) to declare that no new turnpikes should be built without a vote of the people of Oklahoma. I doubt that the legislature would ever vote to let the people have a say. They know where their bread is buttered.

Our turnpikes should be retired, but the Turner Turnpike and Will Rogers Turnpike should be the last to be retired since they make the most money. The state legislature will need to better fund highway maintenance by both higher gasoline taxes and by finding a way to tax electric vehicles and natural gas vehicles based on their mileage/usage. If Republicans stay in power in the legislature, we voters may have to Constitutionalize higher road & gasoline taxes. Remember the gasoline tax hasn't been raised in years and is still a flat 17 cents per gallon, yet the price of gasoline has gone from about 29 cents a gallon to as much as $4.00 per gallon in my lifetime.

Oklahoma needs to retire some of these turnpikes; starting with the Turner Turnpike (88 mile stretch) between Oklahoma City & Tulsa. Move it from the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) and place it under the umbrella of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT).

What impact would this have on the economic growth of both cities.

No impact at all, because as the law is written now, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of this happening. Ever.

The only turnpike they should get rid of. imo, is the HE Bailey on I-44 southwest of OKC.

The only turnpike they should get rid of. imo, is the HE Bailey on I-44 southwest of OKC.

I think Indian Nations has the lowest ridership and revenue, it's the one that should be dropped.

Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike removed:


In December 1977, the turnpike toll collection system was removed and the facility became a public road designated as IH 30.

IH 30 Corridor Study - Study Area Map: https://www.dot.state.tx.us/FTW/mis/ih30/history.htm

Will Oklahoma City & Tulsa get struck in this rut:

Tolling Texans: Toll Projects Spread as State Funds Lag: https://www.texastribune.org/2012/11/30/tolling-texans-toll-projects-spread-state-funds-la/

I think Indian Nations has the lowest ridership and revenue, it's the one that should be dropped.

This is the latest data I could find.

2013 total revenues by turnpike:
1. Turner - $57.302 million
2. Will Rogers - $49.888 million
3. Kilpatrick - $28.023 million
4. Creek - $24.000 million
5. H. E. Bailey - $23.743 million
6. Muskogee - $16.323 million
7. Indian Nation - $13.964 million
8. Cimarron - $11.251 million
9. Cherokee - $7.542 million
10. Chickasaw - $ 710,000

2013 total transactions by turnpike:
1. Kilpatrick - 39.579 million
2. Creek - 37.784 million
3. H. E. Bailey - 18.166 million
4. Turner - 16.562 million
5. Will Rogers - 14.561 million
6. Muskogee - 11.037 million
7. Cimarron - 7.320 million
8. Indian Nation - 6.191 million
9. Cherokee - 3.997 million
10. Chickasaw - 974,000

https://www.pikepass.com/pdf/CAFR_2013.pdf

http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/10751456_BG3.jpg
Inner Dispersal Loop I-244, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Tulsa metropolitan area is encircled by six turnpikes: Cherokee, Cimarron, Creek, Muskogee, Turner, Will Rogers. Does anyone feel that this has negatively impacted Tulsa's growth?

The only turnpike they should get rid of. imo, is the HE Bailey on I-44 southwest of OKC.

Why (or are you just trolling?)

http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/10751456_BG3.jpg
Inner Dispersal Loop I-244, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Tulsa metropolitan area is encircled by six turnpikes: Cherokee, Cimarron, Creek, Muskogee, Turner, Will Rogers. Does anyone feel that this has negatively impacted Tulsa's growth?

Yes.

http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/10751456_BG3.jpg
Inner Dispersal Loop I-244, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Tulsa metropolitan area is encircled by six turnpikes: Cherokee, Cimarron, Creek, Muskogee, Turner, Will Rogers. Does anyone feel that this has negatively impacted Tulsa's growth?

That is an argument I've heard for 40 years. It's specious to count the Cherokee as it doesn't start until you get past Chouteau. Using that logic, you should add the Indian Nations to your list. The crux of the argument is really I44. The others don't really matter.

I lived in Tulsa for 14 years and never felt that the turnpikes impeded growth. Besides, the only way a 4 lane road would have been built to NW Arkansas was a turnpike. Same goes for the Cimarron.

Without the turnpikes, you would have to raise the gas tax to fund maintenance of all of these roads (not to mention constructing new ones). In Oklahoma's political climate, that's probably not going to happen, so it's more likely we'd have to do without and have an even bigger funding crisis.

In case anyone isn't aware, the federal gas tax hasn't been raised since the early 1990s. It is not a percentage tax; it is a flat amount per gallon. Meanwhile, construction costs have far outpaced inflation.

Jerry Fent sued the OTA for logrolling the turnpike plans. He has won in the past.

http://lutherregister.news/2016/09/20/their-day-in-court/

Luther Register has a report on 2015 to 2016 YTD revenue for the Turnpikes. Also the turnpike is raising fees by 17%.

http://lutherregister.news/2016/09/27/toll-hikes-and-legal-maneuvers/

Jerry Fent sued the OTA for logrolling the turnpike plans. He has won in the past.

http://lutherregister.news/2016/09/20/their-day-in-court/

He won't win this one, because regardless of one's opinion regarding the new turnpike, OTA is correct. It would take a complete idiot to not see "the Native American cultural museum, Tulsa river parks and some rural water conservation projects" as obviously distinct separate projects, completely unrelated to each other in any way other than "they're all in Oklahoma". OTA's mission is to fund, build, and maintain turnpikes and that is what the bond is for. The real kick in the pants? The lawsuit even ADMITS it. "Groves said his filing will establish that even though the projects to be funded by a single bond issue are related, in that they are all turnpikes, they nonetheless are to be built in very diverse locations." Hmmm. Multiple, diverse locations. Sounds like parks. Does OKC Parks and Recreation need to get a separate bond for every park in the system? The lawsuit is just a nuisance lawsuit hoping to get OTA to abandon their plans for the turnpike. It won't work, instead what will happen is we'll all pay for it with higher rates. Don't believe me? Read your own next post.

Good news on the Eastern Turnpike. First demolitions have started. The lawsuit is still pending, however.

http://www.news9.com/story/33478284/crews-begin-demolishing-homes-near-luther-for-turnpike-construction

Good news...

http://www.drivingforwardok.com/single-post/2016/12/18/Supreme-Court-makes-right-call-on-turnpike-financing-plan

Such bull****. That eastern OK county road has no business being built, particularly when so many interchanges and tolling stations still need so much work.

What really chaps my butt on this is that it's also a missed opportunity to create a loop. If they had altered the 40/240 junction to pick up the new road, it would have still been helpful for EOC traffic as a loop. Where it's going, it's too far out to help anyone. There will be NO development near the road because there aren't any exits on this new EOC turnpike. In order for it to spur economic development, you have to be able to get on/off the road. Otherwise it's just a long stretch of road like the Turner. How many shops do you see right on the Turner? You wont even see a gas station on this one.

At least on the West side, the road connects existing pieces, although it could have done better as well.

There are going to be a bunch of exits on this new road

At least 4 that are already in the plans. With potentially more to come.

Britton /23rd / Reno and 29th

What really chaps my butt on this is that it's also a missed opportunity to create a loop. If they had altered the 40/240 junction to pick up the new road, it would have still been helpful for EOC traffic as a loop. Where it's going, it's too far out to help anyone. There will be NO development near the road because there aren't any exits on this new EOC turnpike. In order for it to spur economic development, you have to be able to get on/off the road. Otherwise it's just a long stretch of road like the Turner. How many shops do you see right on the Turner? You wont even see a gas station on this one.

At least on the West side, the road connects existing pieces, although it could have done better as well.i see this as a good alternative for an outer loop connecting to highway 9 wrapping south around Lake Thunderbird. I would like see either a full freeway or at least expressway continuing from I240 and eventually I-44(Jackson PKY) being extended east to the future turnpike and cross even further north east to connect with Turner Turnpike one day.

i see this as a good alternative for an outer loop connecting to highway 9 wrapping south around Lake Thunderbird. I would like see either a full freeway or at least expressway continuing from I240 and eventually I-44(Jackson PKY) being extended east to the future turnpike and cross even further north east to connect with Turner Turnpike one day.

Because money grows on trees right? Because these hundreds of millions we're going to spend on these completely unnecessary roads will somehow pay for themselves?

Yeah, money grows on trees. That's how I plan on funding these roads, didn't you know? By using the money that grows on trees. Conveniently, these new freeways are going to be built by these tree farms for easy access. :)

Well the thing with turnpikes is that they "theoretically" are self-paid. We have to do an upfront cost (which i think is crap...explain later), but then that's SUPPOSED to be repaid by the tolls, with future tolls going to fund repairs on the SYSTEM (i think). We're never going to un-toll any toll road ever built in OK...we can't afford to. But aren't the funds are supposed to be spread out so the OTA can do work on any turnpike in the state?

My gripe point is with the upfront bill. The OTA operates as a non-governmental group, really. You can call it what you want, but it's out for profit like anyone else. There's no such thing as a not-for-profit when it comes to toll roads unless it's run by the state DOT itself out of normal funds, and not some other party like the OTA. So being what they are, i think of them more like a utility. We're stuck with them. And like a utility, we're asked to front the money for all their investments instead of them having to do it themselves. Show me a company that doesn't have to take a loan on their own buck if they want to build something? Show me a company that doesn't have to work the cost of that into their budget instead of just pushing it off to their customers? Why is that? Because market competition says that if you charge more, customers will leave you for someone else. In this captive economy that toll roads and utilities have us in, somewhere along the way we've been run over (pun) by the interests groups so that the consumer (us) is screwed over twice with ever project. "Sure, we'll lower rates after it's done".....when has that ever happened? "We'll lower the toll after it's paid for"....uh huh. There's always some reason why they miscalculated something or some other magic need came up that needs the continued (and often increased) charges.

......., i think of them more like a utility. We're stuck with them. And like a utility, we're asked to front the money for all their investments instead of them having to do it themselves. Show me a company that doesn't have to take a loan on their own buck if they want to build something? .

No. OTA sells bonds to front the construction of the turnpikes which have to be repaid by the users. They are sold on the open market to investors then are repaid via tolls, etc.

Glad to see this moving forward.


There are still big decisions to be made, but the long-awaited plan to finish the Gilcrease Expressway is on schedule, partners in the project learned Friday.

“We’re not without challenges. There’s still a lot of work. But we’re right on schedule. … And we are working on it every day,” Oklahoma Turnpike Authority Executive Director Tim Gatz said at a meeting to update the other agencies involved.

The route of the five-mile, four-lane tollway — which will include an adjacent multiuse trail — was approved by the state in April, and the overall timeline remains the same, Gatz said. The plan should be finalized by May 2018, with construction to begin late in the summer.

The estimated $290 million cost will be funded through a public-private partnership.

The design itself, done by Tulsa-based engineering firm Garver, is near to being complete, Gatz said.

“It might change a little over time, but we’re getting pretty close,” he said.

Between now and next May, though, plenty remains to be determined.

That includes the tolling strategy for the roadway. The terrain — the plan calls for construction of 22 bridges — complicates things, Gatz said.

“The question comes of where do you put a toll plaza? It’s a challenge. So we’re looking at some things that are a little nontraditional for us,” Gatz said.

Also remaining to be determined is the project’s private partner.

“It will be competitive,” Gatz said. “We know that right now. It’s something where we will go through a Request for Information and then a (Request for Proposal) process. We just have to sit down and work out the details on what that potential partnership actually looks like.”

The private partner will be responsible for about a third of the total cost, and will be repaid first out of the tolls.

As previously announced, the other two-thirds will be funded through a partnership of six government entities — the city of Tulsa, the Indian Nations Council of Governments, Tulsa County, OTA, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and the federal government.

The first time in state history that six government bodies have come together to build a highway, the arrangement is working smoothly so far, Gatz said.

“We have an active discussion going on with the partners, trying to address everybody’s needs,” he said. “There’s communication on all fronts.”

The Gilcrease Expressway project began in the 1950s to create a loop around the city. But the planned loop stalled at a necessary crossing of the Arkansas River west of downtown.

Friday’s meeting also addressed right-of-way acquisitions.

“We are currently doing appraisals and hope to make offers soon,” said Sara Wyly of Universal Field Services.

All told, the plan is to acquire 20 parcels, two less than originally proposed, she said.

Rich Brierre of INCOG said, “It’s great that all of you are here. It’s such an exciting project and we are delighted to hear of the progress that is being made.”

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/7181a5_2479ce1d21ac4b7ab07632d27addcb01~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_221,h_497,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/7181a5_2479ce1d21ac4b7ab07632d27addcb01~mv2.webp

-http://www.drivingforwardok.com/single-post/2017/07/31/Gilcrease-Expressway-extension-project-moving-forward-on-schedule-officials-say

It also looks like several major driving forward projects are starting this year. The Turner Tollway Widening. Eastern Oklahoma County I-40 interchange, It also appears they will begin work on the Kilpatrick Extension.

I've been wondering when the Kilpatrick Turnpike extension would begin. I was thinking it might be years down the road

It appears according to their website it months away. Turner Turnpike Widening begins August 8th. Correction to my post above, the interchange for the EOC that will begin construction is the I-44 interchange not I-40. Exciting stuff!

Looks like these projects are going to be completed fairly quickly which means we might see a loop around Edmond and/or Norman sooner rather than later. OKC swill finally get its true beltway. Hopefully they also focus on getting a freeway built through Mustang to connect to I-44 using SR-4. I'd also like to see SH-9 realigned over the river to connect directly at I-35. Wishes wishes and wishes.

EOC Turnpike construction begins next week. Hopefully once these new turnpikes are completed they will turn their focus on completing a true beltway around OKC.

http://kfor.com/2018/01/08/construction-set-to-begin-on-eastern-oklahoma-county-turnpike/

Took the Turner turnpike last week and they have started on it now. They are moving dirt where the turnpike will connect at I-40

Just realized I said Turner I meant Kilpatrick. It looks like they are starting on the extension on this part of it. Appears that they are moving dirt now on the south side of SW 15th street now as well.

Surprised the new isn’t reporting any groundbreakings.

In case anyone wasn't sure, the name "Eastern Oklahoma County Turnpike" is not going to be the final name:
https://i.imgur.com/IJIPVbU.png

I'm kind of hoping that the contractor screws up and we get the road actually signed as the Placeholder Turnpike. Weirder stuff has happened with OTA...

https://twitter.com/_youhadonejob1/status/958848062440574978

Sorry, couldn't get the picture to embed

Surprised the new isn’t reporting any groundbreakings.

Yeah I am sure someone has to be talking about it. It is like literally right next to the Mustang North Middle school.

Work starts on 2 new OKC area turnpikes (http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=469-Work-starts-on-2-new-OKC-area-turnpikes)

In January, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority started construction on two new turnpike segments in the Oklahoma City area.


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


As part of the statewide Driving Forward initiative, a new 7-mile stretch will extend the Kilpatrick Turnpike to the southwest, from I-40 to State Highway 152 / Aiport Road near Will Rogers World Airport.

Also underway is what has been named the East Oklahoma County Corridor, 21 miles of new road between I-40 near Luther Road and all the way north to I-44 / Turner Turnpike.

Both Governor Fallin and OKC Chamber President Roy Williams lobbied for the new for-pay roadways, citing the safety and economic development needs.

Work has already started on the eastern road, with intersection work underway near I-44 and Luther Road.

And in the Mustang area, the photos below show the considerable dirtwork for the new I-40 intersection and turnpike extension to SW 15th and southward.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/turnpikes2.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/turnpikes3.jpg

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


When complete, the two new turnpikes will function in a similar fashion to existing state turnpikes, employing PikePass electronic tolling technology or the use of cash at various intervals. The authority is also in the process of rolling out PlatePay whereby drivers can be billed directly via the scanning of the license plate.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/turnpikes5.jpg

This is greet and all, but I sure wish they would take all that money they've been collecting from the tolls and repair those wavy ass bridges out by Yukon. I don't know, maybe it's just me that gets absolutely infuriated every time I have to use those 

One of the parts that pisses me off about this plan is the eastern OK county portion. Why the hell aren't they connecting it with 240 instead of how far east they're putting it off I-40?

From what I’ve heard there is no way to fix those. They will need to completely tear them down and rebuild them. In my opinion that will be a good use of money because those are embarrassing

Glad to see a toll-by-plate option is in the works. Nothing wrong with PikePass, but I rather not prepay tolls because I don't use the system very often. So to have $20 or more sitting in the OTA's bank account that I might never really use for a while sucks. In fact, my account from BEFORE I moved front okc still has $9.55 in it. I've never bothered to register my car again with PikePass so that money has just been sitting there. I'd rather pay a little. It more and get a bill in the mai.

One of the parts that pisses me off about this plan is the eastern OK county portion. Why the hell aren't they connecting it with 240 instead of how far east they're putting it off I-40?

Long term there's probably another turnpike coming that goes around the east side of Norman as well.

Long term there's probably another turnpike coming that goes around the east side of Norman as well.
Which could make sense as Norman needs another route north besides I-35, but I still don't see the point of it being that far east.

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