I figured this should probably have it's own thread.

As the Governor announced today, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is planning a total of 6 different projects across the state's network of turnpikes. The projects are as follows:

Gilcrease Expressway
2.5 miles
$28 million from OTA and partnership with City of Tulsa
New road construction
This project connects L.L. Tisdale to I-44 and completes the Western loop around the Tulsa metro area. It will help relieve urban traffic congestion during peak periods. It will also provide a new and more direct route to city attractions and points of interest in the Tulsa urban core. This will bolster safe access to Tulsa along with economic growth and opportunity.

Northeast OK County Loop
21 miles
$300 million
New construction
This project will allow for a connection from Eastern Oklahoma County to vital intersections for travel. This will produce a drive-time reduction to access Tulsa from the OKC Metro and a needed new loop to alleviate current congested traffic in the Oklahoma City area. Construction will link I-40 and I-44 (Turner Turnpike) in Eastern Oklahoma County.

Muskogee Turnpike
9.5 miles
$42 million
Reconstruction of Turnpike from “ground-up” for safety and modernization of toll plaza
This reconstruction will occur between Creek Turnpike interchange and State Highway 51 near Coweta. It will allow for a safer and more drivable surface and provide increased safety features.

HE Bailey Turnpike
7.5 miles
$32 million
Turnpike reconstruction for lanes and safety features and toll plaza modernization for better access for PikePass customers
This project will provide wider lanes and enhanced safety features for travel as well as improved technology for toll plaza locations for customer convenience between Bridge Creek and North Meridian Avenue near Newcastle.

Turner Turnpike
22 miles
$300 million
Reconstruction for more lanes and safety features including lights and other future safety enhancements
The Turner Turnpike is a vital turnpike corridor that connects Oklahoma’s two metro areas. Improving safety and convenience on this road is a priority for the OTA. This reconstruction/safety project will occur between Bristow and the Creek Turnpike West (State Highway 364) section of the Turner Turnpike. In the last five years there have been 15 fatalities and 514 wrecks on this section of road. This project will create an “urban turnpike corridor” with lighting, wider lanes and the addition of lanes. It will allow for the future creation of truck-specific lanes for quick and safe access.

Southwest OKC Extension
7 miles
$190 million
New construction
This project will be an extension of the Kilpatrick Turnpike that will connect SW OKC and the metro area at-large with the urban core. It will increase access and offer another route for Will Rogers World Airport. It will occur between I-40 and State Highway 152/Airport Road.

These projects, totaling $892 million dollars, will be funded by bonds and repaid by turnpike user fees. Work on these projects is expected to begin in the third quarter of 2016.

More information can be found here: Driving Forward OK (http://www.drivingforwardok.com/)

So I am guessing eminent domain will be used on the houses that are already there on the SW OKC extension?

That's all great news! Goes to show the turnpike system was never meant to be free nor will it ever. Look forward to seeing these improvements on Google Maps in the years to come...

I used to hate the turnpike system, and really it is a still a very regressive tax, but I am happy for the infrastructure it brings. After using turnpikes in other states, which are becoming much more prolific, I have to say Oklahoma has a very good turnpike system. Compared to most states the fares are very reasonable and there isn't a toll booth every 3 miles like in FL or TX. Also many states are selling (really long term leases) their turnpikes to foreign companies, which I really disagree with.

I think all of these projects sound good. I am really surprised that they aren't putting in a Turnpike from the Creek Turnpike to Bixby in Tulsa. Bixby has terrible highway access and has expanded like crazy recently. The new East Loop seems pretty far out there, but I guess it will help encourage sprawl, seems like there are more pressing concerns that could have been addressed now.

OTA has been very careful to clearly state they haven't picked firm routes for the 3 new pikes yet. The Turner part is WAY past due. Hoping they grab enough ROW so the high speed rail can use it.

They need to fix the bridge on the Kilpatrick just north of 39th St. That thing is insane. 20 bone jarring bumps that have caused several accidents in the 10 or so years I've been driving it. My kids call it the bumpy bridge, I think it's more like a very large washboard or cattle guard stretched out over a 1/4 mile. OKCisOK4Me was lucky enough to hear me complain on a daily basis for over a year. I doubt anything will be done, or even proposed, but I still felt the need to bitch a bit. Carry on.....

This gives a little more detailed information.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/7181a5_aeb35ba3178b46eba24c5569a802528f.pdf

The Turner bypass east of Tinker and east the I-40/I-240 split is necessary to help pull some of those Tulsa (and beyond) to TX truck traffic out of the metro, but it needs to be extended down to highway 9 or even reconnect with i-35 around Purcell. If the TX bound truckers just get pulled onto I-240 and head west to reconnect on I-35 at the Godawful I-35/I-240 interchange, it won't do much to fix the problem, since most of the southbound traffic from downtown stays on I-35 until Moore and Norman.

I used to hate the turnpike system, and really it is a still a very regressive tax, but I am happy for the infrastructure it brings. After using turnpikes in other states, which are becoming much more prolific, I have to say Oklahoma has a very good turnpike system. Compared to most states the fares are very reasonable and there isn't a toll booth every 3 miles like in FL or TX. Also many states are selling (really long term leases) their turnpikes to foreign companies, which I really disagree with.

I think all of these projects sound good. I am really surprised that they aren't putting in a Turnpike from the Creek Turnpike to Bixby in Tulsa. Bixby has terrible highway access and has expanded like crazy recently. The new East Loop seems pretty far out there, but I guess it will help encourage sprawl, seems like there are more pressing concerns that could have been addressed now.

It's actually a usage tax not regressive. Despite your opinions on whether its regressive or not, taking the turnpike is 100% optional, don't like it, don't take it. That makes it a usage tax not regressive. A tax can only be regressive if it's mandatory.

I think toll roads are an excellent answer to highway needs. The notion they are a regressive tax makes no sense. Where I do have a problem is where proposals are made to take a free road and turn it to a toll road. Toll lanes are fine as long as the tolls are reasonable.

I think the only way the proposed projects are going to be built is with tolls. Those that don't want to use them won't have to pay for them. I especially like the east OK County proposal though i hope it can be brought in closer to town.

The IRS says tolls are a regressive tax and holy smokes they are the taxman.


User fees often are considered regressive because they take a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups. These include fees for licenses, parking, admission to museums and parks, and tolls for roads.

So eh at the very least it's debatable.




https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/whys_thm03_les02.jsp

Not sure how that would apply here since there are alternatives "the poor" could take. That would apply to things like toll bridges to which swimming would be the only alternative or licenses which may be required.

The IRS says tolls are a regressive tax and holy smokes they are the taxman.



So eh at the very least it's debatable.




https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/whys_thm03_les02.jsp

That doesn't say they are regressive, it says they often are, so there's plenty of wiggle room in their definition. If every road in the state was a toll road then hell yeah it would be regressive, but many of our toll turnpikes are very optional. I've lived in the metro area for about 10 years now, and I'm pretty sure I've used them no more than a dozen times or so.

I understand they're connecting the Kilpatrick Turnpike at I-40 to Highway 152 (Airport Road). But I'm wondering if there will be an EASY connection to Highway 4 going south of Mustang and connecting back to I-44 / HE Bailey Turnpike.

Right now traversing this stretch from SW 15th through Mustang proper is the biggest nightmare, but if you could get off the Kilpatrick Turnpike at Highway 4 / 152 and travel straight south until I-44 / HE Bailey this would be a much better western route during rush hour.

I know it's not the sexy urban infill everyone wants, but I would think this SW expansion would help fill in a lot of that vacant land between Mustang and the city

I know it's not the sexy urban infill everyone wants, but I would think this SW expansion would help fill in a lot of that vacant land between Mustang and the city

Possibly, but I don't understand how they're going to do it without displacing quite a few people...

Possibly, but I don't understand how they're going to do it without displacing quite a few people...

Yeah I agree, or just making some incredibly winding road that will have traffic issues eventually because everyone will slam on their brakes because "oh no a curve!"

Yeah I agree, or just making some incredibly winding road that will have traffic issues eventually because everyone will slam on their brakes because "oh no a curve!"

OMG. 99% of all traffic jams here are caused by curves, or hills that people can't see over the top. The fear of the unknown!

I think the connector to airport road will be quite useful. Access from that part of town to the northwest part of town is quite tough. I used to live on NW expressway almost where it joined the turnpike. As many know I worked at WRWA -- it was always a disaster getting to work with no real easy way to go. This would have helped a lot.

I think the rest of it isn't "useless", but rather unnecessary as our state has more pressing issues right now. I can't speak for Tulsas projects though as I am not that familiar with it.

I know it's not the sexy urban infill everyone wants, but I would think this SW expansion would help fill in a lot of that vacant land between Mustang and the city

I can't speak for Tulsa's needs as I live in OKC, but I agree with you. The SW extension actually makes some sense, but it would make a hell of a lot more sense if they connected it to the HE Bailey turnpike.

I agree that connecting to HE Bailey, as well as airport rd, would be the best. However the lack of planning and right of way in the mustang area is going to make it really hard to do it without displacing a lot of families.

The Turner bypass east of Tinker and east the I-40/I-240 split is necessary to help pull some of those Tulsa (and beyond) to TX truck traffic out of the metro, but it needs to be extended down to highway 9 or even reconnect with i-35 around Purcell. If the TX bound truckers just get pulled onto I-240 and head west to reconnect on I-35 at the Godawful I-35/I-240 interchange, it won't do much to fix the problem, since most of the southbound traffic from downtown stays on I-35 until Moore and Norman.
I agree with this…^
A bypass around the east side of the OKC metro would make I-35 less crowed and safer…. We need another bridge over the river somewhere south of Norman near Noble IMO.
But I don’t understand why this project is so far east. It seems like it would be better if it was moved about 5 miles west?

I understand the need to extend the Kilpatrick Turnpike to the airport but sometime in the future it would be good if this turnpike was further extended south of the airport to near HY 37 and 44, then on to west Norman and eventually intersected at I-35 and HY- 9 just north of the river.

I wish they would do it right after they complete the current planned improvements. If all goes as planned, this should all be completed by 2020.

A loop around Norman was needed yesterday. Hopefully they plan for the future.

They need to fix the bridge on the Kilpatrick just north of 39th St. That thing is insane. 20 bone jarring bumps that have caused several accidents in the 10 or so years I've been driving it. My kids call it the bumpy bridge, I think it's more like a very large washboard or cattle guard stretched out over a 1/4 mile. OKCisOK4Me was lucky enough to hear me complain on a daily basis for over a year. I doubt anything will be done, or even proposed, but I still felt the need to bitch a bit. Carry on.....

I asked about that here a while back and was given the information that they miscalculated the load between spans and it was supposed to flatten out once the concrete was poured, and they apparently assigned that task to the 1st-year psychology students (because even 1st-year engineers shouldn't've been able to screw it up that badly), and it's happened on quite a few other bridges/flyovers on the Kilpatrick. Huge, huge, huge embarrassment that we can't even figure that out properly, I'm amazed that it got all the way through and finished, it's pretty much completely inexcusable, never ever driven over anything that badly in any other state in the union (and I've been through a lot of them).

I agree with this…^
A bypass around the east side of the OKC metro would make I-35 less crowed and safer…. We need another bridge over the river somewhere south of Norman near Noble IMO.
But I don’t understand why this project is so far east. It seems like it would be better if it was moved about 5 miles west?

After living out in eastern Oklahoma County for 10 years, I can see the route being placed in the areas between Luther and Tripple X roads. Maybe as far west as Indian Meridian. It's more rural and there's more bottom land to work with in that area. Any farther west would displace a LOT of residential areas ... Think Jones, Spencer, Nicoma Park, Choctaw and eastern Midwest City. ..... Eastern Oklahoma County has been growing for sometime. Someone mentioned up thread that the loop would invite sprawl, but the sprawl has already been happening. There's a lot of people that live out that way.

I've found this article interesting, and share it time to time with folks on facebook when they go on their anti-toll road rants...

The Turnpike Myth That Never Dies - Tulsa World: Archives (http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/the-turnpike-myth-that-never-dies/article_3a832859-f4a7-52db-802f-6a1dcdd69f71.html)


The Turnpike Myth That Never Dies
Posted: Sunday, July 11, 1993 12:00 am
David Averill

The late, unlamented series of TV ads by the Oklahoma Turnpike
Authority is proof enough.
The toll-meisters are never going to win the hearts and
minds of Oklahoma motorists, nor are they ever going to
dispel the myths, legends and misconceptions that persist
about the turnpike system. No matter what the truth is.
No matter what kind of public information campaign they
may devise.
The oldest and most persistent myth, of course, is that
the turnpikes, or at least the first one - the Turner -
was to become a "free" road as soon as the construction
bonds were paid off. As with many myths, there is a sliver
of truth in it.
But never mind the facts, which are these:
- There are no "free" roads. All roads cost money to build
and maintain. There are tax-supported roads and user-supported,
or toll, roads.
- The 1947 law that authorized the first (Turner) turnpike
provided that when construction bonds were entirely paid
off, the turnpike could become part of the state highway
system. Newspaper clippings from the late 1940s - when civic,
business and political leaders from Tulsa and Oklahoma City
were beating the drum for a toll road between the two cities
- indicate that Gov. Roy Turner mentioned that provision
in some speeches. But the turnpike was not sold to Oklahomans
on the basis that it would eventually become "free."
The primary argument, made over and over, was that the two
metropolises needed a safer, faster highway link, and the
only possible way to get one in a state dominated by rural
interests was to sell bonds and build a toll road.
- The original bonds on the Turner Turnpike would not have
been completely paid off until 1990 anyway, but a bunch
of grumpy motorists have been in a dither over the mythological
"free-road promise" for at least 20 years.
- Any "free-road promise" became moot in 1954, less than
four years after construction of the Turner Turnpike began,
when both the Legislature and a majority of the voters of
Oklahoma approved a plan to refinance the Turner bonds to
build what turned out to be two new 'pikes, the Will Rogers
and H.E. Bailey.
The turnpike grumps have forgotten the two 1954 state questions
in which the people voted to continue bond financing. Whenever
the topic of turnpikes is raised, a bunch of them will write
and call the newspaper, and phone the radio gabfests to
recount the "free-road promise."
It doesn't matter what the toll-meisters do to please their
customers. Some people want to see evil conspiracy behind
their every move. Take the PikePass system. The PikePass
is a convenience to turnpike users that hopefully will reduce
the Turnpike Authority's manpower needs - and expense. But
the grumps would have you believe it is much more - a plot
to con millions of dollars in deposits from unsuspecting
motorists and get fat on the bank interest.
Here's the truth about that myth: The authority collected
about $127,000 in interest last year from PikePass deposits,
but that amount was far less than the bank service charges,
postage and other costs of operating the Pike Pass program.
The toll-meisters, sensitive to their unpopularity, are
considering a plan to credit to each PikePass account the
amount of interest it would have earned - a dollar or so
a year for most. But even that won't quiet the grumping,
because some people want to believe the worst.
The toll-meisters' very efforts to dispel the myths and
misconceptions spawn new myths and misconceptions. Take
the recent advertising campaign - please. We're talking
about the ads that were supposed to look like a TV talk
show. This wasn't the hottest idea ever to come down the
'pike. The ads prompted all kinds of gripes. Some critics
didn't like Capt. Adams' answers or his stiff delivery;
some hated the fact that Becky Dixon wore a tie; others
disapproved of the set, which looked like it was lifted
from CNN's "Larry King Live."
But the most damaging criticism, the real grumping, was
that the ads were "a waste of taxpayers' money."
For the record, taxpayers' money was not spent on the ads.
The Turnpike Authority doesn't receive or spend tax money.
It receives no subsidy from the State of Oklahoma. The turnpike
system operates entirely on toll receipts. Even the salaries
of the Highway Patrol officers who patrol the turnpikes
are paid from toll receipts. But does this matter to those
who choose to believe that the toll-meisters are wasting
taxpayers' money? Not for a minute.
Toll-road construction has some real advantages over construction
of tax-supported roads:
- Toll roads are quicker to build, because the money, from
private investors, is available when it's needed (it doesn't
depend on legislative or congressional appropriation) and
because the process is absent the environmental impact studies
and other paper shuffling that come with federal highway
dollars.
- Toll-road maintenance is more certain, because the tolls
that retire construction bonds also provide money for upkeep.
- Toll roads are paid for entirely by those who use them,
and only by those who use them.
- In Oklahoma's case, more than half of the toll-road tab
is picked up by out-of-state motorists who use the state's
turnpikes. Oklahoma's "free" roads, on the other hand,
are paid for entirely by taxes collected by the State of
Oklahoma and taxes collected in Oklahoma by the federal
government and returned to Oklahoma.
None of these arguments, however, are going to change minds
of the truly dedicated grumps. Some people just don't want
to know the truth. They prefer to live happily with their
cherished myths and misconceptions.

^^ Thanks for posting that.

I never looked into the details, but I always figured that was bs.

Just to provide perspective on population numbers of the area, about 41,000 people lived in the area bounded by I-44, Westminster Rd, I-40, and Harrah Rd in 2010.

After living out in eastern Oklahoma County for 10 years, I can see the route being placed in the areas between Luther and Tripple X roads. Maybe as far west as Indian Meridian. It's more rural and there's more bottom land to work with in that area. Any farther west would displace a LOT of residential areas ... Think Jones, Spencer, Nicoma Park, Choctaw and eastern Midwest City. ..... Eastern Oklahoma County has been growing for sometime. Someone mentioned up thread that the loop would invite sprawl, but the sprawl has already been happening. There's a lot of people that live out that way.

Thanks…..Your reasons are probably why it’s as far east as it is.

However, if it’s ever extended south I hope it’s routed southwesterly on the west side of lake Thunderbird, crossing the river west of the Noble area and then connects with I-35 near Ladd Rd.

Just to provide perspective on population numbers of the area, about 41,000 people lived in the area bounded by I-44, Westminster Rd, I-40, and Harrah Rd in 2010.

I wonder what that number is almost 6 years later. There's been a lot of building going on out there.

And don't forget about north of I-44, inside those same east and west boundaries ... say all the way to Waterloo to the north.

11712

This is roughly how I'd like to see the Turner bypass look, pull off between Luther and Wellston, connect with I-40/I-240 split for Tulsa to Tinker/Moore/Will Rogers traffic, and then continue on down to the east of Norman for OU traffic, and reconnect near Purcell for TX traffic. The main objective is to get those trucks onto pay roads instead of wearing down I 35 metro with their tonnage, while causing delays (and safety hazards) with so much metro congestion.

^^you can almost guarantee that this east toll road will and should be a future bypass around the city. Heck you could even connect it father north from I35 to the i44 section. Seeing Steves chat today and people complaining about sprawl just made me laugh. Most of the city won't use this toll road but that's the point. It's for traffic through the state. I'd honestly rather them add this toll road then try and widen the highways more in the city where most would agree mass transit could exist. But you can't have mass transit if the highways are still clogged with semis.

Make it limited access and that helps limit the sprawl around it. Do something like the toll road that bypasses Austin's nightmarish I-35

Make it limited access and that helps limit the sprawl around it. Do something like the toll road that bypasses Austin's nightmarish I-35
That example might not be the best comparison--despite having relatively limited access, it's pushed Austin's sprawling quest for middle-income-friendly housing to the fringes of the eastern metro counties, where commutes were suddenly (upon opening of the tollway) reduced from an hour or more to about 25 minutes.

That example might not be the best comparison--despite having relatively limited access, it's pushed Austin's sprawling quest for middle-income-friendly housing to the fringes of the eastern metro counties, where commutes were suddenly (upon opening of the tollway) reduced from an hour or more to about 25 minutes.

And I did not know that, thanks for clarifying. Exactly how limited is the access?

I wonder what that number is almost 6 years later. There's been a lot of building going on out there.

And don't forget about north of I-44, inside those same east and west boundaries ... say all the way to Waterloo to the north.

To Waterloo is an additional 3,100 people.

Turnpike Expansion Could Alleviate Traffic, Expand Suburbs - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/30398013/turnpike-expansion-could-alleviate-traffic-expand-suburbs)

It's actually a usage tax not regressive. Despite your opinions on whether its regressive or not, taking the turnpike is 100% optional, don't like it, don't take it. That makes it a usage tax not regressive. A tax can only be regressive if it's mandatory.

Define it however you want, but all usage fees/taxes are regressive, regardless of optionality. The quantity of sales and property taxes are also optional, but are by definition regressive. Notice that IRS definition include park and museum entrance fees as well. Furthermore, tolls are very locationally biased, which doesn't necessarily make it regressive but does make it biased and hurts the whole "Don't like it, don't use it" argument. Really, I dislike the location bias more than regressiveness, its just when the two are added it can become a bigger deal for some people.

But like I said, these projects wouldn't happen without the tolls, so it is a necessary evil.

I really think with the improvement in fuel mileage, and the unwillingness of government to raise gas taxes, that we should go to a true usage fee system where you pay an annual fee with your car tag based on the GVW and the miles driven. You'd have to figure out how to handle out of state users, but I am sure that could be figured out. It will either eventually be a system like this, or every highway will eventual be turned into a tollway as funding dries up and construction costs increase.

I asked about that here a while back and was given the information that they miscalculated the load between spans and it was supposed to flatten out once the concrete was poured, and they apparently assigned that task to the 1st-year psychology students (because even 1st-year engineers shouldn't've been able to screw it up that badly), and it's happened on quite a few other bridges/flyovers on the Kilpatrick. Huge, huge, huge embarrassment that we can't even figure that out properly, I'm amazed that it got all the way through and finished, it's pretty much completely inexcusable, never ever driven over anything that badly in any other state in the union (and I've been through a lot of them).

All bridge beams are initially chambered upward, and then they flatten out as the deadweight of the bridge deck is added. Pre-stressed concrete beams have a much more noticeable chamber initially than steel beam because the lower part of the beam is pre-stressed into compression. Even after the deadweight is applied concrete beams will retain some chamber since they design the pre-stress high enough to ensure the bottom of the beam is always kept in compression (concrete cracks with just a slight amount of tension).

Since the beams will retain chamber after the deck is applied, when they pour the decking they pour a variable thickness "haunch." The haunch is basically the concrete that connects the deck to the beams. If you closely look at the underside of a concrete beam bridge you can easily see this variable thickness between the beams and the decking.

Basically every other state requires the engineers to do the haunch thickness calculations and put them on the drawings. Oklahoma, however, leaves it up to the bridge construction company. Not only are these calculations fairly complicated for the non-engineers, the state further ties their hands by limiting the min/max thickness range. So even if the contractor did the calcs perfectly, they may still not be able to create a smooth bridge.

Each hump you feel on these bridges is one beam span. The Creek Turnpike South Loop in Tulsa has this problem in a big way too. But it is an issue all over the state. Notice that Texas uses concrete bridges all over the place, including a lot of the new I-635, not a single one has this issue because the engineers do the haunch calculations.

11714

More info: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=ce_etds

All bridge beams are initially chambered upward, and then they flatten out as the deadweight of the bridge deck is added. Pre-stressed concrete beams have a much more noticeable chamber initially than steel beam because the lower part of the beam is pre-stressed into compression. Even after the deadweight is applied concrete beams will retain some chamber since they design the pre-stress high enough to ensure the bottom of the beam is always kept in compression (concrete cracks with just a slight amount of tension).

Since the beams will retain chamber after the deck is applied, when they pour the decking they pour a variable thickness "haunch." The haunch is basically the concrete that connects the deck to the beams. If you closely look at the underside of a concrete beam bridge you can easily see this variable thickness between the beams and the decking.

Basically every other state requires the engineers to do the haunch thickness calculations and put them on the drawings. Oklahoma, however, leaves it up to the bridge construction company. Not only are these calculations fairly complicated for the non-engineers, the state further ties their hands by limiting the min/max thickness range. So even if the contractor did the calcs perfectly, they may still not be able to create a smooth bridge.

Each hump you feel on these bridges is one beam span. The Creek Turnpike South Loop in Tulsa has this problem in a big way too. But it is an issue all over the state. Notice that Texas uses concrete bridges all over the place, including a lot of the new I-635, not a single one has this issue because the engineers do the haunch calculations.

11714

More info: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=ce_etds

Fantastic explanation. You know, it is a shame the OTA allowed these bridges in question to be completed at final inspections.

All bridge beams are initially chambered upward, and then they flatten out as the deadweight of the bridge deck is added. Pre-stressed concrete beams have a much more noticeable chamber initially than steel beam because the lower part of the beam is pre-stressed into compression. Even after the deadweight is applied concrete beams will retain some chamber since they design the pre-stress high enough to ensure the bottom of the beam is always kept in compression (concrete cracks with just a slight amount of tension).

Since the beams will retain chamber after the deck is applied, when they pour the decking they pour a variable thickness "haunch." The haunch is basically the concrete that connects the deck to the beams. If you closely look at the underside of a concrete beam bridge you can easily see this variable thickness between the beams and the decking.

Basically every other state requires the engineers to do the haunch thickness calculations and put them on the drawings. Oklahoma, however, leaves it up to the bridge construction company. Not only are these calculations fairly complicated for the non-engineers, the state further ties their hands by limiting the min/max thickness range. So even if the contractor did the calcs perfectly, they may still not be able to create a smooth bridge.

Each hump you feel on these bridges is one beam span. The Creek Turnpike South Loop in Tulsa has this problem in a big way too. But it is an issue all over the state. Notice that Texas uses concrete bridges all over the place, including a lot of the new I-635, not a single one has this issue because the engineers do the haunch calculations.

11714

More info: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=ce_etds

Zorba, thank you for your explanation. I've wondered about that every time I've crossed those spans, and only heard that the crown or "chamber" as you describe it, was miscalulated.

I'm not an engineer but I've also wondered about the what the stresses are from all the vehicles bouncing over those spans over the years. Especially from trucks. I call it unsprung weight however that may not be the proper term, but everytime a vehicle goes over each span and the weight bottoms out in the dips between each one, has to be putting extra stresses on the joints and bridge components.

Thanks for the details behind my blathering, Zorba, confirms my suspicions that TPTB at OTA are idiots...

Just boggles my mind that this kind of crap keeps happening over and over in OK, not sure why OK thinks they're exceptional or there are no precedents for what they're doing, and why they don't bother to find out how it's done *the right way* because other states/municipalities *have* done this kind of thing before (pretty much no matter what kind of "thing" it is) and know how to do it right.

I'm not real wild about this plan. I feel like the areas they are focusing on are the most brain-dead they possibly could... Easy gimmies. It'd be a lot harder, but the metro would benefit a lot more from a turnpike that offloads some of the horrendous I-35 traffic through the southern parts of the metro where there are currently no highway alternatives.

I know this is probably not feasible now, but it would be cool if they could make Sooner a bit more limited access, there really isn't a good way for Eastern Norman to get to MWC, and Sooner is just getting busier and busier. Also it is prime time for 9 to be built up to HWY standards on the South side of Norman, there is plenty of space to do that with on and off ramps if they elevate like 240 is.

Thanks for the details behind my blathering, Zorba, confirms my suspicions that TPTB at OTA are idiots...

Just boggles my mind that this kind of crap keeps happening over and over in OK, not sure why OK thinks they're exceptional or there are no precedents for what they're doing, and why they don't bother to find out how it's done *the right way* because other states/municipalities *have* done this kind of thing before (pretty much no matter what kind of "thing" it is) and know how to do it right.

Something along these same lines that is insane are bridges and approaches. Many bridges across the state on highways have a noticeable jarring when your vehicle goes onto a bridge and then leaves a bridge. I frequent 35 between OKC and Dallas and man just about every bridge you drive across there's a definite "blam-blam" when you go onto the bridge and another "blam-blam" when you leave the bridge -- enough to jolt the family around a little in the car. But when you get into Texas there are almost seamless transitions from roadway to bridge.

^^^^^^
It's not so difficult to figure out why Texas might have better infrastructure. Despite being a little over 4x the size of Oklahoma, it has 10x the population and considerably more corporate wealth. Texas' available pot of tax dollars is enormous by comparison.

That 4x area figure itself is misleading, as there are vast areas of Texas that have extremely sparse population (and resulting infrastructure).

Comparing Texas to Oklahoma (or almost anyplace in the central U.S.) will never be an apples-to-apples comparison.

Something along these same lines that is insane are bridges and approaches. Many bridges across the state on highways have a noticeable jarring when your vehicle goes onto a bridge and then leaves a bridge. I frequent 35 between OKC and Dallas and man just about every bridge you drive across there's a definite "blam-blam" when you go onto the bridge and another "blam-blam" when you leave the bridge -- enough to jolt the family around a little in the car. But when you get into Texas there are almost seamless transitions from roadway to bridge.

Just like the humps on concrete bridges, this too is because of OK's design standards, as opposed to other states. Basically you spend a lot of money making bridge abutments as stiff/stable as possible, by driving piles down into the soil, etc. But then they put the roadway approach on nothing but compacted soil and gravel. So over time the roadway sinks a little bit as the soil compresses under the load, but the bridge abutment doesn't move, then you end up with a nice bump on each side of the bridge.

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

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

I'm not real wild about this plan. I feel like the areas they are focusing on are the most brain-dead they possibly could... Easy gimmies. It'd be a lot harder, but the metro would benefit a lot more from a turnpike that offloads some of the horrendous I-35 traffic through the southern parts of the metro where there are currently no highway alternatives.

I agree, I think in Tulsa a 'pike to Bixby is much more important. And in OKC they should have turned HWY 9 in to a 'pike and then ran it north to I-240 between Sooner and Air Depot.


I know this is probably not feasible now, but it would be cool if they could make Sooner a bit more limited access, there really isn't a good way for Eastern Norman to get to MWC, and Sooner is just getting busier and busier. Also it is prime time for 9 to be built up to HWY standards on the South side of Norman, there is plenty of space to do that with on and off ramps if they elevate like 240 is.

They should build a highway near Sooner. Not turn Sooner into a highway. The benefits of a grid system really fall apart when they turn grid streets into highways (especially without proper access roads). It is even worse roads just die for a mile or two, like what happens along I-35 between I-40 and the Turner, where 3 or 4 North-South roads are blocked by or merged onto the highway. If you look at Tulsa, not a single grid street is affect by any highway, except for about 1/2 mile of 51st right at its terminus.

How bout most of this is completely unnecessary, just like the Boulevard. Woohoo more sprawl, we don't have enough of that already. Gas may be cheap now - doesn't mean this is sustainable. Doesn't matter though, as long as Failin and her friends stay in power.

Is the State expecting a huge influx of people in the next 20 years to justify spend oodles of cash on this?

^
OTA bonds are a great investment...I've been trying to get some myself over the years. That is the only good thing I can think about this. The Gilcrease and Eastern OK County Bypass are especially egregious boondoggles IMO.

As recently as 2012, the OTA itself said the Gilcrease extension in Tulsa was not feasible as a toll road. (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/study-calls-gilcrease-expressway-as-a-toll-road-unfeasible/article_4ba2d554-eb95-5988-acc6-9db06b198eda.html) I don't understand what has changed between now and then. I did read that even with this funding, the city of Tulsa will still be on the hook for about $70 million in construction costs. For that fact alone, this project is likely DOA.

The eastern bypass is the real head scratcher for me. Thru traffic needing to go from 40 to 44 can use the existing JKT, while traffic bypassing 35 could be better served by just extending the JKT SW to 35 in Moore. I don't see the need for an entirely new facility in a sparsely populated part of the county. I wouldn't worry about this causing sprawl since the "east-o-phobia" is pretty baked in the local zeitgeist. Fringe development is pushed by access to utilities (particularly sewers) and school district quality, not road access. Look at the vast emptiness of NE OKC along 77 and 35 as proof of this.

The only new project that could be justified is the SW extension, but to build on an earlier point, its pretty much useless unless it is extended to 35. I also don't know what people in the DOT are smoking/drinking, but its something strong if they think this is going to start in 2 years with the amount of ROW that needs to be required. We are talking about acquiring entire neighborhoods, some that are less than 5 years old. Not-so-bold prediction: this project will be in litigation hell for the next 4 years, maybe longer.

And I did not know that, thanks for clarifying. Exactly how limited is the access?

When I moved back up here in 2011, there was one exit each to access Georgetown (Hwy 29), Round Rock/Hutto/Taylor (US 79), connections via Hwy 45 to MoPac (essentially at the Pflugerville/Round Rock boundary line east all the way to Cedar Park), Cameron Road (near the Austin Executive Airport), Parmer/ US 290 (just west of Manor), Hwy 71 (Austin-Bergstrom), and Hwy 183. Beyond that you were out in the boonies and closer to San Marcos or San Antonio than Austin.

Look at the vast emptiness of NE OKC along 77 and 35 as proof of this. .
I don't think it will be that way for long. Tons of new homes and building permits in the area.

Is there a map of the Eastern Loop somewhere?

I can't seem to find it.

11720

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

11720

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

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

This won't encourage any more sprawl then what is already happening, although again, the Eastern bypass makes no sense if not extended to Norman. This is not a metro area commuter turnpike like the Kilpatrick turnpike or the Creek Nation turnpike in Tulsa. This is a trucker turnpike.

If anything, creating a Bypass from Luther to Norman/Noble/Purcell will help liberate the core from being part urban community, part truck stop. The less than ideal businesses to showcase the city to passers-by along Reno between Eastern and Bricktown, and along I-35 from Bricktown to Crossroads, will have to find a new home. The strip clubs, the prostitution motels...go to Luther or Harrah or wherever else (and let me say this is not to disparage truckers as a whole by any means, but even the best truckers know there is a "truck stop culture" that isn't too good...can we get it out of the core, please?). It will enable better developments to encircle the AIMCC around Reno and I-35, and maybe in a few decades, new mixed use residential along I-35 between Reno and Crossroads with a couple of midrises leading into downtown from the south. All the while, reducing metro traffic because of all those Semis that clog up traffic starting and stopping and reducing necessary upkeep on tax payer roads on the interstates. It's more than worrying about sprawl, as the few thousand families that view an eastern bypass as their once in a lifetime chance to buy a new affordable home 40 miles from OKC isn't going to impact the internal development and demand for an urban lifestyle in the core. What little sprawl occurs would hurt Moore, Del City, Midwest City, Edmond more than downtown/bricktown/midtown OKC, which appeals to a different market.

11720

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

This route looks plausible. I'm still trying to figure out where the OTA is getting their "7.1 miles" distance figure for this project. It looks like it could be no more than 5, or maybe 6 miles at the absolute max.

This route looks plausible. I'm still trying to figure out where the OTA is getting their "7.1 miles" distance figure for this project. It looks like it could be no more than 5, or maybe 6 miles at the absolute max.

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