Turnpikes getting Highway Numbers
Item No. 105 - State Highway System Numbering Revisions – Mr. Swift

a) Removal of the SH-152 Designation between JCT I-44/SH-152 and JCT SH-152/John Kilpatrick TP
b) Addition of a new Designation of I-240 to the above section of SH-152, the John Kilpatrick TP, and
the Kickapoo TP
c) Addition of an I-240 Follow Route on portions of I-44 and I-40
d) Addition of a new Designation of SH-4 to the H.E. Bailey Turnpike – Norman Spur
e) Addition of a new Designation of SH-301 to the Chickasaw Turnpike
f) Addition of a new Designation of SH-312 to the Cimarron Turnpike Spur
g) Addition of a new Designation of SH-375 to the Indian Nation Turnpike

That I-240 designator makes a lot of sense.

Is this a proposal or actually happening?

The original post appears to be in the format typically used for the monthly Transportation Commission meetings. They are usually held on the first Monday of the month which would be next week.

I believe August 2nd.

According to Google Maps, this new I-240 route, if approved, will be 91 miles in length, which I believe will make it the largest beltway anywhere in the United States. (The largest Interstate beltway is I-275 around Cincinnati, which is 83 miles, and the largest non-Interstate beltway is Houston's Beltway 8, which is 88 miles and, like the proposed I-240, is a mix of toll and free roads.)

https://i.imgur.com/HspHhK7.png

I will definitely clinch this when/if it’s done. Will be an interesting contrast to drive the full length.

hm, not sure how I feel about this.

I totally agree that Airport Road should get the I-240 designation (long overdue). But I think the Kilpatrick Turnpike should receive a I-44 designation (say I-644), along with Hefner Parkway (say I-344). Kickapoo should be it's own I-40 designation, say I-540.

You'd still have an "outer" loop but my proposed names make sense without taking away from the original meaning of I-240.

hm, not sure how I feel about this.

I totally agree that Airport Road should get the I-240 designation (long overdue). But I think the Kilpatrick Turnpike should receive a I-44 designation (say I-644), along with Hefner Parkway (say I-344). Kickapoo should be it's own I-40 designation, say I-540.

You'd still have an "outer" loop but my proposed names make sense without taking away from the original meaning of I-240.

I don't love them co-designating that I-44 strip, but the rest does make sense. I think having four new designations would be a bit overkill.

I don't love them co-designating that I-44 strip, but the rest does make sense. I think having four new designations would be a bit overkill.

While I am fine with using some on multiple legs, I would prefer at least two designations, so we do not have multiple interchanges between the same major city street and the same interstate designation

You'd still have an "outer" loop but my proposed names make sense without taking away from the original meaning of I-240.

The "original meaning" of I-240 included all of what is currently I-44 from the current western terminus of I-240 all the way to the I-35/I-44 junction near Remington. That portion of highway was only designated I-44 in 1982. So if anything, having I-240 be at least a partial loop is closer to its original meaning than what is currently designated I-240.



I totally agree that Airport Road should get the I-240 designation (long overdue). But I think the Kilpatrick Turnpike should receive a I-44 designation (say I-644), along with Hefner Parkway (say I-344). Kickapoo should be it's own I-40 designation, say I-540.

If you have Airport Road be I-240 and give the Kilpatrick a different number, you have a situation where two highway numbers end at each other (or close to ending at each other), which is generally a no-no. Also, it's kind of a bad idea to use x44 numbers in OKC, since the only two-digit interstate in Tulsa is I-44, so that's using up the only numbers Tulsa has access to, while OKC has plenty of x35 and x40 numbers available.

In general, while three-digit Interstate numbers starting with an odd number are spurs from their parent interstate, in general, those that connect to Interstates on both ends usually (but not always) get even numbers, with the odd numbers used for routes that do not connect to an Interstate on one or both ends. So I would expect the Hefner Parkway and Kickapoo Turnpike, were they to get their own numbers, would probably get even first digits like I-644 and I-440.

Will designating these highways with interstate highway numbers open them for more federal funding?

Will designating these highways with interstate highway numbers open them for more federal funding?

No. Current funding rules are dependent on whether a route is part of the National Highway System (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/oklahoma/) or not, not the signed highway designation. All of the new I-240 that is on free roads is already part of the NHS, so funding will not change. I believe OTA roads are funded solely by tolls collected, so funding won't change for the toll roads either.

What the Interstate shield does get you is branding and an assurance that a road is a freeway built to certain standards. We may start getting more companies from out of town willing to locate along the new I-240 route than they were before when it was just the Kilpatrick Turnpike, the Kickapoo Turnpike, SH-152, etc. That's because a road with an Interstate designation is guaranteed to be a certain level of quality, so many companies base their location decisions on easy access to the Interstate System. Doesn't matter to them that the Kilpatrick Turnpike was Interstate-quality without the shield; if they see the shield they know what kind of road it is without having to do any sort of research, and they know it's connected to a system of similar roads and isn't just a one-off freeway like the one in Ada.

I know the chances of this happening are pretty much slim to none, but I'd love to see this be the first step in getting rid of the tolls along all the stretches of what would be this I-240 loop.

I know the chances of this happening are pretty much slim to none, but I'd love to see this be the first step in getting rid of the tolls along all the stretches of what would be this I-240 loop.
+10000

Gotta pay off those bonds to do that and they may not even have a prepayment option.

I know the chances of this happening are pretty much slim to none, but I'd love to see this be the first step in getting rid of the tolls along all the stretches of what would be this I-240 loop.

Well if that happened the roadways would deteriorate like the rest of the highway system. Atleast OTA keeps their facilities nice.

Here's the I-240 route. The others can be found pages 21-25 at https://www.odot.org/tcomm/agendas21/tc_agenda-202108-r.pdf

***not sure why the image so small
17010

Here is the meeting summary for the august commission which talks about the approval of the new numbers:

https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2021/august/august-commission-meeting-wrap-up--updated-five-year-plan-for-ma.html

looks like we're trying to FORCE a loop out of a collection of freeways vs. building a purpose built loop.

ODOT really needs to build about one or two new freeways in the hole between I-35 and the Kickapoo turnpike. Lots of development happening there with little planning.

ODOT really needs to build about one or two new freeways in the hole between I-35 and the Kickapoo turnpike. Lots of development happening there with little planning.

I still contend that the #1 needed freeway corridor improvement (as opposed to spot improvements like interchange overhauls) in the OKC metro is upgrading SH-9 through Norman to a freeway. SH-9 is only going to get more and more traffic as East Norman grows. Second place is SH-9 between Newcastle and Goldsby. Newcastle and Blanchard are growing too and a lot of that traffic commutes to the I-35 corridor, so they end up on SH-9.

It's very frustrating never seeing the SH-9 corridor even appear in long term planning documents, much less more concrete plans to do anything about it. I'm not sure which Oklahoma the ODOT decision-makers live in, but I don't think it's the one I do.

I still contend that the #1 needed freeway corridor improvement (as opposed to spot improvements like interchange overhauls) in the OKC metro is upgrading SH-9 through Norman to a freeway. SH-9 is only going to get more and more traffic as East Norman grows. Second place is SH-9 between Newcastle and Goldsby. Newcastle and Blanchard are growing too and a lot of that traffic commutes to the I-35 corridor, so they end up on SH-9.

It's very frustrating never seeing the SH-9 corridor even appear in long term planning documents, much less more concrete plans to do anything about it. I'm not sure which Oklahoma the ODOT decision-makers live in, but I don't think it's the one I do.

I live on SH-9 between Newcastle and Goldsby. The neighborhoods keep growing in this area but I haven't felt that the traffic has been unbearable by any means. Getting onto 35 next to Riverwind can be pretty rough some mornings. SH-9 across east Norman I do agree however needs to be upgraded. I just wonder how the university would feel about it.

I still contend that the #1 needed freeway corridor improvement (as opposed to spot improvements like interchange overhauls) in the OKC metro is upgrading SH-9 through Norman to a freeway. SH-9 is only going to get more and more traffic as East Norman grows. Second place is SH-9 between Newcastle and Goldsby. Newcastle and Blanchard are growing too and a lot of that traffic commutes to the I-35 corridor, so they end up on SH-9.

It's very frustrating never seeing the SH-9 corridor even appear in long term planning documents, much less more concrete plans to do anything about it. I'm not sure which Oklahoma the ODOT decision-makers live in, but I don't think it's the one I do.
It’s hard to believe it isn’t even being talked about. I mean at the very least they should do long term planning. We’ll see when ACOG releases it’s 2045 plan in October if they say anything about it. I’d also argue that a loop around Edmond connecting I-35 to SH-74 is needed too or at least ROW preserved.

It’s hard to believe it isn’t even being talked about. I mean at the very least they should do long term planning. We’ll see when ACOG releases it’s 2045 plan in October if they say anything about it. I’d also argue that a loop around Edmond connecting I-35 to SH-74 is needed too or at least ROW preserved.

It still seems dumb even when ODOT/OTA had expressed interest in the Kilpatrick turnpike extension, and the city still was showing that on their long term plans with incorporating decisions like where to place police and fire stations years it got put on hold, that OKC kept approving housing edition designs that placed homes in the likely path(s), the extension that was just build is at least a half mile longer than it had to be and has more turns because it had to route around multiple editions that did not exist when the juncture with i40 was being constructed. Along with there is around a half mile of wasted road built to interstate standards that was intended to be worked into that expansion.

I live on SH-9 between Newcastle and Goldsby. The neighborhoods keep growing in this area but I haven't felt that the traffic has been unbearable by any means. Getting onto 35 next to Riverwind can be pretty rough some mornings. SH-9 across east Norman I do agree however needs to be upgraded. I just wonder how the university would feel about it.

My concern with that stretch of SH-9 is less capacity-related and more safety related—I live in Norman and work in Blanchard and plenty of times I've had to hit the brakes because of someone in front of me suddenly deciding to hang a left at 70 MPH. You could take a page out of MoDOT's book and play around with some superstreet concepts like they've done on Route 13 north of Springfield, but at some point, with the way McClain County is growing, the only solution is going to be either to step down to stoplights like SH-9 in Norman and really feel the pain, or step up to a freeway.

I would be baffled by any opposition from OU to upgrading SH-9, as having a freeway facility directly connecting their campus to the Interstate System would only help them; it'd benefit both commuter students and game day traffic. It's not like it'd negatively impact bike or ped access either, since both of those modes of transport are served by the recent upgrades to Lindsey Street.

My concern with that stretch of SH-9 is less capacity-related and more safety related—I live in Norman and work in Blanchard and plenty of times I've had to hit the brakes because of someone in front of me suddenly deciding to hang a left at 70 MPH. You could take a page out of MoDOT's book and play around with some superstreet concepts like they've done on Route 13 north of Springfield, but at some point, with the way McClain County is growing, the only solution is going to be either to step down to stoplights like SH-9 in Norman and really feel the pain, or step up to a freeway.

I definitely know what you're talking about with the reckless driving on SH-9. Turning onto SH-9 is pretty dangerous too in itself for some stretches as the large hills obscure the view of coming traffic. Please no stop lights!! lol

It’s all been approved on the state level just waiting for AASHTO’s approval:


"The interstate designation will — has a few more steps to go through. That will have to go to the AASHTO routing and numbering committee, and then on to [the Federal Highway Administration] for their approval, which will take a little bit of time," Gatz said.

- https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/post/commission-approves-renumbering-several-oklahoma-highways#stream/0

It would be great, if like one day a month, Oklahoma declared a no toll day on Sundays to open up traffic.

Tolls are such a scam. I know there are politics behind everything and I don't know it all, but the tolls probably make billions and none of that money seems to be reinvested into the state.

It would be nice to travel around to see family and do errands without worrying about PikePass balances.

But it would never happen.

I’m no fan of turnpike tolls either, but for the sake of keeping the discussion grounded in reality, OTA doesn’t take in “billions” in tolls. In 2019 it was apparently around $330 million. The construction and operations of turnpikes are paid for almost exclusively via tolls. Here are the numbers reported for 2019:

Operations and maintenance: $101 million
Capital plan: $120.1 million
Debt payments: $140.1 million

In most cases turnpikes are built where there is a desire to have a highway but where there aren’t available tax dollars to do so. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority sells bonds to cover construction, and the bonds are repaid over time (the debt payments listed). The building of highways is amazingly expensive.

The OTA also pays for the State Troopers who patrol the turnpikes, plus has considerable personnel in the form of maintenance crews, engineers, administrative personnel and others.

Turnpike tolls aren’t fun, but to be clear they also aren’t scams. They’re essentially user fees that pay for roads that otherwise the state couldn’t afford to build without them. They are honestly a lot more fair than something paid for by non-users via a regressive tax.

I’m no fan of turnpike tolls either, but for the sake of keeping the discussion grounded in reality, OTA doesn’t take in “billions” in tolls. In 2019 it was apparently around $330 million. The construction and operations of turnpikes are paid for almost exclusively via tolls. Here are the numbers reported for 2019:

Operations and maintenance: $101 million
Capital plan: $120.1 million
Debt payments: $140.1 million

In most cases turnpikes are built where there is a desire to have a highway but where there aren’t available tax dollars to do so. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority sells bonds to cover construction, and the bonds are repaid over time (the debt payments listed). The building of highways is amazingly expensive.

The OTA also pays for the State Troopers who patrol the turnpikes, plus has considerable personnel in the form of maintenance crews, engineers, administrative personnel and others.

Turnpike tolls aren’t fun, but to be clear they also aren’t scams. They’re essentially user fees that pay for roads that otherwise the state couldn’t afford to build without them. They are honestly a lot more fair than something paid for by non-users via a regressive tax.

Is there a public archive to see where that money is being spent? You are getting those figures from somewhere.

I'm just a cynic. I just feel like we are being taken advantage of. Thank God we are in no way comparable to Florida's Sunpass.

I just think we pay enough taxes in gasoline that it just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. But I get it. The Turnpike is a different animal.

But I think the state suffers when we have a disconnect between Tulsa and OKC. I know it seems petty but spending money to go to a big metro within state seems lame. I know I could take another route but who wants to spend 3 hours to get to Tulsa.

I come from a state where tolls don't exist. It just seems so bizarre to me. It is what it is though.

^^^^^^^^
I just did a quick grab from Wikipedia - which is admittedly fraught with peril - but there are fairly comprehensive annual reports, budgets and the like here (https://oklahoma.gov/ota/).

I think the biggest problems we have in Oklahoma are a pretty thin population base, sprawling cities, and long distances between population centers. Lots of places we’d like to have roads, not so many tax dollars to cover them.

https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/ota/documents/annual-report/2020-OTA-AnnualReport.pdf

On Page 82 of the 2020 report, you can see that Turner, Will Rogers, Kilpatrick, HE Bailey, and Creek are the money makers for turnpikes and pull the weight for the other turnpikes that don't connect major cities or are located in urban areas. Oklahoma "cross pledges" on turnpikes so revenue is shared between all of them, so while the Turner easily makes millions

I recall in order to build the Creek and Kilpatrick, rural legislators forced the Chickasaw Turnpike, even though the OTA knew that it would lose money in the long run as a turnpike.

I think Kansas was fortunate that they have one turnpike to maintain that connects all of their key cities (Wichita, Topeka, Lawrence, Kansas City)

Every mile of toll road is a mile that isn't paid for out of the transportation fund/gas tax money. That leaves more money to be used to maintain the free highways, so you benefit even if you never use the toll roads. As scottk mentioned, the Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes make enough money to basically pay for the rest of the system, so even lightly-used turnpikes are paid for. The Cherokee, for instance, was built as a safety improvement through some rugged terrain that ODOT couldn't afford to build a freeway through. The toll money from I-44 paid for it.

It should be noted too that Oklahoma's toll roads are about the cheapest on a cost-per-mile basis in the entire country. It's a bargain compared to Texas, for instance. Oklahoma turnpikes are also totally optional for the most part as well; not like the NY toll bridges where there's no free option anywhere nearby. You are definitely not getting ripped off when you choose to drive on an OTA road.

I’m no fan of turnpike tolls either, but for the sake of keeping the discussion grounded in reality, OTA doesn’t take in “billions” in tolls. In 2019 it was apparently around $330 million. The construction and operations of turnpikes are paid for almost exclusively via tolls. Here are the numbers reported for 2019:

Operations and maintenance: $101 million
Capital plan: $120.1 million
Debt payments: $140.1 million

In most cases turnpikes are built where there is a desire to have a highway but where there aren’t available tax dollars to do so. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority sells bonds to cover construction, and the bonds are repaid over time (the debt payments listed). The building of highways is amazingly expensive.

The OTA also pays for the State Troopers who patrol the turnpikes, plus has considerable personnel in the form of maintenance crews, engineers, administrative personnel and others.

Turnpike tolls aren’t fun, but to be clear they also aren’t scams. They’re essentially user fees that pay for roads that otherwise the state couldn’t afford to build without them. They are honestly a lot more fair than something paid for by non-users via a regressive tax.

Thanks for providing a clear and unambigious justification on "pay as you go". There is no free lunch. Time is money so the consumer has a choice here.

The "cross pledge" is where this all goes south for me. The OTA can charge any fee they would like for you to drive on EVERY road they maintain as long as they owe money on ANY road they maintain. Be honest, will they ever not have an open bond? No, why would they put themselves out of a job? I am 100% for paying a use tax to maintain the roads I travel. But when the OTA builds roads that they know will lose money for 30 years, do we really need a turnpike there? It's just greed and job security for the OTA.
I know some will say that turnpikes bring opportunities and commerce to areas where that wasn't possible because of existing infrastructure. However, building a road that you know will lose money is in our best interest and only possible because the rest of us just accept that we are going to get stuck with the bill.

Many of these toll roads are pork barrel. Put a toll road in my district and l'll vote for your larger road proposal. Look at the too road I35 up to Ada, Indian Nations an probably the Tulsa to Arkansas road.

The "cross pledge" is where this all goes south for me. The OTA can charge any fee they would like for you to drive on EVERY road they maintain as long as they owe money on ANY road they maintain. Be honest, will they ever not have an open bond? No, why would they put themselves out of a job? I am 100% for paying a use tax to maintain the roads I travel. But when the OTA builds roads that they know will lose money for 30 years, do we really need a turnpike there? It's just greed and job security for the OTA.
I know some will say that turnpikes bring opportunities and commerce to areas where that wasn't possible because of existing infrastructure. However, building a road that you know will lose money is in our best interest and only possible because the rest of us just accept that we are going to get stuck with the bill.

the voters of the state of Oklahoma voted to cross pledge the entire turnpike system