The Kickapoo turnpike from I 40 to SE 149th street, is now in the active design phase

The Kickapoo turnpike from I 40 to SE 149th street, is now in the active design phase

Good to hear - what is the timeline for starting construction?

https://pikeoffota.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/467e3cf6-ff29-4c72-a33c-9fa3994b3a0f-OK_turnpike_home_purchase2-01.webp

It still seems like it would have worked better for the metro traffic balance to remain more north/south, and meet I-40 near where I-240 branches off from it. Thus relives traffic from I-35 from those on east side of Noman to downtown OKC. If built like this that adds like eight-nine more miles, so will continue to push people to take I-35 unless check map and see it is severely backed up.

I’ve said the same repeatedly, and to ODOT. We get this mess.

This should get a lot of thru truck traffic out away from 35 as I read somewhere that most trucks coming up I35 get on I44 and go NE through Tulsa and vice versa. Now it's not every truck no, but it's the majority apparently.

It still seems like it would have worked better for the metro traffic balance to remain more north/south, and meet I-40 near where I-240 branches off from it. Thus relives traffic from I-35 from those on east side of Noman to downtown OKC. If built like this that adds like eight-nine more miles, so will continue to push people to take I-35 unless check map and see it is severely backed up.

the inner NE loop that was killed in the 90's would have done wonders for the development and property values of the NE side ..

Was that the Sooner Rd route?

We don't need anymore turnpikes. Just make them regular highways. I refuse to pay anymore than I already do through taxes to drive on a road.

We don't need anymore turnpikes. Just make them regular highways. I refuse to pay anymore than I already do through taxes to drive on a road.

your taxes don't pay for any of the turnpikes .. that is the point .... your taxes would need to go up for them not to be turnpikes

your taxes don't pay for any of the turnpikes .. that is the point .... your taxes would need to go up for them not to be turnpikes
Sounds like we just don't need to build them then.

Sounds like we just don't need to build them then.

If you don't like them don't drive on them. Simple as that. Won't get any of your money that way.

We don't need anymore turnpikes. Just make them regular highways. I refuse to pay anymore than I already do through taxes to drive on a road.

And then in 15 years when you complain about Traffic on I-35. you can wonder why these were never built.

And then in 15 years when you complain about Traffic on I-35. you can wonder why these were never built.

Not worried about traffic. I am concerned with the cost to drive on a road that I feel like we don’t need. I will sit in traffic to not pay to drive on a road. Been doing it for 40 years.

Not worried about traffic. I am concerned with the cost to drive on a road that I feel like we don’t need. I will sit in traffic to not pay to drive on a road. Been doing it for 40 years.

Quit being obtuse. You pay for the road you drive on and will sit on, just through taxes.

Not worried about traffic. I am concerned with the cost to drive on a road that I feel like we don’t need. I will sit in traffic to not pay to drive on a road. Been doing it for 40 years.

you pay for both of them. one you pay for even if you don't drive on it. But cool. so you don't want them. but guess what. many of us do. So unless you want to provide good actual reasons as to why they shouldn't exist, then we already know your opinion. no reason to hear the same single line over and over again. we get it, you don't want them built.

Quit being obtuse. You pay for the road you drive on and will sit on, just through taxes.

I said that already. lol, I love how easy you guys get triggered.

Let's please have a rational and kind discussion.

This is getting unnecessarily angry (not pointing the finger at any one person) and let's not go down that road. It's just turnpikes.

The State of Oklahoma has the authority to turn I-35 and I-40 into turnpikes. I wish they would, then there would be no quandary of whether its worth it to drive on a "free" or toll interstate road - you are paying to drive on an interstate road so you might as well drive the most direct and fastest route so out-of-state traffic can clear the OKC area as fast as possible and not be tempted to drive through the city to avoid a toll. If out-of-state traffic wants to avoid the toll, then they can avoid driving through the state altogether - thus relieving some of the traffic in the State. The State could lower the State excise gas tax a little to make the amount of State tax income break-even. Locals who don't drive interstates at all essentially get a tax cut and those who actually use the roads actually pay for them.

The State of Oklahoma has the authority to turn I-35 and I-40 into turnpikes. I wish they would, then there would be no quandary of whether its worth it to drive on a "free" or toll interstate road - you are paying to drive on an interstate road so you might as well drive the most direct and fastest route so out-of-state traffic can clear the OKC area as fast as possible and not be tempted to drive through the city to avoid a toll. If out-of-state traffic wants to avoid the toll, then they can avoid driving through the state altogether - thus relieving some of the traffic in the State. The State could lower the State excise gas tax a little to make the amount of State tax income break-even. Locals who don't drive interstates at all essentially get a tax cut and those who actually use the roads actually pay for them.

While I don't like this idea, I will say there is a clear difference of traveling I-35 in Kansas along the Kansas Turnpike compared to the "free" I-35 in Oklahoma. I-35 is a major corridor from San Antonio all the way to Minneapolis for commerce and there isn't really another quality north/south route that would be a good use of time to save a few bucks, and I don't think a toll on either of these roads (I35 and I40) would divert much cross country traffic as I-70 and I-20 are quite far away from I40.

Do I sigh paying $5.00 one way every time I go to Tulsa on the Turner Turnpike, sure? But I'll pay that $5 for convenience over taking the two-lane 55mph twisty road of Route 66 the entire length from Edmond to Sapulpa.

Toll roads are just going to become more common due to technology and the "green movement" to make people pay for their carbon. The only limiting reason against turnpikes: "booths in the middle of the road" is now gone.

The State of Oklahoma has the authority to turn I-35 and I-40 into turnpikes.

I don't believe that this is accurate

Toll roads are just going to become more common due to technology and the "green movement" to make people pay for their carbon. The only limiting reason against turnpikes: "booths in the middle of the road" is now gone.

Not really their carbon, it's to pay for their upkeep. With EVs, they aren't paying gas tax like a carbon-based vehicle, so that revenue is going to keep going away... something will have to give. We won't be able to afford these road networks when the gas tax tanks...

Not really their carbon, it's to pay for their upkeep. With EVs, they aren't paying gas tax like a carbon-based vehicle, so that revenue is going to keep going away... something will have to give. We won't be able to afford these road networks when the gas tax tanks...

EVs still pay taxes. They pay an Electric Fee when they renew their license plates.

nm

I think what is more likely is they will make a 3rd express lane that is tolled with i35 and i40

I think what is more likely is they will make a 3rd express lane that is tolled with i35 and i40

Agreed, at least through the metro which would greatly improve traffic flow and address how to pay for it.

Seems highly unlikely, especially through the metro, given ODOT’s past comments about I-35 already being as wide as it can be.

I think what is more likely is they will make a 3rd express lane that is tolled with i35 and i40

seems like an addition HOV / toll lane is likely


Seems highly unlikely, especially through the metro, given ODOT’s past comments about I-35 already being as wide as it can be.

that of course is not correct .. no matter if they say it or not ..

see west of houston .. I10 expansion ...

With the state going away from cash tolls, when will we see the demo of the old cash toll plazas? I am not sure in other states like Texas that went cashless before us what those look like now. I would guess with an expansion, they would be taken out to allow space, but that's not going to happen everywhere.

Seems highly unlikely, especially through the metro, given ODOT’s past comments about I-35 already being as wide as it can be.


Elevated or dug out below the grade. See express lanes along stretches of US75 and I635 in Dallas. We use the 635 express lanes below the grade in Dallas all the time. It's a four-lane tollway underneath.

I don't believe that this is accurate

While partially correct, that statement gives you a false impression. ODOT could ADD toll lanes to existing roads just as what's been done in the DFW area. They can't just slap toll gates on existing lanes.

I think we all know that kind of stuff is possible. But, my questions are the cost and traffic counts that make something like that worth it? I think OKC has enough highways and right of way already that make that kind of expenditure unnecessary for at least 50 years.

I think we all know that kind of stuff is possible. But, my questions are the cost and traffic counts that make something like that worth it? I think OKC has enough highways and right of way already that make that kind of expenditure unnecessary for at least 50 years.

I don’t think anyone is advocating for this to be used all over the city or even suggesting that it be done. I will say there is roughly 5 miles on I/35/235 that would greatly benefit from it and would be totally worth it even for just 5 miles. Same with I40. Does it need to be 10 on each to make it worthwhile and profitable maybe so but somewhere in between would dramatically reduce congestion and provide a path to paying for it.

I don’t think anyone is advocating for this to be used all over the city or even suggesting that it be done. I will say there is roughly 5 miles on I/35/235 that would greatly benefit from it and would be totally worth it even for just 5 miles. Same with I40. Does it need to be 10 on each to make it worthwhile and profitable maybe so but somewhere in between would dramatically reduce congestion and provide a path to paying for it.

Plutonic Panda would disagree! 10, 12, 14 lanes!

Plutonic Panda would disagree! 10, 12, 14 lanes!

LOL I mean you have a point there but there is a difference between playing SIMS and what can be reasonably be expected. LOL

Access oklahoma just Added 57 additional construction eprojects

Can you share links or details? I explored the site and didn’t find 57 additional projects.

EVs still pay taxes. They pay an Electric Fee when they renew their license plates.

I believe the fee for my MINI is $110/year. Apparently there's also a tax on public chargers, but I don't pay that because I charge at home 99% of the time.

I believe the fee for my MINI is $110/year. Apparently there's also a tax on public chargers, but I don't pay that because I charge at home 99% of the time.

Look for that fee to gradually increase as states try to recouperate dropping gasoline taxes.

They didn't say I-35 couldn't be expanded, just that it would be extremely expensive because they would have to buy up a lot of land. It's going to have to get done, or we're going to have to stack the interstate in some way. It's getting stupid full. 44 from 240 up to the Hefner split needs more room too, but similar problem for the section north of 40.

The trick is to avoid taking I-35 during rush hour ;)

Look for that fee to gradually increase as states try to recouperate dropping gasoline taxes.

They'll likely gradually increase as more people buy electric vehicles. Although, it will probably increase faster than the gas tax because it only takes a 50% majority to raise the fee and would take 2/3s to raise the gas tax.

Does anyone know why I-35 was constructed to jump on I-40 to then go east to continue on I-35? Why would they not track I-35 to the East starting around SE 29th and continue along Trosper property before connecting to that section of I-35?

Have to think that would help both I-40 and I-35 in that area.

Does anyone know why I-35 was constructed to jump on I-40 to then go east to continue on I-35? Why would they not track I-35 to the East starting around SE 29th and continue along Trosper property before connecting to that section of I-35?

Have to think that would help both I-40 and I-35 in that area.

That may go back to the legislature did not want I-35 to be more than around a mile from the highway it was replacing in Oklahoma (US 77) where practical to do so. South of OKC downtown it seems that was clearly possible, north of I-40 77 was basically replaced by I-235 & Broadway Extension, so was a more complex/expensive build that did not fully happen at interstate standards till decades later.

Also the Grand Boulevard loop was basically how far OKC proper was built out pre freeways. So our inner loop now, was basically routing traffic around the entire city at the time. Plus traffic count of highways replaced by I-40/I-35 at time of construction would pale in comparison of what either handle today.

Toll roads are just going to become more common due to technology and the "green movement" to make people pay for their carbon. The only limiting reason against turnpikes: "booths in the middle of the road" is now gone.

Turnpikes have nothing to do with carbon tax. It has to do with states not raising gas taxes enough to pay for all of their roads.

Look for that fee to gradually increase as states try to recouperate dropping gasoline taxes.

All cars should go to tax based on miles and weight of vehicle. Gas taxes have basically stayed flat for decades as fuel economy, car weight, and inflation have all gone way up. Charging a flat fee on EVs is really not the best way to try to recoup some of the losses.

Can you share links or details? I explored the site and didn’t find 57 additional projects.

(Crickets)

All cars should go to tax based on miles and weight of vehicle. Gas taxes have basically stayed flat for decades as fuel economy, car weight, and inflation have all gone way up. Charging a flat fee on EVs is really not the best way to try to recoup some of the losses.

As was mentioned earlier, it would take a 2/3 vote to raise or implement a tax. Fat chance of 2/3 in OK or most states.

As was mentioned earlier, it would take a 2/3 vote to raise or implement a tax. Fat chance of 2/3 in OK or most states.

There wasn't a 2/3 vote to tax EVs extra.

Is it a "tax" or a "fee"?

Can you share links or details? I explored the site and didn’t find 57 additional projects.

https://www.accessoklahoma.com/_files/ugd/7181a5_8f38f8784682446795691499676eb7d7.pdf

3rd paragraph

https://www.accessoklahoma.com/_files/ugd/7181a5_8f38f8784682446795691499676eb7d7.pdf

3rd paragraph

Thanks!

I know they have been doing a lot of survey work along indian hills, as i have personally seen this. but i heard a rumor this morning that the OTA is expected to have an updated route and renderings of the East-West corridor from I-44 to just past Sooner Rd, ready to show in October? has anyone else heard this?

https://www.citynewsokc.com/news/analysis-norman-says-no-to-toll-roads/article_ecbdb3c2-2d8e-11ef-8722-9b4e67b034ab.html

...No studies had been done at the time to prove a "public need" that justified a governmental exercise of eminent domain, and indeed, to this day (July 27, 2024), over two years later, not a single study has been attempted to justify Governor Kevin Stitt's heavy-handed approach in using the OTA to satisfy his toll road ambitions.

In 2023 AG Drummond requested an audit of OTA by the State Auditor, Byrd. Audit still pending

Now comes Norman Ward 5 City Councilperson Michael Nash with what could be a true turnpike stopper. His "RESOLUTION TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE LAKE THUNDERBIRD WATERSHED, THE CANADIAN RIVER CORRIDOR, THE CITY’S DRINKING WATER SUPPLY, AND THE CITY’S FLOOD HAZARD AREAS" leaves few stones unturned.

The resolution uses the law as its foundation, starting with 11 OK Stat § 37-115, which states, in part, "No person, firm, partnership, or corporation, or any of the partners, officers, managers, or employees thereof, shall pollute or permit the pollution of the water supply of a municipality, or any stream, pond, spring, lake, or other water reservoir or groundwater aquifer, which is used or which is being held for use as a water supply by a municipality. A municipality may bring an action in the district court to enjoin any activity that will cause pollution of the water supply of a municipality whether or not such activity is regulated, licensed, or inspected."

That's it, and since the OTA pollutes everything it touches, it should be a no-brainer. Using this foundation, it is clear to see that powers have been given to Cities to control what happens to their water supply. The old saw that "State trumps city" falls apart under this sort of scrutiny. This time, City trumps the State.

As if that weren't enough, the resolution goes on to cite the City’s Flood Hazard Ordinance, Water Quality Protection Zone Ordinance, the Oklahoma Floodplain Management Act, and the National Pollutant Discharge System Stormwater Program, Phase II MS Compliance. If enacted by the City Council, this could be a true turnpike stopper.



Years, if ever away.

https://www.citynewsokc.com/news/analysis-norman-says-no-to-toll-roads/article_ecbdb3c2-2d8e-11ef-8722-9b4e67b034ab.html

...No studies had been done at the time to prove a "public need" that justified a governmental exercise of eminent domain, and indeed, to this day (July 27, 2024), over two years later, not a single study has been attempted to justify Governor Kevin Stitt's heavy-handed approach in using the OTA to satisfy his toll road ambitions.

In 2023 AG Drummond requested an audit of OTA by the State Auditor, Byrd. Audit still pending

Now comes Norman Ward 5 City Councilperson Michael Nash with what could be a true turnpike stopper. His "RESOLUTION TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE LAKE THUNDERBIRD WATERSHED, THE CANADIAN RIVER CORRIDOR, THE CITY’S DRINKING WATER SUPPLY, AND THE CITY’S FLOOD HAZARD AREAS" leaves few stones unturned.

The resolution uses the law as its foundation, starting with 11 OK Stat § 37-115, which states, in part, "No person, firm, partnership, or corporation, or any of the partners, officers, managers, or employees thereof, shall pollute or permit the pollution of the water supply of a municipality, or any stream, pond, spring, lake, or other water reservoir or groundwater aquifer, which is used or which is being held for use as a water supply by a municipality. A municipality may bring an action in the district court to enjoin any activity that will cause pollution of the water supply of a municipality whether or not such activity is regulated, licensed, or inspected."

That's it, and since the OTA pollutes everything it touches, it should be a no-brainer. Using this foundation, it is clear to see that powers have been given to Cities to control what happens to their water supply. The old saw that "State trumps city" falls apart under this sort of scrutiny. This time, City trumps the State.

As if that weren't enough, the resolution goes on to cite the City’s Flood Hazard Ordinance, Water Quality Protection Zone Ordinance, the Oklahoma Floodplain Management Act, and the National Pollutant Discharge System Stormwater Program, Phase II MS Compliance. If enacted by the City Council, this could be a true turnpike stopper.



Years, if ever away.

lol no .. nash is a clown .. and that resolution even if passed .. doesn't do anything ..

https://www.citynewsokc.com/news/analysis-norman-says-no-to-toll-roads/article_ecbdb3c2-2d8e-11ef-8722-9b4e67b034ab.html

...No studies had been done at the time to prove a "public need" that justified a governmental exercise of eminent domain, and indeed, to this day (July 27, 2024), over two years later, not a single study has been attempted to justify Governor Kevin Stitt's heavy-handed approach in using the OTA to satisfy his toll road ambitions.

In 2023 AG Drummond requested an audit of OTA by the State Auditor, Byrd. Audit still pending

Now comes Norman Ward 5 City Councilperson Michael Nash with what could be a true turnpike stopper. His "RESOLUTION TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE LAKE THUNDERBIRD WATERSHED, THE CANADIAN RIVER CORRIDOR, THE CITY’S DRINKING WATER SUPPLY, AND THE CITY’S FLOOD HAZARD AREAS" leaves few stones unturned.

The resolution uses the law as its foundation, starting with 11 OK Stat § 37-115, which states, in part, "No person, firm, partnership, or corporation, or any of the partners, officers, managers, or employees thereof, shall pollute or permit the pollution of the water supply of a municipality, or any stream, pond, spring, lake, or other water reservoir or groundwater aquifer, which is used or which is being held for use as a water supply by a municipality. A municipality may bring an action in the district court to enjoin any activity that will cause pollution of the water supply of a municipality whether or not such activity is regulated, licensed, or inspected."

That's it, and since the OTA pollutes everything it touches, it should be a no-brainer. Using this foundation, it is clear to see that powers have been given to Cities to control what happens to their water supply. The old saw that "State trumps city" falls apart under this sort of scrutiny. This time, City trumps the State.

As if that weren't enough, the resolution goes on to cite the City’s Flood Hazard Ordinance, Water Quality Protection Zone Ordinance, the Oklahoma Floodplain Management Act, and the National Pollutant Discharge System Stormwater Program, Phase II MS Compliance. If enacted by the City Council, this could be a true turnpike stopper.



Years, if ever away.

It's not an "old saw", it's (unfortunately) the way OK works, it's a Dillon Rule state, the state can do pretty much whatever it wants if it decides it wants to badly enough (again, unfortunately).

It's not an "old saw", it's (unfortunately) the way OK works, it's a Dillon Rule state, the state can do pretty much whatever it wants if it decides it wants to badly enough (again, unfortunately).
This particular statute though was written while also a Dillon rule state. So there is that.
This scheme was stopped in 1999 so no reason to think it can't be stopped again.
This deal was cooked up by Stitt with no justification studies.

I can understand the E/W connector that will eventually cross the river and connect to the Kickapoo but the other portion that starts in Purcell and then through Noble and east Norman makes no sense to me. The E/W connector, if built can take truck traffic out of OKC just as well as the outer loop can.

https://www.citynewsokc.com/news/analysis-norman-says-no-to-toll-roads/article_ecbdb3c2-2d8e-11ef-8722-9b4e67b034ab.html

...No studies had been done at the time to prove a "public need" that justified a governmental exercise of eminent domain, and indeed, to this day (July 27, 2024), over two years later, not a single study has been attempted to justify Governor Kevin Stitt's heavy-handed approach in using the OTA to satisfy his toll road ambitions.

*this is not necessarily addressing you, J B, but a general question)

Was there ever a study of "public need" done before they built the Kilpatrick? Now look at it's "need."

There are probably hundreds of posts across this board of people complaining about how no one in this state ever tries to look forward, to anticipate growth, to plan ahead. Now, when a time comes that someone tries to do this by creating a long term hiway plan, setting hiway routes and building routes "as needed" people complain about it - accusing said people of corruption, pet projects and greed.

Wow! What if our leaders had looked forward 50 years ago, planned and implemented a long-term hiway plan where - instead of building it 1/4 way to Arkansas, the Kickapoo had been built closer-in. A long defunct proposal was to make Sooner Rd an East Outer Loop. Imagine if that had been implemented and a nice hiway built back then up Sooner Rd or Air Depot or Hiwassee Rd?

Is some of the opposition to the current plan simply because some of you don't like Stitt?

I can understand the E/W connector that will eventually cross the river and connect to the Kickapoo but the other portion that starts in Purcell and then through Noble and east Norman makes no sense to me. The E/W connector, if built can take truck traffic out of OKC just as well as the outer loop can.

The portion running from Purcell and east of Norman will take tons of truck traffic off of I-35

The idea that it would be stopped simply because it crosses waterways is not going to "hold water" folks. Sorry, couldn't resist.

This can absolutely be built in a way that allows the flood/watershed/etc all to be protected. Roads are built across the country every day that do that. It's honestly, not difficult to do. Were doing it right now with interstate construction all over the state. Simply doing construction doesn't create pollution. The intent of that rule is to prevent people from dumping hazardous materials in water ways. But we've already seen the state is willing to protect chicken/pig farms from being prosecuted by even their own AG to protect from their waste run off. If the state is fighting itself, what do you think they're going to do to listen to a few residents in a sparsely populated area that would relieve massive amounts of congestion on 35/40?

It may take longer folks, but like has been said all along, its just delaying the inevitable. It's gonna happen, and frankly, it's needed. If the residents in the area weren't trying to spread so much disinformation, they would have helped their case more. Honestly, they didn't make many friends/supporters along the way. And Norman...no, the city is not going to win against the state. It may just be the next governor that gets it done.