I don't think you realize how many also use the spur near riverwind. the section of this highway that is absolutely needed and going to have a huge impact is the bridge across the river and connecting 44 to 35.

thinking this is being built because of indian hills traffic alone is laughable. the extension from 35 to the far side of norman needs to include robinson and techemseh traffic counts as well. because most going from 35 to sooner, will probably use this over those routes now.

Do you think the future Sooner Road and EWC intersection will just be fields and trees forever? Within 10 years of this turnpike being built it will look just like I-35 and Robinson. And the commuters will be back to the same commute time if not worse because now more folks are using I-35 to get downtown. No one is going to give themselves a 16 mile detour and use it all the way to I-40.

Do you think the future Sooner Road and EWC intersection will just be fields and trees forever? Within 10 years of this turnpike being built it will look just like I-35 and Robinson. And the commuters will be back to the same commute time if not worse because now more folks are using I-35 to get downtown. No one is going to give themselves a 16 mile detour and use it all the way to I-40.

Do you really think they aren't already going to develop in the next 10-20 years and there just won't be any form of infrastructure to support it if we don't do this? You do realize that development is already happening, and traffic will come and if we don't build for that traffic now, we will have to play catchup later. It's all going to just get worse. or are you under the assumption that if this isn't built, that no development is ever going to happen along these routes?

Well seeing that the parcels to SE and SW of the intersection are owned by Shaz Investments it is certain that homes will be built. How much they make just depends on whether the EWC are built. As it stands much of the area is the urban fringe because travel times are too long.

Im not ant-growth but pro smart-growth. Its much better for cities to focus on infill and take advantage of existing infrastructure instead of falling into the growth ponzi-scheme. Some folks certainly want to live in suburbs and thats okay. But as current land use and transportation policy stand it is essentially the only option.

But it will, very quickly. Why do you speak in absolutes all the time? Or seem to think that OKC's done growing?

Or maybe you think that traffic won't be a problem in your lifetime, so why should you care?

I am very much pro growth and planning for the future .. so that we continue to not have traffic .. so I am very much for these projects

And if you think Semis will I will just say "Texas SH-130")

tons of truck traffic will take the kickapoo from I35 to I44 and by pass OKC .. it will be about 10 miles shorter with less traffic ..

tons of truck traffic will take the kickapoo from I35 to I44 and by pass OKC .. it will be about 10 miles shorter with less traffic ..

Long haulers coming from Dallas going to Tulsa and beyond use US-69. It is about 60 miles shorter with less traffic.

Eastbound freight traffic from Dallas uses I-30 to meet I-40 in Little Rock. These turnpikes may help all the semi truck traffic coming from Purcell and Wynnewood I guess.

Northbound I-35 freight wont use it if its cost more than a few dollars. Once again look at SH-130 which bypasses I-35 in Austin.

Long haulers coming from Dallas going to Tulsa and beyond use US-69. It is about 60 miles shorter with less traffic.

Eastbound freight traffic from Dallas uses I-30 to meet I-40 in Little Rock. These turnpikes may help all the semi truck traffic coming from Purcell and Wynnewood I guess.

Northbound I-35 freight wont use it if its cost more than a few dollars. Once again look at SH-130 which bypasses I-35 in Austin.

No wonder no one ever comes to OKC. They'd rather take the scenic route through east Texas or Muskogee and Durant...

I am very much pro growth and planning for the future .. so that we continue to not have traffic .. so I am very much for these projects

If that were the case you wouldnt want to incentivize further single family, Euclidean zoning, and car dependency. You would pushing for the state to invest in transit and mixed use developments so that traffic is not an issue 20 years down the line.


No wonder no one ever comes to OKC. They'd rather take the scenic route through east Texas or Muskogee and Durant...

I forgot to consider visitors to OKC would use the OKC bypass to get OKC:p

Once again look at SH-130 which bypasses I-35 in Austin.

Traffic Counts for 130 north of the Austin airport are 55,000 per day. that's 1/3rd the traffic of I-35 per day... someone is using it. and the 183 toll road is 46,000 per day. so there are 100,000 a day avoiding a road that has traffic counts of around 160,000 a day once you get out of downtown Austin.

heck, you get all the way up to Georgetown where they meet back up, so looking at people leaving Austin to Dallas, I35 in Georgetown is 93,000, 130 is 40,000. so it's going from about a 3rd of overall traffic to just shy of half (43%). so again, someone is using it.

tons of truck traffic will take the kickapoo from I35 to I44 and by pass OKC .. it will be about 10 miles shorter with less traffic ..

On a similar note, for those who travel to and from Joplin or St. Louis often and take the Will Roger's Turnpike to and from the Missouri State line into Tulsa, when you get to Tulsa do you stay on I-44 all the way through, or do you take the outer Creek Turnpike loop that takes you through south Broken Arrow and Jenks. The southern turnpike route is about 10 extra miles than just going on I-44 and about 10 extra minutes from the Catoosa split to Sapulpa split.

Even then, you are still going through large chunks of well developed south Tulsa metro with plenty of places to stop, shop, dine, etc.

The complete Kickapoo Turnpike route when completed from I-35 to I-44 appears that it will really bypass ALL of the OKC metro.

On a similar note, for those who travel to and from Joplin or St. Louis often and take the Will Roger's Turnpike to and from the Missouri State line into Tulsa, when you get to Tulsa do you stay on I-44 all the way through, or do you take the outer Creek Turnpike loop that takes you through south Broken Arrow and Jenks. The southern turnpike route is about 10 extra miles than just going on I-44 and about 10 extra minutes from the Catoosa split to Sapulpa split.

We frequently go through Tulsa to/from Michigan or other SW Missouri/NE Arkansas road trips, and the Creek is never faster. Even when I-44 has been under construction. We tried using the Creek a few times, but it's never made sense as a real bypass.

I travel back and forth from Missouri to OKC regularly. One time I made the mistake of trying the Creek turnpike. More just "to see it" than any other reason. Huge mistake. Took much longer than just going right through on I-44.

Eastbound freight traffic from Dallas uses I-30 to meet I-40 in Little Rock. These turnpikes may help all the semi truck traffic coming from Purcell and Wynnewood I guess.


I may have misunderstood, but are you trying to say that a trucker would purposely choose to go through Dallas instead, to avoid OKC? Last time i checked, I-20 coming from the west side of Dallas didn't come FROM anywhere. Yes it does tie in to I-10 wtf down in the armpit of Texas. But the more heavy traffic comes from LA via I-40.

We frequently go through Tulsa to/from Michigan or other SW Missouri/NE Arkansas road trips, and the Creek is never faster. Even when I-44 has been under construction. We tried using the Creek a few times, but it's never made sense as a real bypass.

If it didn't back track 10 miles maybe it would. That's why we need to build these OKC metro area turnpikes now and not wait 20 years and have weird routes.

Also, even though it does have an inefficient route, it does serve its purpose on getting vehicles off of the other interstates going through the Tulsa Metro.

I may have misunderstood, but are you trying to say that a trucker would purposely choose to go through Dallas instead, to avoid OKC? Last time i checked, I-20 coming from the west side of Dallas didn't come FROM anywhere. Yes it does tie in to I-10 wtf down in the armpit of Texas. But the more heavy traffic comes from LA via I-40.

No i am saying long haul trucks are not going to go up I-35 then east on I-40 which would give the bypass a reason to be built.

And you are right!
A lot of the traffic is east on I-40 which also wouldn't use this proposed bypass.

We frequently go through Tulsa to/from Michigan or other SW Missouri/NE Arkansas road trips, and the Creek is never faster. Even when I-44 has been under construction. We tried using the Creek a few times, but it's never made sense as a real bypass.

I agree. The problem with the Creek is that it goes so far out of the way while I44 basically continues its NW trajectory through the city.

The Kickapoo will be different as the Kickapoo's trajectory will pretty much stay parallel to I-35 up to the Turner. I hope one day the Kickapoo will continue north and west back over to I35.

I agree. The problem with the Creek is that it goes so far out of the way while I44 basically continues its NW trajectory through the city.

The Kickapoo will be different as the Kickapoo's trajectory will pretty much stay parallel to I-35 up to the Turner. I hope one day the Kickapoo will continue north and west back over to I35.

If it went north, it would be great if it could make it to at least the 77/I35 split just south of Guthrie and divert Semi-traffic that is going east to I-40. If you wanted to dream big, push it all the way to Stillwater and incorporate it somehow into the Cimarron Turnpike for a fully integrated system and secondary method to get to Tulsa.

Well one thing to consider is the port of Memphis. It's an intermodal hub right on I-40. I wonder how much of it comes our way instead of turning in Little Rock? If it's back and forth to Houston, then there are 3 other ways to go besides OKC.

Stay with me here, but what if this is just a part of the future vision to add another north side loop on the far northern side of Edmond at some point? If it continues past I-44 and then loops west, it could connect to 35. By the time that is built, 35 will be a parking lot and even going the extra miles, might be faster. How many trucks want to pay for that? I don't know. By then, they might all be electric and autonomous, so would they even care anymore? Hey, lots to think about.

If it went north, it would be great if it could make it to at least the 77/I35 split just south of Guthrie and divert Semi-traffic that is going east to I-40. If you wanted to dream big, push it all the way to Stillwater and incorporate it somehow into the Cimarron Turnpike for a fully integrated system and secondary method to get to Tulsa.

IIRC, the plan is to bend it west to meet I-35 just south of Seward Rd.

Well one thing to consider is the port of Memphis. It's an intermodal hub right on I-40. I wonder how much of it comes our way instead of turning in Little Rock? If it's back and forth to Houston, then there are 3 other ways to go besides OKC.

Stay with me here, but what if this is just a part of the future vision to add another north side loop on the far northern side of Edmond at some point? If it continues past I-44 and then loops west, it could connect to 35. By the time that is built, 35 will be a parking lot and even going the extra miles, might be faster. How many trucks want to pay for that? I don't know. By then, they might all be electric and autonomous, so would they even care anymore? Hey, lots to think about.

The bulk cargo that can come via river ports and large volumes come via interstate to OKC, is cheaper to send on to Tulsa and truck the shorter distance. At least some of the items like road salt and constructions materials had been noted to have been doing that for some time by one of OKC's public works staff years ago. Even items needed on 40 near the Oklahoma boarder is probably much cheaper from the port in Fort Smith.

If it went north, it would be great if it could make it to at least the 77/I35 split just south of Guthrie and divert Semi-traffic that is going east to I-40. If you wanted to dream big, push it all the way to Stillwater and incorporate it somehow into the Cimarron Turnpike for a fully integrated system and secondary method to get to Tulsa.
That is in the long term plan just not part of the Access Oklahoma plan. It would nice to see a connection across I-35 north of Waterloo for a freeway to connect with SH-74 which needs to be upgraded to a full freeway.

I don't think you realize how many also use the spur near riverwind. the section of this highway that is absolutely needed and going to have a huge impact is the bridge across the river and connecting 44 to 35.

thinking this is being built because of indian hills traffic alone is laughable. the extension from 35 to the far side of norman needs to include robinson and techemseh traffic counts as well. because most going from 35 to sooner, will probably use this over those routes now.
That entire spur and road connecting from I-35 to I-44 needs to be connected to the Kilpatrick somehow even if it requires taking homes and properties in Mustang. It was so short sighted to allow so much development and no ROW for a freeway connection. Eventually they should create a loop to connect it to I-40 around Mustang/Yukon area to support existing growth and allow for more.

IIRC, the plan is to bend it west to meet I-35 just south of Seward Rd.

According to what plan?

According to what plan?

Long-term aspiration is a better term to use. Access Oklahoma is a 15-year plan so we are looking at 2 decades before they consider doing that.

According to what plan?
OTA's long range plan and the Oklahoma legislators drafting a bill to create a corridor the OTA can build on in the future.

OTA's long range plan and the Oklahoma legislators drafting a bill to create a corridor the OTA can build on in the future.

Can this be found anywhere? I have my reasons for asking.

Can this be found anywhere? I have my reasons for asking.
Yes


HB 4088 allows the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority to construct and operate a toll turnpike at the
Oklahoma City Outer Loop expressway system north and west to I-35.
Prepared By: Keana Swadley

From HB4088 in 2022.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22%20SUPPORT%20DOCUMENTS/BILLSUM/House/HB4088%20INT%20BILLSUM.PDF

https://legiscan.com/OK/bill/HB4088/2022

This comes after Pike Off tried claiming that the OTA was never authorized by the state to construct a route through Norman but that claim was ultimately rejected by a judge.

As far as the long range plan from the OTA I will have to dig through their website and see if I can find it because I know I've seen it mentioned before along with some other routes that they have already been approved on and have yet to construct anything. It also mentioned how they would like to attempt to compress the plan from 15 years to 10 given the setbacks so if they could have most of these projects finished or completed by 2030-2033 they could start working on another bond measure by the late 2020s. Of course it wouldn't be mentioned for some time however I believe they announced Access Oklahoma right as the final projects of Driving Forward were wrapping up. I believe there still is a remanent of one of those projects U/C on I-44 in Tulsa but otherwise its mainly complete.

It would be nice to see it added to the Access Oklahoma plan but I am not sure how the OTA works exactly and if that is even possible.

Edit: I should mention this bill did not make it to a vote on the house floor. So it never happened. But I don't see why it wouldn't be pushed forward again in the future.

@PluPan - any update on that plan to move Flood to the right?

@PluPan - any update on that plan to move Flood to the right?
Well I’m not sure that ODOT has any official plan to do that. It was just that ODOT specifically noted that that was something a lot of people mentioned during the comment period they held for I-35 and frontage road improvements in the south OKC metro I believe specifically from Moore to Norman. I wouldn’t hold your breath on it happening anytime soon. I might be wrong but I think we’ll hear more within the next year or so. I think the main focus from ODOT will be frontage road improvements(converting them to one way from Moore to Norman) and coming up with longer term plans for I-35(added lanes, new interchange access at local roads, HOV lanes, moving Flood Ave. access to the right etc.).

And I tried to find the meeting on my phone but again the new ODOT Website is just horrible. I have to Get on my computer And see if I can find it easier on the website.

I guess Norman city council doesn't want to have an input on the turnpike design. Funny how they tabled the second resolution for 'further study'. Probably because they know they can't legally issue a moratorium?

https://kfor.com/news/local/norman-city-council-unanimously-rejects-proposal-to-partner-with-oklahoma-turnpike-authority/

I guess Norman city council doesn't want to have an input on the turnpike design. Funny how they tabled the second resolution for 'further study'. Probably because they know they can't legally issue a moratorium?

https://kfor.com/news/local/norman-city-council-unanimously-rejects-proposal-to-partner-with-oklahoma-turnpike-authority/

this is a classic cut off our nose to spite our face situation

Squeaky wheel gets the grease. A ton of anti-turnpike people went to and spoke at that meeting and I don't think there was anyone "pro-turnpike" there. An email from the mayor leaked with him saying the turnpike is inevitable so the norman city government should work with OTA on compromises and concessions. That made the ant-turnpike people really mad.

I'd hate to be on city council during all this. I suspect most of Norman is neutral to somewhat in favor of the new roads, but the people losing their homes are understandably upset and very vocal. There are also quite a few people who live nowhere near the turnpike that I think are basically the old-school, anti-development type of environmentalist.

The only compelling argument I've heard is that the money being used to fund the construction could better be spent on establishing the norman-edmond commuter rail line--especially if the primary goal is to reduce traffic on I-35.

this is a classic cut off our nose to spite our face situation

Looks that way. OTA trims back the amenities that were added for Norman. Says it will cut the access roads and trails.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2024/08/29/ota-norman-oklahoma-toll-road-opposition-frontage-roads/74985749007/

Looks that way. OTA trims back the amenities that were added for Norman. Says it will cut the access roads and trails.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2024/08/29/ota-norman-oklahoma-toll-road-opposition-frontage-roads/74985749007/

these once again are not serious people


Other residents argued against the resolution saying the city can still fight the toll road in court and be the first community to successfully stop the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority.

The only compelling argument I've heard is that the money being used to fund the construction could better be spent on establishing the norman-edmond commuter rail line--especially if the primary goal is to reduce traffic on I-35.

except this money couldn't be used for that this it Turnpike authority money not dept of transpiration money ...

except this money couldn't be used for that this it Turnpike authority money not dept of transpiration money ...

Which is silly that these are two separate departments at all.

Which is silly that these are two separate departments at all.

There would just be no turnpike or commuter rail.

Which is silly that these are two separate departments at all.

No, it's not silly - the OTA takes care of the turnpikes, ODOT takes care of not-turnpikes. Pretty sure that's the way every state that has toll roads operates.

No, it's not silly - the OTA takes care of the turnpikes, ODOT takes care of not-turnpikes. Pretty sure that's the way every state that has toll roads operates.

Agree to disagree, respectfully. I think there would be an efficiency with OTA falling under the ODOT umbrella and being able to create state-wide transportation planning within the same department.

Agree to disagree, respectfully. I think there would be an efficiency with OTA falling under the ODOT umbrella and being able to create state-wide transportation planning within the same department.

Yeah sure... but that notion is completely predicated on ODOT actually being efficient... at all. More likely the ineffectiveness of ODOT would spread throughout the OTA leaving all the state roads and projects in disrepair. Shared services models are great until the sharing gets too large and bureaucratic. If you were going to have one of these departments be in charge of a road project in your neighborhood, which one would you pick? or If you needed to drive in the snow/ ice, which agency's road would you prefer to drive on?

I know one can make the argument that funding is the reason why...I wouldn't disagree, but OTA is somewhat insulated from the ignorance of the elected leaders and their personal agendas in ways that ODOT isn't.

Agree to disagree, respectfully. I think there would be an efficiency with OTA falling under the ODOT umbrella and being able to create state-wide transportation planning within the same department.

Pretty sure OTA and ODOT coordinate (sometimes badly, yes) between them for projects. As I said, pretty sure every other state does it this way.

It probably would be more efficient if done the way you suggest, but that most likely doesn't happen anywhere and won't happen anywhere. Neither dept will give up their autonomy.

Which is silly that these are two separate departments at all.

OTA is a non-appropriated agency with a bonding authority that doesn't encumber ODOT or other state agencies.

Wow, keep fighting a winless fight and losing access roads as a result?! These citizens arent thinking very rationally. Not only do they lose nice new free access roads, they are also killing economic development opportunities that those access roads provide.

Wow, keep fighting a winless fight and losing access roads as a result?! These citizens arent thinking very rationally. Not only do they lose nice new free access roads, they are also killing economic development opportunities that those access roads provide.

Its a bluff I'm pretty sure. No access roads means smaller contracts for their friends in the Oklahoma Asphalt Pavement Association.

Not to mention the number of access points (homes, businesses, undeveloped land without other road access, dead end roads) that would need to be maintained would require them to build access roads anyways.

I've done a little reading on it and it appears the reason they are separate is due to how they are funded, which I suppose makes sense.

I think the east-west connector, at least form I-44 to I-35, is obvious. That area is going to fill in eventually anyway, and having those access roads built for free would be extremely valuable. I believe most of that area on the east side of the river is Norman city limits anyway.

Norman City Council could have made the best out of a situation they didn't want to be in, but instead they're refusing to play ball. Once it is all built, people will regret not coming to the table in good faith and getting the access roads, on and off ramps, and rec trails that would make these new turnpikes more tolerable.

Its a bluff I'm pretty sure. No access roads means smaller contracts for their friends in the Oklahoma Asphalt Pavement Association.

Not to mention the number of access points (homes, businesses, undeveloped land without other road access, dead end roads) that would need to be maintained would require them to build access roads anyways.

not really ... it would be like if OKC didn't want to play ball when the north okc turnpike was built ... memorial would have just stayed on one side of the new turnpike ..


i don't think this is a bluff in any way .. and this does NOTHING in stopping the turnpike from being built .

not really ... it would be like if OKC didn't want to play ball when the north okc turnpike was built ... memorial would have just stayed on one side of the new turnpike ..


i don't think this is a bluff in any way .. and this does NOTHING in stopping the turnpike from being built .
That's so dumb. They just cost themselves economic benefits and activity. This seems more like the OTA giving them the middle finger. It'll be funny to see all the new development pop up around Moore on the new service roads and these people figure out how to get there *gasp* they end up using the tollway.

Someone on another forum made a good point. This could potentially impact the proposed five stack at I-35. I will be very angry if that isn't built.

Pretty sure OTA and ODOT coordinate (sometimes badly, yes) between them for projects. As I said, pretty sure every other state does it this way.

It probably would be more efficient if done the way you suggest, but that most likely doesn't happen anywhere and won't happen anywhere. Neither dept will give up their autonomy.

People seem to have already forgotten that Tim Gatz ran both agencies a few months ago. There was a high level of coordination between the two agencies. OTA doesn't just go around looking for random turnpikes to build. The governors office/transportation secretary gives them direction.

The OTA and ODOT have been ran by the same person for many years. It's only been in the last year that it has been two people because the AG ruled it was not appropriate.
ODOT has even donated land to the OTA numerous times.
To say that the OTA is efficient however is a joke. The OTA is a ponzi scheme that only exists to issue new bonds to pay for it's old bonds. The OTA is shooting itself in the foot by not building access roads in Norman because those roads would drive more traffic to the turnpike and more tolls. The OTA doesn't care about that because they never want these roads to be actually paid for.

I'm not sure that I agree with that.

On the NE turnpike, there are zero frontage roads. But if you ask the people that live near there, that's the way they want it. They didn't want the road there in the first place, but at least that way, it's not spurring development changing the environment in the area they built in BECUASE it was rural. The exit at 23rd is on the road that was already the commercial hub, so there's no loss there.

I would say Norman is pretty similar. If the residents who already don't want the road, had frontages, it would do exactly as you said. It would spur development. I get the impression that Norman itself doesn't want frontage roads. And they're being as uncooperative as possible in the whole affair. So by not including them now, it means if anyone wants them later, it's on Norman's dime. And if you ask the residents that live near where it's going, i think they would say that they are totally fine with it being an "express" route from point to point with no exits.

You are correct that if there are more exist, then there would be more traffic in/out. But there is also a cost balance between building that access and then also now putting in all the pay-by-plate gear too. There really has to be quite a large amount of traffic on those ramps to make it worth it. Going west to I35, that might get you a good amount and then back to the exit. but I think an onramp in this area going east, well it's not a high volume direction for local traffic. Not many people going from rural north Norman to say, Shawnee and back. My guess is that their studies show that it's more the through traffic that they're focusing on and not planning to see much frontage traffic anyway.

I'm not sure that I agree with that.

On the NE turnpike, there are zero frontage roads. But if you ask the people that live near there, that's the way they want it. They didn't want the road there in the first place, but at least that way, it's not spurring development changing the environment in the area they built in BECUASE it was rural. The exit at 23rd is on the road that was already the commercial hub, so there's no loss there.

I would say Norman is pretty similar. If the residents who already don't want the road, had frontages, it would do exactly as you said. It would spur development. I get the impression that Norman itself doesn't want frontage roads. And they're being as uncooperative as possible in the whole affair. So by not including them now, it means if anyone wants them later, it's on Norman's dime. And if you ask the residents that live near where it's going, i think they would say that they are totally fine with it being an "express" route from point to point with no exits.

You are correct that if there are more exist, then there would be more traffic in/out. But there is also a cost balance between building that access and then also now putting in all the pay-by-plate gear too. There really has to be quite a large amount of traffic on those ramps to make it worth it. Going west to I35, that might get you a good amount and then back to the exit. but I think an onramp in this area going east, well it's not a high volume direction for local traffic. Not many people going from rural north Norman to say, Shawnee and back. My guess is that their studies show that it's more the through traffic that they're focusing on and not planning to see much frontage traffic anyway.

The OTA and ODOT have been ran by the same person for many years. It's only been in the last year that it has been two people because the AG ruled it was not appropriate.
ODOT has even donated land to the OTA numerous times.
To say that the OTA is efficient however is a joke. The OTA is a ponzi scheme that only exists to issue new bonds to pay for it's old bonds. The OTA is shooting itself in the foot by not building access roads in Norman because those roads would drive more traffic to the turnpike and more tolls. The OTA doesn't care about that because they never want these roads to be actually paid for.

they are not shooing themselves in the foot in any way ... they can't maintain non tolled access roads and with out the agreement with norman there would be no one to maintain them ..

norman will build those roads eventually ... and that will cause an extra headache for norman drivers. ..

I think they'll regret not having access roads on the east-west connector. That area is already pretty much predestined to be suburban (and where the rumored IKEA is going). However, Not having access roads and exits on the spur/north-south connector is appropriate. The Norman master plan wants that area to remain rural in character and I tend to agree. One thing I've noticed about Norman compared to OKC is you don't have to drive very long heading anywhere but North to be in the sticks, and I'm sure a lot of people like it that way.

I think they'll regret not having access roads on the east-west connector. That area is already pretty much predestined to be suburban (and where the rumored IKEA is going). However, Not having access roads and exits on the spur/north-south connector is appropriate. The Norman master plan wants that area to remain rural in character and I tend to agree. One thing I've noticed about Norman compared to OKC is you don't have to drive very long heading anywhere but North to be in the sticks, and I'm sure a lot of people like it that way.

I am cool with them not having access roads. There is already plenty of commercial space/land available. Leave it green.

I think they'll regret not having access roads on the east-west connector. That area is already pretty much predestined to be suburban (and where the rumored IKEA is going). However, Not having access roads and exits on the spur/north-south connector is appropriate. The Norman master plan wants that area to remain rural in character and I tend to agree. One thing I've noticed about Norman compared to OKC is you don't have to drive very long heading anywhere but North to be in the sticks, and I'm sure a lot of people like it that way.

this is correct ... the 2 or 3 miles both east and west of I35 will continue to grow either way .. access roads from western to sooner road would be very appropriate .

It is also arguable if lack of service roads would change development that much, I-40 does not have service roads anywhere west of I-35 in the metro. Business either as individuals or larger developments just build off the mile line roads, typical between the interstate and existing housing stock first, eventually on both sides of the road. Practically the only difference is sometimes the back/side might look a little nicer to effectively be a billboard for the freeway. Housing grew from edge of the exiting housing stock to the road inside the mile grid, some parts starting from 2-4 miles away, and then to the sides of both old and newer stock.

I’m not sure if this is part of the access Oklahoma project or not, But the SH-66 bridge over I-44 will be closed for up to a year for widening and reconstruction: https://kfor.com/news/local/i-44-turner-turnpike-widening-project-on-sh-66-in-wellston-begins-sept-3/

I’m not sure if this is part of the access Oklahoma project or not, But the SH-66 bridge over I-44 will be closed for up to a year for widening and reconstruction: https://kfor.com/news/local/i-44-turner-turnpike-widening-project-on-sh-66-in-wellston-begins-sept-3/

I-44 has a bridge over SH-66, not vice versa. Looks like they'll be able to keep the I-44 bridge open during widening, while closing SH-66 below.

I think they'll regret not having access roads on the east-west connector. That area is already pretty much predestined to be suburban (and where the rumored IKEA is going). However, Not having access roads and exits on the spur/north-south connector is appropriate. The Norman master plan wants that area to remain rural in character and I tend to agree. One thing I've noticed about Norman compared to OKC is you don't have to drive very long heading anywhere but North to be in the sticks, and I'm sure a lot of people like it that way.

I agree. there are 3 commercial developments going in north of the pike in between Santa Fe and Telephone, The Existing Indian Hills Rd is on the south side of the pike. This Behavior by the citizens is exactly why Moore got the Costco over Norman. And they want to complain about the Costco going to Moore. If Ikea is wanting to move to Norman they should build it in Edmond or Moore. They are more friendly to business