Access Oklahoma Turnpike Projects

[bombermwc]

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.

[bombermwc]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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. ..

[cinnamonjock]

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.

[mugofbeer]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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 .

[Snowman]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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-tur...begins-sept-3/

[PM1]

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-tur...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.

[TornadoKegan]

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

[Hollywood]

If Ikea is wanting to move to Norman they should build it in Edmond or Moore. They are more friendly to business

Oh how I wish. Edmond needs something unique but it will just continue to be cookie cutter losing out of the tax revenue to support the growth.

[cinnamonjock]

The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority revealed it will not build frontage roads or other amenities within Norman, following the city council’s rejection of ACCESS Oklahoma.

https://www.oudaily.com/news/access-...1355462bb.html

[BoulderSooner]

https://www.oudaily.com/news/access-...1355462bb.html

once again these are not serious people

In a press release from Aug. 28, Randy Carter, Pike Off OTA director of strategic communications, wrote that Norman legally cannot be excluded from the ACCESS Oklahoma planning process.

Pike Off OTA is a non-profit organization designed to prevent OTA expansion.

“OTA cannot legally withdraw its cooperation or refuse to provide access roads or other infrastructure necessary to integrate new toll roads into the transportation architecture of the city,” Carter wrote. “By rejecting OTA’s proposed ‘cooperation resolution,’ the City of Norman affirms its right to self-determination and refuses to subordinate its own interests in the building process."

[The]

Cutting off their nose to spite their face. Brilliant!

[jedicurt]

Yep. they basically just put the dime for when those need to be built in the future back on the citizens of norman solely... So now it's a matter of they get built, with less access and then when the access is wanted, it will cost the people of norman even more

[BoulderSooner]

Yep. they basically just put the dime for when those need to be built in the future back on the citizens of norman solely... So now it's a matter of they get built, with less access and then when the access is wanted, it will cost the people of norman even more

exactly

[CaptDave]

Yep. they basically just put the dime for when those need to be built in the future back on the citizens of norman solely... So now it's a matter of they get built, with less access and then when the access is wanted, it will cost the people of norman even more

For sure - there is an element in Norman that doesn't want anything to ever change or any development at all. It is ridiculous and short sighted NIMBYISM at its worst. I strongly believe we should enforce high standards for smart development. The watershed concerns are legitimate and there should be an intensive environmental review of the proposed route and enforce mitigation of negative impacts.

I understand the position of people in the right of way whose homes will be impacted, but no one ever guaranteed an unobstructed or unchanging view for any property. The tambourine clanging and drum circle chats will only hurt Norman in the long run and these groups are being joined by people who wouldn't care if the turnpike wasn't going through or near their land.

[BoulderSooner]

The watershed concerns are legitimate

.

except they are not ..

they were just the next thing .. after court losses ..

[CaptDave]

except they are not ..

they were just the next thing .. after court losses ..

Sure.

[Snowman]

“OTA cannot legally withdraw its cooperation or refuse to provide access roads or other infrastructure necessary to integrate new toll roads into the transportation architecture of the city,” Carter wrote. “By rejecting OTA’s proposed ‘cooperation resolution,’ the City of Norman affirms its right to self-determination and refuses to subordinate its own interests in the building process."

I get the feeling Pike Off's statements about law/statues/codes should be looked at with skepticism.

It seems questionable how their claim about access roads or other infrastructure could plausible be correct, most of the Kilpatrick turnpike in OKC does not have service roads and none of Creek turnpike in Tulsa's metro has them. With anything outside of those metros even less likely to have service roads. If cities had so much control in the process, there likely would not have been as many mile grid streets without entry/exit ramps around OKC/Tulsa, and more than eight miles with service roads.

[PistolChad]

The Pike Off people did exactly what the OTA wanted them to do - have Norman get NOTHING back in return for building the turnpike.

Had Norman negotiated with OTA in access roads, etc. - it would have extended the time for planning to build the turnpike. Instead because Norman is choosing to not be involved AT ALL, OTA can now move at a much faster pace to get the turnpike built. When you don't have any partners to work with, things go much much faster.

[vaflyer]

OTA has said they plan on building out the East-West Turnpike's connection with I-35 over time (not immediately), just like the Hefner Freeway's connection with the Kilpatrick Turnpike. To do so, the OTA needs access roads along the East-West turnpike if the OTA wants to have any connections with I-35 in the interim. Also, what happens with the Indian Hills Road interchange if there are no access roads? Is the interchange deleted from I-35? If so, there would be a four mile gap between 19th St. and Tecumseh, which would be a traffic nightmare for Norman and Moore. I think the Pike Off people are having a temper tantrum which is causing paralysis in the Norman City Government, but I also think OTA is NOT being truthful with the city because they cannot build out their plan for the East-West Turnpike without access roads at the I-35 junction.

[BoulderSooner]

OTA has said they plan on building out the East-West Turnpike's connection with I-35 over time (not immediately), just like the Hefner Freeway's connection with the Kilpatrick Turnpike. To do so, the OTA needs access roads along the East-West turnpike if the OTA wants to have any connections with I-35 in the interim. Also, what happens with the Indian Hills Road interchange if there are no access roads? Is the interchange deleted from I-35? If so, there would be a four mile gap between 19th St. and Tecumseh, which would be a traffic nightmare for Norman and Moore. I think the Pike Off people are having a temper tantrum which is causing paralysis in the Norman City Government, but I also think OTA is NOT being truthful with the city because they cannot build out their plan for the East-West Turnpike without access roads at the I-35 junction.

the interchange with I35 is currently in design and is NOT a future project ..

[BoulderSooner]

The Pike Off people did exactly what the OTA wanted them to do - have Norman get NOTHING back in return for building the turnpike.

Had Norman negotiated with OTA in access roads, etc. - it would have extended the time for planning to build the turnpike. Instead because Norman is choosing to not be involved AT ALL, OTA can now move at a much faster pace to get the turnpike built. When you don't have any partners to work with, things go much much faster.

this also saves the OTA a bunch of money ..

[BoulderSooner]

Sure.

reread this thread ... look at online articles ... watershed concerns are just now part of any east west connector talk ..

they came up on the south extension after some early court losses .. (and even those are not really valid) ..

it is just another delay tactic that will fail ..