Platinum Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
Phase II, III, IV in FFY 25
I-35: OVER THE I-240 JCT. (PHASE II) RECONST INTERCHG.
09032(06) FFY 2025
OKLAHOMA Div. 4 IS035 0.500 Mi. Let 04/2025 $38,160,000.00
I-35 @ THE I-240 JCT (PHASE III) RECONST INTERCHG. SMC
09032(07) FFY 2025 90/10
OKLAHOMA Div. 4 IS035 0.500 Mi. Let 04/2025 $27,560,000.00
I-35 @ THE I-240 JCT (PHASE IV)RECONST INTERCHG
09032(08) FFY 2025
OKLAHOMA Div. 4 IS035 0.500 Mi. Let 04/2025 $27,560,000.00
VIP Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
Yeah im kinda pissed that they keep pushing this back.
Am i looking forward to the mess it's going to create, hecks no. But there always seems to be a reason to bump parts of this one. And hopefully they do a better job than they did with the first phase. That's the bumpiest new asphalt ive ever seen. And what's dumb is that you could see how it was going to be bumpy. They didn't grade the land smoothly and just laid the asphalt on top...so bump city you get. I can't believe someone didn't inspect this or if they did, allowed it to pass.
Participating Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
While we have differing opinions on the root causes of why Oklahoma road projects keep getting pushed or are constantly underfunded, Panda is correct about how ridiculously cheap and short sighted ODOT has been for decades. There's no excuse that this interchange...a major Interstate and an Urban Interstate loop inside the largest Metropolitan area in the State, has remained a basic cloverleaf since constructed the mid-late 1960s and here we are in 2022 and the reconstruction project keeps getting pushed and pushed further out. Everyone who drives or has ever driven in this area knows it is an extremely dangerous interchange as is, and was not designed to ever carry anywhere near the amount of traffic it does currently.
I know Panda loves 5 stacks and you can't drive more than a few miles anywhere in DFW without encountering one that's been around for some time or one that's under construction, but why has ODOT continually skimped on road projects and upgrades going back decades? Hell, I'd be ecstatic with a few 3-4 stacks at this point. To have only one phase of this project completed to date is ridiculous. It should have been upgraded during the I-35 widening project that began in 1989 and was completed a few years ago. All they have done in 50+ years is buy out and demolish the houses on the NW side of the interchange and build the EB 240 to SB 35 portion...the cheap portion with no bridges.
And it's not just this interchange. I-40/I-44 interchange is also ridiculous and outdated. You go from a 10 lane Interstate from the East down to a four lane for thru traffic WB because they were too cheap to rebuild or add lanes to the existing overpasses/bridges over I-44 when they reconstructed the I-40 Crosstown. I-44 N and S bound goes from 8 lanes to 4 as well and has for decades when they extended the old I-244 (currently I-44) north of I-40. That's why that interchange has been a dangerous bottleneck going back many years. Face it...it's the bridges/overpasses that cost the most and need the extra Right of Way. That's why ODOT just loves 1950's era Cloverleafs all those "Left Exits"...so they can build low budget at grade ramps with only a single bridge/overpass or none at all in some cases. Left exit's are fine when you're exiting on Business 40 to go into Clinton or El Reno, but not for two major Interstates carrying over 100,000 vehicles per day total inside a city as large as OKC.
While they're finally doing something about US75 and I-44 in Tulsa after all these years, when are they going to upgrade the BA and I-44 interchange that's massively outdated? How about an upgrade to I-35...maybe one of the busiest corridors for commercial trucking in the nation, in the area between the Ft. Smith junction and the I-44/I-35 Interchange? Other than reconfiguring the NE 23rd circle over I-35 a few years back, this 4 lane stretch of I-35 has remained virtually the same since it was constructed in the late 1950s. In fact, this was the first stretch of Interstate built in Oklahoma after passage of the Eisenhower Federal Highway Act of 1956. And you can tell by looking at the overpasses over 10th and 23rd how old it actually is.
And the OTA is not far behind when it comes to being cheap even though bonds and user tolls pay for those roads. Having no direct exit built in 1992 from Southbound US 77 to E.B. JKT was cheap and short sighted. Same with the Interchange of the JKT and the Lake Hefner Parkway. It's absurd that one must exit the JKT going Westbound to a traffic light, and then get on the LHP going southbound from there. Same going NB LHP to WB JKT. I know JKT didn't exist west of LHP when it was first constructed, but they always knew they were going to expand JKT Westbound and should have budgeted to reconfigure that interchange when they did the extension.
Ok...I'm done. Had to get that off my chest. Sorry I deviated away from the I-35/I-240 discussion in all that. Thank you.
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
All of it is spot on!Originally Posted by Video Expert
Participating Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
Video Expert, you hit the nail on the head! As much as I love five stacks I’d be more than thrilled to just see a 3 stack. This interchange is probably one of, if not the most, needed road project in the entire state.
Participating Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
A big reason is that federal transport dollars don't come to Oklahoma. For some reason, we don't get money the same way Texas does, or even in proportion. I don't know why that is, but it causes delays all the time.
VIP Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
I40/I35/I235 qualifies (barely) as a 3 stack and there is a 5 stack in NW OKC and a new 4 stack that should have been a 5 at I44/I235, but I agree wholeheartedly, as many freeway interchanges OKC has they should be better built.
I40/I44 is an embarrassment, right close to the main focal point of the city outside of downtown (ie Will Rogers World Airport/Fairgrounds area). Not that looks only matter but it does showcase ODOTs commitment to freeway development - especially when you consider this is in the state's largest city/metro area and capital city.
Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!
Participating Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
The problem is not that ODOT is cheap or underfunded. It is one of the highest-funded agencies in the state. It is that we let ALL of our roads fall to pieces across the state while we were building out downtown. There are stretches of highway across the state that is getting touched for the first time for anything other than patches since the 50s or 60s. Most of those roads are 2 lane highways that would render the towns inaccessible if they fall into disrepair. Those are much more pressing issues than the ugly but functional interchanges within OKC. Not to mention a lot more of those 2 lane roads with one or a couple of bridges can be built with the same money it would take for the right of way for an intercity project.
Participating Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
I'm not sure exactly how it works these days, but in the initial Interstate construction era, it was set up so that for every $1 the state contributes, they'd get $9 in federal money. If the current system works the same way, Texas would be getting a bunch of federal money from that simply because they have a larger tax base and are willing to spend more money. Some states also get that initial seed money from bonds, which isn't allowed in Oklahoma.
I think a better comparison is with Kansas, not Texas, since they have about the same land to cover, less population, but way better highways. What is Kansas doing but we're not? They have a higher gas tax, among other things.
I also think that at some point the culture at ODOT comes into play. It seems like they are not really hiring the best and brightest compared to other states. Money alone can't explain things why our road signs have screwed-up text centering, mismatched border radii of rounding, or using Type D arrows when the federal manual calls for Type A. Those aren't things that cost any extra money, just a click of a button to make a computer do it and/or doing five seconds worth of math. The lack of attention to detail on the things that are easy and free to get right makes it seem like ODOT is checked out and doesn't really care about the quality of the service they're providing.
VIP Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
North Texas isn't a great example because most of what they do these days is from tolls. All that 635 stuff happened because they were building the toll express underneath the free 635. The Georg Bush, North Dallas Tollway, etc......so before you go giving them all the credit, think about how little is put in to what is done from taxpayers. I'd say Texas is sucking hard as they haven't done any real projects for the regular free roads in a long time. Look how long it took to get it 6 lanes all the way through Denton. Working that road up to the 35 merge point (which is still dumb) has taken 30 years. 35 in Fort Worth has been going on for what seems like 30 years. There are some projects in the Houston area. But my point is people tend to look at Texas like they're doing everything right. They are struggling too. If we lived there, we'd be complaining about that traffic and the inadequate infrastructure and lack of good public transit as well. Some struggles, different scale.
In OK, we need a gas tax. And we've dug into this before, but we need a way to tax those that are electric for their use as well. As more cars move to hybrid and electric, OK has to rethink the whole concept or our funding for roads is going to majorly fall out.
Platinum Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
There's an electric vehicle fee when you do your registration.
VIP Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
agree about raising the gas tax in OK. I've said many times that the state could do it and raise money for roads/highway mtc but also for commuter bus/rail transit in the OKC metro area. I think they could raise it and still be the lowest in the region, but that boon would pay off huge.
as for electric cars, why do people think they aren't paying taxes. Realize to charge up an e-v there's tax associated with a home unit consumption and theres usually tax associated with a charging station. That tax may not be going to roads directly, but it's not like e vehicles aren't being taxed, in many cases - they're taxed moreso than gas particularly in a state like OK. Yes, it is generally cheaper to charge an e-v as opposed to gasoline but that's the whole point; e-v's shouldn't be penalized unnecessarily when it's really the gas tax itself that needs to be increased along with a possible road/rail/transit specific mileage tax for e-v's rather than the current, arbitrary electric vehicle fee.
Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!
Participating Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
This post x1000!
Every time I am in Kansas I am impressed with their road network.
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
It’s a lot a money problem. Fuel taxes in Kansas are more than 25% higher than in Oklahoma. And Kansas has the 37th lowest fuel taxes, we are 45th. This also means we are missing out on federal matching funds.
Fuel taxes per gallon
Kansas
Gas: 24 cents Diesel: 26 cents
Texas
Gas: 20 cents Diesel: 20 cents
Arkansas
Gas: 24.5 cents Diesel: 28.5 cents
PLUS .5 cent general sales tax for roads
Oklahoma
Gas: 19 cents Diesel: 16 cents
Gold Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
Exactly right. We have got to raise our gas tax. ODOT went on a huge spree around 2004 or 2005 to try and raise awareness to the need to raise the gas tax to ATLEAST match those states around us and finally got it on the ballot to where it was voted NO to raising it gas 5 cents and diesel 8 I believe. And I believe it was an overwhelming majority like 80% of voters voted to not raise it. Yet I know most of these 80 percenters complain about the roads.
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
Absolutely **ridiculous**. No other word for it. This needed to be done *ten years* ago. That's the price the area pays for not being N. OKC.
Participating Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
Yep. I was livid when I saw the new plan.
Participating Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
To me, this little note I found on a KDOT plan sheet really speaks to the professionalism of how KDOT operates. Not only do they have a standard practice for situations like this, they feel the need to call out when they deviate from it.
I've never seen a note like that on an ODOT plan sheet. Nor would I ever expect to.
Participating Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
Wow, I had forgotten how much ODOT hate exists on this board. For those who have lived here more than 10 years, you seem to have forgotten how much funding that should have gone to road construction and maintenance was diverted to other purposes. At one point, 47% of the car tag fee was diverted to the General Revenue fund when it was allocated by the Legislature to non-road purposes. I've lost track of how many time the Legislature "raided" the Transportation Fund for other purposes. Add that to our low gas tax and I am surprised ODOT had done as much as they have. In a perfect world, RoW would have been reserved a long time ago for all the major interchange projects in OKC and Tulsa but that shop has sailed. IMO we have made great progress in the last 10-15 years, especially given how far behind the state had fallen.
Regarding the lack of a SB 77 to EB JKT ramp, adding it would have required a toll booth in the days before Plate Pay. I can't imaging how many wrecks there would have been as traffic backed up down the ramp and onto 77 as some numbnuts was looking for change for the basket.
VIP Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
All else being equal, an alternative needs to be found to the gas tax since gasoline is slowly declining in use.
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
It goes to show the low priority Oklahomans have for better roads and highways. It's a situation we all have to live with. That was later further demonstrated when legislators raised the tax on gas by 3 cents to raise teacher pay, rather than for the roads, strangely enough. Bringing about better roads seems to be a hit at the local level, though. Stillwater voters approved by 70% to raise city sales tax for better streets. Generally, the streets there have been atrocious with two bridges closed for reconstruction.
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
I hope other Oklahoma federal legislators have done so, but Sen. Inhofe is the only one I know of that has directed millions to Oklahoma for highways and other infrastructure. The person most likely to replace him, Mullin, should be asked if he wants more federal highway construction funds directed to Oklahoma or instead supports fiscal restraint with federal money. I pay federal taxes every year, so don't mind some of it coming back.
VIP Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
Yes and taxing registration for an e vehicle doesn't equate to a gas tax. That's not a use tax, which a gas tax is. Yes you pay money when you use electricity, but unless you have a way to say X number of KWH goes to charging you car, then that money isn't going to ODOT. And THAT's where it needs to go for roads. We need a new model for this.
Maybe we remove the gas tax and instead, put something in to the state income tax? How do you make that fair in terms of use? There are so many ways with pros and cons here, but we have to start talking about them because this is reality.
Platinum Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
For my situation, as long as the EV fee goes to the same place that the gas tax does, it's pretty much exactly the same. I used to (and currently) drive very little - work is ~4 miles away, we run a few errands in the MINI weekly, and I've been WFH for months (will go back in the office once life settles down a bit). So I'd guess that the EV Fee ($110, I think) easily equals or exceeds the amount of gas tax I pay/paid in a year.
However, all your other points stand for people that drive "normal" amounts of miles per year, yes, there does need to be some kind of use tax. I'm betting lots of other states (and countries) have started doing this, and we need to learn from them rather than doing what is usually done and reinvent the wheel (poorly).
VIP Member
Re: I-35 / I-240 Exchange
again, it defeats the point to over tax EV to make it "equal" to gas powered vehicles; EVs are more efficient by nature, so the tax should be reflected proportional to that efficiency. You drive less yet you pay the same as you did with gas, seems like you're overtaxed and that isnt fair.
Looks like we need to match TX, 20%/20% with the 1% gain from gas going to transit and 4% increase from diesel going to roads. That makes the most sense since OK would still be the lowest in the region yet the funding increase could be used appropriately.
Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks