West Outer Loop

[Zuplar]

I know this has been talked about in other threads here and there, and I searched and couldn't find a dedicated recent thread so I thought I'd bring it up. I was reading through some material that happened to show the proposal and was just curious if this is ever going to happen in some shape fashion or form. I know where it was originally planned might not be feasible anymore due to the influx of homes in the area, but still, this is something that could be doable.

So is there some new form of the Outer Loop or has it been confirmed dead?

[Just the facts]

So is there some new form of the Outer Loop or has it been confirmed dead?

Dead. Even if someone at ODOT wanted to do it there isn't any money to do it, and there is never going to be. The only way this would ever happen is if the Turnpike Authority did it and I doubt they would ever find it cost effective (meaning it would never generate enough revenue to pay for itself).

[Plutonic Panda]

It will happen. It just takes Oklahoma a lot longer to get these projects going, but it will happen sooner than most think at the current rate of growth and even if we grow faster.

[Zuplar]

Dead. Even if someone at ODOT wanted to do it there isn't any money to do it, and there is never going to be. The only way this would ever happen is if the Turnpike Authority did it and I doubt they would ever find it cost effective (meaning it would never generate enough revenue to pay for itself).

Kind of a shame really, would help with the Semi traffic. As it is right now they are just beating up the backroads where they are one giant pothole.

[kevinpate]

Dead. Even if someone at ODOT wanted to do it there isn't any money to do it, and there is never going to be. The only way this would ever happen is if the Turnpike Authority did it and I doubt they would ever find it cost effective (meaning it would never generate enough revenue to pay for itself).

I may be mistaken JTF, but I am uncertain if ability to pay for itself means too very much in the OTA decision making process.

[adaniel]

Can't find the thread, but as of 2012, OTA canned this expansion citing "lack of political support."To be fair to the OTA, any new road would have to generate enough traffic/tolls to cover their bond payments. This is a big reason why the Gilcrease Expy extention was turned down.

If nothing else, it would be very hard to obtain the ROW at this point. Several subdivisions have been built right at the JKT/40 interchange and development has been trickling west of 44 south of the airport. In the future, Sara Rd/OK-4 could easily be turned into a high speed parkway and hook up with the HE Bailey Spur, allowing for a de facto bypass.

IMO the redo of the the 35/240 interchange will take a lot of pressure off truck traffic going through the middle of OKC. When it was designed 240 was the intended truck bypass but the current interchange is so dangerous a lot of them will just continue on 35 towards downtown.

[Just the facts]

Kind of a shame really, would help with the Semi traffic. As it is right now they are just beating up the backroads where they are one giant pothole.

Yep, but the mistakes of our interstate system were made long ago - and now we have to live with them (or without them as the case may be). We should have never wasted our money on urban interstates and instead did what the UK did. Their freeways rarely go into urban areas and when they do there are very few exits. Their system was design to get from city to city - not through cities. Also, they don't allow development at rural interchanges and gas and food are provided directly ON the freeway. It's too bad we went so far down the wrong road - metaphorically speaking.

[Zuplar]

I just find it ridiculous that trucks would rather go down roads like SW 104th and SW 119th where there are stop signs every mile. Parts of these roads are terrible and there used to be signs saying no truck traffic. Sounds like the police could have a field day writing tickets in a weeks time. I see at least 2 everyday on my drive home.

[Snowman]

It will happen. It just takes Oklahoma a lot longer to get these projects going, but it will happen sooner than most think at the current rate of growth and even if we grow faster.

The plan would already have to be modified due to homes constructed since then, it is only going to be a matter of time before there is no longer a path of empty cheap land, if it is not doable budget wise when they are buying empty farmland then there is no way that it will be if they have to buy/destroy tons of homes.

[Plutonic Panda]

They probably will have to destroy homes. They've done it before. That is really stupid to keep sprawling out and not reserve any ROW for freeways.

[bombermwc]

Well there are really only what, 4 miles of "problem" area between the end of the pike and the spur connection? And just a few problem spots further south. All in all, it's positioned pretty well....right now. You wait very long and it's only going to get worse.

BUT, there is a way to elevate it to make it work, but of course that does increase cost. Somewhere on the north side of Austin, i can't remember the highway, there are two sections of the state highway (and im not talking about the downtown stack) that travel on top of one another for a bit. One road acts as the street road and the highway is elevated on either side of it. What makes it different is HOW it's elevated. There's a single Y shaped structure down the middle of the road path that support 4 lanes of concrete on top of it in a narrow path (no median and not much shoulder). I think it was only like this for a few miles but it's been 10 years since i drove it. It solved difficult problems of the lower road needing access, but there being significant LARGE development that they couldn't remove in a cost-effective way. So stacking saved them money. Would it save OK money, probably not because we aren't talking about miles of large multi-story commercial structures. But just to say that there are options beyond just slapping 4 lanes of road there. And really, if they aren't stupid, they'll plan it for much more than 4 so it can be expanded INWARD later to add lanes and not require total reconstruction of the outside portions.

At the same time, i have to ask...do we really need it? If you're coming up 44, you can take the spur to 35 or up to Mustang already. You can take airport rd out to Mustang also. If you're trying to avoid the 44/40 junction, airport rd allows you to miss 90% of the traffic and you can just slide up McArthur or Council or something. It means you do stop at lights but it also doesn't cost you a toll. The east side loop probably would help to free up congestion more than this portion of the west side, but just like the west, it depends on what you're trying to connect. And out east, you're going to be spending a LOT more to build it because of the tree clearing and hills. Development in the areas that keep cropping up as the east loop space will cost quite a bit as well.

[Spartan]

It will happen. It just takes Oklahoma a lot longer to get these projects going, but it will happen sooner than most think at the current rate of growth and even if we grow faster.

Ugh.

Do you have a factual analysis to prove that SW OKC needs a new loop? Are traffic counts on I-44 soaring?

[Plutonic Panda]

Ugh.

Do you have a factual analysis to prove that SW OKC needs a new loop? Are traffic counts on I-44 soaring?

what do you think will happen in 20-30 years when that area is completely built up and the sprawl is been further out and the traffic is horrible in that area? Why not plan now? If it isn't needed, then don't build it, but be smart and plan ahead so you don't have to get serious political action needed to tear down houses and businesses.

That's all I'm saying.

[OKCisOK4me]

what do you think will happen in 20-30 years when that area is completely built up and the sprawl is been further out and the traffic is horrible in that area? Why not plan now? If it isn't needed, then don't build it, but be smart and plan ahead so you don't have to get serious political action needed to tear down houses and businesses.

That's all I'm saying.

Wanting it to happen because you see it as the best course of action in your head doesn't mean it's going to happen that way in actuality.

Personally, I don't see it happening.

[Plutonic Panda]

Idk.... Knowing Oklahoma and the way things work here and how our roads and highways are funded, you're probably right.

On the other hand though, maybe we'll really boom and accumulate some of the worst traffic in the country like Austin. Time will tell I guess.

[adaniel]

If traffic got too bad out that way, Airport Rd and I-40 can be widened fairly easily. Plus all of the numerous section line roads. This highway could have been built earlier but with now all of the development the ROW costs alone could easily make any new loop a nearly nine-figure affair. Seems like a huge waste of money for something that really won't be used that often. Hell, the western leg of the current Kilpatrick is fairly empty 90% of the time.

This reminds me...I recently found out that of all cities LUBBOCK TEXAS was planning on building a second outer loop. That's right, LUBBOCK in the middle of nowhere, adding maybe 1% in population a year, and near no major trucking/shipping routes. It will likely be a tollway and the sheeple are still eating it up. Sad to see these "loops as economic boom" arguments have not died yet.

[G.Walker]

HE Bailey Spur/Highway 9 connection in southwest Norman/Newcastle can be considered an Outer Loop, they are actually redoing the Highway 9/I-35 Interchange, as well as making it 3 lanes in some areas in southeast Norman. They could easily upgrade this area of highway to full 6 lane interstate access.

[Just the facts]

what do you think will happen in 20-30 years when that area is completely built up and the sprawl is been further out and the traffic is horrible in that area? Why not plan now? If it isn't needed, then don't build it, but be smart and plan ahead so you don't have to get serious political action needed to tear down houses and businesses.

That's all I'm saying.

Because sprawl won't be around in 20 years - well, at least NEW sprawl won't be. Existing sprawl will be shanty towns by then. Why not plan for the future now - indeed.

[Spartan]

Idk.... Knowing Oklahoma and the way things work here and how our roads and highways are funded, you're probably right.

On the other hand though, maybe we'll really boom and accumulate some of the worst traffic in the country like Austin. Time will tell I guess.

And you just know that the boom is comin.. It's a-comin..

[Plutonic Panda]

And you just know that the boom is comin.. It's a-comin..

What you don't think it is? 0_O

[Plutonic Panda]

Because sprawl won't be around in 20 years - well, at least NEW sprawl won't be. Existing sprawl will be shanty towns by then. Why not plan for the future now - indeed.

so what's your proposal?

[Just the facts]

so what's your proposal?

To not spend money we don't have on a freeway we can't afford. The Highway Trust Fund is broke trying to maintain what we already have and you seriously want to build more?

[gopokes88]

If traffic got too bad out that way, Airport Rd and I-40 can be widened fairly easily. Plus all of the numerous section line roads. This highway could have been built earlier but with now all of the development the ROW costs alone could easily make any new loop a nearly nine-figure affair. Seems like a huge waste of money for something that really won't be used that often. Hell, the western leg of the current Kilpatrick is fairly empty 90% of the time.

This reminds me...I recently found out that of all cities LUBBOCK TEXAS was planning on building a second outer loop. That's right, LUBBOCK in the middle of nowhere, adding maybe 1% in population a year, and near no major trucking/shipping routes. It will likely be a tollway and the sheeple are still eating it up. Sad to see these "loops as economic boom" arguments have not died yet.

Actually Lubbock Texas is growing at a 4.3% clip from 2010-2013 and at 15% from 2000-2010. Add in the fact the Cline shale is right there and what appears to be an easing of the drought out there its looking up for Lubbock.

That being said they have 0 need for an outer loop. They don't have that bad of traffic there. Every road is pretty much 6 lanes and on a perfect grid.

[Snowman]

Actually Lubbock Texas is growing at a 4.3% clip from 2010-2013 and at 15% from 2000-2010. Add in the fact the Cline shale is right there and what appears to be an easing of the drought out there its looking up for Lubbock.

That being said they have 0 need for an outer loop. They don't have that bad of traffic there. Every road is pretty much 6 lanes and on a perfect grid.

There is only a couple spots where their suburbs are fully built up to two miles away from the loop they have, if they did want to allocate money to spend on making anything freeway grade in their area, highway 64 or 62 outside of their loop seems like that might be more useful. I would almost be surprised if TXDOT had not fully upgrading 87 to interstate standards all the way to i20 in the next ten to twenty years.

[Geographer]

If you build a west outer loop, of course people will move out there. Here's a parable to help understand.

Let's say there's an island just off the coast. I could say "You know, based on this model, people will be moving onto this island in the next 10 years. We should build a road to this island." So the road is built..and guess what, people now have access to the island and are are moving there! It's a self-fulfilling prophesy and the people who built the road can say "See, our models were correct."

OKC does not, does not, does not have a traffic problem and absolutely no need for a west loop. Let's pay for and fix what we already have.