I emailed the OTA about the I-240 Extension.
Friday a spokesman called which was a Suprise. He said the I-240 Extension has been Canceled.

I never knew it was supposed to be extended, but now with the expansion of the Kickapoo Turnpike its most likely not needed.

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2021/08/02/NOKL/c3ce977b-673f-42b4-ae5f-592cfd79e3dd-I-240_loop2-01.jpg?width=660&height=553&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
The 2021 proposed I-240 Loop encircling Oklahoma City

It wouldn’t have made a difference beyond a unifying name, that entire loop is already limited access (despite Google Maps continually refusing to classify Airport Road as a highway). I am starting to wonder if all of the new turnpikes are actually going to get built as it feels like the political winds are shifting in that regard.

I emailed the OTA about the I-240 Extension.
Friday a spokesman called which was a Suprise. He said the I-240 Extension has been Canceled.

there was never an "extension" it was just a rebadging of existing roads ..

Well that stretch couldn't have been rebadged as I-240 anyhow. The "2" in that designation means that it connects back to another interstate. At best it could have been designated I-140 (which wouldn't even make sense) or I-144.

Well that stretch couldn't have been rebadged as I-240 anyhow. The "2" in that designation means that it connects back to another interstate. At best it could have been designated I-140 (which wouldn't even make sense) or I-144.

the entire thing connects back to interstates .. the above was the recent announced plan

So they were going to rebrand the Kilpatrick Turnpike as I-240 as well?

The whole thing, all the way around, would have been branded as 240. I wish they had done it. I think it would have made signage and addresses easier to understand, particularly for visitors. People who live those roads all the time probably don't think about it that much. But I think about it every time I approach the city from the Turner Turnpike.

So they were going to rebrand the Kilpatrick Turnpike as I-240 as well?

yes see post #3 the diagram ..

Okay, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I have to admit I'm confused. There was an "I-240 *extension*" project *beyond* the "renaming loop" pictured above? Or the "extension" WAS the renaming, but even *that* has been nixed?? Did OKDOT drop the idea or did the US Gov side kill it?

Either way, this doesn't get the stinking I-240/I-35 Interchange rebuild any further, but that's an entirely separate rant.

I'm not sure it can be truly "cancelled" at this point—the Transportation Commission and the American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO) already approved it, so unless the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) rejected it for some reason (unlikely as they have no valid reason for doing so), that makes all of those roads legally I-240.

Now, ODOT/OTA can choose not to put up signs, but in order to actually decommission that as part of I-240, the Transportation Commission and AASHTO would both have to vote to revoke the designation. I haven't seen ODOT put in an application with AASHTO to do so, so the I-240 designation is still live. (I don't think OTA has the authority to do so; AASHTO only accepts applications from the main state DOT.)

More likely is the dork you got on the phone at OTA doesn't know what he's talking about. Call ODOT and see what they say.

Hang on there, you're saying that someone was looking to take turnpikes and turn them in to 240? That means free road, NOT turnpike. It would be lovely, but i dont see OTA ever giving that up. Especially after just building a lot of this so recently. Not to mention ODOT can't afford it.

Just slapping 240 signs on a bunch of turnpikes would be meaningless.

Hang on there, you're saying that someone was looking to take turnpikes and turn them in to 240? That means free road, NOT turnpike. It would be lovely, but i dont see OTA ever giving that up. Especially after just building a lot of this so recently. Not to mention ODOT can't afford it.

Just slapping 240 signs on a bunch of turnpikes would be meaningless.

it would mean "free road" (not that any roads are truly free)

lust like the turner is I44 and yet not a free road ..

Hang on there, you're saying that someone was looking to take turnpikes and turn them in to 240? That means free road, NOT turnpike. It would be lovely, but i dont see OTA ever giving that up. Especially after just building a lot of this so recently. Not to mention ODOT can't afford it.

Just slapping 240 signs on a bunch of turnpikes would be meaningless.

I'm guessing you've never driven I-44 to Tulsa or Lawton... Only non toll section of I-44 is what passes through OKC.

Hang on there, you're saying that someone was looking to take turnpikes and turn them in to 240? That means free road, NOT turnpike. It would be lovely, but i dont see OTA ever giving that up. Especially after just building a lot of this so recently. Not to mention ODOT can't afford it.

Just slapping 240 signs on a bunch of turnpikes would be meaningless.

I-44 through pretty much all of the state, and then I-35 once you hit Kansas all the way to Kansas City says that isn't the case.

I'm guessing you've never driven I-44 to Tulsa or Lawton... Only non toll section of I-44 is what passes through OKC.

No, I-44 is a normal interstate through Lawton proper and maintained by ODOT. Don't have a dog in the argument but just wanted to make that note.

I wonder if these in reference to the airport loop extension to I-44 from the Southwest Kilpatrick loop? OTA would never refer to a turnpike or planned Turnpike by its interstate naming scheme.

I wonder if these in reference to the airport loop extension to I-44 from the Southwest Kilpatrick loop? OTA would never refer to a turnpike or planned Turnpike by its interstate naming scheme.

No. ODOT asked for, and AASHTO approved, the route shown in the map Laramie posted in reply #3.

Hang on there, you're saying that someone was looking to take turnpikes and turn them in to 240? That means free road, NOT turnpike.

This is incorrect. An interstate shield merely means that the road has been approved by AASHTO and FHWA to be part of the Eisenhower Interstate System. There are a number of prerequisites to get this approval, but they all have to do with the design of the road (i.e. no intersections, must meet standards for clearance and minimum lane widths, etc.).

Toll roads have been a part of the Interstate System since its inception. The Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes in Oklahoma, the Kansas Turnpike, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and others were all pre-existing toll roads incorporated into the Interstate System in 1956. Since the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, there is no longer any special Interstate-exclusive construction or maintenance funding mechanism, so any funding source can be used to build an Interstate.

I guess none of you read what I said very clearly huh? Obviously I know I44/Tuner is toll. That's not what i said.

The last sentence was the point of my comment.
"Just slapping 240 signs on a bunch of turnpikes would be meaningless."

I guess none of you read what I said very clearly huh? Obviously I know I44/Tuner is toll. That's not what i said.

The last sentence was the point of my comment.
"Just slapping 240 signs on a bunch of turnpikes would be meaningless."


So what you are saying here is we shouldn't have read your entire comment about free roads and such... Just that one sentence? Were you just trying to be obfuscating with the rest?

No, I-44 is a normal interstate through Lawton proper and maintained by ODOT. Don't have a dog in the argument but just wanted to make that note.

Well in my defense I did say "to" and not through... The same could be said for Tulsa... I-44 isn't all toll there if you drive through Tulsa.

Well in my defense I did say "to" and not through... The same could be said for Tulsa... I-44 isn't all toll there if you drive through Tulsa.

Just a matter of semantics, As I mentioned I wasn't stoking your fire just pointing it out. Thanks.

The whole thing, all the way around, would have been branded as 240. I wish they had done it. I think it would have made signage and addresses easier to understand, particularly for visitors. People who live those roads all the time probably don't think about it that much. But I think about it every time I approach the city from the Turner Turnpike.

I am not a fan of branding a loop the same name around cities with mile grids, as we then would have the freeway name and major N/S road name intersections unique as we do now, since they will typically have intersections on both sides of the city.

If interstate branding really helps, I would rather see something like:
I-240 for the section south of I-40
I-444 for Kilpatrick extending I-44 to the juncture with I-40
I-435 for the Kickapoo turnpike allowing i-35/I-44 and i-35/I-40 eastside traffic to bypass OKC

might as well extend I-235 designation further north on 77 to the juncture with I-44

I am not a fan of branding a loop the same name around cities with mile grids, as we then would have the freeway name and major N/S road name intersections unique as we do now, since they will typically have intersections on both sides of the city.

If interstate branding really helps, I would rather see something like:
I-240 for the section south of I-40
I-444 for Kilpatrick extending I-44 to the juncture with I-40
I-435 for the Kickapoo turnpike allowing i-35/I-44 and i-35/I-40 eastside traffic to bypass OKC

might as well extend I-235 designation further north on 77 to the juncture with I-44

There's already a I-444 in Tulsa

There's already a I-444 in Tulsa

Triple digits get reused in different cities/regions, some have been like a dozen times, as the last 2 digits are taken from a route it branches off from. The leading digits are just to be unique among the local connections and indicate if it is either spur route or connects to another freeway at the other end (which may still be the one it originally diverged from or not).

It is against the Interstate numbering rules to use a three-digit route number twice in the same state. (Personal preference would be to not reuse any numbers if we can help it—numbers starting with 8 are hardly ever used, so why not use those?)

I've also seen it pointed out that, at present, Tulsa only has I-44 to work with, so any x44 numbers in Oklahoma should probably be reserved for use there. It would probably be better to use only x35 or x40 numbers in the Oklahoma City area to avoid using one of Tulsa's limited pool of numbers.

There's already a I-444 in Tulsa

yep as an unsigned road .. 2.5 miles

I forget which state senator it was, but someone in the early 2000's here was wanting to relabel 240 in OKC because there's another 240 somewhere else in the country and he felt there should only be one.
Meh.

You could keep all kinds of different numbers and just put up some signs that call it the "OKC Loop" or whatever semi-creative thing a committee comes up with. It's just signage and means nothing. It's not actually a loop anyway. A true loop is continuous. This is a collection of road changes/exits/onramps. So again....meh.

Yep, I-240 in Memphis

Yeah, we usually use I-240 in Memphis when going to visit family in the Delta region. I keep up with the news in Memphis so I have to check twice to be sure I have my cities straight when something involving I-240 is mentioned.

Yep, I-240 in Memphis

there is also one in Ashville NC

Now instead of a continuous I-240 loop, we are getting I-344 and I-335.

https://kfor.com/news/local/multiple-okc-area-highways-turnpikes-to-be-designated-as-interstates-in-coming-month/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=referral&fbclid=IwAR03_va7ZD7tPJzJ6mRxb3hElova-s0PbuQKaEyRsAKoVVHp6WNPximUu9U

i like but have a few proposals and questions

* Prop 1: Extend I-235 designation for Broadway Extension, from the current I-44 interchange up to just past I-344 Kilpatrick Turnpike (up until the freeway ends). 77 would continue into Edmond. Not sure why this wasn't already implemented.

* Prop 2: Add new Interstate 544 designation for Lake Hefner Parkway for the entire freeway section, it's extended if/as the freeway is extended north.

* Qu 1: Not sure why I-344 ends at Airport Road instead of continuing on to I-44 unless:
1) there's a plan to extend I-344 further S from current 'end' towards/connecting to I-44 south of the airport
2) they had it end at airport road since it's a toll road

* Qu 2: How will they badge the toll extensions into Cleveland County? I could see the extension going from I-335 Kickapoo Turnpike down to Purcell/I-35 being I-335 extension. But what about the E-W toll road along/near Indian Hills Rd, will it be Interstate badged and if so, what?

* Qu 3: Will OK-9 get upgraded and extended, and badged?

This is exciting and dire needed imo. Will Tulsa be adding interstate designations as well?

...

* Prop 1: Extend I-235 designation for Broadway Extension, from the current I-44 interchange up to just past I-344 Kilpatrick Turnpike (up until the freeway ends). 77 would continue into Edmond. Not sure why this wasn't already implemented.

...

There are a couple reasons I could see for the delay. First is they just had not pushed much for it when the extended after upgrading the section north of I-44 to interstate standards. The other thing is on three digit interstate numbers, an even leading number implies that it connects to an interstate on both sides, so may be dependent on getting Kilpatrick an interstate designation to keep using the same number on that segment. (granted with the 3XX numbers, they do not seem to being strictly to odd leading numbers are a spur route, which does not connect to intestate network on other end)

great points, thanks.