Driving Forward OK - Oklahoma Turnpike Improvements and New Construction

That would be good too. I want both though. But I'd be happy with a truck limit like 55. That is how it is in California.

Studies have shown that split speed limits like that can actually be a safety hazard. They can create a large speed differential between trucks and cars. It can be dangerous when a driver doesn't realize another vehicle is moving at a slower speed and quickly comes up on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

For trucking, I would think that turning US-69 from McAlester to the State Line into a turnpike would make more sense.

---

An attempt to do just that was made in the mid 90's. The Eastern boys shot that down faster than you can read this sentence. It didn't even get into the authorizations that were added.

For the more road geek minded, Title 69, Section 1705(e) is an interesting read. Every part of the State got to enshrine their wishlist into law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott5114

Studies have shown that split speed limits like that can actually be a safety hazard. They can create a large speed differential between trucks and cars. It can be dangerous when a driver doesn't realize another vehicle is moving at a slower speed and quickly comes up on them.

---

Minimum speed limit is something like 55MPH anyways so I don't think it's a big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rte66man

An attempt to do just that was made in the mid 90's. The Eastern boys shot that down faster than you can read this sentence. It didn't even get into the authorizations that were added.

For the more road geek minded, Title 69, Section 1705(e) is an interesting read. Every part of the State got to enshrine their wishlist into law.

---

Would it hurt the speeding ticket business too much?

I drove from Portland to Albuquerque a few weeks ago to help a friend move. In California, especially in San Bernadino County in the Mojave desert, trucks were routinely going 80-85 mph. The truck speed limit was 65, cars 75 (I think). It was like driving in the Wild Wild West. We were doing 90-95 in his pickup, and still were getting passed and barely passing truckers.

Not all trucks have governors on them apparently... And not all truckers follow the speed limits. I've noticed in Oklahoma trucks seem to follow the speed limits much better. But even in Oregon with 55 Trucks and 65 mph cars, the trucks just keep up with traffic at 65-70mph...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

Would it hurt the speeding ticket business too much?

---

You must have experience with the fine folks at Stringtown.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rte66man

You must have experience with the fine folks at Stringtown.;)

---

Kiowa, actually. Luckily, my brother got a big ticket from a jerk cop in Kiowa, while I was with him before I was driving, so I learned my listen to not mess around with though little towns.

Perhaps as a result of that, a law passed in 1991 (ISTEA) requires that section of US-69 be made an interstate whenever ODOT requests it (which they have never done). Presumably it would be an extension of I-45 from Dallas.

I've had the experience of HAVING to drive 90 in San Bernadino county just to "almost kinda keep up for the most part". I hated it.

I like it. I usually drive a lot faster than that though. :P

Congressman Steve Russell Speaks At Oklahoma Turnpike Meeting - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

"As a homeowner from the area expected to deal with turnpike expansion in eastern Oklahoma County, Congressman Russell encouraged the room of protesters to approach the situation with civility and vowed to stand with them."

Turnpike plans funded | The Lawton Constitution

The more I think about this Driving Forward, the more I think it's a crock of sh*t. There are things that the turnpikes legitimately need that the authority doesn't address, but we can find a billion (what the actual f***?) for a lot of senseless and unneeded expansion! It's such bullsh*t. For example, why does the interchange between the Kilpatrick turnpike and I-40 in west OKC rely on cloverleafs that lead to dangerous vehicle interactions. Why can't they find the money from toll revenue to put in a flyover ramps for the turnpike to reduce some of that cluster. Or where is the money to repair the bumpy bridges that their engineers didn't measure correctly on the Kilpatrick? Or where is the money for a westbound entrance to the Kilpatrick off the Lake Hefner Parkway without having to sit through the stop lights? Between ODOT and the OTA, transportation in this state is an effing joke.

Don't forget that you can't connect from South Broadway to East Bound Kilpatrick. So in all of true Edmond, there is ONE entrance onto the Kilpatrick East Bound. They need to add entrances and exits in all directions to at least Santa Fe, Bryant and Western. Not to mention the exits on May, Penn and Western now are horrible. And like you said, out of the 8 needed interchange connections, only 2 exist for Kilpatrick and 74.

Seriously who designed this thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Brasky

The more I think about this Driving Forward, the more I think it's a crock of sh*t. There are things that the turnpikes legitimately need that the authority doesn't address, but we can find a billion (what the actual f***?) for a lot of senseless and unneeded expansion! It's such bullsh*t. For example, why does the interchange between the Kilpatrick turnpike and I-40 in west OKC rely on cloverleafs that lead to dangerous vehicle interactions. Why can't they find the money from toll revenue to put in a flyover ramps for the turnpike to reduce some of that cluster. Or where is the money to repair the bumpy bridges that their engineers didn't measure correctly on the Kilpatrick? Or where is the money for a westbound entrance to the Kilpatrick off the Lake Hefner Parkway without having to sit through the stop lights? Between ODOT and the OTA, transportation in this state is an effing joke.

---

No one is forced to drive on turnpikes. I suggest you don't. Don't give them any funds and they won't be able to perpetuate this nonsense. Then you can chill.

Great response Buffalo Bill! Have you had a pleasant career working for the OTA? I'm also curious which of those suggestions you have a problem with?

I think living in Portland has really changed my perspective on things. I actually am in favor of expanding the turnpikes. The whole idea of if you don't build it, there won't be traffic on it idea is flawed.

Portland has a terrible road system, and it hasn't slowed the growth of the city one bit. It just means the roads that are used are all congested.

The highways are clogged now, and so are the side roads. It takes me 30-45 mins to get home every day. It is so frustrating sitting through 4-5 signal changes, sometimes not even moving during a signal change because the cars on the next block have nowhere to go. It's awful. Public transit is great and all, but the light rail can only go so many places. The bus system is great but the buses are in the same traffic jams as the cars.

We need to aim be a balance between Houston and Portland. We don't need to emulate either city.

We already are copying Houston so we're good on that end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plutonic Panda

Turnpike plans funded | The Lawton Constitution

---

FYI this is an EXTREMELY misleading headline, bordering on propaganda, really.

They are not "funded" by any means. These are financed by OTA bonds backed by future toll revenue that have yet to be sold. And in doing so they must complete the final highway designs as well as any feasibility studies to show that they can cover the costs/expenses of the road construction and operation. So no, they are not close to being funded.

FWIW it is a good thing toll roads in OK are cross bonded because there is no way in hell half the roads generate enough traffic to pay for themselves. Ever been on the Chickasaw "Turnpike" near Ada? Frankly, I put it at 50/50 they will be able to sell bonds for the Eastern Connector or new Gilcrease. I just don't see how they will generate the traffic needed for either of these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adaniel

FYI this is an EXTREMELY misleading headline, bordering on propaganda, really.

They are not "funded" by any means. These are financed by OTA bonds backed by future toll revenue that have yet to be sold. And in doing so they must complete the final highway designs as well as any feasibility studies to show that they can cover the costs/expenses of the road construction and operation. So no, they are not close to being funded.

FWIW it is a good thing toll roads in OK are cross bonded because there is no way in hell half the roads generate enough traffic to pay for themselves. Ever been on the Chickasaw "Turnpike" near Ada? Frankly, I put it at 50/50 they will be able to sell bonds for the Eastern Connector or new Gilcrease. I just don't see how they will generate the traffic needed for either of these.

---

The Chickasaw Turnpike is a joke, the only good thing about it is a quicker way to get from Ada to Sulphur, if they build it the way it supposed to been, 4 lane all the way from I35 to I40, then it wouldn't be a problem, but our lawmakers are dumb that they build it the way it is today, Ada has been trying to get 4 lane access for a long time but our lawmakers just ignore us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adaniel

FYI this is an EXTREMELY misleading headline, bordering on propaganda, really.

They are not "funded" by any means. These are financed by OTA bonds backed by future toll revenue that have yet to be sold. And in doing so they must complete the final highway designs as well as any feasibility studies to show that they can cover the costs/expenses of the road construction and operation. So no, they are not close to being funded.

FWIW it is a good thing toll roads in OK are cross bonded because there is no way in hell half the roads generate enough traffic to pay for themselves. Ever been on the Chickasaw "Turnpike" near Ada? Frankly, I put it at 50/50 they will be able to sell bonds for the Eastern Connector or new Gilcrease. I just don't see how they will generate the traffic needed for either of these.

---

Do they even bother to split the projects bonds and designate which road they are on post cross funding? It seems all the funding rounds I have heard about all had bits all around the state (I am guessing for political need for approval).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adaniel

FWIW it is a good thing toll roads in OK are cross bonded because there is no way in hell half the roads generate enough traffic to pay for themselves. Ever been on the Chickasaw "Turnpike" near Ada? Frankly, I put it at 50/50 they will be able to sell bonds for the Eastern Connector or new Gilcrease. I just don't see how they will generate the traffic needed for either of these.

---

That's why they are cross-pledged. The 2 cash cows (Turner and Will Rogers) pay for all the money losers (all the others). The Bailey breaks even due to the OKC to Chickasha section. As with most anything in OK, the turnpikes are a political trade-off.

btw, the Chickasaw is no longer a turnpike. OTA "gave" it to ODOT a couple of years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AP

We already are copying Houston so we're good on that end.

---

How is that? Our highway designs suck. Even the future interchanges are going to be half-assed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plutonic Panda

How is that? Our highway designs suck. Even the future interchanges are going to be half-assed.

---

And take 15 years from the start of design to project completion.