Driving Forward OK - Oklahoma Turnpike Improvements and New Construction

[David]

Well, wikipedia has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_49

With the route as displayed there, I don't think it makes a lot a sense as an alternate route up from Mexico. But then again, I don't run a shipping company so what do I know.

[HangryHippo]

How stupid. With the inability of Oklahoma to maintain roadways currently, why the hell would we want to encourage more truck traffic?

Also, there is absolutely no reason for the eastern loop. Seriously, at what point does this nonsense of sprawling everywhere end?

[Plutonic Panda]

Where is I -49? I haven't heard about it. I guess being retired I'm living under a rock.Happens when you live by yourself out in the country.

Here is there project website: Interstate 49 International Coalition :: Home

[Plutonic Panda]

If there is any new interstate I'd like to see it'd be a route from Denver to OKC to Shreveport(easy New Orleans access). I'd think there would be enough traffic using it to justify it and OKC would benefit the most.

I'd run it from from Colorado Spring's, to Woodward, to OKC, to Ada, then maybe to Durant or Paris, then straight to Shreveport.

[Scott5114]

The northeast loop makes sense if you look at it in the context of providing a beltway to Oklahoma City (like I-435 in Kansas City), something the Kilpatrick Turnpike extension to SH-152 also contributes to. If a beltway isn't going to happen, though, it's kind of pointless on its own. The only conceivable use it would have is allowing SB I-35 to EB I-40 (and WB I-40 to NB I-35) traffic to bypass Oklahoma City, and I don't really think that's a very commonly-used routing.

If you are trying to hack together an OKC beltway, you'd probably do the most good sooner by upgrading SH-9 between US-62/277 and Lake Thunderbird to a freeway. That section has traffic that would benefit from the upgrades now (though I do think that the traffic counts don't quite justify a freeway, there are safety and efficiency arguments to be made from eliminating the lights and crossroads). The northeast Oklahoma County loop would probably be one of the last pieces of the puzzle in that case.

The Oklahoma County loop might be more useful if it gets extended south to SH-9 in rural east Norman at some point. At least then it would have the use case of making it easier for Norman residents to get to Shawnee and the Tinker area, as well as continuing north to I-44 toward Tulsa and St. Louis.

[Scott5114]

How stupid. With the inability of Oklahoma to maintain roadways currently, why the hell would we want to encourage more truck traffic?

Tax revenue. Truckers have to spend money on gas and food as they pass through Oklahoma. Whether or not that makes up for the increased cost of maintenance, I don't know...

[mugofbeer]

How stupid. With the inability of Oklahoma to maintain roadways currently, why the hell would we want to encourage more truck traffic?

Also, there is absolutely no reason for the eastern loop. Seriously, at what point does this nonsense of sprawling everywhere end?

While some posts are just laughable (I know it might be different if I lived there), I've been scratching my head about just how useful this highway would be. I have to agree with PP that a diagonal towards Colorado would get more traffic and be a better investment for truck traffic. The benefit for truck traffic is significantly shorter drive times. The investment is the possibility for new distribution centers and agri-business to the NW.

[Snowman]

Well, wikipedia has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_49

With the route as displayed there, I don't think it makes a lot a sense as an alternate route up from Mexico. But then again, I don't run a shipping company so what do I know.

If they are worried about a new interstate pulling traffic from a Mexico route, i69 is probably what they would be more worried about. Assuming the lower half ever gets built, though some sections do combo well with i49 coming from Mexico (though where they work together the best it seems unlikely they would have been coming through here to begin with). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69

[Zorba]

Well, wikipedia has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_49

With the route as displayed there, I don't think it makes a lot a sense as an alternate route up from Mexico. But then again, I don't run a shipping company so what do I know.

The expectation is that after the new Panama Canal opens, Houston will become one of the largest ports in the world as a ton of the California traffic starts coming into Houston. This will move a ton of truck traffic from East-West routes to North-South routes.

For some reason Oklahoma has always thought there was money in being a trucking hub, and I've never understood it. Look at the very cheap registration for trucks/trailers and the lack of weigh stations (starting to come back). Now, Oklahoma is trying to position to get a lot of the new Northbound trucks out of Houston.

Tax revenue. Truckers have to spend money on gas and food as they pass through Oklahoma. Whether or not that makes up for the increased cost of maintenance, I don't know...

Sales tax on hot dogs and subways sandwiches are pretty small, especially considering trucks can easily cross Oklahoma without stopping.

[Zorba]

The northeast loop makes sense if you look at it in the context of providing a beltway to Oklahoma City (like I-435 in Kansas City), something the Kilpatrick Turnpike extension to SH-152 also contributes to. If a beltway isn't going to happen, though, it's kind of pointless on its own. The only conceivable use it would have is allowing SB I-35 to EB I-40 (and WB I-40 to NB I-35) traffic to bypass Oklahoma City, and I don't really think that's a very commonly-used routing.

If you are trying to hack together an OKC beltway, you'd probably do the most good sooner by upgrading SH-9 between US-62/277 and Lake Thunderbird to a freeway. That section has traffic that would benefit from the upgrades now (though I do think that the traffic counts don't quite justify a freeway, there are safety and efficiency arguments to be made from eliminating the lights and crossroads). The northeast Oklahoma County loop would probably be one of the last pieces of the puzzle in that case.

The Oklahoma County loop might be more useful if it gets extended south to SH-9 in rural east Norman at some point. At least then it would have the use case of making it easier for Norman residents to get to Shawnee and the Tinker area, as well as continuing north to I-44 toward Tulsa and St. Louis.

I agree that i makes sense as a part of an outer beltway. But it is probably the least important piece of that beltway. Looping from Norman around SH-9 NE to I-40 would make much more sense for local traffic and truck traffic. After this leg was built, going on up to I-44, then North I-35 would make sense.

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

[Plutonic Panda]

Regarding trucks I really wish there would be a law prohibiting trucks from using the left lane and then have dedicated passing zones.

[mugofbeer]

Regarding trucks I really wish there would be a law prohibiting trucks from using the right lane and then have dedicated passing zones.

Huh?

[Plutonic Panda]

Huh?

Oops. I meant left lane.

It gets really annoying to see trucks using the left lane passing another trucker on the right only going 1-3mph faster than they are.

[mugofbeer]

They always wait to do this when you are approaching them on cruise control, then juuuuust as you get close the guy in the back swerves over and you're blocked for 5 minutes while the guy in back just creeeeeps past the guy in front.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah man it is one of the most frustrating things. Sometimes when I drive to OKC from L.A. I will literally see a line of cars like maybe 6-14 cars just lined up behind two semis.

Like why even go 2 MPH faster than the other trucker? I don't get it. If they are going 5-10 I can kind of understand, but I've tested it and have witnessed time and time again a trucker going 66-67 to pass one going 65. It's infuriating.

[ljbab728]

Like why even go 2 MPH faster than the other trucker? I don't get it. If they are going 5-10 I can kind of understand, but I've tested it and have witnessed time and time again a trucker going 66-67 to pass one going 65. It's infuriating.

Maybe so, but I try to find much more important things to get infuriated about. LOL
I tend to find things like that annoying instead of infuriating.

[Plutonic Panda]

Well, I have a very heavy foot when it comes to cross country travel and it puts a hold on my show.

[u50254082]

Yeah man it is one of the most frustrating things. Sometimes when I drive to OKC from L.A. I will literally see a line of cars like maybe 6-14 cars just lined up behind two semis.

Like why even go 2 MPH faster than the other trucker? I don't get it. If they are going 5-10 I can kind of understand, but I've tested it and have witnessed time and time again a trucker going 66-67 to pass one going 65. It's infuriating.

Don't blame the truckers. Blame the regulations. Most trucks run by companies are speed limited to 65MPH so it's not like the guy driving it can mosh the pedal and pass all the time.

The 1-2mph creep is often going to be due to calibration differences and such between the two trucks. If I go 70MPH in my vehicle, and the car next to me goes 70MPH, I can guarantee we won't be at the exact same speed.

If anything, back off and give the guy some breathing space so he doesn't feel like he's in an unsafe situation.

[ljbab728]

Well, I have a very heavy foot when it comes to cross country travel and it puts a hold on my show.

Yes, that is well documented here.

[Plutonic Panda]

Don't blame the truckers. Blame the regulations. Most trucks run by companies are speed limited to 65MPH so it's not like the guy driving it can mosh the pedal and pass all the time.

The 1-2mph creep is often going to be due to calibration differences and such between the two trucks. If I go 70MPH in my vehicle, and the car next to me goes 70MPH, I can guarantee we won't be at the exact same speed.

If anything, back off and give the guy some breathing space so he doesn't feel like he's in an unsafe situation.

Seriously?

I am most certainly going to blame it on the truckers. Sorry not sorry. There are regulations. Cool. I am sure there aren't regulations with certain trucks having to go one or two miles an hour faster than one right next to them holding up traffic.

If they are limited to 65, then the trucks should go 65. I understand there are calibration differences, but when I witness with my own eyes a truck taking almost 5-10 minutes to pass another 60 foot truck, it's like damn dude. It shouldn't take that long and if it is, either speed the hell up or just match the guys speed right next to you. What difference is 1-3 miles an hour faster going to make? 10-25 miles an hour faster, yeah. I get that.

[David]

The expectation is that after the new Panama Canal opens, Houston will become one of the largest ports in the world as a ton of the California traffic starts coming into Houston. This will move a ton of truck traffic from East-West routes to North-South routes.

For some reason Oklahoma has always thought there was money in being a trucking hub, and I've never understood it. Look at the very cheap registration for trucks/trailers and the lack of weigh stations (starting to come back). Now, Oklahoma is trying to position to get a lot of the new Northbound trucks out of Houston.

Ahh, I see what you mean.

[baralheia]

I believe the intended word here was "regulators", as in many trucking companies install regulators on their fleet to keep their drivers from going over 65mph... This is done mostly for fuel economy reasons. Thanks to minor differences in calibration, one truck's regulator might be set for 65 but the actual max speed of the truck is 67, which results in these slow slow passes.

[d-usa]

I believe the intended word here was "regulators", as in many trucking companies install regulators on their fleet to keep their drivers from going over 65mph... This is done mostly for fuel economy reasons. Thanks to minor differences in calibration, one truck's regulator might be set for 65 but the actual max speed of the truck is 67, which results in these slow slow passes.

To add to this (and I'm not defending the habit of holding up traffic for 5 minutes): if you are paid by the mile and you can get 2 extra miles on your paycheck on the hour every hour you might be motivated to pass that truck going 2 mph slower than you even if it makes everybody else mad behind you.

[Plutonic Panda]

All of those things are cool and all, but what does that have to do with drivers? I still think they need to ban trucks from using the left lane except for certain areas.

[shawnw]

I mostly just want a truck speed limit -10 MPH from cars like many other states have. I feel like trucks are much less of an issue when there is that segmentation...