Driving Forward OK - Oklahoma Turnpike Improvements and New Construction

[baralheia]

I figured this should probably have it's own thread.

As the Governor announced today, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is planning a total of 6 different projects across the state's network of turnpikes. The projects are as follows:

Gilcrease Expressway

• 2.5 miles
• $28 million from OTA and partnership with City of Tulsa
• New road construction
• This project connects L.L. Tisdale to I-44 and completes the Western loop around the Tulsa metro area. It will help relieve urban traffic congestion during peak periods. It will also provide a new and more direct route to city attractions and points of interest in the Tulsa urban core. This will bolster safe access to Tulsa along with economic growth and opportunity.

Northeast OK County Loop

• 21 miles
• $300 million
• New construction
• This project will allow for a connection from Eastern Oklahoma County to vital intersections for travel. This will produce a drive-time reduction to access Tulsa from the OKC Metro and a needed new loop to alleviate current congested traffic in the Oklahoma City area. Construction will link I-40 and I-44 (Turner Turnpike) in Eastern Oklahoma County.

Muskogee Turnpike

• 9.5 miles
• $42 million
• Reconstruction of Turnpike from “ground-up” for safety and modernization of toll plaza
• This reconstruction will occur between Creek Turnpike interchange and State Highway 51 near Coweta. It will allow for a safer and more drivable surface and provide increased safety features.

HE Bailey Turnpike

• 7.5 miles
• $32 million
• Turnpike reconstruction for lanes and safety features and toll plaza modernization for better access for PikePass customers
• This project will provide wider lanes and enhanced safety features for travel as well as improved technology for toll plaza locations for customer convenience between Bridge Creek and North Meridian Avenue near Newcastle.

Turner Turnpike

• 22 miles
• $300 million
• Reconstruction for more lanes and safety features including lights and other future safety enhancements
• The Turner Turnpike is a vital turnpike corridor that connects Oklahoma’s two metro areas. Improving safety and convenience on this road is a priority for the OTA. This reconstruction/safety project will occur between Bristow and the Creek Turnpike West (State Highway 364) section of the Turner Turnpike. In the last five years there have been 15 fatalities and 514 wrecks on this section of road. This project will create an “urban turnpike corridor” with lighting, wider lanes and the addition of lanes. It will allow for the future creation of truck-specific lanes for quick and safe access.

Southwest OKC Extension

• 7 miles
• $190 million
• New construction
• This project will be an extension of the Kilpatrick Turnpike that will connect SW OKC and the metro area at-large with the urban core. It will increase access and offer another route for Will Rogers World Airport. It will occur between I-40 and State Highway 152/Airport Road.

These projects, totaling $892 million dollars, will be funded by bonds and repaid by turnpike user fees. Work on these projects is expected to begin in the third quarter of 2016.

More information can be found here: Driving Forward OK

[kwhey]

So I am guessing eminent domain will be used on the houses that are already there on the SW OKC extension?

[OKCisOK4me]

That's all great news! Goes to show the turnpike system was never meant to be free nor will it ever. Look forward to seeing these improvements on Google Maps in the years to come...

[Zorba]

I used to hate the turnpike system, and really it is a still a very regressive tax, but I am happy for the infrastructure it brings. After using turnpikes in other states, which are becoming much more prolific, I have to say Oklahoma has a very good turnpike system. Compared to most states the fares are very reasonable and there isn't a toll booth every 3 miles like in FL or TX. Also many states are selling (really long term leases) their turnpikes to foreign companies, which I really disagree with.

I think all of these projects sound good. I am really surprised that they aren't putting in a Turnpike from the Creek Turnpike to Bixby in Tulsa. Bixby has terrible highway access and has expanded like crazy recently. The new East Loop seems pretty far out there, but I guess it will help encourage sprawl, seems like there are more pressing concerns that could have been addressed now.

[gopokes88]

I used to hate the turnpike system, and really it is a still a very regressive tax, but I am happy for the infrastructure it brings. After using turnpikes in other states, which are becoming much more prolific, I have to say Oklahoma has a very good turnpike system. Compared to most states the fares are very reasonable and there isn't a toll booth every 3 miles like in FL or TX. Also many states are selling (really long term leases) their turnpikes to foreign companies, which I really disagree with.

I think all of these projects sound good. I am really surprised that they aren't putting in a Turnpike from the Creek Turnpike to Bixby in Tulsa. Bixby has terrible highway access and has expanded like crazy recently. The new East Loop seems pretty far out there, but I guess it will help encourage sprawl, seems like there are more pressing concerns that could have been addressed now.

It's actually a usage tax not regressive. Despite your opinions on whether its regressive or not, taking the turnpike is 100% optional, don't like it, don't take it. That makes it a usage tax not regressive. A tax can only be regressive if it's mandatory.

[Zorba]

It's actually a usage tax not regressive. Despite your opinions on whether its regressive or not, taking the turnpike is 100% optional, don't like it, don't take it. That makes it a usage tax not regressive. A tax can only be regressive if it's mandatory.

Define it however you want, but all usage fees/taxes are regressive, regardless of optionality. The quantity of sales and property taxes are also optional, but are by definition regressive. Notice that IRS definition include park and museum entrance fees as well. Furthermore, tolls are very locationally biased, which doesn't necessarily make it regressive but does make it biased and hurts the whole "Don't like it, don't use it" argument. Really, I dislike the location bias more than regressiveness, its just when the two are added it can become a bigger deal for some people.

But like I said, these projects wouldn't happen without the tolls, so it is a necessary evil.

I really think with the improvement in fuel mileage, and the unwillingness of government to raise gas taxes, that we should go to a true usage fee system where you pay an annual fee with your car tag based on the GVW and the miles driven. You'd have to figure out how to handle out of state users, but I am sure that could be figured out. It will either eventually be a system like this, or every highway will eventual be turned into a tollway as funding dries up and construction costs increase.

[rte66man]

OTA has been very careful to clearly state they haven't picked firm routes for the 3 new pikes yet. The Turner part is WAY past due. Hoping they grab enough ROW so the high speed rail can use it.

[LowFlyinDuc]

They need to fix the bridge on the Kilpatrick just north of 39th St. That thing is insane. 20 bone jarring bumps that have caused several accidents in the 10 or so years I've been driving it. My kids call it the bumpy bridge, I think it's more like a very large washboard or cattle guard stretched out over a 1/4 mile. OKCisOK4Me was lucky enough to hear me complain on a daily basis for over a year. I doubt anything will be done, or even proposed, but I still felt the need to bitch a bit. Carry on.....

[TheTravellers]

They need to fix the bridge on the Kilpatrick just north of 39th St. That thing is insane. 20 bone jarring bumps that have caused several accidents in the 10 or so years I've been driving it. My kids call it the bumpy bridge, I think it's more like a very large washboard or cattle guard stretched out over a 1/4 mile. OKCisOK4Me was lucky enough to hear me complain on a daily basis for over a year. I doubt anything will be done, or even proposed, but I still felt the need to bitch a bit. Carry on.....

I asked about that here a while back and was given the information that they miscalculated the load between spans and it was supposed to flatten out once the concrete was poured, and they apparently assigned that task to the 1st-year psychology students (because even 1st-year engineers shouldn't've been able to screw it up that badly), and it's happened on quite a few other bridges/flyovers on the Kilpatrick. Huge, huge, huge embarrassment that we can't even figure that out properly, I'm amazed that it got all the way through and finished, it's pretty much completely inexcusable, never ever driven over anything that badly in any other state in the union (and I've been through a lot of them).

[Zorba]

I asked about that here a while back and was given the information that they miscalculated the load between spans and it was supposed to flatten out once the concrete was poured, and they apparently assigned that task to the 1st-year psychology students (because even 1st-year engineers shouldn't've been able to screw it up that badly), and it's happened on quite a few other bridges/flyovers on the Kilpatrick. Huge, huge, huge embarrassment that we can't even figure that out properly, I'm amazed that it got all the way through and finished, it's pretty much completely inexcusable, never ever driven over anything that badly in any other state in the union (and I've been through a lot of them).

All bridge beams are initially chambered upward, and then they flatten out as the deadweight of the bridge deck is added. Pre-stressed concrete beams have a much more noticeable chamber initially than steel beam because the lower part of the beam is pre-stressed into compression. Even after the deadweight is applied concrete beams will retain some chamber since they design the pre-stress high enough to ensure the bottom of the beam is always kept in compression (concrete cracks with just a slight amount of tension).

Since the beams will retain chamber after the deck is applied, when they pour the decking they pour a variable thickness "haunch." The haunch is basically the concrete that connects the deck to the beams. If you closely look at the underside of a concrete beam bridge you can easily see this variable thickness between the beams and the decking.

Basically every other state requires the engineers to do the haunch thickness calculations and put them on the drawings. Oklahoma, however, leaves it up to the bridge construction company. Not only are these calculations fairly complicated for the non-engineers, the state further ties their hands by limiting the min/max thickness range. So even if the contractor did the calcs perfectly, they may still not be able to create a smooth bridge.

Each hump you feel on these bridges is one beam span. The Creek Turnpike South Loop in Tulsa has this problem in a big way too. But it is an issue all over the state. Notice that Texas uses concrete bridges all over the place, including a lot of the new I-635, not a single one has this issue because the engineers do the haunch calculations.



More info: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewco...ontext=ce_etds

[MagzOK]

All bridge beams are initially chambered upward, and then they flatten out as the deadweight of the bridge deck is added. Pre-stressed concrete beams have a much more noticeable chamber initially than steel beam because the lower part of the beam is pre-stressed into compression. Even after the deadweight is applied concrete beams will retain some chamber since they design the pre-stress high enough to ensure the bottom of the beam is always kept in compression (concrete cracks with just a slight amount of tension).

Since the beams will retain chamber after the deck is applied, when they pour the decking they pour a variable thickness "haunch." The haunch is basically the concrete that connects the deck to the beams. If you closely look at the underside of a concrete beam bridge you can easily see this variable thickness between the beams and the decking.

Basically every other state requires the engineers to do the haunch thickness calculations and put them on the drawings. Oklahoma, however, leaves it up to the bridge construction company. Not only are these calculations fairly complicated for the non-engineers, the state further ties their hands by limiting the min/max thickness range. So even if the contractor did the calcs perfectly, they may still not be able to create a smooth bridge.

Each hump you feel on these bridges is one beam span. The Creek Turnpike South Loop in Tulsa has this problem in a big way too. But it is an issue all over the state. Notice that Texas uses concrete bridges all over the place, including a lot of the new I-635, not a single one has this issue because the engineers do the haunch calculations.



More info: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewco...ontext=ce_etds

Fantastic explanation. You know, it is a shame the OTA allowed these bridges in question to be completed at final inspections.

[rezman]

All bridge beams are initially chambered upward, and then they flatten out as the deadweight of the bridge deck is added. Pre-stressed concrete beams have a much more noticeable chamber initially than steel beam because the lower part of the beam is pre-stressed into compression. Even after the deadweight is applied concrete beams will retain some chamber since they design the pre-stress high enough to ensure the bottom of the beam is always kept in compression (concrete cracks with just a slight amount of tension).

Since the beams will retain chamber after the deck is applied, when they pour the decking they pour a variable thickness "haunch." The haunch is basically the concrete that connects the deck to the beams. If you closely look at the underside of a concrete beam bridge you can easily see this variable thickness between the beams and the decking.

Basically every other state requires the engineers to do the haunch thickness calculations and put them on the drawings. Oklahoma, however, leaves it up to the bridge construction company. Not only are these calculations fairly complicated for the non-engineers, the state further ties their hands by limiting the min/max thickness range. So even if the contractor did the calcs perfectly, they may still not be able to create a smooth bridge.

Each hump you feel on these bridges is one beam span. The Creek Turnpike South Loop in Tulsa has this problem in a big way too. But it is an issue all over the state. Notice that Texas uses concrete bridges all over the place, including a lot of the new I-635, not a single one has this issue because the engineers do the haunch calculations.



More info: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewco...ontext=ce_etds

Zorba, thank you for your explanation. I've wondered about that every time I've crossed those spans, and only heard that the crown or "chamber" as you describe it, was miscalulated.

I'm not an engineer but I've also wondered about the what the stresses are from all the vehicles bouncing over those spans over the years. Especially from trucks. I call it unsprung weight however that may not be the proper term, but everytime a vehicle goes over each span and the weight bottoms out in the dips between each one, has to be putting extra stresses on the joints and bridge components.

[ljbab728]

This gives a little more detailed information.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/7181a5_aeb3...69a802528f.pdf

[JAW]

The Turner bypass east of Tinker and east the I-40/I-240 split is necessary to help pull some of those Tulsa (and beyond) to TX truck traffic out of the metro, but it needs to be extended down to highway 9 or even reconnect with i-35 around Purcell. If the TX bound truckers just get pulled onto I-240 and head west to reconnect on I-35 at the Godawful I-35/I-240 interchange, it won't do much to fix the problem, since most of the southbound traffic from downtown stays on I-35 until Moore and Norman.

[ou48A]

The Turner bypass east of Tinker and east the I-40/I-240 split is necessary to help pull some of those Tulsa (and beyond) to TX truck traffic out of the metro, but it needs to be extended down to highway 9 or even reconnect with i-35 around Purcell. If the TX bound truckers just get pulled onto I-240 and head west to reconnect on I-35 at the Godawful I-35/I-240 interchange, it won't do much to fix the problem, since most of the southbound traffic from downtown stays on I-35 until Moore and Norman.

I agree with this…^
A bypass around the east side of the OKC metro would make I-35 less crowed and safer…. We need another bridge over the river somewhere south of Norman near Noble IMO.
But I don’t understand why this project is so far east. It seems like it would be better if it was moved about 5 miles west?

[rezman]

I agree with this…^
A bypass around the east side of the OKC metro would make I-35 less crowed and safer…. We need another bridge over the river somewhere south of Norman near Noble IMO.
But I don’t understand why this project is so far east. It seems like it would be better if it was moved about 5 miles west?

After living out in eastern Oklahoma County for 10 years, I can see the route being placed in the areas between Luther and Tripple X roads. Maybe as far west as Indian Meridian. It's more rural and there's more bottom land to work with in that area. Any farther west would displace a LOT of residential areas ... Think Jones, Spencer, Nicoma Park, Choctaw and eastern Midwest City. ..... Eastern Oklahoma County has been growing for sometime. Someone mentioned up thread that the loop would invite sprawl, but the sprawl has already been happening. There's a lot of people that live out that way.

[ou48A]

After living out in eastern Oklahoma County for 10 years, I can see the route being placed in the areas between Luther and Tripple X roads. Maybe as far west as Indian Meridian. It's more rural and there's more bottom land to work with in that area. Any farther west would displace a LOT of residential areas ... Think Jones, Spencer, Nicoma Park, Choctaw and eastern Midwest City. ..... Eastern Oklahoma County has been growing for sometime. Someone mentioned up thread that the loop would invite sprawl, but the sprawl has already been happening. There's a lot of people that live out that way.

Thanks…..Your reasons are probably why it’s as far east as it is.

However, if it’s ever extended south I hope it’s routed southwesterly on the west side of lake Thunderbird, crossing the river west of the Noble area and then connects with I-35 near Ladd Rd.

[mugofbeer]

I think toll roads are an excellent answer to highway needs. The notion they are a regressive tax makes no sense. Where I do have a problem is where proposals are made to take a free road and turn it to a toll road. Toll lanes are fine as long as the tolls are reasonable.

I think the only way the proposed projects are going to be built is with tolls. Those that don't want to use them won't have to pay for them. I especially like the east OK County proposal though i hope it can be brought in closer to town.

[Stew]

The IRS says tolls are a regressive tax and holy smokes they are the taxman.

User fees often are considered regressive because they take a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups. These include fees for licenses, parking, admission to museums and parks, and tolls for roads.

So eh at the very least it's debatable.




https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandi...hm03_les02.jsp

[David]

The IRS says tolls are a regressive tax and holy smokes they are the taxman.



So eh at the very least it's debatable.




https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandi...hm03_les02.jsp

That doesn't say they are regressive, it says they often are, so there's plenty of wiggle room in their definition. If every road in the state was a toll road then hell yeah it would be regressive, but many of our toll turnpikes are very optional. I've lived in the metro area for about 10 years now, and I'm pretty sure I've used them no more than a dozen times or so.

[brianinok]

I understand they're connecting the Kilpatrick Turnpike at I-40 to Highway 152 (Airport Road). But I'm wondering if there will be an EASY connection to Highway 4 going south of Mustang and connecting back to I-44 / HE Bailey Turnpike.

Right now traversing this stretch from SW 15th through Mustang proper is the biggest nightmare, but if you could get off the Kilpatrick Turnpike at Highway 4 / 152 and travel straight south until I-44 / HE Bailey this would be a much better western route during rush hour.

[mugofbeer]

Not sure how that would apply here since there are alternatives "the poor" could take. That would apply to things like toll bridges to which swimming would be the only alternative or licenses which may be required.

[bradh]

I know it's not the sexy urban infill everyone wants, but I would think this SW expansion would help fill in a lot of that vacant land between Mustang and the city

[LakeEffect]

I know it's not the sexy urban infill everyone wants, but I would think this SW expansion would help fill in a lot of that vacant land between Mustang and the city

Possibly, but I don't understand how they're going to do it without displacing quite a few people...

[bradh]

Possibly, but I don't understand how they're going to do it without displacing quite a few people...

Yeah I agree, or just making some incredibly winding road that will have traffic issues eventually because everyone will slam on their brakes because "oh no a curve!"