The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Big turnpike projects in the Tulsa area. Construction to start in Q3 2016.

1.   $30 million  - OTA will finish the west loop tying together the Gilcrease Expressway and I-44
2.   This is the  big one, $300 million. Upgrade and widen with lights the Turner from the Creek Turnpike to Bristow.
3.   Lastly upgrade and widen the Muskogee Turnpike from The Creek Turnpike to Coweta - $42 million

There’s also $500+ million planned in the OKC area, mostly to further build two more sections of an outer ring around Oklahoma City.

http://www.drivingforwardok.com/

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state/new-tulsa-road-projects-included-in-bond-financed-turnpike-initiative/article_6cd8b552-175a-5cc2-976d-acbf0521db26.html

BILLIONS on roadwork. Not a penny for mass transit...


1) Turner turnpike increased to 6 lanes from Bristow to the Creek Turnpike Interchange. $300,000,000.

I've never really had a problem with that area. I also hate freeway lighting other than major interchanges. Huge waste on the front end and operating costs. I shake my head as I turn off my headlights and drive down the well lit freeways of Oklahoma...

But I could see the expansion being needed eventually. Bond prices are low.

2) Resurface 51 to Coweta.  Resurface from Coweta partially to Muskogee.

Probably needs it.

3) Tisdale to West 41st

Planners really want the west loop. Unless there is bridge funding in the future, or an alternate plan, it's irrelevant. BUT... that part of Tulsa is underdeveloped. Better to grow there than further south. Keep the town more balanced.

On the website it states:


How does 2.5 miles connect tisdale and I-44? Those roads are 8 miles apart?

Maybe Tisdale to Gilcrease?

Should also note that this means 28 more miles of highway in OKC and 2.5 miles in Tulsa.

Do we want the resulting sprawl of 28 more miles of highway built in the middle of nowhere? This isn't a bad thing.

Then again, with cross-subsidizing, we aren't really paying for them. And it looks so pretty on a map.

The original press release says "progress" towards finishing the loop. Truthfully, bond rates are as low as they ever will be. If we want to build stuff, now is the time.

No, but I would rather see Tulsa and OKC both get 8. Tulsa would have a complete western loop and OKC can make an outlet mall expressway or something. Having trouble visualizing where they can put another highway. The whole town seems like it's put in a median as it is.

That was the same thing I was thinking about but how could you justify making that segment (Tisdale to Gilcrease) toll when it's currently limited access right now anyway?  Unless there is already a lot of it done.

The expansion to Bristow seems entirely unnecessary.  How far would $300 million go toward improving and implementing passenger rail service between Tulsa and OKC?  I don’t see a reason why OTA can’t be in the choo-choo business.

Based on the graphic in the Tulsa World this morning it is the section that begins just north of 412 and runs across the Arkansas River.  The city is still on the hook for the remainder.  The city authorized earlier this year $8.6mm for right of way acquisition to make way for the extension.  The two lane Gilcrease Expressway already connects with the Tisdale Pkwy between Apache & 36th St N and meanders thru the hills for a couple miles until you get to N 41st W Ave.  The connection from HWY 75 to the Tisdale is complete.  The stretch going west of the Tisdale is a nice expressway drive if you're looking for 2.5 miles of paved paradise.

You think she honestly believes that's why businesses are not locating in Oklahoma?

Now don't get too excited yet, it still requires legislative authorization.

Wow.  Totally different story than was reported in The Frontier.  

OK, so the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is offering to spend $28 million to help build a 2.5-mile stretch of the Gilcrease Expressway from Edison to 21st Street.

But it seems the devil's in the details...

https://www.readfrontier.com/whats-not-to-love-about-states-offer-to-help-build-gilcrease-expressway-a-few-things/ (https://www.readfrontier.com/whats-not-to-love-about-states-offer-to-help-build-gilcrease-expressway-a-few-things/)

- The city estimates the project will cost approximately $100 million, meaning Tulsa would be on the hook for the remaining $72 million or so.

- Of the six projects announced by the Turnpike Authority, Tulsa is the only city being asked to contribute funds to a project.

- The Turnpike Authority will maintain and operate the other five roadway projects announced Thursday but will not maintain and operate the 2.5-mile stretch of the Gilcrease once it is completed. That will be the city’s job, even as Tulsans pay the Turnpike Authority a toll to use it.

- The Turnpike Authority announced $892 million in projects Thursday, but only two projects – the Gilcrease and the reconstruction of 9.5 miles of the Muskogee Turnpike, totaling $70 million – are expressly intended to benefit northeast Oklahoma.

...So now the city has a decision to make: take the Turnpike Authority’s $28 million and get the road done in 2019 or 2020, or continue to pay $7.5 million annually – $6 million in federal funds and $1.5 million in city matching funds – and do the job itself.

If the city takes the money, the 2.5-mile stretch gets built sooner, but Tulsans will have to pay a toll to use the roadway until the Turnpike Authority gets its $28 million back.

And that $7.5 million the city is using to build the road itself will go to pay off the city’s $70 million portion of the project, plus debt service.

Reject the offer, and the 2.5-mile stretch gets built piece by piece and is completed in about 13 years.

-- So there's another possibility.  Why don't we just agree not to build the darn thing.  It's a bridge to nowhere.  We don't need it.  We can't afford to maintain it.  And we have a lot of real transportation needs that are going unfunded right now--projects that could actually benefit real people, not just make a handful of land speculators rich.

If you have to light at all, it should be Interchange Lighting and not end-to-end Continuous Lighting.  The later would be for an area that has pedestrians, bicyclists and at-grade conflicts.  Is that planned?  If not, its wasteful spending.

Also, lighting is not a one-time expense. 

This is Sauerkraut...I...mean, Mary we are talking about here.

And Dewey thinks this is a good deal. He must be the worlds worst negotiator.

Can't really be sure he thinks of deals in terms of "best interests of Tulsa".

Well, gosh, we rate near the top in domestic violence, female incarceration, teen pregnancy, violent crime, obesity, substance abuse, etc, etc.  And we rank near the bottom in education, health care, insurance coverage, mental health, transit funding...

But I'm sure a few more paved roads will attract employers...

Can we just go ahead and agree that Dooey is the worst Tulsa mayor ever?  I am baffled by the guy.  A strange combination of clueless, incurious, and entitled little grown up boy, who somehow thinks he deserves to run the city.  I'm grateful for some smart folks on the City Council, b/c we need them!

Yes, that's a very good thing. We flipped from having an often insane city council and really good mayor before Dewey to the exact opposite today.

Come, come now!  He got us an REI on useless park land at 71st & Riverside.

How about REI at Utica where Miss Jackson's was. That would be a lot better than H&M.

That is a common "complaint".  Are "we" unjustly putting women in jail or do we have a bunch of misbehaving females?

I believe Okla has the highest incarceration rate in the nation for both men AND women.  People tend to quote the statistic about women because women tend to get locked up for minor stuff like drug use and petty crimes (or failure to pay fines), and this has a disproportionate impact on the children of incarcerated mothers.  Also because it reflects a state's overall handling of substance abuse, mental health issues, education and domestic violence.  Our poor performance in these other areas puts more women at risk of incarceration.

Here's a fun fact:
From 1974 to 2001, the crime rate in OK increased 14%.  During that time, our incarceration rate increased 440%.  (Along with privatized prison profits!)

I guess that's the definition of a red state.  Dumb politicians posturing and looking "tough on crime."  When in fact, they're just throwing everyone in jail and breaking up families for things that other states would offer intervention services for instead.

That would be a great space for it.

Its the bridge that likely will soak up the most of the funds isn't it? A bridge that connects two rather dissimilar communities and offers dubious growth opportunity. They are areas that have been ignored but once again I see little ROI and continuing expense we have to bear.

Best I remember from the last election it was disclosed that DB jr.'s family is invested in the land around the Gilcrease extension. Maybe he's not so clueless.

We are a bit off thread here but I don't think it's worth a new thread.

I won't argue the incarceration rate for petty stuff but I believe in equal rights.  Women should be locked up for the same infractions as men are locked up. Women should be aware of breaking up families before they do something stupid, no special exemptions for being female.  I am gender neutral, equal incarceration for equal stupidity.  There is no reason to let females go free for the same infractions as males, Period.

Red State, Blue State. Are you saying we lock up females at an excessive rate because we are a Red State or are you saying we lock up too many of both sexes because we are a Red State?

I think red state politics contribute.  When you cut education, you spend more on crime and prisons.  When you cut funds for mental health and substance abuse care, you spend more on crime and prisons. When you run on platforms that are "tough on crime," you spend more on crime and prisons.  When you invoke a "war on drugs," you spend more on crime and prisons. When you take sentencing flexibility out of the hands of judges and implement rigid sentencing rules, you spend more on crime and prisons.  When you cut taxes so much that the court systems have to fund themselves through "user fees," you send more people to jail simply b/c they can't pay those fees, and you spend more on incarcerating them than the fees were worth. So, yeah. I guess it's partly a red state thing.

But hey, look! A $100 million highway that nobody needs!  That's a valid way to spend tax dollars!

</tangent>
Back to the turnpike "offer" from DOT.