The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

As most people probably know, Inhoff on his way out of office passed a bill to authorize upgrading US-412 to an Interstate from I-35 to I-49 in Arkansas to connect Tulsa and NW Arkansas. I thought this would take a long time, but Oklahoma is actually doing this pretty much now with federal money.

The largest section of the highway in Oklahoma from I-35 to Catoosa is Interstate quality now with one exception and could be signed at any time. The one exception is an at grade road called Diamond Head Rd by Lake Keystone. An interchange for that road is scheduled to be built in 2029.

The part of the highway from Catoosa to the Cherokee Turnpike is where the road needs big upgrades. My assumption was this would take decades, but Oklahoma got a federal grant and is doing it now, all at once:
https://oklahoma.gov/odot/progress-and-performance/federal-grant-awards/mpdg-grants/mpdg-2022/us-412_priority_improvements_for_interstate_designation.html

$139 million for improvements. 8 new interchanges and six more new bridges. Design work is underway now with construction set to start in mid 2025 and be done by 2028.

When the Arkansas side could be connected at Siloam Springs is another question, but Tulsa could be ready for a new Interstate designation within five years or so.

Not everything Inhoff did was bad.

Hitler built highways too   ;D

I-244 wouldn't have to be upgraded to be an interstate, it IS an interstate. It would just be numerical shield change.

The Silom Springs loop is under engineering already - that's definitely the big portion beside the part from the Verdigris to Cherokee Turnpike that needs to be fully built to interstate standards. It will go around the Northside of town starting somewhere around the casino on the westside and up and around the airport.

The big question is I-244 through downtown going to be required to be upgraded or not. The shoulders and on/off ramps do not meet modern interstate standards. But there's not clear direction from anyone I've talked with whether USDOT will grandfather in that section since it's already an official interestate or whether that section could hold up the fully designation until it is widened. That would require wiring through Greenwood - and the mayor's office, INCOG, and ODOT are already scheming to figure out how to do that if it's needed. Would be a massive mistake - I personally have been advocating still to make the Gilcrease loop the new interstate and decommission I-244. For some reason GT sees it as his legacy of bringing a new interstate through downtown but it's not the 60s-70s anymore... for as much as he gets it he really has some backwards donkey ideas like this that's he's pushing that will ultimately be a negative to his legacy as the jack*** who wanted to widen a highway through Greenwood even after everything that neighborhood/people have endured.

Not everything Inhoff did was bad.

You would think but it's not that simple.

USDOT has the ability to block upgrading I-244 to whatever it would be if they choose to or if they feel there are legitimate safety concerns due to any segment not meeting modern interstate standards even if it's currently a three digit interstate. Which the section through downtown/Greenwood does not meet any modern day requirements (shoulder width, ramp on/off merge areas, neither the east of west interchange come close either). 244 through downtown is the most accident prone area in the State of Oklahoma and the highest concentration of hazardous waste spills in the State of Oklahoma. Particularly the I-244 and US 75 interchange being #1 with the northbound I-244 ramp to US 412 a close runner-up. There's been legitimate safety concerns with many sections of the IDL for a long time that's been ignored. That's why there is little clarity on what is going to have to be done and ODOT, INCOG, and the mayor's office are actively planning on widening I-244 through Greenwood because of that behind closed doors. I'm not joking about that either, they are actually working on a plan to do that with engineers as part of all of the corridor studies underway.

USDOT can grandfather than section in to upgrade it to the new interstate because it is an interstate already, but that does not mean they will. Especially with the current administration and knowing that many people want I-244 removed. Buttigieg and Trottenburg have been here multiple times to talk with leaders about removing 244 and Biden has even identified is as a top candidate for Reconnecting Communities. Last time Buttigieg was in town they spent more time touring Greenwood and talking about I-244 than they did the RAISE grants they announced, that wasn't an accident given it was right before the first round of Reconnecting Communities grant applications were due.  

If USDOT does not grandfather that section in then it would require a major reconstruction to get it to interstate standards. ODOT isn't going to get that money from USDOT either if it involves taking more right-of-way in Greenwood.

USDOT participated in the complete reconstruction of the north leg of the IDL in the last decade
USDOT has already grandfathered in I-244 as an interstate, it was in fact built as an interstate
INCOG has no plans to widen the IDL by 2050:
https://www.incog.org/Transportation/Connected2050/Connected2050Plan.pdf

I guess Rich Brierre and mayor's staff were lying to me and others when they said they were working on those plans to widen I-244 to six lanes through Greenwood. Also, the multiple engineers involved in these meetings with INCOG, ODOT, mayor's staff were just having their time wasted talking about how to do it... Good to know. I've been advocating for the removal of parts of the IDL for a long time and there's a lot that goes on in private than you think.

I never said I-244 wasn't an interstate either, it is. It was built as an interstate many decades ago and the section through downtown does not meet modern standards - that is a fact. It is also a fact that no one at the moment knows how USDOT will treat that situation.

Yes, the north and west sections were paid for through the Obama stimulus package in order to 'renovate' those sections along with replacing the bridge across the river. That was also 10+ year ago - things have changed politically significantly since then too and there's a big, big difference of using stimulus funding to expedite projects than getting specific allocations from USDOT to do projects too. ODOT can use much of it's funding how it wants, but you're talking about a $1-2 billion + project if you wanted to widen or tunnel I-244 through Greenwood. ODOT doesn't have the funds to do that in house with regular funding. It would have to come from USDOT, how do you think that request would go over? Please give us a billion + to further destroy Greenwood and take more land - signed ODOT, mayors office, and INCOG. If ODOT wanted to fund that themselves you're talking about taking up 10%+ of allocations they have in their typical 8 year plan (I think the most recent 8 year plan state wide would take $8ish billion to do everything) - isn't going to happen.

Just because it's not on 2050 plan doesn't mean that it's not being discussed.

There are a few community stakeholders (primarily GKFF and some others) that want to make Greenwood into a national park or monument and would involve tunneling I-244 to 'remove' it as part of using funding to rebuild parts of the district through federal funding. Councilor Hall-Harper is even having a few open houses to discuss the pros/cons of turning parts of Greenwood into a national park/monument area - it's on her Facebook pages, etc. There's a lot going on, people just aren't fighting with each other in the press about it, at least not yet.

ODOT, INCOG, others aren't stupid - they know how it would look if they made many of these plans public involving I-244 and their scheming.

USDOT does not have to grant a designation change for I-244 to be I-42 (which is the likely designation per INCOG and others). They can use any reason why as well - which could very well be safety issues.

Looking at Google Maps, I-244 is already 6 lanes through Greenwood, does have the mandated 12' lanes and 10' and 4' shoulders with a solid barrier. It does have left hand exits, but those are very common in urban areas.

How is I-244 non-compliant?

ODOT is conducting a public meeting on 6/6 in downtown Tulsa on the 412 upgrade.

https://tulsaworld.com/news/community/sand-springs/public-hearing-planned-on-converting-u-s-412-to-interstate-highway/article_63c2e646-fcc0-11ed-8301-5f36c1abc3b1.html

Project docs will be posted here on 6/7:
http://odot.org/US412interstateDesignationStudy

What's the crux of the meeting?  I'm not paying for the Tulsa World.  Ever.  Again.

June 6 public meeting regarding the conversion of much of U.S. 412 to an interstate highway “is the first step in a long, long process,” an ODOT spokesman said, but it’s a critical step in bringing the project to fruition.

“This is just a preliminary study in order to view and gauge where we are today and what needs to be done,” said T.J. Gerlach, a spokesman for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.

Former Oklahoma U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, along with Sens. John Boozman and Tom Cotton, both R-Ark., introduced legislation in May 2021 to give the interstate designation to the 190-mile stretch of U.S. 412 from Interstate 35 in Noble County to Interstate 49 in Springdale, Arkansas. That portion of the highway travels through Tulsa.

Elevated Major Freeway / Interstate, 4 lanes 12’ wide each lane & 3’ shoulder, urban location in Central USA. $68.45 million per mile. $42.78 million per km.

Serious question maybe it will be answered in the upcoming meetings, but with all the talk of removing the north leg of the IDL and ending it at Lewis, if that's done, then what? Spend a few hundred million on upgrading and finishing the Gilcrease Expressway? Build an entirely new stretch of interstate? That would probably be somewhere between $500 million or so for an upgrade and $1 billion for new going off the current stat of $60 million per mile to build a foul lane interstate in an urban area in the central US.

https://compassinternational.net/order-magnitude-road-highway-costs/#:~:text=bridge%2C%20in%20N.W.-,USA.,lane%20overpass%20bridge%2C%20in%20S.E. (https://compassinternational.net/order-magnitude-road-highway-costs/#:~:text=bridge%2C%20in%20N.W.-,USA.,lane%20overpass%20bridge%2C%20in%20S.E.)

Removing the north leg of the IDL will never happen.

I wouldn't be surprised at anything.  I-40 through Memphis was completely eliminated - miles of it!  And the north loop around that city became the new I-40. 


And West Memphis I-40 has finally ALMOST finished!!!   After just a little bit over 40 years to do about a 10 mile stretch of road!   (It was being worked on the first time I drove through there in 1980, since the 60's!.  And had the look of being in process for at least a little while.  Last year on our 4 trips through there, you could actually see the progress being made and it was mostly usable by August.  Even the hard left turn to go around town!   Our latest trip thru there 2 weeks ago, W Memphis was still ok, but there is something going on with the exit onto fake I-40...lane markings have changed and what was a 2 lane turn now necks back down to 1.)

During the 1960s alternatives were proposed, including routing I-40 north of the park, but this proved costly and redundant since the northerly route brought the highway within a couple miles of the I-240 bypass.  Tensions within Memphis reached a new high on April 4, 1968, when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated while standing outside at the city’s Lorraine Motel.  Interestingly enough on that same day, the city council voted and gave the green light to allow the construction of I-40 through Overton Park.  In 1969 CPOP lost a lawsuit filed against the city to halt construction.  In 1970 an appeal was made to the 6th Circuit Court, where CPOP lost again.  Finally, in 1971, CPOP won the right to have their case heard at the U.S. Supreme Court.

With CPOP bringing their case to the highest court in the country, John Volpe, who at the time was Secretary of Transportation under President Richard Nixon, represented the respondent in the case.  CPOP’s main argument to the court was summarized thus:

“Under § 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and § 138 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, the Secretary of Transportation may not authorize use of federal funds to finance construction of highways through public parks if a ‘feasible and prudent’ alternative route exists. If no such route is available, he may approve construction only if there has been ‘all possible planning to minimize harm’ to the park. Petitioners contend that the Secretary has violated these statutes by authorizing a six-lane interstate highway through a Memphis public park. In April 1968 the Secretary announced that he agreed with the local officials that the highway go through the park; in September 1969 the State acquired the right-of-way inside the park; and in November 1969 the Secretary announced final approval, including the design, of the road. Neither announcement of the Secretary was accompanied by factual findings.”

 

For their part, Volpe and his allies made the following counter-arguments:

“[T]he requirement that there be no other ‘prudent’ route requires the Secretary to engage in a wide-ranging balancing of competing interests. They contend that the Secretary should weigh the detriment resulting from the destruction of parkland against the cost of other routes, safety considerations, and other factors, and determine on the basis of the importance that he attaches to these other factors whether, on balance, alternative feasible routes would be ‘prudent.’

But no such wide-ranging endeavor was intended. It is obvious that in most cases considerations of cost, directness of route, and community disruption will indicate that parkland should be used for highway construction whenever possible. Although it may be necessary to transfer funds from one jurisdiction to another, 25 there will always be a smaller outlay required from the public purse 26 when parkland is used since the public already owns the land and there will be no need to pay for right-of-way. And since people do not live or work in parks, if a highway is built on parkland no one will have to leave his home or give up his business. Such factors are common to substantially all highway construction.”

The Supreme Court decided in favor of CPOP, but that didn’t end the saga.  Throughout the 1970s, plans were discussed to route I-40 underground through the park, but again, cost considerations prevented this idea from gaining traction.  Finally, in 1981, the Department of Transportation removed the I-40 designation from the “orphaned” section of I-40 that had already been completed inside the I-240 beltway.  This part was re-named as Sam Cooper Boulevard.

State Route 480 (SR 480) was a state highway in San Francisco, California, United States, consisting of the elevated double-decker Embarcadero Freeway (also known as the Embarcadero Skyway), the partly elevated Doyle Drive approach to the Golden Gate Bridge and the proposed and unbuilt section in between. The unbuilt section from Doyle Drive to Van Ness Avenue was to have been called the Golden Gate Freeway and the Embarcadero Freeway as originally planned would have extended from Van Ness along the north side of Bay Street and then along the Embarcadero to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.

Removing the north leg of the IDL will never happen.

Not exactly, it was never completed per the original plan.