Absolutely!

I don't see anything that resembles the location of an express lane.

I have never seen this in the entire state of Oklahoma. Could you explain more about this?

It can't be the last paving contract. The westbound bridge over Agnew still has yet to be built. All you see now is the eastbound lanes and the one lane eastbound bridge to connect into the new future boulevard. ...

there is probably a diference between it being open and being complete...maybe what they meant, it is the last paving contract before they can open the road to traffic and shut down the old Crosstown? Think they said they have a couple of more years or so of related stuff stuff to do (not counting the Boulevard)

I can't wait to drive on this!!!! Sitting in traffic on 44 and 40 for miles at a time, only to see NOTHING causing it drives me INSANE! But so far, I don't see anything that resembles the location of an express lane. Did they toss that idea and just open it up for all 6 lanes?

As far as I've heard there have never been any plans for an express lane. At the widest, it will be 5 lanes each way.

The express lanes were in all the renderings...in fact it was 2 lanes in each direction seperated with a concrete barrier. To me, it doesn't look like there is enough room on the pavement being laid to include that as well as the other 5 lanes of normal traffic each side was supposed to have. But hey, renderings more often than no, do not tell the end story.

Thunder - express lanes are much like a HOV lane (like in Dallas). There is a good example in Austin on 35. Think of it like an express elevator, you don't stop at each floor, you only stop at a few. So for the lanes, you enter the express end on one end of downtown and come out on the other with no exits from the express lane in-between. So you don't have to deal with all the on-off traffic as you flow through (like what causes the backups now at Robinson every day). The theory is that because you're going straight through, you don't have to stop because of merging traffic. And they made it two lanes so you don't get stuck like you do in the Dallas HOV lane because gramps can't go more than 60...while non-HOV goes 75. I'd prefer the non-barrier approach myself and have it be the poles or reflectors and double lines though. That way if there is a wreck, you can still get in/out...and the tow truck can get in easier as well.

there is probably a diference between it being open and being complete...maybe what they meant, it is the last paving contract before they can open the road to traffic and shut down the old Crosstown? Think they said they have a couple of more years or so of related stuff stuff to do (not counting the Boulevard)

My "complete" does not include the boulevard. The point I was expressing, is that if they're going to open it to full traffic access, the ends will be a knot as each direction of traffic is diverted to one side while they work on connecting the other, so as there may be 10 lanes for the full length (5 in each direction) the ends will be on one side (therefore 2 1/2 lanes in each direction).

The express lanes were in all the renderings...in fact it was 2 lanes in each direction seperated with a concrete barrier. To me, it doesn't look like there is enough room on the pavement being laid to include that as well as the other 5 lanes of normal traffic each side was supposed to have. But hey, renderings more often than no, do not tell the end story....
I never saw renderings but vaguely recall "express" lanes being mentioned (but can't find it in print now). That said, it was always my understanding that the express lanes were include in the overall 10 lane count??? And not 10 lanes regular (5 each side) AND more express lanes. Is that not correct??

My "complete" does not include the boulevard. The point I was expressing, is that if they're going to open it to full traffic access, the ends will be a knot as each direction of traffic is diverted to one side while they work on connecting the other, so as there may be 10 lanes for the full length (5 in each direction) the ends will be on one side (therefore 2 1/2 lanes in each direction).

I think we are on the same page...

I think we are on the same page...

:Smiley051

My "complete" does not include the boulevard. The point I was expressing, is that if they're going to open it to full traffic access, the ends will be a knot as each direction of traffic is diverted to one side while they work on connecting the other, so as there may be 10 lanes for the full length (5 in each direction) the ends will be on one side (therefore 2 1/2 lanes in each direction).

They will probably take up some of the right shoulder and left breakdown lane so each will have a full 3 each direction.

I never saw renderings but vaguely recall "express" lanes being mentioned (but can't find it in print now). That said, it was always my understanding that the express lanes were include in the overall 10 lane count??? And not 10 lanes regular (5 each side) AND more express lanes. Is that not correct??

There may have been some mention of eventually having express lanes and it may have been constructed with that in mind but there were never any plans to have express lanes when it opened. I'm not sure what rendering bomber saw but I've been on many freeways with express lanes and never saw any with two lanes in each direction. I have seen some with reversible lanes which can be adjusted according to rush hour traffic flow. If traffic in Los Angeles or Dallas doesn't require that, I can't imagine why we would ever need to go to that expense in OKC.

The picture is on the odot site. I'd do all the magic work to post it but its more difficult from a phone.

Unless I've missed something, there is no mention of express lanes here:

http://40forward.com/

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i40-okc/pictures/comparison.jpg

Unless I've missed something, there is no mention of express lanes here:

http://40forward.com/
You are correct, I couldn't find any current mention of them either. What few documents I have don't mention them but I vaguely recall seeing it at some point (just can't prove it now)...LOL

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i40-okc/pictures/comparison.jpg
Hey, are those the "express lanes" there in the center of the pic?

Hey, are those the "express lanes" there in the center of the pic?

Yes. Do you see the barriers? That's for all traffic not getting off or on between I-35 and I-44.

That pic shows 2 express lanes for each side of the freeway. I hope they build it like that.

Just by looking at it in person, I don't think it is wide enough for that. But what do I know. It would be nice if they did it.

Express lanes would come in handy in the future if there is more downtown development southward. With the new boulevard and extra lanes, the bottlenecks are still going to be the junctions east and west of the new I-40.

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i40-okc/pictures/comparison.jpg

If you noticed it is labeled Alternative D because they did plans for several variations of lane designs, the one selected is standard lanes, not express or high occupancy lanes.

That pic shows 2 express lanes for each side of the freeway. I hope they build it like that.

They're not. I don't think they'll be needed either.

The express lanes are something I was actually really excited about. You have no idea how much congestion that could remove...just look at 35 in Austin. It's amazing how people say I'm crazy and then there's the proof i'm not. hmm.

The benefit of these lanes is made abundantly clear at Robinson Ave's onramp to 40 east right now. That's the entire reason anything backs up at all downtown on a daily basis. If you have traffic blocked off from cars getting over to get out of the merging traffic's way (and fighting to get back to get to 35 south), then it's amazingly awesome for through traffic. Austin took it to a whole new level (literally) and has a two level bridge system, with express being on top....they come back together to cross the river.

In OKC, if you have any sense (and odot rarely does) you build things like an express lane to be prepared for the future, and not just the present. That is why the current crosstown is so inadequate. They built for short term predictions of growth and (like always) the road lived at least twice as long as it was really planned or designed to and handles something like 3 times the load.

The express lanes are something I was actually really excited about. You have no idea how much congestion that could remove...just look at 35 in Austin. It's amazing how people say I'm crazy and then there's the proof i'm not. hmm.

The benefit of these lanes is made abundantly clear at Robinson Ave's onramp to 40 east right now. That's the entire reason anything backs up at all downtown on a daily basis. If you have traffic blocked off from cars getting over to get out of the merging traffic's way (and fighting to get back to get to 35 south), then it's amazingly awesome for through traffic. Austin took it to a whole new level (literally) and has a two level bridge system, with express being on top....they come back together to cross the river.

In OKC, if you have any sense (and odot rarely does) you build things like an express lane to be prepared for the future, and not just the present. That is why the current crosstown is so inadequate. They built for short term predictions of growth and (like always) the road lived at least twice as long as it was really planned or designed to and handles something like 3 times the load.

I agree that express lanes are a good idea but Austin is a bad example here. The "express lanes" in Austin don't effectively function as express lanes; they were added in the 70s as a capacity band-aid because of the narrow ROW, and the freeway hasn't been upgraded again despite metro Austin quadrupling in size since the "deck" was added.

In fact that stretch of 35 in Austin is actually one of the most congested stretches of highway in the nation--250,000 vehicles per day on 8 lanes that bottlenecks to six near the termini of the express lanes. The I-40 crosstown in OKC, by comparison, carries a maximum of ~110,000 vehicles per day, see here (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/aadtcnt/map.aspx?map=Oklahoma%20%20County).

New Jersey makes good use of local/express lanes on its highways and their express lanes actually seem to function as such. For example, the NJ Turnpike outside of Newark--three-plus lanes of local traffic and three lanes of thru traffic in each direction, direct connectors to both local and thru routes, and all truck traffic confined to the local lanes. If OKC did institute express lanes on I-40 it would be nice to segregate the trucks in a similar fashion since there can be heavy truck traffic on the crosstown route.

If you noticed it is labeled Alternative D because they did plans for several variations of lane designs, the one selected is standard lanes, not express or high occupancy lanes.
There were many proposed routes (taking different paths). Alternate D was just the path selected.

There were many proposed routes (taking different paths). Alternate D was just the path selected.

Yes, Larry is right about that. There were four separate paths to be chosen. One of them practically hugging the river.

Does anyone have info, maps etc of the other routes? I haven't been able to locate any (A, B & C)????

It doesn't have very good info on them, but on page 2 of this pdf there is a map of the alternatives:
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i40-okc/press/I-40_Crosstown_History.pdf

It doesn't have very good info on them, but on page 2 of this pdf there is a map of the alternatives:
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i40-okc/press/I-40_Crosstown_History.pdf

:kicking::kicking::kicking:
:yourock:

Whats the elevated stretch of road curving toward the current Crosstown between Penn and Agnew/Villa?

Whats the elevated stretch of road curving toward the current Crosstown between Penn and Agnew/Villa?

That will be on and off ramps to the new replacement boulevard. I will withhold comment on my opinions of new boulevard.

That will be on and off ramps to the new replacement boulevard. I will withhold comment on my opinions of new boulevard.

So, if it's for the new boulevard it'll be dangling in mid-air for a few more years

So, if it's for the new boulevard it'll be dangling in mid-air for a few more years

That is a good question. I guess for awhile they will be off ramps to nowhere.

It will look odd for sure but remember one of the first projects of the relocation was the "Bridge over nothing". They built the bridge over the yet to be started, almost-but-not-quite Canal extension that has yet to be built. Not saying it doesn't make sense, obviously easier to do it before a Canal is underneath it to get in the way.

That will be on and off ramps to the new replacement boulevard. I will withhold comment on my opinions of new boulevard.

That will be just the eastbound ramp toward the future boulevard.

I suppose westbound on the boulevard will just merge into the existing I-40?

I suppose westbound on the boulevard will just merge into the existing I-40?

Yes, from Western to Penn the existing i40 will remain intact, just west of the Penn bridge is where the flyovers will connect.

From what I understand, looking at renderings, once the new westbound main thoroughfare of I-40 is opened for business, all of the old I-40 will come down. Then they'll move the earthfill and straighten the UP railroad line out a little more. Then the only thing they'll have to connect to new I-40 is two lanes from the boulevard and construct a new bridge over the relocated railroad right of way.

Moved from another thread...

Sorry, but I disagree Larry. This road is being rebuilt more for local traffic than pass through traffic. It's nice to have a view from the freeway but I would much prefer that we have views for those not on the freeway who don't want to look at cars.
Wish i had it handy but it was either in an article or ODOT piece that said the vast majority (95%) of the traffic is of the "pass thru" variety. IMO, letting those people directly see your city is critical. Having the Boulevard (THE "Gateway" into DT) or the Core to Shore/MAPS 3 Park, isn't going to be very effective if you don't get folks off the highway. We apparently didn't have any say about it no longer being elevated and being built partially below grade (originally, it was supposed to have been completely below grade) And, yes, we are building the Iconic Skydance bridge (or we can hope it is, we still haven't seen the revised renderings by those that said it looks even better) to help lure them off (but the Council banned billboards along the new stretch too). This was especially odd since the Mayor even stated we do a terrible job of pulling people off the road.

Multiple steps back with it being partially below grade & the retaining/sound walls.
Step forward with the Bridge.
Step back on the billboard ban.

let them SEE all of the improvements...the Park, Landrun Monument, River & Boathouse Row etc etc etc. That is all I am trying to say.

let them SEE all of the improvements...the Park, Landrun Monument, River & Boathouse Row etc etc etc. That is all I am trying to say.

I'm all for luring tourists off the freeway into Downtown but you can't just design a freeway based on that alone and you have to take asthetics into account as well. We could have built another elevated freeway and everyone would have a great view. I haven't seen your statistics about 95% of traffic being passthrough so I can't rule it out but if that was true we would have absolutely no need for a 10 lane design. The freeway design in Clinton would work just as well.

Is the I-235/35 junction going to be proper interchange? Meaning it won't dump merging traffic in the left lane, or have traffic merging from both sides.

I'm all for luring tourists off the freeway into Downtown but you can't just design a freeway based on that alone and you have to take asthetics into account as well. We could have built another elevated freeway and everyone would have a great view. I haven't seen your statistics about 95% of traffic being passthrough so I can't rule it out but if that was true we would have absolutely no need for a 10 lane design. The freeway design in Clinton would work just as well.
i was surprised by the percentage too and that is probably why it stuck in my head. If/when i run across it again i will post it to see if I may have misconstrued something. IIRC, in "pass through" it was including the out of state people as well as "locals" (like folks out in Yukon getting to Midwest City without getting off into DT)...essentially those that get on and off outside of the connecting "junctions"

For some reason got an error message when trying to edit the prior post so here is the info I was going to add to it
Part of the 10 lanes "needed" is they are planning for future traffic count growth.
http://www.40forward.com/project_overview/

Originally built in 1965, the I-40 Crosstown currently carries approximately 120,000 vehicles per day, nearly 50,000 over the intended capacity of 76,000. The new highway, designed to be a combination of ground-level and semi-depressed roadway, will carry up to 173,000 vehicles per day and replace the elevated thoroughfare presently in place.

Haven't found the 95% quote (Google has failed me so far on this one) but I did find these that state and/or imply a high, unspecified, percentage
http://www.40forward.com/project_overview/purpose.aspx...on

...one of the few interstates that stretch from coast to coast. I-40 is not only a major thoroughfare for residents of Oklahoma City, but for all of America. ... it was imperative that Oklahoma take significant steps to build a new highway that meets current needs as well as projections for the future.
That goes along with info that was in the ODOT PDF file that mcca7596 posted:

A high percentage of the traffic on I-40 is through traffic...
(There was also mention of the "Express lanes" discussed earlier)

Wish i had it handy but it was either in an article or ODOT piece that said the vast majority (95%) of the traffic is of the "pass thru" variety.

The fraction of thru traffic (i.e., not getting off the freeway between I-44 and I-35/235) might be high, but it's not 95%. As seen here (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/aadtcnt/map.aspx?map=Oklahoma%20%20County), the absolute maximum it could be is about 90% but that's highly unlikely as it assumes no cars were "replaced" over the corridor, i.e., all of the local traffic is accounted for by the difference in traffic counts. Since downtown is a major employment center the number is probably far less and I would be surprised if even 50% of the traffic on the crosstown was thru traffic. Some thru traffic over the crosstown might be of local origin, but before I-40 enters into the urbanized area the volume is 39,000--so I suspect the thru traffic volume on the crosstown segment isn't far off from that.

The fraction of thru traffic (i.e., not getting off the freeway between I-44 and I-35/235) might be high, but it's not 95%. As seen here (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/aadtcnt/map.aspx?map=Oklahoma%20%20County), the absolute maximum it could be is about 90% but that's highly unlikely as it assumes no cars were "replaced" over the corridor, i.e., all of the local traffic is accounted for by the difference in traffic counts. Since downtown is a major employment center the number is probably far less and I would be surprised if even 50% of the traffic on the crosstown was thru traffic. Some thru traffic over the crosstown might be of local origin, but before I-40 enters into the urbanized area the volume is 39,000--so I suspect the thru traffic volume on the crosstown segment isn't far off from that.

Their is no way it is as low as 50%, or the road would always be at a stand still during rush hours as the ramps simply can not deal with that much volume.

I may have dreamed it because I haven't been able to find the 95% again, BUT the other ones I did find indicated it was a high percentage which i would presume to be 75% on up. But that is just me.

Awesome!! We might be driving on the I-40 by Feb.-Mar. That would be AMAZING! I HATE driving down the current crosstown!
It may be even sooner than that. In a recent Council meeting, Dennis Clowers, OKC Public Works Director, stated because of the ODOT incentives it "could be completed as early as late December/early January." Then the City Manager mentioned that ODOT was willing to pay for those incentives (as well as incentives for the early completion of the SkyWalker Bridge ... sorry, that's what Mr. Ryan kept calling it ... because they want to get traffic off the old Crosstown as quickly as possible. He said, some problem could come up that would cost at least as much as the maximum amount of incentives.

........... because they want to get traffic off the old Crosstown as quickly as possible. He said, some problem could come up that would cost at least as much as the maximum amount of incentives.

I'm sure those patch jobs add up over time. It will be great if they can have it open by the end of the year.

. . . looking forward to driving on it to downtown instead of taking every avenue possible to avoid it!!

Is the I-235/35 junction going to be proper interchange? Meaning it won't dump merging traffic in the left lane, or have traffic merging from both sides.

Also will there be any changes to the I-44 interchange?

Is the I-235/35 junction going to be proper interchange? Meaning it won't dump merging traffic in the left lane, or have traffic merging from both sides.


A semi-detailed schematic from 2009 does not show any new merges into the left lane, the existing i235 to i40 and i40 westbound to i35 ones will not change; plus the i40 eastbound to i35 will still end up on the left side though it be slightly different path to it. The merge zones look like better, in a lot of ways it is similar to the existing design. i235 to i40 west looks like the biggest improvement, partially since their was hardly any space to merge before.


Also will there be any changes to the I-44 interchange?

They only change as part of the crosstown project is it will be wider going up to the point where the lanes split, so instead of 4 westbound where you get a choice of which way to go they will all be dedicated lanes, coming east it looks like they are setting it up so turning from southbound i44 to eastbound i40 could be expanded to two lanes later.

:tiphat:Thanks!

Noticed today on the western area of the new highway they have started putting the poles up for the new roadway signage. They appear to be the water-pipe design.

I also noticed some construction barrels being setup on the new stretch of road on the west end. I wonder if the plan is to go ahead and open the new Agnew ramp so they can start building that other bridge?

They can't just open the Agnew bridge, They'll have to open the whole eastbound of the new highway.. That won't happen until they completely finish paving.

They can't just open the Agnew bridge, They'll have to open the whole eastbound of the new highway.. That won't happen until they completely finish paving.

Traffic wouldn't be driving over the bridge. I was thinking along the lines of moving the off-ramp further west and having a temporary configuration where exiting traffic drives on the right hand side of the new stretch of pavement until they reach the new permanent off-ramp that is between May and Agnew. This would just be the off-ramp though.

SkyWest, by "water-pipe" design do you mean like the picture in post 277? Sorry, not familiar with highway pole designs.

SkyWest, by "water-pipe" design do you mean like the picture in post 277? Sorry, not familiar with highway pole designs.

I think it's like I-35 in Norman!

Gotcha! I like the way those look personally, plus it would be harder for the people who like to graffiti things to get up there and tag the signs up I'd think.

Traffic wouldn't be driving over the bridge. I was thinking along the lines of moving the off-ramp further west and having a temporary configuration where exiting traffic drives on the right hand side of the new stretch of pavement until they reach the new permanent off-ramp that is between May and Agnew. This would just be the off-ramp though.

Saw them placing concrete barriers today. They may be shifting eastbound I-40 southward(it's original path) and shifting it back northward before the new I-40 diverges and the elevation changes. Rebuilding that stretch of I-40 westbound between I-44 and Agnew can then begin along with that other bridge. That would only leave one small segment of westbound that would have to wait until eastbound is completely moved over next year.