Oh every piece of infrastructure required maintenance in the future. If we looked at costs to maintain subway tunnels too much they would never get built. Texas is already replacing multiple stack interchanges with no problem. Most other states are now following Texas with several NE states building stacks and Europe is building several massive stack interchanges as well.

5-stack interchanges (like most of the U.S.'s generally overbuilt highway infrastructure) will be major white elephants 50 years from now. We should be thankful that our state's funding challenges have prevented us from going too far down the same road (pardon the pun) that Texas and some of the other Sun Belt states have. If online message boards had existed in the 1950s, there would've been a contingent waiting with bated breath for the Embarcadero Freeway in SF or the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle or the Central Artery in Boston to be designed and built.

I don’t understand how you can say five stack interchanges are future white elephants. They’re not.

They’re very effective and their design is something that will need to be improved upon in twenty/thirty years.

Generally just the RE/T or anti car crowd that paints any road project for cars as wasteful.

This video shows what is planned for the entire northern arc of San Antonio’s outer loop, Loop 1604. Major expansion along that entire 25 mile segment including the above shown five stack interchange at 281 and 1604. But at 1 min and 30 seconds into the animation, it shows the next five Stack interchange, which will be at 10 and 1604.


https://youtu.be/22ZK25tRPMo

That is absolutely amazing. I hope OkDOT starts building those in the coming decades. That is what the I-35/240 interchange should be.

That is absolutely amazing. I hope OkDOT starts building those in the coming decades. That is what the I-35/240 interchange should be.

Won't happen there because of the NE corner. It would cost big $$ to buy out all those businesses. And to bring this discussion back to the subject of this thread, it is the same reason there isn't a full stack at 235/44. That office building on the NW quadrant would have cost too much to remove.

Won't happen there because of the NE corner. It would cost big $$ to buy out all those businesses. And to bring this discussion back to the subject of this thread, it is the same reason there isn't a full stack at 235/44. That office building on the NW quadrant would have cost too much to remove.
*Japan has entered the chat

;)

Pretty sure the reason the I235/I44 interchange doesn't have flyovers planned for S to E and W to S is due to the proximity of the Lincoln Blvd and I44 interchange and not having to acquire any buildings. It's so close to the I44/I235 interchange that there would have to be a ton of bridge work to separate traffic. In other words, there isn't enough distance to allow S to E traffic coming off the I44/I235 interchange to join down with the mainline I44 to then exit at Lincoln. Same goes for the Lincoln to W-bound I44 onramp mixing with the W to S flyover of I44/I235.

Could the engineers have made it work logistically, absolutely, but it would have significantly increased the cost and they would've had to do some redesign of the Lincoln/I44 interchange. Don't think those costs would've been reasonable to add to the budget considering this was already one of the most expensive interchanges in our history. Not to mention, there's also the question of traffic demand....does the traffic on those two motions at the I44/I235 interchange actually need/justify having flyovers. I wouldn't think so. Would I love to see them, absolutely, but reality kicks in and says we can't afford or justify them.

Just had my first trip over the new flyover. While the lack of merge area at the end is concerning, it helps that you get a birds' eye view of the lanes you are about to merge with. While that may not be much help when the freeway is clogged at 5:00, at lighter times, you can see the traffic flowing on I-44 and anticipate where you can enter when you reach the end of the ramp.

wow, does SA really have that much traffic? (serious question).

We (Seattle) have way more traffic given our lack of freeways yet no 5-stacks (also due to lack of freeways).

San Antonio metro has 2.5 million people, and given that it's growing by ~400k/decade and how sprawled out it is I can definitely see why TXDOT is building 5-stacks there.

ODOT needs to look a our two largest Metro Areas (OKC-TUL); the major interchanges should be built to accommodate future growth.


https://www.transystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/235-kelloggred-5.jpg
I-235 Kellogg to Central & I-235 Kellogg Red Project, Wichita, KS (K-DOT)

wow, does SA really have that much traffic? (serious question).

We (Seattle) have way more traffic given our lack of freeways yet no 5-stacks (also due to lack of freeways).

San Antonio is a metro of over 2.5 million people and growing by 45k-50k a year. There are two major interstates running through the city and metro, I-10 and I-35. Not to mention two major perils that intersection many other auxiliary highways like 281, 90, 37, 151, etc.

San Antonio is also very spread out and very car dependent, as all of Texas is, so yes, we definitely have the traffic.

^^^Josh, just curious, what is SAs highest ADT count freeway? I think OKC’s is I-44 by the fairground pushing 230k cars a day.

^^^Josh, just curious, what is SAs highest ADT count freeway? I think OKC’s is I-44 by the fairground pushing 230k cars a day.

OKC's largest AADT is 167,200 on I-44 just south of Lake Hefner Pkwy/Hwy 74.
https://www.odot.org/maps/aadt/2018/UrbanMap_MetroAreas.pdf

Pretty sure the reason the I235/I44 interchange doesn't have flyovers planned for S to E and W to S is due to the proximity of the Lincoln Blvd and I44 interchange and not having to acquire any buildings. It's so close to the I44/I235 interchange that there would have to be a ton of bridge work to separate traffic. In other words, there isn't enough distance to allow S to E traffic coming off the I44/I235 interchange to join down with the mainline I44 to then exit at Lincoln. Same goes for the Lincoln to W-bound I44 onramp mixing with the W to S flyover of I44/I235.

Could the engineers have made it work logistically, absolutely, but it would have significantly increased the cost and they would've had to do some redesign of the Lincoln/I44 interchange. Don't think those costs would've been reasonable to add to the budget considering this was already one of the most expensive interchanges in our history. Not to mention, there's also the question of traffic demand....does the traffic on those two motions at the I44/I235 interchange actually need/justify having flyovers. I wouldn't think so. Would I love to see them, absolutely, but reality kicks in and says we can't afford or justify them.

True. Lack of funding is why the Santa Fe flyover was eliminated. That will be missed whent here is a wreck at this interchange.

^^^Josh, just curious, what is SAs highest ADT count freeway? I think OKC’s is I-44 by the fairground pushing 230k cars a day.

Highest count is 300,000 on Loop 410 (http://www.texashighwayman.com/traffic.shtml) at Blanco Road in north central San Antonio. The entire northern arc of 410 averages over 250,000 cars.

If you want to know more, there’s an entire website (http://www.texashighwayman.com/sanfwys.shtml) dedicated to San Antonio freeways.

^^^Josh, just curious, what is SAs highest ADT count freeway? I think OKCÂ’s is I-44 by the fairground pushing 230k cars a day.

According to the link lazio85 posted, that area of 44 only has a count of about 150,000. I wonder why the large difference between your number and his.

Just had my first trip over the new flyover. While the lack of merge area at the end is concerning, it helps that you get a birds' eye view of the lanes you are about to merge with. While that may not be much help when the freeway is clogged at 5:00, at lighter times, you can see the traffic flowing on I-44 and anticipate where you can enter when you reach the end of the ramp.

Is the lack of merge area temporary or is this how its designed permanently?

I couldn't point at the final solution in the plans, but there's pretty much no way it isn't a temporary, mid-construction solution that will be different once everything is finished.

Is the lack of merge area temporary or is this how its designed permanently?

Its only temporary. Its only like this because WB is currently having to share lane space with EB.

True. Lack of funding is why the Santa Fe flyover was eliminated. That will be missed whent here is a wreck at this interchange.
Is there a rendering of the Santa Fe flyover?

I'm slightly confused by it being called a flyover so this might be something else, but early plans had a Santa Fe bridge. I've attached a rendering of the design with it I have saved from years back.

OKC's largest AADT is 167,200 on I-44 just south of Lake Hefner Pkwy/Hwy 74.
https://www.odot.org/maps/aadt/2018/UrbanMap_MetroAreas.pdfOh wow I was way off. Thanks for the information.


Highest count is 300,000 on Loop 410 (http://www.texashighwayman.com/traffic.shtml) at Blanco Road in north central San Antonio. The entire northern arc of 410 averages over 250,000 cars.

If you want to know more, there’s an entire website (http://www.texashighwayman.com/sanfwys.shtml) dedicated to San Antonio freeways.Nice! I figured SA had to have some near or over 300k per day.


According to the link lazio85 posted, that area of 44 only has a count of about 150,000. I wonder why the large difference between your number and his.
Im not sure. I swear I saw somewhere the stretch of I-44 by the fairgrounds had over 200k per day or maybe I read that was a projection in the future.

Oh wow I was way off. Thanks for the information.

Nice! I figured SA had to have some near or over 300k per day.


Im not sure. I swear I saw somewhere the stretch of I-44 by the fairgrounds had over 200k per day or maybe I read that was a projection in the future.

Two of those 410 stretches are definitely over 300,000 by now. The Blanco and McCullough stretches.

According to the link lazio85 posted, that area of 44 only has a count of about 150,000. I wonder why the large difference between your number and his.

I referenced ODOT's 2018 number from the link I provided.

I referenced ODOT's 2018 number from the link I provided.

Yes I know. I was questioning the large difference between both numbers. It just seems like Platonic misheard or misremembered.

San Antonio metro has 2.5 million people, and given that it's growing by ~400k/decade and how sprawled out it is I can definitely see why TXDOT is building 5-stacks there.

Seattle is larger and grows by much more but we have no 5-stacks, and none planned. Not seeing the correlation for SA.

San Antonio is a metro of over 2.5 million people and growing by 45k-50k a year. There are two major interstates running through the city and metro, I-10 and I-35. Not to mention two major perils that intersection many other auxiliary highways like 281, 90, 37, 151, etc.

San Antonio is also very spread out and very car dependent, as all of Texas is, so yes, we definitely have the traffic.

thanks Josh, this now makes sense to me.

SA just has way more highways and freeways than Seattle. OKC also has way more freeways than us. We're probably just as car dependent as SA but ya, we only have two interstates (I-5 and I-90) and I-90 is only about 15 miles in length (in the populated metro area). only I-405 in the east metro and I-705 in downtown Tacoma (like 3 miles or less). Not much freeway infrastructure so no stacks here. We do have hills, so some high bridges but no 5stacks.

OKC's largest AADT is 167,200 on I-44 just south of Lake Hefner Pkwy/Hwy 74.
https://www.odot.org/maps/aadt/2018/UrbanMap_MetroAreas.pdf

wow, OKC crushes Tulsa's numbers. i wonder why the map has Tulsa much larger illustrated when the numbers are much smaller; almost half, of OKC's in most spots.

thanks Josh, this now makes sense to me.

SA just has way more highways and freeways than Seattle. OKC also has way more freeways than us. We're probably just as car dependent as SA but ya, we only have two interstates (I-5 and I-90) and I-90 is only about 15 miles in length (in the populated metro area). only I-405 in the east metro and I-705 in downtown Tacoma (like 3 miles or less). Not much freeway infrastructure so no stacks here. We do have hills, so some high bridges but no 5stacks.
Seattle is also building several new freeways notably 509 and 167 extensions which will be absolutely beautiful roads when completed. I still haven’t made it to Seattle but I plan to soon. Super pumped. Washington DOT is one of the best, IMO, from what I know about them.

I'm slightly confused by it being called a flyover so this might be something else, but early plans had a Santa Fe bridge. I've attached a rendering of the design with it I have saved from years back.

That is what I was referring to. A great relief route for the times traffic is snarled on 235/77.

Seattle is larger and grows by much more but we have no 5-stacks, and none planned. Not seeing the correlation for SA.

Actually, San Antonio and Seattle are growing about the same or near same actually,

Seattle is also building several new freeways notably 509 and 167 extensions which will be absolutely beautiful roads when completed. I still haven’t made it to Seattle but I plan to soon. Super pumped. Washington DOT is one of the best, IMO, from what I know about them.

you sure about that? WA 167 in Tacoma has been on the plans for years but nothing, poof; still a local "highway" at the biggest port in the state. Never heard of 509, where is that?.

Anyway, If they are true still - None of them are interstate, our freeways suck and there's NO accountability just raise taxes!. Just LOVE how they 'created' HOV lanes through most of I-5 by taking out the breakdown lanes and restriping. You can totally tell, as you drive over the man-hole covers and your car tires get trapped in the pavement edges. ... Oh, and that cost hundreds of millions - no accountability. ..

I-405 Express Toll lanes are awesome though, the best thing we have (even though again, breakdown lane was taken out on the Northern N bound section). ...

Actually, San Antonio and Seattle are growing about the same or near same actually,

You'll find out the census will show Seattle metro as one of the fastest growing in the nation. Greater Seattle/Tacoma Metro (CSA) will be over 4.2M (up from 3.6M). City grew by over 150,000 people in 10 years to 780,000 (2019 est).

I didn't realize the I-235/I-44 interchange is also located in Seattle and San Antonio.

I'm slightly confused by it being called a flyover so this might be something else, but early plans had a Santa Fe bridge. I've attached a rendering of the design with it I have saved from years back.
Thanks, David. I didn't realize that bridge had been cut.

you sure about that? WA 167 in Tacoma has been on the plans for years but nothing, poof; still a local "highway" at the biggest port in the state. Never heard of 509, where is that?.

Anyway, If they are true still - None of them are interstate, our freeways suck and there's NO accountability just raise taxes!. Just LOVE how they 'created' HOV lanes through most of I-5 by taking out the breakdown lanes and restriping. You can totally tell, as you drive over the man-hole covers and your car tires get trapped in the pavement edges. ... Oh, and that cost hundreds of millions - no accountability. ..

I-405 Express Toll lanes are awesome though, the best thing we have (even though again, breakdown lane was taken out on the Northern N bound section). ...
Unless something has changed

https://wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Gateway/default.htm

I didn't realize the I-235/I-44 interchange is also located in Seattle and San Antonio.

Thanks for bringing it up. I was wondering the same too. :p

Plus 1 here.

Are we sure that Santa Fe bridge has been deleted?

I've been watching this big embankment, not understanding the purpose:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/i23544092220b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/i23544092220aa.jpg

It looks like it is just where they had the dump trucks drop off soil that will be used later around the rest of the project

Here is a closer look:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/i23544092220c.jpg

Well, you have to put the dirt somewhere. You could either spend a lot more money to haul it off somewhere or you could put it in a spot where you could maybe someday actually build a new bridge/road extension if you get the funding or when growth demands it.

It seems the dirt is formed up too nicely just to be a dumping area for extra soil.

It seems the dirt is formed up too nicely just to be a dumping area for extra soil.

I was thinking that too - way too structured/groomed and looks exactly like a base for a future ramp.

smartasses

I can't imagine the Santa Fe bridge happening at this point. No work has been done for the necessary piers crossing 44, and the layout of Santa Fe south of 44 and the off ramp from 235 don't look like something that is going to be extended into a bridge.

Whatever that earthwork on the north side is for, it's got to be for something else.

I can't imagine the Santa Fe bridge happening at this point. No work has been done for the necessary piers crossing 44, and the layout of Santa Fe south of 44 and the off ramp from 235 don't look like something that is going to be extended into a bridge.

Whatever that earthwork on the north side is for, it's got to be for something else.

IIRC, I was told the original thought would be that the Santa Fe connection would help with detours and traffic relief during construction... so it would have been built among the first things. I think they're just stockpiling dirt in an orderly fashion just in case something were to be built someday.

It seems the dirt is formed up too nicely just to be a dumping area for extra soil.

I'm sure the contract did call for the dirt to be formed up in that area. Whether or not they actually do something with it is another question. There is nothing on the eight year plan that I recall that mentions a Santa Fe bridge at this point in time.

Whatever that earthwork on the north side is for, it's got to be for something else.
Hopefully it is to one day build the bridge. That bridge would help with the street network. OkDOT has told me in an email that the Santa Fe was canceled.

Hopefully it is to one day build the bridge. That bridge would help with the street network. OkDOT has told me in an email that the Santa Fe was canceled.

Right now, you cannot go south of 63rd and get south of I-44 without getting on I-235 and even then you can't exit until 36th, 2 miles down the road.

You have to go all the way over to Western or Kelly in order to cross I-44.

Here is cropped photo enlarging this area.

"Reconstruction of westbound I-44 ramp to northbound I-235/US-77 and addition of a direct connect from N. Lincoln Blvd. to US-77/Broadway Ext. is estimated at $16.8 million and currently scheduled for construction in 2022."
https://www.ok.gov/odot/I-235_I-44_interchange.html

The work is likely related to the proposed cul-de-sac OkDOT plans to build. At least they left the door open for the bridge to be constructed in the future with cul-de-sac, not sure why else they would build that.

16472

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/i23544092720a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/i23544092720b.jpg

The dirt is mounded in the wrong direction to be pat of any future overpass. Besides, it is the remnants of the original excavations from state 1. It used to be quite a lot larger.

That's one cloverleaf gone.

That's one cloverleaf gone.

They built that temp off-ramp from I-44 pretty fast after they removed the cloverleaf.

@Pete
Appreciate the continuous supply of pics as we progress through the project. I open the images in new tabs and enjoy watching them, taking my sweet time. :Smiley171

@Pete
Appreciate the continuous supply of pics as we progress through the project. I open the images in new tabs and enjoy watching them, taking my sweet time. :Smiley171

Same! Same!

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/i23544101120a.jpg