My new job in the city takes me through this interchange now (from north-bound I-35 to westbound I-240, then up on I-44. Fortunately, I go through this interchange well before 8:00, when (judging from watching ODOT traffic cameras for the past few months) it starts getting really bad. It isn't too bad around 7:30-7:45. On my way back though, I avoid this interchange at all costs, 'cause I leave at 4:30 or so and by the time I'm on 240, this area is of course, a big mess. The other day, I tried taking I-44 to I-40, going to I-35 and then going south. Much better, much quicker (yes, it is the holiday season when traffic is lighter, but still, I avoided the Shields exit). Another good option for me Ive found out is taking EB 240, sticking in the furthest left lane and going to Sooner Rd and taking that all the way to Norman (I'm east of 12th so it works for me better anyway, avoiding the multiple stop lights and traffic on Flood and Robinson).

The new I-40 is great, entrance/exit ramps the way they should]/b] be designed with plenty of acceleration lane to merge.

But I don't get why people are all excited about the partial cloverleafs. [B]They are still in use extensively in Europe and other parts of the world, and as long as they are designed correctly, they are perfectly safe. Getting driver's habits to change is what should also be worked on. That's the harder part.Europe isn't exactly known for their highway innovations and though people on here love to point to Europe for their 'fiscal responsibility' pertaining to urbanism and mass transit, they sure have a lot of debt and a lot of governments that aren't able to fund themselves or on the verge of collapsing along. I've been meaning to start a thread addressing that, but I haven't had time. Been doing quite a bit of research with a hundred links, but it will take me a solid few hours to piece it together, so I've been putting it off for lately.

Europe isn't exactly known for their highway innovations and though people on here love to point to Europe for their 'fiscal responsibility' pertaining to urbanism and mass transit, they sure have a lot of debt and a lot of governments that aren't able to fund themselves or on the verge of collapsing along. I've been meaning to start a thread addressing that, but I haven't had time. Been doing quite a bit of research with a hundred links, but it will take me a solid few hours to piece it together, so I've been putting it off for lately.

Like the US is any role model for fiscal responsibility? Your arguments aren't helping your case since the US suffers from the same thing.Let's get away from the diversion to fiscal responsibility and politics that you are attempting to do.

At the end of the day, the setup ODOT has put forward for the new interchange is not a bad one and will greatly reduce congestion and improve safety. So far you aren't shown anything to prove otherwise - nor have you addressed the many points people are making that counter your arguments.

Like the US is any role model for fiscal responsibility? Your arguments aren't helping your case since the US suffers from the same thing.Let's get away from the diversion to fiscal responsibility and politics that you are attempting to do.

At the end of the day, the setup ODOT has put forward for the new interchange is not a bad one and will greatly reduce congestion and improve safety. So far you aren't shown anything to prove otherwise - nor have you addressed the many points people are making that counter your arguments.I never said the US is a role model for fiscal responsibility. The US is actually the opposite, but not because of highway spending. I'm not trying to divert anything. Europe was brought up as still using cloverleafs and I responded to that why I think that is.

Also, I'm not showing anything that would refute this "At the end of the day, the setup ODOT has put forward for the new interchange is not a bad one and will greatly reduce congestion and improve safety" because I'm not even trying to say you're wrong.

I most certainly have addressed the other points that people have made. Name one you think I didn't and I'll address it; it is possible I missed it.

PS, this has nothing to do with this thread, but I'd still like you to address the other airport thread where you pretty much made fun of me for starting multiple threads and such...

The fact that I brought up Europe for having partial cloverleafs has nothing to do with "fiscal responsibility". I brought it up since they're being discounted in this topic for not being safe, when in fact they can be (not directing that to you in particular, but some of the other posts have made it quite clear that it's a "safety issue").

Heck, I would like every major interchange to go "Houston" and have stacks, but as has been correctly pointed out, it's not always feasible both, monetarily and/or space-constraint-wise. Plus, with winter precipitation being more frequent here, it would also require more resources to clear several large stacks of ice/snow.

The fact that I brought up Europe for having partial cloverleafs has nothing to do with "fiscal responsibility". I brought it up since they're being discounted in this topic for not being safe, when in fact they can be (not directing that to you in particular, but some of the other posts have made it quite clear that it's a "safety issue").

Heck, I would like every major interchange to go "Houston" and have stacks, but as has been correctly pointed out, it's not always feasible both, monetarily and/or space-constraint-wise. Plus, with winter precipitation being more frequent here, it would also require more resources to clear several large stacks of ice/snow.

I'm sorry if I came off as argumentative. My thing wasn't so much for safety more so than it slows traffic more. But I hear you, cloverleafs aren't dangerous.

I'm sorry if I came off as argumentative. My thing wasn't so much for safety more so than it slows traffic more. But I hear you, cloverleafs aren't dangerous.

I think you'll find with the larger leafs, traffic won't slow nearly as bad as you think. I'm pretty sure the size of them will be comparable to Hwy 9 to 35 SB which allows to maintain a decent speed around.

Side note, you really should buy Cities in Motion 2. You would could go wild. :-D

I'm sorry if I came off as argumentative. My thing wasn't so much for safety more so than it slows traffic more. But I hear you, cloverleafs aren't dangerous.

Ahh I understand, it's all good :).

I think you'll find with the larger leafs, traffic won't slow nearly as bad as you think. I'm pretty sure the size of them will be comparable to Hwy 9 to 35 SB which allows to maintain a decent speed around.

Side note, you really should buy Cities in Motion 2. You would could go wild. :-D

While physically capable of higher speeds, the derplahomans will still go 25 around them. Can't exceed G 1.0, not even G1.1

While physically capable of higher speeds, the derplahomans will still go 25 around them. Can't exceed G 1.0, not even G1.1

Many if not most of the cloverleafs do have signed speed limits like around 20-25 (granted I am not entirely sure if that only applies to semi trailers and other vehicles prone to rollover), even though most cars can take them far faster in normal weather, now why so many do not speed up at finishing the turn is another question. Far more irritating for me is when they do a complete stop at a yield sign on ones like 44/235 underpasses regardless of if there was anyone else coming from the lane that mixes.

Far more irritating for me is when they do a complete stop at a yield sign on ones like 44/235 underpasses regardless of if there was anyone else coming from the lane that mixes.

I don't have a big problem with that. In some cars the sight lines can make that necessary depending on the angle of the intersecting lanes.

I don't have a big problem with that. In some cars the sight lines can make that necessary depending on the angle of the intersecting lanes.

That is not a normal intersection though, that is essentially the equivalent of stopping exactly at the end of an on ramp, then they have no way to get back up to highway speed to merge when people do get off 44 to get onto the cloverleaf to Broadway extension and it is not uncommon for them to then sit there for a few minutes.

That is not a normal intersection though, that is essentially the equivalent of stopping exactly at the end of an on ramp, then they have no way to get back up to highway speed to merge when people do get off 44 to get onto the cloverleaf to Broadway extension and it is not uncommon for them to then sit there for a few minutes.

I completely understand what kind of intersection that is. I have been there countless times. Sitting a few minutes is unacceptable though if no cars are coming. I still have no problem with someone stopping quickly to be able to look back safely to be sure no cars are coming.

Many if not most of the cloverleafs do have signed speed limits like around 20-25 (granted I am not entirely sure if that only applies to semi trailers and other vehicles prone to rollover), even though most cars can take them far faster in normal weather, now why so many do not speed up at finishing the turn is another question. Far more irritating for me is when they do a complete stop at a yield sign on ones like 44/235 underpasses regardless of if there was anyone else coming from the lane that mixes.

Those are the suggested speeds, not the speed limit. You can take the cloverleaf at the speed limit. Any speed sign in yellow is a mere suggestion -- only white speeds are the limit of the law.

If traffic allows (i.e. no one in front of me), I can usually manage around double the suggested speed. (35 my car can handle about 60 mph around the turn .). I only do that if I have a protected lane I am turning in to, or if traffic is light enough that my shared lane will be empty when I get to the bottom. If I am taking a cloverleaf to a shared merge lane I'll do about 35-45 around them and adjust my speed as necessary as I get to the end of the turn, if I can merge right on I'll usually be exiting the cloverleaf at 60mph or greater and just merge right in.

Speaking of this interchange, I wonder how much money is being spent on those black and yellow arrow signs on the westbound 240-to-northbound 35 ramp. It seems like at least twice a week somebody runs over a couple of them... and they put new ones up only to have them run over again a week later. Some of them have been damaged beyond simply replacing the post that holds them up.

Every. Single. Week.

Also remember guys, there is no frontage road access across the highway in ANY direction. This isn't a Dallas fly over with an interchange and street traffic happening at the same time. You have to go north to 66th or south to 82nd in order to cross over 35 and always have had to. Same goes for 240, currently it's Shields or Pole. The frontage road on the SE corner could really be eliminated and only OG&E would be affected. The SW one will become more important with the Shields to 240EB ramp taken out. The NW corner basically has zero traffic, and same goes for the NE corner with Crossraods BLVD being there. It's just an area that doesn't need any real frontage access. If we needed that, you wouldn't see any clovers at all because it wouldn't make sense.

In all honestly, there aren't really that many areas in OKC where that type of setup would be needed. Think about how many junctions also have full frontage access anywhere....or even need it.

From OK DOT on twitter (https://twitter.com/OKDOT/status/607970842329419776)


PUBLIC MEETING-Get info on I-35/I-240 Crossroads interchange plan, 6pm Thursday at Wilmont Place Baptist Church #OKC

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CG_yQnvW0AEWQyt.jpg:large

No clue if the rendering has any relation to the project, but it was included in the tweet so I figured I might as well include it here too.

Scratch that, looks like it's the eastbound view from I-240.

ODOT Presents I-35/I-240 Crossroads Interchange Reconstruction Plan (http://www.ok.gov/odot/I35andI240meeting.html)


I35 and I240 Crossroads map
A public meeting is scheduled for June 11 to solicit public input on the future reconstruction of the I-35/I-240 interchange in southeast Oklahoma City.

http://www.ok.gov/odot/images/Crossroads-%20Small_forweb.jpg

Click here to view the full project map (http://www.odot.org/newsmedia/press/2015/I35_I240_plan_map.jpg) image.



ODOT Presents I-35/I-240 Crossroads Interchange Reconstruction Plan



Public Meeting
Thursday, June 11, 2015
6 p.m.
Wilmont Place Baptist Church Sanctuary
6440 S. Santa Fe Ave.
Oklahoma City

New Features

• The project will reconstruct the I-35/I-240 interchange as a multi-level interchange with dedicated interstate flyover ramps and improve city street access with added ramps, turnaround lanes and service roads.

Improves Traffic Safety and Efficiency

• It will address congestion and safety issues by providing new ramps and more merging distance to accommodate current and future traffic.

Preserves Business Access

• While interstate access for businesses will change, ODOT has designed additional features to help traffic get to and from the Plaza Mayor area and other south Oklahoma City businesses, including a turnaround lane at S.E. 59th St. and new I-240 ramps at Santa Fe Ave.

Timeline

• The first phase (Reconstruction of eastbound I-240 to southbound I-35) is planned to go to bid in FFY 2016, with subsequent phases scheduled for 2018, 2020 and 2021.

FOR MORE information about the June 11 meeting, email m-coordinator@odot.org or call 405-521-2350.



http://www.ok.gov/odot/images/Crossroads-%20View%202-Before_forweb.jpg

This shows the existing eastbound I-240 near Shields Blvd.



http://www.ok.gov/odot/images/Crossroads-%20View%202-After_forweb.jpg

This artist rendering shows the proposed changes at I-240 and I-35 in Oklahoma City.

I think it's going to be a major pain in my derriere for several years but will sure be glad when they get it started and finished.... I avoid using that merging nightmare of an interchange at all costs.

I think it's going to be a major pain in my derriere for several years but will sure be glad when they get it started and finished.... I avoid using that merging nightmare of an interchange at all costs.

Amen. I've been driving that interchange for 27 years, and it's only needed to be rebuilt for 30 of those years. It's great to see some hope the thing will actually get done - hopefully in my lifetime, God willing.

It used to be that there were routine accidents westbound on I-240 during the afternoon rush hour. Now they're starting to occur on the eastbound side as well. Every second delay is A Bad Thing.

I think it's going to be a major pain in my derriere for several years but will sure be glad when they get it started and finished.... I avoid using that merging nightmare of an interchange at all costs.

I still contend they could mitigate a significant portion of those accidents for now simply by closing the eastbound on ramp at Shields, but apparently too many businesses threw a hissy fit at that suggestion. Don't know how many gallons of blood and broken vehicles it takes to trump that. Sorry to resort to hyperbole, but...

Is it just me or does this not solve the primary problem - Eastbound 240 merging with the westbound 240 cloverleaf to get on 35 South.

Is it just me or does this not solve the primary problem - Eastbound 240 merging with the westbound 240 cloverleaf to get on 35 South.

I think that since the WB to SB traffic merge onto 35 first and then EB 240 and Shields merge further down or become their own lane that is supposed help with that congestion.

http://www.odot.org/newsmedia/press/2015/I35_I240_plan_map.jpg

I think that since the WB to SB traffic merge onto 35 first and then EB 240 and Shields merge further down or become their own lane that is supposed help with that congestion.

http://www.odot.org/newsmedia/press/2015/I35_I240_plan_map.jpg

I think that is going to make it worse because it increases the merge distance, which seems counter-intuitive. We just did that in Jacksonville and traffic along that segment instantly became much worse. Oh well, I don't drive this route anyhow.

I still contend they could mitigate a significant portion of those accidents for now simply by closing the eastbound on ramp at Shields, but apparently too many businesses threw a hissy fit at that suggestion. Don't know how many gallons of blood and broken vehicles it takes to trump that. Sorry to resort to hyperbole, but...

The WB I-240 to SB I-35 ramp is the first project up for bid. You would think they would go ahead and build the new Santa Fe ramp and close the Shields ramp while this area is under construction.

I can't see a Shields on-ramp in the renderings...so if you guys are saying it's back in, where am I missing it?

The overall view shows the frontage rd next to the 240w/35s ramp but no other merging at the point where the shields ramp is. Rather, it's clearly been removed from the that eastbound view rendering.

I can't see a Shields on-ramp in the renderings...so if you guys are saying it's back in, where am I missing it?

The overall view shows the frontage rd next to the 240w/35s ramp but no other merging at the point where the shields ramp is. Rather, it's clearly been removed from the that eastbound view rendering.

I think you're right. It appears to me there is no Shields access from I-240 in either direction. Moreover, it looks to me like the intent is to have I240 go OVER Shields, which is a 180-degree flip from its current configuration. Looks to me like if you're on EB i-240 and want to get to Shields, you'll have to exit at *Walker* and take the service road.

It seems to me the design is a little bit half-baked, unless I'm reading it wrong, because it uses flyover ramps to get people from SB i35 to EB-240 conveniently enough, and from NB I-35 to WB I-240 nicely, but I don't think that's been the crux of the problem. It appears the just made a larger cloverleaf for EB I-240 going to I-35 NB, or WB I-240 going to I-35 SB. I thought the whole point of this redesign was to get rid of those cloverleafs and implement flyover ramps everywhere. I'm not seeing how this will solve the EB-240/SB I-35 congestion problem...but then I admit I'm no road design expert. Just an off-the-cuff observation. If someone can explain how it's supposed to help, I'm all ears.

Edit It also occurs to me that ODOT couldn't care less about Shields and will leave that as a problem for the City to fix. They've opted to amend their plan to accommodate "Plaza Mayor" nee "Crossroads", and probably aren't interested in amending it further to help Shields. If my inference is correct, and this reconfiguration has I-240 EB going OVER Shields, that means this ramp/flyover structure will be rather immense compared to the mental image I've built until now.

Is it just me or does this not solve the primary problem - Eastbound 240 merging with the westbound 240 cloverleaf to get on 35 South.

Okay, Kerry, at least I'm not the only one who sees/saw this, or at least wonders about it. I may have to go to this design meeting myself :)

Okay, given that artist's rendering and the map, I've got to be interpreting it wrong. The map shows I-240 going *over* Shields, but that artists rendering appears to be just east of Shields and at approximately the current elevation. I don't think both of those can be correct.

Okay, given that artist's rendering and the map, I've got to be interpreting it wrong. The map shows I-240 going *over* Shields, but that artists rendering appears to be just east of Shields and at approximately the current elevation. I don't think both of those can be correct.

Only the areas highlighted in blue will be elevated... The area at Shields is highlighted in yellow.

Holy lightpoles Batman!

They could probably eliminate a ton of of those streetlights with some well placed mast lighting. Cuts down on the possibility of copper theft as well.

I can't see a Shields on-ramp in the renderings...so if you guys are saying it's back in, where am I missing it?

The overall view shows the frontage rd next to the 240w/35s ramp but no other merging at the point where the shields ramp is. Rather, it's clearly been removed from the that eastbound view rendering.

After the project is complete, the only access to and from Shields from I-240 will be a off-ramp coming from the east. All the access is being shifted to Santa Fe so I imagine Santa Fe will be pretty congested when all the traffic starts moving through there.

After the project is complete, the only access to and from Shields from I-240 will be a off-ramp going eastbound. All the access is being shifted to Santa Fe so I imagine Santa Fe will be pretty congested when all the traffic starts moving through there.

If they're truly trying to push back Shields traffic to Santa Fe, I suspect that issue might come up at the meeting. Santa Fe, as an intersection along I-240, just isn't geared to handle that kind of traffic. At all. It really can't handle the traffic it has right now with Lowe's and WalMart in the area.

I hope someone at the City of OKC is paying attention to this aspect of the design. That's a "blinking yellow light" to me; maybe I'm wrong. Does OKC have some sort of plan for Shields I don't know about?

I just can foresee a big rework for the Santa Fe intersection with Shields just a stone's throw east and probably needing some work of its own.

It seems to me the design is a little bit half-baked, unless I'm reading it wrong, because it uses flyover ramps to get people from SB i35 to EB-240 conveniently enough, and from NB I-35 to WB I-240 nicely, but I don't think that's been the crux of the problem. It appears the just made a larger cloverleaf for EB I-240 going to I-35 NB, or WB I-240 going to I-35 SB. I thought the whole point of this redesign was to get rid of those cloverleafs and implement flyover ramps everywhere. I'm not seeing how this will solve the EB-240/SB I-35 congestion problem...but then I admit I'm no road design expert. Just an off-the-cuff observation. If someone can explain how it's supposed to help, I'm all ears.

I think the felling on this is that the traffic counts from EB I-240 to NB I-35 and WB 1-240 to SB I-35 are not that significant to warrant the fly over cost and instead opted to give them ~ 1/4 mile merge. My personal experience is traffic from WB to SB is typically low and never really causes a back up and EB to NB while normally backed up is due to the traffic that is wanting to go NB to WB. Of course they have the hard numbers and I am sure they feel like it will work with what they get.


Edit It also occurs to me that ODOT couldn't care less about Shields and will leave that as a problem for the City to fix. They've opted to amend their plan to accommodate "Plaza Mayor" nee "Crossroads", and probably aren't interested in amending it further to help Shields.

Looking at the map I noticed the Pole road exist is being removed from EB and the only access from WB being from Eastern so I'm not sure how accommodating that is going to be for Crossroads

Also in regard to Shield access being discussed there will be an option WB to exit at Shields by taking the same ramp that would get you to SB but merging left and give access to the service road. (jn1780 beat me to this part)

There really isn't that much traffic that takes the EB shields onramp, but that little bit of traffic does cause a LOT of the wrecks because of the merging. You can either backtrack to Santa Fe, or more smartly, take the frontage rd around to 82nd st and hope on either highway in whichever direction you want.

OKC needs to get their butts moving and do some major re-paving on the 240 frontage as part of this though. I don't know how many times I've complained to the city about the pothole patchwork that is the frontage rd there and what do they do, they repave the west-most section, which is the least traveled!

I'll also echo above in that the largest congestion points are 240 E to 35 (either N or S). But the 240E to 35N congestion isn't going to be like it is today. If you watch traffic flow today, you'll see that the loop for 35N is backed up because of the flow through traffic for 35N getting to 240 W. And in the new design, that traffic is gone. So instead, there is plenty of at-speed merging room for the 240E/W traffic to merge with 35 N. I mean the only other thing you can do is give them dedicated lanes for both directions and that's not really feasible. That would be MUCH more helpful at 40/235 for the 235/35S traffic that merges with 40E/W headed 35S.

I am for closing as many on/off ramps as they can.

... If you watch traffic flow today, you'll see that the loop for 35N is backed up because of the flow through traffic for 35N getting to 240 W. .

That traffic should never stop, but continue into the merge lane and then move left into the through lane. The problem with this is that the lines have long since vanished and people do not think or realize that there are two lanes. One through to 35 N and one between the cloverleaf ramps. The proper way to traverse these would be to continue into the lane between the cloverleaf ramps and then move to the left (or right for 240 WB exiting) without stopping.

The biggest issue with that, however, is - especially during rush hour - that drivers on that cloverleaf from I-240E to I-35N do not have a dedicated acceleration lane after exiting the cloverleaf - and thus have to deal with traffic merging right in front of them to jump on the I-35N to I-240W cloverleaf. The new interchange will give these drivers a dedicated acceleration lane so that they do not have to worry about slowing or stopping for traffic merging in front of them.

Is anyone going to be at tonight's meeting? I wanted to go but I will be unable to.

Same plan they put out a few years back. Nothing new.

Going by the graphic, the cloverleaf ramps appear to have their own lane for awhile until the next on ramp works in. Should be plenty of time to get up to speed and move over. Not to mention these ramps are going to be significantly larger than the existing ones.

No more Shields access should save a ton of issues, of course that means they need to beef up the Santa Fe exit to handle additional traffic.

Same plan they put out a few years back. Nothing new.

No more Shields access should save a ton of issues, of course that means they need to beef up the Santa Fe exit to handle additional traffic.

It's the Shield ON-RAMP to 240 east that's gone, not the Shields Exit from 240-West. It's really not a super heavily used on-ramp anyway. Most of the traffic already goes the other directions...just happens that the eastward directions are the less dense.

It's the Shield ON-RAMP to 240 east that's gone, not the Shields Exit from 240-West. It's really not a super heavily used on-ramp anyway. Most of the traffic already goes the other directions...just happens that the eastward directions are the less dense.

The Eastbound Shields exit from 240 and the Westbound onramp from Shields being removed is what will have the greatest impact on Santa Fe. I can see the business along Shields not being happy about this at all. This gives Lowes a strategic advantage over Home Depot. If I just wanted a few items and I was coming from the west, I may not want to fight Santa Fe and service road traffic to get to Home Depot.

Not that we should cater to a few businesses when designing an interchange that affects thousands of other people.

The Shields exit from westbound I-240 is not gone, simply moved; traffic heading west toward Shields would take an exit ramp on the east side of I-35, immediately west of the Pole Rd. overpass, then keep left at the fork twice. This lane would then eventually merge into the westbound service road for I-240, just east of Shields. However, the Shields exit from eastbound I-240 would be removed; eastbound traffic that needs access to Shields would need to exit for Santa Fe, then continue through that intersection. I personally don't foresee this being a very big problem... Most of the traffic nightmare around this area was traffic trying to get to the eastbound I-240 onramp just east of Shields, merging with traffic from eastbound I-240 exiting toward Shields. The worst of it will probably be limited to Southsiders getting used to the new traffic pattern - imo.

The Shields exit from westbound I-240 is not gone, simply moved; traffic heading west toward Shields would take an exit ramp on the east side of I-35, immediately west of the Pole Rd. overpass, then keep left at the fork twice. This lane would then eventually merge into the westbound service road for I-240, just east of Shields. However, the Shields exit from eastbound I-240 would be removed; eastbound traffic that needs access to Shields would need to exit for Santa Fe, then continue through that intersection. I personally don't foresee this being a very big problem... Most of the traffic nightmare around this area was traffic trying to get to the eastbound I-240 onramp just east of Shields, merging with traffic from eastbound I-240 exiting toward Shields. The worst of it will probably be limited to Southsiders getting used to the new traffic pattern - imo.

Correct, of course this exit ramp will be pretty irrelevant after construction since only westbound I-240 traffic can access it. They could save a few million dollars by not building bridge "L" and ramp "L". Just cut off Shields entirely.

yeah im not sure why they did the ramp the way they did instead of just keeping a ramp there....maybe there's a grade issue we can't see from the overhead map.

You're both correct...the west 240 to shields exit is still there, but I don't see a way for 35 southbound traffic to have access to Shields. ^hence that comment. That part is a bit odd. I guess they want people to take 59th instead???

With the new alignment, drivers on I-35 S that want access to Shields would have to take Exit 122A toward SE 66th St, continue straight through the light at SE 66th St, and follow the service road as it curves to the west toward Shields. That's a little more convoluted than current - and unless it's signed, it's not immediately intuitive - but at least it avoids the current Shields off ramp which is pretty horrible.

Are these plans taking in to account a future expansion of I35? I know this interchange will help alleviate traffic, but I35 needs to be 4+ lanes yesterday.

I don't know if they designed it with highway expansion in mind... The way the interchange appears to be designed, it could probably accommodate a widened I-35 - but I'm honestly not sold on it's necessity right now. Sure, we have traffic - but honestly, our traffic is really not that bad. Granted, I only have to deal with it from downtown to 240, but from what I've seen, it's nothing like the traffic nightmares that places like Dallas or Austin encounter. I'd wager that the I-44 corridor between I-40 and I-240 actually experiences more congestion - and I think a lot of that is poorly designed interchanges at I-40/I-44 and I-44/I-240.

But I digress - it looks like it could accommodate a widening of I-35.

I wouldn't have thought about the 66th exit...good idea. I'm sure they'll sign it like 35 S in moore did with 4th/5th/Main. You'll just need to be paying attention. Wouldn't be the first place in the U.S. that this type of frontage rd access was used. And hey, it's a frontage without traffic lights so it should be pretty quick...just another 30 seconds of drive time.

I would agree that 35 needs to be 4 lanes from Norman up to downtown. Rush hour is a parking long most days for that entire stretch. It only lasts for about 30 minutes really, but it's bad when it's bad.

Same way 44 needs to have another 2 lanes added to it!!!!

I always notice that the traffic speeds up significantly after 44th street when going south during rush hour. An extra lane from downtown to 240 wouldn't hurt and maybe smooth out the curve that seems to slow people down for whatever reason.

ODOT has published a fair amount of supporting videos and documentation that I assume was originally presented at the June 11th meeting (http://ok.gov/odot/Programs_and_Projects/Public_Meetings_and_Hearings/20150611.html).

Handout: English (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2015/150611/handout_e.pdf) | 中国 (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2015/150611/handout_c.pdf) | Español (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2015/150611/handout_s.pdf) | Việt (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2015/150611/handout_v.pdf)
Master Plan Map (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2015/150611/master_plan_map.pdf) | Sequence of Construction (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2015/150611/sequence_of_construction.pdf) | Presentation (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2015/150611/presentation.pdf)
Corridor Simulation Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgYQs4-c0mk) | Turning Movement Animation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gZCLvxRO5U) | Meeting Recording (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o06KDjwpHsY)
3D View of Proposed (I-35) (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2015/150611/render_I-35.pdf) | 3D View of Proposed (I-240) (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2015/150611/render_I-240.pdf)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gZCLvxRO5U

I am a bit concerned by the 3D views - and hope it's just an oversight by whomever put those documents together - but I sincerely hope this interchange will be built with a concrete roadway and not asphalt - at the very least for the I-35 components and the flyovers. I'm also very disappointed by the LONG timeline for completion - Phases III and IV are scheduled for FY 2021. 6 years to replace an interchange is just ridiculous. I know ODOT's MO is to do everything debt-free, but it stretches construction projects out FAR longer then they should be. I'm VERY not looking forward to 6 years of construction hell - even though I am super excited for the finished interchange.

It won't be continuous construction until 2020. It will be like I-44/I-235, one project lasting one year followed by a year of no activity. Also, construction 1B is just service road construction which barely affects the two interstates.

Okay, yeah, you're right... I was being a bit bellicose there... but I think my point, more than anything, is this interchange won't be done for 6 YEARS. We needed this interchange 6 years ago! Though there is some merit to their methods, ODOT really, REALLY needs to get off the "debt-free" high horse and get needed infrastructure improvements done quickly, not stretched out ad infinitum.

Okay, yeah, you're right... I was being a bit bellicose there... but I think my point, more than anything, is this interchange won't be done for 6 YEARS. We needed this interchange 6 years ago! Though there is some merit to their methods, ODOT really, REALLY needs to get off the "debt-free" high horse and get needed infrastructure improvements done quickly, not stretched out ad infinitum.

Stretching construction projects out over 6 years costs more in the long run then just issuing a bond and paying the interest. Lots of basic reasons why. First being the time value of money and the second is it costs extra to constantly stop and start construction rather then just do it all at once. Similar to buying in bulk. It's a truly ignorant way of going about it.

It is not a decision or policy. They are limited by state law

There you go again, bursting people's balloons with the needle of reality...

We could fix some of that with the 5 cent gas tax. Best to get it in now, while prices are low, so it's not as noticeable later when they rise again. By then, we'll have had a nice push into ODOT to help get some crap done.

It is not a decision or policy. They are limited by state law

It's a law that needs to be changed. Maybe next session, this years legislature wasn't terrified of debt like 2014's was.

Okay, yeah, you're right... I was being a bit bellicose there... but I think my point, more than anything, is this interchange won't be done for 6 YEARS. We needed this interchange 6 years ago! Though there is some merit to their methods, ODOT really, REALLY needs to get off the "debt-free" high horse and get needed infrastructure improvements done quickly, not stretched out ad infinitum.

As a "veteran" (ahem) of the I-240 commute over the last 27 years....I'd offer it's more like 16 years ago :)

It's a law that needs to be changed. Maybe next session, this years legislature wasn't terrified of debt like 2014's was.

I may be entirely wrong on this, but I believe it may be a state constitutional issue. I know all the double-speak that's gone into the MAPS projects has been due to constitutional prohibitions on long-term municipal debt and logrolling. Said then, and I'll repeat - someone needs to attack that particular issue, although I certainly understand and laud the desire to keep the state and its cities free of long-term debt. We've saved ourselves from going down the ugly path trod by other cities not so cautious.