The New I-40 (Construction Updates)

[Skyline]

I think the new perspective makes downtown Okc seem much larger. It makes since too, being that the new downtown view is from lower and wider angles.

[edcrunk]

Downtown looks fantastic as you turn onto shields.

[Bellaboo]

I drove through today about 10 after 7:00. I set the cruise on 70 and didn't slow down until the merge with I-35. I noticed for the first time that there was more traffic exiting on Shields than Western.

It's a great drive.

[OKCNDN]

Can anyone foresee a problem with both the traffic coming from Shields northbound and from I-35 via the boulevard that is to be built, both will be coming to the same corner right by the hotel? I can see a big traffic jam every morning and evening, taking several lights to clear the stoplight at that corner. Travelers will have to go through this corner whether they plan on using the boulevard or Shields to get onto I-40 eastbound.

I think the city could have done a great job in having a frontage road on both sides of the new I-40, from Western to the east to at least Robinson and probably Shields. I do not like when a person exits onto Shields they cannot turn around and go back to Robinson or Walker. They have to travel south to SW 25th then take that and get to where they want to go.

So much more could have been done to make that area more easy to get around.

[Lauri101]

Supposedly, there will be other access roads once the boulevard is finished. Not sure how it will work out, but I agree with OKCNDN that the potential at rush hour could be bad. I'm glad I'm given the option for a flexible schedule. 5 AM to 3 PM is not so tough for the traffic-phobic!

[jn1780]

Can anyone foresee a problem with both the traffic coming from Shields northbound and from I-35 via the boulevard that is to be built, both will be coming to the same corner right by the hotel? I can see a big traffic jam every morning and evening, taking several lights to clear the stoplight at that corner. Travelers will have to go through this corner whether they plan on using the boulevard or Shields to get onto I-40 eastbound.

I think the city could have done a great job in having a frontage road on both sides of the new I-40, from Western to the east to at least Robinson and probably Shields. I do not like when a person exits onto Shields they cannot turn around and go back to Robinson or Walker. They have to travel south to SW 25th then take that and get to where they want to go.

So much more could have been done to make that area more easy to get around.

One thing to note is that going westbound there is no Shields exit ramp, there is a Robinson ramp instead. So you will have some people who will stay on I-40 and use their regular Robinson route. Also, their really isn't any reason for drivers going eastbound to drive all the way to Shields once the new boulevard is completed if they work in the western or central part of downtown. It will all balance out in the end.

[metro]

Supposedly, there will be other access roads once the boulevard is finished. Not sure how it will work out, but I agree with OKCNDN that the potential at rush hour could be bad. I'm glad I'm given the option for a flexible schedule. 5 AM to 3 PM is not so tough for the traffic-phobic!

Especially since OKC has no traffic

[Thunder]

I'm sure OKC will be clever with the new stoplights having both, the timers and traffic sensors. The timers will be a huge boost to clear out the north/south traffic very quickly during rush hours by letting the timer go a bit longer. Less traffic, the sensors will kick in and optimize the flow. Relax, kids, do not worry. Traffic lights made today are much more advance than the centuries old traffic lights installed in OKC eons ago.

[MDot]

I drove the new I-40 today a little after 5:20 and like others have said there is pretty much no traffic during rush hour, atleast when I went through.

[Just the facts]

I'm sure OKC will be clever with the new stoplights having both, the timers and traffic sensors. The timers will be a huge boost to clear out the north/south traffic very quickly during rush hours by letting the timer go a bit longer. Less traffic, the sensors will kick in and optimize the flow. Relax, kids, do not worry. Traffic lights made today are much more advance than the centuries old traffic lights installed in OKC eons ago.

The longer the light stays green for one direction the longer it stays red for the other traffic. This causes traffic to back-up and creates the very thing the longer time was supposed to avoid. The lights need to cycle faster (about every 25 seconds) and in downtown they should cater to pedestrians. People should be encouraged to walk or ride the streetcar with new parking garages either being along the streetcar line or on the periphery of downtown. If you want more traffic keep catering to cars (see the Dallas thread).

[Thunder]

The longer the light stays green for one direction the longer it stays red for the other traffic. This causes traffic to back-up and creates the very thing the longer time was supposed to avoid. The lights need to cycle faster (about every 25 seconds) and in downtown they should cater to pedestrians. People should be encouraged to walk or ride the streetcar with new parking garages either being along the streetcar line or on the periphery of downtown. If you want more traffic keep catering to cars (see the Dallas thread).

It depends. Going east/west on the Blvd, there are multiple on-ramps to I-40 for both eastbound and westbound, so all those cars will not be at one intersection all at once. Picture yourself floating high above looking down. You will see cars getting onto I-40 at multiple locations, which quickly eases up traffic congestion. So, with east/west traffic lights having longer red lights, it wouldn't cause harm. One of the most priority with traffic flow is to ensure north/south keep flowing and not be backed up much, because there will be constant flow of people exiting on Shields more so than Western (right, only two exit access for eastbound?). See the picture? Cycling lights faster are not the solution. Twenty-five seconds per cycle is ridiculous. It takes a few seconds for each car to move it. When the light turn green, all cars don't go at once. The first start to go, a second later the next goes, next second the next goes...on and on and on...and it takes several seconds for the 5th car to press the gas pedal.

.....

Will or Metro (I asked Metro in his pictures thread), interested in doing pictures of both old and new I-40 in segments to produce in a video? I think take pictures of the old I-40 first before access gets cut off to the public. Then the new I-40. Produce a video showing segment A old-to-new, segment B old-to-new, and so on. It'd be nice to have it on record to reflect OKC's history of how far we have come from that time to this time. This will be awesome (Spartan thinks it is a bad idea, but ignore him). Or I could try to do this, but parking is hard for me as my truck's reverse is broken. Anyway, Will and Metro has better cameras.

[holm1231]

Just the Facts, Thunder is correct with the traffic lights. When morning rush hours come into DT, it is better that the lights for cars exiting the highway and north bound lanes have a longer green light. No, opposite traffic will not build up more, because there will be less traffic in the first place. Then the lights will change for evening rush hours. If you proposed the every 25 second light for both directions then, traffic entering DT during morning hours build up quicker than any other direction. Therefore, causing a jam. If you let their light last longer, you avoid that jam of many cars and the other 10 cars will have to wait a little longer. Better to have 10 cars wait longer than 500 cars get backed up in the same amount of time.

[oneforone]

I can't believe people are throwing such a fit about this thing. The true test for everyone will be when westbound opens. Then it will be hectic all over again when the new boulevard opens. I give it about 3 months after it is fully open and 100% completed people will act as if they never missed the old crosstown and it's layouts.

The Oklahoman writer articles are just laughable people are acting as if ODOT should have come to them asked for their input. If they went to everybody's door in the state we would still be in the planning stages arguing over where it was going to go. I just keep asking myself "Where were these clowns with their input when ODOT held the numerous meetings around the metro? Oh yeah, they were too busy watching American Train Wreck or America' Next Top Prison Inmate.

[Thunder]

oneforone, I responded to Steve about the article he written, but he chose not to respond. lol

[Just the facts]

Thunder and holm1231 - you have me confused with someone who is interested in moving cars through downtown as fast possible. That is the least of my concerns. However, I just spent 2 months in Central City Philadelphia and dedicated a large portion of my free time studying why they have such a walkable city. One thing I picked up early on was their 25 second light cycling.

In 2 months I never once saw backups at Philly lights and no one had to sit through two light changes. Every block cleared on every light change every time. In fact, the worst traffic I saw was on the freeway where there are not any lights at all. If you get the chance I suggest you find places with 25 second cycling and see how well it works first hand.

[ljbab728]

Thunder and holm1231 - you have me confused with someone who is interested in moving cars through downtown as fast possible. That is the least of my concerns. However, I just spent 2 months in Central City Philadelphia and dedicated a large portion of my free time studying why they have such a walkable city. One thing I picked up early on was their 25 second light cycling.

In 2 months I never once saw backups at Philly lights and no one had to sit through two light changes. Every block cleared on every light change every time. In fact, the worst traffic I saw was on the freeway where there are not any lights at all. If you get the chance I suggest you find places with 25 second cycling and see how well it works first hand.

Here you go, Kerry. Work out all of these equations and get back to me when you have the answers. LOL

It makes my head hurt just to think about it.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Fundame...raffic_Signals

[Just the facts]

Here you go, Kerry. Work out all of these equations and get back to me when you have the answers. LOL

It makes my head hurt just to think about it.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Fundame...raffic_Signals

I had to go through all of that during my planning days but there is a much easier way to do it. Just use empirical observation. Pick an intersection where traffic sucks and see how long the lights stay green. Pick a car and see how many light changes they have to wait through. Then find an area with the same amount of traffic but without congestion and see how fast their lights cycle. The other thing to keep in mind is traffic engineers are only interested in moving as many cars as fast as they can and based on how much traffic congestion we have they all suck at their jobs.

Despite all the math in your link they have this question at the bottom which I find interesting that it is even asked.

Problem

Why don't signalized intersections perform more efficiently than uncontrolled intersections?
Solution

The inherent lost time that comes from each signal change is wasted time that does not occur when intersections are uncontrolled. It comes at quite a surprise to most of the Western World, where traffic signals are plentiful, but there are intersections that perform quite well without any form of control. There is an infamous video on YouTube that shows an uncontrolled intersection in India where drivers somehow navigate through a busy, chaotic environment smoothly and efficiently [1] . The video is humorous to watch, but it shows a valid point that uncontrolled intersections can indeed work and are quite efficient. However, the placement of traffic signals is for safety, as drivers entering an uncontrolled intersection have a higher likelihood of being involved in a dangerous accident, such as a T-bone or head-on collision, particularly at high speed.

The answer explains why 25 second timing works so well. It regulates the flow of traffic for safety but comes very close to be uncontrolled - like people walking through a crowd.

[ljbab728]

I had to go through all of that during my planning days but there is a much easier way to do it. Just use empirical observation. Pick an intersection where traffic sucks and see how long the lights stay green. Pick a car and see how many light changes they have to wait through. Then find an area with the same amount of traffic but without congestion and see how fast their lights cycle. The other thing to keep in mind is traffic engineers are only interested in moving as many cars as fast as they can and based on how much traffic congestion we have they all suck at their jobs.

Despite all the math in your link they have this question at the bottom which I find interesting that it is even asked.



The answer explains why 25 second timing works so well. It regulates the flow of traffic for safety but comes very close to be uncontrolled - like people walking through a crowd.

That may work well in places but have you never tried to navigate a very busy intersection when the traffic signals are out? It's a nightmare. With that said, I'm not against your 25 second concept though.

[ljbab728]

http://newsok.com/beams-from-elevate...rticle/3640174

[Thunder]

I disagree on giving away the beams to the counties. The state should be charging those counties for the beams. It says in the article the estimated value per beam is $8,000. Just think about how much money can be used toward beautification of the new I-40 by planting new trees along the full stretch. We obviously need new trees to be planted now to provide an accent to the Grand Central Park. I'm sad that Steve didn't take my suggestion (I mentioned this before) and include it in the article for the state leaders to at least give my suggestion some serious consideration. It feels like no matter how much I scream, the state leaders and OKC leaders isn't listening. I thought Oklahoma was big on planting trees along interstate highways? I could've sworn there was a program for that. Once again, don't give away the beams for free.

[jn1780]

I disagree on giving away the beams to the counties. The state should be charging those counties for the beams. It says in the article the estimated value per beam is $8,000. Just think about how much money can be used toward beautification of the new I-40 by planting new trees along the full stretch. We obviously need new trees to be planted now to provide an accent to the Grand Central Park. I'm sad that Steve didn't take my suggestion (I mentioned this before) and include it in the article for the state leaders to at least give my suggestion some serious consideration. It feels like no matter how much I scream, the state leaders and OKC leaders isn't listening. I thought Oklahoma was big on planting trees along interstate highways? I could've sworn there was a program for that. Once again, don't give away the beams for free.

Because they can't afford them? Really that's like selling your wife or husband something only to have them ask(beg) you for more money later. Money for something practical, I might add, that affects the whole household.

[jn1780]

It looks like westbound will be ready to open in a week or two. Crossovers are built now.

[Snowman]

It looks like westbound will be ready to open in a week or two. Crossovers are built now.

That sounds fairly close to the estimate they gave.

[kevin lee]

So when is the old interstate being torn down and boulevard built?

[Platemaker]

I notice that Google Maps has relocated I-40 at a zoom of 2 miles or closer.