The New I-40 (Construction Updates)

[OKCisOK4me]

My guess is that they'll open all that up at the same time so it will be a fully functional intersection.

[Bellaboo]

They were removing the temporary barriers on the east bound side early this morning.

[DowntownMan]

I have a feeling that they will be putting up the remaining overhead signs this weekend along with paitning the new stripes..maybe we could see it all finished next week?? By finished I mean all lanes open..as I know it's officially a work zone until the boulevard is done.

[OKCDrummer77]

ODOT tweeted this morning that the westbound side between Penn and I-44 would close intermittently tomorrow for overhead sign work.

[jn1780]

I have a feeling that they will be putting up the remaining overhead signs this weekend along with paitning the new stripes..maybe we could see it all finished next week?? By finished I mean all lanes open..as I know it's officially a work zone until the boulevard is done.

The sign supports were up today. They haven't put up the actual signs or striped the lanes yet There are some old lines that need to be removed first. Should be mostly done next week though.

[catch22]

On the east end, they put up a brand new polished old-style sign on the westbound lanes.

[metro]

I would say within 2 weeks, hopefully sooner. They still have to remove old striping and restripe, and a few small things here and there. Could be a 2 day job, but come on, this is ODOT.

[ChaseDweller]

Anyone else think they should have retained the exit only lane heading Westbound to exit on to the Centennial northbound? In the morning, the poor design of the Lincoln exit on the Centennial backs traffic up on I-40 westbound as it tries to exit to Northbound and merge in/across all the northbound traffic exiting on Lincoln. It's a mess and very dangerous. The old exit only lane at least kept that traffic off to one side. Now that it's a through lane, it seems to be more dangerous. I know the Boulevard will alleviate a lot of that, but that's 2+ years away.

[HangryHippo]

Anyone else think they should have retained the exit only lane heading Westbound to exit on to the Centennial northbound? In the morning, the poor design of the Lincoln exit on the Centennial backs traffic up on I-40 westbound as it tries to exit to Northbound and merge in/across all the northbound traffic exiting on Lincoln. It's a mess and very dangerous. The old exit only lane at least kept that traffic off to one side. Now that it's a through lane, it seems to be more dangerous. I know the Boulevard will alleviate a lot of that, but that's 2+ years away.

Much like other interchanges in our fair city, this pig just had lipstick put on. They built a nice highway between the Amarillo and Dallas junctions while leaving the interchanges to screw it all up. I've never been anywhere else in my entire life that built new roads only to have them clog up at piss poor two lane bridges or cloverleaf ramps that are more likely to see you hurt than anything else.

[Just the facts]

You have discovered the problem with our transportation system. All this money doesn't 'fix' any thing. At best it just moves it a few miles down the road until demand catches up and we start the process over again.

[Plutonic Panda]

You have discovered the problem with our transportation system. All this money doesn't 'fix' any thing. At best it just moves it a few miles down the road until demand catches up and we start the process over again.

Yeah, it's called growth? lol..... We have to keep up with demand. Roads and rail right?

[catch22]

Growth yes.

Sustainable growth, no.

By the time they fix a bottleneck on one end, a new bottleneck has formed somewhere else along the line. All you are doing is chasing the issue in a zig-zag pattern of perpetual growth. The only way to fix bottlenecks is to reduce the demand.

[Plutonic Panda]

So they want to force people not to drive? I'm sorry I'm just not quite understanding this. The government is supposed to provide the infrastructure for the people, yes. If a highway is successful and the city grows, you widen the highway. Just like I-35 from downtown OKC to Norman(and eventually Edmond) could be widened to 8 lanes when the time is right to do so, however, widening it 8 lanes to Dallas is obviously not feasible, nor does it make any sense. So, the time to widen I-40 and it was done and now the traffic flows pretty smoothly even during the construction zone. When the interchanges are built(imo I hope they go with the flyovers from the right side of the highway), I'm sure we won't have any issues with I-40 Crosstown for a looooooong time to come.

[catch22]

No one is saying you can't drive. Just how much money should we spend on one transportation method? If it costs us huge amounts of money for very few miles of additional transportation capacity, when do you draw the line and stop expanding that system and provide for alternative systems?

What is the threshold for triggering expansion? A 15 minute commute-time increase? 4 hours of rush hour peak demand? 5? 6? Our highways are at capacity 4 hours a day. To alleviate that, how many billions will it cost to reduce rush hour peak demand? When we increase the capacity to alleviate longer commute times, how long until growth fills the void and we are back at the original problem? The only way to reduce the demand for that mode of transit it provide alternatives.

No one is saying we shouldn't have highways, they are vital to the economy. But in excess, they are a leach on the budgets. They are high maintenance and very inefficient in nature -- 1 person to travel on a highways is occupying 1,152 square feet of pavement at any given moment.¹ That's a lot. I'm not an expert on rail by any means, but I do know a commuter rail train car occupies 1,275 square feet of area, with a capacity of 232 passengers (per car).² Assuming all 232 passengers were driving, using basic math and assuming 2/3rd of the riders were commuters who are traveling alone, the other 1/3 are traveling with one other person. This is a fair average of my observations from riding public transit systems in New York, Chicago, Cleveland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Although not scientific, it is a fair ratio. You can see below to see my math at how inefficient highways are at moving large quantities of people compared to rail transit. ³

1. a car with 5 seats is only moving 1 person on average, taking up 1,152 square feet of pavement at any given time -- Assume 12 foot wide travel lane with average of 96 feet of distance (16 for the car and 80 feet in front of it for buffer/spacing. 12*96=1,152 SQFT
   
2. http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/u...Fact_Sheet.pdf
   
3. 
   155 alone commuters, 38 groups of 2. A total of 231. (rounding issue)
   155 + 38 = 193 vehicles.
   193 * 1,152 square feet = 222,336 sqft.
   193 * 96 = 18,528 distance occupied
   18,528 / 5 lanes = 3,706 feet per lane = 7/10 mile of traffic across 5 lanes being carried by one car of a commuter rail train. 2 cars and you are looking at the capacity equivalent of 1.4 miles of 5 lane interstate.
   
   This is an inflated number for many reasons, the main being, at rush hour, you don't always have 80 feet of space ahead of you. Also all cars are not equally spaced, nor are they the same dimensions. But this should be a decent starting point to show how inefficient highways are for transporting people. They are excellent at moving goods. But on a per person average of space taken, they are extremely inefficient.

[OKCisOK4me]

Growth yes.

Sustainable growth, no.

By the time they fix a bottleneck on one end, a new bottleneck has formed somewhere else along the line. All you are doing is chasing the issue in a zig-zag pattern of perpetual growth. The only way to fix bottlenecks is to reduce the demand.

I'm pretty sure the only bottleneck on i-235 has always been in the same place...right there north of 36th up to I-44 interchange. Everywhere else, traffic flows smoothly on this interstate.

The only good interchanges in the city is Shields/35 & Fort Smith Junction. 40/44 needs 6 thru lanes and even though we know they're in the 50 year ODOT plan, they need to take care of 235/44 and 35/240 real quick.

[HangryHippo]

I'm pretty sure the only bottleneck on i-235 has always been in the same place...right there north of 36th up to I-44 interchange. Everywhere else, traffic flows smoothly on this interstate.

And what about where it begins at I-40? Again, the interchange designs and redesigns do nothing to alleviate the problem.

[HangryHippo]

No one is saying you can't drive. Just how much money should we spend on one transportation method? If it costs us huge amounts of money for very few miles of additional transportation capacity, when do you draw the line and stop expanding that system and provide for alternative systems?

What is the threshold for triggering expansion? A 15 minute commute-time increase? 4 hours of rush hour peak demand? 5? 6? Our highways are at capacity 4 hours a day. To alleviate that, how many billions will it cost to reduce rush hour peak demand? When we increase the capacity to alleviate longer commute times, how long until growth fills the void and we are back at the original problem? The only way to reduce the demand for that mode of transit it provide alternatives.

No one is saying we shouldn't have highways, they are vital to the economy. But in excess, they are a leach on the budgets. They are high maintenance and very inefficient in nature -- 1 person to travel on a highways is occupying 1,152 square feet of pavement at any given moment.¹ That's a lot. I'm not an expert on rail by any means, but I do know a commuter rail train car occupies 1,275 square feet of area, with a capacity of 232 passengers (per car).² Assuming all 232 passengers were driving, using basic math and assuming 2/3rd of the riders were commuters who are traveling alone, the other 1/3 are traveling with one other person. This is a fair average of my observations from riding public transit systems in New York, Chicago, Cleveland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Although not scientific, it is a fair ratio. You can see below to see my math at how inefficient highways are at moving large quantities of people compared to rail transit. ³

1. a car with 5 seats is only moving 1 person on average, taking up 1,152 square feet of pavement at any given time -- Assume 12 foot wide travel lane with average of 96 feet of distance (16 for the car and 80 feet in front of it for buffer/spacing. 12*96=1,152 SQFT
   
2. http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/u...Fact_Sheet.pdf
   
3. 
   155 alone commuters, 38 groups of 2. A total of 231. (rounding issue)
   155 + 38 = 193 vehicles.
   193 * 1,152 square feet = 222,336 sqft.
   193 * 96 = 18,528 distance occupied
   18,528 / 5 lanes = 3,706 feet per lane = 7/10 mile of traffic across 5 lanes being carried by one car of a commuter rail train. 2 cars and you are looking at the capacity equivalent of 1.4 miles of 5 lane interstate.
   
   This is an inflated number for many reasons, the main being, at rush hour, you don't always have 80 feet of space ahead of you. Also all cars are not equally spaced, nor are they the same dimensions. But this should be a decent starting point to show how inefficient highways are for transporting people. They are excellent at moving goods. But on a per person average of space taken, they are extremely inefficient.

This.

[OKCisOK4me]

And what about where it begins at I-40? Again, the interchange designs and redesigns do nothing to alleviate the problem.

I edited my post with post-thoughts...go back and check that out.

The main problem is that you're taking previous 4 or 6 lane highways and turning them into 6 and 10 lane highways and then keeping the interchanges as 4 lane thru ways which causes the bottleneck. That bottleneck is primarily caused by d*bags that wanna get in a hurry and rush up to the end of a lane and then merge into the traffic that's already slowed because someone before them did the same thing. Or you have the short on/off clover leaf designs where there's only a limited amount of room to get on or off the interchange causing the bottlenecks. Until the interchanges are made to be as many lanes as the stretches of highway currently are...there are always gonna be bottlenecks!

[Plutonic Panda]

No one is saying you can't drive. Just how much money should we spend on one transportation method? If it costs us huge amounts of money for very few miles of additional transportation capacity, when do you draw the line and stop expanding that system and provide for alternative systems?

What is the threshold for triggering expansion? A 15 minute commute-time increase? 4 hours of rush hour peak demand? 5? 6? Our highways are at capacity 4 hours a day. To alleviate that, how many billions will it cost to reduce rush hour peak demand? When we increase the capacity to alleviate longer commute times, how long until growth fills the void and we are back at the original problem? The only way to reduce the demand for that mode of transit it provide alternatives.

No one is saying we shouldn't have highways, they are vital to the economy. But in excess, they are a leach on the budgets. They are high maintenance and very inefficient in nature -- 1 person to travel on a highways is occupying 1,152 square feet of pavement at any given moment.¹ That's a lot. I'm not an expert on rail by any means, but I do know a commuter rail train car occupies 1,275 square feet of area, with a capacity of 232 passengers (per car).² Assuming all 232 passengers were driving, using basic math and assuming 2/3rd of the riders were commuters who are traveling alone, the other 1/3 are traveling with one other person. This is a fair average of my observations from riding public transit systems in New York, Chicago, Cleveland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Although not scientific, it is a fair ratio. You can see below to see my math at how inefficient highways are at moving large quantities of people compared to rail transit. ³

1. a car with 5 seats is only moving 1 person on average, taking up 1,152 square feet of pavement at any given time -- Assume 12 foot wide travel lane with average of 96 feet of distance (16 for the car and 80 feet in front of it for buffer/spacing. 12*96=1,152 SQFT
   
2. http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/u...Fact_Sheet.pdf
   
3. 
   155 alone commuters, 38 groups of 2. A total of 231. (rounding issue)
   155 + 38 = 193 vehicles.
   193 * 1,152 square feet = 222,336 sqft.
   193 * 96 = 18,528 distance occupied
   18,528 / 5 lanes = 3,706 feet per lane = 7/10 mile of traffic across 5 lanes being carried by one car of a commuter rail train. 2 cars and you are looking at the capacity equivalent of 1.4 miles of 5 lane interstate.
   
   This is an inflated number for many reasons, the main being, at rush hour, you don't always have 80 feet of space ahead of you. Also all cars are not equally spaced, nor are they the same dimensions. But this should be a decent starting point to show how inefficient highways are for transporting people. They are excellent at moving goods. But on a per person average of space taken, they are extremely inefficient.

Oh, sh**. That's pretty impressive man, you really know your stuff. I didn't get that far into it, however, the highways move me pretty efficiently, but I don't speak for anyone else. I really want there to be balance in the way we fund our different types of transport. I just think roads should get the benefit of the doubt. Along with pedestrian funding. As I've said before, I really want to see light-rail throughout the metro and I understand it will come with time. Just they way some people speak sometimes.. jtf esp. lol, and I have nothing against you JTF you seem like a really cool person, it just sounds like we should remove cars from the equation all together and everyone walks, ride bikes, and trains. That just doesn't sound very appealing and I understand you're not going that far. Sometimes I can misinterpret things pretty bad. So, sorry if I sound argumentative.

[catch22]

Highways are resource inefficient. Don't confuse time efficiency with resource efficiency.

Rail time-efficiency will be greatest at peak time periods, when highways are essentially clogged and efficiency is nil.

The highways are super time efficient at non peak times. You can travel great distances very quickly. Unfortunately, the larger a city grows, the larger the peak period is and the smaller the non-peak times are. Over time, you 4-6pm rush hour will turn to 4-7, and then 3-7, and then 3-8pm. Your morning rush hour will start to creep into the 5-9am period instead of just 6-8am. Your midday will begin to spike and you'll start to have midday congestion. You will soon be scheduling your periods of easy movement into 9-10am, 1pm-3pm, and 8pm-4am.

You must provide alternatives to allow growth, or someday soon people could overlook OKC for the traffic congestion.

Now is the time to get ahead of the issue, because alternatives cannot and will not appear overnight. Traffic congestion is growing in this city, and it is growing very quickly. 67 people a day move into the OKC metro, the majority in the suburbs. Those people will be driving to work and play, guaranteed.

[OKCisOK4me]

ODOT must have some data that none of us are seeing.

[Lafferty Daniel]

Why is it taking them so long to finish the west side? It looks like all they have to do is re-stripe the lanes. And yet there hasn't been any progress in almost a month and a half?

[OKCisOK4me]

Surely the funds have been appropriated...

[Plutonic Panda]

I was beginning to wonder myself haha... This is weird. Progress has seemed to just stop. I've never seen this happen in Oklahoma.

[DowntownMan]

I was beginning to wonder myself haha... This is weird. Progress has seemed to just stop. I've never seen this happen in Oklahoma.

I've noticed this as well. Sure would be nice to open up those remaining lanes...


Also why did they not take down the remaining piers of the old i40 on Gaylord between Gaylord and the the rail road. It just seems strange to leave those there to remove later on.