I-35 / I-240 Exchange

[jn1780]

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.

[SoonerDave]

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.

[Robert_M]

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)

[bombermwc]

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.

[Just the facts]

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

[jompster]

... 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.

[baralheia]

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.

[baralheia]

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

[venture]

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.

[bombermwc]

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.

[jn1780]

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.

[baralheia]

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.

[jn1780]

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.

[bombermwc]

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???

[baralheia]

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.

[jccouger]

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.

[baralheia]

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.

[bombermwc]

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!!!!

[jn1780]

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.

[David]

ODOT has published a fair amount of supporting videos and documentation that I assume was originally presented at the June 11th meeting.

Handout: English | 中国 | Español | Việt
Master Plan Map | Sequence of Construction | Presentation
Corridor Simulation Video | Turning Movement Animation | Meeting Recording
3D View of Proposed (I-35) | 3D View of Proposed (I-240)

[baralheia]

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.

[jn1780]

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.

[baralheia]

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.

[gopokes88]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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