I-35 / I-240 Exchange

[TheTravellers]

Wondering if anybody knows if any of the interchange-fixing projects that have been done in the OKC metro have actually finished on time? I wasn't here for a while when the I-35/I-40 one was being worked on, but I don't think I remember one that finished on time (or had any kind of reasonable schedule - 8 years for this one? Absolutely ridiculous, and yes, I know the reasons why, but still absolutely ridiculous)

[rte66man]

Wondering if anybody knows if any of the interchange-fixing projects that have been done in the OKC metro have actually finished on time? I wasn't here for a while when the I-35/I-40 one was being worked on, but I don't think I remember one that finished on time (or had any kind of reasonable schedule - 8 years for this one? Absolutely ridiculous, and yes, I know the reasons why, but still absolutely ridiculous)

IIRC both the Dallas and Fort Smith interchange rebuilds were way behind due to funding shortfalls. There was a large energy recession in 83-84 (shocker) and I'm sure State road funds were cut. I will have to do some research on that.

[Boomer3791]

Here's a link to a detailed map of the project from the ODOT website: http://www.odot.org/newsmedia/press/...0_plan_map.jpg

[baralheia]

Any chance we could merge the three threads on this topic?

[baralheia]

Yay! Thank you, omnipotent Forum Gods!

[Plutonic Panda]

Yay! Thank you, omnipotent Forum Gods!

Agreed lol. This is something that bothers me for some reason just OCD I guess.

[Plutonic Panda]

Oklahoma Department of Transportation

[venture]

Why are there cloverleaf ramps still? Probably due to space restriction judging on which ones keep them.240 EB to 35 NB doesn't seem to have enough room anywhere for a flyover ramp. 240 WB to 35 SB roughly the same issue, but could probably but in a very high flyover to make it work. However, I think the cloverleaf ramps still make some sense there.

The big improvements here though are removing the big conflict points - No on ramp from Shields to 240 EB, off ramp from 240 WB to Shields starts before entering traffic from 25, and 240 WB to 35 NB loop no longer has to yield to 35 NB to 240 WB traffic which causes back ups. It may not be the most flashy, but it'll probably work out pretty well.

[Plutonic Panda]

Why are there cloverleaf ramps still? Probably due to space restriction judging on which ones keep them.240 EB to 35 NB doesn't seem to have enough room anywhere for a flyover ramp. 240 WB to 35 SB roughly the same issue, but could probably but in a very high flyover to make it work. However, I think the cloverleaf ramps still make some sense there.

The big improvements here though are removing the big conflict points - No on ramp from Shields to 240 EB, off ramp from 240 WB to Shields starts before entering traffic from 25, and 240 WB to 35 NB loop no longer has to yield to 35 NB to 240 WB traffic which causes back ups. It may not be the most flashy, but it'll probably work out pretty well.

Justify it all you want, but that's a load of malarkey.

If engineering like this



and this



are possible...

the surely something like this is possible



in a better world, with more funding, Shields would have a couple of dedicated ramps as well



But before anyone's head explode, remember, I'm pushing the first one more than anything.

and before anyone starts saying Dallas goes crazy with every interchange they don't because the new 635 and North Dallas Tollway is going to be 100% cloverleafs

Future 635/North Dallas Tollway interchange


Only reason I post that is to make sure I understand not EVERY interchange has to be a high-five, but stack interchanges are better, cooler looking, but most of all, they improved traffic flow and don't require people to come to a crawl like cloverleafs do. Cloverleafs suck. They are an outdated form of highway design and should not be on any major interchange. Completely ridiculous.

This interchange sucks and will be needing to be replaced or majorly reconfigured in 10 years when people wonder what on earth we were doing designing a crap interchange like this. It isn't even going to be a stack at all. Some service roads are even going to be diverted through a f#cking parking lot. This has to be one of the biggest jokes of a proposal for a major interchange I've seen to date.

Also, service roads can also go through cloverleafs. Whoever said that is the primarily reason for stack interchanges is wrong. There is no space restriction, although I'm sure the engineers for ODOT might say that to mislead people. They cheaped out; plain and simple. If ODOT could take out loans, maybe they'd actually design these things right, but as it is now, they can't. So I'm honestly not going to entirely blame ODOT, but we're going to get a crap, half-ass, no. . . quarter-ass interchange that will take 8 years and will be congested and outdated the day it is complete. Good job guys! Can't wait for this piece of crap to be built.

[warreng88]

The biggest issue I still see is the EB 240 to NB 35 cloverleaf. Now, I hate cloverleafs as much as the next person, but I understand like what Venture said, it might be due to space restriction. The biggest problem with this particular cloverleaf is everyone stops when merging on to 35 NB when there is a straight shot to the access road but they stop due to people going NB 35 to WB 240. It is the same issue with the 44/235/77 interchange.

[Plutonic Panda]

The biggest issue I still see is the EB 240 to NB 35 cloverleaf. Now, I hate cloverleafs as much as the next person, but I understand like what Venture said, it might be due to space restriction. The biggest problem with this particular cloverleaf is everyone stops when merging on to 35 NB when there is a straight shot to the access road but they stop due to people going NB 35 to WB 240. It is the same issue with the 44/235/77 interchange.

There are no space restrictions, if you wanted to, you could even build a 5 stack at 235/44. Now I'm trying to stay reasonable and I'm going to admit I am understanding more that, that particular interchange would cost a ton, probably two or three times as much as the High-Five to build like that, so I totally understand why ODOT is doing the half fly-over and half cloverleafs over there. That interchange is actually going to be quite impressive when built. However, it still could be done. With this interchange, it absolutely can be done and space constraints are nothing but a challenge to overcome.

[bombermwc]

We've talked this one to death, but here we go again:
1- it's a new cloverleaf that is almost double the size of the old one on both portions. That means it can hold more traffic to prevent it from stacking up in the through lanes.
2 - if you look at the design, there is no matching cloverleaf on the same through lane, so that means no crossing traffic for on/off ramps like we do in a traditional 4 part clover.
3 - if you look at the design, you'll also note that the 35NB portion of the clover leaf does NOT interfere with any other traffic like it does today. That's because, again, there's no other leaf on that side so there's no merging below the 240 bridge for 240WB and the 35NB folks.

So the bottleneck places for the leafs simply don't exist like they do today. Just trace the lines of traffic in each direction and you'll see how they flow.

[Plutonic Panda]

We've talked this one to death, but here we go again:

Yes, but no valid point has ever been made with the sole exception that current traffic counts don't warrant it, but that takes no account into the explosive growth of the city and future traffic projections.

1- it's a new cloverleaf that is almost double the size of the old one on both portions. That means it can hold more traffic to prevent it from stacking up in the through lanes.

A new bright and shiny cloverleaf, wonderful. It's still a cloverleaf. People are still going to come to a crawl on it regardless. It still is outdated and will move traffic much slower than a fly-over would.

2 - if you look at the design, there is no matching cloverleaf on the same through lane, so that means no crossing traffic for on/off ramps like we do in a traditional 4 part clover.

Correct. No one is arguing otherwise. It's still a cloverleaf that is inferior to a fly-over.

3 - if you look at the design, you'll also note that the 35NB portion of the clover leaf does NOT interfere with any other traffic like it does today. That's because, again, there's no other leaf on that side so there's no merging below the 240 bridge for 240WB and the 35NB folks.

What I see when I look at the design are four service roads that are extended way out and create more land inside the interchange that will be able to be developed. That is bad for city and smart land use as a whole. I also see a service road the goes through a mall parking lot. I see an interchange that is an absolute waste of money and is obsolete and the final design hasn't even met approval. I would like to say I am overreacting since this is just preliminary, but we see is pretty much what we're going to get. In fact, it seems the Santa Fe bridge is no longer going to be built as part of the 235/44 interchange project, so I wouldn't be surprised if this interchange was scaled down even more to be worth less than crap.

[QUOTE=bombermwc;855153So the bottleneck places for the leafs simply don't exist like they do today. Just trace the lines of traffic in each direction and you'll see how they flow.[/QUOTE]Once again, it isn't the bottle necks that are the problem with this design, it's the fact that they're taking a horrid sh!tty interchange and making it a slightly less sh!tty interchange. That is literally all they're doing here.

[jn1780]

The main purpose of a second layer of flyovers is to allow the service roads to pass through. I would say the second purpose is to eliminate the sharp curve of the cloverleaf. (but as Bomber mention above the clover has been enlarged). This design does significantly make it easier to merge which is a plus.

The biggest downside is not allowing service roads to pass through. Is this worth double the cost?

[warreng88]

Bomber, thanks for the correction. Does the cloverleaf merge onto the highway or an access road? I can't tell from the renderings.

[jn1780]

Bomber, thanks for the correction. Does the cloverleaf merge onto the highway or an access road? I can't tell from the renderings.

The "access road" is essentially gone since only EB240 to NB35 is using the onramp which will be a lot longer then before. NB35 to EB240, EB240 to NB35, NB35 to WB240 all shared the same access road.

[jn1780]

The Dallas toll way cloverleafs are a lot worse of a design then what ODOT has presented. Those clovers conflict with each other more.

[Plutonic Panda]

The Dallas toll way cloverleafs are a lot worse of a design then what ODOT has presented. Those clovers conflict with each other more.

What do you mean? They might be a little smaller... At least they are continuing the service roads. I would've preferred flyovers there, but the budget didn't allow or they didn't think it was warranted due to low traffic counts. They are adding a lane each way although the North Dallas tollway is usually pretty mild on traffic outside of rush hour.

[adaniel]

^
Definitely not true. I live and work not too far from that area and I can tell you DNT is horribly congested. More likely than not they are not putting flyovers because this area is very built up.

Even still, the design on 35/240 is still superior because traffic coming off the cloverleafs don't have to merge with any other cloverleaf traffic.

[Plutonic Panda]

^
Definitely not true. I live and work not too far from that area and I can tell you DNT is horribly congested. More likely than not they are not putting flyovers because this area is very built up.

Even still, the design on 35/240 is still superior because traffic coming off the cloverleafs don't have to merge with any other cloverleaf traffic.

Wow. So I'll start taking pictures of it every time I'm there and prove to you that it's not. I was just there this past weekend and there was hardly anyone on it. Around the 635 interchange it will obviously get backed up due to the construction and south of 635 it usually is pretty full, but nothing that comes to a crawl other than rush hour or a wreck.

I also remember when I was younger I would go to Love Field twice a month to fly to OKC to see family and I would always travel on the North Dallas Tollway and we always maintained a speed of about 70-80MPH along with others usually around 12-3pm.

I'm also going to email the proper person to find out exactly why they didn't put fly-overs. An area that is built up has not stopped them from doing that before.

[OUman]

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 [b]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. 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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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 [b]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. 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.

[venture]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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...

[OUman]

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.