I-35 / I-240 Exchange

[venture]

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

[OUman]

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 .

[catch22]

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

[Snowman]

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.

[ljbab728]

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.

[Snowman]

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.

[ljbab728]

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.

[catch22]

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.

[jompster]

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.

[bombermwc]

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.

[David]

From OK DOT on twitter

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

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.

[David]

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

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

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.



Click here to view the full project map 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.





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





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

[Roger S]

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.

[SoonerDave]

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.

[SoonerDave]

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...

[Just the facts]

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.

[tfvc.org]

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/...0_plan_map.jpg

[Just the facts]

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/...0_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.

[jn1780]

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.

[bombermwc]

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.

[SoonerDave]

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.

[SoonerDave]

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

[SoonerDave]

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.

[Roger S]

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.

[adaniel]

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.