I-240 rebuild, long-term, short-term issues...

[SoonerDave]

Some time ago, there was a thread about the I-240/I-35 interchange rebuild, and as I had some new/recent info and experience there, thought I'd start something a bit fresher.

I travel to and from work every day along I-240 from roughly Air Depot to May, and these days its truly an exception to go a week (to be generous) without seeing a multiple car accident near Shields, most typically during rush hour on the eastbound side. And the accidents are rarely just bumper tappers; they're usually really nasty.

Knowing that a rebuild has been in the offing, and getting increasingly frustrated with the steady occurrence of accidents, I fired an email to ODOT, and found out that while the broader rebuild of this interchange is still over a decade away and not completely funded, there is at least the hope of some rebuilding of the eastbound I-240->Southbound I-35 ramp, in the next year or two, which is at least a start.

I offered the suggestion that at least part of the problem in that area could be mitigated if they would immediately close the eastbound on-ramp from Shields, which creates what I call this ghastly "scissor" of entering traffic conflicting with exiting traffic trying to get to the I-35 southbound ramp. Close that ramp, and that traffic must either go a mile west to Walker and enter there, or go south to SE 89th, and take the service road to enter eastbound I-240 from there. Yeah, that's a hassle, and it by no means a cure-all for the interchange, but it eliminates at least part of the problem. At this point, I don't see much alternative. Think something, stop-gap though it may be, needs to be done. As it stands now, I simply won't go near eastbound I-240 near Shields in the afternoon.

Fortunately, the reply from ODOT was that closing that very ramp is on the agenda, but it wasn't quite clear to me if that was going to happen with this rebuild activity in the next year or two.

Anyone else have some ideas for whom we might write, call, email to see if there's anything to be done to get the priority for this interchange rebuild enhanced? I can't begin to fathom the $$$ in property damage and physical injury being incurred on a weekly basis because of this area. This isn't just a matter of a congested/annoying intersection; its one where people are getting hurt, and with seemingly increasing frequency.

[bombermwc]

I would absolutely oppose closing the shields onramp. The problem is magnified because of the volume, but that volume tells you how many people use that onramp.

The problem exists because of the lack of sanity where the 240 to southbound 35 traffic squeezes together and has to merge onto 35....facing an exit only lane. If that bottleneck didn't exist, then the traffic further up the pipe wouldn't have the problem.

[SoonerDave]

I would absolutely oppose closing the shields onramp. The problem is magnified because of the volume, but that volume tells you how many people use that onramp.

The problem exists because of the lack of sanity where the 240 to southbound 35 traffic squeezes together and has to merge onto 35....facing an exit only lane. If that bottleneck didn't exist, then the traffic further up the pipe wouldn't have the problem.

But that very area is made worse by the additional traffic from that on-ramp. The distance between that on-ramp and the I-35S ramp is too short to accommodate either the accelerating inbound traffic or the merging traffic heading southbound.

Unfortunately, I don't think the upcoming rebuild of just the I240E-35S ramp is going to solve that problem. Not precisely sure if its just a cosmetic resurfacing or actual restructuring/rebuilding. For the broader interchange rebuild, I think flyover ramps are planned, which will obviously change the entire traffic dynamic. As I said, I don't pretend that closing the Shields on-ramp is a panacea for the short-term, but I think its an essential step to eliminate (or at least reroute) some of that traffic. For now, I think something must be done to mitigate the risk in that area.

[venture]

I have to agree something has to be done now. There are a few options at least like you stated. I'll add some on my thoughts.

240WB to I35 SB traffic merger in before the existing lane starts. In other words, remove the barrier earlier and use the shoulder and extra space there now to create a merging lane for them. Traffic from that direction is definitely less than from 240EB, so they should be able to merge in faster without an issue. This would eliminate the need to for 240 EB traffic to stop for on coming traffic...even though there technically isn't a yield sign anymore.

The Shields to 240EB is just not a functional design right now. Ideally if you fix the merging on to 35 issue, you fix this one as well to a point. If you can't, there isn't anyway around shutting down this on ramp to stop accidents. It is just such a poor design that you can't really do much without making it cost prohibitive (if you are going to do a complete fix down the road) since you would ideally have to put an overpass of Shields to 240EB traffic in.

[Dubya61]

As I said, I don't pretend that closing the Shields on-ramp is a panacea for the short-term, but I think its an essential step to eliminate (or at least reroute) some of that traffic. For now, I think something must be done to mitigate the risk in that area.

I agree, I think. I had to look up panacea. ODOT should be looking at short-term and long-term solutions, and, as someone who passes by the same problems with the same frequency, I agree that the Shields on-ramp seems like the long pole in the tent. I think we all would be shocked (even SoonerDave) if we could see a statistic that says how many accidents are reported at the interstate junction. Then, it would be interesting to see how many of them are right there at the stretch that extends from the Shields on-ramp to the I-35S exit. I have to invoke my spidey-sense and a sixth-sense just to get through that stretch and then I have to check my undergarments.

[jn1780]

The plan is to close the Shields onramp so I don't know why ODOT is reluctant to close it now.

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meeti...i240aerial.pdf

[HangryHippo]

Why in the world does ODOT still propose and build interchanges with cloverleafs?? Our state's transportation department is pretty worthless.

[OKCisOK4me]

Why can't they just mimic the new ramp at I-44/I-235? Its practically the same concept.

[Buffalo Bill]

Why can't they just mimic the new ramp at I-44/I-235? Its practically the same concept.

The I-44 / I-235 interchange will have 2 movements that are accommodated by cloverleafs, the same number as that which is currently shown on the Crossroads interchange proposal.

Slapping flyovers on every directional movement sounds good in theory, but constraints such as proximity of other interchanges, railroads, physical features such as creeks, environmental concerns, and maybe most importantly costs of construction, long term maintenance, utility relocation, and right of way acquisition and the associated time involved with those activities, particularly when there are condemnation proceedings, pushes decision makers in other directions.

That being said, I think they should close the EB Shields access now, rather than later. My guess is there is political pressure to keep it open.

[Dubya61]

Will the new interchange there cause the demolition of that old Ford dealership (like it did the apartments)? It looks like the road encroaches more over the property.

[Buffalo Bill]

Will the new interchange there cause the demolition of that old Ford dealership (like it did the apartments)? It looks like the road encroaches more over the property.

The State already bought and owns the old Ford Dealership property. I think there's discussion on that here:

http://www.okctalk.com/suburban-deve...efforts-4.html

[OKCisOK4me]

The I-44 / I-235 interchange will have 2 movements that are accommodated by cloverleafs, the same number as that which is currently shown on the Crossroads interchange proposal.

Slapping flyovers on every directional movement sounds good in theory, but constraints such as proximity of other interchanges, railroads, physical features such as creeks, environmental concerns, and maybe most importantly costs of construction, long term maintenance, utility relocation, and right of way acquisition and the associated time involved with those activities, particularly when there are condemnation proceedings, pushes decision makers in other directions.

That being said, I think they should close the EB Shields access now, rather than later. My guess is there is political pressure to keep it open.

I wasn't talking about flyovers. Did I mention that? No. I was talking about the recently opened southbound to westbound ramp that has NW 63rd St. on ramp access included with it.

[Buffalo Bill]

I wasn't talking about flyovers. Did I mention that? No. I was talking about the recently opened southbound to westbound ramp that has NW 63rd St. on ramp access included with it.

Gotcha.

The 63rd street braided ramp is being used at the Crossroads location, in the NW quadrant where it eliminates the weaving motion between the SB - WB movement and the WB exit to Shields Blvd. movement.

[Plutonic Panda]

I wish they would put fly overs on all the newly redesigned interchanges..

[CaptDave]

"Braided ramp' - Thanks Buffalo Bill, I had been trying to think of how to describe that configuration. Is that what it is actually called by traffic engineers?

[Larry OKC]

just need to put in a giant traffic circle

[bombermwc]

Not having that on-ramp just causes a huge number of cars to have to go elsewhere, just shuffling the load. Because it's the "last on the line" for eastbound traffic, you would then have to cross 240, go west on the frontage, U back around on Santa Fe, and then get on. That's a 6-lane boulevard worth of traffic that has a major on-ramp removed. Rather than removing it, the better option would be to design a way to split the merging traffic like they will be at 44-235. Use the split-ramp flyover and merge that with the over-head ramping like you see in San Antonio or Austin.

It's sort of weird, but it makes the flow work. A ramp goes UP rather than down from the 240 frontage road to a sort of accessway. That ramp splits so the southbound traffic goes south and can merge with the 240-to-35S ramp traffic. That cuts the amount of mixing traffic in half. The other side merges onto 240 much like it does today. But it over-writes the current 240-to-35S space (lane #3). That also wont' be as big of an issue, remember that traffic is now cut in half because of the 35S ramp portion. The 240/35 junction for northbound also is getting revamped, so don't think of it in today's terms either.

It does, however, cost a significantly larger amount to do these bridges. I feel that's probably why we don't see a 5-high here...we simply don't have the funding to do it. Ice isn't really a good gripe either. Are we really going to NOT build a bridge because it might have ice on it for a week or two out of the whole entire year? I'd say 355 days of good driving are worth extra attention on icy days for those 10 remaining days.

[SoonerDave]

Not having that on-ramp just causes a huge number of cars to have to go elsewhere.

I think that's precisely the point. That ramp provides no small portion of the feeder traffic that worsens the collision situation there, and unless the plan is to extend that ramp considerably to provide for proper traffic flow, don't think there's any choice but to shutter it. The options for rebuilding that interchange you describe are all plausible alternatives, but considering the rebuild is a) unfunded and b) a decade in the offing, a suboptimal interim alternative is about the only choice.

[Buffalo Bill]

"Braided ramp' - Thanks Buffalo Bill, I had been trying to think of how to describe that configuration. Is that what it is actually called by traffic engineers?

Almost all here in Oklahoma and in North Texas call it a braided ramp. Other places I've heard it referred to as a basketweave. Same thing.

[CaptDave]

Almost all here in Oklahoma and in North Texas call it a braided ramp. Other places I've heard it referred to as a basketweave. Same thing.

Thanks - I just learned something. Add braided ramps to "Texas turnarounds.