I know that alot of our highways are under construction as well as their junctions, but I didn't know if they were going to start building fly overs instead of the cloverleaf designs(I really hate cloverleafs). I think that fly overs make a city look bigger and it keeps traffic flowing smoother. Dallas for example has beautiful highways, as I lived there for years I really like their highways. I saw a rendering for the 235/44 interchange and has added flyovers but it still had two cloverleafs. I didn't know if that was the official plan or anything but I really hope that Oklahoma City starts building flyovers for all their interchanges. Just my 2 cents.

This is what I'd like to see done to Broadway and Kirpatrick and pretty much clone it at Kirpatrick and Hefner Parkway

https://scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t31.0-8/10834876_10204333451328930_4361188469869982412_o.j pg

I'll do more drawings for each interchange. I even have a rendering of what I think they should do to I-40/I-35/I-235 area, but be warned, it would cost a ton and make a lot of people on here who already don't like me because of my support for highways dislike me even more.

Who cares PluPan... Let's see 'em.

I'll do more drawings for each interchange. I even have a rendering of what I think they should do to I-40/I-35/I-235 area, but be warned, it would cost a ton and make a lot of people on here who already don't like me because of my support for highways dislike me even more.
OK, plupan, I'm starting to hate you a lot before you even post it. :wink:

Cloverleafs are cheaper, but they do suck. The 240/35 junction will retain 2 cloverleafs as well, but much like the 44/235 one, they will be on the two lowest traffic routes, and the cloverleaf is going to expand so it's capable of holding more traffic so it doesn't back up as far on the actual interstate (blocking the cloverleaf entrance area). Not having to portions of a cloverleaf on the same area will help reduce the crossing traffic nightmares that we see at both junctions.

I'd agree that I'd like to see them all go, but when you compare the numbers on those cloverleaves compared to the new fly-overs, it's pretty drastic.

Cloverleafs are cheaper, but they do suck. The 240/35 junction will retain 2 cloverleafs as well, but much like the 44/235 one, they will be on the two lowest traffic routes, and the cloverleaf is going to expand so it's capable of holding more traffic so it doesn't back up as far on the actual interstate (blocking the cloverleaf entrance area). Not having to portions of a cloverleaf on the same area will help reduce the crossing traffic nightmares that we see at both junctions.

I'd agree that I'd like to see them all go, but when you compare the numbers on those cloverleaves compared to the new fly-overs, it's pretty drastic.

Are you serious about cloverleafs remaining on the 240/35 interchance? What a disappointment.

Are you serious about cloverleafs remaining on the 240/35 interchance? What a disappointment.

Here is the thread about it: http://www.okctalk.com/transportation/37475-i240-i35-interchange.html

Are you serious about cloverleafs remaining on the 240/35 interchance? What a disappointment.

It won't be that bad. Its the four leaf clovers that suck because your dogging traffic entering from the other interstate. In the case of I --240/I-35, the ramp from westbound to southbound is going to be completely separated from the main interstate.

It won't be that bad. Its the four leaf clovers that suck because your dogging traffic entering from the other interstate. In the case of I --240/I-35, the ramp from westbound to southbound is going to be completely separated from the main interstate.It's the cloverleaf itself I have a problem with. It's and outdated cheapodepo outlet.

No one does cloverleafs anymore on a new interchange. A remodeled interchange will almost always have some cost considerations figured into the remodel. They would prefer to get rid of them entirely but budget considerations is always a big factor. The newer fly over designs typically require more right of way to be purchased for an interchange as tight as 240/35.

I still don't consider fly overs to be the pinnacle of human achievement.

It's the cloverleaf itself I have a problem with. It's and outdated cheapodepo outlet.

If it is any consolidation, nothing about interstates is cheap

If it is any consolidation, nothing about interstates is cheapNothing is cheap if you want it done right. You get what you pay for. I personally would prefer a great highway system over a great mass transit system, but that's me. I'm sure a huge majority of people on here would disagree with me.

No one does cloverleafs anymore on a new interchange. A remodeled interchange will almost always have some cost considerations figured into the remodel. They would prefer to get rid of them entirely but budget considerations is always a big factor. The newer fly over designs typically require more right of way to be purchased for an interchange as tight as 240/35.

I still don't consider fly overs to be the pinnacle of human achievement.I honestly would not mind seeing the project extended a few years to ensure it is done right. The right thing to do would be however to just let ODOT take out loans on highway projects.

As long as the new interchanges don't have left lane exits/entrances, I'll be happy.
(unless HOV lanes get implemented then HOV ramps on the left are ok)

As long as the new interchanges don't have left lane exits/entrances, I'll be happy.
(unless HOV lanes get implemented then HOV ramps on the left are ok)

The irony in this is that every exit/entrance should have been on the left. This would have created a single point of intersection that could have been controlled by one traffic light. Would have saved billions of dollars. Plus widening the highway wouldn't involve having to tear up and replace every exit/entrance ramp. A conspiracy theorist might even think that our current setup was designed that way on purpose so it would cost more.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. But with a flyover, all exits are to the right, and then split according to which way they are going. You'll even see the onramp often go over/under that flyover ramp in the same area. We are seeing some similarities to that at 235 with the newest section north of the junction. OKC does have a limited presence of this back to the mid-90s with the Reno Ave/I40 East ramp from south-bound I35.

Pushing street traffic to the center would be the absolute worst thing to do. Can you imagine what an impact that would have on interstate facing real estate (ie commercial)? I'm not even sure how to approach that comment.....

Pushing street traffic to the center would be the absolute worst thing to do. Can you imagine what an impact that would have on interstate facing real estate (ie commercial)? I'm not even sure how to approach that comment.....

I don't think you are envisoning it correctly. You would exit to the center of the interstate and at the overpass you would turn left or right to go to retail and commercial establishments. It would essentially eliminate the entire concept of frontage roads (which are one of the main culprits of why people in OKC think their freeways viewsheds are ugly). Traffic engineers are attempting to retro-fit this idea by employing the single point urban interchange (see Main St in Norman) but new construction should adopt the left exit going forward.

...but new construction should adopt the left exit going forward.

No. Through traffic stays to the left.
SPUI's have been around for decades and work quite well. They're just a new concept in Oklahoma

JTF, I got what you meant, I just don't agree with it in any possible way. But hey, ideas are ideas, right?

Well it doesn't matter to me either way since I think the whole concept of the interstate system (at least the urban portions) is on its last legs anyhow and my way would have saved enough money to keep it around just that much longer, so I am fine if you guys want to pass on it. Just for fun though - if you were designing the interstate system from scratch knowing everything we know now, would you use left or right ramps?

Well it doesn't matter to me either way since I think the whole concept of the interstate system (at least the urban portions) is on its last legs anyhow and my way would have saved enough money to keep it around just that much longer, so I am fine if you guys want to pass on it. Just for fun though - if you were designing the interstate system from scratch knowing everything we know now, would you use left or right ramps?

Left, without a doubt. If only because you wouldn't have to constantly be adjusting traffic to expand the highway.

No. All exits need to be on the right. Besides, I thought JTF was against expanding highways. I've seen it said in here multiple times that no highway should be wider than 4 or 6 lanes, so what difference would it make to the person that carries that mindset.

All exits/entries should be on the right and all through traffic should be middle lanes and the left lane for passing with no interruptions what so ever. The only exception to that would be HOV lanes.

Left, without a doubt. If only because you wouldn't have to constantly be adjusting traffic to expand the highway.It isn't that big of a deal to adjust traffic for it. The costs outweigh the benefits, which in this case, is only one benefit. Easier highway expansion. Something a lot here seem to be against and out of 50 years a highway will be there, how many years will it take to expand it? Maybe one or two? So during those couple years, we're going to screw up the flow of traffic for that? Service roads are also something I think should be on most highways and left entries/exits are NOT conducive to service roads. Yes, I know JTF doesn't like those and I'm not sure whether you do or not, but I know a few others who voiced opposition to them as well.