View Full Version : I-35 / I-240 Exchange



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

soonerliberal
04-14-2014, 07:58 PM
Also, outside of looking cool, what would the large stack accomplish that this proposed intersection doesn't? The major problem at 35/240 is the slow weaving of traffic (particularly on 240 where the lanes aren't separated from the main lanes). This proposal seems to be much cheaper than a full stack and helps to avoid the weaving that is a huge danger.

Snowman
04-14-2014, 10:31 PM
After living on the east coast for 5 years now, I'm really curious what is with Oklahoma and Texas' obsession with service roads. In Virginia, Maryland, and even North Carolina, most of the businesses are off of the freeway rather than on the frontage road. These states don't seem to need a service road. Why does Oklahoma have so many of them? Why is it necessary for them to go through intersections? Isn't that the role of the freeway?

I don't think Oklahoma is nearly as obsessed with it as Texas, I have always hated the interstate/service road weave interchange concept, the weaving in and out just seems more prone to accidents and backing up. I kind of expect part of it is just that is what the management at TDOT wanted the standard to be and had the money and clout to do it consistently across the state, after that is the standard for a long time institutional momentum just carries on, at least here the Diamond Interchange is far more common in Oklahoma (except for ironically the three largest suburbs of the metro). Another reason Texas has it in several areas is they were big at least for a while on building the service roads first, then waiting till people and businesses built along them they would put the freeway in-between, we tried that concept to where Memorial Road and the Kilpatrick Turnpike are parallel.

Plutonic Panda
04-14-2014, 10:36 PM
I like them. They move traffic more efficiently and safely.

gopokes88
04-15-2014, 07:56 AM
Good to see we're going to update our 1970s interchange to the 1990s while take taking 7 years to do it. Don't aim to high ODOT.

jn1780
04-15-2014, 08:10 AM
Good to see we're going to update our 1970s interchange to the 1990s while take taking 7 years to do it. Don't aim to high ODOT.

I wouldn't give ODOT all the blame. Oklahoma doesn't want to spend money on roads.

This is a better design than the I-235/I-44 design. Not having to do dodge traffic entering the interstate while you exit the interstate is a huge improvement.

bombermwc
04-15-2014, 08:37 AM
Something I notice with that plan is the retention of the NE corner businesses with the service road on that portion jogging up into Crossroads Blvd. I'm glad to see that they are keeping them, because if they tore them down, we'd just have empty lots there because no one is going to rebuild there.

It also retains the Ford Dealership??? So why force the dealership to move if you end up keeping the place?

It does still piss me off that there isn't 240 east access from shields though. It may seem like a short drive to get back to walker (NOT SANTA FE) to get back on the highway, but give it a try in rush hour and see how long that takes. You're doubling the time it takes to make a trip, and I'm not exaggerating that. Take a trip from Discount Tire back to 240/Sooner. Now I have to go through 5 different stop lights to even get TO the highway, which is 5 feet from me. And if you've ever been on the service road during rush hour, you know how busy they can be. And yes, that time now doubles the trip time back to 240/sooner. It's not a 30 minute drive or anything, but it is an inconvenience that could be corrected with a little design work. Going south on 35 isn't nearly as bad. Take shields to 89th and cut over to it. You only have 2 lights that way, basically as before...and you're going in the same direction you would have anyway, unlike 240 east, which requires back-tracking.

Dubya61
04-15-2014, 08:55 AM
It does still piss me off that there isn't 240 east access from shields though. It may seem like a short drive to get back to walker (NOT SANTA FE) to get back on the highway, but give it a try in rush hour and see how long that takes. You're doubling the time it takes to make a trip, and I'm not exaggerating that. Take a trip from Discount Tire back to 240/Sooner. Now I have to go through 5 different stop lights to even get TO the highway, which is 5 feet from me. And if you've ever been on the service road during rush hour, you know how busy they can be. And yes, that time now doubles the trip time back to 240/sooner. It's not a 30 minute drive or anything, but it is an inconvenience that could be corrected with a little design work. Going south on 35 isn't nearly as bad. Take shields to 89th and cut over to it. You only have 2 lights that way, basically as before...and you're going in the same direction you would have anyway, unlike 240 east, which requires back-tracking.

If I'm every at Santa Fe or Sheilds and want to get on one of the two freeways, I just go south on Shields to 89th anyway. That's a much safer entrance to the interstates in ANY direction.

Dubya61
04-15-2014, 08:57 AM
It also retains the Ford Dealership??? So why force the dealership to move if you end up keeping the place?

I'm pretty sure the pictured Ford Dealership (labeled 5-star Ford) is just a "before" picture, as the residences that have been razed on the NW corner.

venture
04-15-2014, 09:47 AM
Something I notice with that plan is the retention of the NE corner businesses with the service road on that portion jogging up into Crossroads Blvd. I'm glad to see that they are keeping them, because if they tore them down, we'd just have empty lots there because no one is going to rebuild there.

It also retains the Ford Dealership??? So why force the dealership to move if you end up keeping the place?

It does still piss me off that there isn't 240 east access from shields though. It may seem like a short drive to get back to walker (NOT SANTA FE) to get back on the highway, but give it a try in rush hour and see how long that takes. You're doubling the time it takes to make a trip, and I'm not exaggerating that. Take a trip from Discount Tire back to 240/Sooner. Now I have to go through 5 different stop lights to even get TO the highway, which is 5 feet from me. And if you've ever been on the service road during rush hour, you know how busy they can be. And yes, that time now doubles the trip time back to 240/sooner. It's not a 30 minute drive or anything, but it is an inconvenience that could be corrected with a little design work. Going south on 35 isn't nearly as bad. Take shields to 89th and cut over to it. You only have 2 lights that way, basically as before...and you're going in the same direction you would have anyway, unlike 240 east, which requires back-tracking.

I'm sure the Santa Fe comment was at me. The reason I said it is because I would tear out the Shields exit completely and put in an on ramp from Santa Fe to 240 East. Then also add an exit from 240 to Santa Fe.

That would take care most of the issues the Shields ramps cause now.

jn1780
04-15-2014, 12:08 PM
Something I notice with that plan is the retention of the NE corner businesses with the service road on that portion jogging up into Crossroads Blvd. I'm glad to see that they are keeping them, because if they tore them down, we'd just have empty lots there because no one is going to rebuild there.

It also retains the Ford Dealership??? So why force the dealership to move if you end up keeping the place?

It does still piss me off that there isn't 240 east access from shields though. It may seem like a short drive to get back to walker (NOT SANTA FE) to get back on the highway, but give it a try in rush hour and see how long that takes. You're doubling the time it takes to make a trip, and I'm not exaggerating that. Take a trip from Discount Tire back to 240/Sooner. Now I have to go through 5 different stop lights to even get TO the highway, which is 5 feet from me. And if you've ever been on the service road during rush hour, you know how busy they can be. And yes, that time now doubles the trip time back to 240/sooner. It's not a 30 minute drive or anything, but it is an inconvenience that could be corrected with a little design work. Going south on 35 isn't nearly as bad. Take shields to 89th and cut over to it. You only have 2 lights that way, basically as before...and you're going in the same direction you would have anyway, unlike 240 east, which requires back-tracking.

Just the former Ford dealer ship building that is owned by the state. It would lose most of its parking lot after project completion.

I think the best option would be what Venture said and build a ramp from Santa Fe. Another option would be to do what they plan on doing on the westbound side and have a dedicated ramp lane separated from thru traffic where you don't merge onto the interstate until your east of it. I don't think they did this because they don't want to obtain the necessary right of way from the OGE facility.

SoonerDave
04-15-2014, 12:57 PM
Something I notice with that plan is the retention of the NE corner businesses with the service road on that portion jogging up into Crossroads Blvd. I'm glad to see that they are keeping them, because if they tore them down, we'd just have empty lots there because no one is going to rebuild there.

It also retains the Ford Dealership??? So why force the dealership to move if you end up keeping the place?

It does still piss me off that there isn't 240 east access from shields though. It may seem like a short drive to get back to walker (NOT SANTA FE) to get back on the highway, but give it a try in rush hour and see how long that takes. You're doubling the time it takes to make a trip, and I'm not exaggerating that. Take a trip from Discount Tire back to 240/Sooner. Now I have to go through 5 different stop lights to even get TO the highway, which is 5 feet from me. And if you've ever been on the service road during rush hour, you know how busy they can be. And yes, that time now doubles the trip time back to 240/sooner. It's not a 30 minute drive or anything, but it is an inconvenience that could be corrected with a little design work. Going south on 35 isn't nearly as bad. Take shields to 89th and cut over to it. You only have 2 lights that way, basically as before...and you're going in the same direction you would have anyway, unlike 240 east, which requires back-tracking.

If you take the service road around I-240, it turns back south and drops you off right at 89th, where you can then re-enter the Interstate on the northbound I-35 service road, then use the entrance to merge right back onto I-240. One traffic light. Heck, you can even avoid that by using the Texas Turnaround at 89th. Or by getting to the northbound I-35 service road by crossing back at 82nd rather than 89th. Zero traffic lights, then, and I'd bet dollars to donuts it doesn't take you 30 minutes.

No, not as convenient for you individually, but quite a bit safer for the thousands of folks traveling on I-240 who would really like not to be in an accident precipitated by that "five-feet-away" convenience.

gopokes88
04-15-2014, 01:21 PM
I wouldn't give ODOT all the blame. Oklahoma doesn't want to spend money on roads.

This is a better design than the I-235/I-44 design. Not having to do dodge traffic entering the interstate while you exit the interstate is a huge improvement.

Oklahoma doesn't want spend money on anything there was a dang fight to prevent the capitol from falling apart. There's a difference between being fiscally conservative and just being cheap.

bombermwc
04-16-2014, 07:33 AM
Venture, that would be a lot more help. I didn't catch that you meant adding an on-ramp at Santa Fe. I don't know that you could do that though. It would fall under the same new federal regs on on/off ramp proximity. Remember, the shields exit is right there too. We'd end up with another cross-feeding entrance/exit lane. Not sure how the grade differences there would make it work either. That's the same reason why there isn't a westbound santa fe exit...grading and mixing lanes, etc.

SoonerDave - good idea. I hadn't thought about that path. I don't know that most people will think of it, but it does definitely remove the need for back-tracking. Nice.

venture
04-16-2014, 09:33 AM
Venture, that would be a lot more help. I didn't catch that you meant adding an on-ramp at Santa Fe. I don't know that you could do that though. It would fall under the same new federal regs on on/off ramp proximity. Remember, the shields exit is right there too. We'd end up with another cross-feeding entrance/exit lane. Not sure how the grade differences there would make it work either. That's the same reason why there isn't a westbound santa fe exit...grading and mixing lanes, etc.

SoonerDave - good idea. I hadn't thought about that path. I don't know that most people will think of it, but it does definitely remove the need for back-tracking. Nice.

If you got rid of the shields ramps completely it should avoid the conflict.

kevinpate
04-16-2014, 01:45 PM
Oklahoma doesn't want spend money on anything there was a dang fight to prevent the capitol from falling apart. There's a difference between being fiscally conservative and just being cheap.

And way too few pontificating under/near the capitol's rotunda are not in th dark on that difference. Some are so buried in the dark that two hands and a flashlight wouldn't help at all.

gopokes88
04-16-2014, 03:33 PM
And way too few pontificating under/near the capitol's rotunda are not in th dark on that difference. Some are so buried in the dark that two hands and a flashlight wouldn't help at all.

I get the argument a Republican makes on a national level and agree with it. We are way way too deep in debt on an unsustainable path and deep painful cuts are going to have to be made. However, for some reason that has transferred to the state level. Our state's budget is pretty healthy. Debt levels are low. So there isn't really a need to go on this we can't spend any money craze. We're doing just fine.

bombermwc
04-17-2014, 08:04 AM
If you got rid of the shields ramps completely it should avoid the conflict.
You're thinking the wrong direction. There it's an Offramp to shields. I don't think you would want to close that one if you had an option. The traffic would be forced back to the other side of Santa Fe and it already backs up both lanes of the service road back past the offramp from the shields light. What would happen there is what happens on westbound May, traffic starts backing up onto the highway so you end up with a whole other ballgame of accidents waiting to happen. Sometimes May backs up on the highway all the way to the Penn onramp...and on the service road, about half that same distance. It's crazy!

I don't mean to keep throwing complaints on it, Im just passing on the traffic flow I see on a normal day. If you aren't on 240 every day, its easy to miss the crazy amount of traffic that flows on that highway. It doesn't take much to cause a backup of several miles long.

venture
04-17-2014, 10:12 AM
You're thinking the wrong direction. There it's an Offramp to shields. I don't think you would want to close that one if you had an option. The traffic would be forced back to the other side of Santa Fe and it already backs up both lanes of the service road back past the offramp from the shields light. What would happen there is what happens on westbound May, traffic starts backing up onto the highway so you end up with a whole other ballgame of accidents waiting to happen. Sometimes May backs up on the highway all the way to the Penn onramp...and on the service road, about half that same distance. It's crazy!

I don't mean to keep throwing complaints on it, Im just passing on the traffic flow I see on a normal day. If you aren't on 240 every day, its easy to miss the crazy amount of traffic that flows on that highway. It doesn't take much to cause a backup of several miles long.

No I'm quite familiar with the setup since I drive it every day. :)

At the end of the day, the design for the interchanges off of 240 are severely out of date and can't handle the capacity they are forced to deal with. Maybe the option is to have a secondary overpass for a combined Santa Fe/Shields exit that has one lane drop down for Santa Fe and then continue over to Shields.

bombermwc
04-18-2014, 08:20 AM
That was my thought too. I've been on several of these in North San Antonio and they work wonderfully.

Plutonic Panda
11-07-2014, 08:07 PM
I-240/I-35 Interchange Project Looms Big

ljbab728
11-07-2014, 09:27 PM
i-240/i-35 interchange project looms big

huh?

Thesaurum
11-07-2014, 09:53 PM
News | The Moore Daily (http://www.themooredaily.com/news/coming-soon-i-240i-35-interchange-project-looms-big) "I-240/I-35 Interchange Project Looms Big".

Plutonic Panda
11-07-2014, 10:05 PM
huh?

Sorry, I forgot to include the link. Thesarum posted it though. Too much school and work = not enough sleep :p

ljbab728
11-07-2014, 10:29 PM
Sorry, I forgot to include the link. Thesarum posted it though. Too much school and work = not enough sleep :p

Go to bed then, plupan.:)

s00nr1
11-08-2014, 07:41 AM
I got a good laugh out of the timeline and 6-year estimate for completion of a basic interchange. Dallas laughs at such a thing.

Snowman
11-08-2014, 08:01 AM
I got a good laugh out of the timeline and 6-year estimate for completion of a basic interchange. Dallas laughs at such a thing.

Like most ODOT projects it is probably that it takes at least six years to fund it

Plutonic Panda
11-08-2014, 08:06 AM
They need to amend the law the bans ODOT from taking out loans. We would get road projects done so much faster.

Snowman
11-08-2014, 08:34 AM
They need to amend the law the bans ODOT from taking out loans. We would get road projects done so much faster.

Unless something changes at the federal level, it probably will not make much difference anyway.

Plutonic Panda
11-08-2014, 09:33 AM
Unless something changes at the federal level, it probably will not make much difference anyway.Why? If they took out a loan, they could just get the whole project going tomorrow and have it done in less than two years.

bchris02
11-08-2014, 09:37 AM
This interchange has been needed for a long, long time. It's hard to believe the original interchange is still in use. There was talk back in the early 2000s of replacing it with a 4-level stack but that never went anywhere. Good to see that they are going to do something about it. Its a shame it has to take 5 years though.

Snowman
11-08-2014, 05:36 PM
Why? If they took out a loan, they could just get the whole project going tomorrow and have it done in less than two years.

The state share of building/maintaining interstate highways is generally only around 10% of the cost and the fund for federal highways that covers the other 90% is already at the point of insolvency (It was actually insolvent in 2013 but congress did vote for a short term stopgap). In recent years Oklahoma has not been a donor state like it was at points in the past, so even if we multiply what the state is willing to put forward it seems unlikely that we would get similar multiples of federal funds.

Plutonic Panda
11-08-2014, 08:07 PM
The state share of building/maintaining interstate highways is generally only around 10% of the cost and the fund for federal highways that covers the other 90% is already at the point of insolvency (It was actually insolvent in 2013 but congress did vote for a short term stopgap). In recent years Oklahoma has not been a donor state like it was at points in the past, so even if we multiply what the state is willing to put forward it seems unlikely that we would get similar multiples of federal funds.

That sucks. I didn't know that. Hopefully something will get done at federal level, but that's probably wishful thinking.

venture
11-09-2014, 10:19 AM
That sucks. I didn't know that. Hopefully something will get done at federal level, but that's probably wishful thinking.

The federal highway budget has been broke for years, no one is in any rush to fix it. It is too powerful of a negotiating object. This is why you have seen several of us advocate for either fewer highways or different funding options (tolls). The vast majority of all highway construction is funded by the fed. There just isn't the money to do some of the projects you've advocated before. Thankfully you now understand why we've been saying what we have. The Fed pick up somewhere between 60-85% of the cost of the I-40 project.

Plutonic Panda
12-30-2014, 11:53 PM
http://www.themooredaily.com/assets/images/12dec29_I35%20and%20I240%20Projected%20Plan_813.jp g

So angry about this it isn't even funny. This sucks. It really sucks. I hate this crap. Why are there cloverleafs????? Makes no damn sense. There doesn't need to be any cloverleafs AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why can they not do this the right way? I don't understand it. For a department that unfairly gives highways over walkable areas, they sure suck at building nice highways.

News | The Moore Daily (http://www.themooredaily.com/news/preliminary-reconstruction-plans-revealed-for-i-35-and-i-240-interchange)

venture
12-31-2014, 07:26 AM
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.

warreng88
12-31-2014, 07:37 AM
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.

bombermwc
12-31-2014, 07:55 AM
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.

jn1780
12-31-2014, 07:58 AM
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
12-31-2014, 08:02 AM
Bomber, thanks for the correction. Does the cloverleaf merge onto the highway or an access road? I can't tell from the renderings.

jn1780
12-31-2014, 08:06 AM
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.

bchris02
12-31-2014, 09:56 AM
http://www.themooredaily.com/assets/images/12dec29_I35%20and%20I240%20Projected%20Plan_813.jp g

So angry about this it isn't even funny. This sucks. It really sucks. I hate this crap. Why are there cloverleafs????? Makes no damn sense. There doesn't need to be any cloverleafs AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why can they not do this the right way? I don't understand it. For a department that unfairly gives highways over walkable areas, they sure suck at building nice highways.

News | The Moore Daily (http://www.themooredaily.com/news/preliminary-reconstruction-plans-revealed-for-i-35-and-i-240-interchange)

I agree with you.

If this is the plan, I don't see the point in even redoing it at all and creating the years-long traffic nightmare during the construction. A huge disappointment.

catch22
12-31-2014, 10:55 AM
I agree with you.

If this is the plan, I don't see the point in even redoing it at all and creating the years-long traffic nightmare during the construction. A huge disappointment.

It will improve it a ton. There will be no more dual-speed merging as everything has a protected lane. As it currently stands, you have traffic trying to slow down to enter the merge lane while traffic is trying to speed up to enter the merge lane. The new design does not have anywhere where merging exists at slow speeds, and exiting traffic willnot be sharing lanes with entering traffic.

Will be excellent for safety, as there are dozens of injury and fatality wrecks at this interchange every week.

venture
12-31-2014, 12:47 PM
I agree with you.

If this is the plan, I don't see the point in even redoing it at all and creating the years-long traffic nightmare during the construction. A huge disappointment.

Did you ever bother to read the comments or actually look to understand how traffic will flow? No...I didn't think so.

jn1780
12-31-2014, 12:58 PM
Did you ever bother to read the comments or actually look to understand how traffic will flow? No...I didn't think so.

Can't go 80mph on a cloverleaf. That's why he hates it.

catch22
12-31-2014, 01:06 PM
Can't go 80mph on a cloverleaf. That's why he hates it.

I showed him a few weeks ago you can do 60 around one, though.

Plutonic Panda
12-31-2014, 04:34 PM
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

http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/dubai/burj_khalifa_dh060110_is1.jpg

and this

http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/20111016-highfive_main.jpg.ece/BINARY/w620x413/HighFive_MAIN.jpg

are possible...

the surely something like this is possible

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/10887494_10204528681409560_3954802680828648567_o.j pg

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

https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/10830125_10204528681449561_8717707001099258562_o.j pg

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
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GpbIPMDs40o/maxresdefault.jpg

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.

Plutonic Panda
12-31-2014, 04:48 PM
Can't go 80mph on a cloverleaf. That's why he hates it.See that's where you are wrong. I hate because you can't do 100MPH on one, not 80. ;)

Plutonic Panda
12-31-2014, 04:52 PM
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.

Plutonic Panda
12-31-2014, 05:02 PM
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.

Plutonic Panda
12-31-2014, 05:07 PM
Did you ever bother to read the comments or actually look to understand how traffic will flow? No...I didn't think so.Did you even bother to think about whether the thread I created pertaining to the Stillwater airport was to create a general thread to keep of track of all the updates as opposed to specific thread that I already knew existed that was only to post about future commercial flight options for the airport? No...I didn't think so.

Whatever. It isn't hard to look at a graphic and understand how the traffic will flow on this.

venture
12-31-2014, 06:10 PM
Whatever. It isn't hard to look at a graphic and understand how the traffic will flow on this.

Are you sure about that?

Plutonic Panda
12-31-2014, 06:19 PM
Are you sure about that?Pretty sure. I am not saying the this project won't improve traffic flows vs. what is there now, but I hate this proposed interchange as it won't do what it could do if designed right.

venture
12-31-2014, 06:49 PM
Pretty sure. I am not saying the this project won't improve traffic flows vs. what is there now, but I hate this proposed interchange as it won't do what it could do if designed right.

It'll keep traffic flowing and eliminate the congestion choke points we have now...and improve safety.

Plutonic Panda
01-01-2015, 02:25 AM
It'll keep traffic flowing and eliminate the congestion choke points we have now...and improve safety.
It'll improve traffic flow and improve safety. I am not arguing that sir. I am arguing that in 2016 when it starts construction it'll be half of what it could be. It's half of what it could be now and it's 2015. The engineering is there and more than possible. This is a measly 3 stack with two cloverleafs that should be flyovers. 4 stack should be the standard for all major interchanges. If they ever down the line want to build a HOV lane down I-35 to Norman, than it can be made a five stack, but for now, I'll I'm asking for is a 4 stack. ODOT cheaped out. We aren't getting one. I'm going to have to bitch and moan whenever it is brought up I guess, but there is nothing I can and I've already made my point clear, so there really isn't much left I can say.

venture
01-01-2015, 03:07 AM
It'll improve traffic flow and improve safety. I am not arguing that sir. I am arguing that in 2016 when it starts construction it'll be half of what it could be. It's half of what it could be now and it's 2015. The engineering is there and more than possible. This is a measly 3 stack with two cloverleafs that should be flyovers. 4 stack should be the standard for all major interchanges. If they ever down the line want to build a HOV lane down I-35 to Norman, than it can be made a five stack, but for now, I'll I'm asking for is a 4 stack. ODOT cheaped out. We aren't getting one. I'm going to have to bitch and moan whenever it is brought up I guess, but there is nothing I can and I've already made my point clear, so there really isn't much left I can say.

Exactly, we know your position so at this point there is no point in rehashing things that really aren't holding any weight. The two cloverleaf ramps are going to be protected lanes and larger so they really won't be that much worse than fly overs. You are just wanting something big and flashy when it really isn't needed. Plus at the end of the day the highway budget is losing money and ODOT isn't exactly loaded with cash. At least we are getting a new interchange that is 20 years over due. That is the bottom line and what is more important. In all honestly, when it is done you will likely be far away and living in LA as you keep saying and a good number of us may have moved on as well.

At least it is getting replaced...finally.

jn1780
01-01-2015, 12:03 PM
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
01-01-2015, 02:11 PM
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
01-01-2015, 02:29 PM
^
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
01-01-2015, 02:36 PM
^
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
01-01-2015, 02:38 PM
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.