I-235 / I-44 Interchange

[OKCisOK4me]

I still remember the old 4 lanes from when I was a kid in the 1980s. I remember how bumpy it was!

[UncleCyrus]

It was pretty rough. I think it was the original asphalt from the 60s too!

[BrettM2]

Here are two pictures I took on my iPhone of the new ramp to I-44 westbound. Doesn't give the full perspective, but it will give an idea at what it'll look like.

[jdcf]

We moved to Edmond in 1963 and the Broadway Extension/I-44 interchange was in place at that time. Broadway Extension south of the interchange was a two lane road that merged into Santa Fe, just north of 50th St. There was no highway south of that interchange. I am not sure when that leg of Broadway Extension was built. Of course Broadway Extension north of Britton Rd was also a two lane highway.

[okcpulse]

We moved to Edmond in 1963 and the Broadway Extension/I-44 interchange was in place at that time. Broadway Extension south of the interchange was a two lane road that merged into Santa Fe, just north of 50th St. There was no highway south of that interchange. I am not sure when that leg of Broadway Extension was built. Of course Broadway Extension north of Britton Rd was also a two lane highway.

That leg of Broadway Extension was completed in 1989 and was signed as I-235, also coined the Centennial Expressway (OKC 1889-1989).

[Spartan]

That leg of Broadway Extension was completed in 1989 and was signed as I-235, also coined the Centennial Expressway (OKC 1889-1989).

Ah, that sounds like a fitting way to commemorate a century of OKC...with a new freeway (at that time at least).

[Plutonic Panda]

Does it seems possible that they might reconsider changing those cloverleafs to flyovers? I know it is as longshot, but that would make this interchange 1000 more times worth the wait.

[BoulderSooner]

Does it seems possible that they might reconsider changing those cloverleafs to flyovers? I know it is as longshot, but that would make this interchange 1000 more times worth the wait.

not enough room .. and the cloverleafs that remain will be 100 times better than the ones now .... they will be bigger (higher speed) .. and they will not merge strait into mainline traffic

[Snowman]

not enough room .. and the cloverleafs that remain will be 100 times better than the ones now .... they will be bigger (higher speed) .. and they will not merge strait into mainline traffic

I am pretty sure they said it was considered and there was enough space, the issue was cost and even though this solution does have a lower capacity relative to fly overs it would handle the volume well enough.

[bombermwc]

Well the cloverleafs they are putting in, are much different in how they integrate. They are larger in their circumfrance for one thing. And because they other direction has a flyover, the traffic shouldn't have to cross. So in theory, even though there is a cloverleaf on two sides, we shouldn't see any of the issues

[Snowman]

Well the cloverleafs they are putting in, are much different in how they integrate. They are larger in their circumfrance for one thing. And because they other direction has a flyover, the traffic shouldn't have to cross. So in theory, even though there is a cloverleaf on two sides, we shouldn't see any of the issues

It also is only using a cloverleaf on the lowest volume paths and removes all the duel entry/exit zones from the mainlines.

[OKCisOK4me]

Another video today of the new southbound to westbound ramp:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYvMb2hJssU

[Spartan]

I recall we are mutual admirers of that particular skyline vantage point.

[Snowman]

It still seems strange that parts of the i235/Broadway Extension widening project will be halfway to needing resurfacing by the time they finish the entire length.

[Spartan]

It still seems strange that parts of the i235/Broadway Extension widening project will be halfway to needing resurfacing by the time they finish the entire length.

That is insane.

[Larry OKC]

Interesting indeed. I loved how they talked about, if they could have they would have just shut the thing down completely so they could get it done faster but due to traffic counts, they just couldn't do that. Yet one wonders how all of that traffic made it before Broadway was built. Yes, I understand that before it was built traffic counts were less, but the point is there are alternative routes. They even allude to it as their solution:

Angier said completion of all seven phases of the project is expected to take 10 years or longer and cost more than $200 million.
In the meantime, the best thing motorists can do is avoid the intersection, she said.
“We're going to have to partner with each other, the public and the department, to really go through these next few years,” she said. “We understand it's inconvenient, but we wouldn't be there if the need wasn't there.”

So, we are supposed to avoid the area for the next 10 years (or more), when if they could have closed it down completely and cut the time down in half or less??? These folks crack me up!

[HangryHippo]

I understand that the state doesn't allow the use of bond sales to fund road construction, but mother of god, this interchange is going to take 10 years to complete?!?! What a disappointment.

[Plutonic Panda]

I really think thatif they just put alot of effort and devoted themselves to just getting the damn thing done, I bet it could take about 4 years. And heck, if they need to just shut it down when times are neccesary.

[OKCisOK4me]

Yeah, I don't think that even if they closed the interchange down, that $200 million could be appropriated in a timely fashion.

[bombermwc]

We like to complain about length of time to do things, but one thing you can appreciate, is that by waiting for the funding to roll in, we're not putting the state in debt for the projects. Unlike CA or even TX, a project in OK is done and paid for. We don't do it on a loan, and then have to owe interest on the project later....meaning you're always in the hole (pardon the pun). As frustrating as the length of time is, i'd rather not be in debt than get it done quickly.

[BoulderSooner]

We like to complain about length of time to do things, but one thing you can appreciate, is that by waiting for the funding to roll in, we're not putting the state in debt for the projects. Unlike CA or even TX, a project in OK is done and paid for. We don't do it on a loan, and then have to owe interest on the project later....meaning you're always in the hole (pardon the pun). As frustrating as the length of time is, i'd rather not be in debt than get it done quickly.

that is a solid point ..

[Larry OKC]

Part of it too is where is the funding coming from? Isn't most of it coming from the Feds? If so, IIRC that was the reason given for the 10+ years to redo the Ft. Smith Junction. Because of Federal funding it got split up into different phases. Then some of it had to be re-done or altered to keep the semis from tipping over. Seems like there was one every week on the news...

On the other hand it might be cheaper to go ahead and borrow the money now and pay interest on it rather than wait 10 years when prices have doubled or tripled.

[UncleCyrus]

Then some of it had to be re-done or altered to keep the semis from tipping over. Seems like there was one every week on the news...

I remember that too, having to wait in traffic to go around them a few times. Seriously though, why couldn't the drivers just slow down a little? There were more than enough warning signs.

[Richard at Remax]

Thats a good point. I would love to see the difference in money to get a loan now + interest, then pay as you go as prices flux. I just don't understand how they can stare 10 years of construction of rising accidents in the face

[BoulderSooner]

Thats a good point. I would love to see the difference in money to get a loan now + interest, then pay as you go as prices flux. I just don't understand how they can stare 10 years of construction of rising accidents in the face

against state law to borrow