Question about the construction at I-44 and US-169 (Tulsa)

[BigOkie]

Was wondering if anyone had a link to some detail on the specifics of what is going on with this construction.  I ask because I drive by this frequently, and I see what appears to be a flyover or some sort of ramp pier up just to the northeast of the bridge.  All I see in some of the ODOT material is 'pavement rehab' along with 'interchange improvement'.  Does anyone know where I can find detailed plans for the improvements?  The link to ODOT's quick blurb is here

Thanks.

[swake]

Was wondering if anyone had a link to some detail on the specifics of what is going on with this construction.  I ask because I drive by this frequently, and I see what appears to be a flyover or some sort of ramp pier up just to the northeast of the bridge.  All I see in some of the ODOT material is 'pavement rehab' along with 'interchange improvement'.  Does anyone know where I can find detailed plans for the improvements?  The link to ODOT's quick blurb is here

Thanks.

They say it badly, but it includes a new flyover from eastbound I-44 to northbound US-169. I've never seen any detailed plans released anywhere.

[rte66man]

Was wondering if anyone had a link to some detail on the specifics of what is going on with this construction.  I ask because I drive by this frequently, and I see what appears to be a flyover or some sort of ramp pier up just to the northeast of the bridge.  All I see in some of the ODOT material is 'pavement rehab' along with 'interchange improvement'.  Does anyone know where I can find detailed plans for the improvements?  The link to ODOT's quick blurb is here

Thanks.

They say it badly, but it includes a new flyover from eastbound I-44 to northbound US-169. I've never seen any detailed plans released anywhere.

https://www.odot.org/contracts/a2022/plans2206/835-1_2206_SSP-4400(096)PM_1098105/0000_1098105_FULLFILE.pdf

[BigOkie]

Was wondering if anyone had a link to some detail on the specifics of what is going on with this construction.  I ask because I drive by this frequently, and I see what appears to be a flyover or some sort of ramp pier up just to the northeast of the bridge.  All I see in some of the ODOT material is 'pavement rehab' along with 'interchange improvement'.  Does anyone know where I can find detailed plans for the improvements?  The link to ODOT's quick blurb is here

Thanks.

They say it badly, but it includes a new flyover from eastbound I-44 to northbound US-169. I've never seen any detailed plans released anywhere.

https://www.odot.org/contracts/a2022/plans2206/835-1_2206_SSP-4400(096)PM_1098105/0000_1098105_FULLFILE.pdf

Well that's a lot, but getting to the maps all I can see changing is a pier-elevated ramp from EB I-44 to NB US169, not even changing the cloverleaf config, just giving a little more runout for a merge.  Am I seeing that right?

Edit:  Looks to me like 'Ramp D' is the new config.  It does alter the clover a little but all it appears to do is take the merge away from EB 44 to NB 169 from the bridge grade and run it all the way by where the exit ramp from WB 44 to NB 169 is.  I'm not sure what that does actually.  Might make it a little safer but god do I hate cloverleafs in larger metros.

[CtrlAltDel]

It looks something like a brief C-D road:

[swake]

It looks something like a brief C-D road:

That is a truly impressively stupid design.

[BigOkie]

It looks something like a brief C-D road:

That is a truly impressively stupid design.

Yes, and looking at it I guess they do appear to be reconfiguring the ramp D clover some, but why keep it a clover at all?  Why keep any of them that way?  I'm not sure what the traffic counts are there on both I-44 and US-169 at peak but I know it's not a small amount.

[CtrlAltDel]

That is a truly impressively stupid design.

Yes, and looking at it I guess they do appear to be reconfiguring the ramp D clover some, but why keep it a clover at all?  Why keep any of them that way?  I'm not sure what the traffic counts are there on both I-44 and US-169 at peak but I know it's not a small amount.

Here you go:

[BigOkie]

That is a truly impressively stupid design.

Yes, and looking at it I guess they do appear to be reconfiguring the ramp D clover some, but why keep it a clover at all?  Why keep any of them that way?  I'm not sure what the traffic counts are there on both I-44 and US-169 at peak but I know it's not a small amount.

Here you go:

I guess that sort of makes sense but why not do the same with the WB 44 to SB 169?    The counts aren't all that much different.

[rte66man]

That is a truly impressively stupid design.

Yes, and looking at it I guess they do appear to be reconfiguring the ramp D clover some, but why keep it a clover at all?  Why keep any of them that way?  I'm not sure what the traffic counts are there on both I-44 and US-169 at peak but I know it's not a small amount.

Here you go:

I guess that sort of makes sense but why not do the same with the WB 44 to SB 169?    The counts aren't all that much different.

I will see if I can find the overall plan for that interchange. I do know they are piecing it out so maybe the movement you described is next.

[MCRoads]

It looks something like a brief C-D road:

That is a truly impressively stupid design.

It is an interesting design IMO, and I know of several on the west coast. There are 2-3 in WA, and I know of at least 1 in CA (on I-405 south of Long Beach airport).
And a very interesting version of this exists in I-10 and Causeway Blvd in NOLA.

[BigOkie]

More piers have gone up in that area as of yesterday; if I can get by there and get photos I'll try and do so.

[BigOkie]

I know I haven't provided any photos but the location makes it tricky.  It looks like now they've progressed to the point of having decking in place for the C/D flyover, so it's starting to take a little more shape.  The SB 169 to WB I-44 ramp looks in place but still needs work; they have a temporary ramp (essentially just the old ramp I think with asphalt down on it) in place.  This is a little tricky ramp as there is a short entrance and exit ramp to E 15th Street which has always been there in the past.

Now that the weather is somewhat better and I have a full week off this week I'll see about getting by there and getting some photos.

[BigOkie]

Here's what it looks like driving north on 169 as of today (05/03/2023)

[In_Correct]

It looks something like a brief C-D road:

That is a truly impressively stupid design.

Indeed. The Cloverleaf is going to be much narrower, and can no longer be used for Turnarounds.

... unless Ramp E is added to the new bridge also. ...

[Bobby5280]

I don't know what kind of dope the guys at ODOT were smoking to come up with such an illogical ramp design. Overall it seems like a downgrade from the normally operating cloverleaf interchange currently in place. Maybe this is some sort of interim configuration. Maybe something much better will be built in place in the future and somehow incorporate a portion of this new, uh, "flyover" ramp. If there is such a plan I can't currently imagine what that would be.

[sprjus4]

I really don't see the issue with this design... at all. Plenty of examples similar exist on the West Coast, it's not a new design concept.

How is this "worse"  than the previous cloverleaf? It eliminates a weaving movement and chokepoint, and provides traffic ample opportunity to reach speed before merging into traffic.

[CoreySamson]

I really don't see the issue with this design... at all. Plenty of examples similar exist on the West Coast, it's not a new design concept.

How is this "worse"  than the previous cloverleaf? It eliminates a weaving movement and chokepoint, and provides traffic ample opportunity to reach speed before merging into traffic.

Yeah, in my experience that cloverleaf's merge/diverge between ramp D and E on US 169 is one of the hairiest merging situations I've ever had to drive through. Removing that merge (and finding a way to do it cheaply, too) is kinda genius.

[BigOkie]

I really don't see the issue with this design... at all. Plenty of examples similar exist on the West Coast, it's not a new design concept.

How is this "worse"  than the previous cloverleaf? It eliminates a weaving movement and chokepoint, and provides traffic ample opportunity to reach speed before merging into traffic.

Yeah, in my experience that cloverleaf's merge/diverge between ramp D and E on US 169 is one of the hairiest merging situations I've ever had to drive through. Removing that merge (and finding a way to do it cheaply, too) is kinda genius.

You should have seen that interchange before the NB 11th St exit was reconfigured from a straight diamond interchange all the way around to this parclo they have now.  The 11th St exit was 1/2 mile further south then and that exit was nuts.

Here's the old config from around 2004:


Here's now:

[DJStephens]

Was wondering if anyone had a link to some detail on the specifics of what is going on with this construction.  I ask because I drive by this frequently, and I see what appears to be a flyover or some sort of ramp pier up just to the northeast of the bridge.  All I see in some of the ODOT material is 'pavement rehab' along with 'interchange improvement'.  Does anyone know where I can find detailed plans for the improvements?  The link to ODOT's quick blurb is here

Thanks.

They say it badly, but it includes a new flyover from eastbound I-44 to northbound US-169. I've never seen any detailed plans released anywhere.

There really should be two actual flyovers.  One for EB 44 to 169 N, and one for WB 44 to 169 S.  Am guessing there would be moderate to significant acquistion necessary, if that (the ideal result) was pursued. This is simply an attempt to reduce weaving issues on NB US 169.   

[swake]

The new interchange bridge is open. Remains stupid.

https://www.newson6.com/story/658b874d73910c065abe369e/two-tulsa-road-projects-on-highway-169-now-open-to-traffic

[BigOkie]

I wondered when they would finish the I-244 ramp.  That thing has needed replacing for 20+ years.  It's always been a ton of patches.

[kphoger]

I really don't see the issue with this design... at all. Plenty of examples similar exist on the West Coast, it's not a new design concept.

How is this "worse"  than the previous cloverleaf? It eliminates a weaving movement and chokepoint, and provides traffic ample opportunity to reach speed before merging into traffic.

Late to the game here.  But yes, I agree with you, in that I don't get all the hate here.  It eliminates weaving from the highest-AADT loop on-ramp.

And really, if someone is wondering why they aren't mirroring it on the other side of the interchange, then he's tacitly accepting this as a good design.

As for turnaround traffic, I strongly suspect that's way down the list of priorities for interchanges like this.  Yeah, I like having an easy option for doing a 180, but it's not like non-cloverleaf interchanges tend to have that as a feature either.

[Scott5114]

I think the disappointment is mainly that they're spending the time and money to reconfigure the interchange but not doing it the Right Way (i.e., building a flyover).

I know flyovers are expensive, but a bridge as long as they one they built here couldn't have been too much cheaper, could it?

[sprjus4]

I know flyovers are expensive, but a bridge as long as they one they built here couldn't have been too much cheaper, could it?

A flyover would probably require a bridge double the length in this case.