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 (https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/traffic-advisories/2022/interchange-improvement-project-begins-monday-at-i-44-and-us-169.html)
Thanks.
Quote from: BigOkie on December 30, 2022, 12:42:06 PM
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 (https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/traffic-advisories/2022/interchange-improvement-project-begins-monday-at-i-44-and-us-169.html)
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.
Quote from: swake on December 30, 2022, 06:05:40 PM
Quote from: BigOkie on December 30, 2022, 12:42:06 PM
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 (https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/traffic-advisories/2022/interchange-improvement-project-begins-monday-at-i-44-and-us-169.html)
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
Quote from: rte66man on December 30, 2022, 06:43:36 PM
Quote from: swake on December 30, 2022, 06:05:40 PM
Quote from: BigOkie on December 30, 2022, 12:42:06 PM
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 (https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/traffic-advisories/2022/interchange-improvement-project-begins-monday-at-i-44-and-us-169.html)
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.
It looks something like a brief C-D road:
(https://i.imgur.com/fMJGZEA.png)
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 30, 2022, 07:53:44 PM
It looks something like a brief C-D road:
(https://i.imgur.com/fMJGZEA.png)
That is a truly impressively stupid design.
Quote from: swake on December 30, 2022, 09:45:39 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 30, 2022, 07:53:44 PM
It looks something like a brief C-D road:
(https://i.imgur.com/fMJGZEA.png)
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.
Quote from: BigOkie on December 31, 2022, 11:29:01 AM
Quote from: swake on December 30, 2022, 09:45:39 PM
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/XohPFE2.png)
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 31, 2022, 04:31:22 PM
Quote from: BigOkie on December 31, 2022, 11:29:01 AM
Quote from: swake on December 30, 2022, 09:45:39 PM
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/XohPFE2.png)
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.
Quote from: BigOkie on December 31, 2022, 06:10:25 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 31, 2022, 04:31:22 PM
Quote from: BigOkie on December 31, 2022, 11:29:01 AM
Quote from: swake on December 30, 2022, 09:45:39 PM
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/XohPFE2.png)
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.
Quote from: swake on December 30, 2022, 09:45:39 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 30, 2022, 07:53:44 PM
It looks something like a brief C-D road:
(https://i.imgur.com/fMJGZEA.png)
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.
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.
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.
Here's what it looks like driving north on 169 as of today (05/03/2023)
(https://i.imgur.com/gujgqGM.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BQ4atXt.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/xEVNMRf.jpg)
Quote from: swake on December 30, 2022, 09:45:39 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 30, 2022, 07:53:44 PM
It looks something like a brief C-D road:
(https://i.imgur.com/fMJGZEA.png)
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. ...
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.
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 06, 2023, 01:30:45 PM
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.
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 06, 2023, 02:25:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 06, 2023, 01:30:45 PM
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/Qyo7Wlj.jpg)
Here's now:
(https://i.imgur.com/IPNNVBe.jpg)
Quote from: swake on December 30, 2022, 06:05:40 PM
Quote from: BigOkie on December 30, 2022, 12:42:06 PM
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 (https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/traffic-advisories/2022/interchange-improvement-project-begins-monday-at-i-44-and-us-169.html)
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.
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
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 06, 2023, 01:30:45 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 09, 2024, 09:05:26 PM
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.
That weird new loop ramp is roughly 2500' in length. A direct connect flyover ramp would have been a similar length, but have a far faster travel speed. ODOT is spending all this money to replace one 20mph loop with another 20mph loop.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 10, 2024, 02:10:45 PM
That weird new loop ramp is roughly 2500' in length.
The bridged portion is more like 900 to 1000' in length, not 2500'.
A full-on flyover would be closer to 2500' in length. A lot more bridge required.
Bridged or not, that entire glorified cloverleaf ramp is about 2500' in length. A direct-connect flyover ramp might have a longer bridge, but the overall ramp length is hardly any longer and the traffic would be able to drive on such a ramp far faster.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 10, 2024, 06:55:31 PM
Bridged or not, that entire glorified cloverleaf ramp is about 2500' in length. A direct-connect flyover ramp might have a longer bridge, but the overall ramp length is hardly any longer and the traffic would be able to drive on such a ramp far faster.
Bridged or not makes a huge different cost wise. A flyover ramp with a bridge double the length would likely cost double, along with having to realign the other ramps to accommodate the flyover.
The project utilized the existing loop ramp, and simply modified its upper approach on US-169 to "flyover" the opposing exit loop to eliminate the weave.
Traffic has the distance of the bridge plus a long acceleration lane onto US-169 North to reach appropriate speed to merge into traffic.
This interchange should've been a fully directional stack.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 12, 2024, 12:23:11 AM
This interchange should've been a fully directional stack.
Well, now of course you're talking about a $160 million or even more project, compared to the small $16 million improvement.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 12, 2024, 09:54:05 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 12, 2024, 12:23:11 AM
This interchange should've been a fully directional stack.
Well, now of course you're talking about a $160 million or even more project, compared to the small $16 million improvement.
They can just borrow the money from California's surplus.
Quote from: kphoger on January 12, 2024, 01:27:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 12, 2024, 09:54:05 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 12, 2024, 12:23:11 AM
This interchange should've been a fully directional stack.
Well, now of course you're talking about a $160 million or even more project, compared to the small $16 million improvement.
They can just borrow the money from California's surplus.
For a while, California wouldn't even let their government employees travel to Oklahoma on state business. I doubt they'd lend them any money.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 12, 2024, 07:45:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 12, 2024, 01:27:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 12, 2024, 09:54:05 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 12, 2024, 12:23:11 AM
This interchange should've been a fully directional stack.
Well, now of course you're talking about a $160 million or even more project, compared to the small $16 million improvement.
They can just borrow the money from California's surplus.
For a while, California wouldn't even let their government employees travel to Oklahoma on state business. I doubt they'd lend them any money.
And I'm pretty sure California has a deficit now.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2024, 02:00:50 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 09, 2024, 09:05:26 PM
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.
And it'd push the northern end of the ramp far enough north to necessitate a CD between it and the 11th Street offramp. It'd also likely require land acquisition at that apartment complex. All in all, a flyover would likely be three times as expensive as what they did here.
Since I broached the subject, doing either type of project in the southbound direction would require a CD between it and the 21st Street offramp. Or would it? If they mirrored the current project and had the new loop ramp passing over the westbound-to-southbound loop ramp, no CD would be required. Maybe they'll do that before too long.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 12, 2024, 07:45:07 PM
For a while, California wouldn't even let their government employees travel to Oklahoma on state business.
Oklahoma was probably fine with that arrangement.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 13, 2024, 01:59:02 AM
And I'm pretty sure California has a deficit now.
Glad you got the joke.
I drove this new segment of construction a few days ago. My biggest takeaway? The new cloverleaf segment leading up to it is no longer riddled with potholes and poorly done patches anymore (for now). That was good enough for me at the time.
I actually had the opportunity to speak with an engineer on this project about a year ago, he told me the main reason for this over a traditional flyover was mainly the cost, and simplifying the project. The less of the interchange to change shape, the better.
I mean, I'm not trying to be rude here, but duh. That's ODOTs go to excuse for everything. It's too expensive. Of course, it's not entirely their fault. The state doesn't properly fund them. All urban interchanges in Oklahoma City and Tulsa should be full directional stacks.
In fairness, has this ramp improvement helped address traffic? Everything doesn't necessarily need to be a large flyover. Ideally, of course, but money isn't infinite.
It's pretty pathetic Oklahoma has no modern directional stack interchanges in the state. The closest thing we have is two interchanges on the IDL bordering the North side of downtown Tulsa. And those things are built mostly on dirt berms and have tight/slow ramp geometry. They're crappy.
The new standard is like the I-44/I-235 interchange in Oklahoma City: two flyovers and then two 20mph cloverleaf ramps butted together for nice weaving conflicts. Real modern. They're going to do some similar crap with the I-35/I-240 interchange. Woo hoo.
One actual directional stack is planned at I-35 and the Tri-City Connector. The project is in the design phase. But politics will try to derail the project until it is actually built.
^^^ and there's the LHP/Kilpatrick Turnpike interchange which when the current improvements are completed it will still only be half built. SMH.
The first two flyover ramps of the Hefner Parkway & Kilpatrick Turnpike interchange were built back in the early 1990's, nearly 30 years ago. It's taking this long to get 2 more ramps. Maybe by the 2050's they'll add two more.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 14, 2024, 11:17:28 AM
The new standard is like the I-44/I-235 interchange in Oklahoma City: two flyovers and then two 20mph cloverleaf ramps butted together for nice weaving conflicts. Real modern.
Curious - what are the traffic volumes on the loop ramps vs. flyovers? Additionally, it's important to note the "weaving" occurs on a separated 2 lane C/D roadway, away from the US-77 mainline. If those are lower volume movements, they may not warrant full flyovers.
In many cases, something similar to what was built there works perfectly fine in other areas. Not everything has to be flyovers.
It should all flyovers even if traffic counts are lower. Flyovers are more efficient and time saving versus cloverleafs you don't have to slow down as much.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 14, 2024, 11:17:28 AM
It's pretty pathetic Oklahoma has no modern directional stack interchanges in the state. The closest thing we have is two interchanges on the IDL bordering the North side of downtown Tulsa. And those things are built mostly on dirt berms and have tight/slow ramp geometry. They're crappy.
The new standard is like the I-44/I-235 interchange in Oklahoma City: two flyovers and then two 20mph cloverleaf ramps butted together for nice weaving conflicts. Real modern. They're going to do some similar crap with the I-35/I-240 interchange. Woo hoo.
One actual directional stack is planned at I-35 and the Tri-City Connector. The project is in the design phase. But politics will try to derail the project until it is actually built.
What about I-40/I-44 in OKC and US-75/OK-11 in Tulsa?
Quote from: swake on February 14, 2024, 06:37:43 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 14, 2024, 11:17:28 AM
It's pretty pathetic Oklahoma has no modern directional stack interchanges in the state. The closest thing we have is two interchanges on the IDL bordering the North side of downtown Tulsa. And those things are built mostly on dirt berms and have tight/slow ramp geometry. They're crappy.
The new standard is like the I-44/I-235 interchange in Oklahoma City: two flyovers and then two 20mph cloverleaf ramps butted together for nice weaving conflicts. Real modern. They're going to do some similar crap with the I-35/I-240 interchange. Woo hoo.
One actual directional stack is planned at I-35 and the Tri-City Connector. The project is in the design phase. But politics will try to derail the project until it is actually built.
What about I-40/I-44 in OKC and US-75/OK-11 in Tulsa?
I-40/I-44 is a substandard interchange with left exits and Tulsa's is the same thing.
This is a stack https://maps.app.goo.gl/apvTYQ49BosRzrD17?g_st=ic
Not this https://maps.app.goo.gl/rGwpn9b1gtS3QZrM8?g_st=ic
That's a joke
It's also worth noting that they plan a fully directional interchange at Osage expressway and Gilcrease tollway minus a ramp from WB Gilcrease to NB Osage which is a bit odd.
ODOT also needs to construct a full stack at US-412 and Gilcrease at some point.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 14, 2024, 08:05:52 PM
It's also worth noting that they plan a fully directional interchange at Osage expressway and Gilcrease tollway minus a ramp from WB Gilcrease to NB Osage which is a bit odd.
ODOT also needs to construct a full stack at US-412 and Gilcrease at some point.
Access Oklahoma is building a new interchange at US-412 per the project site.
Quote from: swake on February 14, 2024, 10:17:30 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 14, 2024, 08:05:52 PM
It's also worth noting that they plan a fully directional interchange at Osage expressway and Gilcrease tollway minus a ramp from WB Gilcrease to NB Osage which is a bit odd.
ODOT also needs to construct a full stack at US-412 and Gilcrease at some point.
Access Oklahoma is building a new interchange at US-412 per the project site.
Interesting it does say that but they don't show it in the map. I would imagine a stack interchange would be 100-200 million dollars at minimum. Multiply that by two for Osage Expressway interchange and that leaves 200 million for the remainder of the freeway to be built between the two points.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 14, 2024, 05:55:08 PM
It should all flyovers even if traffic counts are lower. Flyovers are more efficient and time saving versus cloverleafs you don't have to slow down as much.
Flyovers also cost much greater, and if there is not the traffic warrants - a loop ramp will suffice. This isn't just an Oklahoma thing. Texas is one of the only, or just a few states, that puts in flyovers at every single junction.
Texas seems to have more directional stack interchanges than any other state. But they don't build stacks at every freeway to freeway interchange. West Texas has a lot of "volleyball" interchanges or partial ones with only one or two flyover ramps. Still, it's impressive just how many complete stacks have been built in Texas.
By comparison, Oklahoma doesn't have diddly. I'm crossing my fingers about that proposed I-35 stack between Norman and Moore. But I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if OTA ended up watering down the design.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2024, 11:44:38 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 14, 2024, 05:55:08 PM
It should all flyovers even if traffic counts are lower. Flyovers are more efficient and time saving versus cloverleafs you don't have to slow down as much.
Flyovers also cost much greater, and if there is not the traffic warrants - a loop ramp will suffice. This isn't just an Oklahoma thing. Texas is one of the only, or just a few states, that puts in flyovers at every single junction.
Loop ramps don't need to suffice. Flyovers do the job much better.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 15, 2024, 12:00:12 AM
I'm crossing my fingers about that proposed I-35 stack between Norman and Moore. But I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if OTA ended up watering down the design.
Yeah I'm right there with you. It would be a bummer if they did that but I wouldn't be surprised.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 15, 2024, 12:10:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2024, 11:44:38 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 14, 2024, 05:55:08 PM
It should all flyovers even if traffic counts are lower. Flyovers are more efficient and time saving versus cloverleafs you don't have to slow down as much.
Flyovers also cost much greater, and if there is not the traffic warrants - a loop ramp will suffice. This isn't just an Oklahoma thing. Texas is one of the only, or just a few states, that puts in flyovers at every single junction.
Loop ramps don't need to suffice. Flyovers do the job much better.
They suffice.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2024, 12:20:01 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 15, 2024, 12:10:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2024, 11:44:38 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 14, 2024, 05:55:08 PM
It should all flyovers even if traffic counts are lower. Flyovers are more efficient and time saving versus cloverleafs you don't have to slow down as much.
Flyovers also cost much greater, and if there is not the traffic warrants - a loop ramp will suffice. This isn't just an Oklahoma thing. Texas is one of the only, or just a few states, that puts in flyovers at every single junction.
Loop ramps don't need to suffice. Flyovers do the job much better.
They suffice.
Nope.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 15, 2024, 12:23:12 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2024, 12:20:01 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 15, 2024, 12:10:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2024, 11:44:38 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 14, 2024, 05:55:08 PM
It should all flyovers even if traffic counts are lower. Flyovers are more efficient and time saving versus cloverleafs you don't have to slow down as much.
Flyovers also cost much greater, and if there is not the traffic warrants - a loop ramp will suffice. This isn't just an Oklahoma thing. Texas is one of the only, or just a few states, that puts in flyovers at every single junction.
Loop ramps don't need to suffice. Flyovers do the job much better.
They suffice.
Nope.
They suffice.
Quote from: kphoger on February 15, 2024, 09:54:56 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 15, 2024, 12:23:12 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2024, 12:20:01 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 15, 2024, 12:10:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2024, 11:44:38 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 14, 2024, 05:55:08 PM
It should all flyovers even if traffic counts are lower. Flyovers are more efficient and time saving versus cloverleafs you don't have to slow down as much.
Flyovers also cost much greater, and if there is not the traffic warrants - a loop ramp will suffice. This isn't just an Oklahoma thing. Texas is one of the only, or just a few states, that puts in flyovers at every single junction.
Loop ramps don't need to suffice. Flyovers do the job much better.
They suffice.
Nope.
They suffice.
Nope.
But if you think they do you'll love Oklahoma! Maybe one day our leaders can take a trip across the red river and get a clue.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 15, 2024, 04:32:56 PM
But if you think they do you'll love Oklahoma! Maybe one day our leaders can take a trip across the red river and get a clue.
I think I've actually used more cloverleaf interchanges in Texas than in Oklahoma. Offhand, I can think of I-35E/US-287 in Waxahachie, I-10/I-410 in San Antonio, and I-410/I-35 in San Antonio.
In Oklahoma, I can only think of I-35/US-412 in Noble County. It's possible I've used one somewhere in Tulsa, but I'm not sure.
Quote from: kphoger on February 15, 2024, 05:14:02 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 15, 2024, 04:32:56 PM
But if you think they do you'll love Oklahoma! Maybe one day our leaders can take a trip across the red river and get a clue.
I think I've actually used more cloverleaf interchanges in Texas than in Oklahoma. Offhand, I can think of I-35E/US-287 in Waxahachie, I-10/I-410 in San Antonio, and I-410/I-35 in San Antonio.
In Oklahoma, I can only think of I-35/US-412 in Noble County. It's possible I've used one somewhere in Tulsa, but I'm not sure.
Cloverleaves would be a bit more bearable if ODOT actually put stack in your changes in cities where they need to be. I get cloverleaf fatigue when I'm in Oklahoma. I can deal with them in Texas. it's also understandable that Texas leaves some interchanges as volleyball interchanges so they can upgrade them to stacks in the future. I understand Texas can't afford to build every single interchange as a stack at once. I'd rather Oklahoma build volleyball interchange with roads and plan to do it right rather than build a Cloverleaf interchange where that'll be there for the next 40-50+ years.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 15, 2024, 04:32:56 PM
But if you think they do you'll love Oklahoma! Maybe one day our leaders can take a trip across the red river and get a clue.
I feel like if Tim Gatz ever saw I-15 in Las Vegas he'd have to go back to the room and lie down for a while.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 15, 2024, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 15, 2024, 04:32:56 PM
But if you think they do you'll love Oklahoma! Maybe one day our leaders can take a trip across the red river and get a clue.
I feel like if Tim Gatz ever saw I-15 in Las Vegas he'd have to go back to the room and lie down for a while.
One of the best stretches of freeway out there IMO. I do wish they'd go back to the dual free express lanes each way though.
BTW congrats on your Vegas move! I love that town. I go chance I get.
Thank you! I'm enjoying it here so far. Definitely a totally different culture than the OKC area. Much more laid back.
I-15 is pretty awesome from the sheer engineering spectacle of it all, but with the whole Tropicana interchange project going on, it's kind of a huge pain. I bet it's a blast when it's at 100% capability though.
Quote from: kphoger on February 15, 2024, 05:14:02 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 15, 2024, 04:32:56 PM
But if you think they do you'll love Oklahoma! Maybe one day our leaders can take a trip across the red river and get a clue.
I think I've actually used more cloverleaf interchanges in Texas than in Oklahoma. Offhand, I can think of I-35E/US-287 in Waxahachie, I-10/I-410 in San Antonio, and I-410/I-35 in San Antonio.
In Oklahoma, I can only think of I-35/US-412 in Noble County. It's possible I've used one somewhere in Tulsa, but I'm not sure.
I44/US64 and I44/US169 are the 2 biggies in Tulsa. They also have some blended interchanges where you have some flyovers and some loop ramps (I244/US169, CreekTpk/US75,I44/US412) and one in transition (I44/US75). Despite all the whining from other board regulars, ODOT does build full interchanges without loop ramps. US75/OK11 comes to mind as well as all of the IDL corner quadrant interchanges.
I do not count OK364/OK351 as I will admit that is all OTA will ever do given the choice.
Once again interchanges that are fully directional but have left exits are just as bad as cloverleafs in fact I'd rather have cloverleafs with right exits if that's the only option. As much as I hate cloverleafs I hate left exits even more.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 18, 2024, 07:58:03 PM
Once again interchanges that are fully directional but have left exits are just as bad as cloverleafs in fact I'd rather have cloverleafs with right exits if that's the only option. As much as I hate cloverleafs I hate left exits even more.
Why?
Why are left exits bad? Weaving issues. In some cases the weaving issues are worse. Exiting traffic has to use what is traditionally the passing lane in order to exit. You end up with slow pokes in the left lane and more people trying to pass on the right. And then there are doofus types who don't know which lane to take, so they might come to a complete dead stop.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 18, 2024, 09:49:36 PM
Why are left exits bad? Weaving issues. In some cases the weaving issues are worse. Exiting traffic has to use what is traditionally the passing lane in order to exit. You end up with slow pokes in the left lane and more people trying to pass on the right. And then there are doofus types who don't know which lane to take, so they might come to a complete dead stop.
That doesn't bother me at all. Oklahoma and other drivers that have no idea how to merge, especially on and off a cloverleaf in heavy traffic, that scares me. Let's all come to a complete stop for no reason right before entering a highway going at 70mph? Sounds great!
Here in Lawton there are no on-ramps for I-44 that are immune from some jack-ass coming to a full stop at the end of the ramp. The I-44 interchange with Cache Road and 2nd Street has a couple of different left exit points, particularly the EB I-44 to WB Cache Road off ramp. It's lots of fun if you're driving on that curving bridge over the railroad tracks and a clown cuts you off trying to exit left from the right lane at the last second.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 14, 2024, 07:55:11 PM
I-40/I-44 is a substandard interchange with left exits and Tulsa's is the same thing.
Not this https://maps.app.goo.gl/rGwpn9b1gtS3QZrM8?g_st=ic that's a joke
Very similar to the original "big I" in downtown Albuquerque. Left exits, weaving, etc . Worked in 1967 when new, but not in the nineties. They, meaning ODOT, did spend a significant amount on this "glorified cloverleaf", meaning the bridging, they spent a significant fraction of having done it right, meaning two flyovers. Not a full stack, but two flyovers. 44 EB to 169N, and 44WB to 169S. That's where the demand is. Part of a national trend of design regression.
Quote from: DJStephens on February 20, 2024, 04:35:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 14, 2024, 07:55:11 PM
I-40/I-44 is a substandard interchange with left exits and Tulsa's is the same thing.
Not this https://maps.app.goo.gl/rGwpn9b1gtS3QZrM8?g_st=ic that's a joke
Very similar to the original "big I" in downtown Albuquerque. Left exits, weaving, etc . Worked in 1967 when new, but not in the nineties. They, meaning ODOT, did spend a significant amount on this "glorified cloverleaf", meaning the bridging, they spent a significant fraction of having done it right, meaning two flyovers. Not a full stack, but two flyovers. 44 EB to 169N, and 44WB to 169S. That's where the demand is. Part of a national trend of design regression.
NMDOT did a great job on the Big I and it also helps that's basically the only major interchange in the state lol.
The big I redo was not perfect. Several mistakes were made. 25 & 40 should have been four lanes in each direction through the core. Several of the one lane flyovers probably should have been two lanes. But overall, it was a big improvement upon the original 1966 interchange.
I-10 and I-25, on S side of Las Cruces is the other interstate junction. It's "rebuild' was not as good and was done on the Cheap. Compression, of the entire interchange to the SE in order to "squeeze" in a future diamond interchange for Arrowhead Blvd on I-10 was likely the reason.
Quote from: kphoger on February 15, 2024, 05:14:02 PMIn Oklahoma, I can only think of I-35/US-412 in Noble County. It's possible I've used one somewhere in Tulsa, but I'm not sure.
I-44 and US 169
I-44 and OK 51
US 169 and OK 51
Muskogee Turnpike and Creek Turnpike
US 75, I-40 and the Indian Nation Turnpike
I-44 and US 75 (being rectified
US 169 and 36th Street N
Lincoln Blvd and NE 23rd Street (state capitol interchange)
I-40 and I-344
I--35 and I-244
Which ones did I miss?
I-44, US 412 and the Creek Turnpike; US 75 and Creek Turnpike; and I-344/US 77 are 7/8 cloverleafs with one flyover.
Quote from: bugo on June 28, 2024, 02:50:15 PMWhich ones did I miss?
I-35 and I-240, though that one is actively being worked on.
Although I think Kyle was meaning that I-35/I-42 (God, that looks weird) was the only one in Oklahoma he had personally used one of the ramps of.
Oklahoma has a lot of cloverleaf interchanges.
Other than the ones previously mentioned there is also a cloverleaf interchange with I-44 and OK-4/H.E. Bailey Turnpike Extension on the SW fringe of the OKC metro. Ada has a cloverleaf interchange: US-377 and OK-3W. Durant has one at US-70 and US-75.
A new cloverleaf interchange is going to be built on I-44 in Chickasha for the new US-81 bypass. I think construction on that starts in the next year or two.
The existing US-69/OK-375 interchange near McAlester will be converted into a cloverleaf interchange as an ACCESS Oklahoma project. McAlester has an existing cloverleaf at US-69 & US-270. US-62 & OK-169 in Muskogee is a cloverleaf. Tulsa has another cloverleaf at OK-351 and OK-364.
The I-44 interchange with US-60 in Afton is unusual. The trumpet interchange from I-44 connects into a cloverleaf interchange with US-60 & US-59.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 29, 2024, 12:57:03 AMA new cloverleaf interchange is going to be built on I-44 in Chickasha for the new US-81 bypass. I think construction on that starts in the next year or two.
It is kind of insane that Oklahoma is still building cloverleaf interchanges in the 21st century.
Since it's finished now I thought I'd throw up an updated overhead view (even though this one was before completion it was pretty close; the image is dated Oct 2023).
(https://i.imgur.com/03BhvdG.png)
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 29, 2024, 04:51:24 AMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 29, 2024, 12:57:03 AMA new cloverleaf interchange is going to be built on I-44 in Chickasha for the new US-81 bypass. I think construction on that starts in the next year or two.
It is kind of insane that Oklahoma is still building cloverleaf interchanges in the 21st century.
A cloverleaf interchange in a low volume, rural area with C/D ramps is acceptable, IMO. North Carolina has built a few in the past decade or two, including near urban areas.
The important piece is the C/D ramps though... without those you're introduce even the smallest amount of conflict when a vehicle entering at 25 mph encounters 75 mph traffic.
I haven't seen a detailed schematic of the US-81 bypass in Chickasha. But I'm pretty sure its interchange with I-44 is not going to include C/D ramps. The interchange should include C/D ramps for the sake of safety. I just don't think ODOT and OTA are going to spend the extra money for such a thing. After all, the US-81 bypass itself is going to be a (mostly) limited access Super-2 in its initial configuration and then expand to a 4-lane divided freeway in the future.
I don't like cloverleaf interchanges, but in semi-rural locations what other kinds of interchanges between two limited access highways could be built? A 4-level directional stack in Chickasha would be quite an extravagance. A pinwheel interchange could be a less expensive option than a stack, but it would still cost quite a lot more to build than a cloverleaf due to all the additional bridges and graded berms needed for the four interior spiral ramps.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 29, 2024, 04:23:50 PMI haven't seen a detailed schematic of the US-81 bypass in Chickasha. But I'm pretty sure its interchange with I-44 is not going to include C/D ramps. The interchange should include C/D ramps for the sake of safety. I just don't think ODOT and OTA are going to spend the extra money for such a thing. After all, the US-81 bypass itself is going to be a (mostly) limited access Super-2 in its initial configuration and then expand to a 4-lane divided freeway in the future.
I don't like cloverleaf interchanges, but in semi-rural locations what other kinds of interchanges between two limited access highways could be built? A 4-level directional stack in Chickasha would be quite an extravagance. A pinwheel interchange could be a less expensive option than a stack, but it would still cost quite a lot more to build than a cloverleaf due to all the additional bridges and graded berms needed for the four interior spiral ramps.
I did some digging and I found a project page from 2022, and then there was an Access Justification Report on there with signing plans on PDF 34-35. It appears there will be a single exit for both directions, then two individual exits for both I-44 and US-81, which would imply C/D lanes. Other traffic memos also show a split roadway there for both highways.
Project Page: https://oklahoma.gov/odot/progress-and-performance/federal-grant-awards/mpdg-grants/mpdg-2022/grady_county_us-81_realignment.html
Access Justification Report: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/odot/federal-grants/mpdg/2022/grady-county-us-81-realignment/reports-and-technical-information/Access%20Justification%20Report.pdf
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 29, 2024, 05:36:44 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 29, 2024, 04:23:50 PMI haven't seen a detailed schematic of the US-81 bypass in Chickasha. But I'm pretty sure its interchange with I-44 is not going to include C/D ramps. The interchange should include C/D ramps for the sake of safety. I just don't think ODOT and OTA are going to spend the extra money for such a thing. After all, the US-81 bypass itself is going to be a (mostly) limited access Super-2 in its initial configuration and then expand to a 4-lane divided freeway in the future.
I don't like cloverleaf interchanges, but in semi-rural locations what other kinds of interchanges between two limited access highways could be built? A 4-level directional stack in Chickasha would be quite an extravagance. A pinwheel interchange could be a less expensive option than a stack, but it would still cost quite a lot more to build than a cloverleaf due to all the additional bridges and graded berms needed for the four interior spiral ramps.
I did some digging and I found a project page from 2022, and then there was an Access Justification Report on there with signing plans on PDF 34-35. It appears there will be a single exit for both directions, then two individual exits for both I-44 and US-81, which would imply C/D lanes. Other traffic memos also show a split roadway there for both highways.
Project Page: https://oklahoma.gov/odot/progress-and-performance/federal-grant-awards/mpdg-grants/mpdg-2022/grady_county_us-81_realignment.html
Access Justification Report: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/odot/federal-grants/mpdg/2022/grady-county-us-81-realignment/reports-and-technical-information/Access%20Justification%20Report.pdf
Full c/d lanes for both. Access Justification Report p31:
QuoteThe proposed access is part of the 8.24-mile US-81 project west of Chickasha. It is a cloverleaf full
interchange with collector-distributor roads that accommodate all basic movements needed for the
proposed interchange.
That's a pleasant surprise. The C/D lanes would barrier-separate the slower, weaving traffic using the cloverleaf ramps from the I-44 thru traffic that is going upwards of 80mph or even faster on the main lanes. I wonder if C/D lanes will be built only alongside I-44 or built along both I-44 and the US-81 bypass. I'm guessing probably not for the latter.
It's too bad the cloverleaf interchange at I-44 and the H.E. Bailey Turnpike Extension wasn't built with C/D lanes. It doesn't look like those kinds of lanes could be added into the existing interchange either.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 02, 2024, 10:22:57 AMThat's a pleasant surprise. The C/D lanes would barrier-separate the slower, weaving traffic using the cloverleaf ramps from the I-44 thru traffic that is going upwards of 80mph or even faster on the main lanes. I wonder if C/D lanes will be built only alongside I-44 or built along both I-44 and the US-81 bypass. I'm guessing probably not for the latter.
The signage / schematic plans shows both highways will have C/D roadways.
Cloverleafs are not acceptable in 2024, period.
They shouldn't be built at all IMO.
C and D roadways make them acceptable in rural locations, where there is land availab le for an expansive interchange. Believe they were constructed at several locations on the I-269 southern leg of the Memphis loop.