It might be just me, but has anyone noticed how bad rush hour traffic has become in Oklahoma City? I live in north Norman, and it usually takes 45 minutes to an hour to get to where I work @ NW Expressway and 63rd street. My personal record is 1 hour and 30 minutes. It's usually bumper to bumper/10-30mph cruising from 34th Street in Moore all the way up to the Dallas junction near downtown.

It's worse on the drive back. It usually takes up to an hour. I've tried multiple routes to no avail. I-235 and I-35 going south is awful anywhere between 5-6PM. Don't get me started on Thursday and Friday rush hour traffic. It's magnified a bit those days.

It will be interesting to see the new census numbers for individual cities. I imagine much of the traffic I deal with is due to the booming populations of South OKC, Moore, and Norman.

Yea I know what you mean the drive from Okc to Norman is crazy, takes a good hour...

That is a horrible commute. That is at least 34 miles under the best of circumstances. Even non rush hour is going to take 30 - 40 minutes and if you can do that in an hour during rush hour, that's impressive. You couldn't really get a worse fistfight of a commute. This isn't anything new - it has been bad on NW highway and that I35 corridor for as long as I can remember and that goes back a long time. Do you have kids in school or something that would keep you at your current house? Do you go down I44 to I35? Would it be better to take the Kilpatrick and then cut through Tuttle? Ouch, I feel for you.

South on I44 until you get past I40 is always a blast...Can tell the dominance of SW OKC and Moore over the East as 90% of the cars continue to creep south instead of shooting east to 35

I agree in that it seems like there's considerably more traffic than ever during rush hour. Our traffic is still nothing compared to most other cities of our size or bigger, but we need to be proactive instead of waiting to fix the traffic problem until it gets out of hand. Other communities like Norman or Edmond would have to be involved, but maybe a light rail system linking to the suburbs should be considered for the next MAPS project. It still isn't economically feasible right now, but by the time we vote on MAPS 4, choose the routes, and build the system, it might be more realistic idea.

The I-44/I-235 interchange is horrible. Its going to be a nightmare whenever they start construction, but will provide much needed relief when that entire stretch of road is completed.

Well keep in mind there are many, many more people that live in Cleveland County than Edmond. Edmond has 3 freeways going between it and OKC, whereas there are only 2 freeways going to Cleveland County. I've noticed that it seems like a lot of people in SW OKC just take Western or Penn during rush hour all the way through town--usually what I do. Western is a traffic nightmare from Grand Blvd to 89th but it gets better south of there.

One positive thing about OKC rush hour traffic is that I haven't seen a wreck in a long time. I just don't think wrecks happen that often OKC, which is a good thing of course.

I totally agree with the traffic getting worse. I work downtown and live in east Norman. I've found that taking I-40 to Sooner Road, and taking Sooner all the way to Norman is the best choice for me. It still takes me a good 45-50 minutes just to get to Alameda in Norman, but I-35 takes an hour, at least. It seems that I-35 should've been widened to 8-10 lanes, just as they are doing with the new Crosstown. I think ODOT way underestimated what traffic would be like by 2010. Hopefully commuter rail is closer than we think.

I really don't think widening the highways is the answer, because as Texas has found out, you can only widen a highway so many times.

I totally agree with the traffic getting worse. I work downtown and live in east Norman. I've found that taking I-40 to Sooner Road, and taking Sooner all the way to Norman is the best choice for me. It still takes me a good 45-50 minutes just to get to Alameda in Norman, but I-35 takes an hour, at least. It seems that I-35 should've been widened to 8-10 lanes, just as they are doing with the new Crosstown. I think ODOT way underestimated what traffic would be like by 2010. Hopefully commuter rail is closer than we think.

I used to drive to Norman from OKC during the day as part of work (over ten years ago) and that was the route I usually took because even then, I35 was lousy.

Edmond has 3 freeways going between it and OKC...

It has 4. I-35, Broadway Ext/I-235, Lake Hefner Parkway, west loop of Kilpatrick.

It has 4. I-35, Broadway Ext/I-235, Lake Hefner Parkway, west loop of Kilpatrick.

Wait a sec... I-35 goes thru the very east side of Edmond. Hefner Parkway doesn't go to Edmond and neither does Kilpatrick. That would mean on the southside you should include I-44, I-240 and highway 9 for Norman. Broadway Ext is the only true expressway directly into Edmond from OKC.

I-35 is more central to Edmond than I-44 is central to the southside. Highway 9 has stop lights.

I wouldn't say the Kilpatrick goes near the Edmond area, although I can see it counting as freeway access for Piedmont or far west Deer Creek.

Maybe saying there are four freeways to Edmond would be better stated as there are four freeways to the North side. Instead of saying there are two freeways to Norman, it would be better to say to the South side with respect to the central city. Highway 9 and I-240 are not even fair comparisons because they are both East/West roads. I thought we were referring to traffic into Oklahoma City from the North or South side. In fairness, if you look at Google maps, you can see that road density covers a wider area on the North side having a need for more freeways. The North side has had growth for a longer time to become that way. I think that with the growth on the South side in recent years it would be wise to consider reserving a route from the South side into the city for that third freeway so as the density fills in, there will be an available route to handle the traffic when needed.

We don't need more freeways. The southside is the commuter side of the metro, that's just the way it is, and I say that as a southsider. What we need is to find a way to energize the inner south side and provide some citified vitality closer to southsiders. More freeways won't do that.

People need to consciously factor in traffic to their decision to move further and further out. That's just the way it is. We need to stop enabling it with infrastructure. This approach is a LOT better than to start enforcing higher taxes for sprawl and pollution, and other regressive policies. Some people are just better of living on the edge of town, the goal shouldn't be to prevent it. The goal should be to level the playing field between inner city and suburban so that people who could go either place don't HAVE to live in the burbs if they don't absolutely want to.

I get it that traffic is bad, but realize that OKC traffic is nothing compared to other places. We still need a better balance, because personal freedom is not working fairly when people wanting to move closer in can't. So, traffic is going to get a lot worse, as it should. This is going to be extremely politically unpopular, but it needs to be explained in terms of having the liberty to make a living choice for yourself. Oklahomans don't exactly have their options open right now.

Speak for yourself Spartan. As another South sider I would take another freeway in a second. You can live in your green box all you want but the rest of us SUV driving right wing extremists don't want to be stuck with one freeway that is ALWAYS under construction between OKC and Norman. I make reference to being right wing extremists because I have noticed that you take EVERY opportunity to blame anything bad on conservatives or people of faith (nut jobs as you like to call them). This reminds me of the tired argument that I use to hear when I lived in Tucson. They used the same argument that you do about freeways making the city more like Los Angeles while the same so called environmentally conscious people were fine with everyone being forced to sit a red lights all day. The truth is that freeways do not make it like Los Angeles. It is mobs of people moving in that does that. If we all attained what we all claim to want in population growth, then traffic will get worse. The amount of freeways will not be a factor.

I get it that traffic is bad, but realize that OKC traffic is nothing compared to other places. We still need a better balance, because personal freedom is not working fairly when people wanting to move closer in can't. So, traffic is going to get a lot worse, as it should. This is going to be extremely politically unpopular, but it needs to be explained in terms of having the liberty to make a living choice for yourself. Oklahomans don't exactly have their options open right now.

Seriously? People don't have the personal freedom to move into the city? I'm trying to think what impediments exist to moving in. There are neighborhoods in every imaginable price range. Now, if your personal freedom requires a brand new suburban style house with an attached three car garage that might be tricky, but otherwise, I think most people could move in if they wanted.

I agree make some freeways going into OKC from Norman or Rail.

Seriously? People don't have the personal freedom to move into the city? I'm trying to think what impediments exist to moving in. There are neighborhoods in every imaginable price range. Now, if your personal freedom requires a brand new suburban style house with an attached three car garage that might be tricky, but otherwise, I think most people could move in if they wanted.

Well, I could list a whole litany of excuses people refer to. We all know a lot of people in the burbs who would love to live closer in. I think a lot of these problems are just perceptions, but take it for what it is. I know that you have successfully overcome virtually every so-called barrier, and you've definitely shown how it can be done. I guess not everyone is that resourceful.

1. "I can't afford an upscale condo, but the market for more middle-class real estate seems so slim. I just can't find a unit I like for the price I'd pay for it."
2. "I'm not comfortable with going back to renting, I want to be a homeowner and build up equity and own my own place and fix problems myself."
3. "Where will I get the basic services? I'll have to make long trips for a grocery store, to the vet, to my doctor in Edmond, to the bookstore and virtually every other non-edible service."
4. "The Homeland at 17th and Classen? That place is icky." (When in reality it's no different from any other suburban grocery store)
5. "I don't work downtown though, I actually already live close to where I work, so living downtown would be more of a commute in reality."
6. "It seems like it would be a hassle getting around and getting my car just for each short trip."
7. "What if I decide I want to have a kid later, and the schools he/she would be going to don't improve?"
8. "We're not comfortable with the square footage we'd be giving up for one of the brand-new units, but there just isn't any alternatives with older, more affordable buildings yet."
9. "We like the idea of the urban living and being in the middle of the city, but in reality there are probably more empty cowpastures and big construction sites downtown than there are on the edge of town. That's just not what we had in mind for urban living."
10. "The cost of every little thing, from eating, groceries, living space, and so on, is more expensive downtown. In the suburbs, as mundane as it is, things are so convenient. Downtown just hasn't matured yet."

And on and on go the excuses you always hear. I think the majority of these from 1-10 are overblown and people could find convenient ways around. Another thing is that every issue from 1-10 can be fixed easily. There are just a few thousand available urban units, which makes the market a lot tighter. The only instances where prices have fallen more in line with what's reasonable is with The Hill when a developer's had problems moving units. Another thing is that there isn't a well-established market of older properties that are 20-30 years old that the prices should be a little less for. You can either chose brand new construction or shiny new renovations. So market availability is a big issue, but that's why the right projects can make a lot of money right now.

The reason the suburbs are so convenient and affordable is because it is the de facto place to live. When you're looking to build a shopping project, you're going to look at traffic counts and land for sale in the suburbs, and the last thing on your mind is going to be downtown in most cases. This is just because of the way it is. Also, the availability of thousands of ranch houses on the market makes it a buyer's market, almost always, for ranch houses. Downtown is doing very well in attracting new residents who are resourceful, smart, and visionaries. Now it's going to be a little harder to get the average joe to live down there too--and there are plenty of average joe's that would like to.



Speak for yourself Spartan. As another South sider I would take another freeway in a second. You can live in your green box all you want but the rest of us SUV driving right wing extremists don't want to be stuck with one freeway that is ALWAYS under construction between OKC and Norman. I make reference to being right wing extremists because I have noticed that you take EVERY opportunity to blame anything bad on conservatives or people of faith (nut jobs as you like to call them). This reminds me of the tired argument that I use to hear when I lived in Tucson. They used the same argument that you do about freeways making the city more like Los Angeles while the same so called environmentally conscious people were fine with everyone being forced to sit a red lights all day. The truth is that freeways do not make it like Los Angeles. It is mobs of people moving in that does that. If we all attained what we all claim to want in population growth, then traffic will get worse. The amount of freeways will not be a factor.

Point to any political statement I've ever made calling moderate Republicans nutjobs. Point to any political statement I've ever made identifying myself with the left of politics. I don't really know who this is coming from, but it's definitely putting words in my mouth to associate what I have to say with something you're more comfortable in stating your disagreement with. But here's the deal: I really don't care about Washington politics, health care, don't ask don't tell, tax cuts, the debt, or any of those issues. And the people who oppose good urban planning on the basis of the conservative political playbook are nutjobs, especially when they start talking about "Agenda 29" or whatever and U.N. conspiracies and all that. That's called a red herring because it obviously intends to divert the issue into the conservative/liberal playbook and avoid discussing it on the terms of urban planning itself, which is not something that the American political dialogue is capable of discussing.

Local politics and state politics is more my thing. It should be your thing too, because I assure you there is nothing you can do about what goes on in Washington, but you can make a difference more locally, so I'd say to consider it. If all you care about is what you see on FOX/MSNBC or the conservative/liberal playbooks though, I would say those views are already over-represented when you look at the proportion of everyday citizens who claim to want to get beyond that. About 1/3rd myself included are registered independents. So it's easy to call anything left of far right "liberal" or leftist but is that fair? I guess in Oklahoma if you're not holding a sign at the tea party rally you are a leftist, but there are just as many places I can go and be labeled a far-right conservative because I'm not sporting a mohawk at the pride festival or toking away on 420 or whatever those people (in their more interesting political expression, IMO) partake in, Lol. Both deserve their equal share of ridicule though, and both are straying us too far from the reservation IMO from what is worthy of political discourse.

For those of you who think adding lanes makes things all better, I'd suggest you read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307264785

Building a new freeway would involve hundreds of millions of dollars or even upwards of a trillion. I thought we were trying to reduce government spending?

A new freeway would be driven by no one right after it gets built--just look at the Kilpatrick. There's a stretch of road you never hear on the traffic reports.

The solution to 35 in the morning going to downtown is timing. If you are on before 7am, it's a 15 minute commute. Between 7-7:15 it's 50/50 for a 15-30 min commute. After 7:15 it's 30 to 1hr. The largest problem area to me is the traffic merging to 35N from 240, way too short of distance.

Commute home is 30 minutes minimum, more than likely 45 on average. One trick is to take the 12th street exit for Moore near Shields when it's backed up, parallel 35, and re-enter 35 across from the New City shopping center or @ 4th street.

Relative to any big city and many other similarly sized cities, OKC has it downright easy with rush hour traffic. And while it may be getting worse--particularly since Oklahoma's aging highway infrastructure is a pathetic joke--it is certainly nothing to really complain about.

Just last week I departed far NW OKC to Austin at around 4:40 pm via I-44/I-240/I-35; the only real slowdowns were in the usual spots (I-44 from 10th to I-40, I-240 at I-35 interchange). I-35 thru Cleveland County was a breeze. The cumulative effect of these slowdowns was probably 7-8 minutes extra travel time. Not bad at all considering I drove more than 30 miles thru an urbanized area at rush hour.

The only time when traffic on the highways is really bad is when you get off at 5 and get on the highway at 5:15 and you're part of that initial wave trying to all go at once and you just sort of follow the congestion all the way down, and it won't even reach 240 till 5:30 it seems, and starts to thin out after Moore, mostly. If you get off 15 minutes later, you're fine until you catch up with the wave...

Flextime - my work sched is 7:15 - 4:00. Those of us on the road early drive like NASCAR qualifiers.

The traffic is one of the reasons the wife and I were prompted to start taking classes at the downtown Y a couple of years ago. We do classes at 5:30am Mon, Weds, Fri. and just do elliptical on our own at 6am the other mornings. In the evenings we do 5:30pm classes on Tues, Weds, Thurs and elliptical the other two days. We miss all the traffic and the Y is only 3 blocks for our offices. Starts your day off great and its good for us. Several other people in our classes were prompted by the same thing.

Flextime - my work sched is 7:15 - 4:00. Those of us on the road early drive like NASCAR qualifiers.

Yes. When I was commuting from Norman to OKC I left really early (before 7) and then left work late (after 6) and the traffic wasn't as bad.

Is anyone in favor of adding HOV lanes like Dallas and other city's have?

Is anyone in favor of adding HOV lanes like Dallas and other city's have?

Many OKC drivers don't even comprehend the left lane is for passing concept - I imagine HOV would just cause their head to explode.

I feel so bad for those of you making this commute. I am on the other side of the highway every morning and afternoon. I live in downtown and work in south OKC. I have yet to hit bad traffic, but the other side of the highway is always bumper to bumper. Solution: move downtown.

I does seem traffic has been getting worse lately. As stated, it mostly is from southside residents commuting north for work and back south after work. Traffic from west OKC is getting worse too. Traffic can get backed up on eastbound I40 in the mornings and westbound in afternoons.

OKC hasnt suffered from traffic like other cities but it still amazes me how so many people dont take into account their daily commutes when they decide on a place to live. Its hard for me to feel sorry for someone complaining about traffic if they live in north Edmond, or near Peidmont or outside of Norman. Sure, you may like your big house on a big lot surrounded by nothingness but you will probably have to put up with traffic because of that. Plain and simple.

You can live in your green box all you want but the rest of us SUV driving right wing extremists don't want to be stuck with one freeway that is ALWAYS under construction between OKC and Norman.

How will we come up with the next billion dollars to widen freeways and build a new one, and then the next billion dollars to maintain it?

Will the private sector do it?

I don't think the blame lies with anyone. I think it's hard to justify moving across town over a job (maybe a new one?), when for example, you have already made significant headway into paying off your house. No point to keep spending a ton of money on loans every time a new job pops up. If your job is in Tulsa, sure, living in south OKC (or anywhere in OKC) would not be desirable. But, if you have a job up on NW 63rd, and live on SW 104th -- I see no problem with that, when you accept a job you accept the burden of getting to the workplace. You should not be blamed for taking a job if it is offered and you can make it work.

I see no problem with that, when you accept a job you accept the burden of getting to the workplace.

This makes sense. What I don't understand is how many see it as their right to have a traffic free, less than 30 minute commute, no matter where they live in relation to their job. In addition, they seem to feel it is the government's and tax payer's responsibility to provide them with a large, expensive freeway system so they can live two counties away from their job and still drive their own car every day and get there with no traffic in less than half an hour. The result is usually a deterioration of the current infrastructure, which in turn only increase the desire for people to keep moving farther an farther away to live next to the new infrastructure that will soon decay as well as we try and get the money to build even more infrastructure.

It just seems like a totally inefficient model and leads to a lot of waste and unneeded redundancy of public resources.

I completely understand the desire of some to live outside of the city, but at the same time, why should the county and city, supplemented by the federal government, continue to allocate resources to make living outside of that city and county more convenient at the expense of its own infrastructure and revenue sources?

Is anyone in favor of adding HOV lanes like Dallas and other city's have?

HOV lanes work pretty good for people that car pool but you have to lose a lane of exising roadway to put it in unless you build a new lane. Unfortunately, HOV lanes only add to urban sprawl so in the end, they are just part of the problem. I have co-workers in Atlanta that have told me if the HOV and van pools didn't exist they would have to live closer to work.

A new freeway would be driven by no one right after it gets built--just look at the Kilpatrick. There's a stretch of road you never hear on the traffic reports.

Not sure if you're talking about current utilization, but every time I drive it (during standard morning and evening rush hours from Eastern to the Parkway, getting on and off at various exits on different days), it's massively busy and very full of traffic. I haven't seen it ever come to a standstill like I've seen Broadway/235 or the Parkway, though, so that may be why it doesn't show up on the traffic reports - it just flows smoothly, apparently. And BTW, there was a nasty accident on the southbound Parkway yesterday, just south of 122nd, so now you've recently seen a wreck by proxy in OKC during rush hour. :-)

I does seem traffic has been getting worse lately. As stated, it mostly is from southside residents commuting north for work and back south after work. Traffic from west OKC is getting worse too. Traffic can get backed up on eastbound I40 in the mornings and westbound in afternoons.

OKC hasnt suffered from traffic like other cities but it still amazes me how so many people dont take into account their daily commutes when they decide on a place to live. Its hard for me to feel sorry for someone complaining about traffic if they live in north Edmond, or near Peidmont or outside of Norman. Sure, you may like your big house on a big lot surrounded by nothingness but you will probably have to put up with traffic because of that. Plain and simple.


I'm not sure if you're addressing that to me or my post, but if you are, I'm not complaining. I just noticed a definite volume increase in traffic over the past year or two.

I wouldn't be opposed to moving to Oklahoma City or somewhere closer to the office, but I am finishing up my masters at OU. Either way, I'd have to commute to/from Norman or to/from OKC. I am relatively young, and would like to keep my options open as I'm not entirely sure I will be in OKC a year from now.

Not sure if you're talking about current utilization, but every time I drive it (during standard morning and evening rush hours from Eastern to the Parkway, getting on and off at various exits on different days), it's massively busy and very full of traffic. I haven't seen it ever come to a standstill like I've seen Broadway/235 or the Parkway, though, so that may be why it doesn't show up on the traffic reports - it just flows smoothly, apparently. And BTW, there was a nasty accident on the southbound Parkway yesterday, just south of 122nd, so now you've recently seen a wreck by proxy in OKC during rush hour. :-)

Oh no, well I hope everyone was alright. I hate seeing wrecks..didn't want to know that either, Lol.

I've just never seen many cars on the Kilpatrick and I rarely use it myself. But it's not like I don't know where it is--just that during peak hours it still moves pretty well, during off-peak hours there's nobody on it. Doesn't seem worth it to build a new road. It probably would have a lot more traffic if it weren't a toll road, but it is, and any new freeway would also be a toll road.

Seriously? People don't have the personal freedom to move into the city? I'm trying to think what impediments exist to moving in. There are neighborhoods in every imaginable price range. Now, if your personal freedom requires a brand new suburban style house with an attached three car garage that might be tricky, but otherwise, I think most people could move in if they wanted.

I don't understand the comment about personal freedom not working fairly OR that people wanting to move closer in can't. WTF? What does that even mean?

A new freeway would be driven by no one right after it gets built--just look at the Kilpatrick. There's a stretch of road you never hear on the traffic reports.

I recall when that first went in it reportedly earned the "best place to carry on an affair," award in the Gazette (because it was a place where you could find privacy.

Is anyone in favor of adding HOV lanes like Dallas and other city's have?

I can't see that they are needed. We have about 15 minutes of rough rush hour in only a few areas, thirty minutes of congestion and that's about it. Even in the DC area, the HOV lanes were only used during rush hour (maybe 3 - 4 hours a day) and that commute is murder.

It means people think they are being forced to live in the suburbs do to a lot of factors; the main ones being how undeveloped downtown is, the dearth of available housing with payments under $2000/mo. The city/state makes it easy to live in the burbs and enables sprawl. Anything that gets developed for moderate-income households flies off the market like hotcakes, so you have to be very astute and on the ball to get in on the market.

I have a good friend who got tired of being on the waitlist for an apartment in Deep Deuce and ended up with the "urban downtown living" at Lincoln and I-44. There's another apartment complex at MacArthur and I-40 that's calling itself "urban downtown living." We are simply in a city that desperately wants urban living, but it's not evolving as a viable market. In other cities like Houston, Dallas, even Ft Worth and Little Rock, finding downtown apartments is not waiting in a long line to search for a needle in a haystack. People can legitimately make the decision for themselves, not based on market availability, whether they want to live far out or closer in. That's what is important.

This makes sense. What I don't understand is how many see it as their right to have a traffic free, less than 30 minute commute, no matter where they live in relation to their job. In addition, they seem to feel it is the government's and tax payer's responsibility to provide them with a large, expensive freeway system so they can live two counties away from their job and still drive their own car every day and get there with no traffic in less than half an hour. The result is usually a deterioration of the current infrastructure, which in turn only increase the desire for people to keep moving farther an farther away to live next to the new infrastructure that will soon decay as well as we try and get the money to build even more infrastructure.

It just seems like a totally inefficient model and leads to a lot of waste and unneeded redundancy of public resources.

I completely understand the desire of some to live outside of the city, but at the same time, why should the county and city, supplemented by the federal government, continue to allocate resources to make living outside of that city and county more convenient at the expense of its own infrastructure and revenue sources?
It is a tradeoff wherever you live, be it suburbs, DT or what. Depends on what is most important to you when making decisions. If you live further out, you are going to have a commute unless you work from home or have a job even further away from the city. That is how I handled the commute in the Washington DC area - got a job 13 miles in the opposite direction from town so I could skip the god awful traffic. On the flip side, you can live DT but you'll give up elbow room.

I recall when that first went in it reportedly earned the "best place to carry on an affair," award in the Gazette (because it was a place where you could find privacy.

I've heard tell matters really haven't changed all that much, that it is still a citified version of a lonely country road.

It means people think they are being forced to live in the suburbs do to a lot of factors; the main ones being how undeveloped downtown is, the dearth of available housing with payments under $2000/mo. The city/state makes it easy to live in the burbs and enables sprawl. Anything that gets developed for moderate-income households flies off the market like hotcakes, so you have to be very astute and on the ball to get in on the market.

I have a good friend who got tired of being on the waitlist for an apartment in Deep Deuce and ended up with the "urban downtown living" at Lincoln and I-44. There's another apartment complex at MacArthur and I-40 that's calling itself "urban downtown living." We are simply in a city that desperately wants urban living, but it's not evolving as a viable market. In other cities like Houston, Dallas, even Ft Worth and Little Rock, finding downtown apartments is not waiting in a long line to search for a needle in a haystack. People can legitimately make the decision for themselves, not based on market availability, whether they want to live far out or closer in. That's what is important.

There are plenty of places near DT that are just nasty. People could live there and fix them up if they wanted to and buy in on the cheap. Location is important but when it comes to DT, a block or two seems to make the difference.

There are plenty of places near DT that are just nasty. People could live there and fix them up if they wanted to and buy in on the cheap. Location is important but when it comes to DT, a block or two seems to make the difference.

Well most of the inner north areas near DT aren't nasty, though, in all fairness. There are some awesome "inner city" neighborhoods north of downtown that would be considered very nice suburbs in Chicago or Minneapolis, lol.

You definitely could get a good place for an affordable price if you have that enterprising spirit to get a fixer upper. There are some great neighborhoods turning the corner, too. The thing is that market availability and how easy it is important to most.

Many OKC drivers don't even comprehend the left lane is for passing concept - I imagine HOV would just cause their head to explode.

^this is the one thing I cannot stand. When both lanes are taken up, it drives me insane.

7. "What if I decide I want to have a kid later, and the schools he/she would be going to don't improve?"


There are several places that have beautiful homes and some decently priced fixer uppers in the Mesta Park, Crown Heights, etc. areas. Amongst the people I know who would think about living there, including myself, the above reason is the biggest drawback. Unless they can afford to send their kids to private schools, this will continue to be a reason for families to look elsewhere. At least for the foreseeable future IMO.

I recall when that first went in it reportedly earned the "best place to carry on an affair," award in the Gazette (because it was a place where you could find privacy.

Thats funny but true. I have traveled on the western leg of the turpike at night before and didn't see more than 5 cars between I40 and NWX exits.

I am one of the saps that threw in the towel because the drive between Norman and OKC was starting to get annoying, and I grew up in a much larger city. I gave up when we had one of our little ice events (30 degrees and misting) and it took me 2 1/2 hours to get home. I vowed to never do that again and moved to midtown earlier this year.

I understand that not everyone has the financial means to move to the immediate downtown area, so in that respect I agree with Spartan because the downtown area still does not possess a good inventory of moderately priced units. However, I don't think that alone is preventing an avalanche of people from moving to the central city. There are many cheap rentals, apartments, and homes in neighborhoods, many that are safe and clean, adjacent to downtown. And yet, there isn't a flood of people going into those hoods either. Its just as much a cultural and attitude thing. I know a ton of people from OU and through acquaintances who are living in Moore, Norman, Edmond, Quail Springs, etc. are childless and have the means to move deeper into the city yet don't. They think you have to drive 500 miles to go to a grocery store (you don't) or you will be dodging bullets or hordes of homeless people (not true at all). Even now I tell people I live in Midtown ans some tear their faces up thinking I'm about to follow it up with some tale of woe about how I've been mugged at gunpoint. It weird because many of these people have no problem going to downtown, midtown, etc. on a weekend, yet act as if it is a monumental jump to live in the same environment.

It may take awful traffic and higher gas prices (notice how they've been creeping up lately) for people to take a serious look at living in the city. Houston's downtown and inner loop area sucked until traffic became so awful people who didn't have to worry about schools at least started considering it.

Well, Houston works differently. They don't have anti-urban building codes and zoning laws. It's a city of 5+ million where the laws of economics simply seem suspended. For the rest of us, Houston-style development just isn't an option. Whenever I'm down there it just seems like they have more demand and construction than they even know what to do with.

^this is the one thing I cannot stand. When both lanes are taken up, it drives me insane.

Your idea works fine when it's not rush hour. If the left lane was only used for passing then, the traffic would be much worse. Also keep in mind in some areas the left lane is used for exiting and just waiting until shortly before the exit to get in the left lane is dangerous and not logical. I don't have much problem with those who are in the left lane as long as they are driving at least the speed limit.

I have driven in rush hour traffic in Dallas,Memphis,Nashville,D.C. and Baltimore,Boston,Philly and luckily never in NYC!but by far The worse traffic I have seen has been in Boston with D.C. a close second!OKC has bad traffic in spots for only a few hours! WE are very lucky!

Traffic here can't compare to places like LA or Dallas, but it sure seems like our drivers are more distracted and erratic than anyplace else I have been. Just based on that observation alone I would think that there must be a decent amount of support for things like mass transit in this city, what with so many folks wanting to be able to surf the web and what not while on their way to work.

When we live in Tampa my commute was 12 miles, it took 75 minutes. If there was an accident all bets were off. I remember on time my primary route was block because of a crash so I took route B. Route B was also blocked so I went to route C. Route C also became blocked so I had to find route D. When I didn't get home by 6:30 the wife called to see where I was. Due to all the crashes I was actually further away from home than I was at the office.

Traffic here can't compare to places like LA or Dallas, but it sure seems like our drivers are more distracted and erratic than anyplace else I have been. Just based on that observation alone I would think that there must be a decent amount of support for things like mass transit in this city, what with so many folks wanting to be able to surf the web and what not while on their way to work.

Hmm. Compared to Northern Virginia, Oklahoma drivers are brilliant. The thing I've noticed is FAR less tail gating and dodging in and out of traffic. I still see young fools dodging around, don't get me wrong, but it is more a product of their age, idiocy or personality, I suspect, than considered a necessary strategy to get from point A to point B. Aggressive driving back east is the norm.

The latest trend for drivers here in Florida is to stop on the freeway and back up if you miss your exit because you failed to make a last second lane change in time. Last night I actauly saw someone with Ohio tags (imagine that) stop in the middle lane of I-95 so they could get in the right lane to exit.

My problem with people in OKC is that they are not aggressive enough. Naturally, too much aggression is dangerous, but complete passivity is equally dangerous. People who just park themselves waiting to merge rather than taking initiative are dangerous. People who use the fast lane for below speed limit driving are dangerous.

My problem with people in OKC is that they are not aggressive enough. Naturally, too much aggression is dangerous, but complete passivity is equally dangerous. People who just park themselves waiting to merge rather than taking initiative are dangerous. People who use the fast lane for below speed limit driving are dangerous.

This. Oklahoma drivers are infamous for this. Many of my DFW friends who came to OU to study all say these two things were some of the first things they noticed about Oklahoma.

Traffic here can't compare to places like LA or Dallas, but it sure seems like our drivers are more distracted and erratic than anyplace else I have been. Just based on that observation alone I would think that there must be a decent amount of support for things like mass transit in this city, what with so many folks wanting to be able to surf the web and what not while on their way to work.

I'm glad you noticed this I was starting to think it was just me. People here aren't bad drivers per say, but I have never seen so many people texting, playing with the radio, messing with the GPS, or eating while driving until I came here. And I will have to say that people here can be a little reckless; as in going 25 mph over or under the speed limit, changing 2+ lanes at a time with no signal, stopping on on ramps, etc. (although Tulsa may very well have some of the most reckless drivers in this part of the country). Every now and again you see yahoos like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUCkN5VgRIw&feature=player_embedded

I've driven in quite a few places during rush hour - Denver, Austin, Dallas, Los Angeles - and Oklahoma City is far better than any of them. The network of highways is great and easily accessible. For the most part, OKC drivers are courteous and follow road signs and instructions. I honestly believe the worst drivers in America all live in Amarillo and vacation in Florida.