I started this to break away from the off topic syndrome that has plagued the Mystery Tower thread, and I feel guilty for derailing it.

One comment was made saying OKC has no traffic issues and if you think that go to Bay Area, Houston, ATL, ect. That is absolutely correct. My thinking is in response to his other comment about Austin's traffic getting horrible and having outgrown their infrastructure years ago, I think it is smart for OKC to stay ahead of the curve so we don't get like that. A light-rail would do wonders, but I firmly believe the majority of people here will still choose cars over mass transit. Even with a light-rail we will still have traffic issues and we should start working on plans to widen I-35 now.

Adding just one lane won't do any good, but I'll say this again, in 3 years if we begin construction on this, we could also begin construction on a light-rail project. We could tie these two together and make the line from Norman to OKC the first phase. While doing this, you could make this highway 8 lanes with 2 HOV lanes and add an 4 lane elevated express tollway in the center of the highway with high speed limits and charge a fairly high amount that would likely pay for itself in 10-15 years(maybe less I haven't done the math). Anyhow, it's still a win win for everyone. Traffic problems would be solved for that area, likely for decades, and OKC would get its start to having a light-rail system.

It's understandable that some might argue that this is in no way needed right now, and that's true to an extent. I'm sure in 10 years, if we end up being as big as or bigger than Austin(currently), we will be glad we did that along time ago. I'm willing to bet the highway still won't need to be widened in that time. I think this would allow for at least 20 years, if not longer. If we do the construction right, its lifespan could easily be 50+ years.

Another thing we can do, is tear down some of these ugly buildings and mainly industrial warehouses and that scrapyard and move them and have them replaced by nice shiny 10-15 story office buildings in a few locations. Add a four lane service road, one way on each side, dual turn left turn lanes, right turn lane or we could construct round-a-bouts or those interchanges like what is being installed on Main St. along the highway. Also adding Texas turnarounds would be great too!

A large, beautifully landscaped highway with a light-rail running the Oklahoma River to somewhere in Norman would be a huge economic benefit and solve traffic worries for that area for a LOOOOONG time! The price tag is another thing. I still think it could be done.

To another point, I completely agree in the grand scheme of things, that at this point in time, OKC has an amazing highway network and nearly zero traffic issues. That will change though and it change even faster if we become a boom city like Dallas was(kind of still is) or Austin, Charlotte, and Nashville. So, to answer my own question, no OKC really doesn't have any major traffic issues. I think with better interchanges, like the high-five in Dallas, our traffic flow would be a million times better.

I still think a new 4 lane loop around Edmond would be nice, but other than that I can't think of any new highway that is needed(except for Norman, but I don't usually venture out there, so I can't really say whether or not one is needed out there).

If we do light or commuter rail, we need to work toward getting walk-able development at those stops so it is actually used (at least have rules in place to allow it if not incentives). In any case though at least the next twenty years of ODOT funding is pretty much already just keeping the current system in decent condition without a major expansion (unless new lanes as turnpikes are a serious option).

Glad to see another thread on this, as traffic congestion keeps coming up in multiple threads.


Adding just one lane won't do any good, but I'll say this again, in 3 years if we begin construction on this, we could also begin construction on a light-rail project. We could tie these two together and make the line from Norman to OKC the first phase. While doing this, you could make this highway 8 lanes with 2 HOV lanes and add an 4 lane elevated express tollway in the center of the highway with high speed limits and charge a fairly high amount that would likely pay for itself in 10-15 years(maybe less I haven't done the math). Anyhow, it's still a win win for everyone. Traffic problems would be solved for that area, likely for decades, and OKC would get its start to having a light-rail system.

Sounds like you are proposing something similar to the LBJ Project in Dallas. There is a reason nothing like it has been proposed because it is a financial gamble on the same lines as the "Big Dig" in Boston, and we know how that turned out. That is a $4 billion project, or slightly more than half the entire budget of this state. It will take them over 50 years just to pay it off. And we are talking about a highway with traffic counts nearing 280K/day. I-35 has about 140K at the 40/235 merge, and it slowly tapers off from there. In no way would something similar here be paid off in 10-15 years.


Another thing we can do, is tear down some of these ugly buildings and mainly industrial warehouses and that scrapyard and move them and have them replaced by nice shiny 10-15 story office buildings in a few locations. Add a four lane service road, one way on each side, dual turn left turn lanes, right turn lane or we could construct round-a-bouts or those interchanges like what is being installed on Main St. along the highway. Also adding Texas turnarounds would be great too!


ROW, acquisitions, and relocation costs would be pushing 9 figures before a single yard of concrete is even laid. This is incredibly unrealistic.

To answer your question, yes OKC has traffic issues, but far fewer than what is presented here. I would argue its more of a traffic perception issue. Despite all of the complaining on this board, OKC has consistently been recognized as having one the lowest commute times in the nation, with the vast majority of people here having a commute of 20 minutes or less. There are many more realistic tools at ODOTs disposal. As far as the 35 corridor is concerned, priority numero uno needs to be the 35/240 interchange reconstruction. That will solve the vast majority of 35's issues.

Other than a few bottlenecks here and there on our freeways....NO.

Take the word "OKC" in the title and replace it with "Edmond" then... YES!

Actually, Edmond traffic flows pretty smoothly in most places most of the time. But on certain streets and at certain times of the day (e.g. 4-5 pm) then OMG.

I would like them to connect the SW side of Kirkpatrick Turnpike with H.E. Bailey Turnpike that runs SW of airport. This would provide a alternate route for motorists wanting to get to I-40W to avoid the metro all together.

After living in Austin for 9 years I can say OKC doesn't have a traffic problem, sure at times it can back up but it still isn't the stop-n-go for mile after mile like it can be in the big Texas cities. Austin and the Texas Legislature has created the traffic problems there. The typical reaction of legislators from outside Austin is their constituents don't want to spend any money there, that Austin already gets too many state jobs and money, sound familiar? You also have had people in power in Austin over the years of the mentality about roads that "if you don't build it, they won't come" which has been an abject failure. The Austin city council seems to swing from one extreme to the other every election, one term you have a bunch of non-development minded, environmentalist types and the next election they are replaced by the more development minded so nothing ever really gets done there because they study and discuss everything to death. Since all members were at-large they had to pander to the loudest groups, the move to single member districts should shake up things for a little while.

Traffic is all relative. Picture Austin or Denver with more people and horribly insufficient hiway systems. DFW has 6x the population of OKC, a decent hiway system and they do pretty well keeping up with the population growth. LA is just an atrocious mess as are most large eastern cities. It would be virtually impossible to never have any traffic bottlenecks during rush hour so OKC, all in all, is pretty well off.

Take the word "OKC" in the title and replace it with "Edmond" then... YES!

Actually, Edmond traffic flows pretty smoothly in most places most of the time. But on certain streets and at certain times of the day (e.g. 4-5 pm) then OMG.

2nd St right as all the college students are getting out and people getting off work...

So frustrating.

Let's put it this way, for a city it's size or larger, I've never seen less traffic problems.

And of course, the majority of mid- to large-sized cities are so much worse, it's hard to find a basis for comparison.

2nd St right as all the college students are getting out and people getting off work...

So frustrating.

Either intentionally or unintentionally they slowed down 2nd like five years ago when they doubled the number of stoplights between the city and the interstate, which at least at the time were on sensors (I do not drive in the area anymore so not sure now), which is fine at night or any time outside of a rush but during the rushes it should at least be considered synchronizing them to help flow into or out of the city. I took it as a intentional since they also added a stoplight or two on Broadway at the same time.

I started this to break away from the off topic syndrome that has plagued the Mystery Tower thread, and I feel guilty for derailing it.

One comment was made saying OKC has no traffic issues and if you think that go to Bay Area, Houston, ATL, ect. That is absolutely correct. My thinking is in response to his other comment about Austin's traffic getting horrible and having outgrown their infrastructure years ago, I think it is smart for OKC to stay ahead of the curve so we don't get like that. A light-rail would do wonders, but I firmly believe the majority of people here will still choose cars over mass transit. Even with a light-rail we will still have traffic issues and we should start working on plans to widen I-35 now.

Adding just one lane won't do any good, but I'll say this again, in 3 years if we begin construction on this, we could also begin construction on a light-rail project. We could tie these two together and make the line from Norman to OKC the first phase. While doing this, you could make this highway 8 lanes with 2 HOV lanes and add an 4 lane elevated express tollway in the center of the highway with high speed limits and charge a fairly high amount that would likely pay for itself in 10-15 years(maybe less I haven't done the math). Anyhow, it's still a win win for everyone. Traffic problems would be solved for that area, likely for decades, and OKC would get its start to having a light-rail system.

It's understandable that some might argue that this is in no way needed right now, and that's true to an extent. I'm sure in 10 years, if we end up being as big as or bigger than Austin(currently), we will be glad we did that along time ago. I'm willing to bet the highway still won't need to be widened in that time. I think this would allow for at least 20 years, if not longer. If we do the construction right, its lifespan could easily be 50+ years.

Another thing we can do, is tear down some of these ugly buildings and mainly industrial warehouses and that scrapyard and move them and have them replaced by nice shiny 10-15 story office buildings in a few locations. Add a four lane service road, one way on each side, dual turn left turn lanes, right turn lane or we could construct round-a-bouts or those interchanges like what is being installed on Main St. along the highway. Also adding Texas turnarounds would be great too!

A large, beautifully landscaped highway with a light-rail running the Oklahoma River to somewhere in Norman would be a huge economic benefit and solve traffic worries for that area for a LOOOOONG time! The price tag is another thing. I still think it could be done.

To another point, I completely agree in the grand scheme of things, that at this point in time, OKC has an amazing highway network and nearly zero traffic issues. That will change though and it change even faster if we become a boom city like Dallas was(kind of still is) or Austin, Charlotte, and Nashville. So, to answer my own question, no OKC really doesn't have any major traffic issues. I think with better interchanges, like the high-five in Dallas, our traffic flow would be a million times better.

I still think a new 4 lane loop around Edmond would be nice, but other than that I can't think of any new highway that is needed(except for Norman, but I don't usually venture out there, so I can't really say whether or not one is needed out there).

Austin still doesn't have the freeway infrastructure that we do. At the time of their explosion they just had I-35 basically, with weird upper and lower decks.

Your comparison is WAY off. It's premised on highway expansion being the only way to prepare for population growth and completely ignores the system we have.

Our traffic capacity needs to resemble a compromise between the 5% peak time and 95% rest of the day.

Glad to see another thread on this, as traffic congestion keeps coming up in multiple threads.



Sounds like you are proposing something similar to the LBJ Project in Dallas. There is a reason nothing like it has been proposed because it is a financial gamble on the same lines as the "Big Dig" in Boston, and we know how that turned out. That is a $4 billion project, or slightly more than half the entire budget of this state. It will take them over 50 years just to pay it off. And we are talking about a highway with traffic counts nearing 280K/day. I-35 has about 140K at the 40/235 merge, and it slowly tapers off from there. In no way would something similar here be paid off in 10-15 years.



ROW, acquisitions, and relocation costs would be pushing 9 figures before a single yard of concrete is even laid. This is incredibly unrealistic.

To answer your question, yes OKC has traffic issues, but far fewer than what is presented here. I would argue its more of a traffic perception issue. Despite all of the complaining on this board, OKC has consistently been recognized as having one the lowest commute times in the nation, with the vast majority of people here having a commute of 20 minutes or less. There are many more realistic tools at ODOTs disposal. As far as the 35 corridor is concerned, priority numero uno needs to be the 35/240 interchange reconstruction. That will solve the vast majority of 35's issues.This is very fair. I had to go look what the big dig was, and I am amazed at that. That is insane and I never knew about it. The way they designed the loop by the bridge amazes me though.

I only hope in 10 years that OKC doesn't become like Austin, as far as traffic goes.

Either intentionally or unintentionally they slowed down 2nd like five years ago when they doubled the number of stoplights between the city and the interstate, which at least at the time were on sensors (I do not drive in the area anymore so not sure now), which is fine at night or any time outside of a rush but during the rushes it should at least be considered synchronizing them to help flow into or out of the city. I took it as a intentional since they also added a stoplight or two on Broadway at the same time.This is one thing I hate about Edmond is the number of stop lights. It's absurd.

Austin still doesn't have the freeway infrastructure that we do. At the time of their explosion they just had I-35 basically, with weird upper and lower decks.

Your comparison is WAY off. It's premised on highway expansion being the only way to prepare for population growth and completely ignores the system we have.

Our traffic capacity needs to resemble a compromise between the 5% peak time and 95% rest of the day.I figured their freeway infrastructure was bad, I guess I didn't know how bad, as I've only passed through there a few times. Never really explored the city. Both times I passed through was on weekends as well.

This is one thing I hate about Edmond is the number of stop lights. It's absurd.

And they're not synchronized. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait.
Yeesh!

And they're not synchronized. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait.
Yeesh!Oh I know, my gas mileage goes up as soon as I get into OKC lol

This is very fair. I had to go look what the big dig was, and I am amazed at that. That is insane and I never knew about it. The way they designed the loop by the bridge amazes me though.

I only hope in 10 years that OKC doesn't become like Austin, as far as traffic goes.

You guys are beside yourself.. Sadly OKC Talk's collective understanding of urban issues has plummeted lately, which I guess happens in the absence of a big issue or announcement.

It's hard to argue against the idea that any PLACE that is WORTH going to is going to have traffic. Austin is a helluva place. OKC is becoming a place, too. If you can't tolerate traffic perhaps living in a city isn't for you.

You guys are beside yourself.. Sadly OKC Talk's collective understanding of urban issues has plummeted lately, which I guess happens in the absence of a big issue or announcement.

It's hard to argue against the idea that any PLACE that is WORTH going to is going to have traffic. Austin is a helluva place. OKC is becoming a place, too. If you can't tolerate traffic perhaps living in a city isn't for you.I enjoy seeing traffic, in fact. For me, it resembles a big city. I had no problem with Dallas's traffic. I was just stating that we should try and stay ahead of the issue so it doesn't sneak up on us. We'll see though in the future how we hold out.

What I would like to see is not so much freeway expansion, with the exception of I-235 which is still 4 lanes in spots, but more of our city streets converted to boulevards with turning lanes for the left and right at major intersections and tree-lined medians. Think NW Expressway, Classen, or many of the Edmond streets. Many of the traffic problems I deal with on a day to day basis are because of the poor design of the major thoroughfares, not freeway backups.

I also wish OKC would build at least one grand interchange, from an aesthetic perspective. Something like a 4-level stack would be cool for the I-40/I-44 interchange.

Traffic is all relative. Picture Austin or Denver with more people and horribly insufficient hiway systems. DFW has 6x the population of OKC, a decent hiway system and they do pretty well keeping up with the population growth. LA is just an atrocious mess as are most large eastern cities. It would be virtually impossible to never have any traffic bottlenecks during rush hour so OKC, all in all, is pretty well off.
Dallas was much worse when I lived there in 91-93 before Central Expressway was widened, they still had the very short metered ramps. I lived in that side of town but rarely took Central.



I figured their freeway infrastructure was bad, I guess I didn't know how bad, as I've only passed through there a few times. Never really explored the city. Both times I passed through was on weekends as well.
There are two north-south highways, I-35 and Mopac (Loop 1) and two east-west in Ben White (Texas 71) on the south side and and Research (US-183) on the north side through the bulk of the populated areas. The toll roads are in effect loop roads far out. There are some oddballs like Capital of Texas (Loop 360) that splits off from Ben White and and goes to the west side of ties and ties into Mopac north of Research. That is pretty much it for highways in Austin. We lived in South Austin pretty much between I-35 and Mopac, we rarely took I-35 if we needed to go north, if we were heading north of Austin we usually took Mopac/SH130 to I-35 where it tied in near Round Rock. The only time that I took I-35 through town was if it was in the middle of the night. My office was off Mopac in The Domain, in the mornings it would take about 45-60 minutes to travel the 18 miles, about 60-90 in the evening and during off times I could make it in 25 minutes.



And they're not synchronized. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait.
Yeesh!
I thought Austin was bad it was great compared to Denver, there is nothing synchronized here. It is pathetic and even worse in downtown as lights turn green with a red light ahead a block away and stacked full of cars and then people pull up and block cross streets constantly. I get honked at if I leave the intersection clear.

No traffic here, but there are some poor interchanges that are extremely dated. That will all get fixed in due time.

okc doesn't need more lanes .. it just needs to fast track the 3 major interchanges ... (44/235 35/240 and 44/40)

It's already been touched on, but expanding public transit is the way to go. Unfortunately public transit will be impossible until OKC is a much more walkable city, which is probably a solid 10 years away.

okc doesn't need more lanes .. it just needs to fast track the 3 major interchanges ... (44/235 35/240 and 44/40)

This. The main things that we need to look at is just improving the existing system with some spot upgrades.

- The interchanges Boulder mentioned.
- Realistic onramps/merge lanes (I-240 is stupid).

I would also like to see semis banned from the left lane unless there is a left exit approaching. Not saying they are a major issue, but the attempting to pass by going 0.5 mph more than the big rig next to it doesn't really help traffic flow.

We could also look at dynamic speed limits in the urban areas on interstates. Let's say I-35 is backed up in Moore and South OKC, like most morning, have the speed limit from Norman drop from 70 down to 60 or 55 to slow the infusion of new traffic into the problem area. Couple this will gate controlled on ramps to limit new traffic entering the highway.

If we really need to look at new highways, then like we discussed in the many threads before, they need to be limited to bypass loops and they must be turnpikes. People say that they should expand the Kilpatrick further south, maybe. To me a more pressing addition would be taking Highway 37 from Newcastle and instead of taking it north into Moore, take it due east and create another river crossing and build a new intersection at I-35 and Indian Hills Road. That would allow people to bypass I-35 through the more congested areas in the South Metro.

If we keep lurching closer and closer to more traffic delays and light rail is suffering in ridership, then we do like most big cities - start putting tolls on the interstates to encourage people to go to light rail. Go to a big city like Chicago and nearly every interstate is a toll road.

Not to spill over into the light rail threads, but I know there is opposition to creating "Park and Ride" lots at commuter rail stops, but honestly that is the only way it is going to work here. If we had rail developed before the mass infusion of interstates that would be one thing, we don't. We live in a car loving community and also one where people love to spread out. People aren't going to move closer to rail stops to make it easier on them - granted a few probably will. We need to have the support in place for large parking structures or lots near rail stops to allow for people to drive 5-10 minutes to the stop and then take the train in. Of course we are also going to need to have a support network in place because if only a few dozen people in Norman are going to go work in Downtown OKC, that really isn't going to do much for ridership. There needs to be a quality and timely network to connect to in order to get elsewhere in the area. Otherwise that whole idea is just going to be a cute novelty that no one will use except on game days or weekends.


It's already been touched on, but expanding public transit is the way to go. Unfortunately public transit will be impossible until OKC is a much more walkable city, which is probably a solid 10 years away.

OKC is never going to be the hip urban town where you can walk everywhere like a Chicago or New York. That ship sailed and we are too sprawled out. The only thing that will change that is if we start forcing people to infill more. That's only going to happen when you see deannexation take place and city services removed from areas where there is extremely low population density. The only option is like what I described above and will require a more hybrid solution to make it work here.

i'm still of the belief that we don't have a traffic problem, we have a good mix of drivers who have bad habits and those habits conflict with other peoples bad habits. things like, "O, i just pulled up next to this guy on the highway who is doing only 50 in the 60 zone, i guess i better slow down and match him so that no one can get around!"

When someone can point to a major city that has free-flowing traffic 24/7 then we can use their freeway system as a model - but why people look at failed interstate system all around the country and say, "We should use that as a model" is beyond me. Look at Dallas traffic. If that is what you want then by all means keep building freeways because that is how Dallas traffic BECAME Dallas traffic. Atlanta traffic didn't become Atlanta traffic because they didn't build freeways. Atlanta built freeways and people used them - just like you would expect them to do. Does anyone honestly think we can add more freeways and have more people NOT use them?


The Traffic Equilibrium Problem
http://www.ifor.math.ethz.ch/about_us/press/Leitartikel_Oktober_2006.pdf

Chicago has park & ride lots for the trains that go into the city, and they work well.


I would also like to see semis banned from the left lane unless there is a left exit approaching. Not saying they are a major issue, but the attempting to pass by going 0.5 mph more than the big rig next to it doesn't really help traffic flow.

Texas has the great "Don't Slow Texas Down" signs on highways encouraging slower traffic to keep right. Not sure how effective they are, but I like them.

Chicago has park & ride lots for the trains that go into the city, and they work well.

Texas has the great "Don't Slow Texas Down" signs on highways encouraging slower traffic to keep right. Not sure how effective they are, but I like them.

Yeah I really though the park and ride lots in Chicago were pretty useful. I'm up there a few times a year in the West burbs and take the Metra in a few times when I'm there when I want to go into Chicago. That area is sprawled out probably worse than we are, but with higher pop densities of course, so I could see their setup being more feasible here.

A good number of states now ban trucks from the left lane on interstates from what I've seen, so I'm pretty shocked that Oklahoma hasn't followed suit yet.

Chicago has park & ride lots for the trains that go into the city, and they work well.

They worked so well that metro Chicago now stretches half way to Iowa.

They worked so well that metro Chicago now stretches half way to Iowa.

You're typical drivel doesn't really apply here, I'm not sure there are anymore places for infill in Chicago. I can't figure out what your ideal community is, but you seem to have problems with all of them.

I am simply saying that park and ride lots promote more sprawl, which the train was put in place to mitigate in the first place. When the solution causes more of the problem there is something inherently wrong with the solution. We (at least me) are not trying to create more sprawl by making it more convenient for the sprawler. Now granted, there are some people who are trying to do that.

You're typical drivel doesn't really apply here, I'm not sure there are anymore places for infill in Chicago. I can't figure out what your ideal community is, but you seem to have problems with all of them.

Your reaction seems to ignore fact. JTF's "typical drivel" includes the point that park and ride at its worst, only spreads a city out. Can you say that park and ride was not a causal factor to Chicago now extending "half way to Iowa?"

I am simply saying that park and ride lots promote more sprawl, which the train was put in place to mitigate in the first place. When the solution causes more of the problem there is something inherently wrong with the solution. We (at least me) are not trying to create more sprawl by making it more convenient for the sprawler. Now granted, there are some people who are trying to do that.

So let's say we put up commuter rail from Norman to Downtown OKC tomorrow. No park and ride lot. Exactly how many people do you think will actually take it? Will you be willing to fully subsidize the service until the close in development actually takes place to increase its ridership?

At some point we need to accept the fact that the damage is already done, especially to the OKC area, when it comes to sprawl. There isn't any going back, we can mitigate only so much, but if we don't want a rail service to completely fall on its face - we need to have park and ride lots.

Blaming all of Chicago's sprawl on the Metra and park and ride isn't really fair to the fullest extent. Did it help? Absolutely. However, train service on some of those lines have been ongoing now for over 150 years. So it isn't like they just tossed the rail lines in there and to combat commute issues on the interstates (which didn't exist yet).

Your reaction seems to ignore fact. JTF's "typical drivel" includes the point that park and ride at its worst, only spreads a city out. Can you say that park and ride was not a causal factor to Chicago now extending "half way to Iowa?"

Like many zealots, JTF seems to often casually and incorrectly assign cause and effect, or assign a singular cause. Chicago grew for many reasons and the suburbs grew for many reasons. Putting in a commuter system without parking lots would be pretty silly. Thinking that making ridership hard so as to force society to conform to one's notion of propriety and right order is pretty arrogant thinking. If we are going to invest in rail, let's make sure of the greatest ridership we can and not try to make it some hipster rail hangout.

A train from downtown Norman to downtown OKC will take longer to build ridership than a train from a park and ride lot in north Norman to downtown OKC - but I'm not trying to solve a low train ridership problem. I am trying to solve sprawl. How can I possibly support a solution that creates more of the problem? Maybe people need to decide for themselves what problems they are trying to solve.

On a side note, here is the folly in commuter rail logic - commuter rail does NOT solve traffic congestion for people who continue to drive. Up to 30% of all traffic is latent demand. If I take the train to work today someone else will take my place on the interstate. There won't be a gap on the road where my truck would normally be; someone else's car will be in that spot. However, if I take the train 100% of congestion will go away for me. So people will have to decide for themselves, do I want congestion or do I not want congestion.

.

But if you don't have the commuter bus/rail, you're saying the traffic on the interstate would be the same with it?

But if you don't have the commuter bus/rail, you're saying the traffic on the interstate would be the same with it?

I am saying there is no decrease in congestion after commuter rail is put in place - for people who continue to drive. For every person who takes the train there is someone else right behind them to take their place on the freeway.

I know the Route 24 bus on the Metro Transit from Norman to OKC is full every morning, ironicly it passes me almost every morning on I-35. Maybe they need to add another bus to this route, I think it would help.

Route 24 | METRO Transit Providing Central Oklahoma Transportation & Bus Service Options (http://gometro.publishpath.com/route-24)

A train from downtown Norman to downtown OKC will take longer to build ridership than a train from a park and ride lot in north Norman to downtown OKC - but I'm not trying to solve a low train ridership problem. I am trying to solve sprawl. How can I possibly support a solution that creates more of the problem? Maybe people need to decide for themselves what problems they are trying to solve.

On a side note, here is the folly in commuter rail logic - commuter rail does NOT solve traffic congestion for people who continue to drive. Up to 30% of all traffic is latent demand. If I take the train to work today someone else will take my place on the interstate. There won't be a gap on the road where my truck would normally be; someone else's car will be in that spot. However, if I take the train 100% of congestion will go away for me. So people will have to decide for themselves, do I want congestion or do I not want congestion.

.

Which goes back to what I said that solving sprawl is dead. We can only restrict it from progressing, but the damage is already done.

It seems pretty illogical to want the system to be setup to fail for years and years (a la Amtrak) to wait for an inflill of people into areas that likely won't allow for it.

Will congestion go away with commuter rail? Nope. I agree with you on that. It will however give people more options to get to work. Not to mention open up more of the area job market to those that may not have the ability to commute. If we want to start impacting congestion issues, start pushing tolls on the free interstates. Note I said impact...not solve.

I know the Route 24 bus on the Metro Transit from Norman to OKC is full every morning, ironicly it passes me almost every morning on I-35. Maybe they need to add another bus to this route, I think it would help.

Route 24 | METRO Transit Providing Central Oklahoma Transportation & Bus Service Options (http://gometro.publishpath.com/route-24)

Maybe this is a stupid question but what time does the Sooner Express arrive/depart the Sooner Express Parking lot?

I think if surburban commuters had more options to get to there employers in the heart of OKC they would. If the MetroTransit had a park & ride in Moore, I would utilize it. Not everyday, but I would use it at least 3 times a week. It also seems like The Link in Edmond has been pretty successful and has high ridership.

Which goes back to what I said that solving sprawl is dead. We can only restrict it from progressing, but the damage is already done.


People are opting out of suburbia in growing numbers every day - and many of the are paying high dollar amounts to do it.

People are opting out of suburbia in growing numbers every day - and many of the are paying high dollar amounts to do it.

then why are the burbs growing faster than the city??

Maybe this is a stupid question but what time does the Sooner Express arrive/depart the Sooner Express Parking lot?


From what I can tell, the park and ride location at the Homeland departs at 6:34am, and returns 6:13pm. But the downtown Norman stop at Webster/Main departs at 6:24am, and returns at 6:21pm.

From what I can tell, the park and ride location at the Homeland departs at 6:34am, and returns 6:13pm. But the downtown Norman stop at Webster/Main departs at 6:24am, and returns at 6:21pm.

So you are saying GPS# 152 is the park and ride lot?

So you are saying GPS# 152 is the park and ride lot?

Yes

then why are the burbs growing faster than the city??

Because home finance is complicated, complex, and resistant to change. Construction is reliant on finance.

Let's go back to the basic question of the thread: Does metro OKC have a traffic issue, yes or no?

The answer depends on when you use the road. If you drive on the freeway at 8AM or 5PM then yes, there is a traffic problem. If your time on the freeway is 2AM Saturday morning of a Tuesday afternoon then your answer is no.

Let's go back to the basic question of the thread: Does metro OKC have a traffic issue, yes or no?

The answer depends on when you use the road. If you drive on the freeway at 8AM or 5PM then yes, there is a traffic problem. If your time on the freeway is 2AM Saturday morning of a Tuesday afternoon then your answer is no.

I don't understand the point or distinction you're trying to make here. We don't have traffic.

I drive I-35 everyday in the morning and evening, mornings are not that bad, but evenings are the worst. On a good day, it takes me 35 mintues to get from downtown OKC to Moore, on a bad day 50 minutes, most of the time its 50 minutes, lol. I am not saying its dead stop traffic, but it can get very tight at times, and frustrating, I call it traffic. :Smiley099

I used to commute from Norman to Shepherd Mall, and in the evenings it would take me over and hour to get home. I would get off at 5:00p and would not make it home until after 6:00p.

I don't understand the point or distinction you're trying to make here. We don't have traffic.

Because the follow up question is, is the traffic a problem in isolation or is it a symptom of a larger problem? I think it is a symptom of a larger problem because no matter how much you fight the symptom, it keeps coming back when the medicine (more lanes of traffic) wears off. So we can either spend money, time, and effort fighting the symptom forever, or we can fight the root problem.

Now if someone doesn't think OKC has a traffic problem this thread might not be for them :).

People are opting out of suburbia in growing numbers every day - and many of the are paying high dollar amounts to do it.

A significant part of this is due to the recession and the fact that younger persons are tending to do more rental than ownership because of poor job prospects. They are delaying marrying and having families, and moving to the burbs. Many economists believe this we are seeing a significant part of this as a short term trend.

A significant part of this is due to the recession and the fact that younger persons are tending to do more rental than ownership because of poor job prospects. They are delaying marrying and having families, and moving to the burbs. Many economists believe this we are seeing a significant part of this as a short term trend.

I don't care for JTF's poetic waxings but its a stretch to say these things are short term. The increasing age of marriage and the declining birth rate have been occurring for 30+ years now.

By Our Foreign Staff 7:34PM BST 28 Jun 20127 Comments
The trend has been put down to young adults staying in inner cities rather than buying a house as they seek a foothold in the weak job market.
Experts who analysed the 2011 census pointed to young American adults delaying careers, marriage and children amid persistently high unemployment.
An increasing number of this demographic are choosing shorter-term, no-strings-attached accommodation in flats in urban areas, closer to public transport links and potential jobs.
Economists estimate the trend is temporary. However, developers are still seeking to boost their appeal to the 18 – 29-year-old market, which makes up one in six Americans and is known as "generation rent".
The last time growth in big cities surpassed that in outlying areas occurred prior to 1920, before the rise of mass-produced automobiles spurred expansion beyond urban hubs.

I don't care for JTF's poetic waxings but its a stretch to say these things are short term. The increasing age of marriage and the declining birth rate have been occurring for 30+ years now.

And yet suburbs have outpaced inner cities for most of those years.

And yet suburbs have outpaced inner cities for most of those years.

No shock there since most cities have only been truly livable for the past 5-10 years.

My apologies for derailing this thread. Back to your traffic chat.

People are opting out of suburbia in growing numbers every day - and many of the are paying high dollar amounts to do it.

and just as many if not more are replacing them (kinda like your highway example).

Populations are just growing, period. We don't have the same number of people constant year after year. Populations are dynamic and while there are folks who leave suburbia, there are more who come right in. The same goes for people fleeing the city for the outskirts, it's constantly shifting.

Have to do park and ride for the time being. Build an urban parking garage with street front retail at the park and ride lots. Allow urban development to form around the train and the park and ride garage. It will take a long time to get the trains to be self sustaining on non-park-and-riders if you have the stop open into a prarie.