In today's Journal Record, there is a story about the projected increase in traffic and jobs by 2030 in the metro area. It states that the total employment will be around 728,000 by then. At the rate our employment is growing right now, I believe it will be closer to 900,000. Currently, it stands at 560,000. It also seems like they are underestimating the need for wider freeways. Going from 4 lanes to six lanes is not a very big difference. ODOT needs to start treating OKC like a major city and start widening to 8-10 lanes at least. Traffic will no doubt get worse than they are projecting.

In today's Journal Record, there is a story about the projected increase in traffic and jobs by 2030 in the metro area. It states that the total employment will be around 728,000 by then. At the rate our employment is growing right now, I believe it will be closer to 900,000. Currently, it stands at 560,000. It also seems like they are underestimating the need for wider freeways. Going from 4 lanes to six lanes is not a very big difference. ODOT needs to start treating OKC like a major city and start widening to 8-10 lanes at least. Traffic will no doubt get worse than they are projecting.

So. What else is new? Why do you think we have some of the worst freeways in the nation? Failure to plan ahead properly.

Exactly my point! You can tell that a lot of these organizations think OKC is going to grow at basically the same rate as in the past, but this isn't the same city today and it won't be in the future. I see robust growth over the long term. It wouldn't surprise me to see OKC metro at 2 million by then.

Why do so many complain about the freeway capacity? We always seem to widen them before any real congestion ever occurs. Now I think most of our interchanges and on ramps are death traps, but there's no real congestion problems. I remember reading that the average commute in OKC is 17 minutes. That's amazing, especially considering the distances some people travel.

In the end, however, I would support widening them before extending them farther out, but I'd like to see the major interchanges fixed before anything else.

Acceleration ramps are too short (except for the Hefner and a couple of others), not enough lanes (we need a minumum of two more in each direction for long term growth), lack of enforcement of the traffic laws (mainly failure to signal, failure to yield, and using cellulars while driving). And yes. VERY poorly planned adn dangerous interchanges.

It seems like this city only expands when the need arises and not before (hense planning ahead). We need to hire Boy Scouts to do this (Always plan ahead being the motto).

It seems like this city only expands when the need arises and not before (hense planning ahead)

I guess I don't see that. It seems to me we often widen them before any real traffic congestion ever happens. Didn't we just widen Broadway extension and parts of I-35? Congestion on those corridors was no where near what it gets to before most cities widen their freeways. It seems that if traffic slows below 40 mph for 30 minutes a day, that freeway gets widened. The result is that we spend money widening roads for little added benefit instead of maintaining them or investing in public transit.

I guess I don't see that. It seems to me we often widen them before any real traffic congestion ever happens. Didn't we just widen Broadway extension and parts of I-35? Congestion on those corridors was no where near what it gets to before most cities widen their freeways. It seems that if traffic slows below 40 mph for 30 minutes a day, that freeway gets widened. The result is that we spend money widening roads for little added benefit instead of maintaining them or investing in public transit.

Yes. And they are already congested.

Yes. And they are already congested.

Whaaaa? Aren't these the very stretches of road where just two months ago they were giving out speeding tickets hand over fist during commute? How do people get tickets for going 80 mph on a congested road??

OKC may have some minor bottlenecking situations that slows down traffic, but rarely stops it, for about 30 minutes a day. I'd hardly call that congestion.

Every morning and evening during "rush hour," I constantly hear reports of congestion on broadway and I-35. If some idiot wants to do 80, they will find a way.

There is no way that someone can do 80 mph on a congested highway. If someone can attain those speeds then the highway is not even close to be congested. The only area of OKC I can think of that gets congested in areas is I35 on the south side. Even the old I40 crosstown doesn't get that bad except for when there is a wreck, construction, or some other outside factor.

OKC does have a lot of outdated intersections, but those have more to do with the funding availability and design standards at the time they were built. They still work decently because there is just not that much traffic. They wouldn't build something like that today though. And most of the highways have an adequate number of lanes, even allowing for future growth. Sure, adding additional lanes might be nice, but the additional costs often don't allow it. With ever tightening funding and more costs for environmental studies and ROW, highway projects have to have some kind of justification; which can be done by standardized methods.

Good points Travis. I can think of some things that need to be done to our highways, but additional lanes aren't it.

I always laugh when I hear "traffic reports" in OKC. Even funnier is when they show them on TV and cars are wizzing by. "Congestion" here generally just means that people are doing the speed limit.

I guess it is all relative. I live in Dallas, and when traffic is "congested", it means it has slowed significantly or even stopped. Nobody whizzes by doing 80, unless maybe they snuck in the HOV lane, and then those will back up pretty quick.

If the OKC area improved their intersections (get rid of the left hand exits and entrances)and increased their ramp merge areas, it would help quite a bit. But that can be very expensive, and thus not justified if the traffic volume is low.

But that can be very expensive, and thus not justified if the traffic volume is low.

True. I think some may be justified by safety concerns, though. The 235-44 junction is sketchy.

When I think of congestion I think of 635 in Dallas, no doubt.

Last I heard, they are supposed to redo that intersection in a year or so. Most of those cloverleafs will be replaced with flyovers, and I believe they are supposed to have three lanes/direction, plus various auxilary lanes for merging. I have a copy of the old schematic for it, I will try and dig it up. The cloverleaf design really isn't used much anymore because of the short merging area and tight turning radius on the ramp. They aren't bad for low traffic volumes though, and the design is simple and ompact, making it cheap.

I635 is bad, so is I35 in Denton, 360 in Arlington, etc...

Comparing our congestion to Dallas is like apples to oranges. Maybe we should compare our congestion to cities our size like Memphis, Kansas City, New Orleans, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Louisville, etc. We all know what a mess Dallas traffic is, but part of that is you have two major cities combined into one major metroplex. I've lived in a couple of cities the size of OKC and the only reason their traffic was worse was because they had terrible freeway systems and major arterial streets that needed widening because they were only TWO lanes.