Future highway or interstate expansion?

[jompster]

What would also help is if people wouldn't drive slow in the middle or left lanes, if people learned how to yield to get on the highways and if people didn't yield to the people getting on the highways by either slowing down or getting in the other lane of traffic. So often I see people driving below the speed limit in all three lanes of traffic holding up the people behind them, or people having to get around slow people traveling in the middle lane. I don't know what happened in the last 15-20 years but it seems like everyone driving slow including OTR truckers are using the middle lane instead of the right lane.

Actually, the far right lane on an urban highway should only be used for those intending to exit the highway or for merging onto the highway. Through traffic should use the center lanes with slower traffic in the right/middle lane and other middle lanes or far left lane for passing. That said, I don't feel people should be driving 5 under the limit in those lanes. Of course, in a city like OKC, it doesn't help that a lot of freeways have ramps from other highways that enter from the left, so that traffic coming off the ramp at 55 mph is going to already be going slow in the left lane.

[Zorba]

Actually, the far right lane on an urban highway should only be used for those intending to exit the highway or for merging onto the highway. Through traffic should use the center lanes with slower traffic in the right/middle lane and other middle lanes or far left lane for passing. That said, I don't feel people should be driving 5 under the limit in those lanes. Of course, in a city like OKC, it doesn't help that a lot of freeways have ramps from other highways that enter from the left, so that traffic coming off the ramp at 55 mph is going to already be going slow in the left lane.

It also doesn't help that no highway in this city maintains a consistent number of lanes for more than a few miles at a time. The OKC ODOT district needs to take a trip to Tulsa and look at how 169 and the new parts of 51 were built, then copy. Except for the still bad interchange of 51/169, those high ways are great. Dedicated enter/exit lanes and consistent lane count.

For that matter the city street would be much better if they actually put in left turn lanes.

[ljbab728]

for that matter the city street would be much better if they actually put in left turn lanes.

huh?

[Plutonic Panda]

It also doesn't help that no highway in this city maintains a consistent number of lanes for more than a few miles at a time. The OKC ODOT district needs to take a trip to Tulsa and look at how 169 and the new parts of 51 were built, then copy. Except for the still bad interchange of 51/169, those high ways are great. Dedicated enter/exit lanes and consistent lane count.

For that matter the city street would be much better if they actually put in left turn lanes.

I don't think the DOT has different standards in other parts of the state.

[Snowman]

It also doesn't help that no highway in this city maintains a consistent number of lanes for more than a few miles at a time. The OKC ODOT district needs to take a trip to Tulsa and look at how 169 and the new parts of 51 were built, then copy. Except for the still bad interchange of 51/169, those high ways are great. Dedicated enter/exit lanes and consistent lane count.

A lot of the lane variance of highways has to do with ours were built as segments at widely different times, which means different construction standards, then some parts of the highly used ones upgrades to decades later standards.

I44 is kind of bizarre in that they just branded multiple totally different highways in the metro as a single highway since it made a nice route bypassing the city center connecting major turnpikes. i235/Broadway extension looks far more logically designed if you consider what it will be, however it was a overarching project that started construction in the 70s and is only in the next several years will it have have touched every part on the way to Edmond bringing them inline plan due to how long it has taken to get the money.

[Jim Kyle]

I don't think the DOT has standards.

Fixed that for you!

[Plutonic Panda]

Here's a great map a friend sent me. I really like it. I'm going to modify it a bit later to add a few more arterial 6 lane roads and perhaps a light-rail route.



This would really help spur amazing growth around the metroplex. This map one of my friends sent, really inspired me to modify a new version a little later.

[BrettM2]

^^^

Why? Why would we need all those highways and highway-equivalent streets?

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^

Why? Why would we need all those highways and highway-equivalent streets?

to help traffic move faster and stay ahead of the curve. They're eventually going to be built and that was the representation.

[Buffalo Bill]

Here's a great map a friend sent me. I really like it. I'm going to modify it a bit later to add a few more arterial 6 lane roads and perhaps a light-rail route.



This would really help spur amazing growth around the metroplex. This map one of my friends sent, really inspired me to modify a new version a little later.

I like the freeway through the middle of Lake Draper. We've been needing that for a long time.

[adaniel]

Oh man, so many things wrong about this. I guess it's fun to dream, right?

I might add my commentary in later, but we really need to let go of this notion that roads through nowhere spur growth. They are ribbons of concrete and have no magical powers to create jobs or livelihood.

[Plutonic Panda]

I like the freeway through the middle of Lake Draper. We've been needing that for a long time.

It doesn't go through Draper

[Plutonic Panda]

smh

let me ask you something. . . is there any of it you would support?

[Plutonic Panda]

Oh man, so many things wrong about this. I guess it's fun to dream, right?

I might add my commentary in later, but we really need to let go of this notion that roads through nowhere spur growth. They are ribbons of concrete and have no magical powers to create jobs or livelihood.

they might be in the middle of nowhere right now, but did I say we should build every single highway shown right now? No I did not.

[oklip955]

Is this just a persons dream or is it being looked at by ODOT? It looks to be putting the outer loop close to or through my place. Humm, 10 ac next to interstate, might make my place a bit more of a longterm investment. Hummm

[Plutonic Panda]

Is this just a persons dream or is it being looked at by ODOT? It looks to be putting the outer loop close to or through my place. Humm, 10 ac next to interstate, might make my place a bit more of a longterm investment. Hummm

no this was just a fantasy drawing

[Plutonic Panda]

Perhaps but in case you haven't noticed, Oklahoma City IS growing. Pour concrete through a pasture doesn't necessarily mean you'll spur additional growth. What it can however do is subsidize low-density growth since pasture is really cheap to buy. The cost of the roads, sewer, water, police, fire, etc. though to service all that pasture and those single family homes will need to be built as well. There is no free lunch. So money that could be spent to support existing growth will get diverted.

Unless you propose that all that new growth pay their own way, I think it's time for cities to be MUCH more defensive of building infrastructure on the 'what if' and build to maximize returns on existing investments. For example, the billions (yes, billions) all of that would cost could be spent making the existing road network much better for everyone. We've got such a long way to go before we've even adequately maintained our existing network I just can't imagine spending tens of billions to add to the maintenance, public safety, and public transit deficit.

If spreading out and building highways through pastures leads to more money, then OKC should be one of the richest cities in the world.

I can agree with this. Also, I am saying we need these highway right now. Like the outermost loop, I see that would be good for 30-40 years down the road. I would rather see light-rail before the outer loop.

[BrettM2]

to help traffic move faster and stay ahead of the curve. They're eventually going to be built and that was the representation.

Traffic doesn't need to move faster. I drove from eastern MWC to OCU for four years, then from Edmond to OCU for one year and Edmond to Tinker for four and almost never had a problem. I had numerous routes to choose from if something happened that delayed traffic but I didn't experience rush hour.

As for staying ahead of the curve... we've been doing that since the 1950s. At what point do we need to realize we're chasing the wrong curve?

[AP]

to help traffic move faster and stay ahead of the curve. They're eventually going to be built and that was the representation.

No.

[bchris02]

I think the interchanges need redone even if no new highways are built. It's crazy that this city has nice ten-lane highways fed by clover-leaf interchanges. Looking at this map, I would put a priority on the interchanges. Within 10-20 years the completed Kilpatrick loop might be more necessary. The outer loop is obviously in the distant future if it is ever needed.

Everyone supports OKC growth, but reality is that not all of that growth is going to be downtown. There WILL be suburban growth and it's never too early to start planning for the infrastructure that will be needed to support it.

[BrettM2]

I think the interchanges need redone even if no new highways are built. It's crazy that this city has nice ten-lane highways fed by clover-leaf interchanges. Looking at this map, I would put a priority on the interchanges. Within 10-20 years the completed Kilpatrick loop might be more necessary. The outer loop is obviously in the distant future if it is ever needed.

Everyone supports OKC growth, but reality is that not all of that growth is going to be downtown. There WILL be suburban growth and it's never too early to start planning for the infrastructure that will be needed to support it.

I don't think anyone one here is thinking it is a zero sum game= downtown or suburbs but not both. But how much is too much? When Oklahoma City covers more area than several countries. I don't think all of that has to be tied together with 6 lane arterial roads and three highway loops.

[Plutonic Panda]

No.

no what? Don't stay ahead of the curve? Don't support any suburban growth and help traffic move faster? No they aren't going to eventually be built?

[Plutonic Panda]

Traffic doesn't need to move faster. I drove from eastern MWC to OCU for four years, then from Edmond to OCU for one year and Edmond to Tinker for four and almost never had a problem. I had numerous routes to choose from if something happened that delayed traffic but I didn't experience rush hour.

As for staying ahead of the curve... we've been doing that since the 1950s. At what point do we need to realize we're chasing the wrong curve?

sit back and do nothing and we'll see how that'll turn out. I have faith our city leaders have a different mindset than you of just accepting what we have is ok and not doing anything until we get traffic like Austin. Yes, I am very familiar with Austin's set-up.

[Plutonic Panda]

I don't think anyone one here is thinking it is a zero sum game= downtown or suburbs but not both. But how much is too much? When Oklahoma City covers more area than several countries. I don't think all of that has to be tied together with 6 lane arterial roads and three highway loops.

We will eventually need three highway loops. I suppose you are stating you want to limit suburban growth but urban growth is free to grow as much it wants.

[Snowman]

Is this just a persons dream or is it being looked at by ODOT? It looks to be putting the outer loop close to or through my place. Humm, 10 ac next to interstate, might make my place a bit more of a longterm investment. Hummm

The only parts even near something ODOT seriously looked at was a southwest extension of the Kilpatrick loop, from where it terminates at i40 down and around to i35. Though a key finding in the study was there was not enough political will to build it (even as a turnpike, given the status of the fund to build highways new loops almost have to be turnpikes).

to help traffic move faster and stay ahead of the curve. They're eventually going to be built and that was the representation.

The six lane roads will never need to be built, many of those of the six lane roads are in areas already built out, which are not the places that are likely to draw denser development in the future (in many areas the homeowners associations would forbid denser redevelopments even if it were desirable to a developer), it is unrealistic to expect what are local distributors to have vastly more traffic in the future. Newer suburban developments further out have trended to be more sparsely populated than prior developments going all the way back to the 40's so there is even less need for the presently undeveloped areas to be six lane roads than the existing places. Around a third parallel a freeway (less than a mile or two from it) so will not ever be the primary route that direction which gives it no reason to be that wide, like half are only a mile away from another six lane road which again if there is not a reason for one of them to be six lanes then you do not need two next to each other.

Freeways/Turnpikles - (a bit moot since there is not the political will for even half the expansion but) the Kilpatrick/middle loop east of i35 should be replaned entirely, not only does it hit lake Draper, there is a planned lake southwest of draper for the new pipeline it plows through like two or three miles as well, where it meets up with Turner it both has redundant areas that could be served by Turner for less money and cuts a lot of properties in the middle at odd angles (something that will at minimum tie you up in court for decades but also has killed a fair share of freeway projects). The outer loop is way too close to the Kilpatrick/middle loop, anything less than six miles is a joke.