Future highway or interstate expansion?

[hoya]

Ok so, obviously in Downtown OKC, pedestrians are prioritized and come first. Downtown OKC is a vibrant area with life and whether you drive there or live right by it like Sid Burgess, you walk more when you're there. In a place like Edmond, you have malls, strip malls, lifestyle centers, box stores, ect. You drive to these places in a car, so cars come first in city like Edmond. Doesn't mean it's a bad city, in a prefer living in a suburb like this, but it's part of the greater OKC metro area, so in an urban environment, like Deep Deuce, you want people and bicyclist to have the benefit of the doubt, and still want people that live in suburbs like Edmond and Norman to be able to access downtown, so how do you make that happen? You can transport them efficiently on a world class highway and a light-rail and/or commuter rail system.

Here's my look on it.

(snip)

You're talking about tens of billions of dollars for the highways alone.

Here's the deal. We don't have bad traffic here. In fact we have some of the least bad traffic of any city I've been in. I work downtown. I live in Midwest City. It takes me about 20 minutes to get home during rush hour traffic. That's not bad at all. We don't have need of more roads. We might need a few redesigned intersections, but that's it.

If we are seeking "balance", then we need to build sidewalks, bike trails, and light rail for the next 40 years and not a single additional road. Then we might be balanced. Right now transportation options in OKC are as balanced as dinner at John Goodman's house.



I'll give you a hint. John Goodman does not represent mass transit funding.

People in this city will use the transportation options they have available. Right now the design of our city supports one option: the car. That's it. So when someone has to go somewhere, they take a car. We shouldn't pretend that people are clamoring for more highways when we haven't given them any other options.

Induced demand works like this: I am at home. I want a hot dog. I have many options. 1) I can get in my car and drive to a place across town that has great hot dogs. 2) I can get in my car and drive to the Sonic down the street that has okay hot dogs. 3) I can walk to the Sonic down the street. 4) I can make a hot dog at home. 5) I can do without a hot dog for now (there would actually be a lot more options than this, but I'm keeping it simple).

There is a certain amount of pain-in-the-ass I'm willing to go through for that hot dog across town. If I have wide lanes and easy interstate access and little traffic, I might be able to get there in 15 minutes. If there's a traffic jam, it might take me an hour. Maybe that hot dog is so good it's worth a 15 minute drive. If that's the case, I'll be using the interstate and getting that delicious hot dog. But is it worth an hour? Two hours? I make decisions like this every time I get in my car. The longer the commute, the more likely I am to choose options 2, 3, 4, and 5. If I choose to just go to Sonic 2 miles down the street, then that's one less car on the interstate. If I choose to walk to Sonic, eat a hot dog at home, or not eat one at all, then that's one less car on the local street as well.

Induced demand means that the more lanes you build, the more people are going to choose to drive across town to get that hot dog. Where I live now you always have to get in your car to go anywhere, unless you want to walk a mile or more on major streets with no sidewalks. That's not balanced. What will happen if you add 4 more lanes to our interstates? You will spend a buttload of money, people will drive more, and they will drive faster. But you won't give them better transportation options.

[Plutonic Panda]

You're talking about tens of billions of dollars for the highways alone.

Here's the deal. We don't have bad traffic here. In fact we have some of the least bad traffic of any city I've been in. I work downtown. I live in Midwest City. It takes me about 20 minutes to get home during rush hour traffic. That's not bad at all. We don't have need of more roads. We might need a few redesigned intersections, but that's it.

If we are seeking "balance", then we need to build sidewalks, bike trails, and light rail for the next 40 years and not a single additional road. Then we might be balanced. Right now transportation options in OKC are as balanced as dinner at John Goodman's house.



I'll give you a hint. John Goodman does not represent mass transit funding.

People in this city will use the transportation options they have available. Right now the design of our city supports one option: the car. That's it. So when someone has to go somewhere, they take a car. We shouldn't pretend that people are clamoring for more highways when we haven't given them any other options.

Induced demand works like this: I am at home. I want a hot dog. I have many options. 1) I can get in my car and drive to a place across town that has great hot dogs. 2) I can get in my car and drive to the Sonic down the street that has okay hot dogs. 3) I can walk to the Sonic down the street. 4) I can make a hot dog at home. 5) I can do without a hot dog for now (there would actually be a lot more options than this, but I'm keeping it simple).

There is a certain amount of pain-in-the-ass I'm willing to go through for that hot dog across town. If I have wide lanes and easy interstate access and little traffic, I might be able to get there in 15 minutes. If there's a traffic jam, it might take me an hour. Maybe that hot dog is so good it's worth a 15 minute drive. If that's the case, I'll be using the interstate and getting that delicious hot dog. But is it worth an hour? Two hours? I make decisions like this every time I get in my car. The longer the commute, the more likely I am to choose options 2, 3, 4, and 5. If I choose to just go to Sonic 2 miles down the street, then that's one less car on the interstate. If I choose to walk to Sonic, eat a hot dog at home, or not eat one at all, then that's one less car on the local street as well.

Induced demand means that the more lanes you build, the more people are going to choose to drive across town to get that hot dog. Where I live now you always have to get in your car to go anywhere, unless you want to walk a mile or more on major streets with no sidewalks. That's not balanced. What will happen if you add 4 more lanes to our interstates? You will spend a buttload of money, people will drive more, and they will drive faster. But you won't give them better transportation options.

I want to give (them) better transport options while making driving easier and better flowing traffic. That's why I wanted a rail system and building sidewalks and bike lanes along nearly every street.

[Just the facts]

If we are seeking "balance", then we need to build sidewalks, bike trails, and light rail for the next 40 years and not a single additional road. Then we might be balanced. Right now transportation options in OKC are as balanced as dinner at John Goodman's house.



I'll give you a hint. John Goodman does not represent mass transit funding.

People in this city will use the transportation options they have available. Right now the design of our city supports one option: the car. That's it. So when someone has to go somewhere, they take a car. We shouldn't pretend that people are clamoring for more highways when we haven't given them any other options.

This.

Also, to go along with induced demand is latent demand. Those are trips we decide to delay until traffic is better - this practice prolongs rush hour. I don't know the word for it but there is also demand that tries to preempt the traffic - like leaving work early to avoid traffic or a football game 5 minutes before it is over (let's leave early to avoid traffic).

[Just the facts]

I guess I just don't get it then. The two options complete for the same space and dollars and for the last 60 years the automobile has been winning in a landslide. This story was in our local paper on Sunday. Maybe this is what we are talking about needing to happen.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2...k-street-plans

Jacksonville changes a lot from Maxville to San Marco, but the city’s rules for building roads are pretty much the same, mile after mile.

The City Council is ready for that to change.

The council voted Tuesday to create a new city board to look into setting new rules for roadwork that could help streets fit better with the neighborhoods around them.

Abstract as it sounds, backers say changing the rules can make real differences in people’s lives by making thoroughfares safer and more inviting to walk, run or bike as well as drive by car.


Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2...#ixzz2RxaKuWLS

[Plutonic Panda]

I guess I just don't get it then. The two options complete for the same space and dollars and for the last 60 years the automobile has been winning in a landslide. This story was in our local paper on Sunday. Maybe this is what we are talking about needing to happen.

hold on let me find the link

I think you mean't compete and if so, my response that is, they don't have to.

[Just the facts]

Thanks - yes I meant 'compete'. Your ideas would work great in a world with unlimited funds. In the mean time, ODOT only has so many dollars to spend and they spend those disproportionally on moving cars. I also don't think the vast majority of people know which form of transportation they prefer since most have only used 1 form their whole adult life. Everything other than the automobile is a novelty for them. I remember the look on my kids faces when they first learned they could ride their bikes to the library. You could tell they never viewed their bike as a means of transportation. Up until then it was just a toy.

Watch this car commercial - it should scare the **** out of any parent and make them realize they are a complete failure.

http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7oJe/subaru-f...n-the-backseat

[BoulderSooner]

Thanks - yes I meant 'compete'. Your ideas would work great in a world with unlimited funds. In the mean time, ODOT only has so many dollars to spend and they spend those disproportionally on moving cars. I also don't think the vast majority of people know which form of transportation they prefer since most have only used 1 form their whole adult life. Everything other than the automobile is a novelty for them. I remember the look on my kids faces when they first learned they could ride their bikes to the library. You could tell they never viewed their bike as a means of transportation. Up until then it was just a toy.

Watch this car commercial - it should scare the **** out of any parent and make them realize they are a complete failure.

Subaru Forester TV Commercial, 'Grew Up in the Backseat' - iSpot.tv

cars are a complete failure? ..... really not so much

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah that is an odd commercial. I sure wouldn't want to grow up in the back seat of a Subaru that's for damn sure lol. I don't think it would make them a complete failure though.

I wish ODOT would be restructured and a new agency formed for rail and transit. Maybe have ORA Oklahoma Authority and OMaTA Oklahoma Mass Transit Authority lol or something like that, but ODOT has made it obvious that they aren't focused on mass transit and I'm VERY worried that TxDot is going to realize that ODOT really doesn't have their heart sunk into the HSR (which is what I think) and are going to pull the plug completely from Oklahoma's chance at having a HSR.

We are in a really good position here more so than most realize. Many states would love to be in our position and I firmly believe just because of our proximity to Texas and how much of our state borders Texas, if we play our dice right, we might be one the first states to get a high speed rail. Along with California obviously.

[Just the facts]

I would be all for cars, trains, boats, buses, bike, feet, unicycles, horses, etc... all competing on a level playing field and letting the best (most efficient) system win.

I think you are right about ODOT. It is very sad commentary that the biggest engine driving rail in Oklahoma is the Texas Department of Transportation.

[Just the facts]

You are sort of right Jim but the former streetcar system didn't fail because it had a lack of ridership. It failed for 4 reasons.

1) The federal government subsides urban sprawl at a density to low for mass transit
2) Roads were made for cars and people were not charged to drive on them
3) Rail systems had to pay a franchise fee to the City but were forced to keep fares too low to pay for the service
4) GM bought the struggling systems and closed them so they could sell buses.

Imagine this scenario and tell me how long cars would survive

1) Minimum housing density is 20 units per acre
2) Mass transit received all funding currently going to highway maintenance and construction
3) Roads had to be built by the auto manufactures but they couldn't raise car prices to pay for it.
4) Schwinn and Huffy bought Ford, GM, Chrysler, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Nissan, and Volkswagen - and shut them down.

Heck, the auto industry has every advantage afforded them and they still had to be bailed out by the federal government.

[Jim Kyle]

You are sort of right Jim but the former streetcar system didn't fail because it had a lack of ridership. It failed for 4 reasons.

1) The federal government subsides urban sprawl at a density to low for mass transit
2) Roads were made for cars and people were not charged to drive on them
3) Rail systems had to pay a franchise fee to the City but were forced to keep fares too low to pay for the service
4) GM bought the struggling systems and closed them so they could sell buses.

The subsidy for sprawl didn't happen until after the interurbans were abandoned. The massive road-building program didn't get started until 1950 or so, three years after Oklahoma Railway Company stopped using rails altogether. I don't have details to counter your third and fourth points, but I do know that utilization of the streetcars was extremely low. I hardly ever saw one more than 1/3 full, even during rush-hour times. And selling buses didn't help the transit systems' bottom line -- they were still running mostly empty most of the time, which resulted in longer waits between buses.

The big impetus for our urban sprawl was simply a ridiculous contest between OKC and Houston in the mid-5os to see which could hold the title of "Largest US city" in terms of acreage. That's when we annexed a narrow strip of land alongside SH3 almost all the way to Okarche, and expanded into Pott County. It was promoted by the Chambers of Commerce and leading newspapers in both cities. Most of the annexed area remained undeveloped for years; quite a bit is still farmland to this day!

The closest bus stop to my house is some 2.5 miles away. The bus runs so infrequently that I hardly ever see it (and actually I'm not certain that stop is still on the route). Except for a 7-11 a quarter-mile away, the nearest grocery store is a mile and a quarter. And there's not a single sidewalk in the addition (although a new mile of sidewalk, with ADA access ramps and walk-don't-walk signals, was added last year between that grocery and the 7-11, although it's almost all undeveloped open fields there). And Council Road is being 4-laned from the 7-11 north to Memorial...

Ah, priorities...

[Just the facts]

From 1932 to 1945 practically nothing was built in America. First we had the Great Depression and then we had WWII. If streetcar ridership suffered during that time it was because A) no one had jobs to go to, and B) Half the male population went to the Pacific and Europe.

My mom lived Dustin back then and she remembers taking the interurban to Tulsa. I'm not sure if she could get on it in Dustin or if she had to go up to Henrietta first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpo...ulsa,_Oklahoma

The Tulsa street car system had been bought by National City Lines and shut down in favor of buses in February 1926

National City Lines was a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors.

[BoulderSooner]

From 1932 to 1945 practically nothing was built in America. First we had the Great Depression and then we had WWII. If streetcar ridership suffered during that time it was because A) no one had jobs to go to, and B) Half the male population went to the Pacific and Europe.

My mom lived Dustin back then and she remembers taking the interurban to Tulsa. I'm not sure if she could get on it in Dustin or if she had to go up to Henrietta first.

Transportation in Tulsa, Oklahoma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



National City Lines was a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors.

in the 30's very few were in the pacific or in Europe ... and even at the height of the depression the unemployment rate was 24.9 % plenty of people had jobs to go to

[Just the facts]

For the love of Pete. Move over Catch22, I am going to join you on the bench.

[catch22]

For the love of Pete. Move over Catch22, I am going to join you on the bench.

The Gatorade is cold.

[ou48A]

Several years ago a very seasoned engineer who worked to the Texas department of transportation told me that for a very long time Texas has built their highways to much higher standards than Oklahoma and many other states from the very start.

Having traveled around much of Texas I would say that they have invested far more money in their streets and highways..
That investment is one reason why the Texas economy has been one of the best in the nation for many years.

[blink]

Several years ago a very seasoned engineer who worked to the Texas department of transportation told me that for a very long time Texas has built their highways to much higher standards than Oklahoma and many other states from the very start.

Having traveled around much of Texas I would say that they have invested far more money in their streets and highways..
That investment is one reason why the Texas economy has been one of the best in the nation for many years.

I completely agree with this. I know most Okies when they're in the DFW area look in awe at their interchanges (particularly 75/635). And as many have said, Oklahoma's poor interchanges definitely contribute a significant amount to highway traffic, along with way too many wrecks (e.g. I-35/I-240). With Texas, I've always wondered if they're still taxing way too low like Oklahoma, but are fine because they have that many more people bringing in revenue? When the double-decker portion of I-635 gets done, that is truly going to show how far beyond they are compared to us.

[ou48A]

I completely agree with this. I know most Okies when they're in the DFW area look in awe at their interchanges (particularly 75/635). And as many have said, Oklahoma's poor interchanges definitely contribute a significant amount to highway traffic, along with way too many wrecks (e.g. I-35/I-240). With Texas, I've always wondered if they're still taxing way too low like Oklahoma, but are fine because they have that many more people bringing in revenue? When the double-decker portion of I-635 gets done, that is truly going to show how far beyond they are compared to us.

It not just the big city highways in Texas…
I have driven many very rural west Texas/ panhandle 2 lane state highways that put many if not most of ours in Oklahoma to shame.

[bombermwc]

It not just the big city highways in Texas…
I have driven many very rural west Texas/ panhandle 2 lane state highways that put many if not most of ours in Oklahoma to shame.

We've had a lot of people here say that once you exit from the federal interstates, the whole world changes in TX though. That the state highways are pretty sad, and comparatively worse than OK's. Now i dont' know if that's true because i really dont ever go off the interstate on my way through TX. But i guess there must be enough examples of both to form those opinions.

Now i will say, even in DFW, there is some truth to that. If you travel any of the state connectors (non-toll) between Dallas and FW, you'll notice a definite difference in quality, wich you would expect given the funding and vehicle. count. However, the last few times i was in the area, i noticed most of those roads were well into, or just starting MAJOR rebuilds, as in rip and replace.

The only think i'll say is that I 100% bet you that TXDOT isn't opperating under the same budget from the 80's like ODOT is. That makes a MAJOR diffrence in what you're able to do. Although that lack of funding has forced ODOT to be come more creative in obtaining alternate funding for projects.

[ou48A]

We've had a lot of people here say that once you exit from the federal interstates, the whole world changes in TX though. That the state highways are pretty sad, and comparatively worse than OK's. Now i dont' know if that's true because i really dont ever go off the interstate on my way through TX. But i guess there must be enough examples of both to form those opinions.

Now i will say, even in DFW, there is some truth to that. If you travel any of the state connectors (non-toll) between Dallas and FW, you'll notice a definite difference in quality, wich you would expect given the funding and vehicle. count. However, the last few times i was in the area, i noticed most of those roads were well into, or just starting MAJOR rebuilds, as in rip and replace.

The only think i'll say is that I 100% bet you that TXDOT isn't opperating under the same budget from the 80's like ODOT is. That makes a MAJOR diffrence in what you're able to do. Although that lack of funding has forced ODOT to be come more creative in obtaining alternate funding for projects.

Some of the farm to market roads in Texas is not in the best of shape but I have driven tens of thousands of miles on 2 lane Texas state highways and have never seen their state highways as bad as some I have seen in Oklahoma.
I have lived and worked in the Oklahoma panhandle and in western parts of Ok where they seem to be at the end of the line when it comes to highway money. Those state highways seem like they are always the worst in Oklahoma.
The budget makes a huge difference.
Texas has always had a lot more money to work with and it shows.

[ou48A]

Guys,

I hate to break it to you but Texas is the size and population of many very developed nations. They're just going to have better infrastructure. They've got about the same tax burden as we do (slightly higher in fact) but they have far, far more people (and consequently, corporations).

I'd like nice things too but something are just silly to wish for. We just can't afford them.

The biggest advantage Texas has is the hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue they have received from their oil and natural gas production both on land and off shore over the years. What Texas has received from this over the years dwarfs what we receive in Oklahoma. New Texas Oil & NG production is providing that state with many new billions per year, again dwarfing Oklahoma’s production increases.
Texas is currently flush with petro dollars and it continues to grow.

[Just the facts]

The simple reality is that Oklahoma laid too much pavement. They couldn't afford to build it and they can't afford maintain it - but by gum, every town in Oklahoma with more than 10,000 people should be connected by a four lane road to the interstate system (which btw - we can't afford to maintain either). That is why I am continually shocked that people think the answer is more roads when there are other historically proven ways that are more efficient at moving people. Sooner or later we really do need to stop wasting taxpayer money because we are rapidly running out of it - and then what do we do?

[BoulderSooner]

The simple reality is that Oklahoma laid too much pavement. They couldn't afford to build it and they can't afford maintain it - but by gum, every town in Oklahoma with more than 10,000 people should be connected by a four lane road to the interstate system (which btw - we can't afford to maintain either). That is why I am continually shocked that people think the answer is more roads when there are other historically proven ways that are more efficient at moving people. Sooner or later we really do need to stop wasting taxpayer money because we are rapidly running out of it - and then what do we do?

lots in this post simply is not true

[Just the facts]

It's all true. See, two can play that game.

[CaptDave]

^ Wish the 'Like' button was working.