# Civic Matters > Suburban & Other OK Communities > Norman >  Norman Transportation Plan "Moving Forward"

## Pioneer

http://normantranscript.com/headline...portation-plan

The City of Norman is beginning a comprehensive "Moving Forward" transportation plan that I am building some interest in. It sounds like they may be getting serious about updating Norman in terms of roads and transportation. 

I would like to hear some ideas that you all would like to see done here in Norman that could realistically be accomplished and have a major affect on improving our city. 

I know it has been discussed before, but I would like to see some North-South 4 lane roads through town. Driving down Berry Rd and Flood, I really do not see any reason why one of those roads could not be 4-laned from Robinson to at least Main St. The nearest are Porter on the east and 24th on the west.

I was hoping to see hwy 37 in Newcastle cross the river connecting from the Newcastle 44 Hwy to NE 24th St in North Norman. At the time Indian Hills looked like the best option to do so. That would give Norman great access into and out of town and a great northside east/west route to get from one side of town to the other. Could that still be done given Andy's expansion and Hey Days?

Please discuss, add ideas, and tear down mine if need be. I just would like to see Norman work ahead of the curve instead of behind it. Let's plan for the future population before it's too late to make easy adjustments.

----------


## ljbab728

> I know it has been discussed before, but I would like to see some North-South 4 lane roads through town. Driving down Berry Rd and Flood, I really do not see any reason why one of those roads could not be 4-laned from Robinson to at least Main St. The nearest are Porter on the east and 24th on the west.


I'm not necessarily against having other four lane North-South 4 lane roads in central Norman but I have to wonder if that if the most effective use of potential resources given that most of Norman's growth is in the East and West side instead of North or South of downtown Norman.

----------


## venture

> I know it has been discussed before, but I would like to see some North-South 4 lane roads through town. Driving down Berry Rd and Flood, I really do not see any reason why one of those roads could not be 4-laned from Robinson to at least Main St. The nearest are Porter on the east and 24th on the west.


I'm with LJ on this. The city is growing and the assets needs to be used to accommodate this growth. The good news is that 24th SE/NE is going to be getting widened to 4 lanes between Lindsey and Robinson. It would be nice though that the major streets get center turning lanes at least.




> I was hoping to see hwy 37 in Newcastle cross the river connecting from the Newcastle 44 Hwy to NE 24th St in North Norman. At the time Indian Hills looked like the best option to do so. That would give Norman great access into and out of town and a great northside east/west route to get from one side of town to the other. Could that still be done given Andy's expansion and Hey Days?


I think I've brought this up a few times about the desire to have Indian Hills run due west across the river and intersect at the I-44/Hwy 37 interchange. It would be great to have another link north to the western Metro and the airport.

----------


## BoulderSooner

the #1 thing norman should do is make lindsay 4 lane or 4 land plus turn lane  from I35 to just passed berry ..

----------


## lasomeday

I think the plan needs to include a comprehensive bike path plan.  The current bike routes are ridiculous!

----------


## Pioneer

Lindsay has always been a number 1 on my list. There is no reason why I should start sweating when someone tells me I have to drive down Lindsay to get to where I need to go. That road needs to be a priority that I don't think the city is ready to bite on. That's the other intention of this Thread, to bring up ideas that are managable before it's too late. Before Moore and Norman grow completely together (getting closer daily), I feel we need to redo and widen Indian Hills bridge, and expand (4 or 5-lane) Indian Hills all the way out to Newcastle to connect 44 and 35. The real estate hasn't developed too much to prevent this from happening yet, but we have to act fast, which is against city policy I'm afraid.

Adequate sidewalks need to be apart of every new road. 

With the TIF Project on 24th, I believe more and more traffic will flow to 77/Flood which is a nice cut into north-central Norman. But it dies at Robinson. Flood would be perfect to be 4 laned to Main with an eventual hope to connect to Lindsay. (Berry would work as well, there is very little keeping Berry from connecting all the way to hwy 9 as a 4-lane). I understand about resources being needed for the exteriors of Norman, but I'm hoping we just build those right the first time (everythng 4-laned). As long as Downtown exists while continuing to grow and OU still has a campus here, the heart of Norman will always have high travel demands for our roads. We've neglected the central town routes for way too long. Let's play catch-up now.

----------


## venture

The biggest thing is going to be cost and land acquisition for widening of either Flood or Berry. You are looking at buying out quite a few homes or businesses in order to have room to widen. So while it may be something that is needed, the cost may not justify being able to do it. An easier option might be to construct a new 4-lane road just to the west of the railroad tracks. Looks like fewer homes to buy out and most of the land is occupied by either existing roads or parking lots. You can also easily tie it into the existing 4-lane Flood as well.

----------


## shane453

Travel is slow through Norman, and it might take a while at times to get from point a to b. Rush hour gets backed up, and it can take a long time to get out of town if it is a day before OU is letting out for a break. But why should we plan huge four-lane roads through the most charming and historic parts of town just so that traffic can move faster for 10 or 12 extra crowded hours of the week? Widening roads means getting rid of mature trees, increasing the speed of traffic, and making the route more uncomfortable for pedestrians and bikers.

Central Norman is one of the only places in the whole state of Oklahoma where it is occasionally inconvenient to drive a car. It is also one of the only places in the state where biking and walking are a very attractive and preferable alternative to driving. Kids actually walk to elementary school in central Norman! The pedestrian crossing distances are 20-30' instead of 60-80'. The presence of light traffic and narrow lanes force drivers to stay closer to (or under) the speed limit. Widening roads can actually increase traffic, if it eliminates the attractiveness of walking and biking.

----------


## BG918

> Travel is slow through Norman, and it might take a while at times to get from point a to b. Rush hour gets backed up, and it can take a long time to get out of town if it is a day before OU is letting out for a break. But why should we plan huge four-lane roads through the most charming and historic parts of town just so that traffic can move faster for 10 or 12 extra crowded hours of the week? Widening roads means getting rid of mature trees, increasing the speed of traffic, and making the route more uncomfortable for pedestrians and bikers.
> 
> Central Norman is one of the only places in the whole state of Oklahoma where it is occasionally inconvenient to drive a car. It is also one of the only places in the state where biking and walking are a very attractive and preferable alternative to driving. Kids actually walk to elementary school in central Norman! The pedestrian crossing distances are 20-30' instead of 60-80'. The presence of light traffic and narrow lanes force drivers to stay closer to (or under) the speed limit. Widening roads can actually increase traffic, if it eliminates the attractiveness of walking and biking.


Agree.  Minus widening Lindsey to 4 lanes with no turn lanes there are no roads in central Norman that should be widened unless it's to add bike lanes.

----------


## ou48A

I would like to see the following ….

4 lane Lindsey Street from campus west to I-35.

4 lane Flood from Boyd north.

4 Lane Jenkins from Lindsey south. Build an over pass over HY 9. The road would then become limited access and continue south and then turn west with a bridge over the River before connecting with I -35. This would give OU a southern entrance and relive some congestion on Lindsey

Bring HY 9 up to interstate standards. From HY-9 & I-35 build an extension on the north side of the river that would following the curve of the river onto the ten mile flats area to a point where it meets up with a 4 lane Western Street.

We do need a bridge over the river in Northwestern Norman

Any transportation plan should move ahead with the thought in mind that we will eventually have a commuter rail system. Leave space for 2 to 3 tracks.

Build a new street from Lindsey to the north that would following the railroad tracks and intersect with Flood north of Robinson Street. This could be turned into a north bound one way street after football games.

Many of the sidewalks in the older parts of Norman near campus are in a very sorry state or repair and are far too narrow for major events. +We need better lighting around campus.

----------


## venture

I think a lot of us have the same ideas.




> 4 lane Lindsey Street from campus west to I-35.


From Berry west is probably as much as we can get, which should be perfectly fine. Could probably get it to 5 lanes with a center turn lane.




> 4 lane Flood from Boyd north.


Probably not doable. Not without buying out homes or getting rid of the sidewalks. Could possibly go to 3 lanes - 2 with a center turn lane. Then maybe have some room for a bike lane/sidewalk combo. However south of Mcnamee is going to be tight for even that.




> 4 Lane Jenkins from Lindsey south. Build an over pass over HY 9. The road would then become limited access and continue south and then turn west with a bridge over the River before connecting with I -35. This would give OU a southern entrance and relive some congestion on Lindsey


Shouldn't be too hard to do this. Seems to be plenty of land or just parking lots in the way. 




> Bring HY 9 up to interstate standards. From HY-9 & I-35 build an extension on the north side of the river that would following the curve of the river onto the ten mile flats area to a point where it meets up with a 4 lane Western Street.


Taking Hwy 9 to a limited access highway or expressway setup is definitely something that should be done. It would help out a ton. Most intersections should have enough room to do compressed interchanges, however some areas are going to be tight. I could see the opportunity to take Hwy 9 all the way to 60th NW (Western), but not sure it would really prove much of a benefit.




> We do need a bridge over the river in Northwestern Norman


Definitely agree. Indian Hills needs to be expanded to I-44/Hwy 37. Could almost work in your extended Hwy 9 up to Indian Hills and then swing it to the west to 37. Make the whole thing a 4-lane limited access highway. Now could it be done without having it be a toll road. The impact on the Norman Spur would probably be felt, but in all honesty...it wasn't really done in the best area - well if you are going north.




> Any transportation plan should move ahead with the thought in mind that we will eventually have a commuter rail system. Leave space for 2 to 3 tracks.


The trick becomes what part of Norman should have the station for light rail, or multiple stations.




> Build a new street from Lindsey to the north that would following the railroad tracks and intersect with Flood north of Robinson Street. This could be turned into a north bound one way street after football games.


I think like I mentioned earlier from Main Street to the North is the best option. Lindsey to Brooks has the Duck Pond park and a power substation. Those aren't going anywhere. You have all houses on the east side of the tracks. Brooks to Boyd houses all the way. Boyd to Duffy is a bit easier. You have Front Street that can update, but some houses will need to be moved. Duffy to the north would be alright. There is a lot of parking that would need to be removed. Also the Legacy Trail will need to be completely torn up and removed. So that might be a no go right away.




> Many of the sidewalks in the older parts of Norman near campus are in a very sorry state or repair and are far too narrow for major events. +We need better lighting around campus.


Need better lighting everywhere. Population is going up and I'm noticing more crime in areas that were traditionally very safe neighborhoods.

All in all, the major areas for infrastructure upgrades will be on the outskirts of the city core to accommodate development. There are a few things for the city core that can be done, but it is almost part the point of being affordable.

----------


## Just the facts

I vote for no widening of any streets, returning Main Street to two-way traffic through downtown, putting in a streetcar from Norman Regional to the south end of the OU Campus, and starting interurban service to downtown OKC.

----------


## ou48A

[QUOTE=venture79;477387]The trick becomes what part of Norman should have the station for light rail, or multiple stations.



IMHO there should probably be 2 and perhaps 3 commuter rail station Norman stops.

The first would be located near Tecumseh. The second at OU and if neassary another located near HY 9.

I think it’s absolutely critical to locate the OU station several hundred feet closer to the campus than where the tracks are now. This could be done by either building a Y shape spur or curving the tracks to run just east of the Track complex and indoor practice facility. 
The station should be located and elevated near the track complex where the parking lot is. This would better sever the daily needs of the campus but also better help with large events. 2 loading platforms would be most helpful for large events. If the LNC is ever replaced some have suggested that a new arena could be built just north of this area.  

There would be a large increase of OU students using Amtrak if the Norman Amtrak station would be relocated to the OU station and built where I suggested.
A bus / trolley system could funnel people to these Norman stations

----------


## ljbab728

[QUOTE=ou48A;477511]


> There would be a large increase of OU students using Amtrak if the Norman Amtrak station would be relocated to the OU station and built where I suggested.


That would have absolutely no effect on the number of students riding Amtrak.  Besides the fact that the Amtrak station is within easy walking distance of the campus, Amtrak is something that few students would use frequently anyway unless the routes are improved.  There could be an Amtrak station in the student union and it would get the same amount of ridership from students.  When I was at OU in the 60's there were more options for rail destinations.  I had fraternity brothers who would use it once or twice a year to go home to the upper midwest.

----------


## ou48A

[QUOTE=ljbab728;477656]


> That would have absolutely no effect on the number of students riding Amtrak.  Besides the fact that *the Amtrak station is within easy walking distance of the campus*, Amtrak is something that few students would use frequently anyway unless the routes are improved.  There could be an Amtrak station in the student union and it would get the same amount of ridership from students.  When I was at OU in the 60's there were more options for rail destinations.  I had fraternity brothers who would use it once or twice a year to go home to the upper midwest.


I have some personal knowledge on this. I respectfully say that you are wrong on this issue. 
As it is now very few students, particularly girls (personal safety issue) want to drag their luggage back to their dorm or to where they are living. For most, it’s over a mile walk though areas that are pretty dark at night on many bad sidewalks and sometimes in bad weather. 

 If we want a functioning train station that serves the needs of our modern day community and not the toy box dream we have now it is well beyond any reasonable question that a new station is needed on OU’s campus. The few students who use it now mostly depend on a friend to pick them up.

In recent years OU has seen far more students coming from the north Texas area than ever before. I have been told by a few students that they would use the train more if it wasn’t so inconvenient on the Norman end. I’m sure there wouldn’t be massive new numbers of students on the train but their ridership would increase some.

Besides….and perhaps most important is that I have been told by someone who is very much in the know with city of Norman & OU decision makers that commuter rail will not happen in Norman without a major OU station.  So why not make it the stop for Amtrak in Norman?  It could be served by local busses where as there is no justification to sever the current location at the time the north bound train arrives.

----------


## ljbab728

[QUOTE=ou48A;477662]


> I have some personal knowledge on this. I respectfully say that you are wrong on this issue. 
> As it is now very few students, particularly girls (personal safety issue) want to drag their luggage back to their dorm or to where they are living. For most, it’s over a mile walk though areas that are pretty dark at night on many bad sidewalks and sometimes in bad weather. 
> 
>  If we want a functioning train station that serves the needs of our modern day community and not the toy box dream we have now it is well beyond any reasonable question that a new station is needed on OU’s campus. The few students who use it now mostly depend on a friend to pick them up.
> 
> In recent years OU has seen far more students coming from the north Texas area than ever before. I have been told by a few students that they would use the train more if it wasn’t so inconvenient on the Norman end. I’m sure there wouldn’t be massive new numbers of students on the train but their ridership would increase some.
> 
> Besides….and perhaps most important is that I have been told by someone who is very much in the know with city of Norman & OU decision makers that commuter rail will not happen in Norman without a major OU station.  So why not make it the stop for Amtrak in Norman?  It could be served by local busses where as there is no justification to sever the current location at the time the north bound train arrives.


I also have personal knowledge about this and I also respectfully say you are wrong.  Moving the Amtrak station would not improve student ridership in the least.  That small distance is not detering any student (girl or otherwise) from using Amtrak if they want to.  Amtrak leaves Norman to Fort Worth at 8:49AM which isn't dark.  The return train arrives at 8:53PM which is after dark part of the year but certainly not late.  Do the students you talk to live with walking distance of the Amtrak station in Forth Worth?  I doubt it.  I know from past conversations you are in favor of a new rail complex in the Duck Pond area and I am adamantly opposed to disturbing that area with something like that.  The Norman Amtrak station is in the perfect location and needs to stay where it is.  If the city wants to add bus service or some other kind of transit from the dorm area to the station that is certainly not a bad idea and is something I would support.

----------


## venture

Apparently there is an issue with quoting posts in this thread. LOL

Now as far as a new rail station, I agree with LJ - leave it where it is. The schedule as it is now is useless by students for the most part unless they are doing day trips to Ft. Worth. I would like to see the schedule improved to have more frequency to Ft. Worth. However that would need something like Kerry's two car commuter trains running down there. I would also think a new trolley/street car system from Downtown Norman to OU and UNP would be a good addition and would help funnel people to the Amtrack service.

----------


## Pioneer

"Moving Forward." Remember, this is a wish list after all. There are no wrong answers. The argument of not 4-laning because it would take out beautiful trees? Have you seen what the ice storm and OG&E have done to those trees? And increasing traffic? That's what happens to growing cities. It's not small town Norman anymore and so we need to adapt. It's this kind of thinking that has kept Norman in check and provided great opportunities to Moore. We are our own worst enemy. Central Norman is becoming more popular, downtown is being revitalized, campus is bigger than ever. It's time to recognize that and build the infrastructure to support it. Road Traffic is the bulk of everything. Pedestrian travel is barely a percent of how people get around. Let's get the 4-laners, strap on the sidewalks, and make Norman accessible. 

As for rail, I was never a believer in trains mainly because everything has always been within a couple miles of where I was.  But using the DART in Dallas was amazing. Using the train in San Diego was amazing. DC, amazing. If a train conveniently connected me to brick town or DT OkC, I may use it. But definitely not from pt a to pt b in Norman. 

I'm always surprised to see arguments against building things that are undeniably necessary because of something like trees or traffic speed. Really? Tell me it's too expensive or against code, or we can't tear down houses, but don't tell me it's because cars may drive too fast and those trees are mature. I love me some trees but I don't have the cojones  to use that in an argument!

Keep it coming with the ideas, I like what I'm seeing (minus the naysayers).

----------


## ljbab728

> Central Norman is becoming more popular, downtown is being revitalized, campus is bigger than ever. It's time to recognize that and build the infrastructure to support it. (minus the naysayers).


I'm not against it because of trees.  I just see it as totally unnecessary.  Downtown Norman has been revitalized for quite a few years.  Most of the automobile traffic going there doesn't come from the North or South.  It comes from the West or East. It seems you want four lane streets just to have four lane streets.  It won't solve any major traffic problems.

----------


## Pioneer

I want 4 lane streets for the major N-S  & E-W central routes. With downtown, campus, the County Seat, and 100,000+ population, I feel that at least 1 central N-S 4-lane would help. Especially with the work being done for the Robinson underpass and how N Flood has a nice heavy traffic large road heading south from I35. When i saw how wide they made the base there at Flood and Robinson, I thought prepping it for 4-lane capacity was the intent. 

By the way, is there any foreseeable way to make a Loop-like hwy/road running from 35 To the East and meeting up south at hwy 9? (potentially by way of the Newcastle hwy 37east thru Norman to near lake Dirtybird and back south to 9)

----------


## venture

> I want 4 lane streets for the major N-S  & E-W central routes. With downtown, campus, the County Seat, and 100,000+ population, I feel that at least 1 central N-S 4-lane would help. Especially with the work being done for the Robinson underpass and how N Flood has a nice heavy traffic large road heading south from I35. When i saw how wide they made the base there at Flood and Robinson, I thought prepping it for 4-lane capacity was the intent.


I would be too hesitant to want to cookie cutter the older sections of Norman to be like a typical suburban area that we see away from the city core. Yes the city is growing, but that doesn't mean that certain areas of the city should be disturbed. Those central sections (most of them) haven't seen massive population growth spurts or huge massive developments. 




> By the way, is there any foreseeable way to make a Loop-like hwy/road running from 35 To the East and meeting up south at hwy 9? (potentially by way of the Newcastle hwy 37east thru Norman to near lake Dirtybird and back south to 9)


Only if the turnpike commission does it. Norman could really use a loop that would go from Hwy 37/I-44 east to 48th SE and then south to Hwy 9. Not to mention another connection going north either replacing 12th/Sooner or go just east of there along the path of 24th/Air Depot.

----------


## ou48A

> I also have personal knowledge about this and I also respectfully say you are wrong.  Moving the Amtrak station would not improve student ridership in the least.  That small distance is not detering any student (girl or otherwise) from using Amtrak if they want to.  Amtrak leaves Norman to Fort Worth at 8:49AM which isn't dark.  The return train arrives at 8:53PM which is after dark part of the year but certainly not late.  Do the students you talk to live with walking distance of the Amtrak station in Forth Worth?  I doubt it.  I know from past conversations you are in favor of a new rail complex in the Duck Pond area and I am adamantly opposed to disturbing that area with something like that.  The Norman Amtrak station is in the perfect location and needs to stay where it is.  If the city wants to add bus service or some other kind of transit from the dorm area to the station that is certainly not a bad idea and is something I would support.


The Students at the FW end have a bus and rail system to take them closer to their destination and chances are that they have parents to pick them up.
There is not nearly enough room near the current Norman train station to build a smaller Norman hub station. Most of the OU and city of Norman leaders already know this and as I said it has been indicated to me that Norman will not have commuter rail service without some type of OU station. 

*Regardless of Amtrak there will eventually be an OU station severing the commuter rail needs of campus and of central Norman*. For financial and functional reasons it doesn’t make any sense to not relocate the Norman Amtrak station to the OU station. If we want a system that maximizes ridership building the a hub station as close as practical to where the largest number of peoples destinations are is smarter than spending resources on a system that would be underutilized becuase of poor design / location.

Very few people including students consider the current station within walking distance. They are not willing walk to the downtown Norman third world train station that is well out of their personal comfort zone, daytime or night time.

If we are concerned about aesthetics issues I’m very confident that Molly will see to it that these issues will be successfully addressed.
 Quite frankly the man-made Duck pond could use a major rehabilitation.  I envision an elevated platform using sight and sound blocking features in its design and also on the current rail line. The impact would not be that disturbing and would be far less disturbing than the current nearby freight trains that remove any thought of this being a tranquil environment as it is.

----------


## ou48A

> Apparently there is an issue with quoting posts in this thread. LOL
> 
> Now as far as a new rail station, I agree with LJ - leave it where it is. The schedule as it is now is useless by students for the most part unless they are doing day trips to Ft. Worth. I would like to see the schedule improved to have more frequency to Ft. Worth. However that would need something like Kerry's two car commuter trains running down there. I would also think a new trolley/street car system from Downtown Norman to OU and UNP would be a good addition and would help funnel people to the Amtrack service.


The current Norman departing time is not very student or people friendly, but they are discussing plans to change departing and arrival times. 

They are studying the idea of adding service to / from, Kansas City - Wichita - Oklahoma City - Fort Worth. They are also studying Tulsa - Oklahoma City service. 

Making any transportation system as user friendly as practical for the most amounts of people seems logical to me.
If we want people using trains of any type then so far as it is possible maximizing speed and maximizing convenience need to be priorities.

----------


## ou48A

> Need better lighting everywhere. Population is going up and I'm noticing more crime in areas that were traditionally very safe neighborhoods.


One of the worst areas of Norman is the area close to the rail road tracks between campus and downtown. 
It doesn’t bother me all that much; I would not want to hang out in this area for long. 
But this is a scary part of town for many day or night.
The area needs better lighting.

----------


## shane453

> The argument of not 4-laning because it would take out beautiful trees? Have you seen what the ice storm and OG&E have done to those trees? And increasing traffic? That's what happens to growing cities.


You are missing the point and dumbing down the argument. Despite ice storm, etc, the historic trees are a major driver of property values and the general identity (and marketing) of central Norman. The trees are just one example of the larger kit of parts that give the central neighborhoods their attractiveness- shaded streets, interesting architecture, a mix of incomes and housing options, neighborhood commercial centers, pocket parks, pleasant walking and biking environments, etc.

Besides all that sentimental stuff, from a pure traffic engineering standpoint (which considers NO extraneous factors like charm and walkability) it is still a bad idea. Currently, all the north-south streets have approximately equal priority- they are sharing the load of north-south traffic. Adding a four-lane road would set a priority north-south route psychologically, funneling traffic that may have otherwise used another street, and before long we will be debating the installation of additional lanes.




> Central Norman is becoming more popular, downtown is being revitalized, campus is bigger than ever. It's time to recognize that and build the infrastructure to support it. Road Traffic is the bulk of everything. Pedestrian travel is barely a percent of how people get around. Let's get the 4-laners, strap on the sidewalks, and make Norman accessible.


Why do you think central Norman is becoming so popular? Shouldn't these supposedly dire traffic problems be driving people away? Nope, people are coming because the area is unique from all of the other neighborhoods that are being constructed in Oklahoma which are all surrounded by 4-6 lanes of traffic and 8' brick walls to block the noise. Norman has historic value and character. You can put as much sidewalk as you want on a 4-lane road with 45 mph posted speed limits, it still won't be a nice experience to walk along it. Wouldn't you just LOVE to walk down Ed Noble Parkway?

Finally, who are we making Norman accessible for by installing additional lanes? Car lanes are not increasing a level of accessibility, they are only marginally increasing the speed of accessibility, and only for those who are able to own and drive a car. This leaves out the poor, the disabled, children under 16, the elderly, and many OU students (especially International students). Even for those who own a car, is the gain in speed enough to justify the enormous public and private expenses?

----------


## ou48A

> I think like I mentioned earlier from Main Street to the North is the best option. Lindsey to Brooks has the Duck Pond park and a power substation. Those aren't going anywhere. You have all houses on the east side of the tracks. Brooks to Boyd houses all the way. Boyd to Duffy is a bit easier. You have Front Street that can update, but some houses will need to be moved. Duffy to the north would be alright. There is a lot of parking that would need to be removed. Also the Legacy Trail will need to be completely torn up and removed. So that might be a no go right away.


On the west side of the tracks from Books north with a few exceptions there is nothing but old apartments or very old houses that are mostly in very poor condition. I’m not sure that a road like this on its south end would need to be 4 landed. 
Considering the magnitude of the project it wouldn’t be very difficult to move the power substation.
Near the Duck Pond a screening wall for noise could be used to block both train and traffic noise.
I would suggest that an over pass be built over Robinson street.

----------


## ou48A

> Finally, who are we making Norman accessible for by installing additional lanes? Car lanes are not increasing a level of accessibility, they are only marginally increasing the speed of accessibility, and only for those who are able to own and drive a car.


There are more than a few people who will not frequent the campus area merchants because of the extra time it takes caused by slow moving traffic. 
Adding extra car lanes save time. This increases accessibly to more people and increases the money spent in the area.
 Thus increases property values and the general economic heath of the area.

----------


## ljbab728

[QUOTE=ou48A;477760]


> The Students at the FW end have a bus and rail system to take them closer to their destination and chances are that they have parents to pick them up.


That is hardly a reason to move the Norman station.  I am in favor of some kind of transportation from the Campus to the station which would only be required twice per day.  That is much more reasonable than building a new station. You seem to be focused on strictly university students.  Norman has a large population that is non student and a campus location is certainly not an advantage for them.  




> There is not nearly enough room near the current Norman train station to build a smaller Norman hub station.


Norman will not need anything massive like OKC is planning.  The current station with some small additions or modifications would still work fine.  The Norman area could qualify for more than one transit station and if it is needed it should be on the far north side of Norman.  I'm also not opposed to a location near the campus as long as it's not the duck pond area and as long as the Amtrak station is left alone.




> Very few people including students consider the current station within walking distance. They are not willing walk to the downtown Norman third world train station that is well out of their personal comfort zone, daytime or night time.


How did you become an expert about this?  University students are much more willing to walk than the public as a whole,  It is definitely within walking distance.  Does than mean they might not prefer to have transportation?  Maybe, maybe not.

----------


## venture

I think we could get a very reasonable solution for a light rail/people mover system for Norman that would meet most demand. Something like this...



http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPM30-35-spec.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parry_People_Movers

Small people mover rail cars that can work on existing rails and ones that are inset in a city street. They aren't massive and would work pretty well with what we have. Not sure on the exact cost per car, but they are fairly new - at least these specifically. I would see around 5 lines rolled out that would connect most of Norman. Of course these can be shrunk, lengthened, or combined to best fit the need of the city. Stations won't need to take up that much room and would work best being near areas of existing parking. Also schedules can follow demand without much issue.

Line 1 (Blue) - OU to Downtown: Lindsey Street Station/Memorial Stadium > Sarkeys & Devon Buildings > Campus Corner > Downtown/Amtrak
Line 2 (Red) - Sooner Mall to Downtown: Sooner Mall Station > Main & 24th > Norman High > Downtown/Amtrak
Line 3 (Orange) - North Norman to Sooner Mall: I-35 & Indian Hills/Entertainment Parks > Norman Regional Healthplex > UNP > Brookhaven > Sooner Mall Station
Line 4 (Green) - NCED to OU: NCED/Technology Pl/Hwy 9 > Weather Center > Lloyd Noble > Reaves Park/Sam Noble (well walking distance)/OCCE > Lindsey Station/Memorial Stadium
Line 5 (Purple) - Riverwind to Sooner Mall: Riverwind Casino > Ed Noble South/Lindsey Street > Sooner Mall

If the system would catch on with high demand could see running a line that loops OU > Lindsey Street/Ed Noble > Hwy 9 > Weather Center > OU ... also others would run along 36th West, 12th East, and also extend the Orange Line up into Moore.

----------


## BG918

> I vote for no widening of any streets, returning Main Street to two-way traffic through downtown, putting in a streetcar from Norman Regional to the south end of the OU Campus, and starting interurban service to downtown OKC.


Making Main and Gray 2-way should be priority #1.  1 lane each direction with a center turn lane.  Maybe in the future build a landscaped median with trees.  Also eventually extend the streetscape completed in 2004 west of the tracks to University.

----------


## kevinpate

I can scarcely imagine the congestion that would exist if either Main or Gray were reduced to three lanes, with one being a restricted turning lane.

----------


## JayhawkTransplant

If you are interested in providing input regarding a long-range transportation plan for Norman, please attend one of the ward meetings.  Here are the remaining dates and locations.  You do not have to be a member of the ward to attend a meeting.

Mon, Oct 24 - Ward 6 - Eisenhower Elementary, 1415 Fairlawn Dr. - 6:30PM
Thurs, Oct 27 - Ward 1 - Kennedy Elementary, 621 Sunrise Street - 6:30PM
Mon, Nov 7 - Ward 7 - Madison Elementary, 500 James - 6:30PM
Wed, Nov 9 - Wards 3 and 8 - Truman Primary, 601 Meadow Ridge Rd - 6:30PM

----------


## Snowman

> I think we could get a very reasonable solution for a light rail/people mover system for Norman that would meet most demand. Something like this...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPM30-35-spec.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parry_People_Movers
> 
> Small people mover rail cars that can work on existing rails and ones that are inset in a city street. They aren't massive and would work pretty well with what we have. Not sure on the exact cost per car, but they are fairly new - at least these specifically. I would see around 5 lines rolled out that would connect most of Norman. Of course these can be shrunk, lengthened, or combined to best fit the need of the city. Stations won't need to take up that much room and would work best being near areas of existing parking. Also schedules can follow demand without much issue.
> 
> ...


Line 5 is probably not going to Riverwind, a bridge alone across the river could cost as much as the rest of the system you propose and the only other ones withing a 15 mile radius are interstates (which not going to allow rail to share a lane, maybe if it has the ability to go of track and at highway speed but even going off track is pretty niche in models built).

So far I think every study at this point is recommending a stop at both Norman station and the campus, I may be getting it mixed up with a different stop but I think at least only recommended the campus for special events like games and graduation.

----------


## BG918

> I can scarcely imagine the congestion that would exist if either Main or Gray were reduced to three lanes, with one being a restricted turning lane.


They have also discussed in the past taking out the angled parking and putting in parallel parking on both sides which would keep the street at 2 lanes each way with a center turn lane or landscaped median...think 23rd St between Broadway and Western in OKC.  You could probably fit 2 bike lanes in there too and do away with the landscaped median which would be nice.

Of course the downtown business owners like the angled parking.

----------


## venture

> Of course the downtown business owners like the angled parking.


As a driver I hate it. I always stay in the middle lane until I down to the tattoo shops since people just tend to rely on the force when backing out there.

----------


## CS_Mike

If there is any serious consideration given to expanding streets to support gameday traffic, then I would highly prefer that money be spent on building park-and-ride locations on the north and south sides of Norman.  Shuttle service could be implemented to and from campus on gamedays, and expanded service to main street can be given consideration on other days.  And if planning is actually done correctly, those same park-and-rides could later double as commuter rail stations, and at that time they can cease the shuttle service because rail will then be available to accomplish the same task.

----------


## ou48A

From what I hear……

The city wants to 4 lanes Lindsey from I-35 to Berry, then 3 lane Lindsey to Elm St.

Some would like to build an extension from HY 9 & I-35 northwestward along the river before turning north on Western / 60th. IMHO this^ is a great idea but the extension and HY 9 in south  Norman needs to be upgraded to near interstate standards.

There appears to be wide spread concern about economic and safety issues caused by serious congestion during several types of events and even daily.  The emergency services response time is a major concern but as things have become so crowed some people are starting to stay away  (not spending money) because it takes so much more time than it once did.

Apparently there are several special interest groups pushing hard for money to be spent on their special interest.
The bicyclist wants many miles of new bicycle paths.
Some want the city to provide on demand transportation for the handicap.
Some want to go ahead and build a large park and ride facility near the RR tracks in north Norman that would be buses only for now. But there is apparently a huge problem with the on time performance of the current bus service that is caused by congested streets that will hinder wide spread use.

----------


## blink

As everyone has been saying, Highway 9 needs to be converted into an expressway, so on ramps/off ramps, traffic lights under/above it.  The amount of traffic on it during the day is ridiculous, and once a light turns red, you can expect to be congested all the way to I-35.  If Norman continues to grow like it is, I can only imagine how horrible highway 9 will be in a few years.  It would also be great to have a ramp directly from Hwy 9/I-35 South to the New Castle/Riverwind area since most people that go south onto I-35 from highway 9 are doing this anyway and clog up the people getting on I-35 from Lindsay.

----------


## ou48A

Reliving the congestion on the I-35 Bridge is a big reason why I made this earlier post.




> ..4 lane Jenkins from Lindsey south. Build an over pass over HY 9. The road would then become limited access and continue south and then turn west with a bridge over the river before connecting with I -35. This would give OU a southern entrance and relive some congestion on Lindsey.


Norman needs another bridge over river somewhere in the southern parts of town. The river channel at the location that I suggested would not require a bridge nearly as long as the I - 35 bridge.

----------


## Snowman

> Reliving the congestion on the I-35 Bridge is a big reason why I made this earlier post.
> 
> 
> 
> Norman needs another bridge over river somewhere in the southern parts of town. The river channel at the location that I suggested would not require a bridge nearly as long as the I - 35 bridge.


Given the state budget for transportation I would expect an extension to the proposed turnpike plan which will end at i35 near Flood road (which could then going along the north then east of Norman and connect with highway 9 from the other side) is more likely than any new freeways in our lifetime.

----------


## Pioneer

FYI, I learned tonight that the City is reviewing our feedback that we have been generating through this site. So please continue with the suggestions. This came from members of City Council and the City Manager. They are needing real feedback from citizens of Norman in what we need both short-term and over the next 20-30 years. They project Norman to grow by at least 35%.

----------


## MDot

> FYI, I learned tonight that the City is reviewing our feedback that we have been generating through this site. So please continue with the suggestions. This came from members of City Council and the City Manager. They are needing real feedback from citizens of Norman in what we need both short-term and over the next 20-30 years. They project Norman to grow by at least 35%.


We're famous! Yay! =) and Norman is gonna be a major city before too long if they grow that much in 20-30 years.

----------


## venture

> FYI, I learned tonight that the City is reviewing our feedback that we have been generating through this site. So please continue with the suggestions. This came from members of City Council and the City Manager. They are needing real feedback from citizens of Norman in what we need both short-term and over the next 20-30 years. They project Norman to grow by at least 35%.


Very good to know. Especially since my Councilman is completely worthless. Contacted him about crimes going up in East Norman...not a peep.

----------


## j7m7l7

Here's a top list for Norman Transportation needs in my opinion (from living on the east side):

1) Classen Blvd. north of Highway 9 and 12th to Boyd NEEDS a center turn lane. Many apartments are in this area with residents turning left (very dangerous)

2) 12th Avenue between Boyd and Robinson needs 3 lanes in each direction (traffic is horrific)

3) Constitution Street needs 2 lanes on each side and/or a center turn lane (handles way more traffic than it was ever meant to)

4) Highway 9 needs to be limited access without lights. Also, 2 lanes should be provided for entrance to northbound 35 at western terminus.

I am sure there are more, but these are at the top of my mind in terms of pressing needs. Classen in particular is very dangerous with the left turns into Crimson Park and the Cottages, as well as Best Western, stores, etc.

----------


## Pioneer

Norman Transcript buzz concerning the Transportation Plan.

http://normantranscript.com/headline...portation-plan

Also, the council is asking whether Norman even needs a Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Currently, we are on the short list of cities our size that do not have one. They said that up to this point the city has never constructed a long term plan for our transportation system. That's obvious when trying to get from one corner of the city to the other.

----------


## ou48A

> Given the state budget for transportation I would expect an extension to the proposed turnpike plan which will end at i35 near Flood road (which could then going along the north then east of Norman and connect with highway 9 from the other side) is more likely than any new freeways in our lifetime.


As far as the state budget goes a lot of this comes down to how effective our local leaders are in selling a plan to others so that funding can be secured. 
In due time better economic times are ahead. 

If we don’t move forward with our own bold ideas now the ideas of others will be moved ahead ours, by the state.

----------


## ou48A

The University of Oklahoma’s future growth and research spin offs will have a major economic impact on our state; we can in part sell our transportation needs as an investment in our state. Congested travel lowers our quality of life. We need to stay ahead of the travel problems so that we can continue to attract high quality researchers and visitors who will continue to spend money in Norman. 

Since Norman draws visitor’s from all across the state for many events, building support for some these projects should not be that difficult. But it’s going to take hard working leaders to get it done.....
.

----------


## ou48A

I would be very curious to know the daily vehicle count over the 4 lane Canadian River Bridge that was constructed several years ago on state high way 4 south of Mustang.

I have a strong feeling that a new river bridge south of Norman on the Jenkins river extension would carry far more daily traffic and help relive congestion on HY 9, west Lindsey and on the I-35 river bridge.

----------


## Just the facts

Any plan in Norman that makes it easier for the area to grow geographically is going to result in even more congestion.  Atlanta tried to out-build congestion and it simply can't be done because new roads and more lanes only do one thing - produce more traffic.  If you want to solve the congestion problem then purse policies that actually produce less congestion.  Stop spreading everything so far out that driving becomes the only viable means of transportation.  Stop making roads 4 and 6 lanes wide with speeds above 45 mph that make riding a bicycle unsafe and simply crossing the street a life-risking event.  Stop requiring businesses to dedicate more land to parking than they do to the actual building themselves.  Encourage people to live in higher density housing within walkable neighborhoods.

My plan for Norman:

1) Remove all one-way streets
2) Create an urban development boundary
3) Implement a streetcar linking OU to Norman Regional Hospital via downtown Norman
4) Connect downtown Norman to Oklahoma City via a regional rail line
5) Create a downtown Norman urbanization plan that encourages mixed use development, mid-rise housing, national retail, and urban parks.
6) Reduce most landscape requirements around new development while also requiring pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to adjacent developments.
7) Eliminate all parking requirements.

----------


## Pioneer

http://normantranscript.com/headline...on-master-plan


The Norman Transcript

November 16, 2011
Transportation Group gets moving on master plan

By Joy Hampton 
The Norman Transcript

NORMAN  Norman is conducting a comprehensive transportation plan to address and prevent problems now and in the future.

Its a multistage project, senior project manager Charles Schwinger told Norman city council members Tuesday evening.

Schwinger is with H.W. Lochner Inc., a Kansas City, Mo.-based company that provides engineering, planning and consulting services for building and improving infrastructure.

This is really going to be a living document, Schwinger said.

The Moving Forward process kicked off with the appointment of 17 members of the community to a visioning committee. Nine of those people met for two hours as part of the visoning process on Tuesday afternoon.

The listening phase of the project is currently underway, Schwinger said, as Norman conducts public meetings in each ward of the city and solicits information through social media. The next portion of the listening phase will gather public input through a survey.

The visioning committee and the city council and staff are working with Lochner to develop a survey which will be sent to 1,800 Norman residents in order to gather a scientific sampling.

Schwinger said it is hoped that at least 400 out of the 1,800 will respond to the survey. In addition to the scientific sampling, the survey will be put online so that all interested persons who live or work or shop in Norman can contribute to the feedback as Norman creates a vision and develops goals and solutions to better meet the citys growing transportation needs.

Beginning questions at the public level are: Should we have a transportation plan? If so, what are the boundaries? There are poeple who do not think a plan is needed, Schwinger said.

While the ward meetings were not heavily attended, he said a wide range of viewpoints were expressed and a number of ideas were contributed which is the point of meeting with the public.

Early drafts of the proposed survey show questions relating to the types and number of trips people make, and the identification of problem areas and issues. Transportation includes more than motor vehicles. A comprehensive transportation plan looks at public transit such as CART, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, traffic signals, speed humps, and public parking among other issues. Drainage is tied with the planning for street improvements. All of those things are represented in the survey.

The challenge in creating the survey is to collect the information needed without being too lengthy.

The survey will also test the waters on whether people are willing to pay for these improvements.

Joy Hampton 366-3539 jhampton@ normantranscript.com

----------


## ou48A

I didn’t see the entire meeting but this information comes from a City of Norman study session that was aired on Cox Cable 20 in Norman. It will probably be shown again.

Limited numbers of Norman residents will be receiving a questioner / survey from the city of Norman asking them about their thoughts on Norman’s future transportation needs. Developing a transportation plan will take 18 to 24 months.

Currently 40 of 140 traffic signals can be remotely controlled. They might expand the number. 

I got the impression that they had received strong input over the need to improve game day traffic.
The City of Norman has held meetings with OU officials and in the future will hold meetings with OU students.

----------


## ou48A

Several times I have heard the Norman mayor and others compare Norman to Lawrence Kansas.

Lawrence has a much better highway network than Norman.
On its north side Lawrence has I -70 
Lawrence has a 4 lane limited access highway on its south and west sides.
In addition to I -70 Lawrence has a second highway built to interstate standards that goes to KC.
Lawrence has two 4 lane bridges over its river and there are other state highways leading in and out of the Lawrence area.
The state of Kansas is building another major highway to interstate standards south out of Lawrence to I – 135. It’s about 30 miles long.
The population of Lawrence is about 93,000.

In the Manhattan area the state of Kansas is also building a second 4 lane road to I-70. There are 3 major bridges over the river in the Manhattan area. The Manhattan KS population is about 52000.

The population of Norman is about 111,000 and hasn’t seen anywhere close to this type of commitment from the state of Oklahoma in spite of higher traffic numbers.

----------


## venture

Probably comes down to being little brother to OKC. The Kilpatrick extension into Yukon really didn't do much. Just like the Norman Spur to I-44. Norman is going to continue to grow out, though not as fast as OKC has. No reason why a loop couldn't be install now that starts around Hwy 9 and 48th SE up north and around between Indian Hills and Franklin and then due west to I-44. 

If anything, they could probably easily call the section east of I-35 a new route for US 77 and then extend US 277 to the section from the new interchange near Newcastle/I-44 to Norman/I-35.

----------


## ChargerAg

Lawrence roads are stupid.   You want to move east to west in the town you either do 6th or 23rd street.   If there is a wreck on either one of those you are screwed.

----------


## ou48A

> Lawrence roads are stupid.   You want to move east to west in the town you either do 6th or 23rd street.   If there is a wreck on either one of those you are screwed.


But most of the highways in the Lawrence area aren’t stupid and they are getting better.

----------


## Just the facts

All those new roads around Lawrence and they still need to build more?

From Suburban Nation (please read - if for no other reason than it took me a long time copy this).




> WHY TRAFFIC IS CONGESTED
> 
> The first complaint one always hears about suburbia is the traffic congestion. More than any other factor, the perception of excessive traffic is what causes citizens to take up arms against growth in suburban communities. This perception is generally justified: in most American cities, the worst traffic is to be found not downtown but in the surrounding suburbs, where an "edge city" chokes highways that were originally built for lighter loads. In newer cities such as Phoenix and Atlanta, where there is not much of a downtown to speak of, traffic congestion is consistently cited as the single most frustrating aspect of daily life.
> 
> Why have suburban areas, with their height limits and low density of population, proved to be such a traffic nightmare? The first reason, and the obvious one, is that everyone is forced to drive. In modern suburbia, where pedestrians, bicycles, and public transportation are rarely an option, the average household currently generates thirteen car trips per day. Even if each trip is fairly short—and few are — that's a lot of time spent on the road, contributing to congestion, especially when compared to life in traditional neighborhoods. Traffic engineer Rick Cheliman, in his landmark study of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, applied standard suburban trip-generation rates to that town's historic core, and found that they predicted twice as much traffic as actually existed there. Owing to its pedestrian-friendly plan—and in spite of its pedestrian-unfriendly weather—Portsmouth generates half the automobile trips of a modern-day suburb.
> 
> But even if the suburbs were to generate no more trips than the city, they would still suffer from traffic to a much greater extent because of the way they are organized. The diagram shown here illustrates how a suburban road system, what engineers call a sparse hierarchy, differs from a traditional street network. The components of the suburban model are easy to spot in the top half of the diagram: the shopping mall in its sea of parking, the fast-food joints, the apartment complex, the looping cul-de-sacs of the housing subdivision. Buffered from the others, each of these components has its own individual connection to a larger external road called the collector. Every single trip from one component to another, no matter how short, must enter the collector. Thus, the traffic of an entire community may rely on a single road, which, as a result, is generally congested during much of the day. If there is a major accident on the collector, the entire system is rendered useless until it is cleared.
> 
> A typical neighborhood is shown in the bottom half of the diagram. lt accommodates all the same components as the suburban model, but they are organized as a web, a densely interconnected system that reduces demand on the collector road. Unlike suburbia, the neighborhood presents the opportunity to walk or bicycle. But even if few do so, its gridded network is superior at handling automobile traffic, providing multiple routes between destinations. Because the entire System is available for local travel, trips are dispersed, and traffic on most streets remains light. If there is an accident, drivers simply choose an alternate path. The efficiency of the traditional grid explains why Charleston, South Carolina, at 2,500 acres, handles an annual tourist load of 5.5 million people with little congestion, while Hilton Head Island, ten times larger, experiences severe backups at 1.5 million visitors. Hilton Head, for years the suburban planners' exemplar, focuses all its traffic on a single collector road.
> ...

----------


## ou48A

> Probably comes down to being little brother to OKC. The Kilpatrick extension into Yukon really didn't do much. Just like the Norman Spur to I-44. Norman is going to continue to grow out, though not as fast as OKC has. No reason why a loop couldn't be install now that starts around Hwy 9 and 48th SE up north and around between Indian Hills and Franklin and then due west to I-44. 
> 
> If anything, they could probably easily call the section east of I-35 a new route for US 77 and then extend US 277 to the section from the new interchange near Newcastle/I-44 to Norman/I-35.


Venture I would agree that when it comes to state funding of highways Norman has basically been the little brother to OKC.
But I also think much of this comes down to the goals and quality of our past leadership.  

Norman has had a small but vocal faction of no to slow growth and for keeping Norman quaint. 
But further big growth is inevitable. We will need to accommodate the growth with better transportation and other expanded city services such as increasing the water supply and a new sewage plant.

I like your idea of an eastern loop but on it south side I would want it to cross the river near Nobel and intersect with I-35. On its north side I would want it to extend to the Turner Turnpike before curving back west to I-35. This would give the OKC Metro a bypass on its eastern side and lower traffic counts on I-35.

----------


## Just the facts

> I like your idea of an eastern loop but on it south side I would want it to cross the river near Nobel and intersect with I-35. On its north side I would want it to extend to the Turner Turnpike before curving back west to I-35. *This would give the OKC Metro a bypass on its eastern side and lower traffic counts on I-35*.


In the history of freeway construction that has never happened.  Induced traffic will use up the new capacty almost as soon as it is built (unless it is a toll road) and latent demand will re-congest I-35.  Is Memorial Road any less crowded now than before the Kilpatrick was built?  What about Broadway Extension; did Hefner Parkway solve any traffic problems there?

The new roads will just result in more shopping centers and subdivisions that will require even more people to drive to them - a.k.a induced traffic.

----------


## venture

> I like your idea of an eastern loop but on it south side I would want it to cross the river near Nobel and intersect with I-35. On its north side I would want it to extend to the Turner Turnpike before curving back west to I-35. This would give the OKC Metro a bypass on its eastern side and lower traffic counts on I-35.


I would think something more like this would be doable: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=...31306,0.445976

I'm not sure how manageable an extension all the way to the Turner Turnpike would be, but I do agree we need something on the east side to help with I-35 traffic some.  I put two options. One is to upgrade Air Depot to a highway and run it south into the new US 77 loop. The other is to do a Draper Bypass that goes from the new US 77 up to the I-240/40 interchange east of Midwest City. That immediately ties people into two interstates that handle the east side of the Metro area.

I also think that extending US 277 from Newcastle to North Norman would help with I-35 traffic a bit as all West Metro traffic could be routed that way. The south option, I don't really see a need for another highway - if Highway 9 would be upgraded. I do agree we need more river crossings, but the traffic volume won't justify a new highway there. Unless of course you forget about upgrading Highway 9 and just do a new construction option that runs between Norman and Noble. It could then cross the river and intersect south of Goldsby.

----------


## ou48A

> I would think something more like this would be doable: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=...31306,0.445976
> 
> I'm not sure how manageable an extension all the way to the Turner Turnpike would be, but I do agree we need something on the east side to help with I-35 traffic some.  I put two options. One is to upgrade Air Depot to a highway and run it south into the new US 77 loop. The other is to do a Draper Bypass that goes from the new US 77 up to the I-240/40 interchange east of Midwest City. That immediately ties people into two interstates that handle the east side of the Metro area.
> 
> I also think that extending US 277 from Newcastle to North Norman would help with I-35 traffic a bit as all West Metro traffic could be routed that way. The south option, I don't really see a need for another highway - if Highway 9 would be upgraded. I do agree we need more river crossings, but the traffic volume won't justify a new highway there. Unless of course you forget about upgrading Highway 9 and just do a new construction option that runs between Norman and Noble. It could then cross the river and intersect south of Goldsby.


I like your plan a lot. I think we should call it the venture Norman area highway plan!

The only change I would make would be on the “Draper Bypass Option”. I would move it about 2 miles west where it would intersect with I -24O and then I- 40. IMO it would be a better location to build north to the Turner Turnpike if and when they ever built this stretch of highway.  
For safety reasons alone HY -9 should rebuilt to interstate standards but another river crossing like you suggested would offer some relive to I-35 but also to other congested areas such as Lindsey St.

----------


## venture

Main reason why i have the Draper Bypass Option at the 240/40 interchange is that the land it would use would be mostly open field. Taking it further west is going to run it into more populated areas. That raises the cost of getting it built when buyouts/relocations have to happen. I did an update to add a Turner extension, but there are a lot of houses to dodge. I also don't know if there would be a lot of demand for it, but I guess it would be nice for people that want to bypass Downtown OKC and the traffic along I-35.

----------


## soonerliberal

*My costly long term idea:
*
Make Highway 9 a limited access highway from I-35 to at least Jenkins with an additional full interchange at Hwy 77 and 36th st.

Make east 36th st. a 4 lane boulevard / limited access hybrid with a full interchange at Hwy 9, Alameda, and circling around to a similar arrangement along Indian Hills Road to I-35 with an interchange at 12th street and an improved intersection at I-35.

Substitute 36th with 48th is growth outpaces infrastructure.

All new roads outside of the older areas of Norman that are widened must be boulevards rather than 4 lanes undivided.  Most upper middle class suburbs throughout the country take advantage of landscaped boulevards to help with both traffic and beautification.

Lindsey widened from Berry to 12th St NW.

Lindsey sidewalked and only a center turn lane added from Berry to Jenkins.

Jenkins widened and extensively landscaped from Main to Boyd.

Commuter Rail from Norman to OKC.

An additional track added to the railroad from Norman to OKC to avoid many of the delays at Lindsey, Main, and upward as commuter rail is added.

Dramatically improved CART system with a hub less than a block from the commuter rail stop in Downtown.

Or even better... a partnership with OU to develop a streetcar up Jenkins starting at the research campus and Lloyd Noble at Hwy 9 through campus on Jenkins (might require modifying Jenkins to add a 3rd lane or cutting through the Duck Pond area), going onward to Main Street (the site of the commuter rail stop).  This would solve the huge near future problem of connecting the various areas of campus along with connecting to Downtown.

----------


## Just the facts

If you keep spreading the population all over the countryside by widening every road and adding freeways then expanding CART and adding commuter rail will be impossible.  You can't simultaneously expand the geographic footprint and implement mass transit.  It is one or the other.

----------


## Snowman

> I would think something more like this would be doable: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=...31306,0.445976
> 
> I'm not sure how manageable an extension all the way to the Turner Turnpike would be, but I do agree we need something on the east side to help with I-35 traffic some.  I put two options. One is to upgrade Air Depot to a highway and run it south into the new US 77 loop. The other is to do a Draper Bypass that goes from the new US 77 up to the I-240/40 interchange east of Midwest City. That immediately ties people into two interstates that handle the east side of the Metro area.
> 
> I also think that extending US 277 from Newcastle to North Norman would help with I-35 traffic a bit as all West Metro traffic could be routed that way. The south option, I don't really see a need for another highway - if Highway 9 would be upgraded. I do agree we need more river crossings, but the traffic volume won't justify a new highway there. Unless of course you forget about upgrading Highway 9 and just do a new construction option that runs between Norman and Noble. It could then cross the river and intersect south of Goldsby.


With the planned turnpike extension I do not see them putting another bridge over the river where you liked one going.

----------


## venture

That proposed SW Loop provides zero value to Norman since it runs into Moore. So with that, the options we've discussed here would still be valid as they actually would serve Norman. I can't help but also assume that any bypasses that we've put out there would also take the vast majority of transiting truck traffic off of I-35 in OKC and Moore.

----------


## shane453

Sooner Road (12th) is already a great east side option for connecting to 240/40, and it doesn't even have significant slowdowns on game days.




> I guess it would be nice for people that want to bypass Downtown OKC and the traffic along I-35.


What traffic on I-35? The mild congestion that occurs for two hours each day around a few busy interchanges?

----------


## soonerliberal

> If you keep spreading the population all over the countryside by widening every road and adding freeways then expanding CART and adding commuter rail will be impossible.  You can't simultaneously expand the geographic footprint and implement mass transit.  It is one or the other.


That is a false choice.  The goal is not to simultaneously expand the footprint, but that is an unfortunate reality.  Norman will continue to expand north, east, and west in the imminent future.  There is nothing right now to stop it.  However, we have to acknowledge that any long term mass transit option will take quite some time to develop and by that time, the city is going to spread even further. Norman's unique challenge is that while it has a large workforce, it is also a suburb to an even larger city.  It is also unique in that it has a reverse commute for a lot of people.  With it being a suburb, people are instinctively going to desire the sprawl.  I don't necessarily agree with the mindset, but you have to acknowledge its presence.

Eventually with the presence of mass transit, the sprawl will slow down and infill will occur, but we are left with the chicken or the egg theory all over again.

----------


## venture

> Sooner Road (12th) is already a great east side option for connecting to 240/40, and it doesn't even have significant slowdowns on game days.
> 
> What traffic on I-35? The mild congestion that occurs for two hours each day around a few busy interchanges?


Sooner is hardly a safe or great option for an eastern loop. If it were upgrades to highway standards I would agree with you, but development has taken over too much along it. There are also starting to be too many traffic lights to really make it a viable alternative. Keep in mind that when discussing long range planning like this, we are talking setting up things for 20-30 years down the road. You can't say a current roadway is a great option when discussing the future. Between Norman and OKC isn't horrible, but once you are in OKC there are way too many curb cuts for a 50 mph roadway.

Again, long range planning when it comes to your second comment. A 6-lane I-35 is only going to be able to hold so much traffic that another option will become viable. What better way than to divert south bound through traffic onto an eastern bypass.

----------


## soonerliberal

> What traffic on I-35? The mild congestion that occurs for two hours each day around a few busy interchanges?


Something that I have noticed as well.  Rush hour traffic is incredibly light on I-35 now that the construction is finished.  Most of the Norman traffic is heavy once you get off of the highway, not while you are on it.

----------


## Just the facts

> That is a false choice.  The goal is not to simultaneously expand the footprint, but that is an unfortunate reality.  Norman will continue to expand north, east, and west in the imminent future.  There is nothing right now to stop it.  However, we have to acknowledge that any long term mass transit option will take quite some time to develop and by that time, the city is going to spread even further. Norman's unique challenge is that while it has a large workforce, it is also a suburb to an even larger city.  It is also unique in that it has a reverse commute for a lot of people.  With it being a suburb, people are instinctively going to desire the sprawl.  I don't necessarily agree with the mindset, but you have to acknowledge its presence.
> 
> Eventually with the presence of mass transit, the sprawl will slow down and infill will occur, but we are left with the chicken or the egg theory all over again.


Stop building new roads and see how fast people stop moving further away.  It is really pretty simple.  Here is Florida we already tried building freeways 40 miles into the country - you know what we got for it?  People driving 40 miles to work.

----------


## ou48A

We have heard some talk about improved passenger and freight rail in Oklahoma
In Norman we need to seriously consider a below grade separation of the tracks.
This would Improve safety and reduce noise. These tracks would need to be double tracked.
If high speed rail is ever built from Tulsa to OKC we should try to have it extended to Norman.

Henceforth when and where necessary any project should take in to consideration its compatibility with the development of commuter rail and high speed rail.

----------


## ou48A

I -35 is a National High Priority Corridor.
We should raise our rural I 35 speed limits if they do all this.
I found this on Page 136

From the state of Oklahoma 

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/p-r-d...2035/index.htm



I-35 Corridor the I-35 Trade Corridor Study completed in 1999 made the following recommendations for I-35 in Oklahoma:
 From the Kansas/Oklahoma Border to northern transition of Oklahoma City: six lanes
 from the northern transition of Oklahoma City to the Oklahoma City core: eight lanes
 For the Oklahoma City Core: eight lanes with additional *construction of a relief route*
 From the Oklahoma City Core to southern transition of Oklahoma City: six lanes with additional *construction of a relief route*
 From the southern transition of Oklahoma City to the Oklahoma/Texas border: eight lanes
 Construction costs were estimated at $880 million for Oklahoma

----------


## Snowman

> I -35 is a National High Priority Corridor.
> We should raise our rural I 35 speed limits if they do all this.
> I found this on Page 136
> 
> From the state of Oklahoma 
> 
> http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/p-r-d...2035/index.htm
> 
> 
> ...


8 lanes to the texas border seems an unusually high for that type of segment.

----------


## Just the facts

Construction estimate of $880 million?  When was this estimate done - 1960?

4 miles of the crosstown cost that much.  You couldn't lay a 4 lane sidewalk across Oklahoma for $880 million.

The main problem with ODOT is that they are concerned with moving cars, not people.

----------


## JayhawkTransplant

Echoing Pioneer, I'd like to thank everyone for the discussion in this thread. City staff have indeed been reading your comments, and they have led to some meaningful discussion.

The statistically-valid survey has been mailed out. If you are one of the randomly-selected participants, you may have already received it. Please encourage your friends and neighbors to complete and return the survey if they have one in their possession. Should the City choose to commence with the creation of a long-range transportation plan, it is imperative to gather feedback from the community to know what types of projects they would support.

For those of you who do not receive a survey, please take the survey on the City's website (link below). The results of the online survey will not be statistically valid, but important to the City nonetheless. Please encourage friends, family, coworkers, etc. to take the survey as well.

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/content/moving-forward

----------


## ou48A

JayhawkTransplant  Thank you for your input and for the link.

I have taken the survey. Over all I thought it was well put together but when I visit other high growth city’s and see what they have done I’m left with the feeling that Norman's transportation plan needs to be a lot more aggressive and proactive than the survey suggest that it might be. Norman is still very much in a catch up mode with the growth continuing.

----------


## ou48A

As I took the survey I was very disappointed that I didn’t see anything at all about increasing vehicle capacity on Lindsey Street from Barry Street to the east. This is one of the most congested areas of Norman.

I was pleased to see that there is consideration for a new street from the OU campus running north along the rail road tracks. 
In order for this new street to work efficiently it needs to start at Lindsey and end with an over pass over Robinson and connect with Flood Street several hundred yards north of Robinson. It needs to have timed traffic lights and be capable of being turned into a one way street after OU football games. In an ideal world much of this street should be grade separated along with the rail road tracks.

----------


## venture

I think there is going to be an issue for Lindsey from Berry to the East is...

1) Keep current setup and restrict traffic.
2) Increase capacity and cause the same level of congestion just with more cars.

Probably the biggest thing they could do is retime all the traffic lights to help the flow of traffic. A new north bound option from Campus could help move the traffic out of the area anyway.

----------


## ou48A

Anything that disperses traffic on to other new or expanded streets will help with other areas of congestion such as what is regularly seen on Lindsey. The Front street project and the Jenkins street state highway project that I have previously suggested would also help.

Timing all the traffic lights along Lindsey (as well as other streets ) would help but there is more than enough room to build a center turn lane on Lindsey from campus to Berry.....

----------


## Just the facts

Latent demand says that any new capacity will be used up with few years.  Latent demand is traffic that only exists if capacity exists.  This is why no city in America has ever out-built congestion.  It can't be done and trying is a fools errand.

----------


## BoulderSooner

lindsay should be 4 lane or 5 lane (w/ turn lane) from 50 yards east of berry to I35   from 50 yards east of berry through campus it should be 1 lane each way w/ a middle turn lane .. then it becomes 4 lane on the other side of campus

----------


## Just the facts

The question is not how many lanes must be built to ease congestion but how many lanes of congestion you want. Do you favor four lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic at rush hour, or sixteen? - Suburban Nation

----------


## Snowman

> Latent demand says that any new capacity will be used up with few years.  Latent demand is traffic that only exists if capacity exists.  This is why no city in America has ever out-built congestion.  It can't be done and trying is a fools errand.


Any advice on how political leaders should ignore any type of demand in what is usually one of their constitutions higher priorities?

----------


## Just the facts

> Any advice on how political leaders should ignore any type of demand in what is usually one of their constitutions higher priorities?


Congestion is the symptom - not the problem.  Issues are best solved by fixing the causes, not the results of the causes.  People drive in Norman becasue they have to, not because they want to.  With little exception, Norman is built in such a way that driving everywhere is required.  Driving leads to congestion.  The solution is not to create more reasons to drive, it is to create less reasons to drive, or at least provide an alternative to driving.

Here are some ideas just off the top of my head:

1) Remove all one-way streets
2) Create an urban development boundary
3) Implement a streetcar linking OU to Norman Regional Hospital via downtown Norman
4) Connect downtown Norman to Oklahoma City via a regional rail line
5) Create a downtown Norman urbanization plan that encourages mixed use development, mid-rise housing, national retail, and urban parks.
6) Reduce most landscape requirements around new development while also requiring pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to adjacent developments.
7) Eliminate all parking requirements.
8) Eliminate segregated zoning
9) Eliminate distance requirements (i.e. no bar within 500 feet of a church, etc...)

----------


## ljbab728

Kerry, surely you don't believe that very urban environments eliminate congestion.  Some of the most urban cities in the world are still extremely traffic congested.  I don't disagree with your suggestions but eliminating any road improvements isn't the answer either.

Your statement about Norman is only partially correct.  I grew up there and certainly did a lot of walking.  The central city is very walkable and invites it.

----------


## Just the facts

> Kerry, surely you don't believe that very urban environments eliminate congestion.  Some of the most urban cities in the world are still extremely traffic congested.  I don't disagree with your suggestions but eliminating any road improvements isn't the answer either.
> 
> Your statement about Norman is only partially correct.  I grew up there and certainly did a lot of walking.  The central city is very walkable and invites it.


Going back to my quote - how many lanes of congestion do you want - 2 or 16?  I-75 through North Atlanta is 16 lanes and during rush hour it is bumper to bumper congestion.

If you are in a very urban area and still choose to sit in traffic that is your choice - but at least you have a choice.  I work with people in Philly that could take the train, but don't.  Some people, like my wife, are just intimidated by mass transit.  She didn’t grow up with it, usually doesn’t like to get out of her comfort zone, and thinks only poor people ride mass transit.

----------


## ljbab728

> Going back to my quote - how many lanes of congestion do you want - 2 or 16?  I-75 through North Atlanta is 16 lanes and during rush hour it is bumper to bumper congestion.


I really don't think it matters.  Congestion is congestion.  And you're right, people will continue to make their own choices depending on their comfort level and life style preferences.  You're not going to change the world.

----------


## ou48A

After further consideration about the need for an east side Norman by-pass and the Jenkins extension that I had previously posted about the thought occurred to me that the 2 projects could be combined.

The limited access by-pass could start on I-35 somewhere around mile marker 99 to 100 (north of Purcell) and be built nearly due north until it crosses the river. From this point the road could “Y” with one branch going NW to the limited access by-pass Jenkins extension. The other branch could run northeasterly skirting in NW side of Noble and then the east side of Norman and continue north to I- 240 & I-40 on the east side of lake Stanly Draper, just as Venture79 suggested. If and when needed from here the by-pass could eventually be built on to the north.

As it stands now this project would be paid for in large part by state and federal funding? This would provide much better access to I-35 for folks living in the Noble area and help relive bottle necks on several streets and highways for others.

----------


## Just the facts

What is the goal of all these new roads?

----------


## kevinpate

> What is the goal of all these new roads?


They get the present and anticipated outer perimeter subdivision folks to and fro, service vendors to them and back to town again, and move a good amount of flow through traffic to bypass Norman/Moore/OKC/MID-DEL, easing the growth of traffic count on the span of 35 between the S. Canadian and I-40, and likely bringing new services closer to the aforementioned anticipated sub-d folk.

Given your oft shared tales as a sub-d hacienda owner, I'm sure you recognize the pattern, for better or worse.

----------


## Just the facts

> They get the present and anticipated outer perimeter subdivision folks to and fro, service vendors to them and back to town again, and move a good amount of flow through traffic to bypass Norman/Moore/OKC/MID-DEL, easing the growth of traffic count on the span of 35 between the S. Canadian and I-40, and likely bringing new services closer to the aforementioned anticipated sub-d folk.
> 
> Given your oft shared tales as a sub-d hacienda owner, I'm sure you recognize the pattern, for better or worse.


I am fully aware of the pattern - that is why I am wondering why there is any interest left in repeating what already didn't work.  So what if all these new freeways get built, they will just get congested again, and the whole process will need to be repeated further out.  Eventually the cheap cost of expansion gives way to the expensive cost of sustainment and you go broke  (see the Southwest Airlines Thread).  The state has how many thousands of unsafe bridges and people still want to build more bridges - unbelievable.

----------


## ou48A

> I am fully aware of the pattern - that is why I am wondering why there is any interest left in repeating what already didn't work.  So what if all these new freeways get built, they will just get congested again, and the whole process will need to be repeated further out.  Eventually the cheap cost of expansion gives way to the expensive cost of sustainment and you go broke  (see the Southwest Airlines Thread).  The state has how many thousands of unsafe bridges and people still want to build more bridges - unbelievable.


There is a plan in place that should dramatically reduce the number of bad bridges in Oklahoma.
I can understand many of the problems with urban sprawl but the solutions to these problems are not acceptable when they significantly degrade our quality of life.
I don’t think that all but a very small minority of Oklahoma’s would find living stacked one on top of another an acceptable solution or a quality life style.

----------


## Just the facts

> There is a plan in place that should dramatically reduce the number of bad bridges in Oklahoma.
> I can understand many of the problems with urban sprawl but the solutions to these problems are not acceptable when they significantly degrade our quality of life.
> I don’t think that all but a very small minority of Oklahoma’s would find living stacked one on top of another an acceptable solution or a quality life style.


Driving 100 miles a day sitting in endless traffic isn't quality of life degrading?  I am guessing you have never lived in a true urban area.  I had an apartment in Norman one time and I was dating a girl that lived out by Macomb.  One night I was asked by her mom and dad how I could live with so many people around.  Don't tell me you are a Macomb type person.

When I am staying in the hotel in Philly I rarely give a thought to how many people are living within 500 feet of me.  However, when I left my phone charger at the office the other night I was glad the office was only 3 blocks away.  Since I was already out I decided to stop in the little corner bakery to get me an item before going back up to the room.  That is quality of life for me.

----------


## kevinpate

If I forget something at the office I tend to leave it there, absent a true OMG type emergency, and go in a touch earlier the next day, if necessary, or deal with it at the regular time if it's not modo critical.  As for a snack, that's what a well stocked fridge provides, and if it's low, three large grocers, one a 24 hr setup, are within a mile, and the car is in the drive.  

But I can agree with you on one point ... I rarely spend much time worrying about the folks who live around me either. Enough of them know me well nuf they can count on me in a pinch, and the rest likely know someone else, so it's all good.

Not knocking Philly, nor anywhere urban, but it's not the only way.  

Perhaps I am a modified Macomb person.  For me, Norman isn't 100,000 plus folks or all sprawled out.  More like 2-4,000, with most of what I need in a 1.5 by 3 mile rectangle, or smaller, and the convenience of occasionally finding other interesting little communities that kick in where my lil' corner of the prairie ends.

----------


## venture

I think a lot of it depends on what quality of life is to someone specifically. If someone really likes the close together, true urban lifestyle - Oklahoma isn't on their list. I grew up in a typical urban area that pushed together a few hundred thousand people in a fraction the size of OKC. I didn't care for that. While I do get annoyed by the large distance everyone is in the Metro area, I enjoy things being not so congested. I also think that Norman specifically needs some improvements to his transportation infrastructure. Not a ton, but enough to allow for continued growth and development. Having direct access to the core OKC metro population by only one interstate isn't enough.

----------


## shane453

> I can understand many of the problems with urban sprawl but the solutions to these problems are not acceptable when they significantly degrade our quality of life.
> I don’t think that all but a very small minority of Oklahoma’s would find living stacked one on top of another an acceptable solution or a quality life style.


Yes it would be so horrible to live in an environment all stacked up on top of each other as they do in a place like Savannah, Georgia, where everyone is within walking distance (on quiet, shaded streets) of several public parks and amenities of daily life.













Can you imagine something so HORRIBLE? Why would those people choose that when they could live their lives like this instead:







Walkable neighborhoods in Norman would not need to be hyper dense places like you're imagining. Chautauqua and Miller neighborhoods are appropriate densities for Norman and if we had continued building with the same urban form, with increases in density where appropriate (near campus) and commercial development in neighborhoods (instead of strewn across 3 miles of I-35) we would not have the same traffic congestion issues.

Another newsflash: many typical suburban developments approach high densities of 4,000+ per square mile. Without any of the benefits (public space, walkability) of the more traditional urban form of the same density. In other words, we are getting ripped off by developers due to our own false perception that suburbia is good because of its supposed low density.

----------


## shane453

duplicate

----------


## ou48A

> Yes it would be so horrible to live in an environment all stacked up on top of each other as they do in a place like Savannah, Georgia, where everyone is within walking distance (on quiet, shaded streets) of several public parks and amenities of daily life.


There are a great number of people in Oklahoma that do not like that life style and enjoy a more suburban life or the activities found in rural life style. Even if it’s not what the way I would choose live it’s their prerogative and right to live that way and will I will defend it at the ballot box and elsewhere.
I live in NW Norman on a  acre lot and I know I won’t ever live in a true urban environment in my life again, at least until I get too old to take care of what I have. I can drive *trouble free* to about 95% of my needs on this side of town about 99.99 % of the time in less than 8 minutes.

----------


## ljbab728

> There are a great number of people in Oklahoma that do not like that life style and enjoy a more suburban life or the activities found in rural life style. Even if it’s not what the way I would choose live it’s their prerogative and right to live that way and will I will defend it at the ballot box and elsewhere.
> I live in NW Norman on a  acre lot and I know I won’t ever live in a true urban environment in my life again, at least until I get too old to take care of what I have. I can drive *trouble free* to about 95% of my needs on this side of town about 99.99 % of the time in less than 8 minutes.


I agree, OU.  Savannah is a very lovely city but it's not everyone's idea of utopia.  Some people try to envision a one size fits all world.

----------


## Just the facts

Sure not everyone likes walkable neighborhoods, but Norman doesn't offer a choice.  Try going 30 days without using a car.  So maybe before spending more money on more of the same, why not try something different for a change?

----------


## shane453

> There are a great number of people in Oklahoma that do not like that life style and enjoy a more suburban life or the activities found in rural life style. Even if it’s not what the way I would choose live it’s their prerogative and right to live that way and will I will defend it at the ballot box and elsewhere.
> I live in NW Norman on a  acre lot and I know I won’t ever live in a true urban environment in my life again, at least until I get too old to take care of what I have. I can drive *trouble free* to about 95% of my needs on this side of town about 99.99 % of the time in less than 8 minutes.


First of all, central Norman is not the place where people who want a suburban or rural lifestyle should consider living- so why adapt central Norman to their preferences?

It's really as simple as this: You can get everywhere you need to go in 8 minutes in your car. But people without a car, or who prefer not to use one, are forced into inconvenient or downright unsafe conditions. So, what is the real transportation problem in Norman? Which group needs your defense at the ballot box? Which group is in need of improved conditions in the transportation network?

----------


## ou48A

> Sure not everyone likes walkable neighborhoods, but Norman doesn't offer a choice.  Try going 30 days without using a car.  So maybe before spending more money on more of the same, why not try something different for a change?


Let please be realistic….. 
Nobody in my part of Norman or in most of the rest of the nation is going to give up driving for a day, much less 30 days.

The Norman area needs more streets, highways and other transportation capasity.
They will be built..... it’s just a matter of what, when and where they get built.

----------


## ou48A

> First of all, central Norman is not the place where people who want a suburban or rural lifestyle should consider living- so why adapt central Norman to their preferences?
> 
> It's really as simple as this: You can get everywhere you need to go in 8 minutes in your car. But people without a car, or who prefer not to use one, are forced into inconvenient or downright unsafe conditions. So, what is the real transportation problem in Norman? Which group needs your defense at the ballot box? Which group is in need of improved conditions in the transportation network?


Other than a hand full of students the amount of people who live in Norman who don’t own or have ready access to a vehicle is a very tiny fraction of the city’s population. The priorities of the vast majority of  city’s residents are far more important to the heath and prosperity of the city of Norman.

----------


## shane453

> Other than a hand full of students the amount of people who live in Norman who don’t own or have ready access to a vehicle is a very tiny fraction of the city’s population. The priorities of the vast majority of  city’s residents are far more important to the heath and prosperity of the city of Norman.


A large number of students would prefer not to use cars to access campus (it's expensive and inconvenient), and I imagine it would help OU's parking inventory and relieve traffic congestion in central Norman if that number of students stopped using cars. Students make up more than 20% of the population, which is not a tiny fraction. The vast majority of Norman who prefers driving is in no way threatened by Norman deciding to adjust its spending and land use priorities to help encourage cycling and walking instead of proliferating automobile traffic. Plenty of college towns have 10-30% of trips taking place without cars. Norman could build an outstanding bike network with a fraction of the money it has spent on road projects in the last five years. If Norman had done so, we could actually be seeing traffic volumes decrease or level off today.

----------


## venture

> Other than a hand full of students the amount of people who live in Norman who don’t own or have ready access to a vehicle is a very tiny fraction of the city’s population. The priorities of the vast majority of  city’s residents are far more important to the heath and prosperity of the city of Norman.


The old the wants/needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few argument. I would definitely say a balanced approach needs to be done. Yes it would include a new Norman highway loop from East Norman around North Norman and west to I-44. Then we need to redevelop the central core of the city with more dense planning, reclaiming blighted lots, and also providing street car service from the core to key sections of the city. It could be argued that the students at OU have a greater economic impact on Norman than most of the residents. They are bringing dollars into Norman without taking much out. People that work in Norman are just recycling. Norman wouldn't be anywhere near its size without OU right now, so can't just toss them aside like a handful of kids that don't matter.

I would much like to see new condos and upscale apartments be developed around the east side of downtown. Then also more shops and local businesses brought into downtown to provide services to the new residents. Think of how nice it would be for street car service to be available from Downtown through Campus/Campus Corner all the way to Lloyd Noble or the Weather Center. Then another line run east to west from 24th on the East to 48th on the West or even just to Sooner Mall. Could look at another one that goes up to UNP or even further to Moore. However going much further it would be best to go with a more traditional light rail system.

The future of Norman shouldn't be catered to only those that want to live in a Stepford Neighborhood that are cookie cutters around the external edges of Norman. If you want to live out away from a city core, go ahead. Just don't expect a lot of the city's transportation to be geared towards you. If the core of the city isn't maintained and sprawl keeps going uncontrolled, we are going to be looking at a very weak and run down core that people won't want to go near. The rust belt cities all made that mistake, no way Norman should. If the core gets strong and very densely populated that the city needs to spread out more, than so be it. However, growth must be balanced.

----------


## ou48A

> A large number of students would prefer not to use cars to access campus (it's expensive and inconvenient), and I imagine it would help OU's parking inventory and relieve traffic congestion in central Norman if that number of students stopped using cars. Students make up more than 20% of the population, which is not a tiny fraction. The vast majority of Norman who prefers driving is in no way threatened by Norman deciding to adjust its spending and land use priorities to help encourage cycling and walking instead of proliferating automobile traffic. Plenty of college towns have 10-30% of trips taking place without cars. Norman could build an outstanding bike network with a fraction of the money it has spent on road projects in the last five years. If Norman had done so, we could actually be seeing traffic volumes decrease or level off today.


There might be a few dozen, but of the OU students I have known in recent years virtually none would willing give up their vehicles while at OU. Other than small kids I see very few people using a bike for actual transportation. I see far more people walking around Norman. I do support better & wider sidewalks on campus and in the older areas around campus.

----------


## ou48A

> The old the wants/needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few argument. I would definitely say a balanced approach needs to be done. Yes it would include a new Norman highway loop from East Norman around North Norman and west to I-44. Then we need to redevelop the central core of the city with more dense planning, reclaiming blighted lots, and also providing street car service from the core to key sections of the city. It could be argued that the students at OU have a greater economic impact on Norman than most of the residents. They are bringing dollars into Norman without taking much out. People that work in Norman are just recycling. Norman wouldn't be anywhere near its size without OU right now, so can't just toss them aside like a handful of kids that don't matter.
> 
> I would much like to see new condos and upscale apartments be developed around the east side of downtown. Then also more shops and local businesses brought into downtown to provide services to the new residents. Think of how nice it would be for street car service to be available from Downtown through Campus/Campus Corner all the way to Lloyd Noble or the Weather Center. Then another line run east to west from 24th on the East to 48th on the West or even just to Sooner Mall. Could look at another one that goes up to UNP or even further to Moore. However going much further it would be best to go with a more traditional light rail system.
> 
> The future of Norman shouldn't be catered to only those that want to live in a Stepford Neighborhood that are cookie cutters around the external edges of Norman. If you want to live out away from a city core, go ahead. Just don't expect a lot of the city's transportation to be geared towards you. If the core of the city isn't maintained and sprawl keeps going uncontrolled, we are going to be looking at a very weak and run down core that people won't want to go near. The rust belt cities all made that mistake, no way Norman should. If the core gets strong and very densely populated that the city needs to spread out more, than so be it. However, growth must be balanced.


Supporting the needs and wants of the 95%+ of the majority is a balanced approach.

 That’s not saying that we shouldn’t do some things to help the central core of the city. If people want to live in new condos and upscale apartments the free market will build them. But you have better have enough good jobs to support them. Good transportation and a cooperative city government are very important factors in qulity job growth, but we need improvements in both.

----------


## shane453

> There might be a few dozen, but of the OU students I have known in recent years virtually none would willing give up their vehicles while at OU.


They wouldn't be giving up their vehicles, they would not use their vehicle to access the campus area. Thousands of students already do this. It costs $200/year and lots of wasted hours of circling parking lots to drive a car to campus, plus you still have to walk 5-10 minutes to final destination.




> Other than small kids I see very few people using a bike for actual transportation.


That's because the city of Norman hasn't adequately provided for the bike as an actual mode of transportation. Despite this, there are a lot of grown adults who are using the bike as primary transportation in central Norman. Probably a higher percentage than anywhere else in Oklahoma. The other more disturbing thing about this sentence is that small kids are using bicycles for transportation in an environment that is not designed for their safety. It is great that kids can learn independence and stay healthy and active by riding bikes, but it is awful if we can't spare a fraction of our road budget to make it safer for them.

----------


## ou48A

> They wouldn't be giving up their vehicles, they would not use their vehicle to access the campus area. Thousands of students already do this. It costs $200/year and lots of wasted hours of circling parking lots to drive a car to campus, plus you still have to walk 5-10 minutes to final destination.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the city of Norman hasn't adequately provided for the bike as an actual mode of transportation. Despite this, there are a lot of grown adults who are using the bike as primary transportation in central Norman. Probably a higher percentage than anywhere else in Oklahoma. The other more disturbing thing about this sentence is that small kids are using bicycles for transportation in an environment that is not designed for their safety. It is great that kids can learn independence and stay healthy and active by riding bikes, but it is awful if we can't spare a fraction of our road budget to make it safer for them.


You said… “Large number of students would prefer not to use cars to access campus”
They can already ride CART to the main part of campus from many parts of Norman. They can park a ride from the LNC. As you say “Thousands of students already do this” so I don’t think we would see very much reduction in current traffic patterns by spending money on bike paths.

For OU to become the type of University that it wants to become OU will probably need to grow rather significantly in size. 
Therefore I do think that OU will eventually need to build more dorm space and several thousand new parking garage spaces near the dorms. 

I would support a commuter rail network with an OU station. This would reduce traffic around OU and on I -35 particularly if it was supported by a park and ride and by a bus and trolley line feeder system.

I not sure how practical it is but some have suggested that OU build a monorail system

----------


## vaflyer

I hear people in the city of Norman say all the time that development should pay its own way. For the fun of it, lets apply the same logic to transportation. Cars drive on the roads powered by gasoline. The gasoline is then taxed by the government to pay for transportation projects. These transportation projects include new/repaired roads, bicycle lanes, commuter rail projects, and etc. Bicycles, on the other hand, pay no transportation taxes that fund this infrastructure development while commuter rail riders pay a fare that, in most cases, does not cover the cost of operation of that mode of transportation. So in essence, car drivers are subsidizing bicycles and commuter rail but that runs contrary to the idea that each mode of transportation should pay its own way. Now if we are going to require that development pay its own way, shouldnt we require that of transportation to be fair? I know that those in favor of bicycles and commuter rail will argue otherwise, but I do not see any reason why those groups should be treated special.

In a related manner, the city paid millions of dollars to build the Rock Creek overpass. The project included separate and divided lanes for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Yet on multiple occasions, I have had to pass a bicycle driving on the main lanes of the bridge. If we are going to build these additional facilities for bicycles then either bicycles should be required to use them (and stay off the main lanes) or we should save the money and not build them.

----------


## shane453

I don't get it... If we provide bike infrastructure, at a minimal cost compared to what we spend on roads, and it works, and more people bike, then: Roads require less maintenance, fewer lanes are needed, less developable land is spent on parking, people are healthier.

Saves money for government, makes money for developers, reduces traffic for those who choose to drive, and improves health of those who choose to bike. Doesn't everyone win?

----------


## ou48A

> I don't get it... If we provide bike infrastructure, at a minimal cost compared to what we spend on roads, and it works, and more people bike, then: Roads require less maintenance, fewer lanes are needed, less developable land is spent on parking, people are healthier.
> 
> Saves money for government, makes money for developers, reduces traffic for those who choose to drive, and improves health of those who choose to bike. Doesn't everyone win?


No not everybody wins?
Why….
You would get less than 1% of the Norman population on a bike and much fewer on cold, windy, wet days.

The Norman biking community is a very vocal group who is much more concerned about its own recreational needs than it is about actual transportation needs, thus making it a very small special interest niche group.

Rebuilding sidewalks or buying a few more snow plows or spending the money on some other identified need with the money that would be spent for bikes…. would benefit far more people.

----------


## venture

I have no problem not building new bike lanes using the same funds for road transportation. If there is a need for bike lanes then issue license plates to bicycles. If you want to ride on public streets, you better have a tag that is up to date like every other vehicle out there. I would also say that there needs to be a system in place where cyclists are ticketed if they are on the street in a section where bike lanes are available. If public citizens see them, complaints can be filed. It sucks, but there is definitely an aggressive group in Norman that are very rude to car drivers. Especially when they ride in lanes on 40-45 mph roads.

----------


## kevinpate

One of the bennies to driving older, somewhat banged up vehicles.  People are far less prone to be rude or aggressive toward you if your vehicle has an 'eh, what's one more scratch or dent' vibe about it.

----------


## Just the facts

I don't get it - some people are so concerned about congestion they are wanting hundreds of miles of new suburban roads built that do nothing other than make people drive hundreds of more miles, but when a plan that actually reduces congestion is put forth - they poo poo it.  I can't explain it.

How can someone seriously complain about traffic congestion and at the same time desire more of the development that creates the congestion in the first place?  That is like solving the national debt by borrowing money to pay it off.  Sure it gets you by for another year but what's the point - you'll be right back in the same boat next year, except with more debt.

BTW - the gasoline tax doesn't even come close to paying for new roads or road maintenance - NOT... EVEN... CLOSE...  Local streets are mostly paid for out of property taxes.

----------


## ou48A

Many of the ideas discussed on this thread have their merits however what I haven’t seen is very much about how we might pay for these ideas.

I would like to see a mix of sales and property tax paying for the city’s share of these projects.
The city of Norman has lots of visitors who spend money and would benefit from the construction of some of these roads.
A dedicated sales tax would capture some of the money that visitors spend. 
I doubt that a sales tax would collect enough money so increases in property tax would be needed.

Interest rates are at near historic lows. 
There may not be a better time to use bonds to help finance these projects.

----------


## shane453

This is how road and highway projects are funded in Wisconsin, where state gas tax is twice as high as Oklahoma's (32 cents in WI vs 16 cents in OK). This user fee does not come close to covering total transportation costs, couldn't even cover the maintenance of the existing system, and barely contributes to transit.

----------


## Just the facts

How about NAPS - Norman Area Projects.

1) Streetcar
2) Regional rail component
3) Downtown street realignment (getting rid of one-way streets)
4) Bike paths
5) Transit hub between Main and Gray

Future Norman Transcript Headline:  Norman Takes a Nap.

----------


## ou48A

We need to redevelop the inter core of Norman IMHO, but to do it right we must understand that several hurtles must be overcome and that to make it truly desirable we must be willing to build the right supporting transportation infrastructure.

Norman has more than its fair share of people who are simply opposed to very much expansion and development no matter where or what it is. 
Many of these people will seize on the issue regardless of what the transportation issue is and no matter what the facts are and try to use that to create some type of hysteria and opposition. 
They have to a large degree deliberately created an environment of guilt. 
We see this when they complain about the removal of a few homes or a business or even trees when it would benefit the greater good of nearly all.

If we don't build quality transportation infrastructure in the Norman area we will we gradually lose competitiveness as growth continues and logistics costs rise because of an overloaded infrastructure. 

As it is, there are already decent numbers of people who avoid Norman and parts of Norman because of congestion.

----------


## ou48A

It sounds like the City of Norman will hold a 2012 Bond Election that would widen Lindsey Street from I - 35 to Berry Road and include major drainage improvements. They would include an appropriate transition to the east of Berry Road. The Lindsey/Interstate 35 interchange reconstruction project is currently scheduled to begin in 2015. The city would like to widen Lindsey during the same time period.

When turning north on Berry Road I hope they include a right turn lane on west bound Lindsey.

----------


## Uncle Slayton

> It sounds like the City of Norman will hold a 2012 Bond Election that would widen Lindsey Street from I - 35 to Berry Road and *include major drainage improvements.* They would include an appropriate transition to the east of Berry Road. The Lindsey/Interstate 35 interchange reconstruction project is currently scheduled to begin in 2015. The city would like to widen Lindsey during the same time period.
> 
> When turning north on Berry Road I hope they include a right turn lane on west bound Lindsey.


Your lips to God's ears.  It'd be nice to get down McGee between Lindsey and Boyd after any moisture more intense than Bethel Baptist turning on their sprinklers.  

Thus far, the city of Norman's solution to this problem has been to close McGee and station a cop next to the athletic fields to write tickets to residents trying to get to their homes by driving around the barricades.  I drive around them and when he hits his lights, I continue down my side street. If he wants to ticket me, he can follow me through the water.  So far, I've never heard a peep from NPD.

I keep threatening to put on my overalls and a straw hat, get a long wooden pole and raft down McGee on a fence panel from Boyd to Lindsey, Huck Finn style,  to illustrate the problem.  What're the odds I'd be on the front page of the Transcript and/or on KOCO?

----------


## BoulderSooner

> It sounds like the City of Norman will hold a 2012 Bond Election that would widen Lindsey Street from I - 35 to Berry Road and include major drainage improvements. They would include an appropriate transition to the east of Berry Road. The Lindsey/Interstate 35 interchange reconstruction project is currently scheduled to begin in 2015. The city would like to widen Lindsey during the same time period.
> 
> When turning north on Berry Road I hope they include a right turn lane on west bound Lindsey.


great news and only about 15 years late

----------


## Just the facts

Anyone care to guess how long it will take Lindsey to be congested again after the widening that was designed to lessen congestion?  The question isn't whether to have congestion or not, it is how many lanes of congestion you want.

----------


## venture

Here is the story in the Transcript about the upcoming Bond Issue and other thing: http://normantranscript.com/headline...orman-s-future




> Anyone care to guess how long it will take Lindsey to be congested again after the widening that was designed to lessen congestion?  The question isn't whether to have congestion or not, it is how many lanes of congestion you want.


Hmm, it is congested now. It'll be a nightmare during construction. It'll be congested immediately after construction. So it will probably not get away from being congested. LOL

----------


## Just the facts

> Here is the story in the Transcript about the upcoming Bond Issue and other thing: http://normantranscript.com/headline...orman-s-future
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, it is congested now. It'll be a nightmare during construction. It'll be congested immediately after construction. So it will probably not get away from being congested. LOL


So the problem stays but it cost more.  That sounds about right.

----------


## ou48A

This project is badly needed. It will be a much better road in 2 years or so..............

Weather permitting; 60th Street NW (Western Avenue) from Tecumseh Road to Franklin Road will be closed to through traffic at approximately 7:00 AM Monday, February 6, 2012, for approximately 3 months.  Traffic will be detoured to 48th Street NW along Tecumseh Road and Franklin Road.  Signs will be placed accordingly to direct the traveling public. 


The 60th Street NW Widening Project from Tecumseh Road to Indian Hills Road is a $5.7 million street improvement project administered by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation on behalf of the City of Norman.  Construction of the project will begin on Monday, February 6, 2012.  The prime contractor is Silverstar Construction of Moore, OK.  The local engineering firm of EST, Inc. is providing construction oversight and field inspection services. 



Upon completion, 60th Avenue NW will be a 4-lane rural highway with paved shoulders.  A new traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of 60th Avenue NW and Indian Hills Road.  Significant storm drainage improvements will also take place as part of this project including replacement of the Ten Mile Flat Creek bridge.  Over the next two years, the City of Oklahoma City will make similar improvements to Western Avenue between Indian Hills Road and 134th Street (State Highway 37).  When both projects are completed, five (5) miles of Western Avenue/60th Avenue NW will be improved to rural highway standards, thereby improving traffic flow and traffic safety in this part of Norman and Oklahoma City. 



Additional questions may be directed to Mr. Scott Sturtz, City of Norman Capital Projects Engineer, at (405)366-5454.

----------


## Snowman

> ... Weather permitting; 60th Street NW (Western Avenue) from Tecumseh Road to Franklin Road will be closed to through traffic at approximately 7:00 AM Monday, February 6, 2012, for approximately 3 months.  Traffic will be detoured to 48th Street NW along Tecumseh Road and Franklin Road.  Signs will be placed accordingly to direct the traveling public. ...


Does anyone else find it a little funny they listed an hour of the morning, approximated, the road closes for 3 months?

----------


## kevinpate

> Does anyone else find it a little funny they listed an hour of the morning, approximated, the road closes for 3 months?



Letting folk know they need a different plan for that Monday and beyond is simply good planning.  Easier to close it down that first day if many of the regulars self-transfer to an alternate route ahead of time.

----------


## Snowman

> Letting folk know they need a different plan for that Monday and beyond is simply good planning.  Easier to close it down that first day if many of the regulars self-transfer to an alternate route ahead of time.


If it was 9 or 10 AM then that would allowed for most of the morning commuters to go through, 7 AM cuts out the majority so you might as well have just said it would have totally been closed that day. Especially if you are going to throw approximately in front of the time.

----------


## ou48A

http://normantranscript.com/local/x9...looding-issues


NORMAN — The Robinson Street Underpass Project currently under way from Flood Avenue to Stubbeman Avenue is one project approved by Norman voters in the 2005 Bond Election. By securing funding with the bond, city staff was able to qualify for federal funding on each of the projects in that bond package.

Now, city leaders are considering another transportation bond proposal to address some of Norman’s most pressing traffic and flooding issues. Bonds help cities qualify for more federal money by providing matching funds.

A Norman Community Transportation Survey — instituted by the city and conducted by ETC Institute — indicates that 48 percent of respondents throughout Norman are “extremely likely” to support a bond issue to address transportation projects. An additional 32 percent said they are “somewhat likely” to support such a bond, and 9 percent are neutral.

That 80 percent support is a strong statement, Norman Public Works Director Shawn O’Leary said.

The Norman City Council is considering a package of eight transportation projects. Staff expects federal dollars to pay for more than half the cost.

“The bond interest rates are at historic lows, the project costs are bidding in at historic lows and these are projects that we need to do in order to address the congestion problem that most people in Norman complain about,” Council member Tom Kovach said. “It’s not going to get any cheaper, and planning ahead like this will allow us to have $38 million in funding from the federal government before those dollars dry up.”

The package the council is looking at would ask voters to approve $33 million in bonds. Federal dollars would make up more than half of the $71.6 million in total cost.

One of the most expensive and badly needed projects — according to council members, city staff and Norman survey respondants — is a combination drainage and street widening on Lindsey Street between 24th Avenue Southwest to Berry Road. That project total is the largest in the proposed bond package, coming in at $21.5 million.

“By combining the drainage and street improvements together, we are able to access more federal funds,” O’Leary said, “and we are only disrupting the corridor one time.”

The Lindsey Street project would be done in one year, he said.

Norman residents have become discouraged over the years with efforts to deal with local drainage and flooding along this corridor, but Kovach and O’Leary said this new approach will work.

“We will discharge the runoff directly into the Canadian River,” O’Leary said. “That concept has never been talked about before.”

The plan to discharge into the Canadian will dovetail with improvements the Oklahoma Department of Transportation will make to Interstate 35.

“We’re not going to add another drop of water to Imhoff, which is already overburdened,” Kovach said. “This is going to be a big relief for a lot of people who have been burdened for the last 30 or 40 years.”

“It’s not just drainage, it’s not just nuisance water, it’s flooding, and it is certainly a safety concern,” O’Leary said.

Mayor Cindy Rosenthal said that the drainage issues associated with the Lindsey Street project reach beyond McGee Drive and Lindsey.

“There’s no other way that we could do this without interrupting lots more business,” Council member Carol Dillingham said.

If the city council approves the bond package, it will come before voters on June 26.

----------


## ou48A

> The Norman City Council is considering a package of eight transportation projects


Has anyone heard what and where some of these other projects might be?
Thanks.

----------


## ou48A

I plan on voting YES for this long overdue project.
http://normantranscript.com/headline...Lindsey-Street

March 18, 2012

Fixing Lindsey Street 
By Joy Hampton
 The Norman Transcript The Norman Transcript Sun Mar 18, 2012, 02:12 AM CDT 

NORMAN — During Thursday’s public forum on the Lindsey Street widening and drainage project, residents and business owners asked questions and expressed opinions regarding the proposed design. Bret Cabbiness, President of Cabbiness Engineering, Nicci Tiner of Garver Engineering, and Norman Public Works Director Shawn O’Leary were on hand to discuss the project.

“We are all aware of the chronic flooding on Lindsey Street and the related flooding and property damage to residents who live on Imhoff Creek south of Lindsey,” Mayor Cindy Rosenthal told those in attendance. 

“This plan will offer a solution to both with a comprehensive drainage plan for the corridor and a significant reduction of stormwater in Imhoff Creek.”

Safety is one of the top concerns of city leadership in proposing the project as part of a bond package expected to go before voters on June 26.

“The roadway is heavily congested and has the highest accident rate in the metro area,” Rosenthal said. “The proposed concept will improve public safety for all modes of travel including cars, pedestrians, bicyclists and buses.”

Most agree that the project is sorely needed but there have been questions raised concerning the importance of bike lanes versus additional landscaping. 

Plans currently include benches, decorative lighting, and other landscaping features.

Council member Tom Kovach has met with local merchants over the course of several months in order to hear their concerns and wish list for the project.

“I attended five meetings with merchants and property owners on Lindsey. 

They asked for buried utilities, limited raised medians, enhanced landscaping, accelerated construction and access to their businesses at all time,” he said. “I think the only thing we have not addressed to their satisfaction is the landscaping , and we have some issues with the medians at the intersections.”

Some would like to see trees rather than bike lanes, however, but Kovach said planting trees above buried utility cables is not a good idea. 

“This is a once in a lifetime chance to make Lindsey an attractive corridor and by doing so revitalizing this area of town,” Kovach said. “We want to do as much as we can within the constraints of budget, and right of way.”

Additionally, bike lanes ensure better safety in an area where bicycles will be present. 

“Bicycles have a legal right to the roadways,” Kovach said. “We must provide safe transportation to all forms of traffic including pedestrians. Road bike lanes are the safest for the cyclist.”

At Thursday’s forum, members of the Norman cycling community expressed the importance of bike lanes in conjunction with the Lindsey project to increase safety and access.

“Collision-related data over the last five years indicates that bicyclist are involved in only slightly more than one percent of all traffic accidents in Norman, but when they are, the bike rider sustains injuries about ninety-four percent of the time,” according to police spokesperson Capt. Tom Easley. “In examining causation of these collisions, automobile divers accounted for about sixty percent, while bicyclist contributed to the wreck about forty percent of the time. 

Bicycle-involved collisions averaged 36.25 per year from 2007 through 2010, but fell to only 24 in 2011.”

That improvement in statistics could be a result of work by Norman’s Bicycle Advisory Committee which has been revamping Norman’s bicycle routes. 

Additional lanes in some areas and changes in routes to avoid more congested, dangerous routes have been part of the BAC’s work in this area. 

“We are very sensitive to the concerns of the business owners and property owners who we have heard loud and clear want to maintain access and minimize disruption during construction,” Rosenthal said. “We have a concept and proposed construction management politics which will do that.”

If approved by voters, in addition to funding through a general obligation bond, the city will use federal funds to pay for much of the project.

“This plan is aimed at leveraging the maximum available federal funds and coordinating this project with the planned reconstruction of the I-35-Lindsey interchange so that the impact on the traveling public and the property owners will be at one time only,” Rosenthal said. “We hope to seize this opportunity to bring a critical facelift to this corridor so that this gateway into Norman can be aesthetically transformed with underground utilities and landscaping throughout.”

Kovach and Rosenthal said the concept will continue to be refined as a result of additional public feedback and final engineering designs.

The Norman Bicycle Advisory Committee unanimously supports and is advocating bicycle lanes on West Lindsey Street, between W 24th Avenue and Berry Road. 

Primary points for BAC support include:

• Lindsey is one of the few east/west arterial roads in Norman and will give bicycle access to destination locations such as (1) The University of Oklahoma, containing the largest bicycle traffic in the city, (2) a logical connection to the bicycle friendly yet-to-be-reconstructed Lindsey/I-35 bridge exchange, (3) Ed Noble Parkway’s businesses and restaurants, and (4) west Norman.

• In the case of West Lindsey, between W. 24th and Berry, bike lanes are safer and preferred over a separate multimodal pathway due to the high number of driveways, or “street cuts.” 

In additional, this will be marked as an “advanced route” on the Norman Bike Route Map, indicating higher, continuous cycling speeds for the advanced rider, in which bike lanes are preferred over pathways. 

• From the very recent “City of Norman Community Transportation Survey,” this fulfills the high request for “on street bicycle lanes.” 

• Bicycle lanes are an important step and current direction in creating a city of Norman Comprehensive Transportation Plan, taken from the current Transportation Master Plan. 

The initial example is for bicycle lanes to be included on the Cedar Lane widening project using an interim policy and street design specification.

----------


## blangtang

“The roadway is heavily congested and has *the highest accident rate in the metro area*,” Rosenthal said."

This is true?  I'm not up on the details but this is a project to widen lindsay st. from basically the highway to campus?

okay, so Cindy says: 

“We are very sensitive to the concerns of the business owners and property owners who we have heard loud and clear want to maintain access and minimize disruption during construction,” Rosenthal said. “*We have a concept and proposed construction management politics which will do that*.”

I need someone to explain to my small mind what that last part means... I can only make sense of it with the word "politics" left out.  Sigh.

----------


## Just the facts

If they think adding lanes is going to reduce congestion and accidents - they are crazy.  It will have a short term benefit, but the extra capacity will be taken up soon enough, then what?

----------


## BoulderSooner

> If they think adding lanes is going to reduce congestion and accidents - they are crazy.  It will have a short term benefit, but the extra capacity will be taken up soon enough, then what?


no it won't .. this road should have been widened 20 years ago ... main st is bigger and has no traffic problem ..     this is a must to move norman forward and adding the bike lanes is a huge deal as well ...

----------


## ljbab728

> no it won't .. this road should have been widened 20 years ago ... main st is bigger and has no traffic problem ..     this is a must to move norman forward and adding the bike lanes is a huge deal as well ...


Remember, Kerry only likes cowpaths for traffic.  Anything more is a total failure.

----------


## mcca7596

> no it won't .. this road should have been widened 20 years ago ... main st is bigger and has no traffic problem ..     this is a must to move norman forward and adding the bike lanes is a huge deal as well ...


Man, when I was going to OU just a couple of years ago Main St. was always just as or busier than Lindsey (except on gamedays or holidays, when Lindsey definitely was the more crowded of the two).

----------


## venture

> Remember, Kerry only likes cowpaths for traffic. Anything more is a total failure.


Luckily the people of Norman get to decide on this, not someone from Jacksonville Florida.




> Man, when I was going to OU just a couple of years ago Main St. was always just as or busier than Lindsey (except on gamedays or holidays, when Lindsey definitely was the more crowded of the two).


Main still is pretty busy, but it flows well. The traffic lights seem to be worked out pretty well. Now if they decide to two-way the street not sure what it will look like then.

I do think Lindsey has a lot of potential though. Also it might not be a bad idea to see pedestrian bridges added over it on the OU campus and remove all the lights that are there just for pedestrians. I would force larger vehicle traffic to use Hwy 9, but that isn't a bad thing.

----------


## Snowman

> Also it might not be a bad idea to see pedestrian bridges added over it on the OU campus and remove all the lights that are there just for pedestrians. I would force larger vehicle traffic to use Hwy 9, but that isn't a bad thing.


Pedestrian bridges there seems like a bad idea. As long as the lights between Elm through Asp are synchronized together it should not be much time different than having lights at only Elm & Asp and half the lights in that area are for the only access road to a few buildings. Plus freestanding pedestrian bridges that force people to walk up stairs (which would probably have to be ramps today for ADA compliance, probably making it shorter distance to walk to a stoplight that will remain), go over a road and back down again tend to be so poorly used they might as well just admit they are screwing pedestrians and not put one there.

----------


## Just the facts

> Luckily the people of Norman get to decide on this, not someone from Jacksonville Florida.


Tru dat - the people of Norman will have to live with it, not me.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Tru dat - the people of Norman will have to live with it, not me.


the reality is the Lindsey is a terrible street from berry to I35 and this will help all forms of traffic   cars/bikes/people .. and make it a much more attractive drive into campus

----------


## Just the facts

They could have made Lindsey a very nice two lane road with a center turn lane and included consistent bike paths and sidewalks on both sides of the street.  Shortening the traffic lights would encourge more pedestrian/bike activity by keeping cars at a slower speed and spaced out.  Instead, they are going to make it possible to drive 45 to 50 mph 4 lanes wide.  Just look at the ideas presented above - pedestrian bridges are already suggested as a way to get over the 'new and improved' Lindsey.  Money could have been better spent creating a streetcar from OU to Norman Regional via downtown and a line down Main St to Sooner Fashion - all connected by rail to downtown OKC.  Congestion is caused by cars; creating an environment that encourages more cars isn't the solution.  Creating a community where people don't need a car is the solution.

Of course, I am assuming people want to actually solve the problem, and not just kick the can down the road 5 to 10 years.

----------


## venture

> They could have made Lindsey a very nice two lane road with a center turn lane and included consistent bike paths and sidewalks on both sides of the street.  Shortening the traffic lights would encourge more pedestrian/bike activity by keeping cars at a slower speed and spaced out.  Instead, they are going to make it possible to drive 45 to 50 mph 4 lanes wide.


50 mph? Maybe at 4 AM when there is no one on it, but otherwise traffic will keep things regulated down.




> Just look at the ideas presented above - pedestrian bridges are already suggested as a way to get over the 'new and improved' Lindsey.


WTF are you talking about? The walkways I mentioned were for on campus, which is not being redone. The expansion work is only from Berry to I-35 and also the work that is almost done on the East side of campus. Campus itself isn't being impacted.




> Money could have been better spent creating a streetcar from OU to Norman Regional via downtown and a line down Main St to Sooner Fashion - all connected by rail to downtown OKC.  Congestion is caused by cars; creating an environment that encourages more cars isn't the solution.  Creating a community where people don't need a car is the solution.
> 
> Of course, I am assuming people want to actually solve the problem, and not just kick the can down the road 5 to 10 years.


While I would love to see streetcars added, it probably isn't happening anytime soon. Though it is something that needs to be included in the 50 years plan as Norman should be well over 200,000 by 2060.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> They could have made Lindsey a very nice two lane road with a center turn lane and included consistent bike paths and sidewalks on both sides of the street.  Shortening the traffic lights would encourge more pedestrian/bike activity by keeping cars at a slower speed and spaced out.  Instead, they are going to make it possible to drive 45 to 50 mph 4 lanes wide.  Just look at the ideas presented above - pedestrian bridges are already suggested as a way to get over the 'new and improved' Lindsey.  Money could have been better spent creating a streetcar from OU to Norman Regional via downtown and a line down Main St to Sooner Fashion - all connected by rail to downtown OKC.  Congestion is caused by cars; creating an environment that encourages more cars isn't the solution.  Creating a community where people don't need a car is the solution.
> 
> Of course, I am assuming people want to actually solve the problem, and not just kick the can down the road 5 to 10 years.


45-50 ... what world do you live in????

----------


## Just the facts

So no speeding tickets will be issued on the new part of Lindsey?

----------


## venture

> So no speeding tickets will be issued on the new part of Lindsey?


What are you even talking about?

Traffic isn't going to become sparse all of a sudden, it'll just spread things out. Numerous curb cuts and lights will keep speed down naturally. Of course there will be plenty of patrols like there are now.

----------


## ou48A

Several times a day it takes at least 20 minutes to make the drive between OU and I-35. 
This hinders the efficiency of both commerce and OU.

There are also serious property damaging flooding issues along Lindsey and in other areas that this project will address. 
The traffic congestion and flooding are also serious safety issues that often delay emergency response times.
To suggest that this project is not needed is to not understand the present circumstances very well at all.

----------


## ou48A

With a successful Bond vote the city should turn its attention to the process of buying the necessary right of way on the north side of Lindsey St from Barry St to campus. This should also be expand to 4 lanes from Barry Street to campus. The homes on the north side of the Lindsey Street are mostly older and are not nearly as well kept as they are on the south side of the street and there are fewer of them. The big trees could either be transplanted or replanted. 

This part of Lindsey also presents a serious safety issue. Its daily congestion and congestion during OU events causes major delays in emergency response times around campus that are life threating.

It’s also ashamed to have such a shabby looking main entrance to a major research university that is poised for more major growth.

----------


## soonerliberal

> It’s also ashamed to have such a shabby looking main entrance to a major research university that is poised for more major growth.


Isn't University Drive supposed to be the "main entrance"?  Most signs from I-35 have you going down Main Street and turning right on University.

I also completely disagree with the idea of widening Lindsey between Berry and Elm Street.  While the traffic can be irritating at times, there are alternatives that could easily be worked that will keep the traffic down through the completely residential area.  The Flood connector, Highway 9, Sooner/12th street, and even Main street and Robinson once the underpass is competed are all alternate approaches to the university.

Keep in mind that every city has an issue with emergency response times during major events.  Think about Washington or New York - when there is even a minor emergency, every roadway is at a standstill.  That is nothing that is unique to a suburban city with an university.

----------


## Just the facts

> What are you even talking about?
> 
> Traffic isn't going to become sparse all of a sudden, it'll just spread things out. Numerous curb cuts and lights will keep speed down naturally. Of course there will be plenty of patrols like there are now.


Are these improvements going to reduce congestion and allow shorter driving time between Berry Road and I-35 or not?  How is a car going to make it to I-35 faster if it isn't driving faster?  The distance is staying the same.

----------


## kevinpate

Distance remains the same.  The stuck in traffic wait time will decrease rather than the mph increasing.

----------


## ou48A

> Keep in mind that every city has an issue with emergency response times during major events.  Think about Washington or New York - when there is even a minor emergency, every roadway is at a standstill.  That is nothing that is unique to a suburban city with an university.



It may not be unique but that doesnt make it right or even acceptable for us.

We should set our sights much higher than average.

----------


## Just the facts

> Distance remains the same.  The stuck in traffic wait time will decrease rather than the mph increasing.


So average MPH will increase right.  Won't the traffic just increase to the point that the average MPH goes back down to what it is today?  Then what - 6 lanes?

----------


## ou48A

> Then what - 6 lanes?


No 6TH lane. 


We will build an elevated fly over..

----------


## BoulderSooner

> So average MPH will increase right.  Won't the traffic just increase to the point that the average MPH goes back down to what it is today?  Then what - 6 lanes?


so with your logic .. we should never have a 4 lane road ....      maybe I35 should just be 1 lane in each direction???

----------


## ljbab728

> so with your logic .. we should never have a 4 lane road ....      maybe I35 should just be 1 lane in each direction???



Boulder, now you under Kerry.  That's exactly what he thinks.

----------


## Just the facts

> so with your logic .. we should never have a 4 lane road ....      maybe I35 should just be 1 lane in each direction???


Four lane boulevards sure.  Rural interstates - yep.  Urban interstates - nope.  St Louis is in the process of removing I-70 through downtown and replacing it with an at-grade boulevard (sound familiar?).

http://americancity.org/buzz/entry/3403/

So will removing urban interstates work, even if they are just moving them a few blocks for now?  We will soon find out first hand.  Rest assured though, if land along the removed freeway skyrockets AFTER the removal more people are going to want the freeway near them removed as well.  We already see what a great attractor of quality developments I-40 through OKC has been.

----------


## ou48A

I don’t think anybody is seriously talking about making Lindsey Street in Norman an urban interstate.

----------


## Just the facts

> I dont think anybody is seriously talking about making Lindsey Street in Norman an urban interstate.


That wasn't in the comment I was refering to so I agree, no one is talking about making Lindsey an urban interstate.  I-35 is an urban interstate though.

----------


## Boomer3791

Lots of earth moving happening on both sides of Robinson (north & south) on the east side of I35. looks like they're starting to begin work on that interchange. Does anyone have links to renderings of what this will all look like when completed?

----------


## adaniel

^^
In that regard, there is also a good mile or so of temporary jersey barriers between Lindsey and Main on the Northbound side. From the looks of it there doesn't appear to be a lot of dirt work but I would imagine its not to far off.

----------


## jedicurt

i'm not sure if there are any good ones... i was at a UNP update back in February, and the rendering they had for their presentation wasn't very good.

----------


## ou48A

> Lots of earth moving happening on both sides of Robinson (north & south) on the east side of I35. looks like they're starting to begin work on that interchange. Does anyone have links to renderings of what this will all look like when completed?


I drove by their yesterday and it looked like they were doing utility directional drilling and just starting on new drainage.
 It also looked like they may be getting ready to build temporary by pass lanes on the east / north bound side.

----------


## venture

> i'm not sure if there are any good ones... i was at a UNP update back in February, and the rendering they had for their presentation wasn't very good.


There was one in the Transcript print edition a few weeks back. However looking at the article online it isn't available there.

----------


## kevinpate

> City council members will consider  calling a general obligation bond election for Aug. 28 that would  provide $42.5 million for street and bridge improvements, including a  widening project for W Lindsey Street.                                          The council meets at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday in the Municipal Building’s council chambers, 201 W Gray St. 
> The  city proposes widening W Lindsey from Interstate 35 to Berry Road,  increasing driving lanes to four, including a center turn lane, and  incorporating landscaped areas, bike lanes and sidewalk improvements.
> The  roadwork would be coupled with drainage improvements to solve flooding  problems along Lindsey, especially at the McGee Street intersection,  often dubbed “Lake McGee” when it rains. 
> Other improvements that  would be funded if the bond package is approved include reconstruction  of the W Main Street bridge at Brookhaven Creek, reconstruction of the  Franklin Road bridge at Little River, widening 36th Avenue NW from  Tecumseh Road to Indian Hills Road and widening Alameda Street from 24th  Avenue E to 48th Avenue E. ...



http://newsok.com/norman-city-counci...ne_norman-news

----------


## jedicurt

i'll vote for it!  not a project mentioned that i think is a terrible idea

----------


## ou48A

I will vote for this too........ but so much more is needed.

----------


## ShiroiHikari

Lindsey between I-35 and Berry is a nightmare. I support any kind of improvements they want to do to the area. Like others have already said, it should've been widened 20 years ago. Better late than never.

----------


## Just the facts

Can anyone define 'improvement'?  What exactly are you expecting to get better?

----------


## jedicurt

> Can anyone define 'improvement'?  What exactly are you expecting to get better?


perhaps the drainage gets done slightly better so that there is not 8 inches of water sitting at Lindsey and McGee if it rains half an inch...   

the ability to pass that person who feels the need to drive 25 miles per hour from berry all the way to I-35 (happens quite often)

when going west bound from I-35, don't have to worry about people not knowing that the road goes to 1 lane right after Del Rancho, so they swerve over and almost hit your vehicle cause they didn't look before merging...

allow for more traffic to be on the road with it being two lanes so that a light at McGee and Lindsey doesn't make traffic stop at Flood and Lindsey

just to name a few

----------


## venture

> perhaps the drainage gets done slightly better so that there is not 8 inches of water sitting at Lindsey and McGee if it rains half an inch...   
> 
> the ability to pass that person who feels the need to drive 25 miles per hour from berry all the way to I-35 (happens quite often)
> 
> when going west bound from I-35, don't have to worry about people not knowing that the road goes to 1 lane right after Del Rancho, so they swerve over and almost hit your vehicle cause they didn't look before merging...
> 
> allow for more traffic to be on the road with it being two lanes so that a light at McGee and Lindsey doesn't make traffic stop at Flood and Lindsey
> 
> just to name a few


All good reasons, but don't worry. Kerry is just against any project like this that doesn't fit his vision of what a city should be. Luckily he doesn't live in Norman, hell he doesn't even live in Oklahoma (why he still trolls here is beyond me), so what he thinks has nothing to do...and will do nothing...to us that actually live and work here.

----------


## Just the facts

> I can't speak for Kerry but I still call OKC home.  =)


No worries Sid - half the people on OKCTalk don't live in Oklahoma.  Which probably explains why our idea seem so revolutionary.  For the record though, my mom lives off Alameda and I have a sister that works at Walmart by I35 and a sister that works at OU.

----------


## jedicurt

> No worries Sid - half the people on OKCTalk don't live in Oklahoma.  Which probably explains why our idea seem so revolutionary.  For the record though, my mom lives off Alameda and I have a sister that works at Walmart by I35 and a sister that works at OU.



i think most of the "live in oklahoma" category are too busy complaining about what WWLS did or didn't do over on the sports section of the forum.  I always love going over there for a laugh

----------


## shane453

> the ability to pass that person who feels the need to drive 25 miles per hour from berry all the way to I-35 (happens quite often)


The distance is 1 mile. The cumulative difference between 35 mph (posted) and 25 mph on this distance is about 30 seconds. Assuming you're going the speed limit and considering traffic, by the time you pass them, you will probably have to cut them off to get into the turn lane for 35.

Check out Edmond, where all the family-friendly arterials are 4-5 lanes with a typical posted speed limit of 45 mph. I would argue the traffic there is much more unpleasant and dangerous than in Norman.

----------


## jedicurt

> The distance is 1 mile. The cumulative difference between 35 mph (posted) and 25 mph on this distance is about 30 seconds. Assuming you're going the speed limit and considering traffic, by the time you pass them, you will probably have to cut them off to get into the turn lane for 35.
> 
> Check out Edmond, where all the family-friendly arterials are 4-5 lanes with a typical posted speed limit of 45 mph. I would argue the traffic there is much more unpleasant and dangerous than in Norman.



but with stop lights the time could mean the difference between hitting a light or not hitting a light... meaning the difference in time could be as much as 3 or 4 minutes... not to mention that it actually slows down traffic even more because of this.... have you ever seen lindsey with a solid line of cars going all the way from McGee to campus? cause i have.  and perhaps my statement that a 25 mile per hour driver on a main thoroughfare that is a single lane in each direction in the states 3rd most populous city, is the incorrect one to convince you, it is still part of a problem.

----------


## Pioneer

http://www.progressnorman.com/projects/

Norman has its chance to start chipping a way at some transportation needs in an upcoming Bond Issue. Nothing comes without its challenges, but the long discussed 5-laning of Lindsey Street will finally get a chance. Although there may be other needs that some feel more important, I think its important to vote yes to the chances we get. If this fails, it solves nothing and then creates doubt and apathy for anything else we would like to see on future bond issues. Let's face it, the bond rates are at lows and the city has a chance to do something that was needed 20+ years ago. Let's push this through so other projects can be addressed on the next one. 

August 28th is the vote.

----------


## Just the facts

Do you really think making Lindsey 5 lanes is going to solve the traffic problem?  Isn't a wider road just going to encourage more people to use it?  I mean, it isn't like the traffic count will stay the same after it goes to 5 lanes.  Five years after it is done and traffic is worse will you consider the thought that adding lanes doesn't work?

Checkout Traffic Equilibrium

http://www.ifor.math.ethz.ch/press/L...tober_2006.pdf

or skip that and go right to the Braess paradox

http://vcp.med.harvard.edu/braess-paradox.html

Spoiler alert - adding capacity makes traffic worse.  Look at ODOT's plan for the elevated boulevard in OKC.  Today 0 cars drive that route because the old I-40 is closed.  ODOT says if they build their elevated road 94,000 cars a day will use it.  Where are those 94,000 cars today?  They certainly aren't on downtown streets today.  Conversely, if every street in America went away tonight (wake up in the morning and all the streets are gone) - would there be traffic congestion at 8AM?  The answer is no - there would not be traffic congestion.

I watched a really good documentary tonight on urban planning and a couple of cities had a really good wat to solve the traffic problems.  They are eliminating all parking.  You can drive if you want, but there is no where to park your car when you get there.

----------


## ljbab728

Of course let's just ignore the fact that this stretch of road is one of the highest accident areas in the state. That and the massive flooding that routinely takes place here doesn't matter in the least.  Let's just turn it into a cow path again which would be the best for everyone.  If there was an alternative route to this available people would be using it now.  That's just a silly argument.  You're trying to compare a freeway to an arterial city street.  The amount of people needing to get from west Norman to the campus area isn't going to change because this road is widened and won't go down if it's left as it is.  Kerry you need to learn to live in the real world.  Your urban planning idea won't work in every case.  Sans mass transit how do you expect university students who can't live in Norman to get there?  Many are not full time students and have jobs elsewhere.  Not everyone can arrange their lives to fit your wishes.

----------


## Just the facts

> Sans mass transit how do you expect university students who can't live in Norman to get there?


So after the people get off I-35 on the new 5-lane Lindsey Street, how far back do you think traffic will stack at Berry where it goes back to 2 lanes?  The high accident rate is probably a reflection of the inexperieced drivers who frequent this road so adding lanes and speed should go smoothly, especially with the introduction of bicycles.

This is going to make a nice urban planning case study for someone in 10 years.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Do you really think making Lindsey 5 lanes is going to solve the traffic problem?  Isn't a wider road just going to encourage more people to use it?  I mean, it isn't like the traffic count will stay the same after it goes to 5 lanes.  Five years after it is done and traffic is worse will you consider the thought that adding lanes doesn't work?
> 
> Spoiler alert - adding capacity makes traffic worse.  Look at ODOT's plan for the elevated boulevard in OKC.  Today 0 cars drive that route because the old I-40 is closed.  ODOT says if they build their elevated road 94,000 cars a day will use it.  Where are those 94,000 cars today?  They certainly aren't on downtown streets today.  Conversely, if every street in America went away tonight (wake up in the morning and all the streets are gone) - would there be traffic congestion at 8AM?  The answer is no - there would not be traffic congestion.
> 
> I watched a really good documentary tonight on urban planning and a couple of cities had a really good wat to solve the traffic problems.  They are eliminating all parking.  You can drive if you want, but there is no where to park your car when you get there.



really so you think the traffic is worse on Broadway extension   at its current 3 lanes on each side  then it would be at 2 lanes on each side or 1 lane each direction?? 

lindsay in norman is one of the worst roads in the entire metro for traffic/wrecks and flooding ..  and it will be much better on all 3 counts ..


is your point of view that no road should ever be expanded for any reason???

----------


## Just the facts

> really so you think the traffic is worse on Broadway extension   at its current 3 lanes on each side  then it would be at 2 lanes on each side or 1 lane each direction?? 
> 
> lindsay in norman is one of the worst roads in the entire metro for traffic/wrecks and flooding ..  and it will be much better on all 3 counts ..
> 
> 
> is your point of view that no road should ever be expanded for any reason???


No one said anything about not fixing flooding.  A city functions much better with a good grid of two-way streets (with one lane in each direction) and boulevards.  Lindsey will not be either of those.  However, I have time so am content to wait and watch this project NOT deliver.  Sure, it will be great for the first year or two - then the traffic will come and in 5 years traffic will be just as bad as it is right now.  Just look at the very same people in this thread complaining about traffic on I-35 (in another thread) AFTER it was 'fixed' (widened) a few years ago.

Maybe we should go ahead and define success now.  How much should accidents decline, how much travel time should be saved, and how much should traffic counts go up to be considered a success?

----------


## BoulderSooner

> No one said anything about not fixing flooding.  A city functions much better with a good grid of two-way streets (with one lane in each direction) and boulevards.  Lindsey will not be either of those.  However, I have time so am content to wait and watch this project NOT deliver.  Sure, it will be great for the first year or two - then the traffic will come and in 5 years traffic will be just as bad as it is right now.  Just look at the very same people in this thread complaining about traffic on I-35 (in another thread) AFTER it was 'fixed' (widened) a few years ago.
> 
> Maybe we should go ahead and define success now.  How much should accidents decline, how much travel time should be saved, and how much should traffic counts go up to be considered a success?


I35 for 60 min a day is apples and oranges with Lindsay that is horrible 15 hours a day ..     

why will this road  once 4 lanes not be like every other 4 lanes road in norman??       


and i will ask again    In your opinion should any road ever be expanded??

----------


## ou48A

> http://www.progressnorman.com/projects/
> 
> Norman has its chance to start chipping a way at some transportation needs in an upcoming Bond Issue. Nothing comes without its challenges, but the long discussed 5-laning of Lindsey Street will finally get a chance. Although there may be other needs that some feel more important, I think its important to vote yes to the chances we get. If this fails, it solves nothing and then creates doubt and apathy for anything else we would like to see on future bond issues. Let's face it, the bond rates are at lows and the city has a chance to do something that was needed 20+ years ago. Let's push this through so other projects can be addressed on the next one. 
> 
> August 28th is the vote.



I agree… Vote yes

If Norman wants too be looked at as a serious player for high end job relocations then problems like this bond issue address needs to be passed. It’s a very competitive world and if we want to play in the big boy arena we must build what is necessary to stay competitive. Decade’s old and out of date streets and highways are a big deterrent. 

The Lindsey street should have been 5 landed when at the same time I -35 was first built…. so we are left playing catch up. It’s not too soon to start thinking about what projects should come after this bond package. When it would benefit thousands of people every day and improve safety for many more, 4 or 5-laning Lindsey Street all the way to OU’s campus should be a top priority in the next Norman bond package.

----------


## venture

> 4 or 5-laning Lindsey Street all the way to OU’s campus should be a top priority in the next Norman bond package.


Berry is far enough. You are getting into the realm of removing houses when you try to go all the way. Not going to happen.

----------


## Just the facts

> I35 for 60 min a day is apples and oranges with Lindsay that is horrible 15 hours a day ..     
> 
> why will this road  once 4 lanes not be like every other 4 lanes road in norman??       
> 
> 
> and i will ask again    In your opinion should any road ever be expanded??


I wouldn't spend another dime widening roads in Norman.  However, I would convert Main St and Gray back to two-way, put in traffic circles at Flood, University, and Porter, fix the flooding, and start spending the money on mass transit; one route from Norman Regional to OU and a second route down Main St to the Sooner Mall area.  They would connect at a downtown train station with regional service to OKC and Amtrak.

----------


## ou48A

> Berry is far enough. You are getting into the realm of removing houses when you try to go all the way. Not going to happen.


If the new right of way is taken from the north side of the street there are only a few mostly dumpy houses on the north side street that would to be moved. It’s a very doable project that would reduce safety issues and befitted many thousands of people every day. It would help decongest this part of Norman.

Over the next 10 to 20 years it would be smart if the city could buy up property on the north side of Lindsey Street as it naturally becomes available for sale

----------


## ou48A

> I wouldn't spend another dime widening roads in Norman.  However, I would convert Main St and Gray back to two-way, put in traffic circles at Flood, University, and Porter, fix the flooding, and start spending the money on mass transit; one route from Norman Regional to OU and a second route down Main St to the Sooner Mall area.  They would connect at a downtown train station with regional service to OKC and Amtrak.



With all due respect about 90% of this^ is fairy land stuff. 
Other than maybe commuter rail it would never help 99% of the Norman population.
Cars and Trucks are not going away. A higher quality of life says we need modern day streets and highways in our area.

----------


## ou48A

According to city of Norman Transportation officials that I have spoken with there will be an OU train/ bus station located near OU’s duck pond and that Amtrak’s train station will eventually be moved to this location.

With Norman’s highest population density located within walking distance and with OU being Norman largest destination by far this location makes the most sense for the community. There will also be a commuter rail park and ride station on the north side of Norman.

----------


## Just the facts

> Cars and Trucks are not going away. A higher quality of life says we need modern day streets and highways in our area.


Did I suggest closing any existing roads?  It is really pretty simple.  In the last 80 years how many lane-miles of roads has the City of Norman built, and how many times have they been repaved?  How many rail-miles has the City of Norman built in the last 80 years?  How about walkable sidewalk miles over the last 80 years (any of that done in the last 50)?

Norman has used 99.999% of its transportation spending on roads, and what do they have to show for it, a city of 100,000 where every person over the age of 18 has to own a car to be a fully functional adult and traffic congestion.  Then people complain that the number one private industry in Norman is car dealers.  Well no duh, everyone has to have one.

----------


## ou48A

> Did I suggest closing any existing roads?  It is really pretty simple.  In the last 80 years how many lane-miles of roads has the City of Norman built, and how many times have they been repaved?  How many rail-miles has the City of Norman built in the last 80 years?  How about walkable sidewalk miles over the last 80 years (any of that done in the last 50)?
> 
> Norman has used 99.999% of its transportation spending on roads, and what do they have to show for it, a city of 100,000 where every person over the age of 18 has to own a car to be a fully functional adult and traffic congestion.  Then people complain that the number one private industry in Norman is car dealers.  Well no duh, everyone has to have one.


What you have been suggesting here and elsewhere is almost totally impractical and just isn’t going to happen.

In recent years the city has spent a great deal of money on wide concrete trails. I hardly ever see anyone on them…. In the meantime many of the sidewalks that are actually used a lot are in areas surrounding OU. In many cases they are old and in a state of serious disrepair. In fact some are dangerous!

There are dozens of miles of poorly designed residential streets that need to be rebuilt and brought to modern day drainage standards. Most desire a high quality suburban life style and the freedom that a vehicle brings.

There has been a powerful anti-growth faction in Norman who has held too much influence in the decision making process. When combined with mostly weak minded leaders over a long period of time who have often stoped at the first sign of opposition the list of 
needed projects in Norman is very lengthy.

----------


## Just the facts

It is funny that you associate the automobile dependency with quality of life when it seems to be the exact opposite in reality.  Places that don't need cars are consistantly ranked as best places to live.  I seldom hear of sidewalk rage.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I would choose a car over light rail or HSR any day.

----------


## venture

> I would choose a car over light rail or HSR any day.


If trips were frequent and convenient I would have no problem doing light rail or a local street car service. True HSR would be great, but just isn't going to happen here.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> If trips were frequent and convenient I would have no problem doing light rail or a local street car service. True HSR would be great, but just isn't going to happen here.


not until okc/dallas has the population density of new york philly new jersey  ect

----------


## Just the facts

Where would you go on HSR?  A commuter train between OKC and Norman would easily make most of the trip at 80 mph.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Where would you go on HSR?  A commuter train between OKC and Norman would easily make most of the trip at 80 mph.


highly unlikely

----------


## ou48A

> A commuter train between OKC and Norman would easily make most of the trip at *80 mph*.


It’s about 35 miles from Fort Worth to Dallas on their TRE. It takes about an hour to make the trip.

Unless we do something different that’s probably fairly close to  the average speed we could expect with commuter rail system in our area.  I would like to see a higher average speed because it’s going to be a lot faster to drive than taking a train going at those speeds.

----------


## Just the facts

> *It’s about 35 miles from Fort Worth to Dallas on their TRE*. It takes about an hour to make the trip.
> 
> Unless we do something different that’s probably fairly close to  the average speed we could expect with commuter rail system in our area.  I would like to see a higher average speed because it’s going to be a lot faster to drive than taking a train going at those speeds.


Downtown Norman to downtown OKC is 18 miles via the exiting tracks.  So 35/60 = 18/X; X = 31 minutes from Norman to OKC.  TRE also makes 8 stops on the way.  At most OKC to Norman would have 2 stops so even the 31 minute number is high.

I can't speak for Ft Worth, but I rode commuter rail in Philly on a regular basis and we topped out at 80 mph.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> If trips were frequent and convenient I would have no problem doing light rail or a local street car service. True HSR would be great, but just isn't going to happen here.


 Believe me, I would love to see a lighter rail service like Salt Lake City or Portland and possibly an even more extensive LRS those cities have. Also, I agree with ou48A that a car does bring freedom and I just wouldn't feel that same sense riding a train everyday as I would a car. But I still would love to see a LRS running from the airport to Downtown, Edmond, Norman, MWC and possibly Yukon.

----------


## venture

> Believe me, I would love to see a lighter rail service like Salt Lake City or Portland and possibly an even more extensive LRS those cities have. Also, I agree with ou48A that a car does bring freedom and I just wouldn't feel that same sense riding a train everyday as I would a car. But I still would love to see a LRS running from the airport to Downtown, Edmond, Norman, MWC and possibly Yukon.


I personally would love to see WRWA as the main hub for a rail network in Oklahoma. A true (as much as we can here in Oklahoma) intermodal facility. Of course I would be a bit biased, but it would make it better for me to just take the train to and from work every day. Plus the airport already has the parking facilities that can be expanded.

----------


## Just the facts

> Believe me, I would love to see a lighter rail service like Salt Lake City or Portland and possibly an even more extensive LRS those cities have. Also, I agree with ou48A that a car does bring freedom and I just wouldn't feel that same sense riding a train everyday as I would a car. But I still would love to see a LRS running from the airport to Downtown, Edmond, Norman, MWC and possibly Yukon.


You should trying riding a train on a regular basis before saying it doesn't provide freedom.  Honestly, you don't know freedom until you aren't dependent on a car.

----------


## LocoAko

> You should trying riding a train on a regular basis before saying it doesn't provide freedom.  Honestly, you don't know freedom until you aren't dependent on a car.



This! +1.

----------


## ou48A

Those of us who actually live in Norman may have received a pamphlet about this bond package from the city today.
Among other things they wrote the following about Lindsey Street.

Why is the West Lindsey Street Project included in this Bond program?

*The West Lindsey street corridor between Interstate 35 and Berry Road is the

NUMBER #1 traffic congested corridor in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area;* 

It has one of the highest traffic accident rates in Norman and includes one of the more significant storm water problems in Norman. In addition, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation has scheduled the widening of I-35 and the replacement of the I-35 / Lindsey Street interchange in 2016, so the timing is ideal to extend the improvements east of the interstate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As reasonable people can see congestion on west Lindsey Street is horrible.

Lindsey Street is even more congested east of Berry Road toward campus to ASP Ave. 
This is why this stretch of Lindsey Street must also be widened to 4/5 lanes.

----------


## venture

> As reasonable people can see congestion on west Lindsey Street is horrible.
> 
> Lindsey Street is even more congested east of Berry Road toward campus to ASP Ave. 
> This is why this stretch of Lindsey Street must also be widened to 4/5 lanes.


Never going to happen. I would say the addition of a central turning lane is about as good as it will get. Or why not improvise?

Add a center lane with but have it reverse direction during peak hours. When traffic is greatest going to campus, it it 2 lanes East, 1 lane West. When it is the end of the day and most are leaving campus, then it is reversed. The center lane can be added pretty easily with the room available.

----------


## kevinpate

I think Berry West to 35 on Lindsey is a good first step.  Trouble is ... much of the balance of the package leaves me rather cold.  Decisions, decisions.

----------


## venture

> I think Berry West to 35 on Lindsey is a good first step.  Trouble is ... much of the balance of the package leaves me rather cold.  Decisions, decisions.


I like the part that includes 24th from Robinson to Lindsey as it is a main artery through that area and is nearly completely developed. The 4 lanes to 2 lanes to 4 to 2 back to 4 isn't the safest setup. Not to mention the intersection at Robinson is terrible.

----------


## ou48A

> Never going to happen. I would say the addition of a central turning lane is about as good as it will get. Or why not improvise?
> 
> Add a center lane with but have it reverse direction during peak hours. When traffic is greatest going to campus, it it 2 lanes East, 1 lane West. When it is the end of the day and most are leaving campus, then it is reversed. The center lane can be added pretty easily with the room available.


Even though it’s needed, it may not be 4/5 lanes in my life time, but I think we could see something like you what you suggest in another 10 years or so.

I like the idea of a 3 lane reverse direction street during peak hours.

----------


## venture

I think the reverse lane idea would do wonders for traffic in that area with minimal impact to the neighborhood. During non-peak hours it can operate as just a typical center turning lane. 

Now if we could just get them to build a Hwy 9 overpass of 24th SW and get rid of that traffic light.

----------


## kevinpate

> ... Add a center lane with but have it reverse direction during peak hours. When traffic is greatest going to campus, it it 2 lanes East, 1 lane West. When it is the end of the day and most are leaving campus, then it is reversed. The center lane can be added pretty easily with the room available.


It is one thing to alter traffic flow direction a couple of Saturdays out of the year (do they still do that? I avoid the area on game days.) 

 But to suggest it happen daily ... you have far greater confidence in the comprehension skills of many drivers in Norman than I can muster up.  We have numerous folks who don't adapt well to change, even long term change.  Start switching it up every day on a stretch of road, and oh, mama.

----------


## venture

> It is one thing to alter traffic flow direction a couple of Saturdays out of the year (do they still do that? I avoid the area on game days.) 
> 
>  But to suggest it happen daily ... you have far greater confidence in the comprehension skills of many drivers in Norman than I can muster up.  We have numerous folks who don't adapt well to change, even long term change.  Start switching it up every day on a stretch of road, and oh, mama.


Yes Lindsey still goes completely one way during game days.

I guess it just takes getting use to reversible lanes. Many large cities have them on interstates to assist with rush hour traffic. The bridge and tunnel between Detroit and Windsor also uses them (if I remember correctly). It isn't too hard of a concept to understand. No more confusing than the flashing yellow turn singles going in now.  :Smile: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_lane

----------


## ou48A

> It is one thing to alter traffic flow direction a couple of Saturdays out of the year (do they still do that? I avoid the area on game days.) 
> 
>  But to suggest it happen daily ... you have far greater confidence in the comprehension skills of many drivers in Norman than I can muster up.  We have numerous folks who don't adapt well to change, even long term change.  Start switching it up every day on a stretch of road, and oh, mama.


There is or was a street in Wichita KS that used the reversible street concept for several decades.
Consider it a learning experience for drivers.
 :Smile:

----------


## soonerliberal

> Never going to happen. I would say the addition of a central turning lane is about as good as it will get. Or why not improvise?
> 
> Add a center lane with but have it reverse direction during peak hours. When traffic is greatest going to campus, it it 2 lanes East, 1 lane West. When it is the end of the day and most are leaving campus, then it is reversed. The center lane can be added pretty easily with the room available.


Brilliant idea... it isn't that difficult either... just add the red x's/green arrows above the road and keep it moving.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> You should trying riding a train on a regular basis before saying it doesn't provide freedom.  Honestly, you don't know freedom until you aren't dependent on a car.


Buddy our ideas of freedom are completely different then

----------


## ou48A

> Buddy our ideas of freedom are completely different then


 
There are many very good reasons why many people dont like living stacked one on top of another. The car has liberated and given hundreds of millions higher levels of personal freedom and increased their quality of life by many, many times.

Having said that, when and where congestion justifies it  I am all for commuter rail and light rail options. but they hardly represents a solution to all our transportation problems.

In a prosperous society the car will remain the dominate form of transportation for a strong majority of people  for the foreseeable future in the USA. The only real question is what fuel will they use?

----------


## CaptDave

> You should trying riding a train on a regular basis before saying it doesn't provide freedom.  Honestly, you don't know freedom until you aren't dependent on a car.


This is the crux of the debate - is it really freedom if you are absolutely dependent on ownership of an automobile to work, shop, play, or any other activity? I would like the *choice* of mass transit or car as needed. As a person that hates waste, I am appalled as I drive alone in my car to/from work every day. I plan to eventually move within walking distance of my employer, or insure there is a mass transit choice available. I think the streetcar has the potential to be even more transformative of how OKC citizens live, work, and play than we think possible presently.

----------


## Just the facts

> This is the crux of the debate - is it really freedom if you are absolutely dependent on ownership of an automobile to work, shop, play, or any other activity? I would like the *choice* of mass transit or car as needed.


It sucks that freedom cost me over $10,000 per year.  That is 2,000 trips on SEPTA.

----------


## ljbab728

> I traveled across this bridge about 15 times in the last month.  Let me tell you, it not only is brilliant, but it works.  Sure, there is still congestion, but math is math.  There are simply fewer cars and frankly less disruptive from a long-distance commute perspective going one direction at any time.  It makes sense.


That is also done on the Golden Gate Bridge.  It is a six lane bridge and during peak traffic hours it becomes four lanes in one direction and two in the other direction.

----------

