# Civic Matters > Suburban & Other OK Communities > Norman >  Norman Tops List on 10 Best Places In Oklahoma

## Bunty

Followed by Edmond and other OKC area suburbs.

These Are The 15 Best Places In Oklahoma

----------


## Mel

The pics to represent the cities were an interesting choice.

----------


## venture

Agree with Mel, some where just odd. Obviously would have much preferred downtown Norman or the OU campus. However, at least it isn't as bad as Moore. They got stuck with one of the cookie cutter suburbia houses, at least the Norman house was somewhat unique.  :Smile:

----------


## Stew

I'm saddened Newalla didn't make the list.  As with most things it's all in who you know.

----------


## kevinpate

On behalf of all Normanites ... Thank you. Thank you very much.

----------


## Mel

The Norman house was in the older areas we like to drive around and look at. Homes had a charm vibe back then I don't get off of modern construction.

----------


## OKVision4U

Norman, my favorite too.

----------


## Bunty

Surely, the second best part of the list for people on here is that Stillwater came well down on the list to no. 12.

----------


## ou48A

It doesn’t surprise me that Norman would be number #1.... 

But as shown by the “BIG DEAL SCORE” Norman’s ranking shows that its a much better place to live than anything not in the top 7 in Oklahoma.

----------


## catch22

Man that picture of Moore, OK is breathtaking. Stunning quality of life, if you like your quality of life to be the same as everyone elses.

----------


## Garin

> Man that picture of Moore, OK is breathtaking. Stunning quality of life, if you like your quality of life to be the same as everyone elses.


And the shanty they used for Norman was a perfect fit. What they should have shown is the stretch of I-35 that has been torn up for twenty years. They must be getting paid by the hour not the contract.

----------


## bchris02

> Followed by Edmond and other OKC area suburbs.
> 
> These Are The 15 Best Places In Oklahoma


What's interesting is how the OKC area dominates this list.  The Tulsa metro only has Jenks and Owasso on this list.

----------


## mmonroe

I still can't find #10...

----------


## MsProudSooner

> I still can't find #10...


There were two 3's and no 4's and two 9's and no 10.

----------


## Zuplar

I like Norman, but traffic overall sucks most of the time. It gets old.

----------


## Stan Silliman

> I like Norman, but traffic overall sucks most of the time. It gets old.


If you live where people want to be, they will. So will their cars.

----------


## LocoAko

> I like Norman, but traffic overall sucks most of the time. It gets old.


I must have an advantage coming from the East Coast, because almost every day (barring notable exceptions like game days), I'm always pleasantly surprised with how little traffic there is in Norman. A few cars backed up at a red light does not traffic make.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

To me a lot of traffic is better than no traffic at all.

----------


## venture

> I must have an advantage coming from the East Coast, because almost every day (barring notable exceptions like game days), I'm always pleasantly surprised with how little traffic there is in Norman. A few cars backed up at a red light does not traffic make.


But but but... If there are three cars waiting at the light, surely that means we must rush to 8 lane the road!

----------


## Zuplar

> I must have an advantage coming from the East Coast, because almost every day (barring notable exceptions like game days), I'm always pleasantly surprised with how little traffic there is in Norman. A few cars backed up at a red light does not traffic make.


I think a lot of the reason why Norman's seems to suck is due to the construction. I did my undergraduate at UCO and even though people sometimes gripe about Edmond traffic, I don't ever remember it being as bad as it is most weekends in Norman. Only time was when they were doing heavy construction on Broadway.

----------


## venture

> I think a lot of the reason why Norman's seems to suck is due to the construction. I did my undergraduate at UCO and even though people sometimes gripe about Edmond traffic, I don't ever remember it being as bad as it is most weekends in Norman. Only time was when they were doing heavy construction on Broadway.


Construction is about the only thing I notice that really causes problems in Norman. Sure Lindsey and surrounding streets get packed when school lets out, but that is going to happen in any college town. Highway 9 gets pretty busy during rush hour, but that just means you may have to sit through 1 or 2 light cycles. End of the world stuff I tell ya!  :Smile:

----------


## Zuplar

> Construction is about the only thing I notice that really causes problems in Norman. Sure Lindsey and surrounding streets get packed when school lets out, but that is going to happen in any college town. Highway 9 gets pretty busy during rush hour, but that just means you may have to sit through 1 or 2 light cycles. End of the world stuff I tell ya!


I think a big problem is I have never gone to Norman that much, but the past 2 years since I've moved somewhat closer, I tend to go to Norman for some things instead of Edmond like I used to so for the most parts I haven experienced Norman without all this construction. Once it's all done it's going to be a ton nicer though.

----------


## gjl

> There were two 3's and no 4's and two 9's and no 10.


Is that like the new math?

And Bethany #5 ???

----------


## Rover

> Is that like the new math?
> 
> And Bethany #5 ???


No, it is how it is done when it is a ranking.  You may be thinking of ratings.  There are 4 cities above 5, even though two were tied.

----------


## ou48A

> I like Norman, but traffic overall sucks most of the time. It gets old.



Yep.......... just yesterday traffic it was backed up on HY 9 for up to  mile behind the traffic lights......this is not an unusual occurrence.

But it could be worse and we would still have people saying that Norman doesnt have traffic congestion problems. 
The good news is that these people are now only a very tiny minority. Unlike the past when they helped create many of our problems they don't really matter now in the grand scheme of things when it comes making city street improvements.

 The growth of Norman has isolated them.

----------


## Spartan

Read the methodology if you want to be confused. Apparently Norman and Edmond have a different income tax...

----------


## venture

> Yep.......... just yesterday traffic it was backed up on HY 9 for up to  mile behind the traffic lights......this is not an unusual occurrence.
> 
> But it could be worse and we would still have people saying that Norman doesn’t have traffic congestion problems. 
> The good news is that these people are now only a very tiny minority. Unlike the past when they helped create many of our problems they don't really matter now in the grand scheme of things when it comes making city street improvements.
> 
>  The growth of Norman has isolated them.


What? Traffic lights cause back ups? Nooooo. Glad you are finally seeing the light. Additional lights on Lindsey are only going to keep the traffic problems there, if not make them worse with additional lights being added. 

BTW, where are these people saying Norman doesn't have a traffic problem? Hwy 9 is always decently congested during rush hours, game times, or during certain events.

----------


## ou48A

They need to fine tune the timing of traffic lights on key major streets to meet the peak demand.

By keeping lights green for longer periouds of time (maybe 5 to 8 minutes at a time) during certain times of the day it would reduce conjestion by getting the traffic out of the area. This would help during events and normal rush hour traffic.

But I have't really heard of any talk for city wide system. After the new street projects that we voted on are done a traffic light management sytem  would be the next major project I would like for Norman.

----------


## venture

> They need to fine tune the timing of traffic lights on key major streets to meet the peak demand.


That would always be a good idea. You should be able to set cruise at 50 mph and make every light. 




> By keeping lights green for longer periouds of time (maybe 5 to 8 minutes at a time) during certain times of the day it would reduce conjestion by getting the traffic out of the area. This would help during events and normal rush hour traffic.


Now this would be an idiotic idea. 5-8 minutes at a time would be horrible for those needed to cross traffic. At that point you need to just put in flashing yellow/red intersections and call it good. You would be essentially cutting off Norman south of Hwy 9 from the areas to the north. It would be better to just bite the bullet and build over passes at every major intersection and let Hwy 9 be a 55-60 mph highway. The intersection at 24th SW is probably the worst and should have an overpass in that area, but ODOT isn't filled with forward thinkers.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Now this would be an idiotic idea. 5-8 minutes at a time would be horrible for those needed to cross traffic. At that point you need to just put in flashing yellow/red intersections and call it good. You would be essentially cutting off Norman south of Hwy 9 from the areas to the north. It would be better to just bite the bullet and build over passes at every major intersection and let Hwy 9 be a 55-60 mph highway. The intersection at 24th SW is probably the worst and should have an overpass in that area, but ODOT isn't filled with forward thinkers.


You have to prioritize certain traffic. I think it is a great idea and wish Edmond would do that on Broadway during rush hour.

----------


## venture

> You have to prioritize certain traffic. I think it is a great idea and wish Edmond would do that on Broadway during rush hour.


Really? No one in their right mind would have a traffic light setup to restrict people from being able to cross a highway (or turn left onto it) for 5 minutes or more. That is just foolish and one of the dumbest comments and suggestions I've read on this forum. Well outside of a 20 story tower in South Norman with mag lev service to the Olympics serving Braums food. You are smarter than this.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Really? No one in their right mind would have a traffic light setup to restrict people from being able to cross a highway (or turn left onto it) for 5 minutes or more. That is just foolish and one of the dumbest comments and suggestions I've read on this forum. Well outside of a 20 story tower in South Norman with mag lev service to the Olympics serving Braums food. You are smarter than this.


What? What highway are you talking about? I'm talking about a road network here. Why would this be bad for Broadway in Edmond? Perhaps Main St. in Norman or other major Norman streets? No one should be waiting 5 minutes. Synchronizing lights is the key to get traffic flowing smoothly.

----------


## venture

> What? What highway are you talking about? I'm talking about a road network here. Why would this be bad for Broadway in Edmond? Perhaps Main St. in Norman or other major Norman streets? No one should be waiting 5 minutes. Synchronizing lights is the key to get traffic flowing smoothly.


Did you even bother to read the posts from myself and OU? Obviously Highway 9. Honestly, I don't give two flips about Edmond and what they do up there. This is the Norman section, so obviously I'm going to talk about...oh gee...Norman. Read before you post. /facepalm

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Did you even bother to read the posts from myself and OU? Obviously Highway 9. Honestly, I don't give two flips about Edmond and what they do up there. This is the Norman section, so obviously I'm going to talk about...oh gee...Norman. Read before you post. /facepalm


The Edmond reference was just an example, Venture. I did read, it looked like we were speaking of Lindsey here, apparently we weren't and that was my bad. I just didn't read it clearly.

----------


## ou48A

> Really? No one in their right mind would have a traffic light setup to restrict people from being able to cross a highway (or turn left onto it) for 5 minutes or more. That is just foolish and one of the dumbest comments and suggestions I've read on this forum. Well outside of a 20 story tower in South Norman with mag lev service to the Olympics serving Braums food. You are smarter than this.


Obviously it would be a stupid idea to let hundreds of vehicles go by while a much smaller number of vehicles were held up for a few minuets a day.
But pragmatic and you doesn’t have much compatibility...... because the system would be managed. 
It would be greener, save motorist gas money and countless hours of lost productivity. It would also make residences safer.

----------


## venture

> Obviously it would be a stupid idea to let hundreds of vehicles go by while a much smaller number of vehicles were held up for a few minuets a day.
> But pragmatic and you doesn’t have much compatibility...... because the system would be managed. 
> It would be greener, save motorist gas money and countless hours of lost productivity. It would also make residences safer.


So how often do you actually drive Highway 9? I'm on it every day, are you? The amount of traffic that comes off of those feeder streets isn't exactly minuscule. I would be perfectly fine with moving Highway 9 to near interstate quality by putting in overpasses and removing the intersections. I can't honestly see how it would be sensible to cut off a couple thousand homes on the south side of Highway 9 when they are going to need to get to work as well. Now if we are talking maybe 2 minutes give or take at each intersection, that's different. 5 to 8 is just asinine and I would expect better out of someone who likes criticizing others. 

How would it make residences safer? All this would do is back traffic up into the neighborhoods and probably the occasional rear end accident as someone tries to dart for the yellow light so they won't get stuck for 5 minutes or more.

----------


## ou48A

> So how often do you actually drive Highway 9? I'm on it every day, are you? The amount of traffic that comes off of those feeder streets isn't exactly minuscule. I would be perfectly fine with moving Highway 9 to near interstate quality by putting in overpasses and removing the intersections. I can't honestly see how it would be sensible to cut off a couple thousand homes on the south side of Highway 9 when they are going to need to get to work as well. Now if we are talking maybe 2 minutes give or take at each intersection, that's different. 5 to 8 is just asinine and I would expect better out of someone who likes criticizing others. 
> 
> How would it make residences safer? All this would do is back traffic up into the neighborhoods and probably the occasional rear end accident as someone tries to dart for the yellow light so they won't get stuck for 5 minutes or more.


I am on HY 9 probably around 100 times a year. But on a wide range of times. Same with many other major Norman streets and highways.

As I said.... it would be managed.... during peak travel
It would be tweaked by people who would know the specifics better than I.

Clearing out the pack of thousand of cars quicker allows for better emergency traffic access.
The system could help clear out traffic or block traffic to aid emergency vehicles.

But long term for HY 9, it needs to be brought up  to near interstate standards. But other areas of Norman would still benefit from a traffic light system that is managed by the city.

----------


## Dubya61

> It would be greener, save motorist gas money and countless hours of lost productivity. It would also make residences safer.


If you want to save motorist gas money and hours, (re)consider roundabouts!
Roundabouts Save Lives, Money and Fuel - Sustainability: Sustainable Transportation
Simple Gas Savings With Traffic Circles Save Money On Gas
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...ype=blogs&_r=0



> But the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety says that modern roundabouts — which have proliferated in this country in recent years — are not only far safer than regular intersections, they are also more fuel efficient. Drivers use about 30 percent less gas when using a roundabout compared with a traffic signal, according to the Institute, because they don’t necessarily have to stop and idle.


troll fed

----------


## venture

> If you want to save motorist gas money and hours, (re)consider roundabouts!
> Roundabouts Save Lives, Money and Fuel - Sustainability: Sustainable Transportation
> Simple Gas Savings With Traffic Circles Save Money On Gas
> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...ype=blogs&_r=0
> 
> 
> troll fed


Maybe he is finally reconsidering his position? Since roundabouts, even on a 4 lane Lindsey, would be much better for saving gas and countless hours of loss productivity, not to mention increasing safety, then adding additional traffic lights and curb cuts.

----------


## LocoAko

> They need to fine tune the timing of traffic lights on key major streets to meet the peak demand.
> 
> By keeping lights green for longer periouds of time (maybe 5 to 8 minutes at a time) during certain times of the day it would reduce conjestion by getting the traffic out of the area. This would help during events and normal rush hour traffic.
> 
> But I have't really heard of any talk for city wide system. After the new street projects that we voted on are done a traffic light management sytem  would be the next major project I would like for Norman.


5-8 minutes?! Surely you can't be serious.... 

And no one is denying that there is traffic SOMETIMES. But roads should not be built so that there is zero traffic on game days and rush hour. A bit of congestion during those times is normal. You need to build roads for the 90% of other times when the roads are completely empty...

----------


## LocoAko

> The Edmond reference was just an example, Venture. I did read, it looked like we were speaking of Lindsey here, apparently we weren't and that was my bad. I just didn't read it clearly.


It doesn't really matter because a 5 minute light is absurd ANYWHERE. Maybe I have zero patience or something but I get frustrated when sitting at stop lights that are red for a full 30 seconds. If we began having lights stay red for 5 minutes people would avoid those routes entirely and it would make the "green light" roads all that much worse. Do you guys realize how long 5 minutes is for a traffic light?

----------


## LocoAko

> I am on HY 9 probably around 100 times a year. But on a wide range of times. Same with many other major Norman streets and highways.
> 
> As I said.... it would be managed.... during peak travel
> It would be tweaked by people who would know the specifics better than I.
> 
> Clearing out the pack of thousand of cars quicker allows for better emergency traffic access.
> The system could help clear out traffic or block traffic to aid emergency vehicles.
> 
> But long term for HY 9, it needs to be brought up  to near interstate standards. But other areas of Norman would still benefit from a traffic light system that is managed by the city.


Flying down Highway 9 as an emergency won't do much good once you get off and enter neighborhoods that are full of congestion...

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Flying down Highway 9 as an emergency won't do much good once you get off and enter neighborhoods that are full of congestion...


it's only full of congestion towards Highway 9, not the way the emergency vehicles would be going.

----------


## venture

> it's only full of congestion towards Highway 9, not the way the emergency vehicles would be going.


Really? I'm trying to think of where all these major congestion is heading towards Highway 9. Yeah there was one time I had to wait for one light cycle at 24th SW to turn left onto Hwy 9. Everything else is normally pretty quick. Not say improvements to Hwy 9 can't be made, but I'm not exactly sure what alternative reality people are experiencing when going down the highway to witness such terrible traffic backups trying to get onto Highway 9.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> *Really? I'm trying to think of where all these major congestion is heading towards Highway 9.* Yeah there was one time I had to wait for one light cycle at 24th SW to turn left onto Hwy 9. Everything else is normally pretty quick. Not say improvements to Hwy 9 can't be made, but I'm not exactly sure what alternative reality people are experiencing when going down the highway to witness such terrible traffic backups trying to get onto Highway 9.


ummmmmm, I wasn't the one that claimed there any major congestion heading towards highway 9.... I was only responding to LocoAko's scenario of that.

----------


## venture

> ummmmmm, I wasn't the one that claimed there any major congestion heading towards highway 9.... I was only responding to LocoAko's scenario of that.


I see. Probably important to note that there are no fire stations south of Highway 9 - as far as I know. There is an EMStat station on 12th Ave SE south of Highway 9, but I can't think of any fire stations. So any congestion backing up towards Hwy 9 would be a massive negative considering that is where emergency responders will be coming from.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> I see. Probably important to note that there are no fire stations south of Highway 9 - as far as I know. There is an EMStat station on 12th Ave SE south of Highway 9, but I can't think of any fire stations. So any congestion backing up towards Hwy 9 would be a massive negative considering that is where emergency responders will be coming from.


I'm sure as the city grows a new fire station will be built on both sides as well, that is a given. The only real logical thing to do is bring Highway 9 up to interstate standards.

----------


## venture

> I'm sure as the city grows a new fire station will be built on both sides as well, that is a given. The only real logical thing to do is bring Highway 9 up to interstate standards.


The City just built a new one near Alameda and 24th on the east side. There isn't enough density south of Hwy 9 to really warrant another station down there as they are well served by the stations north of Hwy 9. If you look at a map of them, they are essentially lined up through the middle of Norman if you were to draw a line from west to east. I agree with upgrading Hwy 9 to remove intersections with overpasses, and have stated that for a long time here...but not to this crazy idea of screwing with traffic lights to make people wait 5-8 minutes to cross - that is just flat out idiotic. So yes...the only logical thing would be to upgrade - glad to see you coming around to the world of common sense finally.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> The City just built a new one near Alameda and 24th on the east side. There isn't enough density south of Hwy 9 to really warrant another station down there as they are well served by the stations north of Hwy 9. If you look at a map of them, they are essentially lined up through the middle of Norman if you were to draw a line from west to east. I agree with upgrading Hwy 9 to remove intersections with overpasses, and have stated that for a long time here...but not to this crazy idea of screwing with traffic lights to make people wait 5-8 minutes to cross - that is just flat out idiotic. So yes...the only logical thing would be to upgrade - glad to see you coming around to the world of common sense finally.


I have never stated people should wait 8 minutes to cross. That is really not that uncommon though. Hell, in Edmond, you already have a 5-10 minute wait time on 15th and broadway.... not sure about the worst light in Norman. My thinking is synchronizing lights. Again, for Highway 9, interstate standards seems like the best choice.

----------


## venture

> I have never stated people should wait 8 minutes to cross. That is really not that uncommon though. Hell, in Edmond, you already have a 5-10 minute wait time on 15th and broadway.... not sure about the worst light in Norman. My thinking is synchronizing lights. Again, for Highway 9, interstate standards seems like the best choice.


Then why did you like OU48's post that suggested just that? Let's also be clear on that point, he is suggesting setting the lights to only be green once every 5-8 minutes, so the wait time is going to be much much much longer with the back up. Today there definitely are places where it may take 5 minutes to make a light, but it isn't very widespread and that is with current timing of the lights. If you make the green intervals further apart then that wait time is going to also go well past any current delays. I take "Liking" a post to agreeing with the points therein. If you don't agree, then why like the post? Even though it is noticeable of the "like" trading that seems to take place between you two but it also appears you aren't even comprehending what is being said in the posts you are liking. Slow down and read - chances are we really aren't far apart on this at all.

Synchronizing lights is definitely a huge plus, but it also does nothing when you have those that feel the need to rush to the next stop light and wait. Hwy 9 is 50 mph through south Norman west of 36th SE (I think that is where it goes up to 55 heading east...might be 48th). If you sync the lights, it is going to be based on that 50 mph speed. So all those people who feel the need to do 60-65 mph on it today are going to end up getting to a red light and stopping. They are then going to be the ones that cause the flow of traffic to breakdown since the flow coming in around 50 mph is going to have to slow down or even stop. 

My home town has an artery similar to Hwy 9 that runs from Downtown to the SW burbs. It is set at 50 mph and the lights are all perfectly timed. You can set your cruise control at 50 mph and make every light. The only time it gets thrown off is when people go racing by and then create a backup at the light waiting for it to change. So we can sync the lights all we want, but driver behavior is going to play a significant role in this unless they continue to increase their speed enforcement on the highway. However, that is going to get expensive quick and really the only effective tool at that point would be speed cameras to force people to slow down. That's a whole different thread there and I don't want to derail this even further.

Best option - overpasses at the all the major intersections from 35 to Hwy 77 (where there is one right now). Next best would be traffic light syncing with traffic enforcement.

----------


## catch22

We don't like traffic, so we will expand our road to handle more cars.

----------


## Geographer

If you plan for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places. It's simple.

----------


## ou48A

> Maybe he is finally reconsidering his position? Since roundabouts, even on a 4 lane Lindsey, would be much better for saving gas and countless hours of loss productivity, not to mention increasing safety, then adding additional traffic lights and curb cuts.


As very often the case you are wrong about my position..... I have never been against round abouts, if constructed properly and put in the right locations! 
I was very much against was a one lane Lindsey Street in each direction! 
But the people who were going to be satisfied with one lane are very, very marginalized in the community to the point where they just don't matter.

----------


## ou48A

> 5-8 minutes?! Surely you can't be serious.... 
> 
> And no one is denying that there is traffic SOMETIMES. But roads should not be built so that there is zero traffic on game days and rush hour. A bit of congestion during those times is normal. You need to build roads for the 90% of other times when the roads are completely empty...


Are you having probelems comprehinding words like maybe and managed during peak travel.

----------


## ou48A

> Flying down Highway 9 as an emergency won't do much good once you get off and enter neighborhoods that are full of congestion...


Apparently some are having problems even comprehending the basics of a managed system. 

As I indicated a managed system would help clear out traffic in advanced of emergency vehicles, anywhere the managed system existed.

----------


## ou48A

> . Slow down and read - chances are we really aren't far apart on this at all.
> 
> Synchronizing lights is definitely a huge plus, 
> 
> My home town has an artery similar to Hwy 9 that runs from Downtown to the SW burbs. It is set at 50 mph and the lights are all perfectly timed.


Which is exactly the flexibility  that a managed system gives you. …. but instead it can be adjusted to meet changing conditions.....


*Slow down and read - chances are we really aren't far apart on this at all.*

----------


## venture

> As very often the case you are wrong about my position..... I have never been against round abouts, if constructed properly and put in the right locations! 
> I was very much against was a one lane Lindsey Street in each direction! 
> But the people who were going to be satisfied with one lane are very, very marginalized in the community to the point where they just don't matter.


Hmm, people seem to be misunderstanding you a lot lately (looking at the following posts)...maybe it isn't how others are understanding the message, but how the message is being delivered? There seems to be an apparent common denominator here and it isn't everyone else.

I can appreciate not having a single lane Lindsey, and I was fine with that. However, that doesn't mean that we should have given in to the same basic design of traffic lights - even adding more - over roundabouts to keep traffic flowing.

----------


## ou48A

> If you plan for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places. It's simple.



If you can not get people into the area because they are sitting at several cycles of traffic lights you are under severing the area.... thus leading to fewer people and fewer nice places.
 Major areas of daily public gatherings should have modern transportation that meet the actual demand.


A traffic light system that is managed and controlled by officials probably offers the biggest bang for the buck on an every day basses.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> If you plan for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places. It's simple.


Car's and traffic will ultimately turn into people. Who do you think is driving the cars? There is no planning for cars and traffic, there is planning for growth and with growth you'll get traffic, that is how it goes. If the city is smart, it will widen its roads and plan ahead for traffic to make it easy and have smooth flowing traffic instead of these inferior two lane roads, and even four lane roads are getting to be too small. I think Lindsey will become a great street and turn into an amazing corridor that will see more big investments directly as a result from increasing the traffic capacity.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Then why did you like OU48's post that suggested just that? Let's also be clear on that point, he is suggesting setting the lights to only be green once every 5-8 minutes, so the wait time is going to be much much much longer with the back up. Today there definitely are places where it may take 5 minutes to make a light, but it isn't very widespread and that is with current timing of the lights. If you make the green intervals further apart then that wait time is going to also go well past any current delays. I take "Liking" a post to agreeing with the points therein. If you don't agree, then why like the post? Even though it is noticeable of the "like" trading that seems to take place between you two but it also appears you aren't even comprehending what is being said in the posts you are liking. Slow down and read - chances are we really aren't far apart on this at all.
> 
> Synchronizing lights is definitely a huge plus, but it also does nothing when you have those that feel the need to rush to the next stop light and wait. Hwy 9 is 50 mph through south Norman west of 36th SE (I think that is where it goes up to 55 heading east...might be 48th). If you sync the lights, it is going to be based on that 50 mph speed. So all those people who feel the need to do 60-65 mph on it today are going to end up getting to a red light and stopping. They are then going to be the ones that cause the flow of traffic to breakdown since the flow coming in around 50 mph is going to have to slow down or even stop. 
> 
> My home town has an artery similar to Hwy 9 that runs from Downtown to the SW burbs. It is set at 50 mph and the lights are all perfectly timed. You can set your cruise control at 50 mph and make every light. The only time it gets thrown off is when people go racing by and then create a backup at the light waiting for it to change. So we can sync the lights all we want, but driver behavior is going to play a significant role in this unless they continue to increase their speed enforcement on the highway. However, that is going to get expensive quick and really the only effective tool at that point would be speed cameras to force people to slow down. That's a whole different thread there and I don't want to derail this even further.
> 
> Best option - overpasses at the all the major intersections from 35 to Hwy 77 (where there is one right now). Next best would be traffic light syncing with traffic enforcement.


Those are very fair points... can't really argue against any of that. I would be against speed cameras however.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> We don't like traffic, so we will expand our road to handle more cars.


We expand our roads to handle more cars and increase the traffic capacity thus having better flowing traffic. It's not a dislike of traffic rather than not having the roads that can handle the traffic that has exhausted the current capacity.

----------


## venture

> Car's and traffic will ultimately turn into people. Who do you think is driving the cars? There is no planning for cars and traffic, there is planning for growth and with growth you'll get traffic, that is how it goes. If the city is smart, it will widen its roads and plan ahead for traffic to make it easy and have smooth flowing traffic instead of these inferior two lane roads, and even four lane roads are getting to be too small. I think Lindsey will become a great street and turn into an amazing corridor that will see more big investments directly as a result from increasing the traffic capacity.


This is where the thinking is being detached. Norman has a unique (for the area) arrangement thanks to OU. You have a "captive" student base that is use to be in a high density area and walking to classes or to eat (Campus Corner). The idea people had for Lindsey was to encourage further high density growth with new mixed used developments. We are already seeing some of these along 12th SE and Lindsey and the new development on Lindsey at Classen. As we look down the road further commuter rail options it needs to have some density built around it to ensure it is successful. Population density and a higher density of wealth is much more attractive to higher end retailers and businesses than the suburban setup you see in most areas. This is why you saw Whole Foods open up to the Classen Curve area instead of maybe Edmond or another area with a higher income base - more density. The extreme demand for housing and other amenities in Downtown OKC also show case the growing trend for people wanting a more dense living option that doesn't require them to drive everywhere. We aren't talking about changing all of Norman to a high density city...it is too big for that. However, you can development Central Norman from the Lindsey corridor through campus and up to downtown to play off of the higher population density (thanks to OU) to offer a more urban living area. If people want and enjoy the suburban life, there are plenty of areas on the fringes of Norman that already cater to that. 

Your opening statement highlights where the disconnect is and why people are disagreeing on this thread. The point isn't to develop and area that people drive - that's UNP. The point is to develop an area that people want to live in (which many already do) and be able to go about their daily lives without needing to have to get into the car to go 1 mile to the grocery store or to get something to eat. Four lane Lindsey is fine, like I've said over and over again. However, traffic lights are going to still cause backups - regardless of how much managing they can do. Lindsey is a bit unique because you rarely have one directional congestion. In the AM you have commuting students and staff coming in, commuting workers going out...and in the PM you have the reverse. You are going to get a backup somewhere - on Lindsey - regardless of the traffic light setup. This is why I would rather see the investment be done now, instead of investing millions now and going back in 10 years and spending millions again fixing it, to go to roundabouts at all the major intersections. Traffic will keep flowing then and it will be at a speed that will keep it safe for drivers and also for pedestrians to encourage strong growth.




> We expand our roads to handle more cars and increase the traffic capacity thus having better flowing traffic. It's not a dislike of traffic rather than not having the roads that can handle the traffic that has exhausted the current capacity.


Like I said...not every area needs to be the same. Are you seeing people asking for all the roads in the new residential areas of Downtown OKC asking to be widened? No. If people want that, there are many options for driveable areas of town. Walkable areas are in high demand because many don't want to deal with having a car as a requirement for every day life. If you don't want that life style, don't live in that area...there are plenty of options.

----------


## Geographer

> Car's and traffic will ultimately turn into people. Who do you think is driving the cars? There is no planning for cars and traffic, there is planning for growth and with growth you'll get traffic, that is how it goes. If the city is smart, it will widen its roads and plan ahead for traffic to make it easy and have smooth flowing traffic instead of these inferior two lane roads, and even four lane roads are getting to be too small. I think Lindsey will become a great street and turn into an amazing corridor that will see more big investments directly as a result from increasing the traffic capacity.


All of this is backwards logic of the essence of greating a great place. I don't say that to be rude or anything. Planning for vehicle traffic is important sure...but giving more and more room and priority to vehicular traffic will secure you a place that is out of scale for humans not in vehicles...not to mention it's more expensive.

Placemaking can be a hard concept to convey but it's easy to document the lack thereof

----------

