# Civic Matters > Suburban & Other OK Communities > Norman >  Lindsey Street

## okcfollower

Is there any plans for widening Lindsey Street? I know there are plans from classen to jenkins? When will that start? And are they doing an underpass like at robinson there? But what about from jenkins to 35. That is always backed up!

----------


## ou48A

I don’t know of any plans but for as many people that this over crowed street delays it’s long past due for widening.
The amount time and gasoline wasted sitting in traffic alone justifies a widening project, not to mention the delays in police & fire responses.

More so in recent years the city of Norman priorities are not always where they should be.

----------


## JimTrabersColostomyBag

No underpass or overpass on widening.....

----------


## ou48A

They are building an underpass at the RR tracks and the I-35 bridge is scheduled to be rebuilt in the next 2 or 3 years.

----------


## okcfollower

As much as this all needs done, I'm glad I will be graduated by the time they start. Its bad right now, but I cant imagine the area when under construction

----------


## rcjunkie

> They are building an underpass at the RR tracks and the I-35 bridge is scheduled to be rebuilt in the next 2 or 3 years.


On Robinson, not Lindsey.

----------


## kevinpate

> On Robinson, not Lindsey.


True.  They did once consider an underpass for Lindsey, but decided against it.  Would probably still be a good idea but the cost suggests it's not likely to ever get back on a front burner, well, not anyitime in the near future anyway.

----------


## ou48A

Apparently what I remembered was only a study that determined that an underpass on Lindsey street was the best option. I thought I had remembered a city of Norman vote to build an Lindsey St underpass.

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/content/lindsey-street
Underpass and overpass options were evaluated for a grade separated crossing and it was determined that an underpass was the only feasible alternative for this location. The vertical profile was set such that a two-span structural steel plate girder bridge would provide the necessary horizontal and vertical clearances to the roadway. The estimated project cost at the Lindsey Street location is about $6,914,000

----------


## rcjunkie

Lindsey definately needs an underpass/overpass at the tracks, but I don't see it for at least another 10--15 years. ODOT will soon begin the rest of the I-35 widening project, from just S. of Robinson to Hwy. 9. this includes new bridges at Main, Lindsey and Hwy 9. I think, hope and pray the next major road construction considered for Norman is to widen either Flood and Berry, Norman despertately needs another major N. and S. street.

----------


## mcca7596

If either one is widened, it should be Berry; Flood has too much character that would be detrimentally affected by widening it, in my opinion.

----------


## BG918

> If either one is widened, it should be Berry; Flood has too much character that would be detrimentally affected by widening it, in my opinion.


Agree.  A streetscape along Flood south of Robinson would be nice to see; it's a major gateway into Norman from the north and that stretch looks pretty shabby between Main and Robinson.

I have heard Lindsey will have an underpass at the RR tracks and construction will start once the Robinson underpass is complete, which is next year.

----------


## rcjunkie

> Agree.  A streetscape along Flood south of Robinson would be nice to see; it's a major gateway into Norman from the north and that stretch looks pretty shabby between Main and Robinson.
> 
> I have heard Lindsey will have an underpass at the RR tracks and construction will start once the Robinson underpass is complete, which is next year.


Lindsey will eventually have an underpass, but I've been told from by reliable soucres that it will be at least 10 years, closer to 15 before that happens.

----------


## ljbab728

> If either one is widened, it should be Berry; Flood has too much character that would be detrimentally affected by widening it, in my opinion.


I don't care about widening Flood.  I just wish some kind of improvements were made that meant it wouldn't live up to it's name every time it rains.  LOL

----------


## venture

> I don't care about widening Flood.  I just wish some kind of improvements were made that meant it wouldn't live up to it's name every time it rains.  LOL


Hey now. One of the perks living in Norman is that after any sprinkle, you get water front property for a couple hours...well on most streets.

----------


## OUman

^Not true for most streets, but for some yes. Especially the Lindsey/McGee area. And some of the lower-lying University streets. Then again for those of us living just east of 12th, heavy rain is not a problem. All water just runs off the slope of Alameda LOL.

----------


## venture

> ^Not true for most streets, but for some yes. Especially the Lindsey/McGee area. And some of the lower-lying University streets. Then again for those of us living just east of 12th, heavy rain is not a problem. All water just runs off the slope of Alameda LOL.


Learn to read sarcasm. :-P lol

----------


## Dulahey

A few years ago when I was a Civil Engineering student, our Senior Capstone was to analyze the traffic on Lindsey through campus.  During our research, we found out that Lindsey will pretty much never be widened.  Too many right-of-way issues.

After lots of simulations and traffic counts, we actually found the best way, BY FAR, to improve traffic was to actually close Lindsey in the middle of campus.  Most people laugh when they hear this, but it's true.  There's a lot of factors involved.  Pres. Boren even came to our presentation and agreed with it.  (It's something that many other campuses around the country have done in very similar situations)  But said the businesses on Lindsey, to the west of campus, would raise hell.

----------


## kevinpate

Dulahey,  curious as to where the diverted traffic would flow for E/W if you recall.  Boyd seems more than fairly congested already, even off peak.  Timberdell in its present configuration would be a nightmare with much of any increased traffic flow.  As to businesses to the west being upset, if OU wanted it done, the elephant would stomp and the pygmies would either scatter, sit quietly in the jungle and pray they were enough out of the way, or become the squishy stuff between the elephant's toes.

----------


## JimTrabersColostomyBag

Isn't the only businesses west of campus a pizza shop and liquor store until you get to Berry Road?

----------


## venture

I wonder how feasible of an option it would be to essentially create a loop around the school using Chautauqua, Boyd, Jenkins, and Imhoff. Granted they are probably already pretty taxed on capacity - but some of those might be more feasible for widening. Might be able to go further out and upgrade Berry and route it all the way down to Hwy 9. Then improve Main street by some additional widening and removal of the street parking in downtown.

----------


## Dulahey

The "loop" that you mention, Venture79, was part of the plan.

Kevin, most of the traffic would simply go to SH-9.  The vast majority of people going to campus come from I-35, and the two exits (Lindsey/SH-9) are very close to each other.  And if any of you are students or drive near campus, you already know that you can actually get there faster by using SH-9 instead of Lindsey.  But yes, a lesser amount of traffic would use Main St. and Boyd.

The main points we had were that safety for students crossing Lindsey street would drastically improve.  (I believe this was the original reason for doing the project.  OU wanted to protect the crossings.  Pedestrian bridges were also examined, but was just a poor idea all around.)  Our other main point was what we discovered with our traffic study.  We found that over 99% of the traffic (seriously 99%) was NOT driving through campus.  If someone is wanting to get to the east side of Norman, they do not take Lindsey.  The only cars driving on Lindsey, near campus, are basically just going to/from campus.  So closing it, would actually have a much lower effect on traffic patterns than what most people would imagine when they hear this idea. But safety would skyrocket because you would likely get rid of ALL accidents.

----------


## BG918

Widening Lindsey to 4 lanes with no turn lanes is only widening the street by 1 lane through campus and by 2 lanes from Elm to Berry.  It's not like we're putting in a freeway.  Lindsey in its current state is not a proper gateway for campus.  It doesn't even have sidewalks in a college town!!  4 lanes with new sidewalks and lighting on both sides would not cause that much of a disruption and absolutely must happen.

----------


## ou48A

> Widening Lindsey to 4 lanes with no turn lanes is only widening the street by 1 lane through campus and by 2 lanes from Elm to Berry.  It's not like we're putting in a freeway.  Lindsey in its current state is not a proper gateway for campus.  It doesn't even have sidewalks in a college town!!  4 lanes with new sidewalks and lighting on both sides would not cause that much of a disruption and absolutely must happen.


I agree with this^

But ,,,,,,,,,,,I know it would be way too expensive to be considered feasible but what about double decking Lindsey from campus to just west of Berry St then build a 4 lane to the interstate ???????

----------


## venture

With the information provided above...it almost seems foolish to not shut Lindsey down at Chautauqua to Jenkins. You could get creative at either side with the round abouts and remove the traffic lights/stop signs. Then definitely make Lindsey 4 lanes from 24th SW to Berry and from Jenkins to Classen.

----------


## soonerliberal

> Widening Lindsey to 4 lanes with no turn lanes is only widening the street by 1 lane through campus and by 2 lanes from Elm to Berry.  It's not like we're putting in a freeway.  Lindsey in its current state is not a proper gateway for campus.  It doesn't even have sidewalks in a college town!!  4 lanes with new sidewalks and lighting on both sides would not cause that much of a disruption and absolutely must happen.


Here's the inherent problem.  The campus currently does not have a gateway. While the state and city try to encourage people to take Main St. and Hwy 9 through signs on I-35, plenty of people still attempt to reach campus on Lindsey.  A lot of this is a general issue with the campus being a fairly transient area.  With a significant number of people attending OU from out of state or out of the metro area, Lindsey looks like the most direct way to get there.  Use a GPS or Google Maps from Dallas to the dorms or the stadium, and it will tell you to take Lindsey.

I don't believe that Lindsey should be used as the campus gateway.  Sure, it should be widened to four lanes west of Berry.  There is plenty of local traffic that frequent those businesses.  There are also a decent number of people from on campus who use Lindsey to access West Norman.  However, I do not believe Lindsey should be widened from Berry to Jenkins.  First, just like Flood and Chatauqua west of campus, Lindsey has a beautiful park-like canopy that we do not have enough of in Oklahoma.  Second, many of those homes are fairly close to the street.  Putting a four-lane street through a neighborhood is going to severely disrupt things and automatically make it less safe.  Third, there are plenty of other alternatives. Fourth, there is a definite difference in crossing a two lane street versus a four lane street.  Crossing a Boyd or Classen is 10 times more of a headache than crossing Lindsey.  There are *thousands* more who cross Lindsey on a daily basis than cross Boyd on a daily basis.  Plus Lindsey cuts through the middle of the campus. Boyd is at the north end with no real campus buildings north of it, just an entertainment district.  OU has worked to make campus much more of a park-like setting with parking on the exterior and then walking/biking on the interior.  This is something that truly differentiates OU from many other schools.

Alternatives:
Campus gateway from the north - This seems like the most feasible option.  Traffic is already encouraged to use Main Street.  Widening Main St. from 4 to 6 lanes from I-35 to downtown is possible.  It is already 6 lanes throughout downtown.  I'm sure some in Downtown would not appreciate added traffic, but overall, I believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.  Then create a northern gateway along one of the other streets (preferably Jenkins).  Updating, widening, and improving the aesthetics of Jenkins would have the least impact on the neighborhoods.

Even greater emphasis on using Hwy 9.  There are plenty of options to access Campus from the south.  Jenkins and Chatauqua are great alternatives and already have the built in capacity to reach Lloyd Noble or the main campus.

Encourage west Normanites traveling to east Norman to take Robinson, Main, Imhoff, Hwy 9.  There are plenty of alternatives outside of Lindsey.  People can handle the extra mile driving.

----------


## OUman

^Actually Main is only 3 lanes wide and one-way eastbound through the downtown core. It's only six lanes west of the street called Shopping Complex Drive or whatever.

----------


## ou48A

Regardless of the various right-of-way issues for the greater good of tens of thousands of people Lindsey  needs to be 4 landed.
 The thought of closing Lindsey is ridiculous. Closing Lindsey would only further congest other nearby streets and force more traffic onto residential streets. We could also improve Norman traffic by closing I – 35. Yes we could!

It almost sounds like a few of the decision makers have thrown their hand up in the air and declared that wilding Lindsey would be too difficult to undertake. The reality is these folks are probably scared of ruffling a few feathers or too lazy to do the work that’s needed.

----------


## venture

> Regardless of the various right-of-way issues for the greater good of tens of thousands of people Lindsey  needs to be 4 landed.
>  The thought of closing Lindsey is ridiculous. Closing Lindsey would only further congest other nearby streets and force more traffic onto residential streets. We could also improve Norman traffic by closing I – 35. Yes we could!
> 
> It almost sounds like a few of the decision makers have thrown their hand up in the air and declared that wilding Lindsey would be too difficult to undertake. The reality is these folks are probably scared of ruffling a few feathers or too lazy to do the work that’s needed.


So you really want to go down Lindsey and remove a ton of trees that provide a unique canopy over the residential area to widen the street that only serves people going to OU?  Read back on the previous posts and consider that information. Also if a bypass loop were created, there would be many improvements to that infrastructure to reduce impacts on the neighborhoods by rerouting traffic. Of course, this is keeping in my that 99% of the traffic going down Lindsey past Berry is heading to OU or the houses on the WEST side of campus. Anyone going to the East side is taking Main or Highway 9.

----------


## ou48A

> So you really want to go down Lindsey and remove a ton of trees that provide a unique canopy over the residential area to widen the street that only serves people going to OU?  Read back on the previous posts and consider that information. Also if a bypass loop were created, there would be many improvements to that infrastructure to reduce impacts on the neighborhoods by rerouting traffic. Of course, this is keeping in my that 99% of the traffic going down Lindsey past Berry is heading to OU or the houses on the WEST side of campus. Anyone going to the East side is taking Main or Highway 9.



With the reconstruction and winding of I 35 and the reconstruction of the Lindsey street bridge over I -35 if Lindsey were 4 landed it would be virtually imposable to get any bigger benefit elsewhere for anywhere close to  the same amount of money. While I would like to see a loop it would cost far more money. 
The City of Norman has a responsibility to tens of thousands students and residents and an obligation to hundreds of thousands of its visitors. With this many people  frequently affected they should take priority over a hand full of right –of – way issues and a few nice looking trees. 

PS: Many east side folks are now using Tecumseh st and have long stayed off Main St.

----------


## BG918

Widening Lindsey would not take out that many trees, and the ones it does can be replanted.  I'd prefer a 4 lane Lindsey with actual sidewalks, bike lanes (if there's enough room), more new trees along the sidewalk, and better lighting to its current state with a "tree canopy".  If you want that drive down every other neighborhood street in that area.

----------


## venture

> With the reconstruction and winding of I 35 and the reconstruction of the Lindsey street bridge over I -35 if Lindsey were 4 landed it would be virtually imposable to get any bigger benefit elsewhere for anywhere close to  the same amount of money. While I would like to see a loop it would cost far more money. 
> The City of Norman has a responsibility to tens of thousands students and residents and an obligation to hundreds of thousands of its visitors. With this many people  frequently affected they should take priority over a hand full of right –of – way issues and a few nice looking trees. 
> 
> PS: Many east side folks are now using Tecumseh st and have long stayed off Main St.


Sure, they could create a route that is more suited to the traffic needs of thousands of drivers going to special events. That is called Highway 9. Which, unless I'm mistaken, is also benefiting from the new exit ramp at Lindsey (since they tend to share). Granted there are improves to Highway 9 that should take place...6 lanes until Hwy 77 should be one. 

I don't think you quite understand what I mean by loop. It would be intersections like Lindsey and Elm. A roundabout would be put in and the traffic light removed. Lindsey would be removed past that intersection by traffic would be directed around campus either North or South on Elm. Southbound traffic would be directed until about Elmwood and then go back to the west about until Chautauqua. Roundabouts can be placed at both of these intersections to ensure traffic keeps flowing. However, based on the study mentioned here...most of the traffic is terminating where Lindsey would end and loop begin so traffic numbers really won't be all that higher than they are now. A modest increase, but most of the traffic would be funneling off to the side streets soon enough anyway.

There would be no need to create a 4 land roadway around the school as current roads already handle this traffic. It would just remove a non-essential part (per the study) to allow higher safety for students crossing Lindsey every day. I would say the benefit to several thousand students a day and countless thousands on game days would be a huge priority to Norman and OU - as you stated.




> Widening Lindsey would not take out that many trees, and the ones it does can be replanted.  I'd prefer a 4 lane Lindsey with actual sidewalks, bike lanes (if there's enough room), more new trees along the sidewalk, and better lighting to its current state with a "tree canopy".  If you want that drive down every other neighborhood street in that area.


Okay, obviously you haven't bothered to really go down Lindsey anytime in the last 10 years or so. Example of just one section of Lindsey past Berry...



The highlight area would be needed in order to do what you want...sidewalks and 4 lanes. Bike lanes - sure, if you want to take even more of the front yards of these residents. It amazes me how quick people are to say they want this and that without even really looking at the area they are talking about. Four lanes past Berry is not doable without massive property buyouts, removal of a lot of trees, and changing the feel of that neighborhood forever. Sure you can plant new trees...but it takes decades for them to get close to the height to replace what is being torn down. 

In all fairness, I'm glad you may prefer it...but the residents in that area won't. If I still lives over there, I would fight it as much as I could. As would several of the people with extremely deep pockets (and very nice and large houses) along the route wood.

----------


## ou48A

> Sure, they could create a route that is more suited to the traffic needs of thousands of drivers going to special events. That is called Highway 9. Which, unless I'm mistaken, is also benefiting from the new exit ramp at Lindsey (since they tend to share). Granted there are improves to Highway 9 that should take place...6 lanes until Hwy 77 should be one. 
> 
> I don't think you quite understand what I mean by loop. It would be intersections like Lindsey and Elm. A roundabout would be put in and the traffic light removed. Lindsey would be removed past that intersection by traffic would be directed around campus either North or South on Elm. Southbound traffic would be directed until about Elmwood and then go back to the west about until Chautauqua. Roundabouts can be placed at both of these intersections to ensure traffic keeps flowing. However, based on the study mentioned here...most of the traffic is terminating where Lindsey would end and loop begin so traffic numbers really won't be all that higher than they are now. A modest increase, but most of the traffic would be funneling off to the side streets soon enough anyway.
> 
> There would be no need to create a 4 land roadway around the school as current roads already handle this traffic. It would just remove a non-essential part (per the study) to allow higher safety for students crossing Lindsey every day. I would say the benefit to several thousand students a day and countless thousands on game days would be a huge priority to Norman and OU - as you stated.


Diverting traffic off of Lindsey onto other streets in an attempt to create a loop would be a disaster and a serious infringement on a much higher number of residents living along those streets.

While I would like a 4 lane street from campus to I -35, how about this as a compromise?

Along Lindsey St a big west bound bottle neck is at Berry Rd . If Lindsey was 4 landed from about one hundred yards east of Barry Rd to
 I -35 it would substantially reduced traffic backups. When the Barry Rd traffic light was red for west bound traffic along Lindsey would still be able to move into position in the new one hundred yard 4 lane stretch. This would move far more vehicles though the intersection in the same amount of time. This would preserve the charm that some claim is important but also help many thousands of motorists.
It would be a good idea to add more dedicated right turn lanes. Such a project could also address a few of the storm water runoff problems that have plagued this area for many years.

There are several areas on or near campus that need better lighting and new or rebuilt sidewalks. A comprehensive plan is in order IMHO to address these needs.

PS: HY 9 needs to be upgraded to interstate standards

----------


## venture

I think the point is, is that the traffic is already going into those neighborhoods. It would just take place an intersection or two earlier. However, the compromise setup would be a no brainer...so I'm with you there. Just east of Berry there is already room to expand the road as the shoulder is fairly large and blocked off from use. Buildings are also further back from the road in the area you mentioned so there would be minimal impact on residents. There might be one property that would have to be impacted, but not too bad. Should be enough room to have one east bound lane past Berry and then 4 west bound lanes (1 left turn, 1 right turn, and 2 that go forward). The bus stops there would have to be moved, but other than that the room is there. Then the choice for Lindsey west of Berry on whether to go 4 lanes only or 4 + 1 middle turn lane. 

As far as Hwy 9...its practically as close to a limited access highway as we can get now. The 24th SW intersection has room to be upgraded for an overpass. The McGee intersection could be converted with Hwy 9 going over the street with the side on ramps. Imhoff much the same. The South Berry intersection is a tricky one as room is much more limited. Chautauqua  should be another simple conversion of Hwy 9 to an overpass and the same with Jenkins. The Marshall Ave cut could be closed to the south (require employees of Astellas to access from 12th SE.  The businesses and homes on the north side is more difficult. Perhaps an access road down to 12th? Intersection at 12th SE would be another overpass by Hwy 9. Classen/Hwy 77 is already setup properly so changes there. Further east from there a transition to what it is currently (with the planned lane expansion) seems that it would be fine.

Upgrades to Hwy 9 could eventually help lead to an east side highway going north bound somewhere around 36th/South Air Depot up to I-240 to provide a relief for 12th/Sooner and faster access north for East Norman.

----------


## ou48A

Building this idea would help Norman traffic on Lindsey and HY 9. It would reduce congestion by diverting traffic that comes from the south and west. This reduction of congestion would help others coming from other directions. It would help east side residents, provide another needed entrance to OU and a much needed bridge over the river.

The plan would be to 4 Lane Jenkins from Lindsey south to HY 9 and build an over pass over HY9. From here it would become a limited access HY and continue south - cross the river - curve west and continue on to near the I-35 (exit 104) Goldsby intersection.
From the I-35 HY 9 west intersection (south of river) a new state road should be constructed to near the new bridge that would cross the river.

----------


## OUman

> PS: Many east side folks are now using Tecumseh st and have long stayed off Main St.


I don't think that has done much good then, Main is more crowded then ever these days. The time when Norman High is done for the day is especially bad (I avoid it), and something new I've seen is the backup that occurs on eastbound Main at the Berry intersection. On the other hand, with the synchronization of signals through downtown, traffic flows quite well for the volume that goes through the area on a daily basis.

On another note, I know I don't use Tecumseh each time I want to go to the west side, I don't live that far north. There are many people living east of 12th much further south, and they use Grey or Robinson. Or Boyd, but that's not a main artery, only that it's a much quicker access route from east Norman to campus, and provides for an alternative to Grey.

----------


## venture

> I don't think that has done much good then, Main is more crowded then ever these days. The time when Norman High is done for the day is especially bad (I avoid it), and something new I've seen is the backup that occurs on eastbound Main at the Berry intersection. On the other hand, with the synchronization of signals through downtown, traffic flows quite well for the volume that goes through the area on a daily basis.
> 
> On another note, I know I don't use Tecumseh each time I want to go to the west side, I don't live that far north. There are many people living east of 12th much further south, and they use Grey or Robinson. Or Boyd, but that's not a main artery, only that it's a much quicker access route from east Norman to campus, and provides for an alternative to Grey.


I used Tecumseh going west for the first time yesterday. Mainly because I forgot to turn on Rock Creek. LOL  Normally though I'm using either Hwy 9, Robinson, or Rock Creek to go west. Definitely can concur that Main Street is still busy as ever. I think what we are stuck in is a conversation about the same city, but we all don't really "live" in the same areas to see how it works.

----------


## ou48A

> I don't think that has done much good then, Main is more crowded then ever these days. The time when Norman High is done for the day is especially bad (I avoid it), and something new I've seen is the backup that occurs on eastbound Main at the Berry intersection. On the other hand, with the synchronization of signals through downtown, traffic flows quite well for the volume that goes through the area on a daily basis.
> 
> On another note, I know I don't use Tecumseh each time I want to go to the west side, I don't live that far north. There are many people living east of 12th much further south, and they use Grey or Robinson. Or Boyd, but that's not a main artery, only that it's a much quicker access route from east Norman to campus, and provides for an alternative to Grey.



Staying away from Norman North when school is let out is always a wise decision!

I live just off Tecumseh a mile or so west of I-35. I’m sure you are right about it not giving Main street noticeable relive, but at rush hour there are a good number of vehicles using Tecumseh.

----------


## ou48A

> I used Tecumseh going west for the first time yesterday. Mainly because I forgot to turn on Rock Creek. LOL  Normally though I'm using either Hwy 9, Robinson, or Rock Creek to go west. Definitely can concur that Main Street is still busy as ever. I think what we are stuck in is a conversation about the same city, but we all don't really "live" in the same areas to see how it works.


Different parts of Norman are more congested than others. We moved from the east side of Norman to the NW side several years ago to move closer to our jobs but also to get out of the congestion. It’s not too in my part of Norman.

The worst congest on the west side is on Robinson from NW 24th to NW 36TH    I will be very curious to see if the new Rock Creek bridge over I - 35 offers any relive on Robinson.
It would be nice if Westestern and NW 36th were 4 landed north to Moore.
I would love to see a limited access HY build from HY 9 along the river then turn north in the 10 mile flats area to south OKC.

For public safety reasons alone Norman streets do need upgrades.

----------


## BoulderSooner

almost all of western is going to become 4 lane

----------


## ou48A

> almost all of western is going to become 4 lane


This will help but they really need to 4 lane the road all the way south to Robinson.

http://www.normanok.gov/content/publ...d-indian-hills
All interested persons are hereby given notice that the City of Norman is proposing improvements to
60th Avenue NW between Tecumseh Road and Indian Hills Road, Cleveland County, Norman,
Oklahoma. The project begins approximately 300 feet north of the intersection of Tecumseh Road and
60th Avenue NW, and extends north to Indian Hills Road. A public meeting is scheduled for 6:00 pm,
Thursday, September 30, 2010 at the City of Norman Council Chambers located at 201 West Gray,
Norman, Oklahoma.
Currently 60th Avenue NW is two lanes wide. The City of Norman is proposing to widen 60th Avenue
NW to four lanes with 10’ shoulders and add a traffic signal at Indian Hills Road. The City of Norman
is collaborating with the City of Oklahoma City on this project. The City of Norman is proposing the
improvements to provide a safer, more efficient roadway as well as making improvements to the storm
drainage system. The project is in the design stage and any comments relative to the corridor or items
previously listed will be appreciated.

----------


## bbhill

From all of the responses so far, and from living in Norman for a couple of years, the only questions I have are for Norman's city planning. What have they been doing over the last 50 years? Its not like Norman ever had some massive population boom. Lack of money?

----------


## ou48A

> From all of the responses so far, and from living in Norman for a couple of years, the only questions I have are for Norman's city planning. What have they been doing over the last 50 years? Its not like Norman ever had some massive population boom. Lack of money?



As OU and Norman have grown there has been a lack of long range planning or a lack of desire of leaders to navigate through even slight opposition.
IMHO There is a we can’t afford to do that attitude among a very vocal minority and even some folks who are anti-growth. 
Although we have seen some major improvements in recent years in some areas for some city official’s things like flood control, water, sewer, and streets still seem to take a back seat. Some seem to be far more interested in arts and social issues, such as making Norman an all-inclusive community.
I relocated to Norman about 15 years ago, at the time I could have moved just about anywhere in the western world that I wanted to. But I have to say that I probably would have picked a different community to live in if I knew then what I know now about how the city of Norman operates.
JMHO.

----------


## YO MUDA

I have heard they are going to make some kind of entance/gateway on S Jenkins near Hiway 9. I have also seen a 25 year plan for s campus in the area of the Weather Center noth to Constitution. Many more biuldings and totally redesigned streets. Also today I noticed they have started construction of another biulding site, north of Weather News and east of Two Partners.

----------


## UGABulldawg

The longer we wait to make these important updates the more behind it puts our city. One thing that has always frustrated me is that we wait for our roads to be 15-30 years out-of-date before we bring them up-to-date. When in reality, we need to be building these roads with the future 20-year capacity in mind. With Lindsey as a major Norman road, we need to make the hard decisions today and 5 lane it. If we do not create the middle turn lanes, then we will still face significant traffic flow problems with Lindsey as a 4 laner. Let's get it right the first time and 5 lane it.

----------


## venture

> The longer we wait to make these important updates the more behind it puts our city. One thing that has always frustrated me is that we wait for our roads to be 15-30 years out-of-date before we bring them up-to-date. When in reality, we need to be building these roads with the future 20-year capacity in mind. With Lindsey as a major Norman road, we need to make the hard decisions today and 5 lane it. If we do not create the middle turn lanes, then we will still face significant traffic flow problems with Lindsey as a 4 laner. Let's get it right the first time and 5 lane it.


We've been through this already. OU is not going to allow the road to go 5 lanes through Central Norman. Just not going to happen. So we have to look at solutions to work around that and really get non-University traffic off of it. However, as other posters have pointed out...most non-University traffic is already avoiding Lindsey Street if they need to get to East Norman. Currently Lindsey can probably be easily 5-lanes from I-35 to Berry. Beyond that point, not going to happen. Then it becomes and issue of traffic management and moving traffic through Central Norman & campus with as little delay as possible. How to do that?

Put in round-a-bouts at every intersection and remove the traffic lights to keep traffic flowing...but only until Elm. At that point, traffic really should not be needing to continue down Lindsey through campus. If you were meant to get on the other side of campus, you should have taken Highway 9. If you need to get to campus a bit further down...you are directed to turn on Chautauqua or Elm and make your way around. So at Elm, traffic would be diverted either North or South on Elm. Coming from the east side, similar...but traffic can be diverted at either Asp or Jenkins. 

Another solution could be removal of all traffic lights along Lindsey through campus and install walkways that go over the road. The problem, these will need to be very high for semi and bus clearance...unless of course you block them from being able to operate on this stretch of Lindsey.

It all comes down to what Boren wants. So we have to wait for that.

----------


## UGABulldawg

Just a side question, Why couldn't Indian Hills, Tecumseh, Robinson or Main St cross the river West to I-44? It just seems that it would be a natural addition with all the development to the Westside.

----------


## ljbab728

> Just a side question, Why couldn't Indian Hills, Tecumseh, Robinson or Main St cross the river West to I-44? It just seems that it would be a natural addition with all the development to the Westside.


That certainly could be done but the development to the Westside doesn't really need that kind of connection.  I-44 is much further from the new development than I-35.  There is little need for that kind of a traffic connector.  Maybe 20 years from now but not at this time.

----------


## venture

It would be nice to have an earlier jog over to I-44 from Norman. Indian Hills would probably be the easiest as it is the closest to I-44. The current Norman spur is too far out of the way to make 44 a realistic alternative to taking north. A straight shot would be less than 4 miles of new road and a bridge. If you look at making the route avoid most of the current houses and such, it is still under 7 miles to connect the two. 

A sample estimate trip from I-35 and Indian Hills is around 15.5 miles to Will Rogers. Taking an estimate path along an extended Indian Hills to 44 is around 17.5 miles. A trip from NW Norman on the new path is around 21 miles or 22 miles on the existing route. 

So in the end, the distance will end up being roughly the same as the current solutions, but considering that people will be able to avoid traffic on I-35 and 240...they would be able to make up for it.

----------


## BoulderSooner

5 lane to berry .. needs to happen 15 years ago

----------


## kevinpate

nm, took another look where 44 bends out and newcastle falls on the Tecumseh path as well.

----------


## ljbab728

> It would be nice to have an earlier jog over to I-44 from Norman. Indian Hills would probably be the easiest as it is the closest to I-44. The current Norman spur is too far out of the way to make 44 a realistic alternative to taking north. A straight shot would be less than 4 miles of new road and a bridge. If you look at making the route avoid most of the current houses and such, it is still under 7 miles to connect the two. 
> 
> A sample estimate trip from I-35 and Indian Hills is around 15.5 miles to Will Rogers. Taking an estimate path along an extended Indian Hills to 44 is around 17.5 miles. A trip from NW Norman on the new path is around 21 miles or 22 miles on the existing route. 
> 
> So in the end, the distance will end up being roughly the same as the current solutions, but considering that people will be able to avoid traffic on I-35 and 240...they would be able to make up for it.


Venture, I'm sure a few people would like that but the amount of traffic that would use that kind of route would hardly justify the expense.  As I said it might be more feasible in around 20 years.

----------


## ou48A

When compared to many other growing Cities Norman does a lousy job of thinking about its future traffic needs. Just look at the access roads along I -35. 

As they reconstruct major Norman streets they should add a lot more right turn lanes. They should also set aside the right   of way to accommodate expansion particularly on section line roads.

----------


## ou48A

We can all post our gripes and even take our concerns to Norman city officials but if the past is any indication very 
 little will ever be done in a timely way.

----------


## ljbab728

> When compared to many other growing Cities Norman does a lousy job of thinking about its future traffic needs. Just look at the access roads along I -35. 
> 
> As they reconstruct major Norman streets they should add a lot more right turn lanes. They should also set aside the right   of way to accommodate expansion particularly on section line roads.


I won't argue about planning for the future but Norman is hardly alone it that regard.  That is a problem in virtually every growing city contrary to what you think.

----------


## venture

> Venture, I'm sure a few people would like that but the amount of traffic that would use that kind of route would hardly justify the expense.  As I said it might be more feasible in around 20 years.


When they start tearing up I-240 & I-35 at the Ft. Smith junction (i think that is the name)...the demand will probably go very high. :-)

----------


## ou48A

> I won't argue about planning for the future but Norman is hardly alone it that regard.  That is a problem in virtually every growing city contrary to what you think.


There are growing pains in almost every growing city but Norman has made its situation worse than it should be and worse than in many other growing community’s.

About 25 years ago I spent a lot of time in various Dallas suburbs that were building many 4 and 6 lane roads well before development occurred. Much of this land was farm land at the time. The city of Moore Ok has built 4 lane streets where there is currently little traffic but in areas where they expect growth.

The city of Norman is playing catch up on its older major streets and even in areas of new development.
This lack of forward thinking has cost us much more money and we don’t get as much built for our dollar.
Norman will continue to grow for many decades. We should get ahead of the curve.

----------


## ljbab728

> When they start tearing up I-240 & I-35 at the Ft. Smith junction (i think that is the name)...the demand will probably go very high. :-)


venture, I'm sure that will cause some congestion but probably not any worse than the years it took to expand I35 north of that junction from 4 lanes to 6 lanes.  They always had at least 4 lanes open with some of them rerouted and I'm sure that will happen there as well.  What is known as the Ft. Smith junction is where I35 meets I40.  I've never heard any particular name for the I240 and I35 junction.

----------


## venture

> What is known as the Ft. Smith junction is where I35 meets I40.  I've never heard any particular name for the I240 and I35 junction.


Sorry keep forgetting that the Dallas Junction and Ft. Smith junction are the exact same thing. :-P

----------


## ljbab728

> Sorry keep forgetting that the Dallas Junction and Ft. Smith junction are the exact same thing. :-P


There isn't any formal designation just local jargon.  Actually I think they consider the Dallas Junction to be where I35 first intersects I40 nearest to downtown and the Ft. Smith Junction to be where they split again when going East or North.

----------


## UGABulldawg

With the construction of the underpass at Robinson, they have created a wide mouth entering Flood. Are they planning on creating a 4-lane entry to flood heading south? It would be nice if 77 / Flood would continue 4 lanes into the heart of Norman. Outside of porter and 24th, How many north-south 4-laners do we have in central Norman? It seems that we'd only be removing a few trees to get this done.

----------


## kevinpate

> With the construction of the underpass at Robinson, they have created a wide mouth entering Flood. Are they planning on creating a 4-lane entry to flood heading south? It would be nice if 77 / Flood would continue 4 lanes into the heart of Norman. Outside of porter and 24th, How many north-south 4-laners do we have in central Norman? It seems that we'd only be removing a few trees to get this done.


I'm not aware of any plans to add more lanes to any of the major central N/S roads (Flood, Berry, Peters or Porter) between Robinson and Main Street.  Wouldn't object to seeing it on one or more, but in truth, once they get the underpass done, the Flood Robinson interchange didn't flow bad before the work there, so it ought not to flow bad after the work is done.  Right now it's an intersection I avoid though, as the light timing is just awful.

----------


## ou48A

I could be wrong about this but I seem to remember that for several years the city of Norman was considering a new major street that would run parallel to the rail road tracks from the OU area north to at least Robison. 
They could still build this but build and over pass over Robison and perhaps Main, Gray and Boyd and then have the street intersect with Flood Street / hy77.
With the right type of timed signal lighting this could move a lot of traffic in and out of Norman.
If this street was ever build they could incorporate sound damping devices that would reduce train noise

----------


## kevinpate

> I could be wrong about this but I seem to remember that for several years the city of Norman was considering a new major street that would run parallel to the rail road tracks from the OU area north to at least Robison. 
> They could still build this but build and over pass over Robison and perhaps Main, Gray and Boyd and then have the street intersect with Flood Street / hy77.
> With the right type of timed signal lighting this could move a lot of traffic in and out of Norman.
> If this street was ever build they could incorporate sound damping devices that would reduce train noise


There is the Legacy Trail project that continues to be improved and will ultimately reach Robinson (I don't know about beyond), but that's walk/jog/bike/skate and not a roadway.

I suppose the easiest possible route for a road along that line would be widen Jenkins beyond Boyd to Duffy, then let it jog over to Jones and widen Jones up to Robinson.  Anything on the other side would probably thrash a lot more residential than they want to pay for.

But maybe something is in the pipeline and I have overlooked it.  Wouldn't be the first time I was among the last in Norman to know about something in Norman.

----------


## ou48A

> There is the Legacy Trail project that continues to be improved and will ultimately reach Robinson (I don't know about beyond), but that's walk/jog/bike/skate and not a roadway.
> 
> I suppose the easiest possible route for a road along that line would be widen Jenkins beyond Boyd to Duffy, then let it jog over to Jones and widen Jones up to Robinson.  Anything on the other side would probably thrash a lot more residential than they want to pay for.
> 
> But maybe something is in the pipeline and I have overlooked it.  Wouldn't be the first time I was among the last in Norman to know about something in Norman.


 The trail runs mostly on the east side of the tracks. This road was going to be on the west side of the tracks. Only a few buildings would have been removed. Some said that it would be a  2 lane road that they would turn into a one way 2 lane road going north after football games.
 I thought it was called the Front Street Project. This was about 10 years ago so what I remember maybe a little off.

----------


## Jersey Boss

> There are growing pains in almost every growing city but Norman has made its situation worse than it should be and worse than in many other growing community’s.
> 
> About 25 years ago I spent a lot of time in various Dallas suburbs that were building many 4 and 6 lane roads well before development occurred. Much of this land was farm land at the time. The city of Moore Ok has built 4 lane streets where there is currently little traffic but in areas where they expect growth.
> 
> The city of Norman is playing catch up on its older major streets and even in areas of new development.
> This lack of forward thinking has cost us much more money and we don’t get as much built for our dollar.
> Norman will continue to grow for many decades. We should get ahead of the curve.


Of course if they have no water for people,  those roads are like the Alaskan bridge to nowhere.

----------


## ou48A

> Of course if they have no water for people,  those roads are like the Alaskan bridge to nowhere.


 Not true

----------


## rcjunkie

> With the construction of the underpass at Robinson, they have created a wide mouth entering Flood. Are they planning on creating a 4-lane entry to flood heading south? It would be nice if 77 / Flood would continue 4 lanes into the heart of Norman. Outside of porter and 24th, How many north-south 4-laners do we have in central Norman? It seems that we'd only be removing a few trees to get this done.


To four lane Flood to central Norman would require more then tree removal, would also require the removal of several homes and commercial properties.

Four lane roads thru Norman, 48th Av. NW, 36th Av. NW, 24th AV. NW, Porter, 12th Ave. NE. I agree that Flood and maybe even Berry should be 4 lanes, but don't see it anytime soon.

----------


## JimTrabersColostomyBag

I think the "wide mouth" to southbound Flood Ave. is to service the 7-Eleven that is going to be built on that corner....

----------


## OUman

East Lindsey widening project begins today

----------


## BDK

Anyone know what they're building next to the street widening project? A small domed building is being built just east of campus on Lindsey.

----------


## ChargerAg

I heard it is the new islamic student center.

----------


## ou48A

> I heard it is the new islamic student center.


This is correct.

----------


## BDK

> This is correct.


Oh Jesus, please let this not become an issue.

----------


## ou48A

> Oh Jesus, please let this not become an issue.


I’m sure someone will make an issue out of it.

At one time they were going to build condos in that general area.
I'm not sure why they haven't been built.

----------


## Andrew4OU

> Oh Jesus, please let this not become an issue.



I hope not. It shouldn't become one. They had a smaller building on the same lot, just not as apparent with the dome and all.

----------


## JimTrabersColostomyBag

> venture, I'm sure that will cause some congestion but probably not any worse than the years it took to expand I35 north of that junction from 4 lanes to 6 lanes.  They always had at least 4 lanes open with some of them rerouted and I'm sure that will happen there as well.  What is known as the Ft. Smith junction is where I35 meets I40.  I've never heard any particular name for the I240 and I35 junction.


I've always heard it called Crossroads

----------

