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.

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.

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.

I would think something more like this would be doable: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=216654750154515572193.0004b25729ab5ac29089 f&msa=0&ll=35.250105,-97.396202&spn=0.231306,0.445976

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.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/maps/swloop800.jpg

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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-div/lrp_2010-2035/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

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-div/lrp_2010-2035/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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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

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

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?

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...)

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.

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.

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.

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.

What is the goal of all these new roads?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.savannah.com/aerial-views/images/savannah-google-sat990x1000.jpg

http://imedia.io/photos/Savannah-4.jpg

http://photos.igougo.com/images/p364288-Savannah-German_Memorial_Fountain_-_Johnson_Square.jpg

http://www.mikefromsavannah.com/storage/citymarket.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=12182202 57572

http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicc/cfiles3218.jpg

http://visitsouth.com/images/uploads/savannah-hueys.JPG

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

http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicv/vfiles29747.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/eyeblink/sprawl.jpg

http://www.manorcore.com/pictures/Scrolls/4th_ave_strip_mall.jpg

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.

duplicate

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 ½ 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.

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 ½ 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.

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?

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 ½ 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I hear people in the city of Norman say all the time that “development should pay its own way.” For the fun of it, let’s 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,” shouldn’t 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.

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?

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_9F9_RUESS2E/S7tbclwxiPI/AAAAAAAACmw/uI1bCpNuKNA/s800/picoftheday0012-space-60people.jpg

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/wi-hwy-costs.jpg

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.

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.

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.