http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x708028629/City-embarks-on-transportation-plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Adequate sidewalks need to be apart of every new road.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to see the following ….

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

4 lane Flood from Boyd north.

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

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

We do need a bridge over the river in Northwestern Norman

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

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

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

I think a lot of us have the same ideas.


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

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


4 lane Flood from Boyd north.

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


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

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


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

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


We do need a bridge over the river in Northwestern Norman

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=venture79;477387]There would be a large increase of OU students using Amtrak if the Norman Amtrak station would be relocated to the OU station and built where I suggested.

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

[QUOTE=ou48A;477511]

That would have absolutely no effect on the number of students riding Amtrak. Besides the fact that the Amtrak station is within easy walking distance of the campus, Amtrak is something that few students would use frequently anyway unless the routes are improved. There could be an Amtrak station in the student union and it would get the same amount of ridership from students. When I was at OU in the 60's there were more options for rail destinations. I had fraternity brothers who would use it once or twice a year to go home to the upper midwest.I have some personal knowledge on this. I respectfully say that you are wrong on this issue.
As it is now very few students, particularly girls (personal safety issue) want to drag their luggage back to their dorm or to where they are living. For most, it’s over a mile walk though areas that are pretty dark at night on many bad sidewalks and sometimes in bad weather.

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

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

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

[QUOTE=ljbab728;477656]I have some personal knowledge on this. I respectfully say that you are wrong on this issue.
As it is now very few students, particularly girls (personal safety issue) want to drag their luggage back to their dorm or to where they are living. For most, it’s over a mile walk though areas that are pretty dark at night on many bad sidewalks and sometimes in bad weather.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/images/ppm3035-35.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/images/ppm3035-35.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course the downtown business owners like the angled parking.

Of course the downtown business owners like the angled parking.

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

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

From what I hear……

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norman Transcript buzz concerning the Transportation Plan.

http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x1267471460/Downtowners-submit-priority-list-for-city-transportation-plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My plan for Norman:

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

http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x1121442924/Transportation-Group-gets-moving-on-master-plan


The Norman Transcript

November 16, 2011
Transportation Group gets moving on master plan

By Joy Hampton
The Norman Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joy Hampton 366-3539 jhampton@ normantranscript.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


WHY TRAFFIC IS CONGESTED

The first complaint one always hears about suburbia is the traffic congestion. More than any other factor, the perception of excessive traffic is what causes citizens to take up arms against growth in suburban communities. This perception is generally justified: in most American cities, the worst traffic is to be found not downtown but in the surrounding suburbs, where an "edge city" chokes highways that were originally built for lighter loads. In newer cities such as Phoenix and Atlanta, where there is not much of a downtown to speak of, traffic congestion is consistently cited as the single most frustrating aspect of daily life.

Why have suburban areas, with their height limits and low density of population, proved to be such a traffic nightmare? The first reason, and the obvious one, is that everyone is forced to drive. In modern suburbia, where pedestrians, bicycles, and public transportation are rarely an option, the average household currently generates thirteen car trips per day. Even if each trip is fairly short—and few are — that's a lot of time spent on the road, contributing to congestion, especially when compared to life in traditional neighborhoods. Traffic engineer Rick Cheliman, in his landmark study of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, applied standard suburban trip-generation rates to that town's historic core, and found that they predicted twice as much traffic as actually existed there. Owing to its pedestrian-friendly plan—and in spite of its pedestrian-unfriendly weather—Portsmouth generates half the automobile trips of a modern-day suburb.

But even if the suburbs were to generate no more trips than the city, they would still suffer from traffic to a much greater extent because of the way they are organized. The diagram shown here illustrates how a suburban road system, what engineers call a sparse hierarchy, differs from a traditional street network. The components of the suburban model are easy to spot in the top half of the diagram: the shopping mall in its sea of parking, the fast-food joints, the apartment complex, the looping cul-de-sacs of the housing subdivision. Buffered from the others, each of these components has its own individual connection to a larger external road called the collector. Every single trip from one component to another, no matter how short, must enter the collector. Thus, the traffic of an entire community may rely on a single road, which, as a result, is generally congested during much of the day. If there is a major accident on the collector, the entire system is rendered useless until it is cleared.

A typical neighborhood is shown in the bottom half of the diagram. lt accommodates all the same components as the suburban model, but they are organized as a web, a densely interconnected system that reduces demand on the collector road. Unlike suburbia, the neighborhood presents the opportunity to walk or bicycle. But even if few do so, its gridded network is superior at handling automobile traffic, providing multiple routes between destinations. Because the entire System is available for local travel, trips are dispersed, and traffic on most streets remains light. If there is an accident, drivers simply choose an alternate path. The efficiency of the traditional grid explains why Charleston, South Carolina, at 2,500 acres, handles an annual tourist load of 5.5 million people with little congestion, while Hilton Head Island, ten times larger, experiences severe backups at 1.5 million visitors. Hilton Head, for years the suburban planners' exemplar, focuses all its traffic on a single collector road.

The suburban model does offer one advantage over the neighborhood model: it is much easier to analyze statistically. Because every single trip follows a predetermined path, traffic can be measured and predicted accurately. When the same measurement techniques are applied to an open network, the statistical chart goes flat; prediction becomes impossible and, indeed, unnecessary. But the suburban model still holds sway, and traffic engineers enjoy a position of unprecedented infiuence, often determining single-handedly what gets built and what doesn't. That traffic can occupy such a dominant position in the public discourse is indication enough that planning needs to be rethought from top to bottom.

WHEN NEARBY IS STILL FAR AWAY

Another paradox of suburban planning is the distinction that it creates between adjacency and accessibility. While many of the destinations of daily life are often next to each other, only rarely are they easy to reach directly.

For example, even though the houses pictured here are adjacent to the shopping center, in experience they are considerably more distant. Local ordinances have forced the developers to build a wall between the two properties, discouraging even the most intrepid citizen from walking to the store. The resident of a house just fifty yards away must still get into the car, drive half a mile to exit the subdivision, drive another half mile on the collector road back to the shopping center, and then walk from car to store. What could have been a pleasant two-minute walk down a residential street becomes instead an expedition requiring the use of gasoline, roadway capacity, and space for parking.

Supporters of this separatist single-use zoning argue that people do not want to live near shopping. This is only partially true. Some don't, and some do. But suburbia does not provide that choice, because even adjacent uses are contrived to be distant. The planning model that does provide citizens with a choice can be seen in the New England town pictured here. One can live above the store, next to the store, five minutes from the store, or nowhere near the store, and it is easy to imagine the different age groups and personalities that would prefer each alternative. In this way and others, the traditional neighborhood provides for an array of lifestyles. In suburbia, there is only one available lifestyle: to own a car and to need it for everything.

THE AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION MESS

THE HIGHWAYLESS TOWN AND THE TOWNLESS HIGHWAY;
WHY ADDING LANES MAKES TRAFFIC WORSE;

THE AUTOMOBILE SUBSIDY
During the height of automania, a zoologist observed that in animal herds excessive mobility was a sure sign of distress and asked whether this might not be true of his fellow human beings. Perhaps it was distress but what historian can list all the causes that led twentieth century man to race from highway to byway, tunnel to bridge? Suffice to say that he seemed to be constantly going from where he didn't want to be to where he didn't want to stay.
- PERCIVAL GOODMAN, COMMUNITAS (1960)

Redesigning streets and roads for pedestrian viability is a first step toward making our neighborhoods more livable, but there is a larger problem still to be addressed: this country's fundamentally misguided approach to transportation planning as a whole. Because settlement patterns depend more than anything else upon transportation Systems, it is impossible to discuss one without discussing the other.

While we do enjoy the benefits of an effective system for the national distribution of goods—nobody is lining up outside shops with empty shelves—it would still be difficult to overstate the degree to which transportation policy has damaged both our cities and our countryside. This outcome was by no means inevitable; in fact, we knew better all along. By 1940, the rules that should govern the development of a transportation network for the healthy growth of society were well known. They were widely acknowledged, thoroughly disseminated, and, apparently immediately forgotten.

THE HIGHWAYLESS TOWN
AND THE TOWNLESS HIGHWAY

The most significant of these rules is illustrated, alongside its violation, in the accompanying diagram. This drawing, more than any other, depicts the greatest failure of American postwar planning, and helps to explain why our country faces both an urban and an environmental crisis. Titled "The Townless Highway and the Highwayless Town," the upper half illustrates the proper relationship between high-speed roadways and places of settlement. Highways connect cities hut do not pass through them. Norman Bel Geddes, the designer of the U.S. Interstate system, declared in 1939, "Motorways must not be allowed to infringe upon the City." Where they do provide access to the City, highways must take on the low-speed geometries of avenues and boulevards. In exchange for this courtesy, the city does not allow itself to grow along the highway. Where high-speed roads pass through the countryside, roadside development is not permitted. The results of these rules are plain to see in much of Western Europe: cities, for the most part, have retained their pedestrian-friendly quality, and most highways provide views of uninterrupted countryside.

This country has allowed the exact opposite to occur. As depicted in the lower half, highways were routed directly through the centers of our Cities, eviscerating entire neighborhoods—typically, African American neighborhoods—and splitting downtowns into pieces. Meanwhile, the commercial strip attached itseif like a parasite to the highway between cities, impeding through traffic and blighting the countryside in the process. The damage is not yet complete, for we continue to let this happen, with predictable results. How obvious and damaging does an error need to be before it is addressed and corrected? Jane Jacobs may have answered this question in The Death and Life of Great American Cities: "The pseudo-science of planning seems almost neurotic in its determination to imitate empiric failure and ignore empiric success."

WHY ADDING LANES MAKES TRAFFIC WORSE

There is, however; a much deeper problem than the way highways are placed and managed. It raises the question of why we are still building highways at all. The simple truth is that building more highways and widening existing roads, almost always motivated by concern over traffic, does nothing to reduce traffic. In the long run, in fact, it increases traffic. This revelation is so counterintuitive that it bears repeating: adding lanes makes traffic worse. This paradox was suspected as early as 1942 by Robert Moses, who noticed that the highways he had built around New York City in 1939 were somehow generating greater traffic problems than had existed previously. Since then, the phenomenon has been well documented, most notably in 1989, when the Southern California Association of Governments concluded that traffic-assistance measures, be they adding lanes, or even double-decking the roadways, would have no more than a cosmetic effect on Los Angeles traffic problems. The best it could offer was to tell people to work closer to home, which is precisely what highway building mitigates against.

Across the Atlantic, the British government reached a similar conclusion. Its studies showed that increased traffic capacity causes people to drive more — a lot more — such that half of any driving-time savings generated by new roadways are lost in the short run. In the long run, potentially all savings are expected to be lost. In the words of the Transport Minister, "The fact of the matter is that we cannot tackle our traffic problems by building more roads." While the British have responded to this discovery by drastically cutting their road-building budgets, no such thing can be said about Americans.

There is no shortage of hard data. A recent University of California at Berkeley study covering thirty California counties between 1973 and 1990 found that, for every 10 percent increase in roadway capacity, traffic increased 9 percent within four years' time. For anecdotal evidence, one need only look at commuting patterns in those cities with expensive new highway systems. USA Today published the following report on Atlanta: "For years, Atlanta tried to ward off traffic problems by building more miles of highways per capita than any other urban area except Kansas City... As a result of the area's sprawl, Atlantans now drive an average of 35 miles a day, more than residents of any other city." This phenomenon, which is now well known to those members of the transportation industry who wish to acknowledge it, has come to be called induced traffic.

The mechanism at work behind induced traffic is elegantly explained by an aphorism gaining popularity among traffic engineers: "Trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt." Increased traffic capacity makes longer commutes less burdensome, and as a result, people are willing to live farther and farther from their workplace. As increasing numbers of people make similar decisions, the long distance commute grows as crowded as the inner city, commuters clamor for additional lanes, and the cycle repeats itself. This problem is compounded by the hierarchical organization of the new roadways, which concentrates through traffic on as few streets as possible.

The phenomenon of induced traffic works in reverse as well. When New York's West Side Highway collapsed in 1973, an NYDOT study showed that 93 percent of the car trips lost did not reappear elsewhere; people simply stopped driving. A similar result accompanied the destruction of San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway in the 1989 earthquake. Citizens voted to remove the freeway entirely despite the apocalyptic warnings of traffic engineers. Surprisingly, a recent British study found that downtown road removals tend to boost local economies, while new roads lead to higher urban unemployment. So much for road-building as a way to spur the economy.

If traffic is to he discussed responsibly, it must first be made clear that the level of traffic which drivers experience daily, and which they bemoan so vehemently, is only as high as they are willing to countenance. If it were not, they would adjust their behavior and move, carpool, take transit, or just stay at home, as some choose to do. How crowded a roadway is at any given moment represents a condition of equilibrium between people’s desire to drive and their reluctance to fight traffic. Because people are willing to suffer inordinately in traffic before seeking alternatives — other than clamoring for more highways — the state of equilibrium of all busy roads is to have stop and go traffic. The question is not how many lanes must he 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?

This condition is best explained by what specialists call latent demand. Since the real constraint on driving is traffic, not cost, people are always ready to make more trips when the traffic goes away. The number of latent trips is huge—perhaps 30 percent of existing traffic. Because of latent demand, adding lanes is futile, since drivers are already poised to use them up.

While the befuddling fact of induced traffic is well understood by sophisticated traffic engineers, it might as well be a secret, so poorly has it been disseminated. The Computer models that transportation consultants use do not even consider it, and most local public works directors have never heard of it at all. As a result, from Maine to Hawaii, City, county, and even state engineering departments continue to build more roadways in anticipation of increased traffic, and, in so doing, create that traffic. The most irksome aspect of this situation is that these road-builders are never proved wrong; in fact, they are always proved right: "You see," they say, I told you that traffic was coming."

The ramifications are quite unsettling. Almost all of the billions of dollars spent on road-building over the past decades have accomplished only one thing, which is to increase the amount of time that we must spend in our cars each day. Americans now drive twice as many miles per year as they did just twenty years ago. Since 1969, the number of miles cars travel has grown at four times the population rate.' And we're just getting started: federal highway officials predict that over the next twenty years congestion will quadruple. Still, every congressman, it seems, wants a new highway to his credit.

Thankfully, alternatives to road-building are being offered, but they are equally misguided. If, as is now clear beyond any reasonable doubt, people maintain an equilibrium of just-bearable traffic, then the traffic engineers are wasting their time—and our money on a whole new set of stopgap measures that produce temporary results at best. These measures, which include HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lanes, congestion pricing, timed traffic lights, and "smart streets," serve only to increase highway capacity, which causes more people to drive until the equilibrium condition of crowding returns. While certainly less wasteful than new construction, these measures also do nothing to address the real cause of traffic congestion, which is that people choose to put up with it.

We must admit that, in an ideal world, we would be able to build our way out of traffic congestion. The new construction of 50 percent more highways nationwide would most likely overcome all of the latent demand. However, to provide more than temporary relief, this huge investment would have to be undertaken hand in hand with a moratorium on suburban growth. Otherwise, the new subdivisions, shopping malls, and office parks made possible by the new roadways would eventually choke them as well. In the real world, such moratoriums are rarely possible, which is why road-building is typically a folly.

Those who are skeptical of the need for a fundamental reconsideration of transportation planning should take note of something we experienced a few years ago. In a large working session on the design of Playa Vista, an urban infill project in Los Angeles, the traffic engineer was presenting a report of current and projected congestion around the development. From our seat by the window, we had an unobstructed rush-hour view of a street he had diagnosed as highly congested and in need of widening. Why, then, was traffic flowing smoothly, with hardly any stacking at the traffic light? When we asked, the traffic engineer offered an answer that should be recorded permanently in the annals of the profession: "The computer model that we use does not necessarily bear any relationship to reality."

But the real question is why so many drivers choose to sit for hours in bumper-to-bumper traffic without seeking alternatives. Is it a manifestation of some deep-seated self-loathing, or are people just stupid? The answer is that people are actually quite smart, and their decision to submit themselves to the misery of suburban commuting is a sophisticated response to a set of circumstances that are as troubling as their result. Automobile use is the intelligent choice for most Americans because it is what economists refer to as a "free good": the consumer pays only a fraction of its true cost.

The authors Stanley Hart and Alvin Spivak have explained that: We learn in first-year economics what happens when products or services become "free" goods. The market functions chaotically; demand goes through the roof. In most American cities, parking spaces, roads and freeways are free goods. Local government services to the motorist and to the trucking industry — traffic engineering, traffic control, traffic lights, police and fire protection, street repair and maintenance—are all free goods.

THE AUTOMOBILE SUBSIDY

To what extent is automobile use a "free" good? According to Hart and Spivak, government subsidies for highways and parking alone amount to between 8 and 10 percent of our gross national product, the equivalent of a fuel tax of approximately $3.50 per gallon.
If this tax were to account for "soft' costs such as pollution cleanup and emergency medical treatment, it would be as high as $9.00 per gallon. The cost of these subsidies — approximately $5,000 per car per year — is passed directly on to the American citizen in the form of increased prices for products or, more often, as income, property, and sales taxes. This means that the hidden costs of driving are paid by everyone: not just drivers, but also those too old or too poor to drive a car. And these people suffer doubly, as the very transit systems they count on for mobility have gone out of business, unable to compete with the heavily subsidized highways.

Even more irksome is the fact that spending on transit creates twice as many new jobs as spending on highways. In fact, every billion dollars reallocated from road-building to transit creates seven thousand jobs. Congress's recent $41 billion highway bill, had it been allocated to transit, would have employed an additional quarter-million people nationwide.

Because they do not pay the full price of driving, most car owners choose to drive as much as possible. They are making the correct economic decision, but not in a free-market economy. As Hart and Spivak note, an appropriate analogy is Stalin's Gosplan, a Soviet agency that set arbitrary "correct" prices for many consumer goods, irrespective of their cost of production, with unsurprising results. In the American version of Gosplan, gasoline costs one quarter of what it did in 1929 (in real dollars). One need look no further for a reason why American cities continue to sprawl into the countryside. In Europe, where gasoline costs about four times the American price, long-distance automotive commuting is the exclusive privilege of the wealthy, and there is relatively little suburban sprawl.

The American Gosplan pertains to shipping as well. In the current structure of subsidization, trucking is heavily favored over rail transport, even though trucks consume fifteen limes the fuel for the equivalent job. The government pays a $300 billion subsidy to truckers unthinkingly, while carefully scrutinizing every dollar allocated to transit. Similarly, we try to solve our commuter traffic problems by building highways instead of railways, even though it takes fifteen lanes of highway to move as many people as one lane of track. This predisposition toward automobile use is plainly evident in the prevalent terminology: money spent on roads is called "highway investment," while money spent on rails is called "transit subsidy."

The American Gosplan is not a conspiracy so much as a culture — albeit one strongly supported by pervasive advertising — and it is probably unrealistic to hope that legislators will soon take steps, such as enacting a substantial gasoline tax, to allocate fairly the costs of driving. Pressured by generous automobile industry contributions on the one hand and a car-dependent public on the other, politicians have lately been using gas-tax elimination as an election strategy, with some success. But there is encouraging information suggesting that a gas tax may not be the political suicide that most politicians suspect. According to a recent Pew Foundation poll, 6o percent of those asked favored a twenty-five-cent-per-gallon gas tax to slow global warming.

While there are many supposedly 'anti-business" arguments for higher gas tax — from fighting global warming to supporting public transit — the real justification is economic: subsidized automobile use is the single largest violation of the free-market principle in U.S. fiscal policy. Economic inefficiencies in this country due to automotive subsidization are estimated at $700 billion annually, which powerfully undermines America's ability to compete in the global economy. Although suburban sprawl is the concern in this book, it is not the only sad result of this fundamental error.

The problems of automobile subsidization have been well documented; this is old news. And yet it is news which few people seem to understand, and which has barely begun to influence government policy in any significant way. So, to all the concerned activists nationwide who are banging their heads against the wall on this issue, we do not have very much to say except "May we join you at the wall?" Fortunately, the automobile subsidy is only one of many forces contributing to sprawl, and there are other avenues along which anti-sprawl efforts are likely to achieve meaningful results.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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