We need a highway running from I-35/44 & Kilpatrick Tpk. southeast to I-40 east of Tinker AFB. You Thoughts

No

in a word ... why?

would be a huge help in developing the Northeast/east side of OKC ..

We do not need a highway there. The traffic isn't such a nightmare to warrant it. It would be very expensive. And as far as developing Northeast/East OKC, that is a vast, wide area. It will take generations to develop with or without a highway, why is it something we should worry about right now? More sprawl for the sake of sprawl?

would be a huge help in developing the Northeast/east side of OKC ..

Why does the northeast/est side of OKC need developing?

Why does the northeast/est side of OKC need developing?

This is exactly my question. We already have trouble developing, at least in a quality manner, all the areas we are trying to focus on now. Why in the world do we need to add another area to that??

This is from a thread in the Midwest City Del City section. It is as close as you will get. 10-25-12 (http://eastword.net/Flipbook.asp?sectionid=22&subsectionid=166)
And people who don't live on the eastside are probably not going to understand why this would be good.

This is exactly my question. We already have trouble developing, at least in a quality manner, all the areas we are trying to focus on now. Why in the world do we need to add another area to that??

development is going to continue to happen and it would be better to be on the close in east and north east side .. then for it to continue to the west north west and north

If it’s not need now, it eventually will be needed.
In fact long range plans call for an I-35 by pass around the east side of the metro.

This would only be part of it. It would start south and east of Norman and generally run in a northerly direction. Norman needs another bridge across the river….. This project would provide it while at the same time offering a degree of relief for folks driving I-35.

in a word ... why?

Because even though Oklahoma City is a suburban city...the future of gas may very well lead to an urban setting. NW OKC is the big side of the city and there is new development there all the time. Is it really necessary to develop the NE part of the city when the city itself can hardly pay for police as it is? City is already stretched thin as it is. Hire another 1000 police officers first.

...the future of gas may very well lead to an urban setting.

If we will develop GTL.... I am not too worried about extremely high gasoline prices in the long term.

Hopefully you meant 100 and not 1000 officers.

They need to start with widening I35 between 44 and Fort Smith junction before anything like this

^
Bingo. Way too many backlogged projects to be building a highway that won't be needed for a very long time. I may be open if OTA wanted to build a toll road.

People from the east side of the metro can either use 40 to 35 or Highway 102 to get to 44. Are there really that many people from MWC/DC needing to get to 44?

^
Bingo. Way too many backlogged projects to be building a highway that won't be needed for a very long time. I may be open if OTA wanted to build a toll road.

People from the east side of the metro can either use 40 to 35 or Highway 102 to get to 44. Are there really that many people from MWC/DC needing to get to 44?

it would be a toll road if it ever got built

^
Bingo. Way too many backlogged projects to be building a highway that won't be needed for a very long time. I may be open if OTA wanted to build a toll road.

People from the east side of the metro can either use 40 to 35 or Highway 102 to get to 44. Are there really that many people from MWC/DC needing to get to 44?

This is an excellent point as well. While I understand some people consider them the end of the world, highways are probably going to have to move to toll roads. As time goes on, if cities are unwilling to develop other transportation infrastructure (trains, better buses) more roads will have to be tolled. There's just no other way to keep up if people won't be pushed to using other means or if those other means aren't available.

it would be a toll road if it ever got built

I agree it would be a toll road. And trust me, when we get closer to that bond expiring in 2028 or whatever it is now,the OTA will want to propose a new toll road to add more years to the debt in order to continue that cash coming in. With that said, a controlled access highway would be a great addition for people in the East Metro to have better and faster access to I-40 and I-44 and ultimately to other areas of the metro. It would also probably spur more growth in the East Metro. But as a free road, there are much higher priorities for ODOT to tackle. For example, getting the I-240/I-35 interchange rebuilt along with the completion of the I-235/I-44 interchange. Those interchanges are so poorly designed and outdated, it's dangerous for drivers not to mention embarrassing at the same time.

Let's face facts though...not everyone wants to live in a dense, downtown urban "utopia". Many people and families still and will continue to prefer to live in the suburbs or in outlying areas away from the urban core for various reasons. Obviously, others will prefer to live in a more urban environment depending on their situation, needs, and preferences. Different strokes for different folks. My opinion is that we should be accepting that as our metro grows, it's going to continue to consist of a mixture of downtown growth along with suburban growth and doesn't have to necessarily be an either/or proposition.

i agree with you but

A. we know that the city is going to keep growing ...

b. most of us think growth closer in is better than growth farther out

I'm an east Metro guy, and I don't think any further highway is needed. If the ACOG would get on the ball with an RTA that would encompass the true Metro, a lot of this discussion would be moot.

I'm an east Metro guy, and I don't think any further highway is needed. If the ACOG would get on the ball with an RTA that would encompass the true Metro, a lot of this discussion would be moot.

why do you think the growth of OKC has pretty much 100% ignored the east side

b. most of us think growth closer in is better than growth farther out

It appears to me by the most recent metro population statistics that most people are still choosing to live further out or in suburbs rather than closer to the city's core. I'm not saying that's better, but that's just a fact. With that said, there's also been many more people than ever before choosing to live downtown than in the past as it has continued to grow and more and more residential properties have been developed.

Please don't misunderstand me as I'm all for growth at the core and obviously think it is a good thing to see downtown continue its forward evolution. With more retail and so forth, I'm sure that is going to happen even at a quicker pace. My original point was that growth is going to continue to occur both closer in and further out regardless because everyone has their own individual preferences as to where they want to work and live in the metro...in spite of what other people might think is "better"

I'm an east Metro guy, and I don't think any further highway is needed. If the ACOG would get on the ball with an RTA that would encompass the true Metro, a lot of this discussion would be moot.

You'll see a toll road well before that ever happens.

why do you think the growth of OKC has pretty much 100% ignored the east side

That's a great question. I don't think it's because people in Choctaw/Harrah/Newalla/Stella/east Norman can't get to I-44 easily. The (other thread's) discussion of making Choctaw/Hogback Road a state highway should solve that for some. For me (further east), I can get to I-44 and points east through OK Hwy 102 or US Hwy 177. I think there are some miserably depressed / blighted areas (Jones, Spencer, etc.) that are beyond OKC's ability to either affect or care and mar the growth that is happening (mostly north). Choctaw is trying to foster some growth with their new town center, but that's Choctaw, not OKC. Harrah is treading water, economically and progress-wise and seems to be content as it is. Again, that's Harrah, not OKC. Newalla is just barely on OKC's radar, but OKC has to traverse three pretty large and independent entities (Del City, Midwest City and Tinker AFB) to get there and realize that it's open for growth and development. Shawnee's not extending any tendrils or olive branches in that direction and seems to be pondering whether or not they should slow down sprawl / growth except for casinos. In any case, Shawnee's growth seems to be east towards Seminole and engulfing the interstate leaving behind a rotting vacant old town.
I don't think this interstate / toll road is needed to relieve I-35 of traffic. We need an RTA to develop some lines from Norman to Edmond (and others) to relieve I-35 of traffic.
I'm not sure that OKC needs to grow east until it can (and not necessarily in this order) 1) tie in Tinker with solid, reliable public transit, 2) solve Jones/Spencer property values and schools, 3) make friends with Choctaw/Harrah and public transit, 4) make the ACOG involve Shawnee, and 5) set down some RTA lines that address all these urbanizations.

It appears to me by the most recent metro population statistics that most people are still choosing to live further out or in suburbs rather than closer to the city's core. I'm not saying that's better, but that's just a fact. With that said, there's also been many more people than ever before choosing to live downtown than in the past as it has continued to grow and more and more residential properties have been developed.

Please don't misunderstand me as I'm all for growth at the core and obviously think it is a good thing to see downtown continue its forward evolution. With more retail and so forth, I'm sure that is going to happen even at a quicker pace. My original point was that growth is going to continue to occur both closer in and further out regardless because everyone has their own individual preferences as to where they want to work and live in the metro...in spite of what other people might think is "better"

I agree with this. However, I doubt this will turn into a toll road. Here is an entry from "plmccordj" that explains some of this:


A lot of this is already a done deal and paid for. As most of you probably already know, I-40 is scheduled to be widened to six lanes at the I-40 and I-240 merge all the way out to the county line. At the same time, Choctaw Road has already been scheduled and paid for to be widened from SE 44th to SE 89th street with a turning lane near I-40. If you read the Choctaw city web site, they already have intentions to widen Choctaw Road to four lanes from where Oklahoma City ends on up until NE 63rd. The Choctaw Road widening project was paid for on a 2007 bond election that passed overwhelmingly. You may remember everyone on the downtown threads were giddy with joy that all of the bond projects passed just before the MAPS III came around. I live at I-40 and Choctaw Road and I am thrilled with this happening.

I work at Tinker and every day there is a back up of traffic beginning around Post Road lasting to just past Choctaw Road. It is so bad sometimes that I prefer to drive down SE 59th to avoid it. The city already has measures to limit the density in the area by zoning the lots as no more than one dwelling per acre. This may prevent density but it fills up the available land at a faster rate causing sprawl that everyone fears so much. Anyway, this is not a big surprise. I am glad that something is being planned. The secret is out and people have discovered that the East is a nice area to live and like it or not, people are going to come.

That's a great question. I don't think it's because people in Choctaw/Harrah/Newalla/Stella/east Norman can't get to I-44 easily. The (other thread's) discussion of making Choctaw/Hogback Road a state highway should solve that for some. For me (further east), I can get to I-44 and points east through OK Hwy 102 or US Hwy 177. I think there are some miserably depressed / blighted areas (Jones, Spencer, etc.) that are beyond OKC's ability to either affect or care and mar the growth that is happening (mostly north). Choctaw is trying to foster some growth with their new town center, but that's Choctaw, not OKC. Harrah is treading water, economically and progress-wise and seems to be content as it is. Again, that's Harrah, not OKC. Newalla is just barely on OKC's radar, but OKC has to traverse three pretty large and independent entities (Del City, Midwest City and Tinker AFB) to get there and realize that it's open for growth and development. Shawnee's not extending any tendrils or olive branches in that direction and seems to be pondering whether or not they should slow down sprawl / growth except for casinos. In any case, Shawnee's growth seems to be east towards Seminole and engulfing the interstate leaving behind a rotting vacant old town.
I don't think this interstate / toll road is needed to relieve I-35 of traffic. We need an RTA to develop some lines from Norman to Edmond (and others) to relieve I-35 of traffic.
I'm not sure that OKC needs to grow east until it can (and not necessarily in this order) 1) tie in Tinker with solid, reliable public transit, 2) solve Jones/Spencer property values and schools, 3) make friends with Choctaw/Harrah and public transit, 4) make the ACOG involve Shawnee, and 5) set down some RTA lines that address all these urbanizations.

i'm not talking about choctaw/harrah ect ... i'm talking about OKC east of 44 I35 north of midwest city ...

if their was a legit tollway in that area you would see that part of town explode with growth ...

I agree with this. However, I doubt this will turn into a toll road. Here is an entry from "plmccordj" that explains some of this:


A lot of this is already a done deal and paid for. As most of you probably already know, I-40 is scheduled to be widened to six lanes at the I-40 and I-240 merge all the way out to the county line. At the same time, Choctaw Road has already been scheduled and paid for to be widened from SE 44th to SE 89th street with a turning lane near I-40. If you read the Choctaw city web site, they already have intentions to widen Choctaw Road to four lanes from where Oklahoma City ends on up until NE 63rd. The Choctaw Road widening project was paid for on a 2007 bond election that passed overwhelmingly. You may remember everyone on the downtown threads were giddy with joy that all of the bond projects passed just before the MAPS III came around. I live at I-40 and Choctaw Road and I am thrilled with this happening.

I work at Tinker and every day there is a back up of traffic beginning around Post Road lasting to just past Choctaw Road. It is so bad sometimes that I prefer to drive down SE 59th to avoid it. The city already has measures to limit the density in the area by zoning the lots as no more than one dwelling per acre. This may prevent density but it fills up the available land at a faster rate causing sprawl that everyone fears so much. Anyway, this is not a big surprise. I am glad that something is being planned. The secret is out and people have discovered that the East is a nice area to live and like it or not, people are going to come.

I have a question for you since you live and work in the East Metro. What percentage of East Metro residents would really use some sort of public rail or transit system to get to and from work, to do their shopping, and to get around the area in general if it were available?

i'm not talking about choctaw/harrah ect ... i'm talking about OKC east of 44 I35 north of midwest city ...

if their was a legit tollway in that area you would see that part of town explode with growth ...

I second this.

i'm not talking about choctaw/harrah ect ... i'm talking about OKC east of 44 I35 north of midwest city ...

if their was a legit tollway in that area you would see that part of town explode with growth ...

Then I'm not clear on where you're talking about. Where would this toll road start and stop and who would it serve?

Then I'm not clear on where you're talking about. Where would this toll road start and stop and who would it serve?

a couple of choices ... from I44 I35(at NE63rd) interchange ... all the way to the I40 I240 interchange ...

and or from I44 (turner turnpike) I35 area down to somewhere around I40 I240

and it would serve all of the close in underdeveloped land in that area

Hopefully you meant 100 and not 1000 officers.

No...I did mean 1000. I know its not gonna happen but as it is now...the ratio of OKC citizens to officers is something like 572:1.

Tell me how hiring only 100 new officers is going to work out for 10,000+ people.

We don't need a highway through there now until more first responders are hired.

It appears to me by the most recent metro population statistics that most people are still choosing to live further out or in suburbs rather than closer to the city's core. I'm not saying that's better, but that's just a fact. With that said, there's also been many more people than ever before choosing to live downtown than in the past as it has continued to grow and more and more residential properties have been developed.

Please don't misunderstand me as I'm all for growth at the core and obviously think it is a good thing to see downtown continue its forward evolution. With more retail and so forth, I'm sure that is going to happen even at a quicker pace. My original point was that growth is going to continue to occur both closer in and further out regardless because everyone has their own individual preferences as to where they want to work and live in the metro...in spite of what other people might think is "better"

As you may know...there is waaaay more suburban development than urban development and as it is now, whether it be a renters or an owner, cost wise, there's not much of anything brand new to choose from that isn't overly expensive. On the otherhand the outlying parts of OKC and other suburbs have more affordable options.

Its going to take a while for the numbers to swing in favor of a noticeable urban increase based on more affordable housing.

a couple of choices ... from I44 I35(at NE63rd) interchange ... all the way to the I40 I240 interchange ...
and or from I44 (turner turnpike) I35 area down to somewhere around I40 I240
and it would serve all of the close in underdeveloped land in that area

IMHO, I don't see the need for a highway that would connect I-44 and the I-40/-240 interchange. After looking at a map, I can see the area of OKC that you're talking about (the center of Ward 7, I guess?), but what would this highway do? Allow Ward 7 better connectivity to the highway grid? Maybe you could propose a spur off of I-44 to do that, but if those residents want to get to OKC better by interstate, they're not gonna want to drive south to I-40/-240 to do it.

a couple of choices ... from I44 I35(at NE63rd) interchange ... all the way to the I40 I240 interchange ...

and or from I44 (turner turnpike) I35 area down to somewhere around I40 I240

and it would serve all of the close in underdeveloped land in that area

The Interchange at I-35 and Sooner Road was, when it was designed, to be the northern terminus of an east bypass route. I believe there have been 2 attempts at some sort of preliminary alignment study, neither of which received any traction politically. There are a lot of things that have gone up there in the past 30 years which would most likely make this proposition cost prohibitive in light of current funding levels.

I have a question for you since you live and work in the East Metro. What percentage of East Metro residents would really use some sort of public rail or transit system to get to and from work, to do their shopping, and to get around the area in general if it were available?

I actually work downtown and drive in from MWC/ Choctaw. In my situation, I have looked at taking the bus into work, but the arrival and departure times don't line up for me. I also know several people in Choctaw that work downtown. And I belive they all drive to work. I am not sure if buses go out to Choctaw. But as for going from my house to the town center or to Choctaw/ 23rd street area, I don't know if public transit would work. The reason I say that it is because the way my area is laid out, is mainly housing additions and then residents with .5 to 1 acre of land. To move people that live like that to certain public areas would require alot of stops. Now I have seen taxis and certain transit/ shuttle type vehicles in the area. But I am guessing it isn't cheap.

I have a question for you since you live and work in the East Metro. What percentage of East Metro residents would really use some sort of public rail or transit system to get to and from work, to do their shopping, and to get around the area in general if it were available?

JTF would tell me I'm wrong, but I bet if there were a metro stop around where I-40 and Choctaw Road meet, there could be a good park and ride situation, but it had better be regular, frequent and dependable.

Something like this?
2833

I drew this a while ago just for fun. I completed the inner loop, rerouted I-44 directly to downtown from the northeast, and completed the outer loop.

JTF would tell me I'm wrong, but I bet if there were a metro stop around where I-40 and Choctaw Road meet, there could be a good park and ride situation, but it had better be regular, frequent and dependable.

LOL. I am not a fan of park and ride lots. A mass transit system short on funding and ridership should not be facilitating more sprawl.

Something like this?
2833

I drew this a while ago just for fun. I completed the inner loop, rerouted I-44 directly to downtown from the northeast, and completed the outer loop.

I drew something almost exactly like this. It's a damn fine plan, especially if OKC starts to really concentrate on developing the area inside the outermost loop. Put all your focus inside that and make it great. It has loads of potential.

About 15 years ago, plans were announced to build this very road at some point. I believe it was called the "East Bypass". If you have access to the Oklahoman archives, I bet you could find a bunch of articles about it. It was quite controversial, with the folks in Choctaw, etc. hating the idea.

LOL. I am not a fan of park and ride lots. A mass transit system short on funding and ridership should not be facilitating more sprawl.

But it worked for you going to Atlanta:


While commuting to and from Atlanta I took MARTA to the airport. It was about 15 minutes time difference but I saved $20 a day by parking at the MARTA station and the 1 hour ride was stress free. I could browse the internet, read, people watch, watch the city go by, etc...

I don't think it's asking but so much to see some of the same stuff here.

1) I'm not advocating MARTA be a model for OKC
2) The MARTA rail service area is miniscule compared to the size of metro Atlanta. Except for a small portion of the North Springs line it doesn't go outside the I-285 loop.

MARTA route map:
http://www.itsmarta.com/IMAGES/rail/RailMap030210-interactive.jpg

I live in this area and I hate the idea. Work on developing the vacant and underutilized areas closer to the city before you talk about building another highway and creating more low density sprawl. Sprawl is not progress no matter how you try to spin it.

Atlanta is a very nice city but it is so much different than oklahoma city so its comparison is ludicrous. ATL IS 5.3 million and 9th in population while OKC is 43rd (1.2 million).

I have to say this and it's probably going to get me into trouble. I don't see this area developing for a long, long time. It is too close to blighted areas and it lies primarily in the OKC Public School District. If you look at the areas around the metro, our history of the past generation is that it has been very easy to build in the suburban school districts like Deer Creek, Edmond and Moore. Our traffic is not so bad as to preclude people choosing to live a bit "farther out" if it means better schools. Also, it is more likely for growth to happen adjacent to areas that are already considered nice. Forget east of I-35, we don't even have growth between the Broadway Extension and I-35. Wilshire, Britton and Hefner near Eastern and Bryant are still rural. A highway several miles east of 35 is a waste of resources.

BTW, I don't mean to unnecessarily demean the OKC Public Schools. I'm talking about public perception. Whether it correlates to reality or not is another subject.

I still don't see why rural NE OKC has to be developed at all. Just because it is there we need to pave over it? What is wrong with just leaving it as-is, or maybe even undeveloping some of it?

I still don't see why rural NE OKC has to be developed at all. Just because it is there we need to pave over it? What is wrong with just leaving it as-is, or maybe even undeveloping some of it?

would you rather have NE okc developed inside a loop .. or far nw OKC and west okc much further out??

I still don't see why rural NE OKC has to be developed at all. Just because it is there we need to pave over it? What is wrong with just leaving it as-is, or maybe even undeveloping some of it?

Because sprawl is going to happen whether you like it or not. Like BoulderSooner said, would you rather the area east of Broadway Extension be developed or the area northwest of 220th and Rockwell be developed? I vote for east of Broadway Extension. Keep things closer to the core.

would you rather have NE okc developed inside a loop .. or far nw OKC and west okc much further out??

I would rather develop around existing infrastructure. Why do you want to build new roads when there is massive undeveloped, and even more underdeveloped, land along infrastructure that is already built? Don't we have enough public debt? Maybe OKC should take a road building break and let development catch up. The life-cycle for what is already built will expire before we get to use it.

Because sprawl is going to happen whether you like it or not. Like BoulderSooner said, would you rather the area east of Broadway Extension be developed or the area northwest of 220th and Rockwell be developed? I vote for east of Broadway Extension. Keep things closer to the core.

Hypothetically speaking, if it has to be one or the other, I vote for the area east of Broadway Extension.

If it's not one or the other but we can have wholesale changes, I vote with JTF.

I vote for Broadway Extension area as well. Have to exclude areas bounded by TV stations. No one is going to build around 1,200' towers.

I vote for Broadway Extension area as well. Have to exclude areas bounded by TV stations. No one is going to build around 1,200' towers.

Commercial or industrial seems the most likely to end up near the towers eventually. Though there are more houses near the towers than I would have expected.