I said that.(Or agreed) Double standard for some.

How can there be a "Double standard for some." if there isn't a Triple standard for all, especially in terms of repairing existing infrastructure to wit/esp.re: bridges both rural, suburban, actual urban and neo-urban? We don't need bigger and better highways . . . we need to focus on highway bridges and maintaining/fixing them. No new roads. Fix the ones we have in order to protect pedestrians travelling undertherewith on the way to their footpaths and bicycle rental pavillions.

sorry . . . i forgot about all of the imaginary money (credit) available to give everyone everything.

perhaps tornado shelters- with aqualungs--could be mandated for all future interstate highway over/under passes?
like, in the event of, like an emergency?

I don't know why you guys continue to argue with these trolls. They are never going to agree and will continue to propose things that aren't logical.

It depends on how you look at it. When Obama and Romney were debating do you think they were trying to persuade the other to vote for them? No, they were trying to contrast themselves and provide an alternative so the masses can decide who has a better vision for the future. When they go into their crazy talk that only helps me so if I can help them put crazy on display shouldn't I do that?

You have to admit - putting a tax on walking is borderline insane. The irony is that these people think they are conservatives (of which I actually am) and they are trying to tax the method of transportation inherent in humans. Go figure.

How can there be a "Double standard for some." if there isn't a Triple standard for all, especially in terms of repairing existing infrastructure to wit/esp.re: bridges both rural, suburban, actual urban and neo-urban? We don't need bigger and better highways . . . we need to focus on highway bridges and maintaining/fixing them. No new roads. Fix the ones we have in order to protect pedestrians travelling undertherewith on the way to their footpaths and bicycle rental pavillions.

sorry . . . i forgot about all of the imaginary money (credit) available to give everyone everything.

perhaps tornado shelters- with aqualungs--could be mandated for all future interstate highway over/under passes?
like, in the event of, like an emergency?

You left out the pedestrian bridge Art. Anyway...sidewalks for everyone, even it's just a for a couple of people instead of thousands of subsidized trucks a day delivering your iphones, the concrete for your sidewalks and your bikeparts.


Seriously. I do believe in sidewalks. It's a crime people walking up and down Council have no one who cares about their sidewalks. (Other than me. At least not on this board as far as I can tell.) Sid. I don't know why you do walkability studies, have you ever been to Council between _I-40 and Bethany and 10th street east from there or is that like going to Istanbul? Nevermind. Nothing to see here. Please return to the regularly scheduled highway discussion.

It depends on how you look at it. When Obama and Romney were debating do you think they were trying to persuade the other to vote for them? No, they were trying to contrast themselves and provide an alternative so the masses can decide who has a better vision for the future. When they go into their crazy talk that only helps me so if I can help them put crazy on display shouldn't I do that?

You have to admit - putting a tax on walking is borderline insane. The irony is that these people think they are conservatives (of which I actually am) and they are trying to tax the method of transportation inherent in humans. Go figure.

Irony.

This isn't the first time something went over your head and it won't be the last.

We do pay a tax on walking. We pay for ordinary repairs to sidewalks with our taxes. The actual damage done by walking is minimal. You could walk on concrete for a thousand years and you wouldn't cause the level of damage that ordinary traffic causes in one year. The elements, on the other hand, do cause damage.

The point of a gasoline tax is that it helps to alleviate some of the damage people cause when they drive. Since everyone walks (except for wheelchair people and that guy who is too fat to get out of bed), our "walking tax" is subsumed into normal tax dollars. Since not everyone drives, the gasoline tax targets only those who drive.

We can clearly see that it would be significantly cheaper to create a light rail system that served the metro area rather than build an I-35 bypass around the city. Significantly cheaper. We've built a gargantuan amount of roads in this state, and have avoided spending money on any alternative like the plague. Right now we are like the fatass who drives around for half an hour in the parking lot, trying to find a closer space because he doesn't want to walk an extra 50 feet. We are doing anything we can to avoid getting out of our cars, even if it doesn't make any sort of sense.

You left out the pedestrian bridge Art. Anyway...sidewalks for everyone, even it's just a for a couple of people instead of thousands of subsidized trucks a day delivering your iphones, the concrete for your sidewalks and your bikeparts.


Seriously. I do believe in sidewalks. It's a crime people walking up and down Council have no one who cares about their sidewalks. (Other than me. At least not on this board as far as I can tell.) Sid. I don't know why you do walkability studies, have you ever been to Council between _I-40 and Bethany and 10th street east from there or is that like going to Istanbul? Nevermind. Nothing to see here. Please return to the regularly scheduled highway discussion.

There should be sidewalks out there. Problem is exactly what we've been talking about. We've had 60+ years of not giving a crap in a hat about making a walkable city. The further out we extend, the harder it is to walk. The more money it costs to maintain. The more people ask for extra interstates because they think 45 minutes from Norman to OKC during rush hour is unconscionable. It's a cycle of expense we can't afford.

Now I don't hate suburbs. I grew up in one, and if I had more money than God I'd live in the house from Home Alone. A healthy city can support suburbs. But if a city is all suburbs, you get huge infrastructure costs, bad roads, bad schools, low property values, low income, and nothing to attract business.

A successful city doesn't have to look like this:

http://therealdeal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/manhattan.jpg

But the whole thing shouldn't look like this either:

http://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/posts/SmileSuburbs.jpg

We do pay a tax on walking. We pay for ordinary repairs to sidewalks with our taxes.

Uh . . . What sidewalks? The last tax dollars spent on "side-road/street" upgrades--at least along Penn--were used to construct ADA Certified concrete wheelchair ramps at each intersection with every side road/street/path. The construction of sidewalks actually connecting these marvels of Perceptual Engineering would probably cost more that the most recent "improvements" to the Kilpatrick Turnpike.

No kidding: Check out some of the adjacent grading and retaining wall concerns that would have to be addressed . . .

We don't have a traffic congestion problem. At all. We don't need to build freeways so you can evacuate in 30 minutes or less in case the aliens from Independence Day attack. That's what you're pushing for.

Aliens don't attack houses on hills. He'll be fine ;-)

Uh . . . What sidewalks? The last tax dollars spent on "side-road/street" upgrades--at least along Penn--were used to construct ADA Certified concrete wheelchair ramps at each intersection with every side road/street/path. The construction of sidewalks actually connecting these marvels of Perceptual Engineering would probably cost more that the most recent "improvements" to the Kilpatrick Turnpike.

No kidding: Check out some of the adjacent grading and retaining wall concerns that would have to be addressed . . .

Don't make me pull out the photos of the one where they dug into the side of a hill, poured the ramp and covered it completely back over with dirt. I think that was federal money so it doesn't count if the good sidewalk planners of Oklahoma threw some of it away, apparently.

I drive I-35 all the time during rush hour. No congestion problems.For the most part, the traffic only backs up at our horrible interchanges. If we made the Texas style ''High-Five" interchanges the new standard for OKC, I think once people got used to them, traffic ad congestion would be reduced considerably. I-35 from downtown to Norman, I really think needs to be widened to an 8 lane with four new express lanes or an HOV lane making it 10 lanes, with a new light-rail going along the highway.

For the most part, the traffic only backs up at our horrible interchanges. If we made the Texas style ''High-Five" interchanges the new standard for OKC, I think once people got used to them, traffic ad congestion would be reduced considerably. I-35 from downtown to Norman, I really think needs to be widened to an 8 lane with four new express lanes or an HOV lane making it 10 lanes, with a new light-rail going along the highway.

I think what he was saying is that compared to major cities that do have "congestion", OKC has nothing of the like...

For the most part, the traffic only backs up at our horrible interchanges. If we made the Texas style ''High-Five" interchanges the new standard for OKC, I think once people got used to them, traffic ad congestion would be reduced considerably. I-35 from downtown to Norman, I really think needs to be widened to an 8 lane with four new express lanes or an HOV lane making it 10 lanes, with a new light-rail going along the highway.

10 lanes would be overkill. The current highway right now is fine except it needs a few tweaks.

1) 240/35 needs replaced most of all, but we all know this.

2) Better/longer merging lanes for on/off traffic. This is probably the biggest problem through S OKC & Moore (during normal times). There is relatively little room for people to get up to speed and merge in.

There definitely could still be an option for an eventual Norman loop, but the need could be mitigated by better local mass transit/light rail.

10 lanes would be overkill. The current highway right now is fine except it needs a few tweaks.

1) 240/35 needs replaced most of all, but we all know this.

2) Better/longer merging lanes for on/off traffic. This is probably the biggest problem through S OKC & Moore (during normal times). There is relatively little room for people to get up to speed and merge in.

There definitely could still be an option for an eventual Norman loop, but the need could be mitigated by better local mass transit/light rail.You're probably right. I also believe, once we get our interchanges fixed and if we ever implement a nice expansive light rail service, that many people here would(might) go car free. Add expanded bus service to that as well.

I still think they could widen I-35 from downtown the Shields interchange to 8 lanes, but I would only be in support of that if they included a new light rail line.

I think what he was saying is that compared to major cities that do have "congestion", OKC has nothing of the like...Oh yes. I agree with that! Our rush hours are considerably less than that of other major cities as well. Atlanta has a freakin' 12 lane highway going right in to their downtown that backs up for miles and miles on a daily basis.

For Dallas, hopefully this awesome project they're doing with 635 will solve that traffic problem for a decade(hopefully two, but I don't want to push it).

Also, I believe the High Five interchange cost around 250 mil. To do every interchange in the city would be over a billion dollars. That would be a really hard sell, so I would only imagine the only interchanges likely to get that would be I44/I40(near Mathis Brothers), I40/I35(235), and I35/I240. Sad thing is, for me, that I don't even think those interchanges are getting anything like that. :/

One of the great things about OKC’s quality of life is that it’s been pretty easy to get around the metro, but things are becoming more congested with each passing year.

Using the worse congestion of other city’s as an excuse to do little to nothing in the OKC area only sets us up to have worse problems later that will require far more costly solutions as in many billions. It also means that we aren’t willing to look at other peoples mistakes and learning from them.

One of the great things about OKC’s quality of life is that it’s been pretty easy to get around the metro, but things are becoming more congested with each passing year.

Using the worse congestion of other city’s as an excuse to do little to nothing in the OKC area only sets us up to have worse problems later that will require far more costly solutions as in many billions. It also means that we aren’t willing to look at other peoples mistakes and learning from them.

I agree. That's why it is so important to improve our mass transit in the metro. If all we do is spend money for car travel, we'll just get more cars. We need to expend resources to allow people to choose forms of transit other than cars. We're already behind many cities, and we can look at their transit options to learn how to improve ours.

One of the great things about OKC’s quality of life is that it’s been pretty easy to get around the metro, but things are becoming more congested with each passing year.

Using the worse congestion of other city’s as an excuse to do little to nothing in the OKC area only sets us up to have worse problems later that will require far more costly solutions as in many billions. It also means that we aren’t willing to look at other peoples mistakes and learning from them.

Saying OKC needs more freeways is like saying New Jersey needs more women with whorish makeup.

Saying OKC needs more freeways is like saying New Jersey needs more women with whorish makeup.

wait... i'm confused... so are you saying we do need more freeways?

I agree. That's why it is so important to improve our mass transit in the metro. If all we do is spend money for car travel, we'll just get more cars. We need to expend resources to allow people to choose forms of transit other than cars. We're already behind many cities, and we can look at their transit options to learn how to improve ours.

What’s needed is a balance approach IMO.
Mass transit has its place and should be expanded but it has its limits even where they have done a great job. We can’t put all our dollars into mass transit as some seem to wish for.
There are still plenty of cities who are still expanding and or building new interstate type express ways.
New highways still very much have a place in our society.

One of the great things about OKC’s quality of life is that it’s been pretty easy to get around the metro, but things are becoming more congested with each passing year.

Using the worse congestion of other city’s as an excuse to do little to nothing in the OKC area only sets us up to have worse problems later that will require far more costly solutions as in many billions. It also means that we aren’t willing to look at other peoples mistakes and learning from them.

Do you mean that like buying a house in a flood prone area? Maybe you should lead the task for ODoT ;-)

Do you mean that like buying a house in a flood prone area? Maybe you should lead the task for ODoT ;-)

Are still going to bring that up again because buying a house in a flood prone (flash floods included) area is still stupid is as stupid does.

I think it would be cool to see an eastside bypass such as something going from Edmond to Tinker and then connecting with I-35 in Moore or Norman. Maybe make the Kilpatrick a complete loop around the city. With that, remove the toll requirement and sign it as something like 640.

I think it would be cool to see an eastside bypass such as something going from Edmond to Tinker and then connecting with I-35 in Moore or Norman. Maybe make the Kilpatrick a complete loop around the city. With that, remove the toll requirement and sign it as something like 640.I think it would need to have a toll requirement to make it feasible or maybe put in express lanes(I don't think OKC is big enough to warrant that though), I love that idea though. It would make it much easier to navigate the city as well as helping Edmonds traffic, if they looped around Edmond. Norman needs one too, from what I've seen.

I think it would be cool to see an eastside bypass such as something going from Edmond to Tinker and then connecting with I-35 in Moore or Norman. Maybe make the Kilpatrick a complete loop around the city. With that, remove the toll requirement and sign it as something like 640.

Here's a few pre-existing topics for you to check out with others inputs on the same subject:

http://www.okctalk.com/midwest-city-del-city/32284-eastern-oklahoma-county-highway-connection.html

http://www.okctalk.com/transportation/32340-highway-i-35-44-i-40-a.html

I think a full circle loop around the city would be awesome (even though it looks like I've disagreed at various points in the links above). It's from where you'd do it and the eminent domain battles that the state would have to pay out to the residents they'd have to remove to build the highway. Makes me want play a SimRoad game and build it out...

Also would be cool if they included light rail with a new highway loop as well.

I think it would need to have a toll requirement to make it feasible or maybe put in express lanes(I don't think OKC is big enough to warrant that though), I love that idea though. It would make it much easier to navigate the city as well as helping Edmonds traffic, if they looped around Edmond. Norman needs one too, from what I've seen.

That's true about the toll. Houston's Beltway 8 loop is a toll road to this day. There definitely needs to be something to make it easier to get from Norman and Edmond to the eastern parts of the metro area though especially with all the job growth in the Tinker area.

Maybe something like this

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/2056/okccitylimits.jpg

I have also connected the I-44 segment that crosses north central OKC with the eastern loop and connected the Airport freeway into Mustang. This would also help spur development out by Lake Stanley Draper which could become like a second Lake Hefner.

Also would be cool if they included light rail with a new highway loop as well.

Probably the most feasible location for the first light rail line would be to run it from Quail Springs Mall to the Chesapeake Arena, and then from the arena to the OU campus.

That's true about the toll. Houston's Beltway 8 loop is a toll road to this day. There definitely needs to be something to make it easier to get from Norman and Edmond to the eastern parts of the metro area though especially with all the job growth in the Tinker area.

Maybe something like this

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/2056/okccitylimits.jpg

I have also connected the I-44 segment that crosses north central OKC with the eastern loop and connected the Airport freeway into Mustang. This would also help spur development out by Lake Stanley Draper which could become like a second Lake Hefner.Now this would be awesome!!!!!!!!!!!

Charlotte's urban development EXPLODED after they built a single light-rail line from downtown to Carolina Place Mall, their version of Quail Springs/Memorial. It made it finally possible to live comfortably in Charlotte without a car. As a result, Charlotte became very attractive for young professionals. Their overall walkscore is lower than OKC's, so if it worked there it can work here.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2879/8955657071_58cc1f7904_b.jpg

I think there definitely needs to be something between Norman and Moore, connecting 35 and 44.

I did something very similar to bchris02's drawing. I drew an inner loop and an outer loop.

http://i42.tinypic.com/30sdkl1.jpg

I drew my highways by avoiding as many homes as I could. Your lines are probably going through new developments.

What’s needed is a balance approach IMO.
Mass transit has its place and should be expanded but it has its limits even where they have done a great job. We can’t put all our dollars into mass transit as some seem to wish for.
There are still plenty of cities who are still expanding and or building new interstate type express ways.
New highways still very much have a place in our society.

A balanced approach is needed. Over the past 50 years we have put basically 99% of our transit dollars into roads, highways, and interstates. We have put like 1% into any sort of mass transit. We need much more balance.

You know that Oklahoma has twice as many miles of toll road, per person, as any other state? We are number one, Kansas is number two with half the number. We are #12 in total miles of road. The last thing we need is more roads.

I did something very similar to bchris02's drawing. I drew an inner loop and an outer loop.

http://i42.tinypic.com/30sdkl1.jpg


Surely you all can't be serious with this outer belt loop thing....earlier in this discussion everyone is complaining about increased traffic in OKC and you're talking about adding another belt loop? Yikes. Adding more roads inevitably induces more traffic...especially adding another loop on the outskirts. This will give developers the ability to create more sprawling suburbia on the outskirts, forcing more people to drive and spreading our resources even thinner (and the less dense we get, the less likely mass transit will become).

the completion of the "inner loop" with a highway connecting I44/I35 interchange and the I240/I40 interchange .. would do wonders to develop the inner NE side of town

Yep - but it would all be auto-centric development. Alas, there is no money to pay for any of these new roads so dream away.

Yep - but it would all be auto-centric development. Alas, there is no money to pay for any of these new roads so dream away.

the huge majority of all development in okc over the next 20 years is going to be auto centric .. we might as well have that development inside an inner loop instead of in very NW okc

the huge majority of all development in okc over the next 20 years is going to be auto centric

If we follow the ideas laid out in this thread it will be. The question is - is that the kind of growth we want?

While we are playing SimCity, this is more or less my idea.

So the differences from the previous ideas above.

I don't bother with a full eastern loop because it is completely not needed. The notion that a I-35/44 to I-40/240 connector would help spur more development in NE OKC is pretty far fetched. If there is little to any development now along I-35/44 in that area, adding another highway there isn't really going to help. Overall we need to have a balanced approached. Looking at the metro area as a whole overall it is pretty unbalanced when it comes to highway development on the north versus South sides. So that is where all my expansion is dedicated.

"New Highway 77H" - I-35/Hwy 9 to I-240/Air Depot. This adds another river crossing in Norman which is needed if the primary bridge backs up. It also provides relief to Highway 9 in south Norman. Moving the traffic off Highway 9 will allow for additional development and curb cuts there to help fill in that part of town. The eastern loop comes in around 48th Ave and will go due north roughly along that and current day Air Depot. I don't see any point in having a loop go all the way around Lake T-Bird or Stanley Draper because the impacts are minimal to the existing population.

"Highway 237" - I-44/37 to New Highway 77H. This would be the main connector through North Norman to also provide another river crossing and easier access to I-44 and the airport. This would probably do wonders to help divert a lot of traffic off I-35. The route through North Central Norman gets a little complicated due to existing developments and minimizing impact, but a route just north of Tecumseh seems like the best option. Also using the existing intersection at I-35/Indian Hills would help minimize need for additional land. I could also envision the segment from I-35 to the I-44 similar to Highway 9 from 35 west to Highway 62.

The main obstacle with all these, which no one is addressing, is the additional infrastructure improvements to the roads these would have interchanges at. When you get into SE OKC and E Moore, the road conditions really take a nose dive. So we need to keep in mind that the cost impact isn't just going to be for new highways, but also for the feeder roads to them.

Obviously both of these would need to be toll roads to pay for them, but should assist in reducing traffic demands of I-35 and Sooner, as well as Highway 9, in the Norman to OKC areas. However, we do need to couple a solution like this with light rail and better mass transit.

http://www.weatherspotlight.com/screencap/jun13/05.png

Yep - but it would all be auto-centric development. Alas, there is no money to pay for any of these new roads so dream away.

Yes. You are talking about tens of billions of dollars to build this loop.

I have a better idea. Let's focus development inward. We run light rail from Norman to Edmond, from Midwest City/Tinker to Will Rogers Airport. We stop building new roads and services out past our current development.

What does this do? It allows those people who bought homes out in the middle of nowhere to remain in the middle of nowhere. That will actually keep their home values higher. New development will spring up near the light rail lines. It will be convenient to live near a rail stop. With proper zoning, this will create higher density, and higher property values, in those areas. Areas that were previously full of this:

http://pics3.city-data.com/businesses/p/7/7/2/8/8017728.JPG

Will instead be more like this:

http://authorsofmainstreet.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/main-street3.jpg

It will not be an instantaneous process. It will take years to develop. But it will happen.

What this boils down to is simple.
Lower property values + automobile only access = lots of parking lots and urban decay.
Higher property values + easy to walk to = lots of economic development.

If you can eliminate the need for acres and acres of parking lot, you substantially increase the value of homes and property. If you develop your city, the people with money stay put where they are. But if you continue to build further and further out, the people with money will move further and further out. That is a financial drain to your established neighborhoods. I don't want new development on the outskirts. Because it means people with money are moving out of my neighborhood. I want people with money moving into my neighborhood.

tens of billions ..... not so much

A balanced approach is needed. Over the past 50 years we have put basically 99% of our transit dollars into roads, highways, and interstates. We have put like 1% into any sort of mass transit. We need much more balance.

You know that Oklahoma has twice as many miles of toll road, per person, as any other state? We are number one, Kansas is number two with half the number. We are #12 in total miles of road. The last thing we need is more roads.

No, the first thing we need is more roads, but in the right places and built with very high standards.
We haven’t always done either.

Yes. You are talking about tens of billions of dollars to build this loop.

I have a better idea. Let's focus development inward. We run light rail from Norman to Edmond, from Midwest City/Tinker to Will Rogers Airport. We stop building new roads and services out past our current development.

What does this do? It allows those people who bought homes out in the middle of nowhere to remain in the middle of nowhere. That will actually keep their home values higher. New development will spring up near the light rail lines. It will be convenient to live near a rail stop. With proper zoning, this will create higher density, and higher property values, in those areas. Areas that were previously full of this:

Will instead be more like this

It will not be an instantaneous process. It will take years to develop. But it will happen.

What this boils down to is simple.
Lower property values + automobile only access = lots of parking lots and urban decay.
Higher property values + easy to walk to = lots of economic development.

If you can eliminate the need for acres and acres of parking lot, you substantially increase the value of homes and property. If you develop your city, the people with money stay put where they are. But if you continue to build further and further out, the people with money will move further and further out. That is a financial drain to your established neighborhoods. I don't want new development on the outskirts. Because it means people with money are moving out of my neighborhood. I want people with money moving into my neighborhood.


THANK YOU. We do not need more highways...it will just lead to more sprawl and more traffic. You don't solve the traffic issue with more roads, you solve it with more OPTIONS such as better bus, rail etc. We shouldn't be spending billions of dollars on new highways which do require quite a bit of work...if we invested in rail lines we would save tons of infrastructure costs OVER TIME.

More roads induces more traffic...which is why you see places like Atlanta, Dallas, LA still having huge traffic issues EVEN WITH 10 lane mega highways all over the place.

It will not be an instantaneous process. It will take years to develop. But it will happen.

What this boils down to is simple.
Lower property values + automobile only access = lots of parking lots and urban decay.
Higher property values + easy to walk to = lots of economic development.

If you can eliminate the need for acres and acres of parking lot, you substantially increase the value of homes and property. If you develop your city, the people with money stay put where they are. But if you continue to build further and further out, the people with money will move further and further out. That is a financial drain to your established neighborhoods. I don't want new development on the outskirts. Because it means people with money are moving out of my neighborhood. I want people with money moving into my neighborhood.

I really enjoy reading about urban infill but much of the discussion ignores the reasons why people move to the suburbs. The prime group that moves to the suburbs are families with school-aged children. Why do they move there? They are looking for good public schools and a safe environment to raise their children (with good schools being the primary reason). Without an improvement in urban public schools, young families, most of whom cannot afford private schooling for their children, will continue to move to suburbs with good public schools. The current flood of infill is occurring because cities have learned how to market to young singles and newly married couples (without school aged children). That combined with large generation of people in their 20s (the children of the baby boomers) is causing the demand for urban living to increase substantially. When these 20-somethings become 30-somethings with school-aged children, the suburbs with their good public schools are very attractive compared to the poor urban public schools or high-cost private schools. The main point that I am trying to make is that if you want urban infill to be grow in the long run, the quality of urban public schools must dramatically improve. One final point, parents move to areas where public schools are good NOW and do not move to areas with public schools that they believe might be good in several years.

Yes. You are talking about tens of billions of dollars to build this loop.

I have a better idea. Let's focus development inward. We run light rail from Norman to Edmond, from Midwest City/Tinker to Will Rogers Airport. We stop building new roads and services out past our current development.

What does this do? It allows those people who bought homes out in the middle of nowhere to remain in the middle of nowhere. That will actually keep their home values higher. New development will spring up near the light rail lines. It will be convenient to live near a rail stop. With proper zoning, this will create higher density, and higher property values, in those areas. Areas that were previously full of this:

http://pics3.city-data.com/businesses/p/7/7/2/8/8017728.JPG

Will instead be more like this:

http://authorsofmainstreet.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/main-street3.jpg

It will not be an instantaneous process. It will take years to develop. But it will happen.

What this boils down to is simple.
Lower property values + automobile only access = lots of parking lots and urban decay.
Higher property values + easy to walk to = lots of economic development.

If you can eliminate the need for acres and acres of parking lot, you substantially increase the value of homes and property. If you develop your city, the people with money stay put where they are. But if you continue to build further and further out, the people with money will move further and further out. That is a financial drain to your established neighborhoods. I don't want new development on the outskirts. Because it means people with money are moving out of my neighborhood. I want people with money moving into my neighborhood.

I really enjoy reading about urban infill but much of the discussion ignores the reasons why people move to the suburbs. The prime group that moves to the suburbs are families with school-aged children. Why do they move there? They are looking for good public schools and a safe environment to raise their children (with good schools being the primary reason). Without an improvement in urban public schools, young families, most of whom cannot afford private schooling for their children, will continue to move to suburbs with good public schools. The current flood of infill is occurring because cities have learned how to market to young singles or newly married couples (without school aged children). That combined with large generation of people in their 20s (the children of the baby boomers) is causing the demand for urban living to increase substantially. When these 20-somethings become 30-somethings with school-aged children, the suburbs with their good public schools are very attractive compared to the poor urban public schools or the high-cost private schools. The main point that I am trying to make is that if you want urban infill to be grow in the long run, the quality of urban public schools must dramatically improve. One final point, parents move to areas where public schools are good NOW and do not move to areas with public schools that they believe might be good in several years.

More roads induces more traffic...which is why you see places like Atlanta, Dallas, LA still having huge traffic issues EVEN WITH 10 lane mega highways all over the place.

I-75 in north Atlanta is 16 lanes. From 7AM to 9:30AM and 3PM t0 7PM it is 5 mph.

I really enjoy reading about urban infill but much of the discussion ignores the reasons why people move to the suburbs. The prime group that moves to the suburbs are families with school-aged children. Why do they move there? They are looking for good public schools and a safe environment to raise their children (with good schools being the primary reason).


I will say that there is some interesting literature out there on the psychology of the suburban built environment on children. (Suicide rates for teenagers in isolated suburban environments, etc.)

I was thinking about this thread yesterday as I was driving from 44 and Northwest Expy to 40 Eastbound to the Shields exit. It was about 6:30 in the evening and it was laughable how little traffic there was in relation to road capacity, especially the new I-40. Of course it could be that I just got back from the Northeast, where it took me 3 hours to go 90 miles on the NJ turnpike.

I could possibly see OTA upgrading OK-4 between the HE Bailey Spur and the current terminus of JK Turnpike, forming a defacto "loop" around western OKC, but that area is developing quickly so any ROW acquisition will not be cheap. I think they would get far more benefit for the dollar from upgrading the Hefner Pkwy/JK Turnpike Interchange.

Otherwise, I am not seeing the crushing need for new highways like some claim on here. What I do see is aging bottlenecks that need to be replaced. 240/35 really needs to get its funding fastracked. 240 and 44 have plenty of capacity for traffic passing through but most won't take it, especially truckers, because of the dangerous interchange at 35. And local leaders should at least start planning to replace 44/40, its really on its last legs. For the record, I am not some suburban basher, and am completely okay with a level of planned growth out that way. But completely new highways? Nah...lets just try to maintain what we have a little better. We can even make plans to widen them in the future.

But I guess most of this thread is kinda "what could be" anyway.

I will say that there is some interesting literature out there on the psychology of the suburban built environment on children. (Suicide rates for teenagers in isolated suburban environments, etc.)

I posted a story about senior citizens suicide rates yesterday. The guy in the article cited 'social isolation' for his attempt.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/33058-new-urbanism-library-4.html#post650531

I was thinking about this thread yesterday as I was driving from 44 and Northwest Expy to 40 Eastbound to the Shields exit. It was about 6:30 in the evening and it was laughable how little traffic there was in relation to road capacity, especially the new I-40. Of course it could be that I just got back from the Northeast, where it took me 3 hours to go 90 miles on the NJ turnpike.

I could possibly see OTA upgrading OK-4 between the HE Bailey Spur and the current terminus of JK Turnpike, forming a defacto "loop" around western OKC, but that area is developing quickly so any ROW acquisition will not be cheap. I think they would get far more benefit for the dollar from upgrading the Hefner Pkwy/JK Turnpike Interchange.

Otherwise, I am not seeing the crushing need for new highways like some claim on here. What I do see is aging bottlenecks that need to be replaced. 240/35 really needs to get its funding fastracked. 240 and 44 have plenty of capacity for traffic passing through but most won't take it, especially truckers, because of the dangerous interchange at 35. And local leaders should at least start planning to replace 44/40, its really on its last legs. For the record, I am not some suburban basher, and am completely okay with a level of planned growth out that way. But completely new highways? Nah...lets just try to maintain what we have a little better. We can even make plans to widen them in the future.

But I guess most of this thread is kinda "what could be" anyway.

I posted something very, very close to this in another thread about the stretches of highways not being the actual problem, as most are overbuilt anyhow. I believe it's actually the idiotic number of curb cuts, cloverleaf ramps, short merge lanes, driveways, intersections with stop lights/signs, and piss poor interchanges that interfere with the flow of traffic in OKC more than anything else. Unfortunately, these are also the same things ODOT seems loathe to fix.

Yep - but it would all be auto-centric development. Alas, there is no money to pay for any of these new roads so dream away.Not if a light rail was included with this. Also, you could make the roads tolled and that would solve the money problem.

I-75 in north Atlanta is 16 lanes. From 7AM to 9:30AM and 3PM t0 7PM it is 5 mph.Well, if they develop mass transit and that still doesn't work, they should build a new elevated express lane system that is tolled and do something while they're doing nothing.

Atlanta is a little weird when it comes to mass transit. Most of the people want it but the civic leaders in surrounding cities and counties don't want it. I think they are afraid their local corporate base will relocate downtown if the commute gets easier because the traffic is a major selling point for the outer ring communities.

OKC should build something like the "High-Five" interchange in Dallas or the Big-I in Albuquerque to replace 40/44. Out of all the interchanges I have to deal with, that one is probably the worst.

OKC should build something like the "High-Five" interchange in Dallas.

Why?

What would you propose to be carried by each of the 5 levels?

OKC should build something like the "High-Five" interchange in Dallas or the Big-I in Albuquerque to replace 40/44. Out of all the interchanges I have to deal with, that one is probably the worst.

This. A very nice interchange. Hell, even the I-40/I-29 interchange in Amarillo is nicer than what 40/44 is now. Honestly needs to be 3 thru lanes in all directions. Every highway feeding into it in every direction is 3 or 4 lanes until you get to the interchange and then it's 2 thru lanes. The whole interchange is one big corkscrew!

the completion of the "inner loop" with a highway connecting I44/I35 interchange and the I240/I40 interchange .. would do wonders to develop the inner NE side of town

I doubt it. Development along I-35 between I-44 and I-40 isn't exactly going crazy right now...

I doubt it. Development along I-35 between I-44 and I-40 isn't exactly going crazy right now...

That area is always going to suffer as far as development goes because its in OKC school district. The suburban areas that are booming are those in suburban school districts.

Seems to me the congestion in OKC is a two headed creature there is local and there is pass through traffic.

What would be interesting to know is how much of the traffic that goes through OKC on I40 and I35 continues on the same interstate and how much enters on one and exits on the other. In other words how much north bound I40 into OKC exits either east or west on I35 and vice a versa? And how much of that is truck traffic?

Where I am headed with this is, we might be able to accomplish more by building bypasses that avoid OKC completely. Doing so would be cheaper than loops around OKC and then the savings could be used to support mass transit in OKC.

How much would OKC traffic be reduced if there was a I35 to I40 link that ran from Pauls Valley / Purcell are to Weatherford area. A I35 link to I40 link that ran from Pauls Valley or Purcell to east of Shawnee. Same thing for north of OKC.