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 biggest delays I see from the 40/44 junction are from where 44 southbound is so backed up it stops traffic on the bridge of the junction, so changing the junction itself will not do much. It might clear the clot faster once the issue on 44 clears up. If you added a lane to 40 westbound they could park out of the way of the people staying on 40.

The biggest delays I see from the 40/44 junction are from where 44 southbound is so backed up it stops traffic on the bridge of the junction, so changing the junction itself will not do much. It might clear the clot faster once the issue on 44 clears up. If you added a lane to 40 westbound they could park out of the way of the people staying on 40.

The biggest problem there in my opinion is the 40 WB to 44 WB/SB on ramp being the SW 15th exit ramp. These high traffic interchanges really need to avoid a situation like that.

Granted we are talking about a transportation department that doesn't have an issue with people smashing into each other on I-240 at I-35 every day, so I don't expect anything different to come about. Well until the department head gets in a wreck there and then I bet they get it going immediately. :-P

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.

tens of billions ..... not so much

It cost almost a billion to build 4 miles of the Crosstown. You guys are proposing 50-60 miles of loop. Yes, tens of billions is accurate.

It cost almost a billion to build 4 miles of the Crosstown. You guys are proposing 50-60 miles of loop. Yes, tens of billions is accurate.Crosstown was also 10 lanes and had to rebuild a bunch of bridges and was slightly below grade and had to use a ton of concrete. I understand what you're saying. I don't think tens of billions of dollars is accurate though.

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.I've kind of thought up on that, and I asked myself, would you really want to do that? I mean building a bypass where people just skip OKC, I don't think is a good thing, imo. What about the people who decide they might want to get off and look around in a slit second or drive through the city and maybe realize we actually have electricity here!!! lol

Take a look at a map of Paris. You'll see there is benefit to running 'through' traffic around the city. The core isn't corrupted with highways. I think it is a better model than trying to deal with all the traffic intersecting in the same area you are trying to develop. It's a waste of really valuable land and create massive physical barriers.

I'd like to see 235 Removed and 40 between 44 and 35 removed.

In other words, if you create loops, you can remove interior highways. Highways become boulevards and can be developed on. Madrid did something similar as well.

Now your are talking. I would even bring my own shovel and help remove them.

I've kind of thought up on that, and I asked myself, would you really want to do that? I mean building a bypass where people just skip OKC, I don't think is a good thing, imo. What about the people who decide they might want to get off and look around in a slit second or drive through the city and maybe realize we actually have electricity here!!! lol

In the old days that is one of the reasons city fathers everywhere wanted the main highways running through the main streets of their towns and frankly today it is part of the reason we have so much gridlock.

Plus it wouldn't be a law that you have to take the bypass. So you have to ask yourself how much traffic would that be as opposed to how much pass trough traffic could be routed around.

They built 840 around the south side of Nashville that misses the city by 30 miles.

They built 840 around the south side of Nashville that misses the city by 30 miles.Is it usually busy?

ODOT was ready to roll with an outer loop to the west of OKC to alleviate I35 and other internal interstates from thru-traffic, however they met extreme opposition of the "not in my backyard" crowd. Personally I think an eastern loop is necessary. Man I used to drive to Choctaw regularly and it took forever getting all the way through due to all the small roads and stop signs at nearly every intersection. If there's any stretch of land in the area that needs a larger facility it would be through there. Talk about spurring economic growth along a freeway through eastern Oklahoma County. Choctaw, Nicoma Park, Harrah, they ought to look at the growth along the JKT in north OKC. But I guess folks live in eastern Oklahoma county for its "rural-ness" and don't want economic development, so easy for me to advocate a highway through their back yards.

They built 840 around the south side of Nashville that misses the city by 30 miles.
Is it usually busy?

The part I drive isn't busy because it doesn't go through any urban areas. I go on it from I-24 to I-40. It keeps me from having to driving through Nashville which depending on time of day can save me an hour or more. I can drive through the scenery of rural Tennessee instead of fighting with Nashville rush-hour. There are not even gas stations at any of the exits and I hope it stays that way but sprawl follows freeway exits. I would prefer that it not have any exits and just routed thru traffic around the city with no way on or off. If needed they could just put a gas station in the center median somewhere. The only thing good about it now is that it is so far from Nashville no one will choose to live that far out and commute anywhere.

The part I drive isn't busy because it doesn't go through any urban areas. I go on it from I-24 to I-40. It keeps me from having to driving through Nashville which depending on time of day can save me an hour or more. I can drive through the scenery of rural Tennessee instead of fighting with Nashville rush-hour. There are not even gas stations at any of the exits and I hope it stays that way but sprawl follows freeway exits. I would prefer that it not have any exits and just routed thru traffic around the city with no way on or off. If needed they could just put a gas station in the center median somewhere. The only thing good about it now is that it is so far from Nashville no one will choose to live that far out and commute anywhere.

how is it possible that it is not busy ... where is all the induced traffic

how is it possible that it is not busy ... where is all the induced traffic

Because it doesn't serve anyone that lives in Nashville. People that live in the area would have to go out of their way to use it. It was specifically built to by-pass them - not make their commute easier (outside of reducing thru traffic on urban freeways). Which I guess the induced demand would appear along the existing urban freeway.

http://massengale.typepad.com/venustas/images/lexicon_town_highway.jpg

The part I drive isn't busy because it doesn't go through any urban areas. I go on it from I-24 to I-40. It keeps me from having to driving through Nashville which depending on time of day can save me an hour or more. I can drive through the scenery of rural Tennessee instead of fighting with Nashville rush-hour. There are not even gas stations at any of the exits and I hope it stays that way but sprawl follows freeway exits. I would prefer that it not have any exits and just routed thru traffic around the city with no way on or off. If needed they could just put a gas station in the center median somewhere. The only thing good about it now is that it is so far from Nashville no one will choose to live that far out and commute anywhere.Well, I still don't really like that idea. People that choose to go around might have make a quick, last minute decision to get off and explore the city or stop at a restaurant and help out the economy there.

Well, I still don't really like that idea. People that choose to go around might have make a quick, last minute decision to get off and explore the city or stop at a restaurant and help out the economy there.

Then it wouldn't really be a bypass would it? 840 is actually a bypass until you get into the Smryna/Murphreesboro area.

Highways in cities are the ones that cause induced demand. Comparing an actual bypass to a highway in a city is apples to oranges.

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.

JTF, I spoke with a former mayor of one of the in-close 'burbs recently and asked him what would make his city contribute to a rail-based connection to Bricktown / CBD. He told me that there was no good reason for him to contribute to his locals to find an easier way to spend money outside of his taxable base (or words to that effect). If I read him right, he was saying that it would cause his municipality to lose sales tax revenue.

JTF, I spoke with a former mayor of one of the in-close 'burbs recently and asked him what would make his city contribute to a rail-based connection to Bricktown / CBD. He told me that there was no good reason for him to contribute to his locals to find an easier way to spend money outside of his taxable base (or words to that effect). If I read him right, he was saying that it would cause his municipality to lose sales tax revenue.

Which begs the question - what kind of hell hole was he mayor of that would cause the population to flee with the first cheap way out? :). You should ask the former Mayor how he feels about roads connecting to his town from other areas.

Of course, his attitude is no different from many of the suburbs around Salt Lake City who had the same short-sighted mentality. Then they found out that no one wanted to move to or shop in their town because it didn't have regional transit. Now they are standing in line to get rail service.

Which begs the question - what kind of hell hole was he mayor of that would cause the population to flee with the first cheap way out? :). You should ask the former Mayor how he feels about roads connecting to his town from other areas.

Of course, his attitude is no different from many of the suburbs around Salt Lake City who had the same short-sighted mentality. Then they found out that no one wanted to move to or shop in their town because it didn't have regional transit. Now they are standing in line to get rail service.

That's exactly right. When DC installed their Metro subway system, the Georgetown area of the city told them they didn't want it. They didn't want the riff-raff having an easy way into their area of town. Now they'd love to get service there, but it would be too expensive to do at this point.

I live in MWC, and I'm quite familiar with where the train tracks run in that area. You'd be looking at two great locations for a rail stop. The first is at Reno and Sooner Rd. There's a whole lot of nothing at that intersection right now. It would be easy to put a station there. The land around it, dominated by an Anthony's and a strip mall, would go up in value fairly quickly. With decent zoning and a good growth plan you could turn it from a neglected area into a thriving shopping area. The second place is on Air Depot in what is currently a Golden Corral parking lot. Midwest City's most heavily travelled road could get a sizeable amount of foot traffic, which would increase the density of an already successful restaurant corridor.

The places where these rail stops are built draw development. They increase property values. It becomes not just a place to get on the train, but a destination. People who get off the plane at Will Rogers never have to rent a car. When they don't rent a car, they will stay at a hotel on the rail line. They will eat at restaurants within easy walking distance. Those locations become highly valuable, especially if you steer new construction away from huge parking lots and towards nice sidewalks and urban amenities.

Edit: Imagine if each stop had its own tiny Bricktown. Not a copy of Bricktown, but a Main Street-styled development for a block or two in all directions. Think people in Midwest City, or Edmond, or Norman might like that?

Actually, with the new jobs coming downtown, the suburbs should like the trains coming out that way. It will be easier for them to keep urban sprawling as the people can live more cheaply out there and commute downtown to the jobs. Then, they can get out of town when their day is over. Electric commuter trains is one of the things that spurred suburban development on the east coast cities.

Actually, with the new jobs coming downtown, the suburbs should like the trains coming out that way. It will be easier for them to keep urban sprawling as the people can live more cheaply out there and commute downtown to the jobs. Then, they can get out of town when their day is over. Electric commuter trains is one of the things that spurred suburban development on the east coast cities.

...which is why I am opposed to park and ride lots. All mass transit riders should start and end as pedestrians. Trains should connect urban centers, not giant remote parking lots.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/03/how-park-and-ride-encourages-car-use/5034/


On paper, park-and-ride facilities seem like the ultimate transport compromise. Free or cheap parking near transit stations should, if the theory holds, make partial transit riders of metro area residents who used to drive the whole way into work. The system acts like a nicotine gum for daily commutes — weaning people slowly off the single-occupancy car.

In reality, some transport experts wonder whether park-and-ride does more harm than good. A study of park-and-ride facilities from the early 1990s found they don't necessarily ease congestion because they unleash latent demand for road space. Other research has come out similarly skeptical that park-and-ride reduces car use, though much of it has centered on bus-based transit.

A new study of park-and-ride at rail-based transit stations doesn't offer much in the way of encouragement. In an upcoming issue of the Journal of Transport Geography, Dutch researcher Giuliano Mingardo reports that park-and-ride facilities in two major metro areas create four measurable "unintended effects" that not only limit the benefits of transit but may even increase vehicle travel in the metro area.

I'm curious has anyone floated the idea of extending highway 9 at the RiverWind casino east of I-35? This would alliviate some congetsion on I-35 and provide another "over the river" route into Norman besides I-35.
4205

I'm curious has anyone floated the idea of extending highway 9 at the RiverWind casino east of I-35? This would alliviate some congetsion on I-35 and provide another "over the river" route into Norman besides I-35.
4205

My only issue with this is that OK-9 in its current form serves as a reliever to Lindsey Street. If you reroute the road, I imagine most people would then skip over to Lindsey and clog it up even more than it is now (which is hard to imagine).

I do agree with your premise that another river crossing in Norman would be nice.

I'm curious has anyone floated the idea of extending highway 9 at the RiverWind casino east of I-35? This would alliviate some congetsion on I-35 and provide another "over the river" route into Norman besides I-35.
4205

It would bypass much of South Norman and be completely useless there though. I would much rather see SW 24th just extended over the river and connected either Jessie Dr/Jerry Black Ln that is directly across from it. That would provide a non-interstate river crossing which is needed IMO.

If we would look at any additional highways in Norman I think it would be confined to upgrading Hwy 9 to limited access and perhaps a spur from Hwy 37/44 in Newcastle directly east along Indian Hills. Anything more wouldn't be needed if we are serious about commuter rail.

This is a piece I wrote about in another thread, but thought I'd post it here to as it would be more appropriate.

This is about the highways in SW OKC near the airport.
------------

Don't loose your sh!t over this and I'm not saying this needs to be done immediately, but I would turn SW 74th St. into a highway with interstate standards and connect it to I-40 shortly after it passes Clear Springs Road. I would also add a light-rail line with widening Airport road to 3 lanes in each direction and making the exit ramp to South bound I-44 two lanes instead of one.

Really, the entire interchanges of I-44/I-240 and I-44/Airport Road should be redone. Service roads continued along I-44/I-240. I also think a grand statue or a large sign for the airport would be cool somewhere along the highway.

I would also continue the Kilpatrick Turnpike down to the Newcastle Spur.

The airport is adding gates and will probably grow in traffic as new tourist and 'out-of-state' attractions are built(convention center, new fairgrounds expo, white water, and all the other development and businesses that are popping up in OKC), there is supposedly a bunch of new commercial development that is going to occur on SW 54th St., Hobby Lobby is experiencing a massive boom with no end in sight building new warehouses left and right; now one of the largest of its kind in the US, new spec and distribution centers are beginning to pop up(American Tire Distributors), and Mustang is beginning to really take off and I believe the entire SW OKC will begin to experience some solid growth soon, so that all speaks for itself.

Yes you would have to demolish houses and businesses for this. Yes, that is how a lot of highways get built. Yes, I know you and a lot of people on here will be against this. Yes, I know it will cost a lot of money. But that is the route I think they should take. We can get ahead of it now, or wait until our highways start to resemble Austin's. You can say oh OKC is a long ways out from that and blah blah, but I wonder how they felt about in the 90's. Highways don't exactly go up over night, that also includes the political aspect of it to(eminent domain, demolishing houses, acquiring the land, and actually building it), so it isn't crazy to assume it could possibly take 10 years to really get it going before we see ground break on it. By that time, traffic will have already likely have been bad and then couple on new construction it becomes a safety risk. I would just shut the entire thing down, but you and I know that won't happen.

^
No.

^
No.I know man. ;)

but seriously, I stick by it. It will eventually have to be done anyways at some point.

Don't loose your sh!t over this and I'm not saying this needs to be done immediately, but I would turn SW 74th St. into a highway with interstate standards and connect it to I-40 shortly after it passes Clear Springs Road. I would also add a light-rail line with widening Airport road to 3 lanes in each direction and making the exit ramp to South bound I-44 two lanes instead of one.

You do realize that 152 is pretty much the main E-W road through Mustang right? You can't turn it into a highway with interstate standards. How are you going to reasonably connect it to I-40 when it is several miles to the south? There isn't any point to revamping it anymore than what was already done. As far as having 2 lanes to WB I-44...there is rarely any major traffic issues with that ramp because of being a single lane. Also, it use to be 2-lanes and was actually reduced. The issues are further south, not with the Airport Road ramp.


Really, the entire interchanges of I-44/I-240 and I-44/Airport Road should be redone. Service roads continued along I-44/I-240. I also think a grand statue or a large sign for the airport would be cool somewhere along the highway.

I-44 and Airport Road is fine as it is. I-240/44 could use an additional through lane going south to help with congestion. Honestly the biggest issue with that area is the exit for SW 59th/54th that causes the most issues - at least for West (south) bound traffic. One option that would make it better would be to have I-44 break off before the on ramp from 59th joins the highway. That way there isn't an issue with crossing traffic. Then I would have a 2nd lane from 59th to I-44 that doesn't even impact the traffic that would remain on I-240.

Service roads are not needed in this area. I really don't get the infatuation with them. Not every interstate needs a service road. My home town has exactly ZERO service roads on all the major interstates in it. There is zero need for a service road in this area.


I would also continue the Kilpatrick Turnpike down to the Newcastle Spur.

Never heard it ever called Newcastle Spur, but I think there was a plan to have the Kilpatrick connect with Highway 4 out of Eastern Mustang, but there are a few brand new housing developments that are now in the way. It's not impossible to connect, it won't be cheap and it will be a very wavy road. It won't be a true bypass though since Highway 4 south of there isn't easily upgradeable at all. It still provides a good alternative to I-44 and also the Norman Spur.

The justification posted though really doesn't help your case as the existing infrastructure will handle anything that is planned right now. Yes there are some things that could use some minor fixes, but that's about it.

Never heard it ever called Newcastle Spur, but I think there was a plan to have the Kilpatrick connect with Highway 4 out of Eastern Mustang, but there are a few brand new housing developments that are now in the way. It's not impossible to connect, it won't be cheap and it will be a very wavy road. It won't be a true bypass though since Highway 4 south of there isn't easily upgradeable at all. It still provides a good alternative to I-44 and also the Norman Spur.

The Kirkpatrick extension was just a study, which while found it was technically possible there was not enough political will to actually build it. Though it looks like the idea is not entirely dead, since in the last year or two there has been an updated theoretical path that avoids construction since the original route was drawn up.

Thinking back on it, it seems almost like they were only considering connecting the Kirkpatrick with i35 when designing it and ignored the Mustang population that might start using if it would have been more convenient for them. It could pick up a lot of the north and east traffic of Mustang / Near Mustang OKC if it followed Sara road further south to nearer to 54th/59th, then turned east to connect with Airport road before going the southeast direction they planed.

^
No.

+1

I think OKC currently has three pressing needs when it comes to highway development.

The I-235/I-44 interchange. This needs to be a 4-level stack and I-235 needs to be widened to at least six lanes between I-44 and 36th St. One of the biggest traffic bottlenecks in the metro is this interchange.

The I-240/I-35 interchange - This interchange is an embarassment. It should be at least a 4-level stack. There has been talk of redoing that interchange for decades yet it doesn't seem to be anywhere closer to being rebuilt than it was in 1994.

I-44/Airport Rd - Not sure why but there is always a traffic bottleneck there. Something needs to be done to keep traffic flowing more smoothly through that area.

It would also be great to get a 5-stack interchange at I-40/I-44 but its doubtful it will ever happen. As far as additional highways, eventually I-240 and/or Airport Rd may need to be connected to the Kilpatrick Turnpike, but I think OKC is still a ways off from that need becoming pressing. I think I-35 should really be at ten lanes with one HOV lane each direction from Norman to I-40 uniterrupted.

The I-235/I-44 interchange. This needs to be a 4-level stack and I-235 needs to be widened to at least six lanes between I-44 and 36th St. One of the biggest traffic bottlenecks in the metro is this interchange.

Why stop at 4? I say go to 8. :rolleyes:


The I-240/I-35 interchange - This interchange is an embarassment. It should be at least a 4-level stack. There has been talk of redoing that interchange for decades yet it doesn't seem to be anywhere closer to being rebuilt than it was in 1994.

Yes it should be redone, but ODOT has a funding issue and that's why we are still a few years off from it starting.


I-44/Airport Rd - Not sure why but there is always a traffic bottleneck there. Something needs to be done to keep traffic flowing more smoothly through that area.

Did you bother to read my post? I already said why there is. The exit/entrance on the Westbound lanes of 44 at 59th is the issue.


It would also be great to get a 5-stack interchange at I-40/I-44 but its doubtful it will ever happen. As far as additional highways, eventually I-240 and/or Airport Rd may need to be connected to the Kilpatrick Turnpike, but I think OKC is still a ways off from that need becoming pressing. I think I-35 should really be at ten lanes with one HOV lane each direction from Norman to I-40 uniterrupted.

Why does 35 need to 10 lanes from Norman to I-40? Rush hour really isn't that bad unless someone is stupid and wrecks. Norman specifically goes pretty smoothly. There...is...no...need.

240 to the Kilpatrick? I think you missed the big ol' airport that's in the way of that.

Airport Rd would be extended at Interstate standards, signed I-240, and connect into the Kilpatrick. That isn't a priority though and won't be needed for a while but its something that should be on the backburner.

To the Original Point (with minimal detours and closures, and within a timely manner):
Would asphalt, concrete, cobblestones or yellow bricks provide the best road?
In the name of those inconvenienced by whatever choice is made.
I am convinced that yellow bricks probably work best.
In general.

Airport Rd would be extended at Interstate standards, signed I-240, and connect into the Kilpatrick. That isn't a priority though and won't be needed for a while but its something that should be on the backburner.

Or should just burn away on the backburner. :-P

Venture, it is a regular traffic jam on I35 to Norman virtually every day. It is not going to get better.

I stand by my original comments also.

Venture, it is a regular traffic jam on I35 to Norman virtually every day. It is not going to get better.

I stand by my original comments also.

And adding lanes won't make it better either... induced demand and all that jazz.

Plus, where they heck would we get the funding for all of this proposed expansion? Why are so many people so divorced from the reality of government spending? Many Oklahomans abhor extraneous government funding, and yet they clamor for more expensive roads and other items that have horrible cost-recovery methods; plus they cry out that the toll roads have "paid for themselves" and we no longer need tolls. If the government is going to spend my money, I'd rather it be on items that provide a better return on investment and are used appropriately - not building highways lanes at incredible cost only to be used fully for 30-60 minutes each day.

And adding lanes won't make it better either... induced demand and all that jazz.

Plus, where they heck would we get the funding for all of this proposed expansion? Why are so many people so divorced from the reality of government spending? Many Oklahomans abhor extraneous government funding, and yet they clamor for more expensive roads and other items that have horrible cost-recovery methods; plus they cry out that the toll roads have "paid for themselves" and we no longer need tolls. If the government is going to spend my money, I'd rather it be on items that provide a better return on investment and are used appropriately - not building highways lanes at incredible cost only to be used fully for 30-60 minutes each day.

Eventually the expansion will be necissary. It's not like 100% of millennials are choosing to live in the urban core. The suburbs are still growing and will grow for thee foreseeable future. I think the interchanges I mentioned need to be the first priority, but down the road I-35 will need widened.

Venture, it is a regular traffic jam on I35 to Norman virtually every day. It is not going to get better.

I stand by my original comments also.

Then actually take the time to look at where the choke points are and the root causes for them. Just slapping on two more lanes each way isn't going to fix anything if it is the way an exit is setup that causes the issue for 60 minutes a day.

You can stand by them all you want, but that doesn't mean they have the substance or support to actually be worth anything.


Eventually the expansion will be necissary. It's not like 100% of millennials are choosing to live in the urban core. The suburbs are still growing and will grow for thee foreseeable future. I think the interchanges I mentioned need to be the first priority, but down the road I-35 will need widened.

When do we stop widening everything? You can add more lanes, but doesn't mean it'll fix the problem.

And adding lanes won't make it better either... induced demand and all that jazz.

Plus, where they heck would we get the funding for all of this proposed expansion? Why are so many people so divorced from the reality of government spending? Many Oklahomans abhor extraneous government funding, and yet they clamor for more expensive roads and other items that have horrible cost-recovery methods; plus they cry out that the toll roads have "paid for themselves" and we no longer need tolls. If the government is going to spend my money, I'd rather it be on items that provide a better return on investment and are used appropriately - not building highways lanes at incredible cost only to be used fully for 30-60 minutes each day.

In my time in OKC I definitely noticed that people tend to have warped views on what really constitutes "congestion." IMO because there are so many people here from small towns in OK or surrounding states, or they've never lived anywhere else besides OKC and probably remember a time when there far fewer people here. I remember someone in my old office from Yukon complaining that he could only go 55 mph on 40 inbound into OKC. Frankly, I can drive on sections of I-40 just west of DT where it is 10 lanes and it is practically empty after 6:30. And yes, its oftentimes the ones screaming the loudest about socialism and government waste that are the first ones to clamor for 12 lane behemoths because they made the choice to live so far out.

As far as 35 needing to be 10 lanes in Norman...that's just laughable. The latest AADT map out in 2011 shows a 98k cars/day at 35 and Indian Hills, and it drops off pretty substantially south of there. In comparison, Central Expressway here in Dallas, which is 10 lanes, routinely sees 300k/day.

As far as 35 needing to be 10 lanes in Norman...that's just laughable. The latest AADT map out in 2011 shows a 98k cars/day at 35 and Indian Hills, and it drops off pretty substantially south of there. In comparison, Central Expressway here in Dallas, which is 10 lanes, routinely sees 300k/day.

Amen brother.

I recently moved to Dallas a few months ago for a job. Before we moved here, my wife generally just kind of brushed off my urbanism comments about everything ;) ....but now she's a total urbanist because she sees what a total and absolute disaster car culture can place upon cities like Dallas/Fort Worth. She absolutely dreads the highway system because it's so large, overgrown, and unsafe. They actually post on those electronic billboards how many people have died on Texas highways in 2014.

So in a way, living here has been a total win for me since my wife is now a total urbanist and wants a walkable community where she doesn't have to get in a car to do everything. :)

Well to be fair, a lot of OKC traffic problems are created by driving habits rather than the roads themselves. And yes, I agree that I-35 is wide enough for now. The suburbs aren't going away though and eventually it could need widened.

I35 is fine. They problem is the interchanges. Redesign those to be more efficient and traffic will flow smoother.

The 235/40 interchange gets a little tricky if you are north of it heading south because there is only one lane going all the way through and there should be at least two. If you are going south on 235, the left lane goes east on to I-40, the right lane goes west on to I-40, the left lane goes all the way through and the right lane eventually turns in to an exit only lane for SE 15th street. Obviously the 240-35 interchange is a big issue but if they could have those two going all the way through, I think that would help with congestion as a bunch of people at once wouldn't have to change lanes.

Traffic here is nothing. I lived in DC for 3 years. That traffic is bad.

As far as expanding the interstate -- if we do that we just contribute to the problem. Understand that we're subsidizing suburbia when we do it. We widen lanes and more people move further out. Your commute time doesn't change, because you now live 20 miles further away. One big advantage of urban living is that you get to avoid that commute. You can't say "oh look how many people want to live in the suburbs instead of downtown" when you give huge government subsidies to negate the downside of suburban living.

I think people need to realize that no one has a right to a short commute. You can not live 20 miles from your place of work and expect a 20 minute commute. And asking the tax payers to spend billions of dollars more on highways because they get annoyed when they have to slow down on their way home from work at 5:15 is completely irrational and selfish. I can't think of a bigger waste of money, especially because it NEVER solves the problem, or at least not to the degree people seem to think it should (and around here that apparently means never going below the speed limit for 20 miles at the busiest time of day). Honestly, it's hard for me to even understand the mentality that is the basis for this kind of reasoning.

Hey, I think the commutes should be safe and reasonable, and that probably does mean addressing some of the really dangerous interchanges we have. But billions of dollars because people who chose to live far from where they work are inconvenienced for a few minutes at the busiest time of day? Wow, talk about an entitlement program.

IMO, the only real necessities are to bring HWY 9 up to near interstate standards and make 235 from 40 to 44 6 or 8 lanes. Do something about the rail road tracks sheesh. It would have been nice if there weren't so many left side exits also but that can be overlooked. Overall, the road conditions of the highways are pretty good.

IMO, the only real necessities are to bring HWY 9 up to near interstate standards and make 235 from 40 to 44 6 or 8 lanes. Do something about the rail road tracks sheesh. It would have been nice if there weren't so many left side exits also but that can be overlooked. Overall, the road conditions of the highways are pretty good.

No reason to increase Hwy 9 to interstate standards. The plans are to eventually widen to 6 lanes at some point, but well after the current expansion from 77 east to Pott County.

People keep spouting to add lanes when the congestion issues are choke points on the route that will continue to cause congestion regardless of how many lanes are added. If you want to fix Highway 9, then they should be putting in an overpass at 24th SW right before the 35 interchange. That light probably causes the most problems on the entire stretch. Even with typical rush hour congestion, I can still get from 24th SW to 24th SE in about 5-10 minutes. That's really not that bad.

so the majority of you people just want to spew crap like "you're just helping suburbia" "traffic in DC is bad" "there is no substance behind what you stand by" ....

alright... we'll see in 10 years where that gets us

so the majority of you people just want to spew crap like "you're just helping suburbia" "traffic in DC is bad" "there is no substance behind what you stand by" ....

alright... we'll see in 10 years where that gets us

You just can't keep expanding and expanding and expanding highways, man. Do you cure being fat by loosening your belt? No, you have to change something besides your belt size or pant size.

"Finally, and most essentially: The main problem with traffic studies is that they almost never consider the phenomenon of induced demand. Induced demand is the name for what happens when increasing the supply of roadways lowers the time cost of driving, causing more people to drive, and obliterating any reductions in congestion. We talked about this phenomenon at length in Suburban Nation twelve years ago, and the seminal text, The Elephant in the Bedroom: Automobile Dependency and Denial, was published by Hart and Spivak seven years prior. For this reason, I will not take the time here to address its causes, which are multifold and fascinating. Since these books were published, however, there have been additional reports, all essentially confirming what we knew then. In 2004, a meta-analysis of dozens of previous studies found that “on average, a 10 percent increase in lane miles induces an immediate 4 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled, which climbs to 10 percent—the entire new capacity—in a few years.”

The most comprehensive effort remains the one completed in 1998 by the Surface Transportation Policy Project, which looked at fully 70 different metropolitan areas over 15 years. This study, which based its findings on data from the annual reports of the conservative Texas Transportation Institute, concluded as follows:

Metro areas that invested heavily in road capacity expansion fared no better in easing congestion than metro areas that did not. Trends in congestion show that areas that exhibited greater growth in lane capacity spent roughly $22 billion more on road construction than those that didn’t, yet ended up with slightly higher congestion costs per person, wasted fuel, and travel delay. The metro area with the highest estimated road building cost was Nashville, Tennessee with a price tag of $3,243 per family per year."

No reason to increase Hwy 9 to interstate standards. The plans are to eventually widen to 6 lanes at some point, but well after the current expansion from 77 east to Pott County.

People keep spouting to add lanes when the congestion issues are choke points on the route that will continue to cause congestion regardless of how many lanes are added. If you want to fix Highway 9, then they should be putting in an overpass at 24th SW right before the 35 interchange. That light probably causes the most problems on the entire stretch. Even with typical rush hour congestion, I can still get from 24th SW to 24th SE in about 5-10 minutes. That's really not that bad.

I disagree. Norman is in need for a quick way to get to East Norman from i-35. Other states like Texas would have upgraded HWY 9 to close to interstate standards years ago. When I lived in East Norman, it would easily take 10 minutes + to get to 35. You would just pray that all those lights would stay green but I think it only happened 1/30 times. During rush hour, it took even longer. Forget football and basketball games! 4 miles in 10-15 minutes doesn't seem very efficient. With the Research and Tech OU campus, retail and residential continuing to expand, transportation needs to expand with it. HWY 9 needs exits, entrances, and overpasses.

I no longer live in East Norman so I don't have to deal with that anymore thankfully.

PP, where are the biggest issues with 235/77/35? I have driven that more times than I can count in 5:00 traffic and I think it is the 235/44/77 interchange, 40/235/35 interchange and 240/35 interchange. Would you agree with that?

I disagree. Norman is in need for a quick way to get to East Norman from i-35. Other states like Texas would have upgraded HWY 9 to close to interstate standards years ago. When I lived in East Norman, it would easily take 10 minutes + to get to 35. You would just pray that all those lights would stay green but I think it only happened 1/30 times. During rush hour, it took even longer. Forget football and basketball games! 4 miles in 10-15 minutes doesn't seem very efficient. With the Research and Tech OU campus, retail and residential continuing to expand, transportation needs to expand with it. HWY 9 needs exits, entrances, and overpasses.

I no longer live in East Norman so I don't have to deal with that anymore thankfully.

Well...I do live in East Norman and take Highway 9 every day. Driving it so much it is obvious where the issues are. Upgrading the 24th SW and Hwy 9 intersection would make significant strides in reducing congestion. Sure there are other intersections that can be improved by upgrading to an overpass, but not nearly as significant as the one I already mentioned.

Well...I do live in East Norman and take Highway 9 every day. Driving it so much it is obvious where the issues are. Upgrading the 24th SW and Hwy 9 intersection would make significant strides in reducing congestion. Sure there are other intersections that can be improved by upgrading to an overpass, but not nearly as significant as the one I already mentioned.

I was perplexed why they didn't redo this intersection when they started with the HWY9/I35 interchange redo. HWY9 needs an overpass over 24th SW right there and 24th SW should only be able to access HWY9 EB at that point and be accessed from HWY9 EB. It's just more ODOT nonsense that this single light causes such backups.

PP, where are the biggest issues with 235/77/35? I have driven that more times than I can count in 5:00 traffic and I think it is the 235/44/77 interchange, 40/235/35 interchange and 240/35 interchange. Would you agree with that?Nearly the entire highway starting from I-40 going southbound comes to a 10-15 mph screech. It starts to get better after 19th St. Exit in Moore from what I've noticed.

I do agree that fixing this interchange would do wonders.

You just can't keep expanding and expanding and expanding highways, man. Do you cure being fat by loosening your belt? No, you have to change something besides your belt size or pant size.

"Finally, and most essentially: The main problem with traffic studies is that they almost never consider the phenomenon of induced demand. Induced demand is the name for what happens when increasing the supply of roadways lowers the time cost of driving, causing more people to drive, and obliterating any reductions in congestion. We talked about this phenomenon at length in Suburban Nation twelve years ago, and the seminal text, The Elephant in the Bedroom: Automobile Dependency and Denial, was published by Hart and Spivak seven years prior. For this reason, I will not take the time here to address its causes, which are multifold and fascinating. Since these books were published, however, there have been additional reports, all essentially confirming what we knew then. In 2004, a meta-analysis of dozens of previous studies found that “on average, a 10 percent increase in lane miles induces an immediate 4 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled, which climbs to 10 percent—the entire new capacity—in a few years.”

The most comprehensive effort remains the one completed in 1998 by the Surface Transportation Policy Project, which looked at fully 70 different metropolitan areas over 15 years. This study, which based its findings on data from the annual reports of the conservative Texas Transportation Institute, concluded as follows:

Metro areas that invested heavily in road capacity expansion fared no better in easing congestion than metro areas that did not. Trends in congestion show that areas that exhibited greater growth in lane capacity spent roughly $22 billion more on road construction than those that didn’t, yet ended up with slightly higher congestion costs per person, wasted fuel, and travel delay. The metro area with the highest estimated road building cost was Nashville, Tennessee with a price tag of $3,243 per family per year."If don't build new highways, you don't see new suburban growth. Something I know a lot of people don't care for on here. I do advocate for it.

As for induced demand, why isn't Kilpatrick Turnpike backed up now? What about I-40 Crosstown? It doesn't fill up with cars except at the I44 interchange.

Nearly the entire highway starting from I-40 going southbound comes to a 10-15 mph screech. It starts to get better after 19th St. Exit in Moore from what I've noticed.

I do agree that fixing this interchange would do wonders.

Right around the Shields exit southbound is where I have noticed it gets better and then it is smoth sailing going south unless you have a wreck or something.

I honestly think reconfiguring the interchanges and changing the laws where people cannot text and drive and if they do, they get pulled over and fined would be better than any amount of widening. You can have 10 lanes on either side but if it narrows to two lanes in three places and every other idiot on the road is texting while driving, it won't clear up traffic.

What would also help is if people wouldn't drive slow in the middle or left lanes, if people learned how to yield to get on the highways and if people didn't yield to the people getting on the highways by either slowing down or getting in the other lane of traffic. So often I see people driving below the speed limit in all three lanes of traffic holding up the people behind them, or people having to get around slow people traveling in the middle lane. I don't know what happened in the last 15-20 years but it seems like everyone driving slow including OTR truckers are using the middle lane instead of the right lane.

Here is an update on current projects with one being expedited.

Traffic disruptions ahead for Broadway Extension, I-235 in Oklahoma City | News OK (http://newsok.com/traffic-disruptions-ahead-for-broadway-extension-i-235-in-oklahoma-city/article/5340117)


Motorists on the Broadway Extension can expect renewed traffic disruptions beginning this spring as the state Transportation Department has moved up the starting date for the next phase of widening Interstate 235 to accommodate increased traffic.
Bids will go out in January on a project to widen I-235 from NW 36 to just north of NW 50 in Oklahoma City, transportation officials said Monday.

Here is an update on current projects with one being expedited.

Traffic disruptions ahead for Broadway Extension, I-235 in Oklahoma City | News OK (http://newsok.com/traffic-disruptions-ahead-for-broadway-extension-i-235-in-oklahoma-city/article/5340117)

Finally. Even back in the '90s I wondered why that area of I-235 was only four lanes. It's about time they widen it.