What ever happened to finishing the turnpike loop from the mustang area to moore/norman? and is their any plans for future highways or tolls etc for the okc metro. I hope that something is planned soon.

Are you trolling?

Last I heard, the SW loop, while not completely scuttled, is on the backburner by OTA, who would rather focus on keeping up its current stock of roads.

There is no reserved ROW for any new highway and development has progressed willy-nilly in the SW quandrant of the city. In fact, there is a rather large neighborhood at the current southern end of the JKT that would have to be completely bought out for any new expansion.

It seems that upgrades to OK 4 and OK 152 would be enough to manage traffic flow for the foreseeable future.

Are you trolling?

how is what I am asking "TROLLING"

a sw loop and an inner NE loop would both be very helpful

Helpful for what?

a inner NE loop would spur millions of dollars of development in the near in east side of the OKC metro .. a highway from say I40/I240 north to were I44 meets I 35

I disagree that a NE "loop" would spur development. Most of it is in the OKC school district, so you won't be seeing a lot of residential growth. It would be extremely remote for any kind of office use. Conceivably, I suppose it could support industrial development, but there are already better positioned corridors to the west and south. Also I don't think the traffic is there to support it.

The metro area does not need more highways, but if there were to be one, the only barely logical thing would be to extend Lake Hefner parkway north for a few miles.

I disagree that a NE "loop" would spur development. Most of it is in the OKC school district, so you won't be seeing a lot of residential growth. It would be extremely remote for any kind of office use. Conceivably, I suppose it could support industrial development, but there are already better positioned corridors to the west and south. Also I don't think the traffic is there to support it.

The metro area does not need more highways, but if there were to be one, the only barely logical thing would be to extend Lake Hefner parkway north for a few miles.

I could not agree more. The traffic lights on a 70MPH road is not smart. That area is growing rapidly and to extend the freeway is just common sense...but there is not too much of that in the ODOT office.

If you extend it, you make development even easier further out. At what point do you stop the sprawl?

how is what I am asking "TROLLING"

It isn't really, but I think cafeboeuf is assuming you knew in advance some of the negative responses you will eventually generate from a significant segment of this community that will have nothing to do with actually answering your question. I'll give you some examples here in advance.

1. "We don't need any more highways. They help foster evil 'urban sprawl'."
2 "We need 'light rail'. Trains and Streetcars are the answer...not freeways!"
3. "I'm glad the SW Loop is on the backburner. All we'll get from it is 'bad growth' and more 'cookie cutter' housing additions."
4. "Suburban highways do not help or contribute to the 'urban core.'
5. "Get ready for more 'cheesy' strip centers and big box retailers."
6. "Oklahoma City is already too spread out. Everyone should live in or near Downtown/Midtown."
7. "That's just what we need...another multi-laned expressway." :rolleyes:

I could go on, but I think you'll get the point.

Well put. :)

I would be all for a freeway loop around OKC provided one thing - it didn't have any exit ramps and would just be a route to funnel thru-traffic around the city (kind of like 840 around Nashville or the M-system in the UK).

Well put. :) Thank you! :wink:

You should get an award or something. But since you're not an urbanist, no one will put you in for one. Bummer.

;)

Well that's ok I guess. I appreciate you pseudo-nomination though!! I hope I covered most of the bases. Now...can we all keep our focus on the Mystery Tower thread instead of getting sidetracked here?? :D

It isn't really, but I think cafeboeuf is assuming you knew in advance some of the negative responses you will eventually generate from a significant segment of this community that will have nothing to do with actually answering your question. I'll give you some examples here in advance.

1. "We don't need any more highways. They help foster evil 'urban sprawl'."
2 "We need 'light rail'. Trains and Streetcars are the answer...not freeways!"
3. "I'm glad the SW Loop is on the backburner. All we'll get from it is 'bad growth' and more cookie cutter housing additions."
4. "Suburban highways do not help or contribute to the 'urban core.'
5. "Get ready for more cheesy strip centers and big box retailers."
6. "Oklahoma City is already too spread out. Everyone should live in or near Downtown/Midtown."
7. "That's just what we need...another multi-laned expressway." :rolleyes:

I could go on, but I think you'll get the point.

Who are YOU to tell people where to live?? ...LOL We can live where we want, our government hasn't taken that away from us yet.

I like light rail, but it is not for everybody....I guess you are going to demand that we take light rail VS freeways? Don't go telling people what to do (outside legal limits), not a good idea.

If you extend it, you make development even easier further out. At what point do you stop the sprawl?

Until we don't need it anymore.

Who are YOU to tell people where to live?? ...LOL We can live where we want, our government hasn't taken that away from us yet.

Well maybe they should take that issue up and try and force everyone to live where they want us to live. I trust they know what's best for us.


I like light rail, but it is not for everybody....I guess you are going to demand that we take light rail VS freeways? Don't go telling people what to do (outside legal limits), not a good idea.

So I guess you have a problem being dumped off at some train station and walking perhaps a mile or two to your eventual destination? We could all use the exercise, right? Or taking a bus or cab from there? What do you have against buses and cab drivers? I guess you think we should just be able to have the freedom to use an automobile to drive from Point A to Point B whenever we want. That's so outrageous!

Well maybe they should take that issue up and try and force everyone to live where they want us to live. I trust they know what's best for us.

What????



So I guess you have a problem being dumped off at some train station and walking perhaps a mile or two to your eventual destination? We could all use the exercise, right? Or taking a bus or cab from there? What do you have against buses and cab drivers? I guess you think we should just be able to have the freedom to use an automobile to drive from Point A to Point B whenever we want. That's so outrageous!

Of course I do. That is not outrageous at all, if I want to drive 500 feet to get a gallon of milk, I should be able to do so because that is my choice. I walk....a lot because I choose to and it is good for me, but I am not going to force a person to do that if they don't want to even though it is best for them, are you kidding me? I ride my bike, I work out almost every day, I have nothing against busses or cab drivers. What I have a problem with is people who think they know what is best for me, telling me what I should do. The law will dictate that for me....don't run a red light, that is not good for you or somebody else. But as of right now, there is no law against me living 50 miles from downtown.

I would be all for a freeway loop around OKC provided one thing - it didn't have any exit ramps and would just be a route to funnel thru-traffic around the city (kind of like 840 around Nashville or the M-system in the UK).

M system has lots of exits and extends inside the loop in several places. However, none go completely through. You have to take the ring around to the next M and take it or another artery into the center. Doesn't stop cars into London though....still lots of traffic.

The M-system in the UK went through various stages. The original system was rural only. Then, like America, they started building urban freeways but a UK study in the 90s ('94 I believe) showed that traffic on urban freeways grew faster than they could build the capacity. They concluded the more they built the worse traffic got so they stopped building them. They instead started investing that money back into the rail systems which had been neglected for decades.

If anyone is having trouble sleeping here the 1994 report.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120830120423/http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/trunk-roads-and-the-generation-of-traffic/trunk-roads-traffic-report.pdf

After spending the week in the suburbs of Houston they definitely didn't get that memo.

Who are YOU to tell people where to live?? ...LOL We can live where we want, our government hasn't taken that away from us yet.

I like light rail, but it is not for everybody....I guess you are going to demand that we take light rail VS freeways? Don't go telling people what to do (outside legal limits), not a good idea.

Someone's got their tea party panties in a wad...

Who are YOU to tell people where to live?? ...LOL We can live where we want, our government hasn't taken that away from us yet.

I like light rail, but it is not for everybody....I guess you are going to demand that we take light rail VS freeways? Don't go telling people what to do (outside legal limits), not a good idea.

No, but why should the government build an expressway to your front door?

Why should I pay for you to have an expressway to you front door.

If you want to live somewhere, you should pay the full cost to live out there, instead of a government subsidy to do it.

It isn't really, but I think cafeboeuf is assuming you knew in advance some of the negative responses you will eventually generate from a significant segment of this community that will have nothing to do with actually answering your question. I'll give you some examples here in advance.

1. "We don't need any more highways. They help foster evil 'urban sprawl'."
2 "We need 'light rail'. Trains and Streetcars are the answer...not freeways!"
3. "I'm glad the SW Loop is on the backburner. All we'll get from it is 'bad growth' and more 'cookie cutter' housing additions."
4. "Suburban highways do not help or contribute to the 'urban core.'
5. "Get ready for more 'cheesy' strip centers and big box retailers."
6. "Oklahoma City is already too spread out. Everyone should live in or near Downtown/Midtown."
7. "That's just what we need...another multi-laned expressway." :rolleyes:

I could go on, but I think you'll get the point.You nailed it lol

No, but why should the government build an expressway to your front door? Because if that's what the people want, that should have say, idk lol. I don't think anyone is saying it should go to your front door.


Why should I pay for you to have an expressway to you front door.Same reason, others have to pay for various MAPS projects and eventually a light-rail.


If you want to live somewhere, you should pay the full cost to live out there, instead of a government subsidy to do it.Ahhhhhhhhh, I think there should be a slight increase in taxes but that's it. The government should pay for the majority of it, but I do agree with you to an extent.

Because if that's what the people want, that should have say, idk lol. I don't think anyone is saying it should go to your front door.

The issue is, by extending the highway north into the countryside 3 more miles and returning it to city streets...you make it easier for development to build along the quick access to the 3 miles of new highways and leaving the remaining empty fields undeveloped. 10 years from now, someone will want it to move an additional 3 miles into the country, so on and so forth. If we develop every single reasonable parcel in the city and want to expand the infrastructure for new development - cool. But I'm 100% opposed to building more highways and encouraging more sprawl when we have thousands of acres of undeveloped land in the middle of the city. Why should we spend more money to build along the countryside when we have plenty of development opportunities utilizing existing infrstructure?


Same reason, others have to pay for various MAPS projects and eventually a light-rail.

Those were voted on as an additional tax by the citizens of OKC paid for by the citizens of OKC or anyone who pays a sales tax to OKC.


Ahhhhhhhhh, I think there should be a slight increase in taxes but that's it. The government should pay for the majority of it, but I do agree with you to an extent.

So where will the $200,000,000.00 come from to build the highway a couple of miles north? Who's going to pay for it? Who's going to get the most benefit out of it? 20,000 people at most?

For reference here is an aerial image about 8 months ago....

Lots of development.......

http://gyazo.com/f9a61ef574cae62b5e33567797b05935.png?1366243744

The issue is, by extending the highway north into the countryside 3 more miles and returning it to city streets...you make it easier for development to build along the quick access to the 3 miles of new highways and leaving the remaining empty fields undeveloped. 10 years from now, someone will want it to move an additional 3 miles into the country, so on and so forth. If we develop every single reasonable parcel in the city and want to expand the infrastructure for new development - cool. But I'm 100% opposed to building more highways and encouraging more sprawl when we have thousands of acres of undeveloped land in the middle of the city. Why should we spend more money to build along the countryside when we have plenty of development opportunities utilizing existing infrstructure?
Isn't that how cities grow? More so suburban cities. . . Those fields will eventually fill in. I wouldn't see a problem with extending Hefner parkway out a little more and eventually looping it around Edmond. I agree we should be smart about this, no doubt. For the most part, I think OKC is good on highway expansion for the next 10 years. Maybe 2-3 loops might be alright. I don't think this would be horrible sprawl though. Now, if OKC built a huge highway out to Stillwater and looped it around Guthrie or built a super highway around Jones and out to nowhere, I could definitely see how that would be a bad idea. But this is an area that us poised for big time development, am I not correct?


Those were voted on as an additional tax by the citizens of OKC paid for by the citizens of OKC or anyone who pays a sales tax to OKC.I'm sure any new highway would have to be voted on as well.


So where will the $200,000,000.00 come from to build the highway a couple of miles north? Who's going to pay for it? Who's going to get the most benefit out of it? 20,000 people at most?Well the same place the money from building the 700,000,000 dollar highway came from? I think as this area expands, there will be more people to use and a bigger tax base for OKC esp. I understand what you're saying, at what point does it stop. I completely understand and a line has to be drawn somewhere so, when I say this highway will be good idea, I speak really out of my ass at this point. I don't know ALL the facts about this, but I believe it would be good for the people of that area and would spur further development and I think these other parcels of land will develop rather quickly as these areas explode and esp. with all the positive economic news that has taken over OKC lately.

Isn't that how cities grow? More so suburban cities. . . Those fields will eventually fill in. I wouldn't see a problem with extending Hefner parkway out a little more and eventually looping it around Edmond. I agree we should be smart about this, no doubt. For the most part, I think OKC is good on highway expansion for the next 10 years. Maybe 2-3 loops might be alright. I don't think this would be horrible sprawl though. Now, if OKC built a huge highway out to Stillwater and looped it around Guthrie or built a super highway around Jones and out to nowhere, I could definitely see how that would be a bad idea. But this is an area that us poised for big time development, am I not correct?

Developers will pick the low hanging fruit. If we make more low hanging fruit, the medium and higher hanging fruit will never be developed. They'll clog up the highway with development on 1-2 miles each side of the new interstate and leave the rest undeveloped. Here are a few regions with existing interstate and state highway access that are nearly undeveloped. The city could provide one time incentives towards development here, instead of continuing unneeded sprawl:

http://gyazo.com/d3cda3e3ab6ec75db44917f18d2626a9.png?1366245683
http://gyazo.com/71b2f1f907ae3cca7308494d01ba0d20.png?1366245935

The city needs to grow smartly, not just grow for the sake of growth.


I'm sure any new highway would have to be voted on as well.



Well the same place the money from building the 700,000,000 dollar highway came from? I think as this area expands, there will be more people to use and a bigger tax base for OKC esp. I understand what you're saying, at what point does it stop. I completely understand and a line has to be drawn somewhere so, when I say this highway will be good idea, I speak really out of my ass at this point. I don't know ALL the facts about this, but I believe it would be good for the people of that area and would spur further development and I think these other parcels of land will develop rather quickly as these areas explode and esp. with all the positive economic news that has taken over OKC lately.

Where we got a billion dollars from to build the new I-40? You can thank the Federal Government for that. Oklahoma paid very little in comparison for that. The place we got that money is bankrupt, and 50 other states are all lobbying for the same money.

They concluded the more they built the worse traffic got so they stopped building them. They instead started investing that money back into the rail systems which had been neglected for decades.

After spending the week in the suburbs of Houston they definitely didn't get that memo.

You have to wonder about the intellectual capacity of people who keep applying a solution that results in making the problem worse.

Maybe I can find the youtube video of the Houston radio DJ complaining about traffic and how much it cost him to drive, and then thanks the City Councilman that got the funding to build the freeway he was just complaining about. And the Councilman's solution to all the problems caused by Houston's freeways - build more freeways. It's priceless.

Found it.

MNgKfpn83A0

I drew this a while back, something like this? An inner and outer loop:
3650

a sw loop and an inner NE loop would both be very helpful

For what, inducing more sprawl as if we needed it?

I think we are good on highways. But I don't understand this obsession where we have to develop every inch of unused land within 10 miles of downtown. The road projects are happening where the people are and where infrastructure is built. Thats why ne okc will never be much in terms of dense/urban. An example of this is if you drive to houston on 45 right after you pass downtown dallas is gets very unurban very quickly with large pockets of undeveloped areas. I would bet most dallas folks could care less there isnt much going on down there. Every city has sprawl. How you manage and contain it is another story. This is where we have advantage. Learn from others mistakes

Of course I do. That is not outrageous at all, if I want to drive 500 feet to get a gallon of milk, I should be able to do so because that is my choice. I walk....a lot because I choose to and it is good for me, but I am not going to force a person to do that if they don't want to even though it is best for them, are you kidding me? I ride my bike, I work out almost every day, I have nothing against busses or cab drivers. What I have a problem with is people who think they know what is best for me, telling me what I should do. The law will dictate that for me....don't run a red light, that is not good for you or somebody else. But as of right now, there is no law against me living 50 miles from downtown.

I think there should be a law passed that implements a government imposed tax that increases exponentially depending on how many miles a person's home is from a major urban core. We could then use that tax money to fund a wide range of urban transit systems unrelated to the automobile...a vile mechanism of transportation that serves as the primary enabler of the suburbanite. It would be perfect since rail and other public transit systems never seem to pay for themselves on their own without a taxpayer subsidy, but that's just because most people aren't enlightened enough to realize it's really what's best for them.

Think about it...the more people we can penalize and thus force to live close to downtown or midtown would certainly negate the need for all of these highways and loops. The financial burden that would be imposed by such a tax would certainly make people think twice about "choosing" to live in a quiet suburban neighborhood with a huge backyard, three car garage, a great school system, and nice shopping and restaurant options. I mean come on...who really wants or needs that anyway?? If people can't make the right choice on their own to all live in a downtown/urban utopia served by light rail, bike paths, pedestrian walkways, and streetcars...then maybe our government should impose whatever laws they can in order to make it happen.

So not true. So very, very not true. In fact, MOST cities in the world don't have contemporary sprawl. Why? One simple reason -- it isn't subsidized.

I'm just curious can you provide some examples?

I think people look at this the wrong way... Look at Houston. For years people moved further and further out but as the city grew people and the drive from the Woodlands took 75 minutes if there was a minor traffic incident people began to move back into Houston. Old homes were remodeled or redeveloped and high density projects were built inside the loop. Now some of the most expensive property is in the heart of the city. Of course it was easy to infill because Houston doesn't have zoning but the same thing happens in multiple major cities. It's simple economics. If there is easy access to more space people will move away from the downtown core but when a city hits critical mass people with good paying jobs quickly move into the heart of the city. We don't have mountains or an ocean so people will move away from the city core. If OKC maintains a strong economy in 25 years south of downtown and NE OKC just past the OU HSC will be prime real estate and people with low incomes will be pushed out past Spencer, Choctaw and into places like Newcastle and Blanchard. Building highways will spur current growth and eventually it will encourage core density for OKC.

Sorry. In the USA

I could not agree more. The traffic lights on a 70MPH road is not smart. That area is growing rapidly and to extend the freeway is just common sense...but there is not too much of that in the ODOT office.

First off, Dr. Pepper, Hefner Parkway/Hwy 74 is a 65mph highway that transitions into a two lane 55mph road. Second off, it is going to eventually be widened--like it is between Waterloo and Covell--just north of Hefner Parkway, all the way up to Covell so then you can presume to drive on it at your regularly advisable speed of 70mph.

I drew this a while back, something like this? An inner and outer loop:
3650

This definitely would be a good idea if the OKC metro had twice its population. That reminds me of Houston with the 610 freeway and then the Beltway 8.

I think OKC has enough freeways for the most part. It would be nice however to connect the Kilpatrick Turpike with Highway 9 in Norman. Much of the route is already at Interstate grade so it wouldn't take much to connect them. Maybe then give it an Interstate designation like 640 or something.

The East metro is too sparsely populated and will always be for a new freeway to be viable.

If OKC maintains a strong economy in 25 years south of downtown and NE OKC just past the OU HSC will be prime real estate and people with low incomes will be pushed out past Spencer, Choctaw and into places like Newcastle and Blanchard. Building highways will spur current growth and eventually it will encourage core density for OKC.

While I see your point, this is absolutely horrific logic. To lose weight, would you eat until your are obese and on the verge of a heart attack, so your doctor can force you to be on a diet? Seems rather silly.

But in any event, what you've described is already happening here to a smaller extent. Look at the price per square foot in any somewhat gentrified neighborhood compared to a neighborhood in the suburbs. Heck, just ask people trying to buy houses in Gatewood, Heritage Hills, etc. and getting into bidding wars.

Developers will pick the low hanging fruit. If we make more low hanging fruit, the medium and higher hanging fruit will never be developed. They'll clog up the highway with development on 1-2 miles each side of the new interstate and leave the rest undeveloped. Here are a few regions with existing interstate and state highway access that are nearly undeveloped. The city could provide one time incentives towards development here, instead of continuing unneeded sprawl:

http://gyazo.com/d3cda3e3ab6ec75db44917f18d2626a9.png?1366245683
http://gyazo.com/71b2f1f907ae3cca7308494d01ba0d20.png?1366245935

The city needs to grow smartly, not just grow for the sake of growth.



The reason those areas are undeveloped and will never be is because they are in the OKC school district. OKC is very fortunate to have Putnam City schools within its city limits. Without them, OKC would look like Little Rock, Tulsa, Memphis, etc in that only the very poor, extremely wealthy, or young professionals would live within the city proper, with middle class families concentrated in the suburbs.

I drew this a while back, something like this? An inner and outer loop:
3650That would be nice.

I think people look at this the wrong way... Look at Houston. For years people moved further and further out but as the city grew people and the drive from the Woodlands took 75 minutes if there was a minor traffic incident people began to move back into Houston. Old homes were remodeled or redeveloped and high density projects were built inside the loop. Now some of the most expensive property is in the heart of the city. Of course it was easy to infill because Houston doesn't have zoning but the same thing happens in multiple major cities. It's simple economics. If there is easy access to more space people will move away from the downtown core but when a city hits critical mass people with good paying jobs quickly move into the heart of the city. We don't have mountains or an ocean so people will move away from the city core. If OKC maintains a strong economy in 25 years south of downtown and NE OKC just past the OU HSC will be prime real estate and people with low incomes will be pushed out past Spencer, Choctaw and into places like Newcastle and Blanchard. Building highways will spur current growth and eventually it will encourage core density for OKC.+1

There is so much ignorance in this thread it is heartbreaking.

No one, not even JTF on one of his wildest days, is saying that you can't move into the suburbs. You can live wherever the hell you want to live. This is America. And if you want to live 75 miles outside of the city and drive in every day, more power to you. If you want to get in your car, drive 15 feet to the driveway of the guy across the street, then go ahead.

Some people are acting as if urbanists want to burn the flag, rape your wives, and make everyone take the bus to work. And you're most upset about the bus part.

The fact is that highways are freakishly expensive. We spent nearly a billion dollars rebuilding 4 miles of road with the new Crosstown. We have one of the highest percentages of roads in poor repair in the country. We have twice as many toll road miles (per capita) as the #2 state. We have 3 times the national average in road miles per capita. We rank 25th in highway spending, but only 43rd per mile of road because of the amount of road we have for each person.

Conclusion: Oklahoma has a lot of roads.

We also have a very large amount of empty space within our city limits. As aerial photographs show, there are very large swaths of land within the city that are 1) undeveloped, and 2) right next to an interstate. Your desire of "I wanna build a house umm... over there" does not mean that it's a good friggin' idea for the people of OKC or this state to build a freeway for you.

I have seen two arguments here. 1) Free country, I can live where I want. 2) More roads are great, and will help the city! The first is true. You can move where you want. But I don't have to pay for the wild hair you have up your ass. The second is just pure retarded. We have too many roads as it is. We have difficulty maintaining them. Does public transportation pay for itself? No, but neither does your friggin' highway!

I think we are good on highways. But I don't understand this obsession where we have to develop every inch of unused land within 10 miles of downtown. The road projects are happening where the people are and where infrastructure is built. Thats why ne okc will never be much in terms of dense/urban. An example of this is if you drive to houston on 45 right after you pass downtown dallas is gets very unurban very quickly with large pockets of undeveloped areas. I would bet most dallas folks could care less there isnt much going on down there. Every city has sprawl. How you manage and contain it is another story. This is where we have advantage. Learn from others mistakes

Houston sucks. It is the city planning equivalent of the guy on the street using crack. We don't want to be like them.

I think there should be a law passed that implements a government imposed tax that increases exponentially depending on how many miles a person's home is from a major urban core. We could then use that tax money to fund a wide range of urban transit systems unrelated to the automobile...a vile mechanism of transportation that serves as the primary enabler of the suburbanite. It would be perfect since rail and other public transit systems never seem to pay for themselves on their own without a taxpayer subsidy, but that's just because most people aren't enlightened enough to realize it's really what's best for them.

Think about it...the more people we can penalize and thus force to live close to downtown or midtown would certainly negate the need for all of these highways and loops. The financial burden that would be imposed by such a tax would certainly make people think twice about "choosing" to live in a quiet suburban neighborhood with a huge backyard, three car garage, a great school system, and nice shopping and restaurant options. I mean come on...who really wants or needs that anyway?? If people can't make the right choice on their own to all live in a downtown/urban utopia served by light rail, bike paths, pedestrian walkways, and streetcars...then maybe our government should impose whatever laws they can in order to make it happen.

There is a big difference between us. I want Oklahoma City to be nice place to live. You don't want to live in it. You want it to be an easy place to get to while you live somewhere else.

Some people are acting as if urbanists want to burn the flag, rape your wives, and make everyone take the bus to work. And you're most upset about the bus part.

+1 (it's amazing that, even online, people can get their draws in a wad).

Houston sucks. It is the city planning equivalent of the guy on the street using crack. We don't want to be like them.Who's "we"? I'm saying Houston is perfect, but they're obviously doing something right. Houston, as Pete said and I agree with this, has the problems of L.A. but not as many of the attractions. I don't think Houston is a horrible city and if it is on track of surpassing Chicago in population, then I think that the comparison you made isn't valid. I'm all for OKC having a great urban presence in it's core and that's fine. If the majority of the people want to live in suburban areas then they should. If the majority of the people want to implement a "sprawl tax" or something, than it should happen. The government works for us and works around our wants and needs, that's the way it works. They don't get to decide where people should live and be able to implement massive taxes to make it impossible for people to want to live there. I don't want to live in a concrete jungle, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to live in an area that requires massive highways and subsidiaries and however you want to portray suburban environments as being.

The thing is, I'm want balance, I want a good urban core and I want nice suburban cities and towns, for people like me who want to live there. I think those towns should be fed by a great highway system and I'm not buying in to the induced demand claim. I also, want there to be an extensive light-rail and/or commuter rail as well as a great bus network through the city. So, I think it should be a win-win for everyone. As far as managing finances go, I don't thin Europe is a great model for that, which is what a few seem to imply, my apologies if I got the wrong impression.

Houston is an example of what again?

Texans love to talk about Houston Zoning. Biggest joke and myth of the modern era.

Go ahead, try to build something -- anything, anywhere you like in Houston.

There are tons of regulations related to land use and form.

Sid, I make no pretense of being any kind of developer, but I think there's a great deal more to this than urban myth. Members of my wife's family lived in Houston for many years and the inconsistent use of land (paraphrased) was one of their biggest complaints, how the city was not developed with seemingly any notion of consistency, all going back to weak zoning laws. All I can attest to beyond that is my own observation of the city the times I visited it, and I observed similar things, and even talked about it with people who lived there. Zoning, or its absence, was the complaint. I can't pretend to work out or comprehend the details, but it is what it is. A former employer of mine built a beautiful condo in one area, but (literally) across the street was a slum of two or three lean-to houses. I asked him why those were there amid the "nicer" construction, and the short answer was (paraphrased) to not even get him started about Houston zoning. So while I doubt Houston is absent zoning laws, I can't agree that its an urban myth.

I don't contend that people can build anything anywhere anytime, but I think the reality is if you put the strength of zoning laws on a spectrum from "none at all" on one end to "strangulatingly restrictive" on the other, you'd be a darned sight more likely to find Houston near the former and rather than the latter.

I think there should be a law passed that implements a government imposed tax that increases exponentially depending on how many miles a person's home is from a major urban core.

I think within the next few years we are going to see a national mileage tax. The current gasoline tax only covers half the cost of road maintenance and with increasing fuel efficiency and a growing number of cars not even using gasoline they will have to get the money from someone.

I can envision them removing the gasoline tax and replacing it with a line item on your tax return asking how many miles you drove in the previous year and then you pay a tax on that amount. When your car is sold/traded in/scrapped/switch insurance companies/registered/etc... they will check a national database to ensure your reported mileage matches the actual mileage and if it doesn't you will get hit with a hefty penalty.

At some point I could even see them graduating the tax: 10 cents a mile for the first 10,000 miles, 12 cents for the next 10,000, and 15 cents for every mile after 20,000 miles a year. So if you drive 25,000 miles a year you would owe $2,950 in mileage tax.

there is so much ignorance in this thread it is heartbreaking.

No one, not even jtf on one of his wildest days, is saying that you can't move into the suburbs. You can live wherever the hell you want to live. This is america. And if you want to live 75 miles outside of the city and drive in every day, more power to you. If you want to get in your car, drive 15 feet to the driveway of the guy across the street, then go ahead.

Some people are acting as if urbanists want to burn the flag, rape your wives, and make everyone take the bus to work. And you're most upset about the bus part.

The fact is that highways are freakishly expensive. We spent nearly a billion dollars rebuilding 4 miles of road with the new crosstown. We have one of the highest percentages of roads in poor repair in the country. We have twice as many toll road miles (per capita) as the #2 state. We have 3 times the national average in road miles per capita. We rank 25th in highway spending, but only 43rd per mile of road because of the amount of road we have for each person.

Conclusion: Oklahoma has a lot of roads.

We also have a very large amount of empty space within our city limits. As aerial photographs show, there are very large swaths of land within the city that are 1) undeveloped, and 2) right next to an interstate. Your desire of "i wanna build a house umm... Over there" does not mean that it's a good friggin' idea for the people of okc or this state to build a freeway for you.

I have seen two arguments here. 1) free country, i can live where i want. 2) more roads are great, and will help the city! The first is true. You can move where you want. But i don't have to pay for the wild hair you have up your ass. The second is just pure retarded. We have too many roads as it is. We have difficulty maintaining them. Does public transportation pay for itself? No, but neither does your friggin' highway!

::like::

I think within the next few years we are going to see a national mileage tax. The current gasoline tax only covers half the cost of road maintenance and with increasing fuel efficiency and a growing number of cars not even using gasoline they will have to get the money from someone.

I can envision them removing the gasoline tax and replacing it with a line item on your tax return asking how many miles you drove in the previous year and then you pay a tax on that amount. When your car is sold/traded in/scrapped/switch insurance companies/registered/etc... they will check a national database to ensure your reported mileage matches the actual mileage and if it doesn't you will get hit with a hefty penalty.

At some point I could even see them graduating the tax: 10 cents a mile for the first 10,000 miles, 12 cents for the next 10,000, and 15 cents for every mile after 20,000 miles a year. So if you drive 25,000 miles a year you would owe $2,950 in mileage tax.

no chance ever ..

I think the best way to improve the highway system in OKC metro would be for the bottleneck and safety issues to be resolved. The I-40/I-44 intersection (Amarillo junction) only has two thru lanes in each direction, creating a significant daily bottleneck. While many people exit the freeways to go a different direction, a significant majority of the drivers continue in the same direction. Finishing up the I-235/44 junction and 50th/Santa Fe intersection will help as well. Creating a real intersection that doesn't involve stoplights for the Lake Hefner Parkway / Kilpatrick Turnpike will also help things. Finally, as soon as they complete the I-35/240 junction, a huge safety concern will be alleviated.

As far as expansion, I can see the logic in expanding the Lake Hefner Parkway northward. However, I am not sure if it should be limited access. I think a divided highway with at grade intersections will suffice.

There is so much ignorance in this thread it is heartbreaking.

No one, not even JTF on one of his wildest days, is saying that you can't move into the suburbs. You can live wherever the hell you want to live. This is America. And if you want to live 75 miles outside of the city and drive in every day, more power to you. If you want to get in your car, drive 15 feet to the driveway of the guy across the street, then go ahead.

Some people are acting as if urbanists want to burn the flag, rape your wives, and make everyone take the bus to work. And you're most upset about the bus part.

The fact is that highways are freakishly expensive. We spent nearly a billion dollars rebuilding 4 miles of road with the new Crosstown. We have one of the highest percentages of roads in poor repair in the country. We have twice as many toll road miles (per capita) as the #2 state. We have 3 times the national average in road miles per capita. We rank 25th in highway spending, but only 43rd per mile of road because of the amount of road we have for each person.

Conclusion: Oklahoma has a lot of roads.

We also have a very large amount of empty space within our city limits. As aerial photographs show, there are very large swaths of land within the city that are 1) undeveloped, and 2) right next to an interstate. Your desire of "I wanna build a house umm... over there" does not mean that it's a good friggin' idea for the people of OKC or this state to build a freeway for you.

I have seen two arguments here. 1) Free country, I can live where I want. 2) More roads are great, and will help the city! The first is true. You can move where you want. But I don't have to pay for the wild hair you have up your ass. The second is just pure retarded. We have too many roads as it is. We have difficulty maintaining them. Does public transportation pay for itself? No, but neither does your friggin' highway!

This is terrific. +1!

Well maybe they should take that issue up and try and force everyone to live where they want us to live. I trust they know what's best for us.



So I guess you have a problem being dumped off at some train station and walking perhaps a mile or two to your eventual destination? We could all use the exercise, right? Or taking a bus or cab from there? What do you have against buses and cab drivers? I guess you think we should just be able to have the freedom to use an automobile to drive from Point A to Point B whenever we want. That's so outrageous!

But we all pay for your ability to drive right to your front door, both for the highways and for health care for the sedentary through increases in insurance rates. So, while a highway might be worth discussing, so is not building one. And even those who won't drive it have the right to discuss how it's going to be paid for. Perhaps turnpikes are the best answer. If you use it, you pay and if you don't, you save your money.

I'm ending a week in Chicago where we've been in the car once in a week. We walk to get our coffee in the mornings. We walk to the grocery store (Trader Joe's!) to get our food for dinner. We walk to the hardware store if we need something (I'm helping my daughter and son-in-law move into their 100+ year old row house). If we don't want to cook, we walk to a restaurant. I've been on a highway to get to her house from the airport and that's it. They both take the train to work downtown, and either walk to the Brown line or take a bus to the red line. This is how I would like to live and I think we'd all be healthier and perhaps a bit happier if there were similar options in OKC.

There is so much ignorance in this thread it is heartbreaking.

No one, not even JTF on one of his wildest days, is saying that you can't move into the suburbs. You can live wherever the hell you want to live. This is America. And if you want to live 75 miles outside of the city and drive in every day, more power to you. If you want to get in your car, drive 15 feet to the driveway of the guy across the street, then go ahead.

Some people are acting as if urbanists want to burn the flag, rape your wives, and make everyone take the bus to work. And you're most upset about the bus part.

The fact is that highways are freakishly expensive. We spent nearly a billion dollars rebuilding 4 miles of road with the new Crosstown. We have one of the highest percentages of roads in poor repair in the country. We have twice as many toll road miles (per capita) as the #2 state. We have 3 times the national average in road miles per capita. We rank 25th in highway spending, but only 43rd per mile of road because of the amount of road we have for each person.

Conclusion: Oklahoma has a lot of roads.

We also have a very large amount of empty space within our city limits. As aerial photographs show, there are very large swaths of land within the city that are 1) undeveloped, and 2) right next to an interstate. Your desire of "I wanna build a house umm... over there" does not mean that it's a good friggin' idea for the people of OKC or this state to build a freeway for you.

I have seen two arguments here. 1) Free country, I can live where I want. 2) More roads are great, and will help the city! The first is true. You can move where you want. But I don't have to pay for the wild hair you have up your ass. The second is just pure retarded. We have too many roads as it is. We have difficulty maintaining them. Does public transportation pay for itself? No, but neither does your friggin' highway!

Well stated.

Another thing I noticed while I was down here was that they ripped up the center median on I-10 from the beltway area intersection to Katy and put in a toll lane to alleviate traffic. I think it is $4 each way. I don't think we have the traffic counts to warrant such a thing. And have no idea where the money goes in terms of whole highway system or just the two toll lanes, but thought it was a pretty ingenious idea to temp people out of $4-8 to bypass traffic

It isn't really, but I think cafeboeuf is assuming you knew in advance some of the negative responses you will eventually generate from a significant segment of this community that will have nothing to do with actually answering your question. I'll give you some examples here in advance.

1. "We don't need any more highways. They help foster evil 'urban sprawl'."
2 "We need 'light rail'. Trains and Streetcars are the answer...not freeways!"
3. "I'm glad the SW Loop is on the backburner. All we'll get from it is 'bad growth' and more 'cookie cutter' housing additions."
4. "Suburban highways do not help or contribute to the 'urban core.'
5. "Get ready for more 'cheesy' strip centers and big box retailers."
6. "Oklahoma City is already too spread out. Everyone should live in or near Downtown/Midtown."
7. "That's just what we need...another multi-laned expressway." :rolleyes:

I could go on, but I think you'll get the point.

thanks for explaining the reason TROLLING was used. wow some people get all uptight about simple questions on this forum

thanks for explaining the reason TROLLING was used. wow some people get all uptight about simple questions on this forum

My point was really related to your last phrase: "I hope that something is planned soon." Why would you think something needs to be planned soon?

My point was really related to your last phrase: "I hope that something is planned soon." Why would you think something needs to be planned soon?

well trafffic from I-35 morning and evening from i-240 to norman is crazy. i-44 from 7:30 am till around 9 is backed up.. a lot of people are moving to the s.w part of the metro s.w 134th street from i-44 all the way to moore can prove that issue and s.w 149th street is growing. i-44 seems that it can not handle the traffic during the rush hours anymore as it is, wonder what it will be like in 5 years if nothing is done.