With OTA involved now, the highway will happen. Localities had their chances to work with state leaders and ODOT 20 years ago during the "outer loop" studies, but "NO" was the only answer from anyone living around there. Now, instead of working together cohesively, they now get OTA to put it wherever it sees fit. These residents did it to themselves.

Bring on the dozers -- I'm ready to use that outer loop and will do so often.

Yeah maybe but the conversation is just “no.” Not how is this going to work and the process to be properly compensated for property acquisitions. It’s the same thing as any other infrastructure project that requires eminent domaine. If you take the freeway to work chances are you are using a facility that took someone’s home at some point.

This is very true. My grandfather owned a half section of land in NW Norman. It was south of Robinson between 24th Avenue and 36th Avenue. Then I35 planning began right through the middle of his land. He fought it as much as he could but obviously nothing helped. I only wished he had lived long enough to have benefited from the millions of dollars that land eventually was worth.

Yeah lane values will balloon when this tollway is built.

With OTA involved now, the highway will happen. Localities had their chances to work with state leaders and ODOT 20 years ago during the "outer loop" studies, but "NO" was the only answer from anyone living around there. Now, instead of working together cohesively, they now get OTA to put it wherever it sees fit. These residents did it to themselves.

Bring on the dozers -- I'm ready to use that outer loop and will do so often.

this is the correct answer ...

the eastern OK county turnpike had a lot of vocal opposition as well .... and now most people out there agree that it is a positive thing

Good news is the opposition has very little chance of stopping this. Their best hope is to get leaders at the state level involved and luckily Oklahoma isn’t dominated by a bunch of anti car nuts like California or Oregon so that isn’t likely. It’s hard to fight ODOT and even harder to fight the OTA.

When I spoke with the OTA last week I was told the only corridor that could be very significantly altered was the one by Will Rodgers as there are more hoops to jump through.

I agree they need to basically plow a freeway through mustang. That will get people up in arms as well but it needs to happen. You could get away with maybe just a few dozen homes connecting SH-4 to the Kilpatrick which would allow for a very useful bypass of OKC to I-44 and SH-9/I-35 by Riverwind. I was told they considered it but it wasn’t politically feasible at this time. Could be something in the future but that possibility gets bleaker by the year.

I got to imagine the one around Will Rogers should be fairly easy, as the airport or the some Oklahoma government entity already owns probably 90% of the land they show this to get built on. I kind of figured this may be one of the first projects because it seems the most straight forward and only effects maybe a couple of people.

Yeah lane values will balloon when this tollway is built.

I agree. And you know, especially with the turnpike going across the southern part of the city, I would hope they would build it to expressway standards. What I mean is, something like an urban turnpike with no median rather center barrier, three lanes on each side, and service roads up close -- much like Central Expressway through Dallas. Something like that would certainly spur growth in things like new restaurants and stores in an urban setting. I'm not a huge fan of these rural-style turnpikes (those with large grass median, no service roads) going right through city. Something like that really takes away any real opportunity for rezoning and more tax revenue from restaurants and stores. But alas, whatever style is built, it will really help traffic.

I agree. And you know, especially with the turnpike going across the southern part of the city, I would hope they would build it to expressway standards. What I mean is, something like an urban turnpike with no median rather center barrier, three lanes on each side, and service roads up close -- much like Central Expressway through Dallas. Something like that would certainly spur growth in things like new restaurants and stores in an urban setting. I'm not a huge fan of these rural-style turnpikes (those with large grass median, no service roads) going right through city. Something like that really takes away any real opportunity for rezoning and more tax revenue from restaurants and stores. But alas, whatever style is built, it will really help traffic.

Given the closest to what you are describing OTA has built is the portion of Kilpatrick flanked by Memorial, it seems pretty unlikely they would start building that exact style in areas that still are mostly greenfield development. If the nearby cities are not being cooperative it probably will not help it being in a more urban style either.

When I spoke with the OTA last week I was told the only corridor that could be very significantly altered was the one by Will Rodgers as there are more hoops to jump through.

.

Did they say how it could be altered? Right now it looks to be right behind my house. (which is why my spring project is to plant a row of trees across the back so they can get a head start for being noise and view protector)

Did they say it could be altered? Right now it looks to be right behind my house. (which is why my spring project is to plant a row of trees across the back so they can get a head start for being noise and view protector)
They said out of all the proposed projects this one was the most likely to be altered.

As a side note -the Kilpatrick as a LOT of lots streetlights which do not work. I've contacted the OTA for two months about this issue but get zero response. I thought upkeep on turnpikes were better than local streetlight outages.

Since it’ll be a quick minute before we see detailed plans released this might as well be as good of time as any to discuss road expansion related issues. Many here probably know I don’t see induced demand as big of an issue here as it would be in a city like NYC. Therefore in most cases I don’t see induced demand as a reason to not build or expand freeways.

But I came across this article today which I found interesting and not the repeated crap from Streetsblog, The Atlantic, City Lab, or other anti car publications that point to examples like the 405 expansion becoming congested again and scream “see I told you induced demand induced demand!!!.” This article actually adds more to the conversation than that: https://www.governing.com/next/searching-for-ways-to-limit-induced-demand-in-a-car-loving-society

I'd be interested in knowing how they came to that conclusion. Did the monitor traffic for all of the city roads as well as the highways for months to know where the cars migrated to? It's not as though the cars suddenly appeared from nowhere. The cars had to move from one road to another (or not). And right now, how do you track that properly before businesses all "return to work" from COVID?

Look, we can't NOT build new interstates. No matter where you build them, someone is going to be pissed about it, and for very reasonable reasons (i built here because it was away from the highway/etc). But that has always been the case and will continue to be the case as long as we are growing as a city and need the infrastructure to support it. Of course it can help contribute to sprawl, but it also a benefit to all of the people that already live in those areas. Again, it redistributes the cars more than anything. Yes, we have overall growth, but not enough that would fill every road. Personally, i think people jump to conclusions with these roads rather than patiently analyzing the data...or collecting the proper data in the first place.

I'll say again, my only wish would be that we could fund ODOT in a way that these didn't have to be toll roads.

It’s a discussion that usually points to roads like the Katy Freeway and Sepulveda Pass as case studies. Like the 405 being extremely congested and adding a single lane not doing much to benefit the situation but it’s extremely flawed because it doesn’t point out latent demand, bottlenecks on each end of the project extents, or ancillary benefits like reducing local traffic or pulling traffic from other constrained corridors.

But rather if you expanded roads in NYC you might see people decide to drive instead as it’s made easier and by principle I’d support that since I am pro car anyways. I did the whole urban living thing( I still live over a subway station now with great walkability and okay biking options) and I am over it. To me cities absolutely suck and suburbs are the way to go but I understand why some prefer the alternative.

I just posted that article as an appreciation it doesn’t repeat the tired trope of why widen a freeway since it’ll have to be widened again. That logic is so irrational. Induced demand has to be one of the most absurd arguments I’ve ever heard. Yet many planners know damn well freeways like the 405 need several additional lanes each way instead of just one. But as opposed to rejecting a proposed freeway expansion outright, I can appreciate considering induced demand, among other things, in considering alternatives and various project components instead of endless freeway expansion with nothing more.

That being said I’ll always support expanding freeways no matter how big so as long as traffic counts justify the expansion and if given an ultimatum I’ll choose cars over mass transit but it doesn’t have to be that way. We would do well to place more emphasis on mass/active transit than we currently do. It’d be nice to see some of those projects come along with these new freeways proposed by the OTA. Tulsa got a mixed use trail built along the Gilcrease Tollway.

Yes I’d greatly support a more socialist approach in Oklahoma to funding road construction than direct user fees. It disproportionately impacts the poor though fortunately for the time being Oklahoma has some of the lowest tolls in the nation. I paid almost $20 to just go a few miles the other day on the 10 express lanes.

... Induced demand has to be one of the most absurd arguments I’ve ever heard. ...

Part 1 of the series you cited part 2 of in post #311 says this, so it's not really that absurd if it's been quantitatively measured.

"Induced demand has been theorized for almost 100 years (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02513625.2012.759342), formally studied beginning in the 1960s (https://trid.trb.org/view/694596), and quantitatively measured (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361920901000098?via%3Dihub) in the 1990s and the early 21st century. This basic concept is key to understanding congestion relief, which is arguably the central policy goal of American transportation planning."

Induced demand wasn’t really regarded much in transportation planning until the 90s from what I recall. Even then I’m only saying it’s absurd to use it solely as a basis for opposing highway expansion unless we want to propose a very strict congestion management that imposes direct user fees on all roads with variable pricing and roads no wider than 2 lanes each way to preserve space. This of course is a just a non starter for many reasons.

Up until then it only seemed freeway revolts were due to rich enclaves like Beverly Hills not wanting freeways through their communities or strong civil rights movements wanting to prevent Moses type freeway plans that directly targeted particular communities due to their race. I mean back then how often was a freeway stopped due to environmental or induced demand concerns?

I don't induced demand is really a thing in Oklahoma, but it is really much real for large cities that actually has fully built out mass transit systems. More traffic, people more likely to use mass transit. Make a bigger road, more people will switch over until a new equilibrium is achieved.

CityNerd has an excellent and recent video on induced demand with lots of citations.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za56H2BGamQ

It’s not an immediate problem in most cases, but it does create a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. If the south connector is built, I would guess in 20-30 years it will look like Memorial Rd does today. Where if it weren’t built at all, none of that growth would occur in a very similar or explosive way. That growth would
Probably stick to existing infrastructure.

I’m not saying that corridor is not needed but just using that as an example because that is a prime area for growth that would not happen if it weren’t for that connector. Newcastle connecting to S Moore/N Norman area will allow those two geographically isolated areas merge into one along the turnpike.

I don't induced demand is really a thing in Oklahoma, but it is really much real for large cities that actually has fully built out mass transit systems. More traffic, people more likely to use mass transit. Make a bigger road, more people will switch over until a new equilibrium is achieved.

yep in oklahoma with transit that is limited ... everyone (for the most part) that can drive does .....

all "induced demand" does in oklahoma is shift the traffic from one road to another ... it doesn't really up traffic for the system as a whole ..

yep in oklahoma with transit that is limited ... everyone (for the most part) that can drive does .....

all "induced demand" does in oklahoma is shift the traffic from one road to another ... it doesn't really up traffic for the system as a whole ..

I think the point is if big new roads are built people will drive longer distances and make more car trips. You will also have service vehicles driving those areas creating more slow traffic. If the commute takes too long more people will live and work in the same area in order to reduce their commute times.

With density more things become walkable and there are fewer car trips. The question isn't does induced demand happen in Oklahoma, the question is do we want more density and walkability or do we want more sprawl and car ownership as a requirement. I know there are proponents for both but someone will have to fund replacing the miles and miles of infrastructure that we already have. In 30 years OKC should be a "big" city. The decisions we make today (good or bad) will impact what happens 25 to 50 years from now.

I heard on KGOU this morning that Mayor Breea Clark was formally coming out against the turnpike proposed for the east side of Norman.

Edit:
Found an article about it. (https://www.normantranscript.com/news/mayor-takes-on-turnpike-authority-pledges-to-fight-reprehensible-rollout-of-new-toll-roads/article_66a906d6-9f53-11ec-95bf-7f5f0163db45.html)

i guess i'm one of the few Norman Residents who have no issues and actually was really excited about the Turnpike plans.

It isn’t surprising at all Norman officials are opposed to the turnpike. Norman also has opposed several good urban developments in Campus Corner. It’s like Edmond and Norman compete to see who can be the biggest NIMBYs. Maybe the OTA is practicing with Norman for the future when they take on Edmond.

i guess i'm one of the few Norman Residents who have no issues and actually was really excited about the Turnpike plans.
Yeah I know several land owners, one who actually has some that might be taken, who are VERY excited for these roads. Property values will skyrocket.

yep in oklahoma with transit that is limited ... everyone (for the most part) that can drive does .....

all "induced demand" does in oklahoma is shift the traffic from one road to another ... it doesn't really up traffic for the system as a whole ..
That’s even largely true in SoCal. New demand isn’t being created it was already there you just didn’t see or notice it. Hence latent demand.

I'm not an expert in any of these issues but I think in "growing" regions the calculus is different than in regions that are "slow growth." In the St. Louis metro area, which is growing at an extremely anemic rate (like 2% a decade), the argument about adding highways amounts to policymakers not wanting to make it easier for people to spread out. You make it easier/faster for people to drive a 20 mile commute, the argument is they are more likely to do that 20 mile commute, which adds more sprawl. Nobody is backfilling the neighborhoods that are emptying out, but the infrastructure in those areas still have to be maintained with the same or fewer tax dollars.

Now, if you're Dallas, or to a certain extent OKC, an argument could be made that as the city grows, the additional people have to live somewhere and the neighborhoods that get left behind when people move to the suburbs are backfilled by the next wave of people to move in.

However, there will come a time when the demographics of the nation will crest, work habits will keep evolving and the whole way that people choose to commute or not will be totally different. I can easily imagine a scenario in which there are far fewer miles driven by vehicle in 2042 or 2052 than in 2022.

i mean work from home made me decision for me about not moving out of Norman. because i love it here. i was starting to get tired of a 30 miles one way to work each day. but now that isn't an issue for me. and allows me to work from wherever. I love these new turnpikes because of the economic development it might bring. I've never understood why Norman and Moore never really grew together. and this should fix that. as well as finally giving an area where some development can happen on the far East side past Sooner.

I'll be curious about whether these turnpikes really bring a lot of development.

I definitely see the stretch between I-44 and I-35, between Moore and Norman acting as a catalyst. I bet that area will look like Memorial Road one day. But the part to the east/northeast of Norman seems awfully distant from anything else. If there are only exits every 3-4 miles it will make it even more unlikely. I guess we'll see.

I'll be curious about whether these turnpikes really bring a lot of development.

I definitely see the stretch between I-44 and I-35, between Moore and Norman acting as a catalyst. I bet that area will look like Memorial Road one day. But the part to the east/northeast of Norman seems awfully distant from anything else. If there are only exits every 3-4 miles it will make it even more unlikely. I guess we'll see.

The cities will need to rezone properties along the turnpike exits to be able to bring economic development along the new turnpikes. If they want to do it, they can. The purpose of this turnpike in the east is to hopefully take some of the truck traffic and other thru traffic around the city and off I-35 which is beyond capacity. Perhaps it will spur construction of more new homes in that part of the metro.

Agreed as to the real purpose of this turnpike, MagzOK. This is a bypass and will be primarily used by truck traffic and other cross-country traffic. People from the east and northeast going to Texas for example.

With the exception of the stretch between I-44 and I-35, I really don't see this being used day-to-day by very many commuters. Are there a lot of people, for example, that live in Shawnee or far eastern Oklahoma County and commute to Norman, or vice versa? I assume there are some.

I imagine the primary development will be highway-oriented uses, like truck stops and fast food. I may be wrong.

I feel like the reason there is so much development along the Memorial Road stretch is because there are already so many people just in that general vicinity.

The cities will need to rezone properties along the turnpike exits to be able to bring economic development along the new turnpikes. If they want to do it, they can. The purpose of this turnpike in the east is to hopefully take some of the truck traffic and other thru traffic around the city and off I-35 which is beyond capacity. Perhaps it will spur construction of more new homes in that part of the metro.

The rezoning will be done by individual owners whenever its time to develop. A city cant rezone a privately owned property without the owner going along with it. The biggest issue for cities is getting utilities to these turnpikes, much like the Choctaw/Harrah areas with the new turnpike. Sure theres new opportunities now with that highway up and running but not if water and sewer are a mile away.

i mean work from home made me decision for me about not moving out of Norman. because i love it here. i was starting to get tired of a 30 miles one way to work each day. but now that isn't an issue for me. and allows me to work from wherever. I love these new turnpikes because of the economic development it might bring. I've never understood why Norman and Moore never really grew together. and this should fix that. as well as finally giving an area where some development can happen on the far East side past Sooner.

I think this will boil down to the impact on Thunderbird and it being the source of drinking water in Norman. Usually the arguement is public use v. private use and public wins in eminent domain cases. Now you will have public use v. public use making for an interesting court case.
I also don't know if the fact that Thunderbird was created with federal dollars will make any difference.

I think this will boil down to the impact on Thunderbird and it being the source of drinking water in Norman. Usually the arguement is public use v. private use and public wins in eminent domain cases. Now you will have public use v. public use making for an interesting court case.
I also don't know if the fact that Thunderbird was created with federal dollars will make any difference.

or the fact that Norman water is awful... so how much worse could a Turnpike make it?

or the fact that Norman water is awful... so how much worse could a Turnpike make it?
Or why add to the problem?

Why would Thunderbird be a problem for the proposed turnpike? There are drinking water reservoirs all over the US that are next to highways, including multiple I can think of in Oklahoma.

Talking about Thunderbird sounds like of like grasping for straws for groups against it in general, it is not like the area is an untamed wilderness. There is already many roads, homes and a highway closer to than the turnpike would be. Sure this probably would increase the amount of runoff from neighborhoods over time into tributaries flowing into the lake due to new construction, but it looks like at least half of Norman's current built environment already has runoff flowing to Thunderbird.

or the fact that Norman water is awful... so how much worse could a Turnpike make it?

While I am not in a position to answer your qustion I'm willing to guess the answer will be forthcoming from the inevitable lawsuit.

While I am not in a position to answer your qustion I'm willing to guess the answer will be forthcoming from the inevitable lawsuit.

What precisely would that lawsuit argue? It's gonna be news to Lake Hefner and Hefner Parkway if we find out you can't have a highway next to a lake.

What precisely would that lawsuit argue? It's gonna be news to Lake Hefner and Hefner Parkway if we find out you can't have a highway next to a lake.

I have no idea how this would measurably pollute anything more than it is now. But reason goes out the window when it comes to NIMBYs. Any and all excuses, regardless of legitimacy, will be brought up to fight it. Im sure that even insect and wildlife endangerment will be thrown up as an obstacle.

I have no idea how this would measurably pollute anything more than it is now. But reason goes out the window when it comes to NIMBYs. Any and all excuses, regardless of legitimacy, will be brought up to fight it. Im sure that even insect and wildlife endangerment will be thrown up as an obstacle.

the nimby's were just as mad about the eastern oklahoma turnpike ... and it still got build ....

this will move forward full steam ahead

Agreed as to the real purpose of this turnpike, MagzOK. This is a bypass and will be primarily used by truck traffic and other cross-country traffic. People from the east and northeast going to Texas for example.

With the exception of the stretch between I-44 and I-35, I really don't see this being used day-to-day by very many commuters. Are there a lot of people, for example, that live in Shawnee or far eastern Oklahoma County and commute to Norman, or vice versa? I assume there are some.

I imagine the primary development will be highway-oriented uses, like truck stops and fast food. I may be wrong.

I feel like the reason there is so much development along the Memorial Road stretch is because there are already so many people just in that general vicinity.

Exactly. Call me a "NIMBY" if you want, but this project is nothing more than a truck route/long commuter route that will promote even more urban sprawl in arguably the worst area of urban sprawl in the country. There are plenty of reasons why people don't want yet another turnpike in their backyard. Not sure why so many in this thread are licking the OTA boot. You don't have to build every highway concept that someone thinks up. We have too many as it is. The only new turnpike I would want to see is something that connects Tulsa to Dallas better. Everything else is linked well enough and we need to focus on mass transportation options, denser development, and maintaining what we have.

Exactly. Call me a "NIMBY" if you want, but this project is nothing more than a truck route/long commuter route that will promote even more urban sprawl in arguably the worst area of urban sprawl in the country. There are plenty of reasons why people don't want yet another turnpike in their backyard. Not sure why so many in this thread are licking the OTA boot. You don't have to build every highway concept that someone thinks up. We have too many as it is. The only new turnpike I would want to see is something that connects Tulsa to Dallas better. Everything else is linked well enough and we need to focus on mass transportation options, denser development, and maintaining what we have.

Granted it is not promoting sustainable development patterns, but seems impossible to make a case this is worst sprawl than places like Houston, Atlanta, LA, Dallas, Pheonix; with probably several others on par closer to our size in the south/southwest that also do not have geographic boundaries either.

The only new turnpike I would want to see is something that connects Tulsa to Dallas better.

Like the one proposed?

Huh? Which one there are no mor beans

ODOT did a study on the traffic from Norman to OKC during rush hour and determined that the traffic was at an alarming level for Houston TX.

Like the one proposed?

1/3 of it is already the Indian Nation Turnpike, it would be nice to see that extended north to connect to Tulsa using the existing 75 corridor with bypasses built around Henryetta and Okmulgee. The highway will already be built to turnpike standards through Tulsa County by 2030.

The southern leg would need to be a new turnpike that extends north from Durant to connect to the Indian Nation Turnpike near McAlester. It would involve upgrading the corridor to turnpike standards and building new bypasses at Atoka, Stringtown and Savanna.

There is no reason we have a limited access turnpike to Hugo but Tulsa isn't connected directly to Dallas, especially with the growth along the 75 corridor in Texas.

The pain of growth continues in the Norman-Moore, OK area which are among Oklahoma City's largest suburbs with approximately 130,000-65,000 residents, Norman and Moore combined represent close to 200,000 residents encircling 200 sq. miles.


https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/RMt98b.szGodvyB5B9l0_g--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTY0MDtoPTYyOQ--/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/AwXE4fHPNNXsw.Idumbutw--~B/aD03ODY7dz04MDA7YXBwaWQ9eXRhY2h5b24-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/the-oklahoman/aea8a804b89ab427f7f3745dc1e0b25d
Proposed toll road expansion

Let's face it, no one wants their dream homes uprooted to make room for an expressway regardless of whether you live in a well-to-do
neighborhood or one not so well-to-do, it's your home, your life, your roots and your memories. Progress comes with a price.

OKC is following the progress of many cities like Nashville, Kansas City & Cincinnati where the expressways loop around the inner city and expand that interstate loop into the surrounding suburbs.


https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2021/08/02/NOKL/c3ce977b-673f-42b4-ae5f-592cfd79e3dd-I-240_loop2-01.jpg
The loop surrounds the city

1/3 of it is already the Indian Nation Turnpike, it would be nice to see that extended north to connect to Tulsa using the existing 75 corridor with bypasses built around Henryetta and Okmulgee. The highway will already be built to turnpike standards through Tulsa County by 2030.

The southern leg would need to be a new turnpike that extends north from Durant to connect to the Indian Nation Turnpike near McAlester. It would involve upgrading the corridor to turnpike standards and building new bypasses at Atoka, Stringtown and Savanna.

There is no reason we have a limited access turnpike to Hugo but Tulsa isn't connected directly to Dallas, especially with the growth along the 75 corridor in Texas.

This makes much more sense than the current rationale.

The pain of growth continues in the Norman-Moore, OK area which are among Oklahoma City's largest suburbs with approximately 130,000-65,000 residents, Norman and Moore combined represent close to 200,000 residents encircling 200 sq. miles.


https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/RMt98b.szGodvyB5B9l0_g--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTY0MDtoPTYyOQ--/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/AwXE4fHPNNXsw.Idumbutw--~B/aD03ODY7dz04MDA7YXBwaWQ9eXRhY2h5b24-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/the-oklahoman/aea8a804b89ab427f7f3745dc1e0b25d
Proposed toll road expansion

Let's face it, no one wants their dream homes uprooted to make room for an expressway regardless of whether you live in a well-to-do
neighborhood or one not so well-to-do, it's your home, your life, your roots and your memories. Progress comes with a price.

OKC is following the progress of many cities like Nashville, Kansas City & Cincinnati where the expressways loop around the inner city and expand that interstate loop into the surrounding suburbs.


https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2021/08/02/NOKL/c3ce977b-673f-42b4-ae5f-592cfd79e3dd-I-240_loop2-01.jpg
The loop surrounds the city




You're absolutely right. Everyone enjoys the growth and popularity the OKC metro area is getting, they love all the new buildings, restaurants -- all these destinations that need the infrastructure to support it to get everyone to these places. If you've driven our interstate system during rush hour -- or even on the weekends you'd note the abundance of traffic just exploding out of the seems. Just one example, when we're coming home from Dallas on any given weekend and we get to about the Goldsby exit coming home on Sunday evening, traffic thickens up almost bumper to bumper, there's road rage, and it just feels unsafe. This thick traffic continues all the way up to downtown OKC and once I hit 235 to go north from there it finally gets a little better. This is every single time we go and it has become worse three fold in the last 25 years since I've lived here. I make this drive usually twice a month the last couple years. The traffic is only getting worse and will continue to do so. These relief routes are necessary, period.

I don’t think people want to acknowledge just how bad the traffic is beginning to get in OKC. Obviously it isn’t near LA or NYC levels but it’ll become Dallas or Austin tier within a decade or two. They can’t build new freeways or widen existing ones fast enough. I think ODOT and the OTA is noticing it.

Being that I live in LA and deal with this bullsh!t traffic I’m somewhat desensitized to it but I still notice it how bad it is becoming around OKC.

I personally don't really care about whether these toll roads get built or not, but I am surprised at the amount of backlash this proposal is getting from people on the southeast side of the metro. I assumed the reaction would be the exact opposite. It may also just be a vocal minority who are making a bunch of noise right now.

^We absolutely do need another N/S corridor between Norman and OKC, but I'm a little dubious that the Kickapoo extension will help that since it goes out to the NE. We also need better mass transit options between OKC and Norman. Would love to see a commuter train/rapid busses.

Why the motherf@ck is commuter rail not being as part of this?

The state probably won't be involved in commuter rail since it only touches 6 municipalities and is a local project. The municipalities will have to pay for it. It cant be done through MAPS either.

^^^ true. I just wish we could speed that option up. Either way this corridor will be a huge boon to the area and I know I’ll definitely be using it. I’ve looked at buying property here before this was proposed I don’t think I’ll be able to afford it now.

^^^ true. I just wish we could speed that option up. Either way this corridor will be a huge boon to the area and I know I’ll definitely be using it. I’ve looked at buying property here before this was proposed I don’t think I’ll be able to afford it now.

Me too. It will sure beat sitting in rush our traffic that's for sure.

There's a small section in this ACOG Encompass 2040 planning report that talks about regional transit.

http://www.acogok.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ENCOMPASS-2040-BIG-BOOK.pdf

Gary is correct. If you look at the DART in the DFW area, it is a transit authority created in the 1990s and funded with a sales tax of its member cities. Good luck with a majority in our OKC metro area approving taxes for something like that. I think just the population alone, a one-cent sales tax wouldn't generate quite as much as the tax in the DFW area did when it started. I just don't think the area has that type of support, not yet anyway. Just look at Midwest City pulling out of our current study.

I thought this was an interesting article (it is a few years old, but shows interesting things about the system) about the DART in terms of suburban cities wanting to stop participating the transit. This is after it's well in place, and meanwhile here in OKC we are already losing cities in the study phases.

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-has-the-worst-regional-transit-agency-in-america-bar-none-9588268

1/3 of it is already the Indian Nation Turnpike, it would be nice to see that extended north to connect to Tulsa using the existing 75 corridor with bypasses built around Henryetta and Okmulgee. The highway will already be built to turnpike standards through Tulsa County by 2030.

The southern leg would need to be a new turnpike that extends north from Durant to connect to the Indian Nation Turnpike near McAlester. It would involve upgrading the corridor to turnpike standards and building new bypasses at Atoka, Stringtown and Savanna.

There is no reason we have a limited access turnpike to Hugo but Tulsa isn't connected directly to Dallas, especially with the growth along the 75 corridor in Texas.

I've driven this many, many times. Like you said, the section of US-75 in Glenpool is already in the works. The only major crossing between Glenpool and Okmulgee is Preston, which is slated for a new interchange next year. Henryetta doesn't even really need a bypass, just a new exit and some reworking to the I-40 interchange.

The big pain in northern Oklahoma is Okmulgee, which needs a bypass anyway. There have to be something like 10 stop lights along US-75 in the town and traffic is awful. Filled with big trucks traveling between Dallas and Tulsa and then to points up I-44. It's not remotely safe.

In southern Oklahoma US-75 near Durant is already being upgraded, construction is going on now. North of Durant most of the highway already has service roads until you get close to Atoka.

The stretch that would be terribly expensive is the 40 miles from Atoka to McAlester. It should have been included as a turnpike in this plan. You can't really upgrade the highway here because while it is 4 lanes, much of it isn't divided and it goes through a bunch of small speed trap towns. It would be better to build a turnpike through this area, the Indian Nations Turnpike always should have followed this route anyway. I have never understood why the it goes to Hugo instead of Durant. It doesn't and never has made any sense. A turnpike here would save drivers 30-45 minutes and be far safer, especially for trucks speeding up and slowing down constantly.

The turnpike to Hugo was purely political. A Tulsa-Durant turnpike would shorten the drive from 4-4.5 hours to 3-3.5 hours and as you said be much safer. I personally never understood why they didn’t extend I-45 north to Tulsa.

All the original free interstates in Oklahoma were built to service Oklahoma City only. No non-turnpike interstate to Tulsa or Lawton. I-40 didn't go to Muskogee, I-35 wasn't routed through Enid or Stillwater. All of Oklahoma's other largest cities at the time completely ignored.