I think I-35 from OKC to Norman needs to be widened or at least to 19th St. in Moore. I'm not sure if you travel that stretch, but it gets bumper to bumper every day and it's going to get worse. Right now it is only during rush hour, but I'm on that road all the time and even in just the past two years, traffic has increased significantly.

I have two sister in laws that live in Norman, so I travel that stretch all too often. I always take I-44 west to I-40 east to I-35 south. In my experience, all the backups happen right at the 40-35 interchange, a mile north of the 240 interchange and around Warren Theatre (South 4th street in Moore, maybe?). So, by using my travel as an example, most of those traffic headaches could be alleviated by redoing the interchanges, which are the biggest problems right now.

I have two sister in laws that live in Norman, so I travel that stretch all too often. I always take I-44 west to I-40 east to I-35 south. In my experience, all the backups happen right at the 40-35 interchange, a mile north of the 240 interchange and around Warren Theatre (South 4th street in Moore, maybe?). So, by using my travel as an example, most of those traffic headaches could be alleviated by redoing the interchanges, which are the biggest problems right now.Those are good points. Let me also say, I would prefer seeing light-rail built from downtown Norman to OKC before this road is widened also.

I agree the interchanges need to be redone as well. Both I-35/I-40 and I-40/240 should be converted to stack interchanges, preferably four levels, allowing traffic to flow smoothly through them at acceptable speeds.

http://arc-solutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/panoramia-spagetti-turnpike.jpg

I have two sister in laws that live in Norman, so I travel that stretch all too often. I always take I-44 west to I-40 east to I-35 south. In my experience, all the backups happen right at the 40-35 interchange, a mile north of the 240 interchange and around Warren Theatre (South 4th street in Moore, maybe?). So, by using my travel as an example, most of those traffic headaches could be alleviated by redoing the interchanges, which are the biggest problems right now.

I agree. A lot of those interchanges are complete garbage and not setup to accommodate the amount of traffic they see. Unfortunately by the time they are re-done, traffic will have continued to increase most likely, meaning it will still need to be widened at some point.

I agree the interchanges need to be redone as well. Both I-35/I-40 and I-40/240 should be converted to stack interchanges, preferably four levels, allowing traffic to flow smoothly through them at acceptable speeds.

http://arc-solutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/panoramia-spagetti-turnpike.jpgThat would be great. Unfortunately, ODOT cheaps out and the state won't let them borrow money for road construction.

And I bet you there are people in California and Texas whining about the state not spending enough money to widen the roads even further to alleviate rush hour traffic. Its an on going battle.

And I bet you there are people in California and Texas whining about the state not spending enough money to widen the roads even further to alleviate rush hour traffic. Its an on going battle.They are spending close to a billion dollars adding one lane each way on the 405.

I, personally, would not be opposed to widening I-35 from Norman to Edmond, if it needed it, but it doesn't need it right now. What is needs is reworking of the the interchanges, because that is where the backups happen. I don't think they even need to consider widening it until that area is taken care of. Then, you can figure out if the need is there. Because if you widen the lanes now, you are still going to have the same problems you had before (interchanges) but probably with more accidents due to too many people trying to merge.

There are three major projects on the eight year plan:
1. I-35/ highway 9 interchange and widening which should be getting underway in a month or two.
2. I-235 widening and interchange that should be let this year.
3. I-35 and I-240 interchange.

So there are improvements being made.

They are spending close to a billion dollars adding one lane each way on the 405.

And I'm sure its not enough. Why not add 3 lanes? Shouldn't they plan for the future?

They have double our population so they kind of have to.

And I'm sure its not enough. Why not add 3 lanes? Shouldn't they plan for the future?

They have double our population so they kind of have to.It isn't. If I had the power and money, I'd spend over 5 billion to reconstruct the whole highway adding 8 lanes underneath the 14 lane highway. Almost like what they are doing to 635, but slightly larger.

There are three major projects on the eight year plan:
1. I-35/ highway 9 interchange and widening which should be getting underway in a month or two.
2. I-235 widening and interchange that should be let this year.
3. I-35 and I-240 interchange.

So there are improvements being made.

Correct.

Don't forget the SH74 expansion along with I-40 widening past Midwest city.

I-240 east of I-40 is being looked at for a widening(although I don't think it is needed) and and new highway is being looked at for Eastern Oklahoma county.

Work is pretty much wrapping up for the I-40 widening to Yukon.

Progress is certainly being made.

I would be very happy if they just focused on the interchanges, but I just wish they would do them them right. Another horrid interchange is I-40/I-44 interchange.

They have double our population so they kind of have to.

Oklahoma City MSA: 1,319,677
Los Angeles MSA: 13,131,431

They have pretty much exactly 10 times the population of OKC, not double.

Not sure it means much but I have seen ODOT referring to themselves as OKDOT recently, ie their twitter account. So I guess we can all hope this is a whole switch-a-roo and that extra K is going to mean some pretty impressive projects.

Or maybe Ohio stole the twitter name first but either way I'm really feeling this K. Adds some spice IMO.

I agree the interchanges need to be redone as well. Both I-35/I-40 and I-40/240 should be converted to stack interchanges, preferably four levels, allowing traffic to flow smoothly through them at acceptable speeds.

http://arc-solutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/panoramia-spagetti-turnpike.jpg

You know the irony is that this picture is taken about 10AM with minimal traffic AND 2 of the flyovers are backed up.

You know the irony is that this picture is taken about 10AM with minimal traffic AND 2 of the flyovers are backed up.Wrecks happen. There is construction in the picture. How do you it was 10am? Both of the flyovers are the ones going in the same direction which means that one highway is experiencing construction or there is a wreck.

What does the BLVD have to do with I-35? I don't know what fantasy world YOU are living on, but new highways are going to be built and existing ones are going to be widened. Get over it.

What doesn't the "BLVD" have to do with a widened I-35? Both are completely unnecessary. I-35 is crowded for what, 2 hours a day, tops? And most of that is because drivers here default to going 10 below in the left lane, which leads to bottlenecks in all 3 lanes as people try to weave in and out just to try to hit the speed limit, etc. I'm not living in a fantasy world - I realize full well that you freeway types are always going to get your way, especially in places like OKC. We still build around the car, and not the person, and I'm not in denial about that. I see the decisions that were made in the last few weeks about our CBD. So it couldn't be more clear how little OKC cares about actual humans versus gas-hogging cars. I realize full well that ODOT needs to keep their money coming in, and the only way to do that is to make completely absurd traffic projections that have little to no basis in reality, and use those false numbers to steal our taxpayer dollars for ugly roads that we don't really need. Not only that, but I'm also acutely aware that my very tax dollars are going to go toward paying for the maintenance of these unnecessary roads for years (decades) to come. Not only that, but I'm also aware that the model we currently use to build these expansive freeways is unsustainable, and so I'm fully aware that my generation and my kids' generation's indebtedness towards these projects is only going to rise exponentially. Isn't that just awesome?

What doesn't the "BLVD" have to do with a widened I-35? Both are completely unnecessary. I-35 is crowded for what, 2 hours a day, tops? And most of that is because drivers here default to going 10 below in the left lane, which leads to bottlenecks in all 3 lanes as people try to weave in and out just to try to hit the speed limit, etc. I'm not living in a fantasy world - I realize full well that you freeway types are always going to get your way, especially in places like OKC. We still build around the car, and not the person, and I'm not in denial about that. I see the decisions that were made in the last few weeks about our CBD. So it couldn't be more clear how little OKC cares about actual humans versus gas-hogging cars. I realize full well that ODOT needs to keep their money coming in, and the only way to do that is to make completely absurd traffic projections that have little to no basis in reality, and use those false numbers to steal our taxpayer dollars for ugly roads that we don't really need. Not only that, but I'm also acutely aware that my very tax dollars are going to go toward paying for the maintenance of these unnecessary roads for years (decades) to come. Not only that, but I'm also aware that the model we currently use to build these expansive freeways is unsustainable, and so I'm fully aware that my generation and my kids' generation's indebtedness towards these projects is only going to rise exponentially. Isn't that just awesome?"you freeway types" . . . that's hilarious. Have fun with your ramblings. I'm done acknowledging you.

This site disproportionately leans to the people more fond of the urban environment, and that's fine. But most Okie's like their suburbs and I don't see that trend just flying off the shelf in the other direction. Is it changing, yes, slowly.

But many of us, myself included like our space. I'm on a little over an acre, and can't imagine being on anything less. This is the most 'densely' I've ever lived. I don't understand wanting to live right on top of 17 other people. But for those of you that do, go for it, that leaves more land for the rest of us that want it.
I suspect that you may find that your ideas about this may evolve as you get older. I grew up on a farm outside of Norman and was always used to plenty of land surrounding me. Later in life I moved to Mustang and successively have lived on 3 acres and then one acre properties. At the time I loved it. I now live in OKC on much, much less and an very happy with it. I have had relatives who thought it would be wonderful to retire and move to 5 acre or larger lots. They did and as they aged they found it was quickly too much for them to even begin to take care of. Many people are now discovering this at a much younger age. You're correct that there will always be those wanting a lot of space but that percentage is certainly decreasing.

Off topic, but I drove southbound from Edmond to Norman around 5 today and doesn't seem like the number of lanes and the interchange along I235 and I 35 is the actual problem. I235 gets backup BEFORE getting to I 40/ I235/I 35 interchange from too many on ramps and offramps located too close to each other. It's going to get even worse when the Blvd exit opens. I235 is basically a younger version of the old crosstown bridge. Also, for whatever reason traffic backs up on 35 near that curve 44th street. After that it was smooth sailing.

They would have to demolish the entire I235 bridge structure and redesign it from the ground up to get traffic flowing through there properly.

When the debate began in 2012, ODOT said the Boulevard would carry 58,000 vehicles a day when it opened and 93,000 vehicles a day in 2035. By the time the review process was finished, public pressure and federal scrutiny resulted in ODOT correcting those figures and admitting that the Boulevard would only carry 12,920 vehicles a day when it opens in 2015 and 18,050 vehicles a day twenty-five years from now in 2040.

Better Block OKC published a very powerful graphic illustrating just what those numbers really mean in terms of whether the Boulevard is even necessary. The chart speaks for itself.

10064

Yes, this graph clearly indicates that we should expect another 50% travel on roads twenty five years from now.

http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/us-miles-driven-per-capita.png

Wrecks happen. There is construction in the picture. How do you it was 10am? Both of the flyovers are the ones going in the same direction which means that one highway is experiencing construction or there is a wreck.

Whatever the cause - the flyovers didn't alleviate the congestion.

I suspect that you may find that your ideas about this may evolve as you get older. I grew up on a farm outside of Norman and was always used to plenty of land surrounding me. Later in life I moved to Mustang and successively have lived on 3 acres and then one acre properties. At the time I loved it. I now live in OKC on much, much less and an very happy with it. I have had relatives who thought it would be wonderful to retire and move to 5 acre or larger lots. They did and as they aged they found it was quickly too much for them to even begin to take care of. Many people are now discovering this at a much younger age. You're correct that there will always be those wanting a lot of space but that percentage is certainly decreasing.

I can definitely understand that when you get to a certain age it becomes too much. My neighbors are in there 70's and sometimes I wonder how they do it, but honestly they have the best lawn in the neighborhood. I'm going through something similar with my grandparents. They live west of Mustang in OKC on a few acres and now being in their 80's it has become too much for them to take care of, but they don't want to leave it. I wish they'd downsize, but it's most likely going to come down to my family taking care of it for them.

Yes, this graph clearly indicates that we should expect another 50% travel on roads twenty five years from now.

http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/us-miles-driven-per-capita.png

Yes, it is shocking that as the great republican recession hit and gas prices kept rising that people should drive less.

Why don't we wait a few years to see what happens with low unemployment and low gas prices. If miles driven continues to decrease under those circumstances, then it will signal a true DESIRE to drive less, and not just a financial hardship requiring them to drive less. People tend to look at trends and totally ignore what is causal and what is circumstantial. Let's get more data before the new urbanists start patting themselves on the back.

We DO have more. That graph is 3 years old, and at that point miles driven per capita were at a 1999 level. Today they are at a 1993 level. So, the trend is even more pronounced 7 years after the recession than it was a few years ago. This was revealed to OKC developers this very afternoon in a report at the DowntownOKC Inc Developers luncheon by Brad Segal of P.U.M.A., a downtown expert who has assisted OKC with creation of of its BIDs over the years. You can find this and other relevant information in P.U.M.A.'s Global Trends Report, found here: PUMA (http://www.pumaworldhq.com/page.php?p=global-trends)

It is not 7 years after the recession. For most, the recession hasn't really ended as employment has slowly gone back up, but not wages. Earnings of the top 5-10% don't translate into buying cars and gas. I'm not saying that habits and desires don't change- maybe they have- , but it is too early to declare a victory for strict urbanists until there is a broader recovery. With ever declining middle income wages and numbers, maybe it won't ever improve again, but then again, the high numbers of low wage earners aren't populating high priced downtowns either.

We DO have more. That graph is 3 years old, and at that point miles driven per capita were at a 1999 level. Today they are at a 1993 level. So, the trend is even more pronounced 7 years after the recession than it was a few years ago. This was revealed to OKC developers this very afternoon in a report at the DowntownOKC Inc Developers luncheon by Brad Segal of P.U.M.A., a downtown expert who has assisted OKC with creation of of its BIDs over the years. You can find this and other relevant information in P.U.M.A.'s Global Trends Report, found here: PUMA (http://www.pumaworldhq.com/page.php?p=global-trends)I have seen a couple articles that stated driving was starting to go back up and more drivers licenses were starting to be issued again. How much, I don't remember.

It's not seven years since the recession "ended"; but it is certainly seven years after it began, according to accepted definition.

Yes, it is shocking that as the great republican recession hit and gas prices kept rising that people should drive less.

Why don't we wait a few years to see what happens with low unemployment and low gas prices. If miles driven continues to decrease under those circumstances, then it will signal a true DESIRE to drive less, and not just a financial hardship requiring them to drive less. People tend to look at trends and totally ignore what is causal and what is circumstantial. Let's get more data before the new urbanists start patting themselves on the back.

We are also seeing baby boomers retirement roll along and companies operating with less staff than ten years ago either are go normally, take pay packages to leave or are just laid off.

Yes, it is shocking that as the great republican recession hit and gas prices kept rising that people should drive less.


Driving peaked, and started declining, 2 years BEFORE the recession. There is no denying that the world the baby-boomers created is going to die with them.

The End of the Suburbs: Where the American Dream Is Moving: Leigh Gallagher: 9781591846970: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/End-Suburbs-Where-American-Moving/dp/1591846978/ref=sr_1_1/187-7383641-2690003?ie=UTF8&qid=1422581612&sr=8-1&keywords=the+end+of+suburbs&pebp=1422581564011&peasin=1591846978)

"you freeway types" . . . that's hilarious. Have fun with your ramblings. I'm done acknowledging you.

That's such a freeway type thing to say.

I know. I'm just a horrible freeway fiend, what can I say?

Driving peaked, and started declining, 2 years BEFORE the recession. There is no denying that the world the baby-boomers created is going to die with them.

The End of the Suburbs: Where the American Dream Is Moving: Leigh Gallagher: 9781591846970: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/End-Suburbs-Where-American-Moving/dp/1591846978/ref=sr_1_1/187-7383641-2690003?ie=UTF8&qid=1422581612&sr=8-1&keywords=the+end+of+suburbs&pebp=1422581564011&peasin=1591846978)

The Geography Of Aging: Why Millennials Are Headed To The Suburbs - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/12/09/the-geography-of-aging-why-millenials-are-headed-to-the-suburbs/)

Don't bring facts to this argument.

The Geography Of Aging: Why Millennials Are Headed To The Suburbs - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/12/09/the-geography-of-aging-why-millenials-are-headed-to-the-suburbs/)

While people are moving back to the urban core more so in the past, the suburbs definitely aren't going away.

Out of 10,000+ registered users on this forum, there is probably only a single poster who would try to tell you that the suburbs are going away. I can't believe that people get so wound up like someone is actually trying to take away the option to live in the 'burbs. Heck, statistically it remains practically the ONLY option in OKC, and will for the foreseeable future.

Out of 10,000+ registered users on this forum, there is probably only a single poster who would try to tell you that the suburbs are going away. I can't believe that people get so wound up like someone is actually trying to take away the option to live in the 'burbs. Heck, statistically it remains practically the ONLY option in OKC, and will for the foreseeable future.

How do you expect people to have uncontrollable internet rage when you display such reason and logic? Damn you.

How do you expect people to have uncontrollable internet rage when you display such reason and logic? Damn you.if given the power, there is no denying that many on here would eventually make it very difficult to live in the suburbs and their definition of 'suburbs' is different than what I and I'm guessing Zuplar is thinking.

Really? You base that on what, exactly?

Out of 10,000+ registered users on this forum, there is probably only a single poster who would try to tell you that the suburbs are going away. I can't believe that people get so wound up like someone is actually trying to take away the option to live in the 'burbs. Heck, statistically it remains practically the ONLY option in OKC, and will for the foreseeable future.

And if I'm not mistaken that ONE person lives in the suburbs! :p

The Geography Of Aging: Why Millennials Are Headed To The Suburbs - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/12/09/the-geography-of-aging-why-millenials-are-headed-to-the-suburbs/)

As always, every time you see an article supporting the idea that driving and the suburbs are the way of the future, check the author.

90% of the time, it will be written by Joel Kotkin.

This is no different.

That happens a lot here. They always post an article written by someone who has an obvious bias toward the suburbs and claim it is evidence that urbanists are wrong and stupid.

It is very easy to find published documentation to support whatever position you desire. Most people make up their minds about an issue and spend time finding things to support their opinion. A few actually take the time to do real and balanced research and be objective and open minded when reaching their conclusions. Most are easily swayed by 50,000 ft views and over simplification of complex issues because we haven't the backgrounds to truly understand the perspectives. This is the danger of adhering strictly to a tight dogma and never swaying. You only see what you want to see. And that is true usually for the PROS and the CONS of any subject.

That happens a lot here. They always post an article written by someone who has an obvious bias toward the suburbs and claim it is evidence that urbanists are wrong and stupid.

Why don't you refute the points of the argument instead of trying to discredit it because you just don't like it. You can't claim that any article that doesn't support your particular view is biased. That would be very arrogant. When we read both sides of an argument and make our own decisions we are better for it.

nm

Out of 10,000+ registered users on this forum, there is probably only a single poster who would try to tell you that the suburbs are going away. I can't believe that people get so wound up like someone is actually trying to take away the option to live in the 'burbs. Heck, statistically it remains practically the ONLY option in OKC, and will for the foreseeable future.

Never understood this line of thinking on here. The vast majority of OKC is made up of low density suburban areas (and people who prefer that lifestyle, which is fine btw) and people get offended because this site somewhat skews urban. Are people that seriously thin skinned? Do these people not realize they are in the majority? There's definitely a bit of a persecution complex going on.

It is very easy to find published documentation to support whatever position you desire.

However, in the case of urbanism, you could compare sprawl-supporters to climate change deniers. Those who research urban growth patterns have concluded that higher density urbanism is better- from an environmentalist perspective, from a government finance perspective, from a public health perspective... list goes on.

That's why sprawl-supporting articles usually focus on what people are actually buying, rather than what's "empirically best"- Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult to say that people are buying a particular type of urbanism because they want or like it, because only one type of urbanism is widely available: sprawl.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5392079&headline=Oklahoma%20City%20Boulevard%20contract%20 wins%20approval%20of%20Oklahoma%20Transportation%2 0Commission


The state Transportation Commission voted Monday to award a $40.6 million contract for continuing work on the Oklahoma City Boulevard.

Work will include a ramp from northbound Interstate 35 to the boulevard, in the same interchange where other work is underway to connect the freeway and the east end of the new road.

About 1.2 miles of pavement will be extended from the interstate along the south edge of Bricktown to E.K. Gaylord Boulevard. A short tunnel will carry traffic beneath the elevated BNSF Railway tracks.

Those who research urban growth patterns have concluded that higher density urbanism is better- from an environmentalist perspective, from a government finance perspective, from a public health perspective... list goes on.I'm not going to deny that in any way. If every single person in OKC were to live in 100 story towers within just several blocks of each other, think of how much money we'd all save... Think of all the pollution that would be stopped...

Thing is, I don't care. I don't want to live like that. With new techniques in highway and road construction, we are getting better roads and highways that are lasting longer. With newer cars that get better fuel mileage and fuels like hydrogen that are made virtually from water and emit water vapor, or batteries that get electricity from windmills, the pollution and smog is becoming less and less of an issue even when more and more cars are getting on the road. Many older cars are starting to reach the end of their lifespan.

As far as public health, that is a joke because Japan has incredibly dense urban cities, yet extremely poor health in a lot of areas and high suicide rates. Yes, I am aware they have longer lifespans than the US.

The urbanist and anti-sprawl supporters will use any means to shoot down sprawl supporting articles while undoubtedly supporting pro-urbanist articles every time. Comparing people like me who support serving the NW part of OKC with sufficient highways of 8-10 lanes or what need be to climate change deniers is a joke and nothing short of laughable.

In the suburbs of Dallas, health is great! People are walking around, always active, and as with a lot of the US, are eating healthier now.

As time goes on, new technologies are going to be unveiled that pioneer new techniques or materials for highway and road surfaces that are cheaper and last longer than traditional cement or asphalt and the same is said for water, sewer, and other infrastructure. So all of those arguments you have used, are quickly loosing their validity.

Of course, it will always be more efficient to have 1,000,000 people living in the core than spread around the city with nice open suburban areas of their choosing, but I prefer the latter. Sometimes, you spend a little extra money to give people better options. The single problem I have, is the environmental aspect, but again, with alternative fuel and power, that argument is becoming irrelevant. Yes, I believe in climate change.

We also seem to forget that the city itself is certainly big enough to offer a lot of living options besides high density. If I wanted a yard, I'd live in Edgemere, Gatewood or, most likely, SoSA. There's Putnam Heights and a bunch of other reasonably close in neighborhoods that make city amenities close at hand, while offering more space. You don't have to live in the suburbs of you want a yard and reasonable prices per square foot. Regardless, we don't realize how good we've got it compared to most cities, even for housing we consider expensive. My daughter rents in San Francisco, but a one bedroom apartment in her very ordinary building was recently listed for $1.7 million.

Yeah, so many here try to make their cases in absolutes, as if the only living options are on a cul de sac or in a high rise. There are LOTS of options in between, including big houses in the center of the city with big yards on quiet, leafy streets but still walkable to dining/entertainment/essential services (I owned and lived in one of these, in Gatewood).

Another in-between option is a great suburban neighborhood, built in such a way that it is also walkable to goods/services/entertainment; that is, an option that doesn't require a car for ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING. Unfortunately, this is an option that for the time being is completely unavailable in metro OKC.

You don't have to live in the suburbs of you want a yard and reasonable prices per square foot.

This. MOST of Oklahoma City is built in this manner but you would think only the suburbs offer green lawns and quiet streets from some of the posters on the board. FWIW I love dense urban areas and prefer them, but I've always lived in the central city on a street with *gasp* big lawns and cars in every driveway. It doesn't have to be either or.

We have far more trees than the suburbs too... Okay. Now I'm just teasing.

This. MOST of Oklahoma City is built in this manner but you would think only the suburbs offer green lawns and quiet streets from some of the posters on the board. FWIW I love dense urban areas and prefer them, but I've always lived in the central city on a street with *gasp* big lawns and cars in every driveway. It doesn't have to be either or.

We have far more trees than the suburbs too... Okay. Now I'm just teasing.

Actually, you may not be teasing. I know *some* of the suburbs have mature trees (such as the cool black jack oaks in some of the neighborhoods in Edmond), but many of them are just a bunch of houses on land that has been completely scraped. All the landscaping is brand-new and will take years to fill in.

Our older, historic, neighborhoods in the core of the city have the most amazing large trees, many of which form canopies across the streets. You really can't buy that with new construction. But of course I'm biased, because I live in one of those neighborhoods. And, by the way, I, too, have a large yard even though I am only 5 minutes from downtown.

I will say that it's going to be more difficult for people to find a house with a great yard really close to downtown if they don't want an older house, say, pre-1950s. Unless we're going to call Windsor Hills the central core. If that's still central core, then many newer options can be found. I am kind of thinking of a border of Broadway Extension/I-40/I-44. Not scientific, just my personal idea of the boundary.

This. MOST of Oklahoma City is built in this manner but you would think only the suburbs offer green lawns and quiet streets from some of the posters on the board. FWIW I love dense urban areas and prefer them, but I've always lived in the central city on a street with *gasp* big lawns and cars in every driveway. It doesn't have to be either or.

We have far more trees than the suburbs too... Okay. Now I'm just teasing.

The problem with the central part of the city is the school district. A huge reason people move to the suburbs is for good schools. Every time I think about moving closing into town, my wife shoots it down due to schools. Maybe instead of urbanist trying to block good infrastructure they should focus on improving the inner city schools.

The problem with the central part of the city is the school district. A huge reason people move to the suburbs is for good schools. Every time I think about moving closing into town, my wife shoots it down due to schools. Maybe instead of urbanist trying to block good infrastructure they should focus on improving the inner city schools.

Urbanists are trying to block good infrastructure? What in the world does that mean?

Maybe you haven't noticed but there has definitely been a great focus on trying to improve inner city schools. I have no idea what you are saying in trying to relate those two concepts. Do you think that urbanists can only think about one thing to the exclusion of everything else?

The "goodness" of city schools is usually related to the perception of what "type" of children attend. The teachers are trained at the same colleges and universities, the books are the same. Beyond that, what you get from an education is what you and your parents put into it. Testing reveals more about IQ, which you can't teach, and training the students for testing than it does about their education. Gentrification is an ugly word these days, but as you get more people choosing not to move to the suburbs, you get more diverse populations in schools. Diversity is actually educational and humanizing, I think. It's good for children from disadvantaged homes and those from advantaged homes to learn from each other. All my children went to private school here. Being a city girl when I moved here, there was no way I was moving to the suburbs. But all my neighbors said,"Oh you can't send your children to public school in Oklahoma City!" So I didn't. Interestingly, all 4 of my children have said they will absolutely not send their children to private school. Only one of them is married, but she and her husband picked a Chicago neighborhood that has a good public school and that's where their children will go. It has a diverse population and they like that. It also has a huge amount of parent involvement, which has been shown to be very beneficial. I see that happening at some of our OKC schools as well.

Cleveland Elementary (B): http://afreportcards.ok.gov/Files/ReportCards2014/201455I089154.pdf
Wilson Elementary (B-): http://afreportcards.ok.gov/Files/ReportCards2014/201455I089480.pdf
Classen Middle (B+): http://afreportcards.ok.gov/Files/ReportCards2014/201455I089508.pdf
Belle Isle Middle (A+): http://afreportcards.ok.gov/Files/ReportCards2014/201455I089503.pdf
U.S. Grant HS (B): http://afreportcards.ok.gov/Files/ReportCards2014/201455I089712.pdf
Harding Charter Prep HS (A+): http://afreportcards.ok.gov/Files/ReportCards2014/201455E010980.pdf
Harding Fine Arts HS (A+): http://afreportcards.ok.gov/Files/ReportCards2014/201455E008978.pdf

My children will attend OKC Public Schools. I'm excited they will meet, interact with, and become friends with children who are different than they are. My house was purchased because the districted elementary school is excellent.

Wow... I've just had the "pleasure" of reading over the last two pages of this thread. Maybe someone should change the name from "Crosstown Blvd Updates", to "Bitching About Suburban vs. Urban". Is there any ACTUAL news about the boulevard to report?

The news is this : The left lane closure on I40 going eastbound to finish up the ramp to the boulevard has been a major pain in my ass on my commute home from work. Hopefully that is finished soon.

It is very easy to find published documentation to support whatever position you desire. Most people make up their minds about an issue and spend time finding things to support their opinion. A few actually take the time to do real and balanced research and be objective and open minded when reaching their conclusions. Most are easily swayed by 50,000 ft views and over simplification of complex issues because we haven't the backgrounds to truly understand the perspectives. This is the danger of adhering strictly to a tight dogma and never swaying. You only see what you want to see. And that is true usually for the PROS and the CONS of any subject.

Pete should make this post a sticky in the politics section.