Visiting OKC with my wife and a lot of improvement has and is taking place, but the condition of city streets and highways is simply embarrassing. Driving on level pavement is almost non existent. Cracks, potholes, crumbling curbs. The state of disrepair is a poor reflection on the city and does not scream prosperity but incompetence in city planning and infrastructure managements. This IMO needs to take center stage on the list of priorities facing the city

LOL.

Come to Denver. A world class city but it's tearing my sedan up. I need an off-road vehicle just to drive on road.

Okc has very good streets -- a few problem areas but nothing that reflects bad on the city.

LOL.

Come to Denver. A world class city but it's tearing my sedan up. I need an off-road vehicle just to drive on road.

Okc has very good streets -- a few problem areas but nothing that reflects bad on the city.

A lot of that has to do with Denver's weather especially in winter. The pattern especially in Feb - April is 24 hours cold and snow, 48 hours sunshine. Temps can swing from below freezing to 70+ degrees in that span. Plus they salt and chemically treat the roads, so that can't help either. (At least they did when I lived there 20 odd years ago).

LOL.

Come to Denver. A world class city but it's tearing my sedan up. I need an off-road vehicle just to drive on road.

Okc has very good streets -- a few problem areas but nothing that reflects bad on the city.

I hope you are kidding,because by any objective measure to say OKC has very good streets is laughable. Even Mick Cornett admits that��

A lot of that has to do with Denver's weather especially in winter. The pattern especially in Feb - April is 24 hours cold and snow, 48 hours sunshine. Temps can swing from below freezing to 70+ degrees in that span. Plus they salt and chemically treat the roads, so that can't help either. (At least they did when I lived there 20 odd years ago).

Oklahoma has just as diverse weather, and in some cases even worse.

I'm not joking dcsooner, your constant attempts to find anything at all to complain about OKC is getting tiresome. Our roads are in very good condition compared to many other cities. There's problems yes, but I wouldn't say we have roads so bad that other people will have a bad opinion of OKC.

Oklahoma has just as diverse weather, and in some cases even worse.

I'm not joking dcsooner, your constant attempts to find anything at all to complain about OKC is getting tiresome. Our roads are in very good condition compared to many other cities. There's problems yes, but I wouldn't say we have roads so bad that other people will have a bad opinion of OKC.

I am not joking, I truly fail to understand why people cannot respectfully disagree with an individual's opinion without questioning them personally. You ignore my initial comment acknowledging progress. IMO, To say our roads are better than other cities does not negate the need to go improve roads in OKC, but I stand by my opinion and respect yours

Here's a tip, roads suck everywhere. I'm noticing that more and more wherever I go.

I disagree. Roads in Dallas, Albuquerque, Austin, El Paso, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego, Tucson, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, and a few other cities have pretty good roads. Oklahoma City isn't the worst, but there are a few sh!tty areas. LA has absolutely horrific roads and it is evident that it stops as soon as you go into another municipality.

On a side note, I noticed Utah has some of the best roads and highways I've ever seen. Very smooth and well designed. Anyone else share this belief?

I always notice the nice roads in Florida. And I think they make it a priority there with all of the tourism. The weather is pretty easy on them, though I guess.

Yeah Florida does have really nice roads from my experience as well.

The worst roads I've seen are in Missouri, Illinois, and Tennessee. Texas has amazing roads in some areas but they are really inconsistent. For example, Frisco and Plano have great roads. Denton, not so much.

Same thing with Arizona. They seem to spend money putting up signs warning of rough roads instead of fixing them.

New Mexico generally has smooth highways and roads.

Oklahoma is another state that is inconsistent.

Oh, and I'm sure if anyone else would agree, but I think Tulsa's roads are much worse than OKC's.

As said already, extreme weather swings have a big play. I actually though roads in Arizona (the east valley cities at least) were always butter smooth (not to mention the kick ass street light signs in Tempe/Chandler/Gilbert).

Southern California has awesome weather year-round and the roads there are pretty bad as well.

The simple matter is that the U.S. car culture has created a situation where there are too many roads and bridges to maintain.

The simple matter is that the U.S. car culture has created a situation where there are too many roads and bridges to maintain.
This

If our nation was like a European country, which is about the size of one U.S. state and the population of California, then this wouldn't be an issue. But when we travel within our country, we have a lot of area to cover since we're one of the larger nations and we have over 300 million people and a lot of those people are driving age.

Car culture has something to do with it, but traxx is right in regards to the shear size of the country also.

Car culture has something to do with it, but traxx is right in regards to the shear size of the country also.

It's the lack of density across the country that is the real issue.

Not enough tax payers for each mile of road that needs to be serviced. And that's almost completely down to how our cities are developed.

Australia is almost as big with a fraction of the population, but that population is much more tightly clustered in its cities.

Same with Canada, as both those countries were not developed under the powerful auto making and petroleum lobbies.

For reference:
Australia = 2.97 million mi²
Contiguous USA = 3.12 million mi²

Most of the population of Australia is packed along the east coast. Kangaroos don't need nice interstates in the outback.

^ In relatively dense cities with tons of public transportation. Same with Canada.

Interstate highways in the U.S. are a tiny fraction of our total streets and roads.

Most of the population of Australia is packed along the east coast. Kangaroos don't need nice interstates in the outback.

This response correlates directly to your statement.


It's the lack of density across the country that is the real issue.

Not enough tax payers for each mile of road that needs to be serviced. And that's almost completely down to how our cities are developed.

Australia is almost as big with a fraction of the population, but that population is much more tightly clustered in its cities.

Same with Canada, as both those countries were not developed under the powerful auto making and petroleum lobbies.

^ In relatively dense cities with tons of public transportation. Same with Canada.

Interstate highways in the U.S. are a tiny fraction of our total streets and roads.

But remember, we are more free in the US than they are. That's what driving gives us. Freedom.

Currently, there are 4.12 million miles of road in the United States, according to the Federal Highway Administration, including Alaska and Hawaii. The core of the nation’s highway system is the 47,575 miles of Interstate Highways

http://www.artba.org/about/faq/

Land size is where I think the comparisons to Australia should probably end. I won't argue about how cities are developed and all that, but figure that our population was last equal to Australia's current population before the Civil War (also before oil and auto making lobbies), I'd say we had some other factors as well.

But remember, we are more free in the US than they are. That's what driving gives us. Freedom.

No one said that, but nice jab

^

The point is that for a newish country, the U.S. has been developed much differently than others like Canada and Australia (also newish, and well-capitalized).

It's not the size of the country, it's how it develops its cities that has the biggest impact on ability to maintain infrastructure.

Simply put, the more people you have in an area, the more tax dollars for maintenance and less need to keep building new stuff out in the boonies.

^

The point is that for a newish country, the U.S. has been developed much differently than others like Canada and Australia (also newish, and well-capitalized).

It's not the size of the country, it's how it develops its cities that has the biggest impact on ability to maintain infrastructure.

Simply put, the more people you have in an area, the more tax dollars for maintenance and less need to keep building new stuff out in the boonies.

No doubt. So who do we blame? The auto makers and oil companies, or the pioneers of the frontier in the 1800's who said "go west!"?

It is something to wonder, if the US had developed like those other countries. Would we all be living in Japan-like density, with vast country side in the middle that no one occupies? (edit - wait, that'd be Mexico)

It's not about blame, it's about understanding what got us into this unsustainable mess and how to be smarter in the future.

OKC is just now starting a dialog about his very issue while other American cities -- like Portland -- are way ahead.

It's just about smart growth.


And to answer you second question, if we had done a better job of this in the past had had not pandered to our huge industries, we would likely look a lot more like Australia and Canada, countries noted for beautiful, clean and livable cities.

It's not about blame, it's about understanding what got us into this unsustainable mess and how to be smarter in the future.

OKC is just now starting a dialog about his very issue while other American cities -- like Portland -- are way ahead.

It's just about smart growth.


And to answer you second question, if we had done a better job of this in the past had had not pandered to our huge industries, we would likely look a lot more like Australia and Canada, countries noted for beautiful, clean and livable cities.

You list Portland as a great example, but one of our own just moved there, someone who I think is respected here, and he's been pretty outspoken about how he hated it and is glad he's gone.

If we had done a better job but population growth stayed the same, I don't think you're cramming 319 million people in those same spaces and keeping it beautiful and clean.

I'm not arguing against smart growth or anything, I'd love to see more infill and a growth boundary. Just having a discussion.

I've spent an unusually large amount of time in KC, Wichita and DFW this summer. I really don't see the complaints about OKC streets comparatively. Theirs aren't better.

Anecdotal opinions of one person aside, Portland is universally recognized as a textbook case in smart planning and became an incredibly popular city after its smart growth initiatives were instituted.

It's not perfect and not for everyone, of course.

I've spent an unusually large amount of time in KC, Wichita and DFW this summer. I really don't see the complaints about OKC streets comparatively. Theirs aren't better.

The are bad everywhere in the U.S. and so are our tunnels and bridges and general infrastructure that is far less obvious.

not for everyone, of course.

Of course it's not, only few can afford it. :)

No doubt. So who do we blame? The auto makers and oil companies, or the pioneers of the frontier in the 1800's who said "go west!"? ...

Like Pete said, there really isn't "blame." Like you point out, the American idea of Manifest Destiny contributes; it's cultural in that regard.

But, even though there isn't "blame," there really WERE conscious decisions that created the auto-centric culture and a huge shift here that didn't occur elsewhere, mostly due to timing. There are lots of elements, but here goes:


Post-WWII the manufacturing economy - which had been thriving during wartime - needed a kick in the pants to maintain itself
GIs came back from war and found out that in many cases their manufacturing jobs had been taken over by women, who realized that they enjoyed working outside of the house and elected to stay in the workforce
The Second Great Migration of southern African Americans also created pressure for more manufacturing jobs in the north and in the west
The U.S. government and industrial leaders understood that new housing starts and roadbuilding would create jobs for returning GIs, while factories that had ramped up to build tanks and airplanes during war now needed to build cars...LOTS of cars to stay operational and thriving, and to provide jobs to GIs, women and relocating African Americans
U.S. government subsidized home loans for veterans; but said mortgages could only be used for single family dwellings...thus creating more need for automobiles, and roads, and tires, and related jobs
Corporations with ownership including GM, Firestone Tires, Standard Oil and Mack Truck bought urban streetcar lines and dismantled them in favor of city buses, then altered or discontinued bus service to wean people off of transit and into automobiles
Aforementioned Second Great Migration caused many white city dwellers to opt for suburbs (white flight), which was further exacerbated by civil rights movement and forced integration and bussing soon afterward
The new "American Dream" ideal of white picket fence and unlimited ability to go where you want, when you want in your personal automobile became very appealing to the middle class, who had never before in the history of man been able to afford the proverbial "house in the country" that the wealthy had enjoyed for centuries

Anyway, lots of other factors, but really we created - via timing, some well-intentioned decisions, and even some not-so-well-intentioned decisions - a type of living that had never before existed in human history. All over the course of a few decades. And we liked it, at least at first. The problem is that in many ways the other shoe has dropped. It has fed into donut development, rolling ghettos, bad foreign policy driven by a need to preserve our energy options, institutionalized poverty and bad access to gainful employment for some, food deserts in poor areas, public health/obesity issues, isolation and mental health issues, and you can go on and on...

I'm NOT saying suburban living is bad. NOT saying cars are bad. I've been on record here saying it can/should be a valid choice, especially when someone can still work/shop close to where they live. I'm just saying that for a variety of reasons we let the scale tip so far in one direction that in many cities we basically eliminated the one thing that human history has done successfully for thousands of years, that is, live in a walkable city environment where we aren't slaves to a single transportation source (other than our own feet).

The suburbs are going to exist. It is a perfectly fine - even great - choice for many. We just need to change the way we approach them. They need to be GREAT suburbs. Retro-fit with complete shopping/dining/employment options nearby. In some cases more walkable options created. And we need to stop building isolated density at the fringe of our cities that keep pushing the edge out and out and out...

This

If our nation was like a European country, which is about the size of one U.S. state and the population of California, then this wouldn't be an issue. But when we travel within our country, we have a lot of area to cover since we're one of the larger nations and we have over 300 million people and a lot of those people are driving age.

I have talked with tons of international students and they all tell me Europe has absolutely horrible roads in a lot of places.

I have talked with tons of international students and they all tell me Europe has absolutely horrible roads in a lot of places.I really didn't think about this until PluPan posted this but I went to Italy, France and Germany a few years ago to see where dad was in WW2 and that's true. The countryside roads are nice but city streets aren't any better than ours.

I have talked with tons of international students and they all tell me Europe has absolutely horrible roads in a lot of places.

I spent a month in Spain, and the big problem I saw with their roads were they were very narrow. Half of the passenger trucks wouldn't be able to drive or park on them since 90% of it is parallel parking and those spots are very tight to get into and out of. My friend broke her foot a couple of weeks before I arrived there last year, so I was forced to drive there and had to take a crash course in parallel parking. She has a small car and it was hairy parking in some places I thought I could never get into. The roads there are also mainly out of the medieval era, and at least in the old part of towns are mostly brick. Also I don't think I saw a single semi on the roads, even on the highways. They were all box trucks which were more compact than the ones you see in the US. I was mostly in a tourist area, and didn't really see any bad roads except for a shortcut we used to take through some farm land to save a couple KM. That you had to be really careful on.

Thanks C....I know that took a lot of time. Good discussion which is all I was gunning for.

Both Australia and Canada have significantly fewer people than the US. Canada isn't quite as populated as California and Australia is a little less populated than Texas. Not to mention that much of the central part of Australia is not easily inhabitable. So those are big differences there.

Anecdotal opinions of one person aside, Portland is universally recognized as a textbook case in smart planning and became an incredibly popular city after its smart growth initiatives were instituted.

It's not perfect and not for everyone, of course.

It absolutely is a textbook example. It looks great on paper and has all of the right things. it really does have everything a great city should have. And as far as a city goes, it is great. The problem is the city has completely outgrown its infrastructure. Which is not smart growth, but rather "no growth". They figured by instituting policies which restricted development, the population would not outgrow he infrastructure. They were wrong. People kept coming, housing costs skyrocketed, and traffic became unbearable. Highways are gridlocked by 2pm, side streets are jammed by 4pm. People who lived in the inner city have been out priced to the suburbs, and deal with traffic more. The people who can afford to live and work in the downtown/Pearl have a pretty good standard of living, rivaling any major city around the world.

Your average person will live in the suburbs, commuting 3-4 hours each day, and not afford any of the fun amenities that make that city great.

If I made 4 times the income where I could afford to live in a trendy area, take mass transit to work, and enjoy the good aspects I wouldn't have a bad opinion of it. The problem is most people in Portland cannot afford that lifestyle and as such it really offers an oppressive lifestyle.

Edit: I would add that it is an absolute great city to visit. You aren't dealing with the traffic as a stressor, the costs of living, or any of the other problems which affects residents but not visitors. I would go back to visit, but if offered to live there I would turn it down 100 times unless I got a 400% raise to do so.

One thing that irks me about Oklahoma highways is our road signs. They're total garbage. There's a large number of signs that have margins that are too small, are off center, lines spaced unevenly, and so on. There are few signs here and there that use the wrong fonts. Hell, if you go on I-235 northbound, the exit sign for Sheridan (probably the most important street in OKC in terms of putting off a good impression) can't even manage to have all of the letters be the same size.

Doing it right doesn't cost us anything more and we can't blame it on the climate or lack of revenue. It's a small detail, but it makes Oklahoma look really sloppy.

Rural wise, it's at least great that much of I-35 from OKC to the Kansas line is in better shape than it used to be. It quite recently got repaved between the Stillwater exit to just south of the Guthrie exit. Highway 33 from Guthrie east to Perkins is in pretty good shape. One sure can't use those two fine stretches to point out how bad Oklahoma highways are.

Rural wise, it's at least great that much of I-35 from OKC to the Kansas line is in better shape than it used to be. It quite recently got repaved between the Stillwater exit to just south of the Guthrie exit. Highway 33 from Guthrie east to Perkins is in pretty good shape. One sure can't use those two fine stretches to point out how bad Oklahoma highways are.

What I don't get is the land (or shall I say, right of way) has been cleared for years for that section of HWY 33 between the Cimmaron River just NE of Langston toward Perkins and it still has yet to be developed into the same kinda 4 lane open access highway like it it from Guthrie to Langston. Don't get me wrong, it's a mighty fine road and much better than it used to be, so much so that I don't travel to Stillwater using 51 anymore cause 33 is that much faster IMO.

drove i-40 east to henryetta from MWC Mon (and back) & it was actually a pleasant drive (if long lol) ... road was in good shape, only had a few rough patches but I set the cruise control on 70 & enjoyed it lol, whereas I HATE the stretch of i-35 Southbound from Danforth rd in edmond, for a few miles it's very rough! & the junction (44 e/35 sb )
is is need of repair as well!

What I don't get is the land (or shall I say, right of way) has been cleared for years for that section of HWY 33 between the Cimmaron River just NE of Langston toward Perkins and it still has yet to be developed into the same kinda 4 lane open access highway like it it from Guthrie to Langston. Don't get me wrong, it's a mighty fine road and much better than it used to be, so much so that I don't travel to Stillwater using 51 anymore cause 33 is that much faster IMO.

It's in the long range plans, but traffic counts don't justify bumping it higher in the priority list.

It's in the long range plans, but traffic counts don't justify bumping it higher in the priority list.

I do concur with that...it makes for the nice alternative drive to Stilly!

Just my opinion but anyway, I drive everyday from my place in Norman to 50 Penn Place for work, and the road/highway conditions are the least of my worries. It's more the commuters that cause the headaches for me rather than the road conditions, but then there is a another thread for that. Many of Norman's roads (the main arteries) are either relatively new or have been re-paved (I usually take 12th, then Robinson, Rock Creek or Tecumseh), I-35 is in pretty good shape, the new I-40 crosstown, well it opened not too long ago and then I-44 which I take everyday from the I-40/I-44 junction is not too bad either. Now some of the inner city streets in Oklahoma City are definitely in bad shape, and I'm talking about Penn, but especially more so the streets just west of downtown.

OUman, just curious why you take I-40 to 44 rather than stay on Broadway Extension and hit I-44 from there? My husband takes that route on his way to work and hasn't had any trouble with traffic other than the brief slowdown that always occurs where Broadway Extension curves near NW 50th. Seems like you might save yourself some time and miles by utilizing Broadway Ext.

OUman, just curious why you take I-40 to 44 rather than stay on Broadway Extension and hit I-44 from there? My husband takes that route on his way to work and hasn't had any trouble with traffic other than the brief slowdown that always occurs where Broadway Extension curves near NW 50th. Seems like you might save yourself some time and miles by utilizing Broadway Ext.

Probably just preparing for when 235 has extensive lane closures for the upcoming work. Just my guess ��

OUman, just curious why you take I-40 to 44 rather than stay on Broadway Extension and hit I-44 from there? My husband takes that route on his way to work and hasn't had any trouble with traffic other than the brief slowdown that always occurs where Broadway Extension curves near NW 50th. Seems like you might save yourself some time and miles by utilizing Broadway Ext.

I've thought about it but pretty much everyday it's clogged with traffic beginning right where the split is to 235. I-35 to I-44 on the Crosstown takes me only 5 minutes (this during the morning rush), then it's another 4 or so minutes on I-44 north of 40 to Penn. The only place I have to stop (if at all) is at Penn when I get off I-44. Maybe it's just my timing and I'm seeing only the back-up near downtown and the rest of it is flowing fast. I'll definitely give it a try, appreciate the suggestion :).

I've thought about it but pretty much everyday it's clogged with traffic beginning right where the split is to 235. I-35 to I-44 on the Crosstown takes me only 5 minutes (this during the morning rush), then it's another 4 or so minutes on I-44 north of 40 to Penn. The only place I have to stop (if at all) is at Penn when I get off I-44. Maybe it's just my timing and I'm seeing only the back-up near downtown and the rest of it is flowing fast. I'll definitely give it a try, appreciate the suggestion :).

Ah, I see. The difference for us is that we get onto 235 at 23rd because of where we live, so we don't have to deal with what you do at the split. And yes, the route you take when you get on 44 is a good, short, one. When we lived in Linwood, I used that exact route any time I needed to go up to the 50 Penn area.

I've thought about it but pretty much everyday it's clogged with traffic beginning right where the split is to 235. I-35 to I-44 on the Crosstown takes me only 5 minutes (this during the morning rush), then it's another 4 or so minutes on I-44 north of 40 to Penn. The only place I have to stop (if at all) is at Penn when I get off I-44. Maybe it's just my timing and I'm seeing only the back-up near downtown and the rest of it is flowing fast. I'll definitely give it a try, appreciate the suggestion :).

Once you get past the Health Science Center exit on Lincoln, then it speeds up. Just watch out for the motorcycle cops.

http://kfor.com/2016/11/02/study-oklahoma-city-drivers-paying-most-for-rough-roads/

But make no doubt about it, whatsoever, most Oklahoma drivers would far, far, rather pay the amount of having to get tires replaced more often, wheels aligned and other problems fixed than being forced to pay two or three more pennies per gallon of tax on gas every single time they fill up.

But make no doubt about it, whatsoever, most Oklahoma drivers would far, far, rather pay the amount of having to get tires replaced more often, wheels aligned and other problems fixed than being forced to pay two or three more pennies per gallon of tax on gas every single time they fill up.

Sad but true. People tend to not dig deep enough to count the true cost of bad roads. Had yet another alignment job due to gaping potholes on OKC streets.

Plutonic Panda, I didn't know you were in town...

http://newsok.com/ohp-man-arrested-for-driving-208-mph-on-oklahoma-turnpike/article/5527071

Yeah, I'm out now. They usually get me in and out really quick since we all know the drill and they have my info all memorized. ;)

Could we do something with ODOT to create a MAPS like project for the roads?

But make no doubt about it, whatsoever, most Oklahoma drivers would far, far, rather pay the amount of having to get tires replaced more often, wheels aligned and other problems fixed than being forced to pay two or three more pennies per gallon of tax on gas every single time they fill up.

We've already shown this to be true and it's so sad and frustrating. We love to complain, but dont want to do anything about it. What's dumb is that couple of cents a gallon means less than a buck per fill-up for most folks....hell, really less than 50 cents. But 50 cents multiplied by 6 million is $3 million (assuming we're getting residential and commercial). Let's average that as 2 fill up's per month. That's $6million a month or $72 million a year. It's enough to inject some life into the DoT and get some crap done that otherwise would just sit.

The next thing would be to get the legislature to not be able to take away existing funding structures because this exists, like they did with education. When they do that, then we end up back at the same place we were with zero progress.

But we've shown time and time again, that all we want are lower taxes and then to complain when there isn't enough money to do anything. At almost a billion dollar deficit, we're going to be bankrupt in a few years.

...
But we've shown time and time again, that all we want are lower taxes and then to complain when there isn't enough money to do anything. At almost a billion dollar deficit, we're going to be bankrupt in a few years.

Sadly, it might take us hitting rock bottom for the dumba**es in this state to realize we have to do something. Don't know why *so* many things have to get *so* bad for somebody to realize something needs to be done, and by that time, it's almost too late (much easier to do preventive maintenance on an engine than to replace or rebuild it, much easier to paint a house every few years rather than wait until you have to replace all the siding because it's deteriorated so much it can't be painted, ad nauseum).

Could we do something with ODOT to create a MAPS like project for the roads?OKC metro has that, its called ACOG.

A KFOR update on the issue of freeway lighting problems.

http://kfor.com/2017/03/28/copper-thefts-causing-safety-issue-on-oklahoma-highways/