Can someone post this article, please?

http://journalrecord.com/2017/05/15/traffic-outpacing-roads-panel-says/

I haven't read the article, but I certainly don't need a panel to tell me that the roads around the metro area are behind in the times. 2 lane I-35 between I-44 and I-40 is proof of that, and should have been upgraded years ago. Other projects like I-235/I-44 and I-35/I-240 should have been done years ago as well.

I haven't read the article, but I certainly don't need a panel to tell me that the roads around the metro area are behind in the times. 2 lane I-35 between I-44 and I-40 is proof of that, and should have been upgraded years ago. Other projects like I-235/I-44 and I-35/I-240 should have been done years ago as well.

The fact that I-40 and I-44 are two lane interstates by Mathis Brothers is a travesty.

^ That too.

The fact that I-40 and I-44 are two lane interstates by Mathis Brothers is a travesty.

I am still in wonder why it wasn't fixed when they redid I-40.

I am still in wonder why it wasn't fixed when they redid I-40.

Because the federal government didn't provide any money to do that like they did I-40.

Has anyone heard whether the I40/I44 interchange will be the next big interchange redo added to the 8 year plan for OKC?

Has anyone heard whether the I40/I44 interchange will be the next big interchange redo added to the 8 year plan for OKC?
I would not expect much to be added to this years 8 year plan update even if the budget problem gets fixed. In fact, unless Oklahoma sees another oil boom, I wouldn't count on the legislators being progressive enough to do something that would increase the amount of construction that OkDOT was planning to undertake.

The I-40/I-44 interchange is in fact on OkDOT's radar. Funding is identified for utility work to prepare for its reconstruction in FY2024. However OkDOT still has not indicated what they plan to do with the interchange. I think would be great for a five stack and by that I mean a second set of flyovers for HOV lanes going west and northbound. Fat chance of that happening I'd be happy with a 4 stack. I won't hold my breath for it though.

OkDOT also has the Belle Isle bridge replacement scheduled to come up within the next decade and as the I-40 crosstown relocation project is wrapped up with final phase of the Downtown OKC Boulevard being constructed, I suspect OkDOT will focus on the Belle Isle Bridge and I-40/I-44 interchange.

By the time these projects are shovel ready, the following projects will likely have been completed.

* I-235/I-44 interchange
* I-40 widening to Shawnee
* I-35/240 interchange
*I-35 improvements in Norman
* I-35 rehabilitation project from I-44 to Second St. in Edmond
* SH-74 expansion to Waterloo Rd. Note that this expansion won't be fully controlled like the last one was.
* several smaller interchange projects such as Douglas Rd., Frisco Rd., Waterloo Rd., Choctaw Rd. Etc.

At the time are ready to begin construction on those two large projects they will also have these project under construction or soon to start

*I-240 widening to six lanes from I-35 to I-40
*I-44/I-35 interchange reconstruction(this project might actually be finished by then)
*I-35 widening to six lanes from I-40 to I-44
*I-35 widening in North Edmond
*I-44 widening in South OKC
*SH-9/I-35 project(phase two)
*SH-152(airport Rd) widening

OkDOT has some pretty decent projects in the works but they really need to be accelerated.

Some other long term projects I-d expect to be added soon are new phases of the I-35 widening to six lanes to Stillwater, possible widening of I-44 in south OKC in between SH-152 and I-40, improvements(possible widening or reconfiguration) of I-40 in Midwest City, and whatever improvements they select for I-35 Moore to Norman corridor.

Keep in mind they also have several other under the radar projects like SH-9 in East Norman reconstruction, they will completely reconstruct Lincoln BLVD in several areas, SH-4 is going to be reconstructed and in some areas, widened from Yukon to NW Expressway.

Some other projects I'd eventually like to see OkDOT tackle are converting NW 39th to a freeway, extend I-44 by the zoo to connect with the future EOC turnpike, new grade separation projects along NW Expressway to make it more of an expressway, new loops around Norman and Edmond, and realign SH-9 to link it together at I-35 south if the river. Color me very surprised if any of those even get proposed.

I do think that the Belle Isle bridge and I-40/I-44 projects need to be priority as soon as the current interchange projects get wrapped up which should be within the next 5 years. Bear in mind, this is all contingent upon funding. Right now OkDOT is proposing major cuts to even its current projects so we'll see how it goes down.

I also know several states have recently passed several road and freeway funding bills to increase or accelerate projects they are undertaking. I don't remember the exact number but I think it's in the 10-20 range and that's on top of the bills from regional transit authorities fund transit measures such as the 120 billion dollar measure M for Los Angeles rail and roads package. I know for a fact that Utah just very recently approved a one billion dollar loan that goes into effect immediately and will be paid out over the next 5 years to accelerate many major road projects that weren't going to start for another 5+ years and will now start within the next year or sooner. Arizona did the same though I'm not sure how money they funded but it has a decent number of impressive projects.

OTA will have its hands full for the next 5 years so don't expect much from them other than the additional flyovers for Kilpatrick/Hefner Parkway interchange. I just want to see what's proposed or even U/C get finished right now before anything new gets added.

The next infrastructure proposal to watch out for is what OKC does with the MAPS for Roads, GoBOND 2017, and RTA Measure. RTA measure is probably a few years out which might not be a bad thing but the 2017 GoBond is coming up in 3 months and Maps for Roads might be this year or next year at the latest.

Can someone post this article, please?

http://journalrecord.com/2017/05/15/traffic-outpacing-roads-panel-says/

Sorry, I was out of pocket for a few days. Here you go:

Traffic outpacing roads, panel says

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record May 15, 2017

OKLAHOMA CITY – The metro area’s population and traffic density is growing faster than its thoroughfares can handle, participants in a regional transit forum said Monday.

And even budgets and construction crews could somehow keep up with the demand, said John Sharp, transportation division director of the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments, there is only so much land that can be converted to lanes.

“What you see is what you get, going south to Norman,” he said. “There are options on interstates in the region for expansion. But as you know, as soon as we expand streets, we tend to fill them.”

The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber organized the forum in support of efforts to form a regional transit authority. Sharp and the rest of the panel Monday said they are generally pleased with the progress being made toward dealing with the growing problem before it brings the metro to gridlock, but they wish it could have started sooner. Sharp was joined in discussion by Jason Ferbrache, director of the Embark mass transit agency, and mayors Matt Dukes of Midwest City and Charles Lamb of Edmond.

“It’s up to us, as a BMA (business marketing association), to entice more people to the markets,” chamber Chairwoman Rhonda Hooper said. “So while Oklahoma City’s growth is an amazing thing, it brings a set of challenges, one of which is how we prepare our infrastructure and transit capabilities to prepare for increased demand.”

Ferbrache said residents will be surprised at how the modern streetcar being installed downtown under the MAPS 3 tax will transform the area and change attitudes. Expanded bus lines will gradually do the same, break stereotypes about mass transit, he said.

Early research on the viability of a regional transit authority suggests starting with three primary corridors expanding out from downtown to Edmond, Norman and Tinker Air Force Base and Midwest City. Once those lines are in place, Ferbrache said his own studies of other systems across the country suggest business and mode-changing hubs would follow.

Reiterating the theme of timeliness, Dukes urged policymakers to stick to the work, prevent encroachment of rights of way and not “kick the can down the road.” Lamb agreed, adding that Edmond has already made conscious efforts to retain land ownership.

“You may not get full support on your first vote,” Sharp said. “There will have to be a lot of public education and marketing involved to explain it to everyone.”

ACOG is seeking a consultant to help define the shape of the new regional transit authority. The first bids on a request for proposals are expected Friday.

“What you see is what you get, going south to Norman,” he said. “There are options on interstates in the region for expansion. But as you know, as soon as we expand streets, we tend to fill them.”

Good to see someone in our government understands induced demand. This is a good sign.

"Ferbrache said residents will be surprised at how the modern streetcar being installed downtown under the MAPS 3 tax will transform the area and change attitudes. Expanded bus lines will gradually do the same, break stereotypes about mass transit, he said."

hmm.. surprisingly progressive...

Good to see someone in our government understands induced demand. This is a good sign.

That was my biggest takeaway. Hopefully that understanding holds up under the pressure that will inevitably come from contractors and their roads first/widening friends.

Interesting take, and it shows how different people read the same thing and take away different things. You both see it as 'induced demand', whereas I see it as poor planning.

Example, right now Mustang road in Mustang, from SH-152 to 89th, is being expanded to a three-lane road. One lane each way and a turning lane. Anyone who has been on the road in the last two decades could tell you this should have been done two decades ago, and they are only just now starting it. However, that was the need 20 years ago. NOW the need is to be at LEAST four lanes, and while we're at it, doing 5 (two each way plus the turning lane) would be smart.

But that's not what we're doing. So when the construction is done, yes, absolutely, we're going to 'fill the road'. Because we know for a rock bottom fact before even turning the first shovel we're not building the road that needs to be built for CURRENT traffic, nevermind future.

While I completely understand the concept of 'induced demand', it's not the answer to everything. Look back just a couple posts in this very thread. Why are people questioning the wisdom of I-40/I-44 being only two lanes in that area? Because there is no wisdom to it. Based on the daily traffic, two lanes clearly doesn't cut it. If a third lane were there, then of course it would be 'filled', because it's still not enough. Demand on that intersection isn't going to magically increase if another lane is there. Sometimes a road has multiple lanes because multiple lanes are needed, not just for shirts and giggles.

I agree, not every road widening or improvement project should be scrapped because of the idea of induced demand. But it's nice to hear someone in government actually mentioning public transit and saying that widening roads doesn't solve long term congestion issues.

There are some roads and interchanges that would absolutely benefit from being redesigned to make them more safe. However, we shouldn't widen roads solely to increase capacity.

“What you see is what you get, going south to Norman,” he said. “There are options on interstates in the region for expansion. But as you know, as soon as we expand streets, we tend to fill them.”

Good to see someone in our government understands induced demand. This is a good sign.

"Ferbrache said residents will be surprised at how the modern streetcar being installed downtown under the MAPS 3 tax will transform the area and change attitudes. Expanded bus lines will gradually do the same, break stereotypes about mass transit, he said."

hmm.. surprisingly progressive...
Not a good sign at all and this was one of the worst quotes in the article. If OKC wants to fast track itself to horrid congestion, this kind of mentality is the way to do it.

The majority of people will opt for a car if they can afford it. So I don't know why these people think that mass transit will solve their traffic problems. Mass transit makes traffic worse because it encourages density. Not that it's a bad thing and one I certainly advocate for in certain areas.

Induced demand is bs anyways. It doesn't take into account nearby growth since the freeway started being widened or the stress the added lanes took from another freeway.

Name me one other industry that induced demand supposedly happens in? Why hasn't Kilpatrick become snarled with traffic? Or the new 10 lane I-40? I mean because induced demand I would have thought those lanes would be backed up because people would just come out of nowhere and start using them...

In the real world, the majority of people aren't going to start a trip because of an added lane(s). They will either adjust their route and use the new lanes as opposed to their old route which would be good government giving those a more direct path with less congestion. Those that do just decide to start taking trips because of added lanes would be an anomaly.

Name me one other industry that induced demand supposedly happens in? Why hasn't Kilpatrick become snarled with traffic? Or the new 10 lane I-40? I mean because induced demand I would have thought those lanes would be backed up because people would just come out of nowhere and start using them...



It's not like all the sudden cars pile on to a new freeway when it gets expanded. It takes time to fill em up. If you build an infrastructure that supports cars, people will use cars. If we expand a highway, it's likely that over time, we'll adjust the surrounding areas to take full advantage of those expanded highways with developments causing more car travel. Because of these developments, over time there will be a greater level of traffic causing congestion which will then require a bigger highway which will then perpetuate the cycle.

If i'm not clear enough, you can take a look at wikipedia, it explains the phenomenon in detail and gives real world examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

here's a good quote: "A 1998 meta-analysis by the Surface Transportation Policy Project, which utilized data from the Institute, stated that "Metro areas which invested heavily in road capacity expansion fared no better in easing congestion than metro areas that did not.""

another from the article which clearly articulates the phenomena: "In the short term, increased travel on new road space can come from one of two sources: diverted travel and induced traffic. Diverted travel occurs when people divert their trip from another road (change in route) or retime their travel (change in timing). For example, people might travel to work earlier than they would otherwise like, in order to avoid peak period congestion – but if road capacity is expanded, peak congestion is lower and they can travel at the time they prefer.

Induced traffic occurs when new automobile trips are generated. This can occur when people choose to travel by car instead of public transport, or decide to travel when they otherwise would not have.[14]

Shortening travel times can also encourage longer trips as reduced travel costs encourage people to choose farther destinations. Although this may not increase the number of trips, it increases vehicle-kilometres travelled. In the long term, this effect alters land use patterns as people choose homes and workplace locations farther away than they would have without the expanded road capacity. These development patterns encourage automobile dependency which contributes to the high long-term demand elasticities of road expansion.[14]"

As far as demand goes, I'm not seeing it - at least on my daily commute on the Hefner Parkway. Traffic has dropped tremendously since the bust. There are no doubt some sub-standard corridors that will be strained as traffic grows but I would just be happy for dangerously deteriorating highways to be repaired and adequately marked and lighted. Can't speak for other highways but HP should be adequate for a long time.

I think if we could get a lot of these construction projects finished that would help a ton. So many of the areas I run into traffic are directly due to the fact lanes are narrowed due to construction.

It's not like all the sudden cars pile on to a new freeway when it gets expanded. It takes time to fill em up. If you build an infrastructure that supports cars, people will use cars. If we expand a highway, it's likely that over time, we'll adjust the surrounding areas to take full advantage of those expanded highways with developments causing more car travel. Because of these developments, over time there will be a greater level of traffic causing congestion which will then require a bigger highway which will then perpetuate the cycle.

If i'm not clear enough, you can take a look at wikipedia, it explains the phenomenon in detail and gives real world examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

here's a good quote: "A 1998 meta-analysis by the Surface Transportation Policy Project, which utilized data from the Institute, stated that "Metro areas which invested heavily in road capacity expansion fared no better in easing congestion than metro areas that did not.""

another from the article which clearly articulates the phenomena: "In the short term, increased travel on new road space can come from one of two sources: diverted travel and induced traffic. Diverted travel occurs when people divert their trip from another road (change in route) or retime their travel (change in timing). For example, people might travel to work earlier than they would otherwise like, in order to avoid peak period congestion – but if road capacity is expanded, peak congestion is lower and they can travel at the time they prefer.

Induced traffic occurs when new automobile trips are generated. This can occur when people choose to travel by car instead of public transport, or decide to travel when they otherwise would not have.[14]

Shortening travel times can also encourage longer trips as reduced travel costs encourage people to choose farther destinations. Although this may not increase the number of trips, it increases vehicle-kilometres travelled. In the long term, this effect alters land use patterns as people choose homes and workplace locations farther away than they would have without the expanded road capacity. These development patterns encourage automobile dependency which contributes to the high long-term demand elasticities of road expansion.[14]"
"It takes time to fill them up"

Oh you mean something called growth? Yeah, that tends to happen when a city needs new freeways or expansions. That means it's growing. When the freeway gets expanded, it will probably keep growing. So down the line, it will need be expanded again. That's how growth works. Why do I need explain this?

Are we going to call every new rail line or new road a waste of time because "if you build they will come" mentality? If a rail line is built and it becomes popular so they want to increase the frequency I will be against that because induced demand. Oh wait... that only works with roads, right? Give me a break.

Yes, I've read very many articles about induced demand and none of those take into exactly what I mentioned in my last response which is no account of growth or stress taken from other freeways.

Hell, even the 405 Sepulveda pass expansion which NY Times tried to through the induced demand argument on didn't take growth into account. Something like over 300,000 new people moved into Los Angeles and the Valley since the thing even started construction. Surely none of those people contributed to new cars. Nah don't take that into account. Even with all of that, the rush hour window was significantly reduced and surface street congestion was reduced by 30%. They didn't add enough lanes unfortunately to reduce travel time significantly but hopefully that will change with a new lane add project though I don't think it goes far enough. The 405 needs to be about 15 lanes in each direction in several areas. Orange County will come close to that with a new project underway.

Induced traffic is proof alone that people want to drive instead of using transit because it is more accessible and practical. Aside from several studies that I have seen come to that conclusion as well, stop telling people how to live. People are choosing the suburbs. The fact that 80% of new housing growth was in the suburbs as well proves that. What more proof do you need?

Many induced demand examples were on freeways that only had a single lane added and were already congestion or in cities that have extreme congestion.

here's a good quote: "A 1998 meta-analysis by the Surface Transportation Policy Project, which utilized data from the Institute, stated that "Metro areas which invested heavily in road capacity expansion fared no better in easing congestion than metro areas that did not.""

This is bs. Phoenix has better traffic than Portland and it's 3x their size. Las Vegas has better traffic than Portland. OKC has better traffic than Portland. Salt Lake City has better traffic than Portland. All of those cities have invested in their freeways heavily and it has paid off. Portland has chosen to ignore the problem and it shows.

Another problem with your statement you pulled for Wikipedia is not necessarily the fact it's almost 20 years old but it doesn't factor in cities that were experiencing high growth vs those that don't. Again, when cities are expanding their infrastructure, that usually means they're already growing. They won't expand it for nothing. When they're expanding it, the cities tend to keep growing.

"That means it's growing. "

Out, yes. Not Necessarily in population or economic growth. And there are plenty of cities that have removed Highways or taken out lanes in various parts of the city and they have seen the opposite effect - less traffic. That doesn't mean those cities lost population or took an economic hit.

"Induced traffic is proof alone that people want to drive instead of using transit because it is more accessible and practical"

It's practical only because of inner city highway infrastructure. I'd argue it's far less practical to drive a long time to get from place to place than to be able to walk or drive a short distance to everything you need. But you're right, everyone has different way's they want to live.

"Are we going to call every new rail line or new road a waste of time because "if you build they will come" mentality? If a rail line is built and it becomes popular so they want to increase the frequency I will be against that because induced demand. Oh wait... that only works with roads, right? Give me a break."

The difference here is that adding train frequency uses far fewer resources and space than it does to add lanes or build new roads.

You mention something about the "if you build it they will come mentality" and yes I think that does have truth to it. I think the reason "80 percent of growth is in suburbs" and "it's more practical to drive to the suburbs" is true is because we've built it (too much of it to maintain even), and they came.

Ultimately the issue comes down to how we should build so we get a form that can sustain our community financially, increase cultural vibrancy, health, and promote social equity. We've been round and round on this but highway building and sprawl create more problems than they solve, so we should at least balance it out by building in ways that actually grow wealth and offset some of those problems. But that's another thread.

"That means it's growing. "

Out, yes. Not Necessarily in population or economic growth. And there are plenty of cities that have removed Highways or taken out lanes in various parts of the city and they have seen the opposite effect - less traffic. That doesn't mean those cities lost population or took an economic hit.

"Induced traffic is proof alone that people want to drive instead of using transit because it is more accessible and practical"

It's practical only because of inner city highway infrastructure. I'd argue it's far less practical to drive a long time to get from place to place than to be able to walk or drive a short distance to everything you need. But you're right, everyone has different way's they want to live.

"Are we going to call every new rail line or new road a waste of time because "if you build they will come" mentality? If a rail line is built and it becomes popular so they want to increase the frequency I will be against that because induced demand. Oh wait... that only works with roads, right? Give me a break."

The difference here is that adding train frequency uses far fewer resources and space than it does to add lanes or build new roads.

You mention something about the "if you build it they will come mentality" and yes I think that does have truth to it. I think the reason "80 percent of growth is in suburbs" and "it's more practical to drive to the suburbs" is true is because we've built it (too much of it to maintain even), and they came.

Ultimately the issue comes down to how we should build so we get a form that can sustain our community financially, increase cultural vibrancy, health, and promote social equity. We've been round and round on this but highway building and sprawl create more problems than they solve, so we should at least balance it out by building in ways that actually grow wealth and offset some of those problems. But that's another thread.
It's not just outwards growth that creates congestion or contributes to induced demand. That is not correct. Sprawl gives people a better quality of life cheaper than what they can afford from the government subsidizing freeways. Completely different than Europe subsidies from social programs. Otherwise people couldn't afford the insane prices of homes in the urban cities.

If you want to argue that it's less practical to drive long distances that's fine but remember again the majority of people find it practical and decide that's what they want. There are negatives and positives to everything. Benefits of suburban living outweigh the negatives. For me as well. I just moved from Downtown LA and I will never live in an urban area again. I'm am very happy to be in the suburbs.

We didn't just build suburbs and hope people would come. People saw the better quality of life in the suburbs and demand accelerated and more of it was built.

Streetcars were already failing before the auto companies bought them out. No one forced anyone to live in suburbs. They chose to on their accord.

Of course mass transit is a more efficient way to move people. It'd be more efficient to have everyone living in 3 square miles in OKC. But most people don't want to live in a concrete jungle stacked on top of each other. Some people what maximized square footage for the price. Green yards. Wide roads equaling less congestion having the freedom of cars and not being a slave to transit or having the ultimatum of living right next to work. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass. Ask yourself why the most people live in the suburbs. Even BRIC countries are seeing record car ownership and suburban development.

Building new freeways don't cause more problems than they solve. That's completely subjective.

...

Building new freeways don't cause more problems than they solve. That's completely subjective.

As is the term "quality of life". Our "quality of life" in the burbs sucked (in all the states we lived in), for various reasons, while living at 36th/May has made our "quality of life" immensely better. I can also attest that *tons* of people I talked to that lived in the suburbs (of Chicago, Milwaukee, Seattle, and here) said they moved out there so they could have more house for the money, and had kind of resigned themselves to it, they did *not* say they loved it in the burbs and moved out there because of that, it was mostly simply so they could afford a bigger (not necessarily better) house (and a lot of times for the schools). My counterpoint to that is this - what use is a bigger (and sometimes better) house if you spend all your time commuting and aren't there except to eat and sleep?

Anecdotely, everyone I know loves the suburbs. My quality of life got way better when I moved back out to the suburbs. My friend moved from downtown San Francisco after having been moving there for 4 years to renting a room in a suburban house in San Jose and he's loving it.

I'm getting a the new Alfa Romeo Gulia next month and moving to Laguna Beach and I'll be commuting again for 1 and half hour each way to LA. It's worth it to me. I'll take the open space and greenery.

What you get at 36th and May is really because you live in a city like OKC. I don't know your income, but look around downtown LA for a place like what you have.

Again as I said, quality of life is subjective, and I have no doubt you have friends talking about regretting moving to suburbs, but talk is talk. Actions speak. Chicago suburbs are where the majority of people live there. If they truly didn't like it, they'd move back. But they don't.

I think the idea that people move to the suburbs for better "quality of life" is an outdated way of thinking. In the postwar era, that was definitely the case. Today, it isn't so much. For the vast majority, most people live in the suburbs today for one of three reasons.

1) Urban living is unaffordable in many locations for many people

2) Schools; We cannot underestimate the impact of this one. If you are a newlywed getting ready to have children you are going to have to start thinking about where they are going to go to school. Inner city schools all across the country, including in OKC, are still in sad shape and a lot of people can't afford to raise their family in an urban environment plus send their kids to private schools. I have talked to many downtown OKC residents preparing to move to Edmond for this reason alone.

3) That's all they've known their entire life and they are simply more comfortable sticking with it.

There are exceptions to these of course, one of which being people who prefer more exurban environments on large lots that could potentially support livestock.

"That means it's growing. "

Out, yes. Not Necessarily in population or economic growth. And there are plenty of cities that have removed Highways or taken out lanes in various parts of the city and they have seen the opposite effect - less traffic. That doesn't mean those cities lost population or took an economic hit.

"Induced traffic is proof alone that people want to drive instead of using transit because it is more accessible and practical"

It's practical only because of inner city highway infrastructure. I'd argue it's far less practical to drive a long time to get from place to place than to be able to walk or drive a short distance to everything you need. But you're right, everyone has different way's they want to live.

"Are we going to call every new rail line or new road a waste of time because "if you build they will come" mentality? If a rail line is built and it becomes popular so they want to increase the frequency I will be against that because induced demand. Oh wait... that only works with roads, right? Give me a break."

The difference here is that adding train frequency uses far fewer resources and space than it does to add lanes or build new roads.

You mention something about the "if you build it they will come mentality" and yes I think that does have truth to it. I think the reason "80 percent of growth is in suburbs" and "it's more practical to drive to the suburbs" is true is because we've built it (too much of it to maintain even), and they came.

Ultimately the issue comes down to how we should build so we get a form that can sustain our community financially, increase cultural vibrancy, health, and promote social equity. We've been round and round on this but highway building and sprawl create more problems than they solve, so we should at least balance it out by building in ways that actually grow wealth and offset some of those problems. But that's another thread.
BTW, I don't completely disagree with your last statement. Yes, there are problems with sprawl. Too much of anything can be a bad thing. I'm supporter of increased transit, but not at the expense of freeway construction or using the induced demand argument as a reason to not add any lanes.

The option for urban living is there. If people want it, they can take it. Nothing is stopping them. But even as urban cores like Denver, LA, and almost every major city in the US becomes easier than ever to live without a car, you still see people that want to live in the suburbs, you still see people that want to drive. These things are indicated by numbers and facts.

Talk to a lot of those people, and I'm sure a lot of them will tell you they want a better quality of life which the suburbs give. Of that is subjective and someone like you may view quality of life to have access to transit, quick options to walk to get groceries, eat out, etc. but as the numbers indicate, most people don't seem to have a problem putting up with traffic which lowers quality of life in exchange for other things like wide roads, open spaces, greenery, large private yards, easy access for cars, free parking, all things that equal a better quality of life.

They're not living out there for no reason at all. Neither am I.

Panda - do you happen to have a link to any articles about what Salt Lake City did to speed up their construction?

Anecdotely, everyone I know loves the suburbs. My quality of life got way better when I moved back out to the suburbs. My friend moved from downtown San Francisco after having been moving there for 4 years to renting a room in a suburban house in San Jose and he's loving it.

I'm getting a the new Alfa Romeo Gulia next month and moving to Laguna Beach and I'll be commuting again for 1 and half hour each way to LA. It's worth it to me. I'll take the open space and greenery.

What you get at 36th and May is really because you live in a city like OKC. I don't know your income, but look around downtown LA for a place like what you have.

Again as I said, quality of life is subjective, and I have no doubt you have friends talking about regretting moving to suburbs, but talk is talk. Actions speak. Chicago suburbs are where the majority of people live there. If they truly didn't like it, they'd move back. But they don't.

If I lived in LA, i'd probably make 3 times what I make now, and buy a place according to that income, don't really care enough to see what's available in LA for that price, got better things to do.

And once you get older, you'll understand that commuting 1.5 hours each way is miserable and you only do it if you have to.

As bchris said, which I agree with, the main reasons people move to the burbs are affordability and schools. The people that live in the Chicago burbs are there most likely for either or both of those 2 reasons, not because they love it in the burbs. There are some that live in Chicago's exurbs that are truly there because they love it, but it's so far out that it is full of green space and open areas, but that's not the suburbs, that's a whole other thing.

I just wanna add this real quick as an addition to my posts since this has taken a turn back to the urban vs. suburban debate.

I think we get hung up bc I say things like, 'the city is designed for cars to people drive' and plupan and others say, 'well it's built for cars because people want it that way'.

It's easy to understand why people wanted to move out of the city in favor of detached single family homes in the suburbs.

Cities have worked for thousands of years being built in a way where people could walk everywhere and exchange goods and ideas easily. There were issues throughout history like sewage problems, disease, famine, etc. but cities still worked. Enter the industrial revolution and suddenly people were living in absolute filth. Cities became extremely polluted and increasingly crowded. It was at this time that moving out of the city started to look like a great idea. I can't blame anyone for wanting to get out of that life. Still at that time most folks didn't own a car so those suburbs weren't that far out. People would ride the streetcar into and out of town. It took a while for the automobile to become ubiquitous but the growth pattern of cities was already changing. Post ww2, the Levittown suburbs were first built and this lifestyle was sold as the American dream. The Automobile, road building, and new home-building were huge economic boosts. Laws were changed to more easily accommodate this style of development and inner cities started slowly losing wealth and diversity. Ultimately this led to the perception that inner cities were dangerous which accelerated white flight.

Zoom forward to today and we are realizing that maybe we went too far with that style development - we feel something is missing in our collective identity, we feel isolated, more people are overweight, our farmland and wildernesses are shrinking, that freedom we once had to zip from place to place by car is slowly being choked by traffic and increased auto density, our once beautiful inner cities have been torn to shreds and divided in favor of easy exits, and most importantly, we've built so much stuff that we cant pay for it anymore unless we keep building.

So, conditions were horrible and we took a gamble; we experimented with a new way of living never seen before in human history and it worked for a while. But now we are seeing the long term shortfalls. We now have the technology and knowledge to be able to live in clean cities so we can start to change back to a more financially productive model of growth and recoup the benefits of cities in a modern context.

And after saying all this, suburbanism can still exist and it's fine if that's how someone want to live! But you must first be an urbanist, bc without urban areas to foot the bill that lifestyle wouldn't exist.

Cities have worked for thousands of years being built in a way where people could walk everywhere and exchange goods and ideas easily.

Damn Romans, building roads everywhere.

After learning from the Mesopotamians.

Who stole the idea from the Harrapans.

Panda - do you happen to have a link to any articles about what Salt Lake City did to speed up their construction?
Yes I do.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5309728-155/1-billion-windfall-for-utah-highways

Yes I do.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5309728-155/1-billion-windfall-for-utah-highways

Thanks!

If I lived in LA, i'd probably make 3 times what I make now, and buy a place according to that income, don't really care enough to see what's available in LA for that price, got better things to do.

And once you get older, you'll understand that commuting 1.5 hours each way is miserable and you only do it if you have to.

As bchris said, which I agree with, the main reasons people move to the burbs are affordability and schools. The people that live in the Chicago burbs are there most likely for either or both of those 2 reasons, not because they love it in the burbs. There are some that live in Chicago's exurbs that are truly there because they love it, but it's so far out that it is full of green space and open areas, but that's not the suburbs, that's a whole other thing.Affordability I agree with and I've said that for a long time. I even said that in my original post.

Schools are a cop out. People could make schools better and there are great charter schools around downtown LA. Public education is failing in general, that isn't a suburban vs. urban issue.

As I said, they aren't getting money to build these schools out of nowhere, people are living thee to begin with.

If LA doesn't work, use almost any other city in a good area and tell me how much single family homes go for around the cores. I know of several cities that you could get a decent price but the area is not good.

If the people wanted the urban lifestyle they would build their communities as such. It isn't just how sprawled out everything is, it's the suburban style. People move to the suburbs for better quality of life. It's that simple. Everything that means to them it what it means to them. But you can find good inner city schools and if you really wanted to find good deals apartments.

I'm debating getting an apartment in DTOKC just to have for when I visit and when I was looking they were practically trying to give away those apartments.

Thanks!

No problem! I should have specified it was Utah that passed the bill but a good chunk of the funds will go to SLC and completing the WCD Freeway. I will definitely use that as opposed to the 15 when they get that built.

I think the idea that people move to the suburbs for better "quality of life" is an outdated way of thinking. In the postwar era, that was definitely the case. Today, it isn't so much. For the vast majority, most people live in the suburbs today for one of three reasons.

1) Urban living is unaffordable in many locations for many people

2) Schools; We cannot underestimate the impact of this one. If you are a newlywed getting ready to have children you are going to have to start thinking about where they are going to go to school. Inner city schools all across the country, including in OKC, are still in sad shape and a lot of people can't afford to raise their family in an urban environment plus send their kids to private schools. I have talked to many downtown OKC residents preparing to move to Edmond for this reason alone.

3) That's all they've known their entire life and they are simply more comfortable sticking with it.

There are exceptions to these of course, one of which being people who prefer more exurban environments on large lots that could potentially support livestock.

Its all about what people value in life. Older generations in general like to have a large house to store all their possessions. Millennials are more likely to have less stuff and not want to deal with the maintenance involved with home ownership or being tied to a mortgage.

I'm not going to lie, sometimes I wonder what it would be like to have the "burden" of less stuff and living in a tiny house. lol

Millennials are more likely to have less stuff and not want to deal with the maintenance involved with home ownership or being tied to a mortgage.
Actually as time goes on, it is being found that millennials are starting to move back to the suburbs and more & more are wanting to purchase a home.

And after saying all this, suburbanism can still exist and it's fine if that's how someone want to live! But you must first be an urbanist, bc without urban areas to foot the bill that lifestyle wouldn't exist.
You are correct we are getting off topic but I want to address this line because it is 100% false. Suburban dwellers foot the bill for transit and urban development because there is more of them. I don't even think NYC has more people living in the city than the suburbs. I'm not sure if I can think of any city besides Portland, OR, that has more people living in an urban lifestyle than those outside of it. Maybe Boston and Providence? I mean it gets kind of hard to form MSA's strictly by contiguous development in the NE since the whole area is joined together. Before long, the entire East Coast will be a megalopolis.

Even Philadelphia has slipped in ranks regarding population while its suburbs grew.

Even with that being said, I don't it's fair anyways to say one group should or shouldn't fit the bill for another group to use something group a might not ever use. That isn't this country works. Taxes are shared on some level and if freeways and transit is being properly funded and everyone can the live the way they want to, then everyone benefits.

Anyways you can have the last word on this you have made great points but I will post things now about traffic congestion in OKC, if I find anything else. I saw a couple threads in other sections but nothing really that was titled in a way that insinuates to post updates regarding the subject.

You are correct we are getting off topic but I want to address this line because it is 100% false. Suburban dwellers foot the bill for transit and urban development because there is more of them.

I'm not really talking about transit when I say that without strong urban core, suburbs wouldn't work.

Cities have certain things they have to do in order to work. They have to maintain streets, roads, sewer lines, water pipes, etc. In addition, city governments also must fund social services and protection such as Police, Fire fighters, and city staff. Pretty much everything the city has to pay for is a function of land area. Larger land area = more roads = more money. Larger land area = farther a firetruck has to drive or more fire stations = more money. Less land area = less roads = less money etc...

In order to do all of those things, cities need money. Cities get money mostly through taxation.

here is the most important point: Cities must make enough tax revenue per unit of land area to cover the costs of that same unit of land area in order to be financially sustainable.

When you look at it through this lens, suburban development almost always lacks the tax base per acre to maintain the abount of infrastructure and city services per acre. Conversely, urban areas can generate a surplus of tax revenue per acre even after maintenance and city services per acre.

Think about it like tanks of gas. We judge fuel efficiency based on miles per gallon rather than miles per tank. We also need to look at cites as value per acre rather than value per development. Wal-mart is like a hummer: A hummer has a huge fn tank but low fuel efficiency. Urban development is more like a honda civic or something: small tank but can get you just as far. in the long run you spend way more money on gas in the Hummer than you do in the Civic.

Here are a few links that are interesting and easy to understand:

https://youtu.be/HVD01WUm0oA

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/1/2/the-cost-of-auto-orientation.html#.U856U_ldUhk


disclaimer: I'm no expert and perhaps there are other factors involved in city finance and development that changes my argument, but this makes sense to me.

Back to the congestion topic?

People who say "schools are a copout" obviously dont have kids

And I don't mean that in a bad way, but when you actually do have a kid, it changes your mindset.

People who say "schools are a copout" obviously dont have kidsBefore I made that comment, I had actually talked to several people who have kids. Oddly enough, everyone one of them lives in inner city except that my friend who lives in OKC.

So you're telling me the only reason you personally live in the suburbs is because of schools? I have never heard that before from anyone. I'm very opinionated and talkative, so chances are, if you've talked to me in person, at some point I'll ask about you just to see who you are and what makes you do the things you do.

And I don't mean that in a bad way, but when you actually do have a kid, it changes your mindset.

You're right. A good friend of mine is house hunting, and school district choice is around 90% of his decision-making when it comes to location.

To add an interesting spin on things, I am considering purchasing a house too. I am sick of paying $15,000 a year to apartment complexes and getting nothing out of it except for a key I have to turn back in at the end of the lease. It's a total scam. A few years ago I never wanted to purchase a house because I didn't want to have to maintain the yard, regular upkeep, etc. But, after renting for a couple of years now, it is shocking how much money is thrown away in the toilet every month. Now, Denver real estate market absolutely sucks if you are trying to buy a home. I'm considering purchasing a home in Colorado Springs and commuting the 1.5 hours each way. Getting a cheaper mortgage could mean I only have to work 3 days a week. So the commute doesn't scare me as it wouldn't be a 5-day a week thing. I have also looked in Cheyenne, WY -- a little cheaper there. I've lived in two urban cities now, Denver and Portland, and I have to say the amenities are simply not worth the price if you are an average Joe such as myself. If you have a very high salary job they could be fun to live in, but if you aren't making $175,000 a year you are a working slave to the landlords in these big, urban cities. Another friend of mine owns a home in Denver, and he is about to cash-out and sell and move somewhere else. His property taxes are set to go up to nearly $500/mo next year with the super-inflated housing market here driving tax assessments through the roof. He has a great deal on his mortgage because he bought several years ago when the Denver market was much cooler, but the taxes alone to live here are strangling him.

Actually as time goes on, it is being found that millennials are starting to move back to the suburbs and more & more are wanting to purchase a home.

I see reports that some millennials are desiring to move to the suburbs, but income and savings is a big limiting factor. It will probably take another housing crash for homes to be affordable to most millennials. Or most of suburbs are going to be rent homes in the future unless economic conditions change in the U.S. That will limit the appeal of the suburbs real fast if that is the case.

I see reports that some millennials are desiring to move to the suburbs, but income and savings is a big limiting factor. It will probably take another housing crash for homes to be affordable to most millennials. Or most of suburbs are going to be rent homes in the future unless economic conditions change in the U.S. That will limit the appeal of the suburbs real fast if that is the case.

Also, the TYPE of suburb that Millennials want is changing. That's a big thing to think about...

Before I made that comment, I had actually talked to several people who have kids. Oddly enough, everyone one of them lives in inner city except that my friend who lives in OKC.

So you're telling me the only reason you personally live in the suburbs is because of schools? I have never heard that before from anyone. I'm very opinionated and talkative, so chances are, if you've talked to me in person, at some point I'll ask about you just to see who you are and what makes you do the things you do.

Fair question, and I wasn't attacking you with my comment, so I'll answer. My wife and I REALLY wanted to live in the core and make it work. We really wanted to be able to send our daughter to John Rex, and if we didn't have a 50 pound dog, we'd probably be living in a condo somewhere downtown right now. As stupid as it sounds, the dog was a limiting factor, taking him down stairs 2-3 times a day, trying to find space for him to take a dump. We considered the Mesta/Crown Heights/Heritage areas also, but my wife had decided she watched her dad have to jack with an old house in College Hill in Wichita when she was young that she didn't want us to have to mess with the same "old house problems" they did while growing up.

There are pluses to where we live. Some of them we would never get in the core ('hood pool, etc) and some we could. We still spend a lot of time in the core and other parts closer to the city (we both work within two miles of downtown) and enjoy all that area has to offer.

So to answer your question, no, schools aren't the only reason, for us. For others, who don't care to hang downtown or be close to the action, it absolutely is.

Actually as time goes on, it is being found that millennials are starting to move back to the suburbs and more & more are wanting to purchase a home.

Yes, that's absolutely correct. You know, the people who write books on generation this or that are pushing a theory that people are fundamentally different based on arbitrary time ranges on when they were born. Most of it is pseudoscience. The folks I have read who are doing actual research into human behavior think that it has more to do with the current life-stage of Millennials than them being Millennials. In a few years the news will be about how shocked everyone is that they're buying cars and houses in the suburbs and settling down. It's really no surprise... that's just life.

It makes sense to me that city centers are having such a resurgence. Younger people tend to enjoy being in close proximity to a lot of people and going to loud events and so on. Then most people hit a point where they want some space for a number of reasons. And in the later phases of life a lot of times people want to return to the urban environment. Looking at demographics, I can't think of another time when we have had so many old and young people dominating the population at the same time, so it makes sense to me that urban environments would be seeing a resurgence.

I think there is some truth to the "if you build it they will come" thought process with highways, but I also don't think it is that simple. I mean the highways down in Moore and Norman haven't changed in forever, and still more and more people move there and now traffic is horrible. An extreme case study in this would be Austin. Sometimes people just want to move somewhere because of quality of life, and it doesn't matter how good or bad a highway system is.

Yes but if it encourages new growth than I'm all for it. I agree with what you said, but it's natural freeways are going to need be widened. If I-35 gets expanded tomorrow to 10 lanes, that doesn't mean that in the future it won't need to be widened again.

I understand that public transit is more efficient, but not everyone wants that. In facts there are studies that how've shown that if someone can afford a car, they are likely to buy it. What most people don't understand is the massive cost of infrastructure that goes to support that. It isn't just freeways, but free parking, wide roads, etc. are all needed to support these things.

I want balance. I want to see light rail in OKC. A sense walkable downtown. But I also want to see more investment in freeways and wider roads in the metro to ensure those wanting suburbia can continue to do so without being overlooked. Thankfully that isn't happening in OKC, right now.

There is a lot of things OKC metro can do to improve traffic flow. Investing in transit, more bike friendly alternatives, options for those to live in areas without a car and access to rail, etc are great examples that could take some stress off of the freeways. With that being, doing all of that, and not adding capacity as needed is NOT the way to go. That is my point.

But you made a great post. The problem with increased congestion will only get worse and the days of around the clock free flowing traffic in OKC are about to come to end. Of course we can't expect freeways to be wide enough to accommodate free flowing traffic during the height of rush hour, but we can lessen the rush hour window rather than not doing anything.