Does anyone know why the Cith of OKC is so slow to convert old, halogen traffic signals to LED?

There are some really, old, dim and decrepit looking signal lights in OKC...not to mention the old poles on
which they sit.

Seems like a lot of them need to be replaced.

Does anyone know why the Cith of OKC is so slow to convert old, halogen traffic signals to LED?

There are some really, old, dim and decrepit looking signal lights in OKC...not to mention the old poles on
which they sit.

Seems like a lot of them need to be replaced.

Too many signals, not enough money, too much sprawl. Same with the streetlights. Driving around on Friday and Saturday, we saw about 6 traffic signals that had the red lights completely burned out, wonder how long it'll take them to replace them...

“Too much sprawl ahhhhhhh” meanwhile other cities with same sprawl manage it.

“Too much sprawl ahhhhhhh” meanwhile other cities with same sprawl manage it.

Because the other cities have more money and have prioritized it, most likely. OKC can't keep the lines painted on the streets/highways, can't keep the streetlights on in massive amounts of places, they can't keep the traffic signals in decent shape, they can't put back up street signs that have been hit in a timely manner, they can't keep potholes repaired, they take forever to resurface streets and build sidewalks, they can't do all the things normal cities seem to manage, so it's most likely not enough money (of which sprawl is a contributor to that situation) and/or they don't care enough about doing those things. OKC's traffic/road division is pretty sad, there is absolutely no denying that, no matter the cause(s).

We’re the 3rd(?) largest city by area, which means our sprawl is a bit harder to deal with compared to other cities. Our budget allocates $4 million to traffic management maintenance.

We’re the 3rd(?) largest city by area, which means our sprawl is a bit harder to deal with compared to other cities. Our budget allocates $4 million to traffic management maintenance.

If you were to work with a budget of 4 million and use similar cities in city limit population (not metro) and divide it equally across the city limits...

OKC - 650k - 606 sq miles - $6,600 per square mile
Portland - 653k - 133 sq miles -$30,075 per square mile
Nashville - 669k - 475 sq miles - $8,421 - per square mile
Memphis - 650k - 317 sq miles - $12,618 - per square mile

Using populations is pointless though, because it tells us nothing about physical city sizes.

If you want to make a comparison, you have to use square mileage.

Using populations is pointless though, because it tells us nothing about physical city sizes.

If you want to make a comparison, you have to use square mileage.

OKC - 650k - 606 sq miles - $6,600 per square mile
Portland - 653k - 133 sq miles -$30,075 per square mile
Nashville - 669k - 475 sq miles - $8,421 - per square mile
Memphis - 650k - 317 sq miles - $12,618 - per square mile

. . . am I missing something?? I thought he did??

Nm

I would compare it with similar sized cities though, not similar in population.

I would compare it with similar sized cities though, not similar in population.

Still a lot of variables - if a city is the same size geographically, does it have the same lane-miles of road, half (or twice) as many traffic signals, etc.

Exactly. There is a large amount of the corporate city limits that are in more "rural" areas; two lane roads with no signal lights. Seems odd that we are so far behind in updating such infrastructure. Even more so, the City will upgrade the vehicle detection technology, but not the other aspects of the equipment at an intersection. It's just one more thing that makes parts of the City look "not very well taken care of."


Still a lot of variables - if a city is the same size geographically, does it have the same lane-miles of road, half (or twice) as many traffic signals, etc.

The amusing thing is that even with the vehicle detection technology, so many traffic lights in the core remain horribly timed.

Using populations is pointless though, because it tells us nothing about physical city sizes.

If you want to make a comparison, you have to use square mileage.

The city square mileage is listed. If each of those cities worked with the a similar 4 million dollar budget since population would be similar, they have a lot more cash per square mile to spend versus OKC which is so spread out.

Similar cities with the same square mileage

OKC - 606 square miles - 650k
Houston - 637 square miles - 2.3 million
Phoenix - 517 square miles - 1.6 million
Jacksonville - 747 square miles - 903k

Jacksonville is probably the most similar with square mileage and population.

I'd also prefer to have them worry more about getting the guts of the signals replaced with those that are "linkable". We have intersections that were TERRIBLY designed and cause terrible traffic because there are multiple signals in a small area. For whatever reason, the traffic folks wont get on these problems no matter how many years people complain.

Think of areas like I-40 and McArthur. The proximity of the lights S 3rd and 8th (or whatever it is) for Westgate and Garden Ridge in conjunction with the rest of the normal N/S flow is nuts. Not to mention Reno is a hop skip and jump away too. Here at least the lights for the interstate are linked, but they are not properly linked for the other two so there can be some logical flow. Personally, i'd rather see the S 3rd go away and route that out to an "out" on Reno between the businesses. Curve that main road out about halfway down the development at a bridge crossing and make the McArthur exit S only. And put up a concrete median to keep out the crossing traffic.

Sooner/240 doesn't have any linking at all. And now they've added a light 1 block south of the high way light so the hospital has a light. It was an opportunity for the city to put in an actual center turn lane, but they went the cheap route and only did enough for that light instead of for the businesses that also need it. They also didn't do squat to the existing lights which have NEVER been in sync. So now, the problem is even worse. So instead of getting one green to get stopped at the next just as you get there, now you get to battle that twice. All we ever get from the city is that the traffic study is in its infancy....for 6 years that thing has been an infant. They always try to explain away the traffic volume for some reason too.

OKC Traffic Works drives me BONKERS!!!!

I'd also prefer to have them worry more about getting the guts of the signals replaced with those that are "linkable". We have intersections that were TERRIBLY designed and cause terrible traffic because there are multiple signals in a small area. For whatever reason, the traffic folks wont get on these problems no matter how many years people complain.

Think of areas like I-40 and McArthur. The proximity of the lights S 3rd and 8th (or whatever it is) for Westgate and Garden Ridge in conjunction with the rest of the normal N/S flow is nuts. Not to mention Reno is a hop skip and jump away too. Here at least the lights for the interstate are linked, but they are not properly linked for the other two so there can be some logical flow. Personally, i'd rather see the S 3rd go away and route that out to an "out" on Reno between the businesses. Curve that main road out about halfway down the development at a bridge crossing and make the McArthur exit S only. And put up a concrete median to keep out the crossing traffic.

Sooner/240 doesn't have any linking at all. And now they've added a light 1 block south of the high way light so the hospital has a light. It was an opportunity for the city to put in an actual center turn lane, but they went the cheap route and only did enough for that light instead of for the businesses that also need it. They also didn't do squat to the existing lights which have NEVER been in sync. So now, the problem is even worse. So instead of getting one green to get stopped at the next just as you get there, now you get to battle that twice. All we ever get from the city is that the traffic study is in its infancy....for 6 years that thing has been an infant. They always try to explain away the traffic volume for some reason too.

OKC Traffic Works drives me BONKERS!!!!
This sh*t right here!! The number of lights in short stretches all over this city causes as many issues as anything. It's irritating as hell.

The city square mileage is listed. If each of those cities worked with the a similar 4 million dollar budget since population would be similar, they have a lot more cash per square mile to spend versus OKC which is so spread out.

Similar cities with the same square mileage

OKC - 606 square miles - 650k
Houston - 637 square miles - 2.3 million
Phoenix - 517 square miles - 1.6 million
Jacksonville - 747 square miles - 903k

Jacksonville is probably the most similar with square mileage and population.

jacksonville also has a combined city/county govt

This sh*t right here!! The number of lights in short stretches all over this city causes as many issues as anything. It's irritating as hell.

And it's obvious that it can be fixed if anyone bothered to make it a priority, because there are stretches of road like Western between NW 50th and Avondale that have 10+ lights in just over a mile but at least have most of the lights timed reasonably well (although I'd argue that 10+ lights in just over a mile is insane regardless).

Amen!

And it's obvious that it can be fixed if anyone bothered to make it a priority, because there are stretches of road like Western between NW 50th and Avondale that have 10+ lights in just over a mile but at least have most of the lights timed reasonably well (although I'd argue that 10+ lights in just over a mile is insane regardless).
Exactly. It's insane!