Originally Posted by
bombermwc
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!!!!
Bookmarks