Access Oklahoma Turnpike Projects

[The]

Are there renderings of it that could be posted? I haven't see any fun graphics yet.

I haven't been able to find any renderings yet either. The only thing is this interactive map from the Access Oklahoma website.

https://www.accessoklahoma.com/east-...ects/ewc-28004

[Jake]

And this is why highway construction is just going to lead to more sprawl and eventually this highway will be full of traffic as well. And then the "outer outer" loop will need to be built as part of OTAs 2035 BUILD bond.

This is all just masked corruption to make money for the construction magnates, land owners, and developers while the actual transportation issue will remain unsolved.

"Forget it, Jose. It's OKCTalk."

[mugofbeer]

I haven't been able to find any renderings yet either. The only thing is this interactive map from the Access Oklahoma website.

https://www.accessoklahoma.com/east-...ects/ewc-28004

I wonder if there are any plans to either redo the left-hand Flood Ave exit or prevent E/W connector traffic from the inevitable fast lane changes to get over to the left lane?

[The]

I wonder if there are any plans to either redo the left-hand Flood Ave exit or prevent E/W connector traffic from the inevitable fast lane changes to get over to the left lane?

I was waiting on PluPan to post his information, but he says they’re planning to move that exit to the right side as a flyover ramp, but who knows when that might happen.

[Plutonic Panda]

That's like saying we shouldn't build any new schools because they are just going to fill up and we'll have to build new ones

Exactly

[Plutonic Panda]

And this is why highway construction is just going to lead to more sprawl and eventually this highway will be full of traffic as well. And then the "outer outer" loop will need to be built as part of OTAs 2035 BUILD bond.

This is all just masked corruption to make money for the construction magnates, land owners, and developers while the actual transportation issue will remain unsolved.

Of course the city is going to continue to sprawl. It’s sprawling in places that don’t have freeway access as well. The induced demand argument is such crap.

[mugofbeer]

Of course the city is going to continue to sprawl. It’s sprawling in places that don’t have freeway access as well. The induced demand argument is such crap.

Induced demand does have it's merits but go on Google Earth and look how densely populated that entire area is from Eastern OK and Cleveland - and even northern Pottowatamie counties are. They're very heavily populated with acreages.

[Jeremy Martin]

Induced demand does have it's merits but go on Google Earth and look how densely populated that entire area is from Eastern OK and Cleveland - and even northern Pottowatamie counties are. They're very heavily populated with acreages.

Make sure you are using current google maps/earth images. The overlay that the OTA has on their site is using google earth images from over 10 years ago.

[josefromtulsa]

"Forget it, Jose. It's OKCTalk."

Im not anti build. I just think investment in rapid transit would be a more smart form of growth and development instead of the continual expansion of highways.

I think anyone who says that single family developments and strip malls wont follow along the service roads and offramps are fooling themselves.

[BoulderSooner]

Induced demand does have it's merits but go on Google Earth and look how densely populated that entire area is from Eastern OK and Cleveland - and even northern Pottowatamie counties are. They're very heavily populated with acreages.

you can't have macro "induced demand" when everyone (basically) that wants to drive already does .. the only system wide increases that the OKC metro has in car usage is due to population increase ..

[josefromtulsa]

you can't have macro "induced demand" when everyone (basically) that wants to drive already does .. the only system wide increases that the OKC metro has in car usage is due to population increase ..

Does everyone really "want" to spend time in traffic and dealing with bad drivers and infrastructure? Or is that just the only reality that has been present in OKC for the last 60 years?

And population increase isn't necessarily the driver of vehicle usage. Its the density of households in an area and the built environment. If more subdivisions are built out at the far fringes people will need to driver longer distances to reach shops and services. And once those shops and services do arrive so does the associated traffic and now instead of driving far for 20 minutes you are driving a short distance for 20 minutes.

[BoulderSooner]

Does everyone really "want" to spend time in traffic and dealing with bad drivers and infrastructure? Or is that just the only reality that has been present in OKC for the last 60 years?

And population increase isn't necessarily the driver of vehicle usage. Its the density of households in an area and the built environment. If more subdivisions are built out at the far fringes people will need to driver longer distances to reach shops and services. And once those shops and services do arrive so does the associated traffic and now instead of driving far for 20 minutes you are driving a short distance for 20 minutes.

relative to the top 50 metros in the USA OKC doesn't really have any traffic ..

[josefromtulsa]

relative to the top 50 metros in the USA OKC doesn't really have any traffic ..

Then why is this turnpike needed?

[PoliSciGuy]

relative to the top 50 metros in the USA OKC doesn't really have any traffic ..

All the better to invest in good infrastructure before we hit critical mass as we continue to grow

[bison34]

relative to the top 50 metros in the USA OKC doesn't really have any traffic ..

But it will, very quickly. Why do you speak in absolutes all the time? Or seem to think that OKC's done growing?

Or maybe you think that traffic won't be a problem in your lifetime, so why should you care?

[Jake]

Then why is this turnpike needed?

Oklahoma just really, really likes strip malls.

[jedicurt]

Then why is this turnpike needed?

i want these turnpikes and i want better public transit for the Metro. I want us to build for future demand and actually be ahead of the curve for once.

[Plutonic Panda]

Im not anti build. I just think investment in rapid transit would be a more smart form of growth and development instead of the continual expansion of highways.

I think anyone who says that single family developments and strip malls wont follow along the service roads and offramps are fooling themselves.

OKC is investing in "rapid transit." Even in LA with an expansive transit system you can still get to where you want to go faster with a car than Metro.

[Plutonic Panda]

i want these turnpikes and i want better public transit for the Metro. I want us to build for future demand and actually be ahead of the curve for once.

This is the way.

[Plutonic Panda]

Then why is this turnpike needed?

Because it would be nice to stay ahead of the curve and keep it so we don't have major traffic issues. Big time traffic congestion is coming if OKC becomes a major city no matter how much you build. You can't build your way out of traffic but you can keep expanding roads and building new ones to manage it. You can also build mass/active transit alternatives at the same time as well.

[Plutonic Panda]

you can't have macro "induced demand" when everyone (basically) that wants to drive already does .. the only system wide increases that the OKC metro has in car usage is due to population increase ..

Not only this but a lot of people forget about latent demand when bringing up induced demand. I don't think either are as much of an issue right now in OKC other than I-35 maybe seeing latent demand pulling cars off of Shields to avoid I-35 rush hour traffic. Even then that seems to be a positive pulling commuting cars off of local streets thanks to a wider freeway.

[Plutonic Panda]

Does everyone really "want" to spend time in traffic and dealing with bad drivers and infrastructure? Or is that just the only reality that has been present in OKC for the last 60 years?

And population increase isn't necessarily the driver of vehicle usage. Its the density of households in an area and the built environment. If more subdivisions are built out at the far fringes people will need to driver longer distances to reach shops and services. And once those shops and services do arrive so does the associated traffic and now instead of driving far for 20 minutes you are driving a short distance for 20 minutes.

It's not that simple. Give someone an option to have a teleportation device and be able to live wherever they want and of course it becomes more simple. But we don't that yet. So some people want a quite suburban area like Edmond or Newcastle and a tradeoff is dealing with traffic. There also housing affordability issues which is why some people commute 2 hours each way in California to get to and from work if that means having a single family home in a safe area. Come to K Town and see how much fun it is living close to where you work and spending literally up to an hour at times finding a parking space close enough to an affordable apartment with no dedicated parking or have fun walking for 30 minutes to your car that's 10 blocks away and hope it isn't broken into overnight.

[josefromtulsa]

Current traffic counts along Indian Hills Road east to west are laughable. 6,000 cars a day does not require a highway that handles 75,000 cars a day. The highway is being built to drive new development. (No current I-35 commuter is going to go out of the way on the North South Connector just to hit traffic downtown again. And if you think Semis will I will just say "Texas SH-130")

You mention LA (a city that invest pennies in public transport) and K town (wherever that is) but how come DFW with its billions invested in highway expansion and construction still has bad traffic and horrid commutes? Who in DFW enjoys their commute?

And if your spending an hour finding parking maybe public transport and improved bike/ped infrastructure is what's needed...

I know I am not going to convince most of you and I for sure know Gatz isnt reading these comments but its saddening to see us follow the DFW path.

[Jake]

Current traffic counts along Indian Hills Road east to west are laughable. 6,000 cars a day does not require a highway that handles 75,000 cars a day. The highway is being built to drive new development. (No current I-35 commuter is going to go out of the way on the North South Connector just to hit traffic downtown again. And if you think Semis will I will just say "Texas SH-130")

You mention LA (a city that invest pennies in public transport) and K town (wherever that is) but how come DFW with its billions invested in highway expansion and construction still has bad traffic and horrid commutes? Who in DFW enjoys their commute?

And if your spending an hour finding parking maybe public transport and improved bike/ped infrastructure is what's needed...

I know I am not going to convince most of you and I for sure know Gatz isnt reading these comments but its saddening to see us follow the DFW path.

A few more highways/turnpikes and the HQ relocations will be sure to follow.

[jedicurt]

Current traffic counts along Indian Hills Road east to west are laughable. 6,000 cars a day does not require a highway that handles 75,000 cars a day. .

I don't think you realize how many also use the spur near riverwind. the section of this highway that is absolutely needed and going to have a huge impact is the bridge across the river and connecting 44 to 35.

thinking this is being built because of indian hills traffic alone is laughable. the extension from 35 to the far side of norman needs to include robinson and techemseh traffic counts as well. because most going from 35 to sooner, will probably use this over those routes now.