new highway north of norman

[Jesseda]

okay about 5 months ago i was driving to norman from moore, on sunnylane, it looked like a large road was being built close to the other place bar. Does anybody know what road or highway that is going to be? I tried editing the title to adda ? mark at the end, but it will not let me edit so sorry if this subject is misleading, its a road or a highway i dont know

[Martin]

sounds like the new extension of tecumseh road. -M

[kevinpate]

That's exactly what it is. When complete, Tecumseh will be 4 lanes E/Wfrom NW 60th (aka S Western in OKC) over to Sooner Rd) and, perhaps later, beyond Sooner Rd as well.

[Martin]

what would be awesome is if tecumseh road were extended west so that it crossed the river. -M

[kevinpate]

That would be awesome, a worthy 4 mile addition. Such a connection between Newcastle and Norman via Hwy 62 could ease a lot of the congestion at Hwy 9 that was generated after Riverwind came in.

[Jesseda]

so is there was going to be a south loop through norman and moore? I thought that the planned called for it once, we really need it..

[kevinpate]

I do't know the status of the often discussed in the past 'south loop (though it would be north loop 1 to Normanites I suppose.

If it's still in a master plan, I suspect it's quite a ways off before shovels hit dirt. The I=35 project through there and south into Norman will keep things messed enough for many more months.

I'm starting to ponder whether being a telecommuter might float with my chain of command. I've just about run out of to/from routes that aren't congested construction zones.

[dismayed]

I couldn't find it again, but a while back someone posted on this site a plan that still showed a southern loop going down through the Moore/Norman area. It looked to me like it hooked up with Tecumseh Road and that became the southern-most section of the loop. There was no time-frame mentioned anywhere on the plan, but it seemed very long-term to me.

[oustud7]

Great. Another 4 lane road in a nearly unpopulated area. This is how urban sprawl happens.

[kevinpate]

Here's the earlier thread on the 'sw loop' which is not the Tecumseh Rd Project, but further north:
http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-are...d-sw-loop.html

[veritas]

Great. Another 4 lane road in a nearly unpopulated area. This is how urban sprawl happens.

Or, looked at another way, a forward thinking project to ensure capacity and secure future sales tax dollars.

/glass half-full

[oustud7]

there are countless large empty lots right in the middle of the city. its one of oklahoma city's biggest flaws. Why on earth would you want to develop land in the middle of nowhere first? it keeps land values low in areas that should be high, and it raises land values in areas that should be low. It creates more vehicle traffic which adds to pollution and fuel consumption and discourages mass transit use. Beyond that, there are a TON of run down roads and crumbling bridges in densely populated areas that could desperately use re-building before some random road in the country gets widened.

[Martin]

sorry, kid. tecumseh is not some random road in the country. lurk more. -M

[BrockLanders]

Do you know what's near the west end of Tecumseh? The new hospital complex. Not to mention, you can only cross the interstate 2 miles north at Indian Hills or 2 miles south at Robinson. Tecumseh is also on the north end of the new development area on 24th west.

[Jesseda]

yep, that road will be busy soon all the way to sooner

[kevinpate]

I think they are now also green lighted to add another I-35 crossover at Rock Creek. Of course, RC can't become another Tecumseh down the way... too many nonmoveables in its path. but that's a crossover that will be useful to many once it is in place.

[dismayed]

Yes, in fact they have already propped up the structural supports on at least the west side of the highway. They'll be dropping a bridge on top of it before long.

[BG918]

there are countless large empty lots right in the middle of the city. its one of oklahoma city's biggest flaws. Why on earth would you want to develop land in the middle of nowhere first? it keeps land values low in areas that should be high, and it raises land values in areas that should be low. It creates more vehicle traffic which adds to pollution and fuel consumption and discourages mass transit use. Beyond that, there are a TON of run down roads and crumbling bridges in densely populated areas that could desperately use re-building before some random road in the country gets widened.

I agree. I'd much rather see vacant and under-utilized lots in the developed parts of the city redeveloped before I see farmland on the outskirts turned into new neighborhoods and strip malls. I know I would rather live in the city (and I do) and encourage more infill but people will go where they want. I just think the govt. shouldn't make it easier for them to do it by building new roads, sewer lines, etc. I say if you want to build undeveloped areas you pay for it yourself.

[zrfdude]

Yes, in fact they have already propped up the structural supports on at least the west side of the highway. They'll be dropping a bridge on top of it before long.

It actually looks like it will be quite nice..it has a nice weave effect on the supports

[veritas]

I agree. I'd much rather see vacant and under-utilized lots in the developed parts of the city redeveloped before I see farmland on the outskirts turned into new neighborhoods and strip malls. I know I would rather live in the city (and I do) and encourage more infill but people will go where they want. I just think the govt. shouldn't make it easier for them to do it by building new roads, sewer lines, etc. I say if you want to build undeveloped areas you pay for it yourself.

Wow..just wow. Let's see, development installs the infrastructure and GIVES it to the City. Development in Norman also pays for all road costs stemming from increased traffic due to the development going in in the first place. So no, the City isn't on the hook for anything in the way of infrastructure except for the water and sewer mains that are hooked up to. Not to mention the increased tax base from the new residents. And, oh yes, the added roof-tops drive new retail which really ramps up new revenue for the City.

On a tangent thought, I often get a kick out of the platitudes offered by the "urban-core" development only crowd in Norman. If you really want to get into costs, you ought to check into the non-existent detention standards (pre-1982) that cause flooding in core Norman areas as well as the drastic eroding of creek beds and added silt due to this erosion and the effects on the Little River water shed. New development CAN NOT proceed without adequate detention and yet is in a fight over impact fees the City wants to administer due to zero detention requirements from old core-Norman areas.

I think we ought to raise taxes on people that reside in core-Norman to cover the costs that their dwellings have on our environment.

/the more you know

[bluepickle]

wow..just wow. Let's see, development installs the infrastructure and gives it to the city. Development in norman also pays for all road costs stemming from increased traffic due to the development going in in the first place. So no, the city isn't on the hook for anything in the way of infrastructure except for the water and sewer mains that are hooked up to. Not to mention the increased tax base from the new residents. And, oh yes, the added roof-tops drive new retail which really ramps up new revenue for the city.

On a tangent thought, i often get a kick out of the platitudes offered by the "urban-core" development only crowd in norman. If you really want to get into costs, you ought to check into the non-existent detention standards (pre-1982) that cause flooding in core norman areas as well as the drastic eroding of creek beds and added silt due to this erosion and the effects on the little river water shed. New development can not proceed without adequate detention and yet is in a fight over impact fees the city wants to administer due to zero detention requirements from old core-norman areas.

I think we ought to raise taxes on people that reside in core-norman to cover the costs that their dwellings have on our environment.

/the more you know

amen

[Dio]

the new stretch of Tecumseh is US 77 now, and it makes getting to the east side of Norman a lot easier than driving through the middle of town