Rush hour traffic in OKC

[Andrew4OU]

It might be just me, but has anyone noticed how bad rush hour traffic has become in Oklahoma City? I live in north Norman, and it usually takes 45 minutes to an hour to get to where I work @ NW Expressway and 63rd street. My personal record is 1 hour and 30 minutes. It's usually bumper to bumper/10-30mph cruising from 34th Street in Moore all the way up to the Dallas junction near downtown.

It's worse on the drive back. It usually takes up to an hour. I've tried multiple routes to no avail. I-235 and I-35 going south is awful anywhere between 5-6PM. Don't get me started on Thursday and Friday rush hour traffic. It's magnified a bit those days.

It will be interesting to see the new census numbers for individual cities. I imagine much of the traffic I deal with is due to the booming populations of South OKC, Moore, and Norman.

[G.Walker]

Yea I know what you mean the drive from Okc to Norman is crazy, takes a good hour...

[PennyQuilts]

That is a horrible commute. That is at least 34 miles under the best of circumstances. Even non rush hour is going to take 30 - 40 minutes and if you can do that in an hour during rush hour, that's impressive. You couldn't really get a worse fistfight of a commute. This isn't anything new - it has been bad on NW highway and that I35 corridor for as long as I can remember and that goes back a long time. Do you have kids in school or something that would keep you at your current house? Do you go down I44 to I35? Would it be better to take the Kilpatrick and then cut through Tuttle? Ouch, I feel for you.

[Easy180]

South on I44 until you get past I40 is always a blast...Can tell the dominance of SW OKC and Moore over the East as 90% of the cars continue to creep south instead of shooting east to 35

[leprechaun]

I agree in that it seems like there's considerably more traffic than ever during rush hour. Our traffic is still nothing compared to most other cities of our size or bigger, but we need to be proactive instead of waiting to fix the traffic problem until it gets out of hand. Other communities like Norman or Edmond would have to be involved, but maybe a light rail system linking to the suburbs should be considered for the next MAPS project. It still isn't economically feasible right now, but by the time we vote on MAPS 4, choose the routes, and build the system, it might be more realistic idea.

[jn1780]

The I-44/I-235 interchange is horrible. Its going to be a nightmare whenever they start construction, but will provide much needed relief when that entire stretch of road is completed.

[Spartan]

Well keep in mind there are many, many more people that live in Cleveland County than Edmond. Edmond has 3 freeways going between it and OKC, whereas there are only 2 freeways going to Cleveland County. I've noticed that it seems like a lot of people in SW OKC just take Western or Penn during rush hour all the way through town--usually what I do. Western is a traffic nightmare from Grand Blvd to 89th but it gets better south of there.

One positive thing about OKC rush hour traffic is that I haven't seen a wreck in a long time. I just don't think wrecks happen that often OKC, which is a good thing of course.

[JOHNINSOKC]

I totally agree with the traffic getting worse. I work downtown and live in east Norman. I've found that taking I-40 to Sooner Road, and taking Sooner all the way to Norman is the best choice for me. It still takes me a good 45-50 minutes just to get to Alameda in Norman, but I-35 takes an hour, at least. It seems that I-35 should've been widened to 8-10 lanes, just as they are doing with the new Crosstown. I think ODOT way underestimated what traffic would be like by 2010. Hopefully commuter rail is closer than we think.

[Spartan]

I really don't think widening the highways is the answer, because as Texas has found out, you can only widen a highway so many times.

[PennyQuilts]

I totally agree with the traffic getting worse. I work downtown and live in east Norman. I've found that taking I-40 to Sooner Road, and taking Sooner all the way to Norman is the best choice for me. It still takes me a good 45-50 minutes just to get to Alameda in Norman, but I-35 takes an hour, at least. It seems that I-35 should've been widened to 8-10 lanes, just as they are doing with the new Crosstown. I think ODOT way underestimated what traffic would be like by 2010. Hopefully commuter rail is closer than we think.

I used to drive to Norman from OKC during the day as part of work (over ten years ago) and that was the route I usually took because even then, I35 was lousy.

[Kerry]

Edmond has 3 freeways going between it and OKC...

It has 4. I-35, Broadway Ext/I-235, Lake Hefner Parkway, west loop of Kilpatrick.

[Rover]

It has 4. I-35, Broadway Ext/I-235, Lake Hefner Parkway, west loop of Kilpatrick.

Wait a sec... I-35 goes thru the very east side of Edmond. Hefner Parkway doesn't go to Edmond and neither does Kilpatrick. That would mean on the southside you should include I-44, I-240 and highway 9 for Norman. Broadway Ext is the only true expressway directly into Edmond from OKC.

[Spartan]

I-35 is more central to Edmond than I-44 is central to the southside. Highway 9 has stop lights.

I wouldn't say the Kilpatrick goes near the Edmond area, although I can see it counting as freeway access for Piedmont or far west Deer Creek.

[plmccordj]

Maybe saying there are four freeways to Edmond would be better stated as there are four freeways to the North side. Instead of saying there are two freeways to Norman, it would be better to say to the South side with respect to the central city. Highway 9 and I-240 are not even fair comparisons because they are both East/West roads. I thought we were referring to traffic into Oklahoma City from the North or South side. In fairness, if you look at Google maps, you can see that road density covers a wider area on the North side having a need for more freeways. The North side has had growth for a longer time to become that way. I think that with the growth on the South side in recent years it would be wise to consider reserving a route from the South side into the city for that third freeway so as the density fills in, there will be an available route to handle the traffic when needed.

[Spartan]

We don't need more freeways. The southside is the commuter side of the metro, that's just the way it is, and I say that as a southsider. What we need is to find a way to energize the inner south side and provide some citified vitality closer to southsiders. More freeways won't do that.

People need to consciously factor in traffic to their decision to move further and further out. That's just the way it is. We need to stop enabling it with infrastructure. This approach is a LOT better than to start enforcing higher taxes for sprawl and pollution, and other regressive policies. Some people are just better of living on the edge of town, the goal shouldn't be to prevent it. The goal should be to level the playing field between inner city and suburban so that people who could go either place don't HAVE to live in the burbs if they don't absolutely want to.

I get it that traffic is bad, but realize that OKC traffic is nothing compared to other places. We still need a better balance, because personal freedom is not working fairly when people wanting to move closer in can't. So, traffic is going to get a lot worse, as it should. This is going to be extremely politically unpopular, but it needs to be explained in terms of having the liberty to make a living choice for yourself. Oklahomans don't exactly have their options open right now.

[plmccordj]

Speak for yourself Spartan. As another South sider I would take another freeway in a second. You can live in your green box all you want but the rest of us SUV driving right wing extremists don't want to be stuck with one freeway that is ALWAYS under construction between OKC and Norman. I make reference to being right wing extremists because I have noticed that you take EVERY opportunity to blame anything bad on conservatives or people of faith (nut jobs as you like to call them). This reminds me of the tired argument that I use to hear when I lived in Tucson. They used the same argument that you do about freeways making the city more like Los Angeles while the same so called environmentally conscious people were fine with everyone being forced to sit a red lights all day. The truth is that freeways do not make it like Los Angeles. It is mobs of people moving in that does that. If we all attained what we all claim to want in population growth, then traffic will get worse. The amount of freeways will not be a factor.

[betts]

I get it that traffic is bad, but realize that OKC traffic is nothing compared to other places. We still need a better balance, because personal freedom is not working fairly when people wanting to move closer in can't. So, traffic is going to get a lot worse, as it should. This is going to be extremely politically unpopular, but it needs to be explained in terms of having the liberty to make a living choice for yourself. Oklahomans don't exactly have their options open right now.

Seriously? People don't have the personal freedom to move into the city? I'm trying to think what impediments exist to moving in. There are neighborhoods in every imaginable price range. Now, if your personal freedom requires a brand new suburban style house with an attached three car garage that might be tricky, but otherwise, I think most people could move in if they wanted.

[z28james]

I agree make some freeways going into OKC from Norman or Rail.

[Spartan]

Seriously? People don't have the personal freedom to move into the city? I'm trying to think what impediments exist to moving in. There are neighborhoods in every imaginable price range. Now, if your personal freedom requires a brand new suburban style house with an attached three car garage that might be tricky, but otherwise, I think most people could move in if they wanted.

Well, I could list a whole litany of excuses people refer to. We all know a lot of people in the burbs who would love to live closer in. I think a lot of these problems are just perceptions, but take it for what it is. I know that you have successfully overcome virtually every so-called barrier, and you've definitely shown how it can be done. I guess not everyone is that resourceful.

1. "I can't afford an upscale condo, but the market for more middle-class real estate seems so slim. I just can't find a unit I like for the price I'd pay for it."
2. "I'm not comfortable with going back to renting, I want to be a homeowner and build up equity and own my own place and fix problems myself."
3. "Where will I get the basic services? I'll have to make long trips for a grocery store, to the vet, to my doctor in Edmond, to the bookstore and virtually every other non-edible service."
4. "The Homeland at 17th and Classen? That place is icky." (When in reality it's no different from any other suburban grocery store)
5. "I don't work downtown though, I actually already live close to where I work, so living downtown would be more of a commute in reality."
6. "It seems like it would be a hassle getting around and getting my car just for each short trip."
7. "What if I decide I want to have a kid later, and the schools he/she would be going to don't improve?"
8. "We're not comfortable with the square footage we'd be giving up for one of the brand-new units, but there just isn't any alternatives with older, more affordable buildings yet."
9. "We like the idea of the urban living and being in the middle of the city, but in reality there are probably more empty cowpastures and big construction sites downtown than there are on the edge of town. That's just not what we had in mind for urban living."
10. "The cost of every little thing, from eating, groceries, living space, and so on, is more expensive downtown. In the suburbs, as mundane as it is, things are so convenient. Downtown just hasn't matured yet."

And on and on go the excuses you always hear. I think the majority of these from 1-10 are overblown and people could find convenient ways around. Another thing is that every issue from 1-10 can be fixed easily. There are just a few thousand available urban units, which makes the market a lot tighter. The only instances where prices have fallen more in line with what's reasonable is with The Hill when a developer's had problems moving units. Another thing is that there isn't a well-established market of older properties that are 20-30 years old that the prices should be a little less for. You can either chose brand new construction or shiny new renovations. So market availability is a big issue, but that's why the right projects can make a lot of money right now.

The reason the suburbs are so convenient and affordable is because it is the de facto place to live. When you're looking to build a shopping project, you're going to look at traffic counts and land for sale in the suburbs, and the last thing on your mind is going to be downtown in most cases. This is just because of the way it is. Also, the availability of thousands of ranch houses on the market makes it a buyer's market, almost always, for ranch houses. Downtown is doing very well in attracting new residents who are resourceful, smart, and visionaries. Now it's going to be a little harder to get the average joe to live down there too--and there are plenty of average joe's that would like to.

Speak for yourself Spartan. As another South sider I would take another freeway in a second. You can live in your green box all you want but the rest of us SUV driving right wing extremists don't want to be stuck with one freeway that is ALWAYS under construction between OKC and Norman. I make reference to being right wing extremists because I have noticed that you take EVERY opportunity to blame anything bad on conservatives or people of faith (nut jobs as you like to call them). This reminds me of the tired argument that I use to hear when I lived in Tucson. They used the same argument that you do about freeways making the city more like Los Angeles while the same so called environmentally conscious people were fine with everyone being forced to sit a red lights all day. The truth is that freeways do not make it like Los Angeles. It is mobs of people moving in that does that. If we all attained what we all claim to want in population growth, then traffic will get worse. The amount of freeways will not be a factor.

Point to any political statement I've ever made calling moderate Republicans nutjobs. Point to any political statement I've ever made identifying myself with the left of politics. I don't really know who this is coming from, but it's definitely putting words in my mouth to associate what I have to say with something you're more comfortable in stating your disagreement with. But here's the deal: I really don't care about Washington politics, health care, don't ask don't tell, tax cuts, the debt, or any of those issues. And the people who oppose good urban planning on the basis of the conservative political playbook are nutjobs, especially when they start talking about "Agenda 29" or whatever and U.N. conspiracies and all that. That's called a red herring because it obviously intends to divert the issue into the conservative/liberal playbook and avoid discussing it on the terms of urban planning itself, which is not something that the American political dialogue is capable of discussing.

Local politics and state politics is more my thing. It should be your thing too, because I assure you there is nothing you can do about what goes on in Washington, but you can make a difference more locally, so I'd say to consider it. If all you care about is what you see on FOX/MSNBC or the conservative/liberal playbooks though, I would say those views are already over-represented when you look at the proportion of everyday citizens who claim to want to get beyond that. About 1/3rd myself included are registered independents. So it's easy to call anything left of far right "liberal" or leftist but is that fair? I guess in Oklahoma if you're not holding a sign at the tea party rally you are a leftist, but there are just as many places I can go and be labeled a far-right conservative because I'm not sporting a mohawk at the pride festival or toking away on 420 or whatever those people (in their more interesting political expression, IMO) partake in, Lol. Both deserve their equal share of ridicule though, and both are straying us too far from the reservation IMO from what is worthy of political discourse.

[soonerliberal]

For those of you who think adding lanes makes things all better, I'd suggest you read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-.../dp/0307264785

Building a new freeway would involve hundreds of millions of dollars or even upwards of a trillion. I thought we were trying to reduce government spending?

[Spartan]

A new freeway would be driven by no one right after it gets built--just look at the Kilpatrick. There's a stretch of road you never hear on the traffic reports.

[kbsooner]

The solution to 35 in the morning going to downtown is timing. If you are on before 7am, it's a 15 minute commute. Between 7-7:15 it's 50/50 for a 15-30 min commute. After 7:15 it's 30 to 1hr. The largest problem area to me is the traffic merging to 35N from 240, way too short of distance.

Commute home is 30 minutes minimum, more than likely 45 on average. One trick is to take the 12th street exit for Moore near Shields when it's backed up, parallel 35, and re-enter 35 across from the New City shopping center or @ 4th street.

[semisimple]

Relative to any big city and many other similarly sized cities, OKC has it downright easy with rush hour traffic. And while it may be getting worse--particularly since Oklahoma's aging highway infrastructure is a pathetic joke--it is certainly nothing to really complain about.

Just last week I departed far NW OKC to Austin at around 4:40 pm via I-44/I-240/I-35; the only real slowdowns were in the usual spots (I-44 from 10th to I-40, I-240 at I-35 interchange). I-35 thru Cleveland County was a breeze. The cumulative effect of these slowdowns was probably 7-8 minutes extra travel time. Not bad at all considering I drove more than 30 miles thru an urbanized area at rush hour.

[Spartan]

The only time when traffic on the highways is really bad is when you get off at 5 and get on the highway at 5:15 and you're part of that initial wave trying to all go at once and you just sort of follow the congestion all the way down, and it won't even reach 240 till 5:30 it seems, and starts to thin out after Moore, mostly. If you get off 15 minutes later, you're fine until you catch up with the wave...

[earlywinegareth]

Flextime - my work sched is 7:15 - 4:00. Those of us on the road early drive like NASCAR qualifiers.