Rush hour traffic in OKC

[BBatesokc]

The traffic is one of the reasons the wife and I were prompted to start taking classes at the downtown Y a couple of years ago. We do classes at 5:30am Mon, Weds, Fri. and just do elliptical on our own at 6am the other mornings. In the evenings we do 5:30pm classes on Tues, Weds, Thurs and elliptical the other two days. We miss all the traffic and the Y is only 3 blocks for our offices. Starts your day off great and its good for us. Several other people in our classes were prompted by the same thing.

[BG918]

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

Yes. When I was commuting from Norman to OKC I left really early (before 7) and then left work late (after 6) and the traffic wasn't as bad.

[Wishbone]

Is anyone in favor of adding HOV lanes like Dallas and other city's have?

[BBatesokc]

Is anyone in favor of adding HOV lanes like Dallas and other city's have?

Many OKC drivers don't even comprehend the left lane is for passing concept - I imagine HOV would just cause their head to explode.

[dankrutka]

I feel so bad for those of you making this commute. I am on the other side of the highway every morning and afternoon. I live in downtown and work in south OKC. I have yet to hit bad traffic, but the other side of the highway is always bumper to bumper. Solution: move downtown.

[onthestrip]

I does seem traffic has been getting worse lately. As stated, it mostly is from southside residents commuting north for work and back south after work. Traffic from west OKC is getting worse too. Traffic can get backed up on eastbound I40 in the mornings and westbound in afternoons.

OKC hasnt suffered from traffic like other cities but it still amazes me how so many people dont take into account their daily commutes when they decide on a place to live. Its hard for me to feel sorry for someone complaining about traffic if they live in north Edmond, or near Peidmont or outside of Norman. Sure, you may like your big house on a big lot surrounded by nothingness but you will probably have to put up with traffic because of that. Plain and simple.

[BDP]

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.

How will we come up with the next billion dollars to widen freeways and build a new one, and then the next billion dollars to maintain it?

Will the private sector do it?

[SkyWestOKC]

I don't think the blame lies with anyone. I think it's hard to justify moving across town over a job (maybe a new one?), when for example, you have already made significant headway into paying off your house. No point to keep spending a ton of money on loans every time a new job pops up. If your job is in Tulsa, sure, living in south OKC (or anywhere in OKC) would not be desirable. But, if you have a job up on NW 63rd, and live on SW 104th -- I see no problem with that, when you accept a job you accept the burden of getting to the workplace. You should not be blamed for taking a job if it is offered and you can make it work.

[BDP]

I see no problem with that, when you accept a job you accept the burden of getting to the workplace.

This makes sense. What I don't understand is how many see it as their right to have a traffic free, less than 30 minute commute, no matter where they live in relation to their job. In addition, they seem to feel it is the government's and tax payer's responsibility to provide them with a large, expensive freeway system so they can live two counties away from their job and still drive their own car every day and get there with no traffic in less than half an hour. The result is usually a deterioration of the current infrastructure, which in turn only increase the desire for people to keep moving farther an farther away to live next to the new infrastructure that will soon decay as well as we try and get the money to build even more infrastructure.

It just seems like a totally inefficient model and leads to a lot of waste and unneeded redundancy of public resources.

I completely understand the desire of some to live outside of the city, but at the same time, why should the county and city, supplemented by the federal government, continue to allocate resources to make living outside of that city and county more convenient at the expense of its own infrastructure and revenue sources?

[Kerry]

Is anyone in favor of adding HOV lanes like Dallas and other city's have?

HOV lanes work pretty good for people that car pool but you have to lose a lane of exising roadway to put it in unless you build a new lane. Unfortunately, HOV lanes only add to urban sprawl so in the end, they are just part of the problem. I have co-workers in Atlanta that have told me if the HOV and van pools didn't exist they would have to live closer to work.

[TheTravellers]

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.

Not sure if you're talking about current utilization, but every time I drive it (during standard morning and evening rush hours from Eastern to the Parkway, getting on and off at various exits on different days), it's massively busy and very full of traffic. I haven't seen it ever come to a standstill like I've seen Broadway/235 or the Parkway, though, so that may be why it doesn't show up on the traffic reports - it just flows smoothly, apparently. And BTW, there was a nasty accident on the southbound Parkway yesterday, just south of 122nd, so now you've recently seen a wreck by proxy in OKC during rush hour. :-)

[Andrew4OU]

I does seem traffic has been getting worse lately. As stated, it mostly is from southside residents commuting north for work and back south after work. Traffic from west OKC is getting worse too. Traffic can get backed up on eastbound I40 in the mornings and westbound in afternoons.

OKC hasnt suffered from traffic like other cities but it still amazes me how so many people dont take into account their daily commutes when they decide on a place to live. Its hard for me to feel sorry for someone complaining about traffic if they live in north Edmond, or near Peidmont or outside of Norman. Sure, you may like your big house on a big lot surrounded by nothingness but you will probably have to put up with traffic because of that. Plain and simple.

I'm not sure if you're addressing that to me or my post, but if you are, I'm not complaining. I just noticed a definite volume increase in traffic over the past year or two.

I wouldn't be opposed to moving to Oklahoma City or somewhere closer to the office, but I am finishing up my masters at OU. Either way, I'd have to commute to/from Norman or to/from OKC. I am relatively young, and would like to keep my options open as I'm not entirely sure I will be in OKC a year from now.

[Spartan]

Not sure if you're talking about current utilization, but every time I drive it (during standard morning and evening rush hours from Eastern to the Parkway, getting on and off at various exits on different days), it's massively busy and very full of traffic. I haven't seen it ever come to a standstill like I've seen Broadway/235 or the Parkway, though, so that may be why it doesn't show up on the traffic reports - it just flows smoothly, apparently. And BTW, there was a nasty accident on the southbound Parkway yesterday, just south of 122nd, so now you've recently seen a wreck by proxy in OKC during rush hour. :-)

Oh no, well I hope everyone was alright. I hate seeing wrecks..didn't want to know that either, Lol.

I've just never seen many cars on the Kilpatrick and I rarely use it myself. But it's not like I don't know where it is--just that during peak hours it still moves pretty well, during off-peak hours there's nobody on it. Doesn't seem worth it to build a new road. It probably would have a lot more traffic if it weren't a toll road, but it is, and any new freeway would also be a toll road.

[PennyQuilts]

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.

I don't understand the comment about personal freedom not working fairly OR that people wanting to move closer in can't. WTF? What does that even mean?

[PennyQuilts]

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.

I recall when that first went in it reportedly earned the "best place to carry on an affair," award in the Gazette (because it was a place where you could find privacy.

[PennyQuilts]

Is anyone in favor of adding HOV lanes like Dallas and other city's have?

I can't see that they are needed. We have about 15 minutes of rough rush hour in only a few areas, thirty minutes of congestion and that's about it. Even in the DC area, the HOV lanes were only used during rush hour (maybe 3 - 4 hours a day) and that commute is murder.

[Spartan]

It means people think they are being forced to live in the suburbs do to a lot of factors; the main ones being how undeveloped downtown is, the dearth of available housing with payments under $2000/mo. The city/state makes it easy to live in the burbs and enables sprawl. Anything that gets developed for moderate-income households flies off the market like hotcakes, so you have to be very astute and on the ball to get in on the market.

I have a good friend who got tired of being on the waitlist for an apartment in Deep Deuce and ended up with the "urban downtown living" at Lincoln and I-44. There's another apartment complex at MacArthur and I-40 that's calling itself "urban downtown living." We are simply in a city that desperately wants urban living, but it's not evolving as a viable market. In other cities like Houston, Dallas, even Ft Worth and Little Rock, finding downtown apartments is not waiting in a long line to search for a needle in a haystack. People can legitimately make the decision for themselves, not based on market availability, whether they want to live far out or closer in. That's what is important.

[PennyQuilts]

This makes sense. What I don't understand is how many see it as their right to have a traffic free, less than 30 minute commute, no matter where they live in relation to their job. In addition, they seem to feel it is the government's and tax payer's responsibility to provide them with a large, expensive freeway system so they can live two counties away from their job and still drive their own car every day and get there with no traffic in less than half an hour. The result is usually a deterioration of the current infrastructure, which in turn only increase the desire for people to keep moving farther an farther away to live next to the new infrastructure that will soon decay as well as we try and get the money to build even more infrastructure.

It just seems like a totally inefficient model and leads to a lot of waste and unneeded redundancy of public resources.

I completely understand the desire of some to live outside of the city, but at the same time, why should the county and city, supplemented by the federal government, continue to allocate resources to make living outside of that city and county more convenient at the expense of its own infrastructure and revenue sources?

It is a tradeoff wherever you live, be it suburbs, DT or what. Depends on what is most important to you when making decisions. If you live further out, you are going to have a commute unless you work from home or have a job even further away from the city. That is how I handled the commute in the Washington DC area - got a job 13 miles in the opposite direction from town so I could skip the god awful traffic. On the flip side, you can live DT but you'll give up elbow room.

[kevinpate]

I recall when that first went in it reportedly earned the "best place to carry on an affair," award in the Gazette (because it was a place where you could find privacy.

I've heard tell matters really haven't changed all that much, that it is still a citified version of a lonely country road.

[PennyQuilts]

It means people think they are being forced to live in the suburbs do to a lot of factors; the main ones being how undeveloped downtown is, the dearth of available housing with payments under $2000/mo. The city/state makes it easy to live in the burbs and enables sprawl. Anything that gets developed for moderate-income households flies off the market like hotcakes, so you have to be very astute and on the ball to get in on the market.

I have a good friend who got tired of being on the waitlist for an apartment in Deep Deuce and ended up with the "urban downtown living" at Lincoln and I-44. There's another apartment complex at MacArthur and I-40 that's calling itself "urban downtown living." We are simply in a city that desperately wants urban living, but it's not evolving as a viable market. In other cities like Houston, Dallas, even Ft Worth and Little Rock, finding downtown apartments is not waiting in a long line to search for a needle in a haystack. People can legitimately make the decision for themselves, not based on market availability, whether they want to live far out or closer in. That's what is important.

There are plenty of places near DT that are just nasty. People could live there and fix them up if they wanted to and buy in on the cheap. Location is important but when it comes to DT, a block or two seems to make the difference.

[Spartan]

There are plenty of places near DT that are just nasty. People could live there and fix them up if they wanted to and buy in on the cheap. Location is important but when it comes to DT, a block or two seems to make the difference.

Well most of the inner north areas near DT aren't nasty, though, in all fairness. There are some awesome "inner city" neighborhoods north of downtown that would be considered very nice suburbs in Chicago or Minneapolis, lol.

You definitely could get a good place for an affordable price if you have that enterprising spirit to get a fixer upper. There are some great neighborhoods turning the corner, too. The thing is that market availability and how easy it is important to most.

[Dustin]

Many OKC drivers don't even comprehend the left lane is for passing concept - I imagine HOV would just cause their head to explode.

^this is the one thing I cannot stand. When both lanes are taken up, it drives me insane.

[Wambo36]

7. "What if I decide I want to have a kid later, and the schools he/she would be going to don't improve?"

There are several places that have beautiful homes and some decently priced fixer uppers in the Mesta Park, Crown Heights, etc. areas. Amongst the people I know who would think about living there, including myself, the above reason is the biggest drawback. Unless they can afford to send their kids to private schools, this will continue to be a reason for families to look elsewhere. At least for the foreseeable future IMO.

[adaniel]

I recall when that first went in it reportedly earned the "best place to carry on an affair," award in the Gazette (because it was a place where you could find privacy.

Thats funny but true. I have traveled on the western leg of the turpike at night before and didn't see more than 5 cars between I40 and NWX exits.

I am one of the saps that threw in the towel because the drive between Norman and OKC was starting to get annoying, and I grew up in a much larger city. I gave up when we had one of our little ice events (30 degrees and misting) and it took me 2 1/2 hours to get home. I vowed to never do that again and moved to midtown earlier this year.

I understand that not everyone has the financial means to move to the immediate downtown area, so in that respect I agree with Spartan because the downtown area still does not possess a good inventory of moderately priced units. However, I don't think that alone is preventing an avalanche of people from moving to the central city. There are many cheap rentals, apartments, and homes in neighborhoods, many that are safe and clean, adjacent to downtown. And yet, there isn't a flood of people going into those hoods either. Its just as much a cultural and attitude thing. I know a ton of people from OU and through acquaintances who are living in Moore, Norman, Edmond, Quail Springs, etc. are childless and have the means to move deeper into the city yet don't. They think you have to drive 500 miles to go to a grocery store (you don't) or you will be dodging bullets or hordes of homeless people (not true at all). Even now I tell people I live in Midtown ans some tear their faces up thinking I'm about to follow it up with some tale of woe about how I've been mugged at gunpoint. It weird because many of these people have no problem going to downtown, midtown, etc. on a weekend, yet act as if it is a monumental jump to live in the same environment.

It may take awful traffic and higher gas prices (notice how they've been creeping up lately) for people to take a serious look at living in the city. Houston's downtown and inner loop area sucked until traffic became so awful people who didn't have to worry about schools at least started considering it.

[Spartan]

Well, Houston works differently. They don't have anti-urban building codes and zoning laws. It's a city of 5+ million where the laws of economics simply seem suspended. For the rest of us, Houston-style development just isn't an option. Whenever I'm down there it just seems like they have more demand and construction than they even know what to do with.