Rush hour traffic in OKC

[Kerry]

Minneapolis is the best city I've driven. Everyone was nicely spaced and traveling 62 mph, it was amazing.

That is probably because they are scared some bridge is going to collapse or a roof is going to fall on them.

[HOT ROD]

same thing could happen in OKC, Kerry.

[semisimple]

That is probably because they are scared some bridge is going to collapse or a roof is going to fall on them.

Forget about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-40_bridge_disaster

It's only a matter of time before it happens right in the heart of OKC.

Overall I'd be much more worried about Oklahoma's pathetic infrastructure than Minnesota's.

[Spartan]

LOL

There is no such thing as the "fast lane" (but can understand where this comes from, as "slower traffic keep right" does exist). The right hand lane is for exiting and entering so that basically leaves the middle lane for regular travel. The left hand lane, by Oklahoma law, is for passing those not going the speed limit, not driving. Interesting to see those that think that everyone should be going at least the speed limit. Apparently not understanding that the speed limit is not the starting point, but the top end and to go faster than that is breaking the law.

Well the reality is that everyone goes 70 mph on metro freeways, and it's easily a safe speed. Just go with the flow of traffic, not faster, and please not slower..

"Excuse me, flow.."

[dmoor82]

Forget about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-40_bridge_disaster

It's only a matter of time before it happens right in the heart of OKC.

Overall I'd be much more worried about Oklahoma's pathetic infrastructure than Minnesota's.

And The current Crosstown I-40's score was worse than that of the I-35 bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis!

[ljbab728]

LOL

There is no such thing as the "fast lane" (but can understand where this comes from, as "slower traffic keep right" does exist). The right hand lane is for exiting and entering so that basically leaves the middle lane for regular travel. The left hand lane, by Oklahoma law, is for passing those not going the speed limit, not driving. Interesting to see those that think that everyone should be going at least the speed limit. Apparently not understanding that the speed limit is not the starting point, but the top end and to go faster than that is breaking the law.

Larry, you're forgetting about the areas on the OKC freeways which require exiting to the left and there are a number of those. I normally try to start getting in that left lane about 2 miles ahead to avoid any last minute problems. I drive the speed limit and if that inconveniences someone they can pass me on the right. In other circumstances I always try to drive in the far right hand lane.

[Bunty]

Well the reality is that everyone goes 70 mph on metro freeways, and it's easily a safe speed. Just go with the flow of traffic, not faster, and please not slower..

"Excuse me, flow.."

Then why is 60 mph in reality commonly seen as the speed limit on metro freeways?

[Larry OKC]

The right hand lane isnt just for exiting and entering. Since most highway is 2 lanes, this philosophy doesnt make sense. For things to run the smoothest, drivers should always remain in the far right lane and only use left lane(s) for passing. Once you are done passing you should get back to the right.

Was referring to 3+ lane highways, but yes, even on 2 lane divided highways, the right hand lane is primarily for traffic that is entering/exiting (except for those rare instances where the exit is on the left). You of course can (and should drive there if it is a 2 lane highway), but if it is 2 or 3+ lanes, again, according to Oklahoma law, the left hand lane is to be used only for passing, not regular driving.

This has been covered in the Oklahoman's traffic column a couple of times where the specific statutes have been cited.

[Larry OKC]

Larry,

While you are technically correct you must realize there are always going to be those that speed. When you get some like OKC is famous for that somehow think it is a moral code to stay in the left lane for miles driving the speed limit, you also create a dangerous situation. ...

I agree and you can also be ticked for doing that...

[OKCNDN]

On another note, I hate when I get behind someone in the left lane that is going 70.1 mph passing a car going 70 mph and takes 5 minutes to pass them. Step on the gas for 3 seconds and get around them already.

Another thing I don't like is when trying to pass someone on their left they suddenly realize how slow they were going and speed up. Then when you acknowledge their gain in speed and slow yourself down, the original car you attempted to pass slows down too!

[metro]

This may have already been said, but I'm not going to dig through 4 pages. Keep in mind, the time of year. From Thanksgiving until New Years, people are traveling to see family, shopping, and stores are open later, thus more traffic during the holiday season.

[Rover]

Let's see. I drove Memeorial to downtown this morning at 8:00. It took me approximately 15 minutes. Rush hour traffic? It didn't exist. Try that commute in
Charlette, Austin, Dallas, LA, Kansas City, Denver, Chicago, or most any other large or kinda large city. I am in a major city virtually every week and can tell yo OKC rush hour traffic just isn't. People who come in to see me always ask where the traffic is. It is one of the things I love about OKC...a large city without traffic problems.

[Of Sound Mind]

Let's see. I drove Memeorial to downtown this morning at 8:00. It took me approximately 15 minutes. Rush hour traffic? It didn't exist. Try that commute in
Charlette, Austin, Dallas, LA, Kansas City, Denver, Chicago, or most any other large or kinda large city. I am in a major city virtually every week and can tell yo OKC rush hour traffic just isn't. People who come in to see me always ask where the traffic is. It is one of the things I love about OKC...a large city without traffic problems.

While I generally agree with your point, this morning is not a great example of the normal traffic flow at 8am on a normal work day. My daily commute has rarely been as smooth as it has been this week.

[Rover]

While I generally agree with your point, this morning is not a great example of the normal traffic flow at 8am on a normal work day. My daily commute has rarely been as smooth as it has been this week.

While I agree with you, I chuckle when people here complain about our "rush hour". As I said, I am in a major city most every week and drive them all. OKC is a joy compared to almost any I go to. It is, however, busier than Ponca City or Clinton or Gotebo. We are spoiled here with one of the easiest commutes in the country. It is part of the reason we have the horrible sprawl we have.

[Andrew4OU]

Let's see. I drove Memeorial to downtown this morning at 8:00. It took me approximately 15 minutes. Rush hour traffic? It didn't exist. Try that commute in
Charlette, Austin, Dallas, LA, Kansas City, Denver, Chicago, or most any other large or kinda large city. I am in a major city virtually every week and can tell yo OKC rush hour traffic just isn't. People who come in to see me always ask where the traffic is. It is one of the things I love about OKC...a large city without traffic problems.

How often do you make that drive? Over the past two years, I've come to realize that traffic is dependent upon what time of year it is. The first three Fridays @ 5PM of this month (3rd, 10th, and 17th) were absolutely awful driving south on I-235 and I-35. It took me an hour and a half to get home on the 3rd. I remember this because I was jetting to Dallas for the Big 12 Championship after I swung by my house in Norman.

This past week and this week are prime times for people to take vacations and take days off, hence not so much traffic. Driving hasn't been this smooth since the summer.. for me at least. I've made the drive from Norman to NW Expressway/Hefner Parkway in 35 minutes the past two days. It usually takes 45-hour on a typical day.

[JOHNINSOKC]

My experience has been that there IS a rush hour in OKC and that the main reason we have lower traffic overall compared to many cities is that OKC has a GREAT freeway system and there are service roads along many stretches where people can exit and avoid traffic jams. When I lived in Nashville, they didn't have service roads and their exits were far more than a mile apart. Plus, some cities such as Dallas, Houston, and Nashville have a hub and spoke freeway system, which is a system that is flawed and creates worse traffic. Back in 1987, Nashville and OKC metros were the same size, yet, you would've thought Nashville was at least twice the size of the OKC metro because there were very few route choices to get to whatever side of town you were headed to and that made traffic worse. Just putting some perspective on this traffic debate.

[Rover]

Compared to small rural towns many in OKC grew up in, the commute seems long, but in the real world of cities, OKC is great. According to Forbes, among the 75 largest cities in the US the BEST cities for commute time:

"No. 4: Oklahoma City, Okla.
The Sooner State capital has a road system well suited to its small population of commuters (547,255), as 48% of workers get to their jobs in fewer than 20 minutes. As the city grows, however, it may be confronted with the problem of an extremely limited public transit system. Less than 1% of people take public transportation to work, while 2% walk."


Only Milwaukee, Salt Lake City and Buffalo, NY were better.

[bretthexum]

Minneapolis is the best city I've driven. Everyone was nicely spaced and traveling 62 mph, it was amazing.

Minneapolis can be horrible in spots. Lived there for 10 years. 494/35 area is ridiculous at both rushes. Also 394. The HOV lanes def help now though.

[BDP]

Less than 1% of people take public transportation to work, while 2% walk.

Interesting that more people walk than take public transit.

Given how (un)walkable most of the city is, our public transit clearly does not suit anybody's needs.

[j7m7l7]

I have lived in both San Francisco and Denver, and I have spent substantial periods of time on the east coast. While I agree OKC does not have traffic compared to any of these areas, there still is traffic which does get bad at certain times. This is largely contributed to by the inadequate north/south I35 between Norman and OKC, with an awfully planned entrance/exit where 235/40/35 meet directly north of the Oklahoma River.
If the state invested in widening the road (with adequate federal contributions) to 4/5 lanes (8/10 total) it would help ease congestion, and be forward looking. The metro is expanding at rapid rates, especially the city of Norman, which has jumped to over 116,000 people in the new census (from just over 100,000 in 2000). Providing more sufficient highway options besides a 3 lane interstate between Norman and OKC would help many issues that develop during rush hour and busier times of the day and year.
The mere fact that Norman now has a highway that is 3 lanes and that is the same as what is running through downtown OKC is obviously not enough. The population density in OK county is a lot greater than that of Cleveland. The traffic overall in OKC is nothing compared to many other large metros, but simply because it is better does not mean it is as good as it could be. There are clear issues which should be dealt with prior to the traffic congestion getting worse.
Additionally, a note on speeds, there are statutorily set speeds on interstates based on the population density of the area it is passing through. If you notice while driving around the country, 70/75 for open road and 65, 60, 55 for cities, with 55 generally being in the most dense urban cores.

[BDP]

Oh, and if we're doing another traffic bitch session, I'll throw mine in:

1) Can't stand it when people stop traffic to let someone in. They think they are being nice, but they're only being nice to one car, while inconveniencing the 20 behind them, especially since many of then will now have to wait at the light through an additional cycle. So, feel free to leave room for someone when you are coming to a stop, but don't stop moving traffic or traffic with the right of way when the light is green just to let someone in. We can wait.

2) YIELD while getting on the freeway. It is not the responsibility of those already on the freeway to move over or slow down for you when you are entering a freeway. Sure, if there's room, people might move over, but closing your eyes and gunning it is the worst thing you can do when merging on a freeway.

3) Don't cross double yellow lines when turning left, ESPECIALLY if you are crossing a left hand turn lane to do it. Ok, if NO ONE is around and you don't have to stop traffic to do it, then go for it, no big deal. But there is a reason why there are breaks in the lines to indicate where it is a okay to cross when making a left. They are placed where they are to allow for as little back up into intersections as possible. IF you want an example of what a cluster doing this causes, just cruise up and down meridian for awhile.

[bradzilla]

my only complaint is that people dont merge here, countless times ive slowed down to allow someone enough room to realistically /safely merge to only have them a complete stop and block all the traffic behind them. look at the speed of traffic and match it.

[Rover]

I agree that we need to be proactive. As an example, Austin and Charlotte have been two cities that we are on a curve to emulate in growth and their current traffic issues are horrible. Neither planned well 10-15 years ago and are paying for it now. They have to catch up to their growth and that is very expensive.

[Somnio]

As an example, Austin and Charlotte have been two cities that we are on a curve to emulate in growth and their current traffic issues are horrible.

Growth could certainly really take off over the coming decades in Oklahoma City, but I see no indicators that it will experience any growth near as fast as Austin has received over the last few decades.

I'm well aware that growth has picked up a tad the last few years, but it is still rather small increases compared to many cities.

For example, here are the population gains by decade for the OKC and Austin metro areas.

1970 - 1979
OKC - 127,561
Austin - 172,662

1980 - 1989
OKC - 98,155
Austin - 246,797

1990 - 1999
OKC - 117,305
Austin - 359,671

2000 - 2009
OKC - 131,857
Austin - 455,312

1970 - 2009
OKC - 502,839
Austin - 1,306,137

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa12420.asp

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa36420.asp

[semisimple]

Growth could certainly really take off over the coming decades in Oklahoma City, but I see no indicators that it will experience any growth near as fast as Austin has received over the last few decades.

I'm well aware that growth has picked up a tad the last few years, but it is still rather small increases compared to many cities.

Right, even with the latest uptick in growth in OKC it is nowhere near the growth rate of Austin.

The OKC MSA had a record growth year for the decade from 2008 to 2009 with a population change of 19,579, but from 2008 to 2009 the Austin MSA grew by 50,975.

The biggest source of the difference is growth due to domestic migration, which was 8,800 for the OKC MSA but 25,700 for Austin over that time period.

http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/C...-comp-chg.html