Norman Transportation Plan "Moving Forward"

[shane453]

There are a great number of people in Oklahoma that do not like that life style and enjoy a more suburban life or the activities found in rural life style. Even if it’s not what the way I would choose live it’s their prerogative and right to live that way and will I will defend it at the ballot box and elsewhere.
I live in NW Norman on a ½ acre lot and I know I won’t ever live in a true urban environment in my life again, at least until I get too old to take care of what I have. I can drive trouble free to about 95% of my needs on this side of town about 99.99 % of the time in less than 8 minutes.

First of all, central Norman is not the place where people who want a suburban or rural lifestyle should consider living- so why adapt central Norman to their preferences?

It's really as simple as this: You can get everywhere you need to go in 8 minutes in your car. But people without a car, or who prefer not to use one, are forced into inconvenient or downright unsafe conditions. So, what is the real transportation problem in Norman? Which group needs your defense at the ballot box? Which group is in need of improved conditions in the transportation network?

[ou48A]

Sure not everyone likes walkable neighborhoods, but Norman doesn't offer a choice. Try going 30 days without using a car. So maybe before spending more money on more of the same, why not try something different for a change?

Let please be realistic…..
Nobody in my part of Norman or in most of the rest of the nation is going to give up driving for a day, much less 30 days.

The Norman area needs more streets, highways and other transportation capasity.
They will be built..... it’s just a matter of what, when and where they get built.

[ou48A]

First of all, central Norman is not the place where people who want a suburban or rural lifestyle should consider living- so why adapt central Norman to their preferences?

It's really as simple as this: You can get everywhere you need to go in 8 minutes in your car. But people without a car, or who prefer not to use one, are forced into inconvenient or downright unsafe conditions. So, what is the real transportation problem in Norman? Which group needs your defense at the ballot box? Which group is in need of improved conditions in the transportation network?

Other than a hand full of students the amount of people who live in Norman who don’t own or have ready access to a vehicle is a very tiny fraction of the city’s population. The priorities of the vast majority of city’s residents are far more important to the heath and prosperity of the city of Norman.

[shane453]

Other than a hand full of students the amount of people who live in Norman who don’t own or have ready access to a vehicle is a very tiny fraction of the city’s population. The priorities of the vast majority of city’s residents are far more important to the heath and prosperity of the city of Norman.

A large number of students would prefer not to use cars to access campus (it's expensive and inconvenient), and I imagine it would help OU's parking inventory and relieve traffic congestion in central Norman if that number of students stopped using cars. Students make up more than 20% of the population, which is not a tiny fraction. The vast majority of Norman who prefers driving is in no way threatened by Norman deciding to adjust its spending and land use priorities to help encourage cycling and walking instead of proliferating automobile traffic. Plenty of college towns have 10-30% of trips taking place without cars. Norman could build an outstanding bike network with a fraction of the money it has spent on road projects in the last five years. If Norman had done so, we could actually be seeing traffic volumes decrease or level off today.

[venture]

Other than a hand full of students the amount of people who live in Norman who don’t own or have ready access to a vehicle is a very tiny fraction of the city’s population. The priorities of the vast majority of city’s residents are far more important to the heath and prosperity of the city of Norman.

The old the wants/needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few argument. I would definitely say a balanced approach needs to be done. Yes it would include a new Norman highway loop from East Norman around North Norman and west to I-44. Then we need to redevelop the central core of the city with more dense planning, reclaiming blighted lots, and also providing street car service from the core to key sections of the city. It could be argued that the students at OU have a greater economic impact on Norman than most of the residents. They are bringing dollars into Norman without taking much out. People that work in Norman are just recycling. Norman wouldn't be anywhere near its size without OU right now, so can't just toss them aside like a handful of kids that don't matter.

I would much like to see new condos and upscale apartments be developed around the east side of downtown. Then also more shops and local businesses brought into downtown to provide services to the new residents. Think of how nice it would be for street car service to be available from Downtown through Campus/Campus Corner all the way to Lloyd Noble or the Weather Center. Then another line run east to west from 24th on the East to 48th on the West or even just to Sooner Mall. Could look at another one that goes up to UNP or even further to Moore. However going much further it would be best to go with a more traditional light rail system.

The future of Norman shouldn't be catered to only those that want to live in a Stepford Neighborhood that are cookie cutters around the external edges of Norman. If you want to live out away from a city core, go ahead. Just don't expect a lot of the city's transportation to be geared towards you. If the core of the city isn't maintained and sprawl keeps going uncontrolled, we are going to be looking at a very weak and run down core that people won't want to go near. The rust belt cities all made that mistake, no way Norman should. If the core gets strong and very densely populated that the city needs to spread out more, than so be it. However, growth must be balanced.

[ou48A]

A large number of students would prefer not to use cars to access campus (it's expensive and inconvenient), and I imagine it would help OU's parking inventory and relieve traffic congestion in central Norman if that number of students stopped using cars. Students make up more than 20% of the population, which is not a tiny fraction. The vast majority of Norman who prefers driving is in no way threatened by Norman deciding to adjust its spending and land use priorities to help encourage cycling and walking instead of proliferating automobile traffic. Plenty of college towns have 10-30% of trips taking place without cars. Norman could build an outstanding bike network with a fraction of the money it has spent on road projects in the last five years. If Norman had done so, we could actually be seeing traffic volumes decrease or level off today.

There might be a few dozen, but of the OU students I have known in recent years virtually none would willing give up their vehicles while at OU. Other than small kids I see very few people using a bike for actual transportation. I see far more people walking around Norman. I do support better & wider sidewalks on campus and in the older areas around campus.

[ou48A]

The old the wants/needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few argument. I would definitely say a balanced approach needs to be done. Yes it would include a new Norman highway loop from East Norman around North Norman and west to I-44. Then we need to redevelop the central core of the city with more dense planning, reclaiming blighted lots, and also providing street car service from the core to key sections of the city. It could be argued that the students at OU have a greater economic impact on Norman than most of the residents. They are bringing dollars into Norman without taking much out. People that work in Norman are just recycling. Norman wouldn't be anywhere near its size without OU right now, so can't just toss them aside like a handful of kids that don't matter.

I would much like to see new condos and upscale apartments be developed around the east side of downtown. Then also more shops and local businesses brought into downtown to provide services to the new residents. Think of how nice it would be for street car service to be available from Downtown through Campus/Campus Corner all the way to Lloyd Noble or the Weather Center. Then another line run east to west from 24th on the East to 48th on the West or even just to Sooner Mall. Could look at another one that goes up to UNP or even further to Moore. However going much further it would be best to go with a more traditional light rail system.

The future of Norman shouldn't be catered to only those that want to live in a Stepford Neighborhood that are cookie cutters around the external edges of Norman. If you want to live out away from a city core, go ahead. Just don't expect a lot of the city's transportation to be geared towards you. If the core of the city isn't maintained and sprawl keeps going uncontrolled, we are going to be looking at a very weak and run down core that people won't want to go near. The rust belt cities all made that mistake, no way Norman should. If the core gets strong and very densely populated that the city needs to spread out more, than so be it. However, growth must be balanced.

Supporting the needs and wants of the 95%+ of the majority is a balanced approach.

That’s not saying that we shouldn’t do some things to help the central core of the city. If people want to live in new condos and upscale apartments the free market will build them. But you have better have enough good jobs to support them. Good transportation and a cooperative city government are very important factors in qulity job growth, but we need improvements in both.

[shane453]

There might be a few dozen, but of the OU students I have known in recent years virtually none would willing give up their vehicles while at OU.

They wouldn't be giving up their vehicles, they would not use their vehicle to access the campus area. Thousands of students already do this. It costs $200/year and lots of wasted hours of circling parking lots to drive a car to campus, plus you still have to walk 5-10 minutes to final destination.

Other than small kids I see very few people using a bike for actual transportation.

That's because the city of Norman hasn't adequately provided for the bike as an actual mode of transportation. Despite this, there are a lot of grown adults who are using the bike as primary transportation in central Norman. Probably a higher percentage than anywhere else in Oklahoma. The other more disturbing thing about this sentence is that small kids are using bicycles for transportation in an environment that is not designed for their safety. It is great that kids can learn independence and stay healthy and active by riding bikes, but it is awful if we can't spare a fraction of our road budget to make it safer for them.

[ou48A]

They wouldn't be giving up their vehicles, they would not use their vehicle to access the campus area. Thousands of students already do this. It costs $200/year and lots of wasted hours of circling parking lots to drive a car to campus, plus you still have to walk 5-10 minutes to final destination.



That's because the city of Norman hasn't adequately provided for the bike as an actual mode of transportation. Despite this, there are a lot of grown adults who are using the bike as primary transportation in central Norman. Probably a higher percentage than anywhere else in Oklahoma. The other more disturbing thing about this sentence is that small kids are using bicycles for transportation in an environment that is not designed for their safety. It is great that kids can learn independence and stay healthy and active by riding bikes, but it is awful if we can't spare a fraction of our road budget to make it safer for them.

You said… “Large number of students would prefer not to use cars to access campus”
They can already ride CART to the main part of campus from many parts of Norman. They can park a ride from the LNC. As you say “Thousands of students already do this” so I don’t think we would see very much reduction in current traffic patterns by spending money on bike paths.

For OU to become the type of University that it wants to become OU will probably need to grow rather significantly in size.
Therefore I do think that OU will eventually need to build more dorm space and several thousand new parking garage spaces near the dorms.

I would support a commuter rail network with an OU station. This would reduce traffic around OU and on I -35 particularly if it was supported by a park and ride and by a bus and trolley line feeder system.

I not sure how practical it is but some have suggested that OU build a monorail system

[vaflyer]

I hear people in the city of Norman say all the time that “development should pay its own way.” For the fun of it, let’s apply the same logic to transportation. Cars drive on the roads powered by gasoline. The gasoline is then taxed by the government to pay for transportation projects. These transportation projects include new/repaired roads, bicycle lanes, commuter rail projects, and etc. Bicycles, on the other hand, pay no transportation taxes that fund this infrastructure development while commuter rail riders pay a fare that, in most cases, does not cover the cost of operation of that mode of transportation. So in essence, car drivers are subsidizing bicycles and commuter rail but that runs contrary to the idea that each mode of transportation “should pay its own way.” Now if we are going to require that development “pay its own way,” shouldn’t we require that of transportation to be fair? I know that those in favor of bicycles and commuter rail will argue otherwise, but I do not see any reason why those groups should be treated special.

In a related manner, the city paid millions of dollars to build the Rock Creek overpass. The project included separate and divided lanes for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Yet on multiple occasions, I have had to pass a bicycle driving on the main lanes of the bridge. If we are going to build these additional facilities for bicycles then either bicycles should be required to use them (and stay off the main lanes) or we should save the money and not build them.

[shane453]

I don't get it... If we provide bike infrastructure, at a minimal cost compared to what we spend on roads, and it works, and more people bike, then: Roads require less maintenance, fewer lanes are needed, less developable land is spent on parking, people are healthier.

Saves money for government, makes money for developers, reduces traffic for those who choose to drive, and improves health of those who choose to bike. Doesn't everyone win?

[ou48A]

I don't get it... If we provide bike infrastructure, at a minimal cost compared to what we spend on roads, and it works, and more people bike, then: Roads require less maintenance, fewer lanes are needed, less developable land is spent on parking, people are healthier.

Saves money for government, makes money for developers, reduces traffic for those who choose to drive, and improves health of those who choose to bike. Doesn't everyone win?

No not everybody wins?
Why….
You would get less than 1% of the Norman population on a bike and much fewer on cold, windy, wet days.

The Norman biking community is a very vocal group who is much more concerned about its own recreational needs than it is about actual transportation needs, thus making it a very small special interest niche group.

Rebuilding sidewalks or buying a few more snow plows or spending the money on some other identified need with the money that would be spent for bikes…. would benefit far more people.

[venture]

I have no problem not building new bike lanes using the same funds for road transportation. If there is a need for bike lanes then issue license plates to bicycles. If you want to ride on public streets, you better have a tag that is up to date like every other vehicle out there. I would also say that there needs to be a system in place where cyclists are ticketed if they are on the street in a section where bike lanes are available. If public citizens see them, complaints can be filed. It sucks, but there is definitely an aggressive group in Norman that are very rude to car drivers. Especially when they ride in lanes on 40-45 mph roads.

[kevinpate]

One of the bennies to driving older, somewhat banged up vehicles. People are far less prone to be rude or aggressive toward you if your vehicle has an 'eh, what's one more scratch or dent' vibe about it.

[Just the facts]

I don't get it - some people are so concerned about congestion they are wanting hundreds of miles of new suburban roads built that do nothing other than make people drive hundreds of more miles, but when a plan that actually reduces congestion is put forth - they poo poo it. I can't explain it.

How can someone seriously complain about traffic congestion and at the same time desire more of the development that creates the congestion in the first place? That is like solving the national debt by borrowing money to pay it off. Sure it gets you by for another year but what's the point - you'll be right back in the same boat next year, except with more debt.

BTW - the gasoline tax doesn't even come close to paying for new roads or road maintenance - NOT... EVEN... CLOSE... Local streets are mostly paid for out of property taxes.

[ou48A]

Many of the ideas discussed on this thread have their merits however what I haven’t seen is very much about how we might pay for these ideas.

I would like to see a mix of sales and property tax paying for the city’s share of these projects.
The city of Norman has lots of visitors who spend money and would benefit from the construction of some of these roads.
A dedicated sales tax would capture some of the money that visitors spend.
I doubt that a sales tax would collect enough money so increases in property tax would be needed.

Interest rates are at near historic lows.
There may not be a better time to use bonds to help finance these projects.

[shane453]

This is how road and highway projects are funded in Wisconsin, where state gas tax is twice as high as Oklahoma's (32 cents in WI vs 16 cents in OK). This user fee does not come close to covering total transportation costs, couldn't even cover the maintenance of the existing system, and barely contributes to transit.

[Just the facts]

How about NAPS - Norman Area Projects.

1) Streetcar
2) Regional rail component
3) Downtown street realignment (getting rid of one-way streets)
4) Bike paths
5) Transit hub between Main and Gray

Future Norman Transcript Headline: Norman Takes a Nap.

[ou48A]

We need to redevelop the inter core of Norman IMHO, but to do it right we must understand that several hurtles must be overcome and that to make it truly desirable we must be willing to build the right supporting transportation infrastructure.

Norman has more than its fair share of people who are simply opposed to very much expansion and development no matter where or what it is.
Many of these people will seize on the issue regardless of what the transportation issue is and no matter what the facts are and try to use that to create some type of hysteria and opposition.
They have to a large degree deliberately created an environment of guilt.
We see this when they complain about the removal of a few homes or a business or even trees when it would benefit the greater good of nearly all.

If we don't build quality transportation infrastructure in the Norman area we will we gradually lose competitiveness as growth continues and logistics costs rise because of an overloaded infrastructure.

As it is, there are already decent numbers of people who avoid Norman and parts of Norman because of congestion.

[ou48A]

It sounds like the City of Norman will hold a 2012 Bond Election that would widen Lindsey Street from I - 35 to Berry Road and include major drainage improvements. They would include an appropriate transition to the east of Berry Road. The Lindsey/Interstate 35 interchange reconstruction project is currently scheduled to begin in 2015. The city would like to widen Lindsey during the same time period.

When turning north on Berry Road I hope they include a right turn lane on west bound Lindsey.

[Uncle Slayton]

It sounds like the City of Norman will hold a 2012 Bond Election that would widen Lindsey Street from I - 35 to Berry Road and include major drainage improvements. They would include an appropriate transition to the east of Berry Road. The Lindsey/Interstate 35 interchange reconstruction project is currently scheduled to begin in 2015. The city would like to widen Lindsey during the same time period.

When turning north on Berry Road I hope they include a right turn lane on west bound Lindsey.

Your lips to God's ears. It'd be nice to get down McGee between Lindsey and Boyd after any moisture more intense than Bethel Baptist turning on their sprinklers.

Thus far, the city of Norman's solution to this problem has been to close McGee and station a cop next to the athletic fields to write tickets to residents trying to get to their homes by driving around the barricades. I drive around them and when he hits his lights, I continue down my side street. If he wants to ticket me, he can follow me through the water. So far, I've never heard a peep from NPD.

I keep threatening to put on my overalls and a straw hat, get a long wooden pole and raft down McGee on a fence panel from Boyd to Lindsey, Huck Finn style, to illustrate the problem. What're the odds I'd be on the front page of the Transcript and/or on KOCO?

[BoulderSooner]

It sounds like the City of Norman will hold a 2012 Bond Election that would widen Lindsey Street from I - 35 to Berry Road and include major drainage improvements. They would include an appropriate transition to the east of Berry Road. The Lindsey/Interstate 35 interchange reconstruction project is currently scheduled to begin in 2015. The city would like to widen Lindsey during the same time period.

When turning north on Berry Road I hope they include a right turn lane on west bound Lindsey.

great news and only about 15 years late

[Just the facts]

Anyone care to guess how long it will take Lindsey to be congested again after the widening that was designed to lessen congestion? The question isn't whether to have congestion or not, it is how many lanes of congestion you want.

[venture]

Here is the story in the Transcript about the upcoming Bond Issue and other thing: http://normantranscript.com/headline...orman-s-future

Anyone care to guess how long it will take Lindsey to be congested again after the widening that was designed to lessen congestion? The question isn't whether to have congestion or not, it is how many lanes of congestion you want.

Hmm, it is congested now. It'll be a nightmare during construction. It'll be congested immediately after construction. So it will probably not get away from being congested. LOL

[Just the facts]

Here is the story in the Transcript about the upcoming Bond Issue and other thing: http://normantranscript.com/headline...orman-s-future



Hmm, it is congested now. It'll be a nightmare during construction. It'll be congested immediately after construction. So it will probably not get away from being congested. LOL

So the problem stays but it cost more. That sounds about right.