Does OKC really have traffic issues?

[Plutonic Panda]

I started this to break away from the off topic syndrome that has plagued the Mystery Tower thread, and I feel guilty for derailing it.

One comment was made saying OKC has no traffic issues and if you think that go to Bay Area, Houston, ATL, ect. That is absolutely correct. My thinking is in response to his other comment about Austin's traffic getting horrible and having outgrown their infrastructure years ago, I think it is smart for OKC to stay ahead of the curve so we don't get like that. A light-rail would do wonders, but I firmly believe the majority of people here will still choose cars over mass transit. Even with a light-rail we will still have traffic issues and we should start working on plans to widen I-35 now.

Adding just one lane won't do any good, but I'll say this again, in 3 years if we begin construction on this, we could also begin construction on a light-rail project. We could tie these two together and make the line from Norman to OKC the first phase. While doing this, you could make this highway 8 lanes with 2 HOV lanes and add an 4 lane elevated express tollway in the center of the highway with high speed limits and charge a fairly high amount that would likely pay for itself in 10-15 years(maybe less I haven't done the math). Anyhow, it's still a win win for everyone. Traffic problems would be solved for that area, likely for decades, and OKC would get its start to having a light-rail system.

It's understandable that some might argue that this is in no way needed right now, and that's true to an extent. I'm sure in 10 years, if we end up being as big as or bigger than Austin(currently), we will be glad we did that along time ago. I'm willing to bet the highway still won't need to be widened in that time. I think this would allow for at least 20 years, if not longer. If we do the construction right, its lifespan could easily be 50+ years.

Another thing we can do, is tear down some of these ugly buildings and mainly industrial warehouses and that scrapyard and move them and have them replaced by nice shiny 10-15 story office buildings in a few locations. Add a four lane service road, one way on each side, dual turn left turn lanes, right turn lane or we could construct round-a-bouts or those interchanges like what is being installed on Main St. along the highway. Also adding Texas turnarounds would be great too!

A large, beautifully landscaped highway with a light-rail running the Oklahoma River to somewhere in Norman would be a huge economic benefit and solve traffic worries for that area for a LOOOOONG time! The price tag is another thing. I still think it could be done.

To another point, I completely agree in the grand scheme of things, that at this point in time, OKC has an amazing highway network and nearly zero traffic issues. That will change though and it change even faster if we become a boom city like Dallas was(kind of still is) or Austin, Charlotte, and Nashville. So, to answer my own question, no OKC really doesn't have any major traffic issues. I think with better interchanges, like the high-five in Dallas, our traffic flow would be a million times better.

I still think a new 4 lane loop around Edmond would be nice, but other than that I can't think of any new highway that is needed(except for Norman, but I don't usually venture out there, so I can't really say whether or not one is needed out there).

[Snowman]

If we do light or commuter rail, we need to work toward getting walk-able development at those stops so it is actually used (at least have rules in place to allow it if not incentives). In any case though at least the next twenty years of ODOT funding is pretty much already just keeping the current system in decent condition without a major expansion (unless new lanes as turnpikes are a serious option).

[adaniel]

Glad to see another thread on this, as traffic congestion keeps coming up in multiple threads.

Adding just one lane won't do any good, but I'll say this again, in 3 years if we begin construction on this, we could also begin construction on a light-rail project. We could tie these two together and make the line from Norman to OKC the first phase. While doing this, you could make this highway 8 lanes with 2 HOV lanes and add an 4 lane elevated express tollway in the center of the highway with high speed limits and charge a fairly high amount that would likely pay for itself in 10-15 years(maybe less I haven't done the math). Anyhow, it's still a win win for everyone. Traffic problems would be solved for that area, likely for decades, and OKC would get its start to having a light-rail system.

Sounds like you are proposing something similar to the LBJ Project in Dallas. There is a reason nothing like it has been proposed because it is a financial gamble on the same lines as the "Big Dig" in Boston, and we know how that turned out. That is a $4 billion project, or slightly more than half the entire budget of this state. It will take them over 50 years just to pay it off. And we are talking about a highway with traffic counts nearing 280K/day. I-35 has about 140K at the 40/235 merge, and it slowly tapers off from there. In no way would something similar here be paid off in 10-15 years.

Another thing we can do, is tear down some of these ugly buildings and mainly industrial warehouses and that scrapyard and move them and have them replaced by nice shiny 10-15 story office buildings in a few locations. Add a four lane service road, one way on each side, dual turn left turn lanes, right turn lane or we could construct round-a-bouts or those interchanges like what is being installed on Main St. along the highway. Also adding Texas turnarounds would be great too!

ROW, acquisitions, and relocation costs would be pushing 9 figures before a single yard of concrete is even laid. This is incredibly unrealistic.

To answer your question, yes OKC has traffic issues, but far fewer than what is presented here. I would argue its more of a traffic perception issue. Despite all of the complaining on this board, OKC has consistently been recognized as having one the lowest commute times in the nation, with the vast majority of people here having a commute of 20 minutes or less. There are many more realistic tools at ODOTs disposal. As far as the 35 corridor is concerned, priority numero uno needs to be the 35/240 interchange reconstruction. That will solve the vast majority of 35's issues.

[OKCisOK4me]

Other than a few bottlenecks here and there on our freeways....NO.

[Praedura]

Take the word "OKC" in the title and replace it with "Edmond" then... YES!

Actually, Edmond traffic flows pretty smoothly in most places most of the time. But on certain streets and at certain times of the day (e.g. 4-5 pm) then OMG.

[G.Walker]

I would like them to connect the SW side of Kirkpatrick Turnpike with H.E. Bailey Turnpike that runs SW of airport. This would provide a alternate route for motorists wanting to get to I-40W to avoid the metro all together.

[bluedogok]

After living in Austin for 9 years I can say OKC doesn't have a traffic problem, sure at times it can back up but it still isn't the stop-n-go for mile after mile like it can be in the big Texas cities. Austin and the Texas Legislature has created the traffic problems there. The typical reaction of legislators from outside Austin is their constituents don't want to spend any money there, that Austin already gets too many state jobs and money, sound familiar? You also have had people in power in Austin over the years of the mentality about roads that "if you don't build it, they won't come" which has been an abject failure. The Austin city council seems to swing from one extreme to the other every election, one term you have a bunch of non-development minded, environmentalist types and the next election they are replaced by the more development minded so nothing ever really gets done there because they study and discuss everything to death. Since all members were at-large they had to pander to the loudest groups, the move to single member districts should shake up things for a little while.

[mugofbeer]

Traffic is all relative. Picture Austin or Denver with more people and horribly insufficient hiway systems. DFW has 6x the population of OKC, a decent hiway system and they do pretty well keeping up with the population growth. LA is just an atrocious mess as are most large eastern cities. It would be virtually impossible to never have any traffic bottlenecks during rush hour so OKC, all in all, is pretty well off.

[Dustin]

Take the word "OKC" in the title and replace it with "Edmond" then... YES!

Actually, Edmond traffic flows pretty smoothly in most places most of the time. But on certain streets and at certain times of the day (e.g. 4-5 pm) then OMG.

2nd St right as all the college students are getting out and people getting off work...

So frustrating.

[Pete]

Let's put it this way, for a city it's size or larger, I've never seen less traffic problems.

And of course, the majority of mid- to large-sized cities are so much worse, it's hard to find a basis for comparison.

[Snowman]

2nd St right as all the college students are getting out and people getting off work...

So frustrating.

Either intentionally or unintentionally they slowed down 2nd like five years ago when they doubled the number of stoplights between the city and the interstate, which at least at the time were on sensors (I do not drive in the area anymore so not sure now), which is fine at night or any time outside of a rush but during the rushes it should at least be considered synchronizing them to help flow into or out of the city. I took it as a intentional since they also added a stoplight or two on Broadway at the same time.

[Spartan]

I started this to break away from the off topic syndrome that has plagued the Mystery Tower thread, and I feel guilty for derailing it.

One comment was made saying OKC has no traffic issues and if you think that go to Bay Area, Houston, ATL, ect. That is absolutely correct. My thinking is in response to his other comment about Austin's traffic getting horrible and having outgrown their infrastructure years ago, I think it is smart for OKC to stay ahead of the curve so we don't get like that. A light-rail would do wonders, but I firmly believe the majority of people here will still choose cars over mass transit. Even with a light-rail we will still have traffic issues and we should start working on plans to widen I-35 now.

Adding just one lane won't do any good, but I'll say this again, in 3 years if we begin construction on this, we could also begin construction on a light-rail project. We could tie these two together and make the line from Norman to OKC the first phase. While doing this, you could make this highway 8 lanes with 2 HOV lanes and add an 4 lane elevated express tollway in the center of the highway with high speed limits and charge a fairly high amount that would likely pay for itself in 10-15 years(maybe less I haven't done the math). Anyhow, it's still a win win for everyone. Traffic problems would be solved for that area, likely for decades, and OKC would get its start to having a light-rail system.

It's understandable that some might argue that this is in no way needed right now, and that's true to an extent. I'm sure in 10 years, if we end up being as big as or bigger than Austin(currently), we will be glad we did that along time ago. I'm willing to bet the highway still won't need to be widened in that time. I think this would allow for at least 20 years, if not longer. If we do the construction right, its lifespan could easily be 50+ years.

Another thing we can do, is tear down some of these ugly buildings and mainly industrial warehouses and that scrapyard and move them and have them replaced by nice shiny 10-15 story office buildings in a few locations. Add a four lane service road, one way on each side, dual turn left turn lanes, right turn lane or we could construct round-a-bouts or those interchanges like what is being installed on Main St. along the highway. Also adding Texas turnarounds would be great too!

A large, beautifully landscaped highway with a light-rail running the Oklahoma River to somewhere in Norman would be a huge economic benefit and solve traffic worries for that area for a LOOOOONG time! The price tag is another thing. I still think it could be done.

To another point, I completely agree in the grand scheme of things, that at this point in time, OKC has an amazing highway network and nearly zero traffic issues. That will change though and it change even faster if we become a boom city like Dallas was(kind of still is) or Austin, Charlotte, and Nashville. So, to answer my own question, no OKC really doesn't have any major traffic issues. I think with better interchanges, like the high-five in Dallas, our traffic flow would be a million times better.

I still think a new 4 lane loop around Edmond would be nice, but other than that I can't think of any new highway that is needed(except for Norman, but I don't usually venture out there, so I can't really say whether or not one is needed out there).

Austin still doesn't have the freeway infrastructure that we do. At the time of their explosion they just had I-35 basically, with weird upper and lower decks.

Your comparison is WAY off. It's premised on highway expansion being the only way to prepare for population growth and completely ignores the system we have.

Our traffic capacity needs to resemble a compromise between the 5% peak time and 95% rest of the day.

[Plutonic Panda]

Glad to see another thread on this, as traffic congestion keeps coming up in multiple threads.



Sounds like you are proposing something similar to the LBJ Project in Dallas. There is a reason nothing like it has been proposed because it is a financial gamble on the same lines as the "Big Dig" in Boston, and we know how that turned out. That is a $4 billion project, or slightly more than half the entire budget of this state. It will take them over 50 years just to pay it off. And we are talking about a highway with traffic counts nearing 280K/day. I-35 has about 140K at the 40/235 merge, and it slowly tapers off from there. In no way would something similar here be paid off in 10-15 years.



ROW, acquisitions, and relocation costs would be pushing 9 figures before a single yard of concrete is even laid. This is incredibly unrealistic.

To answer your question, yes OKC has traffic issues, but far fewer than what is presented here. I would argue its more of a traffic perception issue. Despite all of the complaining on this board, OKC has consistently been recognized as having one the lowest commute times in the nation, with the vast majority of people here having a commute of 20 minutes or less. There are many more realistic tools at ODOTs disposal. As far as the 35 corridor is concerned, priority numero uno needs to be the 35/240 interchange reconstruction. That will solve the vast majority of 35's issues.

This is very fair. I had to go look what the big dig was, and I am amazed at that. That is insane and I never knew about it. The way they designed the loop by the bridge amazes me though.

I only hope in 10 years that OKC doesn't become like Austin, as far as traffic goes.

[Plutonic Panda]

Either intentionally or unintentionally they slowed down 2nd like five years ago when they doubled the number of stoplights between the city and the interstate, which at least at the time were on sensors (I do not drive in the area anymore so not sure now), which is fine at night or any time outside of a rush but during the rushes it should at least be considered synchronizing them to help flow into or out of the city. I took it as a intentional since they also added a stoplight or two on Broadway at the same time.

This is one thing I hate about Edmond is the number of stop lights. It's absurd.

[Plutonic Panda]

Austin still doesn't have the freeway infrastructure that we do. At the time of their explosion they just had I-35 basically, with weird upper and lower decks.

Your comparison is WAY off. It's premised on highway expansion being the only way to prepare for population growth and completely ignores the system we have.

Our traffic capacity needs to resemble a compromise between the 5% peak time and 95% rest of the day.

I figured their freeway infrastructure was bad, I guess I didn't know how bad, as I've only passed through there a few times. Never really explored the city. Both times I passed through was on weekends as well.

[Praedura]

This is one thing I hate about Edmond is the number of stop lights. It's absurd.

And they're not synchronized. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait.
Yeesh!

[Plutonic Panda]

And they're not synchronized. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait.
Yeesh!

Oh I know, my gas mileage goes up as soon as I get into OKC lol

[Spartan]

This is very fair. I had to go look what the big dig was, and I am amazed at that. That is insane and I never knew about it. The way they designed the loop by the bridge amazes me though.

I only hope in 10 years that OKC doesn't become like Austin, as far as traffic goes.

You guys are beside yourself.. Sadly OKC Talk's collective understanding of urban issues has plummeted lately, which I guess happens in the absence of a big issue or announcement.

It's hard to argue against the idea that any PLACE that is WORTH going to is going to have traffic. Austin is a helluva place. OKC is becoming a place, too. If you can't tolerate traffic perhaps living in a city isn't for you.

[Plutonic Panda]

You guys are beside yourself.. Sadly OKC Talk's collective understanding of urban issues has plummeted lately, which I guess happens in the absence of a big issue or announcement.

It's hard to argue against the idea that any PLACE that is WORTH going to is going to have traffic. Austin is a helluva place. OKC is becoming a place, too. If you can't tolerate traffic perhaps living in a city isn't for you.

I enjoy seeing traffic, in fact. For me, it resembles a big city. I had no problem with Dallas's traffic. I was just stating that we should try and stay ahead of the issue so it doesn't sneak up on us. We'll see though in the future how we hold out.

[bchris02]

What I would like to see is not so much freeway expansion, with the exception of I-235 which is still 4 lanes in spots, but more of our city streets converted to boulevards with turning lanes for the left and right at major intersections and tree-lined medians. Think NW Expressway, Classen, or many of the Edmond streets. Many of the traffic problems I deal with on a day to day basis are because of the poor design of the major thoroughfares, not freeway backups.

I also wish OKC would build at least one grand interchange, from an aesthetic perspective. Something like a 4-level stack would be cool for the I-40/I-44 interchange.

[bluedogok]

Traffic is all relative. Picture Austin or Denver with more people and horribly insufficient hiway systems. DFW has 6x the population of OKC, a decent hiway system and they do pretty well keeping up with the population growth. LA is just an atrocious mess as are most large eastern cities. It would be virtually impossible to never have any traffic bottlenecks during rush hour so OKC, all in all, is pretty well off.

Dallas was much worse when I lived there in 91-93 before Central Expressway was widened, they still had the very short metered ramps. I lived in that side of town but rarely took Central.

I figured their freeway infrastructure was bad, I guess I didn't know how bad, as I've only passed through there a few times. Never really explored the city. Both times I passed through was on weekends as well.

There are two north-south highways, I-35 and Mopac (Loop 1) and two east-west in Ben White (Texas 71) on the south side and and Research (US-183) on the north side through the bulk of the populated areas. The toll roads are in effect loop roads far out. There are some oddballs like Capital of Texas (Loop 360) that splits off from Ben White and and goes to the west side of ties and ties into Mopac north of Research. That is pretty much it for highways in Austin. We lived in South Austin pretty much between I-35 and Mopac, we rarely took I-35 if we needed to go north, if we were heading north of Austin we usually took Mopac/SH130 to I-35 where it tied in near Round Rock. The only time that I took I-35 through town was if it was in the middle of the night. My office was off Mopac in The Domain, in the mornings it would take about 45-60 minutes to travel the 18 miles, about 60-90 in the evening and during off times I could make it in 25 minutes.

And they're not synchronized. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait. Go a hundred yards. Stop. Wait.
Yeesh!

I thought Austin was bad it was great compared to Denver, there is nothing synchronized here. It is pathetic and even worse in downtown as lights turn green with a red light ahead a block away and stacked full of cars and then people pull up and block cross streets constantly. I get honked at if I leave the intersection clear.

[bradh]

No traffic here, but there are some poor interchanges that are extremely dated. That will all get fixed in due time.

[BoulderSooner]

okc doesn't need more lanes .. it just needs to fast track the 3 major interchanges ... (44/235 35/240 and 44/40)

[Mike_M]

It's already been touched on, but expanding public transit is the way to go. Unfortunately public transit will be impossible until OKC is a much more walkable city, which is probably a solid 10 years away.

[venture]

okc doesn't need more lanes .. it just needs to fast track the 3 major interchanges ... (44/235 35/240 and 44/40)

This. The main things that we need to look at is just improving the existing system with some spot upgrades.

- The interchanges Boulder mentioned.
- Realistic onramps/merge lanes (I-240 is stupid).

I would also like to see semis banned from the left lane unless there is a left exit approaching. Not saying they are a major issue, but the attempting to pass by going 0.5 mph more than the big rig next to it doesn't really help traffic flow.

We could also look at dynamic speed limits in the urban areas on interstates. Let's say I-35 is backed up in Moore and South OKC, like most morning, have the speed limit from Norman drop from 70 down to 60 or 55 to slow the infusion of new traffic into the problem area. Couple this will gate controlled on ramps to limit new traffic entering the highway.

If we really need to look at new highways, then like we discussed in the many threads before, they need to be limited to bypass loops and they must be turnpikes. People say that they should expand the Kilpatrick further south, maybe. To me a more pressing addition would be taking Highway 37 from Newcastle and instead of taking it north into Moore, take it due east and create another river crossing and build a new intersection at I-35 and Indian Hills Road. That would allow people to bypass I-35 through the more congested areas in the South Metro.

If we keep lurching closer and closer to more traffic delays and light rail is suffering in ridership, then we do like most big cities - start putting tolls on the interstates to encourage people to go to light rail. Go to a big city like Chicago and nearly every interstate is a toll road.

Not to spill over into the light rail threads, but I know there is opposition to creating "Park and Ride" lots at commuter rail stops, but honestly that is the only way it is going to work here. If we had rail developed before the mass infusion of interstates that would be one thing, we don't. We live in a car loving community and also one where people love to spread out. People aren't going to move closer to rail stops to make it easier on them - granted a few probably will. We need to have the support in place for large parking structures or lots near rail stops to allow for people to drive 5-10 minutes to the stop and then take the train in. Of course we are also going to need to have a support network in place because if only a few dozen people in Norman are going to go work in Downtown OKC, that really isn't going to do much for ridership. There needs to be a quality and timely network to connect to in order to get elsewhere in the area. Otherwise that whole idea is just going to be a cute novelty that no one will use except on game days or weekends.

It's already been touched on, but expanding public transit is the way to go. Unfortunately public transit will be impossible until OKC is a much more walkable city, which is probably a solid 10 years away.

OKC is never going to be the hip urban town where you can walk everywhere like a Chicago or New York. That ship sailed and we are too sprawled out. The only thing that will change that is if we start forcing people to infill more. That's only going to happen when you see deannexation take place and city services removed from areas where there is extremely low population density. The only option is like what I described above and will require a more hybrid solution to make it work here.