Does OKC really have traffic issues?

[G.Walker]

I drive I-35 everyday in the morning and evening, mornings are not that bad, but evenings are the worst. On a good day, it takes me 35 mintues to get from downtown OKC to Moore, on a bad day 50 minutes, most of the time its 50 minutes, lol. I am not saying its dead stop traffic, but it can get very tight at times, and frustrating, I call it traffic.

[G.Walker]

I used to commute from Norman to Shepherd Mall, and in the evenings it would take me over and hour to get home. I would get off at 5:00p and would not make it home until after 6:00p.

[Just the facts]

I don't understand the point or distinction you're trying to make here. We don't have traffic.

Because the follow up question is, is the traffic a problem in isolation or is it a symptom of a larger problem? I think it is a symptom of a larger problem because no matter how much you fight the symptom, it keeps coming back when the medicine (more lanes of traffic) wears off. So we can either spend money, time, and effort fighting the symptom forever, or we can fight the root problem.

Now if someone doesn't think OKC has a traffic problem this thread might not be for them .

[Rover]

People are opting out of suburbia in growing numbers every day - and many of the are paying high dollar amounts to do it.

A significant part of this is due to the recession and the fact that younger persons are tending to do more rental than ownership because of poor job prospects. They are delaying marrying and having families, and moving to the burbs. Many economists believe this we are seeing a significant part of this as a short term trend.

[adaniel]

A significant part of this is due to the recession and the fact that younger persons are tending to do more rental than ownership because of poor job prospects. They are delaying marrying and having families, and moving to the burbs. Many economists believe this we are seeing a significant part of this as a short term trend.

I don't care for JTF's poetic waxings but its a stretch to say these things are short term. The increasing age of marriage and the declining birth rate have been occurring for 30+ years now.

[Rover]

By Our Foreign Staff 7:34PM BST 28 Jun 20127 Comments
The trend has been put down to young adults staying in inner cities rather than buying a house as they seek a foothold in the weak job market.
Experts who analysed the 2011 census pointed to young American adults delaying careers, marriage and children amid persistently high unemployment.
An increasing number of this demographic are choosing shorter-term, no-strings-attached accommodation in flats in urban areas, closer to public transport links and potential jobs.
Economists estimate the trend is temporary. However, developers are still seeking to boost their appeal to the 18 – 29-year-old market, which makes up one in six Americans and is known as "generation rent".
The last time growth in big cities surpassed that in outlying areas occurred prior to 1920, before the rise of mass-produced automobiles spurred expansion beyond urban hubs.

[Rover]

I don't care for JTF's poetic waxings but its a stretch to say these things are short term. The increasing age of marriage and the declining birth rate have been occurring for 30+ years now.

And yet suburbs have outpaced inner cities for most of those years.

[adaniel]

And yet suburbs have outpaced inner cities for most of those years.

No shock there since most cities have only been truly livable for the past 5-10 years.

My apologies for derailing this thread. Back to your traffic chat.

[bradh]

People are opting out of suburbia in growing numbers every day - and many of the are paying high dollar amounts to do it.

and just as many if not more are replacing them (kinda like your highway example).

Populations are just growing, period. We don't have the same number of people constant year after year. Populations are dynamic and while there are folks who leave suburbia, there are more who come right in. The same goes for people fleeing the city for the outskirts, it's constantly shifting.

[catch22]

Have to do park and ride for the time being. Build an urban parking garage with street front retail at the park and ride lots. Allow urban development to form around the train and the park and ride garage. It will take a long time to get the trains to be self sustaining on non-park-and-riders if you have the stop open into a prarie.

[Just the facts]

Have to do park and ride for the time being. Build an urban parking garage with street front retail at the park and ride lots. Allow urban development to form around the train and the park and ride garage. It will take a long time to get the trains to be self sustaining on non-park-and-riders if you have the stop open into a prarie.

I am glad you brought that up because there is a difference between a park and ride lot and a TOD train station. It goes back to the whole point that what is good for cars is not good for pedestrians, and vise-versa. If you make people park away from the train station they will just choose to drive all the way to work. Like-wise, if you give the cars parking priority people won't walk there.

Maybe this guy can explain it better

[http://seattletransitblog.com/2013/0...ark-and-rides/

Today, they’re looking at other station access options, but it’s still taken as a given by many transit supporters that park and rides are good. I used to be one of these, but now I’m not, and I want to explain why.

[adaniel]

Have to do park and ride for the time being. Build an urban parking garage with street front retail at the park and ride lots. Allow urban development to form around the train and the park and ride garage. It will take a long time to get the trains to be self sustaining on non-park-and-riders if you have the stop open into a prarie.

I agree. Just because its a park & ride NOW doesn't mean it needs to be one forever.

The transit oriented developments around the DART stations have been wildly successful. The Shops at Park Lane was built on one of the DART Park Lane P&R lots.

http://shopsatparklane.com/

[bradh]

if you made a park & ride lot something like that and less like huge parking lots with some awnings to stand over while you wait for the bus (or a slug) those are fantastic, and become communal places for your "evil" sprawlers

[Rover]

No shock there since most cities have only been truly livable for the past 5-10 years.

My apologies for derailing this thread. Back to your traffic chat.

You must be very young, have never traveled or know little urban history. There have been many livable cities in the US for many years.

[Stew]

No.

[Just the facts]

Maybe on discussion is based on undefined terms.

Park and Ride station: You park and then you ride



Mixed-use train station: You can go here and maybe not even ride the train



Neither one of these option reduces congestion on the freeway, so why not pick the one that offers more than just a parking space?

[bradh]

That latter option is awesome. If I lived in Edmond or Norman, which I don't, what a great option that is. You sit on a bus/train for a little bit, get to the station, and why not just grab dinner there before you hop in your car, or, and not to promote drinking and driving, why not have a little happy hour once you get off the train?

[Just the facts]

You don't even need a car for that last station unless you want one. You can live on-site, across the street, a 1/4 mile away, a 1/2 mile away, or 10 miles away. Heck, if this was in Norman and you lived Edmond, this place might have your favorite restaurant and you can take the train to dinner (especially if you lived in Norman at one time and you still had a circle of friends there).

No one is living within walking distance of the park and ride lot (at least not in any significant number) and no one is ever going to dine or shop there. It will just be infrastructure that gets used a few hours a day by 500 commuters.

[Plutonic Panda]

Chicago has park & ride lots for the trains that go into the city, and they work well.


Texas has the great "Don't Slow Texas Down" signs on highways encouraging slower traffic to keep right. Not sure how effective they are, but I like them.

I love those

[venture]

Kerry I would say option two is obviously the one to strive for to avoid the acres of black top replacing green space. So if we go by what previous posters have said for the planned "intermodal" facility at OU, we are looking at the parking lot on Brooks St in Norman by the power substation. If we could get an OU sponsor development like that above in the the Brandt Park area just east of the Duck Pond (along the tracks), that could do pretty well for that area. Though part of me also wonders what kind of impact it would have on Campus Corner.

If we wanted to do a more urban design like that, the Boyd Street crossing area would be better located but there is just too many structures that would need to be bought out for it. Lindsey St is probably the best solution for that as there is room to develop and its almost dead center of the main Norman Urban core. Another option would be to have a development similar to that, but in Downtown Norman that could also incorporate a lot of the existing structures there. The problem there is you lose a lot of foot traffic from OU, but you can access to more viable structures downtown.

Depending on how many stations would be added - we need to remember more stops, the longer it will take to get along the rail line and less likely it is for people to use it - we could look at similar developments in these locations...

Moore - S 4th Crossing would help with rebuilding that area. Alternative is just north of S 19th to be close to existing retail, however you move away from the population density being there.

S OKC - Crossroads is the obvious choice. Plenty of parking and heavens knows that mall could use some help.

Downtown - Santa Fe station of course.

N OKC - NW 63rd crossing area near Chesapeake.

Edmond - Probably 2nd street where it crosses.

That is a big gap between 63rd and the Edmond stop, but can't really think of anywhere to stop in between that is near density of any kind.

I think those locations though could support a train station development like that. They are also close enough to some bigger draws that could impact traffic some. However, one line isn't going to do it. It is going to have to be a network to make it worthwhile for anyone.

[Gene]

My big tip for people who commute into the city from Edmond and viceversa - Take Eastern (Blvd).

There is a fact that was lost on the residents of Edmond in 1999. Eastern was widened and repaved in preparation for the Broadway extension project. It was to be an alternate route to lighten extension traffic, but it never really caught on. It's still very lightly traveled at all times of the day, and if you don't mind a few stops, it's a relatively quick trip right into the heart of Edmond.

I still use Broadway Extension when it's not busy, but if you're traveling in rushhour, give Eastern a try.

EDIT: Apologies if this has already been posted, I didn't read through this thread.

[hoya]

I followed the N/S track (on Google Maps) all the way from Norman up to Guthrie. I have to say some areas just scream for commuter rail. A station on Boyd Street in Norman would provide access to Campus Corner just a few blocks away. There are some small crappy apartments there that you could replace for your rail station and parking structure. Crossroads Mall gives you a huge amount of available parking and could draw more shoppers to that area. It would also be the only shopping mall in the city with rail access, which is nice for Christmas shopping. Go all the way up to Guthrie and their historic train depot is only a few blocks from their wonderful downtown.

What we really need is one great location (like JTF's second photo) to show developers and communities how it is done. Because left to their own devices, a lot of areas are just going to put a big parking lot there.

[bluedogok]

I agree. Just because its a park & ride NOW doesn't mean it needs to be one forever.

The transit oriented developments around the DART stations have been wildly successful. The Shops at Park Lane was built on one of the DART Park Lane P&R lots.

The Shops at Park Lane |

That was the plan for many of the stops on the Denver light rail lines, the recession and credit crunch killed some of the projects that were just getting ready to start. RTD built garages and in some areas there was TOD slated around them, the station that I stop at closest to my house (the end of the line right now but it is being extended up I-225 to the Medical Campus) has an old strip center across the street with big redevelopment plans that were put on old and now the various owners can't agree on what to do.

No one is living within walking distance of the park and ride lot (at least not in any significant number) and no one is ever going to dine or shop there. It will just be infrastructure that gets used a few hours a day by 500 commuters.

At least on the H-Line (the one by me) there are many older apartment/condo complexes and neighborhoods adjacent to those park-and-rides, I see many people walking to the Nine Mile Station in the morning and that is in an older area (70's) of Aurora. Almost every train that I have been on in the morning leaving the Nine Mile Station is packed and the garage isn't all that big and fills up by 7:15, in the evening I see many walking away from the station across Parker Rd. If they are done right, they can serve areas where ther eis already some density, that is the case all along the H-Line.

[Just the facts]

I think that is the issue we are discussing bluedogok. If stations are built where there is an existing density then you can get better ridership than building a remote station with nothing around it but a parking lot and open space. TOD stations have parking garages if someone wants to drive to it. Venture79 had some good ideas on where to location stations in Norman that can either take advantage of existing density or be located in a place where development is desirable (OU Duck Pond area). But building a park and ride station at Rock Creek Road isn't it going to do anything but make sprawl more convenient and increase traffic in the area.

[Spartan]

Because the follow up question is, is the traffic a problem in isolation or is it a symptom of a larger problem? I think it is a symptom of a larger problem because no matter how much you fight the symptom, it keeps coming back when the medicine (more lanes of traffic) wears off. So we can either spend money, time, and effort fighting the symptom forever, or we can fight the root problem.

Now if someone doesn't think OKC has a traffic problem this thread might not be for them .

But we don't. This thread is horse sh/t.