OKC Roads 4th Worst in Nation

[Plutonic Panda]

It's probably never a good thing to post an angry response at 2:30 am. Very few good things happen at the time. Just sayin....

Back to the roads. No doubt I think the roads here are not good. Way too much sprawling infrastructure and our climate does not help at all. Since the last really cold morning on Tuesday I have already noticed potholes starting to form on Classen thanks to some bank leaving on their sprinklers and having it leak into the street.

At the same time, I have been in places where there are much much worse roads. I went to Philadelphia this past May and couldn't believe how bad I-95 was. Yeah its an old city but this is the busiest interstate in the nation and in several spots it was a hardly a step up from a gravel road. I remember having some friends in town from New York and as we were driving across the god-awful 235/44 interchange I mumbled something about how bad the roads were here. They looked at me with puzzlement and were like "um, where we are from this is NORMAL"

that entire post is spot on. I probably could've refrained from posting, but didn't.

I think you are 100% correct about the roads here. Way too many roads were built and they sprawl too far out wearing down OKC's ability to adequately service every road equally.

[boitoirich]

Here are the Board of Directors just to prove this. It reads like a who's who of the road construction industry.

TRIP Board of Directors

I'll give them this - they make a very persuasive argument to stop building new roads if we can't even maintain and repair what already exists. I wonder how this group would feel about a moratorium on any new roads or the widening of any existing roads. My guess is they wouldn't like it.

BTW - I love this image they have on their page. Pretty much sums it up.

Right, this as a planning and design issue rather than a road quality issue. Unfortunately news stories about this focus on the $70 million a year we spend on patching up streets and will conclude we need to spend more than that.

I know that people here find it a quality of life issue to be able to get across the city within 20 minutes by car. But the bloated system of collectors and arterials that allows it comes at a cost.

[Just the facts]

I know that people here find it a quality of life issue to be able to get across the city within 20 minutes by car. But the bloated system of collectors and arterials that allows it comes at a cost.

This is the part that gets me. No one wants to pay what it cost. Mention an increase in the gasoline tax to an amount it would take to do this and people think you killed their cat, not to mention what a $1/gallon gas tax would do to the economy. Mileage tax? No way man, that hurts the poor and is an invasion of privacy. Tolling all interstates? No way man, that will disrupt commerce. Well, something has to give because we are as broke as the roads are. If we want to keep the wheels of commerce turning we have to .... here let me quote Kunstler (I bolded the key statement):

Simmons-Kunstler interview

We are going to have to significantly downscale, rescale, resize and reorganize all of the major activities of American life. We are going to have to do agriculture in a different way. We are going to have to grow a lot more of our food locally. We are going to have to rescale and reorganize trade and commerce. The big box model for commerce is very shortly going to come to an end. That’s Wal-Mart and Target and all of that. We are going to have to rebuild local interdependent networks of economic activity of a kind that were systematically and methodically destroyed by large corporations. And we are going to have to get on that job soon. And when we do we are going to find that our communities will restore themselves. We are going to probably have to say goodbye to the gigantic centralized school districts with their yellow fleets of school buses that run an average of 100,000 miles a year. All of these things are going to have to be changed. And you know this tremendous inertia in our culture we have all these investments we have made in the infrastructure for running things they way we run them. And we are not going to change them easily. There is going to be a titanic struggle to maintain the entitlements to these things whether they can be maintained or not. But you know what? Circumstances are going to compel us to change whether we like it or not. There has been a big argument over suburbia for the last fifteen years, and some of the apologists for it like David Brooks of the New York Times have made the argument repeatedly that suburbia must be great because people like it. And by the way that’s a foolish argument just to begin with, but the fact of the matter is whether people like it or not it’s coming off the menu. We are not going to be able to do it anymore whether we like it or not. And that’s…you know, life is tragic. This is not a Bruce Willis movie where we are going to be rescued at the last moment by some miracle. Life is tragic. History is remorseless and history doesn’t care whether we pound our culture down a rat hole. And that’s what we are in the process of doing. By not paying attention.

[Geographer]

If we didn't spend literally tens of millions of dollars each year WIDENING roads on the rural fringe, we would have more money for maintenance of the roads we already have.

Seriously, go look through the capital improvements plan for the city of OKC....so much money is dedicated to just widening roads on the rural fringe.

[Plutonic Panda]

If we didn't spend literally tens of millions of dollars each year WIDENING roads on the rural fringe, we would have more money for maintenance of the roads we already have.

Seriously, go look through the capital improvements plan for the city of OKC....so much money is dedicated to just widening roads on the rural fringe.

Won't be the rural fringe for long. But in short, I understand what you're saying.

[hoya]

Won't be the rural fringe for long. But in short, I understand what you're saying.

Should be, though. That's the cost of expanding outwards forever. What used to be a 2 lane country road that served Farmer Jones and his wife Melba, now gets expanded to service a half dozen new neighborhoods. We're spread out enough, we need to build up instead.

[bchris02]

Sprawl is going to continue as long as the market demands it. As long as people are looking to live in a new development on the fringes those developments will keep popping up. Some other metro areas characterized by sprawl have not built their infrastructure to account for it and they are seeing major traffic issues where they really shouldn't be occurring. OKC has great infrastructure to support its population, it's just many of the major thoroughfares are deteriorating.

[OKCNDN]

Should be, though. That's the cost of expanding outwards forever. What used to be a 2 lane country road that served Farmer Jones and his wife Melba, now gets expanded to service a half dozen new neighborhoods. We're spread out enough, we need to build up instead.

Perhaps get rid of the Wiley Post Airpark and put in housing and little retail there? I bet that area would fill in quickly and cause to reinvent itself.

[bradh]

Perhaps get rid of the Wiley Post Airpark and put in housing and little retail there? I bet that area would fill in quickly and cause to reinvent itself.

You're not shutting down Wiley Post, that's a pretty busy general aviation airport.

I've found the worst road in OKC. I drive it daily. Lake Hefner Rd basically from Portland around the golf course and lake to Britton. That is an awful stretch of road.

[hoya]

Sprawl is going to continue as long as the market demands it. As long as people are looking to live in a new development on the fringes those developments will keep popping up. Some other metro areas characterized by sprawl have not built their infrastructure to account for it and they are seeing major traffic issues where they really shouldn't be occurring. OKC has great infrastructure to support its population, it's just many of the major thoroughfares are deteriorating.

It's called an Urban Growth Boundary. You could draw a line around the developed parts of the OKC metro area. You say "no more development past this point". If Farmer Jones wants to build a farmhouse on his back 40 acres, that's fine. But he can't build 80 farmhouses and sell them off as a new development. People will build inwards. Home values will rise. There's no need for a person who works downtown to live in a bedroom community west of Yukon.

[bradh]

There's no need for a person who works downtown to live in a bedroom community west of Yukon.

Depends on what that is. Is it 1-2 acre lots with room for a shop in the back? Who are you to say someone doesn't "need" that?

[bchris02]

It's called an Urban Growth Boundary. You could draw a line around the developed parts of the OKC metro area. You say "no more development past this point". If Farmer Jones wants to build a farmhouse on his back 40 acres, that's fine. But he can't build 80 farmhouses and sell them off as a new development. People will build inwards. Home values will rise. There's no need for a person who works downtown to live in a bedroom community west of Yukon.

While I agree that there is no reason somebody should live that far out, it's there right to do so and the free market should determine that. When I lived in Little Rock it was quite common for people to commute from 2-3 hours away, which I thought was obsurd. As long as they are willing to pay the fuel costs and deal with the headache of that commute, they should have the right to do it. Increasing traffic and fuel costs should cut off endless sprawl in OKC. Believe me when I say this, OKC may have a sprawl problem but there are cities that are much worse. I am not sure how common it is to commute from Woodward or Elk City to OKC daily, but in many other metros that kind of commute would not be unheard of.

[hoya]

Depends on what that is. Is it 1-2 acre lots with room for a shop in the back? Who are you to say someone doesn't "need" that?

While I agree that there is no reason somebody should live that far out, it's there right to do so and the free market should determine that. When I lived in Little Rock it was quite common for people to commute from 2-3 hours away, which I thought was obsurd. As long as they are willing to pay the fuel costs and deal with the headache of that commute, they should have the right to do it. Increasing traffic and fuel costs should cut off endless sprawl in OKC. Believe me when I say this, OKC may have a sprawl problem but there are cities that are much worse. I am not sure how common it is to commute from Woodward or Elk City to OKC daily, but in many other metros that kind of commute would not be unheard of.

Who are you to say I can't fulfill my lifelong dream, building my strip club, "Hoya's Dirty Hoes" with a big neon titty sign, across the street from a day care center and a church? Yet we have zoning restrictions on that.

We have restrictions all the time on where people can build. I'm not saying people can't live out there, but you can't build urban development in that area. It's not unduly burdensome to say that if you want to live in the country, you buy a house on a farm or in a small town. But it is within the legitimate regulatory abilities of the state to say you can't go 15 miles north and build Edmond II.

[okcpulse]

Okay, so are we talking about major thoroughfares as in the freeway system? Or are we talking about the arterials only? Oklahoma City cannot be responsible for the deteriorating I-35 from NE 63rd to 2nd Street in Edmond. Interstates are federal jurisdiction and are thus federally funded. However, ODOT shares equal blame because the agency ultimately has a say in where the money will be spent. However, if a stretch of I-40 in western Oklahoma is in much worse condition than I-35 in northeast OKC, I-40 is a higher priority.

We can slam OKC roads all day long and belly-ache about sprawl, when not-so-sprawling Tulsa ranks almost as high in poor roads and cities like Houston (city with which I am all too familiar) has city streets in such poor condition that driving on an OKC road suddenly doesn't seem so bad.

As far as road design from a 1950s manual, I'll take the poster's word for what it is but in the many cities I have traveled I have seen some really disastrous designs, and we are talking cities like Memphis, Nashville and Orlando. Almost every city across the USA is guilty of stupidity. What we should do as citizens is make sure OKC leaders know this is below what OKC standards should be. We need to set stringent standards and not allow reports like this to be signed off as failure and then walk away.

[Just the facts]

Sprawl is going to continue as long as the market demands it.

Or until we turn the public subsidy off.

[td25er]

oh boy, spare me the pitty. It isn't going to happen Venture. If I were doing 80 or something, then yes I understand. If you seriously suggest that me going 50MPH might be safe, but somehow going 60-which is just 10MPH more-is going to result in me having to be scraped from the cement, then all I can do is question your line of logic of that and look at things from a rational perspective. I know exactly when and where I can go fast and slow down when I need to. The only speeding tickets I have ever gotten is when some ****head pig pulls me over on a highway late a night when I'm cruising along at 90 or so with virtually no traffic. Literally, every single ticket I have ever gotten was on a highway. I'm being dead serious with that.

It so goddamn funny how I have yet to get into one wreck and have been driving for three years and I know people whom have driven as long as I have or shorter and have had 4+ wrecks. Bottom line is, I drive 20 or under in school zones, 20 or under in residential areas where there might be kids, and I am very aware of what is going on around me and have actually gave people crap for going too fast in my neighborhood as my neighbor has little kids and I am close to him and his wife.

I have gone on tracks and driven very fast. I was driving a Ford Raptor SVT doing near 80MPH on sand driving over sand dunes in Kermit. About a month ago, I had the honor of driving a new Jag F Type around the Texas Motor Speedway in Fort Worth. I was doing well over 150MPH and coming close to its top speed of 184MPH. I am comfortable at driving at high speed and have had a little experience with people who do it for a living and as the years go by, I meet more racers and people who have the opportunity to design and build these types of vehicles and they show me some amazing driving. I am not a professional by any means and have much to learn.

As far as you rant of my post, I'm not even going to go into major detail of it and you can go cry about it on Northwest expressway where people do 60-70mph(I volunteer at Baptist regularly so I know this) and see if they give crap. Bottom line is, don't criticize my driving until you've seen it first hand and stop acting like anyone who speeds is a danger. That logic is crap and has no evidence to back it up. You drive at high speeds just fine and never get in one wreck, the dumbasses that seem to fill the roads these days do stupid sh*t like in attentive driving, weaving through traffic, and blowing though intersections without any regard to road signs and row, are the ones that cause the wrecks. I can't tell you how many times I have seen a cop drive like a maniac trying to pull someone over who was doing maybe 10-15 over limit. I won't even get into what I saw an Edmond cop do the other day. For the record, there are actually a few police officers I am friends with and which is why I challenged MustangGT in another thread and decided it wasn't even worth it to get into, but again, I won't get into that.

It should also be obvious, how on a city street, we can't have a posted speed limit of 60MPH, since everyone would likely be doing 65-70 and having a packed city street with cars going 60 would present safety hazards. I thought it was obvious and I wouldn't have to state that. The fact is, a 50 MPH speed limit would be adequate on a road with lanes this size, but we shouldn't have cars going 50+mph on a city street that fronts a school and community park with children running around it. That is why I specifically pointed out the lanes should be narrower and that would come with no reason to have a higher posted speed limit than 45MPH, which IMO, is really what should be the highest speed limit on any city street with the exception of limited access expressways, such as NW EXPRESSWAY, and city freeways.

Back to topic with my original post, did you want to address my concerns for this roadway or just make bogus assumptions of me wrapping myself around telephone poles and plowing down bikers?

Now once again, one of my problems with Covell, the lane widths of this road, they are perfectly fine for driving speeds of 60 or above and encourage people to do so. There is absolutely no reason to have the lanes this wide. Have you even been on Covell? How long they made dedicated turn lanes that turn into low traffic side streets? It seems like the city of Edmond encourages this kind of activity as well as having people run red lights and such. They put so many lights and it is so weird how I am so tempted to run and/or try to beat the lights in Edmond as there are too damn many of them and they always seems to turn red right as you hit them, but yet, when I'm in Plano or Frisco, I never really have that issue. Why?

Synchronize them, do whatever, but there shouldn't be a light for a PetsMart and a Homedepot as well as Academy(I'm referring to Broadway in Edmond). If you are unable to navigate out of those parking lots, then you really don't need a license. I'm not saying it is a sin to have a few areas where there are more than one stoplight per mile. I don't care, but in this city, it seems there are like 3-5 per mile EVERY FREAKING MILE OF THE CITY!!!!!!!! They are now putting in a new stoplight on the most recent upgrade of Kelly going into Mitch park. It is a joke man. A simple solution to this, better city planning. In downtown areas, I can understand not having super blocks and putting in a bunch of stop lights and/or stop signs, but not in a suburb setting. In urban settings, put stoplights every 1/4 mile or less, that is fine, say like around UCO and in Downtown Edmond. In a place like 33rd and BLVD or Kelly and Covell, consolidate the back roads and funnel them into one road going into ONE other road, either Covell or Kelly. You would still have the option of turning out onto the street through a curb cut and either continuing through to make a left turn or turn right and then continue on until you can make a legal u-turn.

Anyways, that's my take on it. Don't like it, tuff, I don't what to tell you. I am not for turning city streets into high-speed highways. . . I am not for making urban streets six lanes with no stop lights or stop signs. . . I am not advocating leaning left or right(no political reference intended) on any issue regarding pro-urban and pro-surban. I am for giving people choice; creating urban and suburban environments and doing so efficiently and well thought out. Suburban being car oriented(which I like) and urban being geared towards pedestrians. While I learned from JTF you can't do these both equally in one setting, I think you can connect these two and allow for better interaction than most think.


BTW. . . . Just realized, this post is actually off topic and I am sorry about that; just wanted to clarify my original post. It still stands. The new Covell is not a good model for new road construction in OKC. Also Venture, I don't want to start any "beef" with you man. Calling people names just hurts man and I don't I understand it. You obviously took what I have said and taken it way out of context or maybe I just didn't explain myself clearly. I have actually been slowing down quite considerably from how I used to drive during my first year. If I sounded combative in anyway, I didn't mean it, it is just it gets annoying when people take what I say and twist it on me or insinuate something that isn't true, like me driving 100MPH down every road I drive on.

Yeah, let's jump on the "pigs" for doing their jobs and pulling over people doing 20-30 mph OVER speed limit. Just wow. You are young and have a lot to learn. 3 years experience might as well be none. It takes many years to develop instincts about how to anticipate and avoid bad situations. You are only as good as the idiots driving around you. And I hope you never have a blow-out going 90. You will be dead or in a wheel chair.

And for christ's sake, move out of Edmond if it's that bad. Covell is fine.

[Plutonic Panda]

Who are you to say I can't fulfill my lifelong dream, building my strip club, "Hoya's Dirty Hoes" with a big neon titty sign, across the street from a day care center and a church? Yet we have zoning restrictions on that.

Not a valid comparison. You are talking about the kinds of buildings we can place in and around the city. The neighborhoods are simply a desire that people want to live further out in a more peaceful laid back environment. Comparing building a strip club next to a school to rights to be able to live far out are not valid comparisons.

[Plutonic Panda]

It isn't free though. It isn't like you pay the direct cost for the roads, sewer, water, fire, police, etc. They are diversified, debt is levereged.

If people want to pay the cost of expanding government services (adding to the current burden), I think they should expect to pay more of their way.

Kind of like the people who live far out in rural OKC who to pay for the bus system? lol

We will all pay for roads, highways, and mass transit that we may or may not ever use.

[BoulderSooner]

Kind of like the people who live far out in rural OKC who to pay for the bus system? lol

We will all pay for roads, highways, and mass transit that we may or may not ever use.

Or the majority of people that pay for busses that they will never use

[hoya]

Not a valid comparison. You are talking about the kinds of buildings we can place in and around the city. The neighborhoods are simply a desire that people want to live further out in a more peaceful laid back environment. Comparing building a strip club next to a school to rights to be able to live far out are not valid comparisons.

Of course it's a valid comparison. Who are YOU to say where I can put my strip club? We are talking about where we can place buildings.

"You are talking about the kinds of buildings we can place in and around the city."

How is saying "you can't build a housing development over there" not a decision about what kind of buildings we place in and around the city?

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah, let's jump on the "pigs" for doing their jobs and pulling over people doing 20-30 mph OVER speed limit. Just wow. You are young and have a lot to learn. 3 years experience might as well be none. It takes many years to develop instincts about how to anticipate and avoid bad situations. You are only as good as the idiots driving around you. And I hope you never have a blow-out going 90. You will be dead or in a wheel chair.

And for christ's sake, move out of Edmond if it's that bad. Covell is fine.

My point is, TONS of people floor their cars late at night on the highway and get away just fine. We have these police sitting on the side of the road eating their donuts and what not, doing absolutely nothing waiting for some poor sucker to come flying by when there is virtually no traffic out when he could be patrolling and preventing crime like say murder, robbery, assault? Instead of sitting on the side of the road, how about put them in high crime areas?

Again, I clearly stated I have a bunch to learn. Can you even read? Probably not, you just skimmed through my post and made some quick unthought-out unreasonable post to attack me.

I'm only as good as the idiots driving around me? Hmmmmm, who is that? 99% of the city? So if 99% of the city drives like I do, I why isn't everyone dead or in wheel chair, like I will be?

Furthermore, I never said Edmond is a horrible place. I live my folks, but when I move out, I will likely buy a house in Edmond because overall, I like the city; just another false assumption you have made about me. Also, for Covell being "fine", if you think road is "fine", lets look at a few things.

1.The lanes are as wide and/or wider than that of the lanes of a freaking highway. I haven't measured them, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were as wide as the new I-40. They are wider than the Autobahn lanes.

2.The amount of lighting is ridiculous. Why in the hell, do we need a halogen light every 20ft. or so? There is no reason for it. They installed inefficient halogen lights in an age where we could say a ton energy and MONEY, by using LED. Nope, we're just going to install something like 70 high output halogen lights on a mile stretch of road. I need to actually go out there and count how many there are. Here soon, I will pictures for those who have not been on this road so they can see it.

3.They didn't light underneath the train tracks. Ok, that makes sense. Who wants to ride a bike underneath a dark railroad track?-Insert personal attack of "who wants to ride their bikes when people(Plutonic Panda) are traveling ___MPH" here. Don't respond with a rational response now.

4.Nothing innovative or unique was included in the road. They had a chance to do something really cool, but we just built a boring bland road.

As usual with Edmond, 3 new traffic lights were installed every half mile. Tis' the Edmond traffic light fetish.

Here is what I like about it.

1.The landscaping; they will also add new features and plants over time. It is really nice a enjoyable.

2.Double left turn lanes as well as all the other dedicated turn lanes. This allows traffic to flow much smoother and allows for cars to gain momentum.

3.The trails, I love these wide sidewalks/trails. They are really nice and enjoyable.

There are a couple things I don't care for, but not really concerned about. One would be the style of the lighting poles. They look pretty, but I think Edmond should keep that style in and around downtown. Once again, not a big deal though. The other thing is the amount of curb cuts. I really wish they would consolidate traffic to certain roads within the block and the put it on the road. Instead of having a curb cut for every business.

[Plutonic Panda]

Of course it's a valid comparison. Who are YOU to say where I can put my strip club? We are talking about where we can place buildings.

"You are talking about the kinds of buildings we can place in and around the city."

How is saying "you can't build a housing development over there" not a decision about what kind of buildings we place in and around the city?

Well, some of that is fair.

Take a poll and ask people around the city; would they rather have they city tell them how far out they may build or would they rather restrict strip clubs and bars from building around schools? Having building codes preventing certain kinds of establishments and businesses from building around schools and having to obtain special permits is fine. Having building codes enforcing property upkeep and maintenance is fine. Having the city forcing people to build inside a boundary they set, is not fine. That is my opinion of course. I suspect that your idea of limiting sprawl would not be popular and won't be happening in OKC anytime soon.

[hoya]

Well, some of that is fair.

Take a poll and ask people around the city; would they rather have they city tell them how far out they may build or would they rather restrict strip clubs and bars from building around schools? Having building codes preventing certain kinds of establishments and businesses from building around schools and having to obtain special permits is fine. Having building codes enforcing property upkeep and maintenance is fine. Having the city forcing people to build inside a boundary they set, is not fine. That is my opinion of course. I suspect that your idea of limiting sprawl would not be popular and won't be happening in OKC anytime soon.

Yes, but now we're no longer talking about rights. Now we're talking about what is popular. And popularity is a fickle thing.

I suspect that an Urban Growth Boundary is not in this city's near future. I don't know of anyone who is actively pushing for it. You'd probably need to go to the state legislature to get it passed, and appeal to the rural representatives.

[Dubya61]

Well, some of that is fair.

Take a poll and ask people around the city; would they rather have they city tell them how far out they may build or would they rather restrict strip clubs and bars from building around schools? Having building codes preventing certain kinds of establishments and businesses from building around schools and having to obtain special permits is fine. Having building codes enforcing property upkeep and maintenance is fine. Having the city forcing people to build inside a boundary they set, is not fine. That is my opinion of course. I suspect that your idea of limiting sprawl would not be popular and won't be happening in OKC anytime soon.

Even if you completely discount building code and say that you can build wherever you want, the common misconception (IMO) is that Farmer Weldon wants to subdivide his quarter section and put in loads of housing, that should be OK, so long as he doesn't expect the municipality to do a damned thing to support it. If Farmer Weldon doesn't expect ANY additional municipal support, it should be OK. What that means is that the people who live there will have to completely collect fresh water and dispose of waste "water" above what Farmer Weldon already does. The people who live there will have to satisfy themselves with the current level of police and fire protection and not demand more later on down the road. The people who live there will have to provide and maintain their own streets and perhaps pay a little extra to the county or city for added stress on the existing roads they use. They would have to ensure that their property taxes are high enough to support the added stress to any local school systems. If their absence from existing neighborhoods could be measured and their absence caused a lowering of property values and therefore lower tax revenue, they would have to be billed for the loss of revenue to the pertinent local governments.

Take a poll and ask people around the city if they would REALLY be willing to have to pay for the government they demanded through their "free" choices.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yes, but now we're no longer talking about rights. Now we're talking about what is popular. And popularity is a fickle thing.

I suspect that an Urban Growth Boundary is not in this city's near future. I don't know of anyone who is actively pushing for it. You'd probably need to go to the state legislature to get it passed, and appeal to the rural representatives.

I never said it was completely one-sided. Just that living "where there is market demand" isn't free. It is very costly. Yes, like running a transit agency.



And that's just the point. Some people will use them maybe not at all. Some people a little more. Others, a lot. If we aim to make it totally, 100% market driven, the direct and impact costs would be assessed to the user. But of course we don't do that. No one could afford that. So we leverage debt and spread the costs out over lots of people and lots of time.

The point you dodged isn't that this system can work, but that it can't always work at any scale. It has limits. That's all I was saying.

I didn't understand what you were saying on the last part. I agree that it would be wise to spend more money on intercity buses and roads as opposed to widening rural roads. It just works both ways though and kind of shows an unfair bias towards the rural folks.