Norman Transportation Plan "Moving Forward"

[ou48A]

JayhawkTransplant Thank you for your input and for the link.

I have taken the survey. Over all I thought it was well put together but when I visit other high growth city’s and see what they have done I’m left with the feeling that Norman's transportation plan needs to be a lot more aggressive and proactive than the survey suggest that it might be. Norman is still very much in a catch up mode with the growth continuing.

[ou48A]

As I took the survey I was very disappointed that I didn’t see anything at all about increasing vehicle capacity on Lindsey Street from Barry Street to the east. This is one of the most congested areas of Norman.

I was pleased to see that there is consideration for a new street from the OU campus running north along the rail road tracks.
In order for this new street to work efficiently it needs to start at Lindsey and end with an over pass over Robinson and connect with Flood Street several hundred yards north of Robinson. It needs to have timed traffic lights and be capable of being turned into a one way street after OU football games. In an ideal world much of this street should be grade separated along with the rail road tracks.

[venture]

I think there is going to be an issue for Lindsey from Berry to the East is...

1) Keep current setup and restrict traffic.
2) Increase capacity and cause the same level of congestion just with more cars.

Probably the biggest thing they could do is retime all the traffic lights to help the flow of traffic. A new north bound option from Campus could help move the traffic out of the area anyway.

[ou48A]

Anything that disperses traffic on to other new or expanded streets will help with other areas of congestion such as what is regularly seen on Lindsey. The Front street project and the Jenkins street state highway project that I have previously suggested would also help.

Timing all the traffic lights along Lindsey (as well as other streets ) would help but there is more than enough room to build a center turn lane on Lindsey from campus to Berry.....

[Just the facts]

Latent demand says that any new capacity will be used up with few years. Latent demand is traffic that only exists if capacity exists. This is why no city in America has ever out-built congestion. It can't be done and trying is a fools errand.

[BoulderSooner]

lindsay should be 4 lane or 5 lane (w/ turn lane) from 50 yards east of berry to I35 from 50 yards east of berry through campus it should be 1 lane each way w/ a middle turn lane .. then it becomes 4 lane on the other side of campus

[Just the facts]

The question is not how many lanes must be built to ease congestion but how many lanes of congestion you want. Do you favor four lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic at rush hour, or sixteen? - Suburban Nation

[Snowman]

Latent demand says that any new capacity will be used up with few years. Latent demand is traffic that only exists if capacity exists. This is why no city in America has ever out-built congestion. It can't be done and trying is a fools errand.

Any advice on how political leaders should ignore any type of demand in what is usually one of their constitutions higher priorities?

[Just the facts]

Any advice on how political leaders should ignore any type of demand in what is usually one of their constitutions higher priorities?

Congestion is the symptom - not the problem. Issues are best solved by fixing the causes, not the results of the causes. People drive in Norman becasue they have to, not because they want to. With little exception, Norman is built in such a way that driving everywhere is required. Driving leads to congestion. The solution is not to create more reasons to drive, it is to create less reasons to drive, or at least provide an alternative to driving.

Here are some ideas just off the top of my head:

1) Remove all one-way streets
2) Create an urban development boundary
3) Implement a streetcar linking OU to Norman Regional Hospital via downtown Norman
4) Connect downtown Norman to Oklahoma City via a regional rail line
5) Create a downtown Norman urbanization plan that encourages mixed use development, mid-rise housing, national retail, and urban parks.
6) Reduce most landscape requirements around new development while also requiring pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to adjacent developments.
7) Eliminate all parking requirements.
8) Eliminate segregated zoning
9) Eliminate distance requirements (i.e. no bar within 500 feet of a church, etc...)

[ljbab728]

Kerry, surely you don't believe that very urban environments eliminate congestion. Some of the most urban cities in the world are still extremely traffic congested. I don't disagree with your suggestions but eliminating any road improvements isn't the answer either.

Your statement about Norman is only partially correct. I grew up there and certainly did a lot of walking. The central city is very walkable and invites it.

[Just the facts]

Kerry, surely you don't believe that very urban environments eliminate congestion. Some of the most urban cities in the world are still extremely traffic congested. I don't disagree with your suggestions but eliminating any road improvements isn't the answer either.

Your statement about Norman is only partially correct. I grew up there and certainly did a lot of walking. The central city is very walkable and invites it.

Going back to my quote - how many lanes of congestion do you want - 2 or 16? I-75 through North Atlanta is 16 lanes and during rush hour it is bumper to bumper congestion.

If you are in a very urban area and still choose to sit in traffic that is your choice - but at least you have a choice. I work with people in Philly that could take the train, but don't. Some people, like my wife, are just intimidated by mass transit. She didn’t grow up with it, usually doesn’t like to get out of her comfort zone, and thinks only poor people ride mass transit.

[ljbab728]

Going back to my quote - how many lanes of congestion do you want - 2 or 16? I-75 through North Atlanta is 16 lanes and during rush hour it is bumper to bumper congestion.

I really don't think it matters. Congestion is congestion. And you're right, people will continue to make their own choices depending on their comfort level and life style preferences. You're not going to change the world.

[ou48A]

After further consideration about the need for an east side Norman by-pass and the Jenkins extension that I had previously posted about the thought occurred to me that the 2 projects could be combined.

The limited access by-pass could start on I-35 somewhere around mile marker 99 to 100 (north of Purcell) and be built nearly due north until it crosses the river. From this point the road could “Y” with one branch going NW to the limited access by-pass Jenkins extension. The other branch could run northeasterly skirting in NW side of Noble and then the east side of Norman and continue north to I- 240 & I-40 on the east side of lake Stanly Draper, just as Venture79 suggested. If and when needed from here the by-pass could eventually be built on to the north.

As it stands now this project would be paid for in large part by state and federal funding? This would provide much better access to I-35 for folks living in the Noble area and help relive bottle necks on several streets and highways for others.

[Just the facts]

What is the goal of all these new roads?

[kevinpate]

What is the goal of all these new roads?

They get the present and anticipated outer perimeter subdivision folks to and fro, service vendors to them and back to town again, and move a good amount of flow through traffic to bypass Norman/Moore/OKC/MID-DEL, easing the growth of traffic count on the span of 35 between the S. Canadian and I-40, and likely bringing new services closer to the aforementioned anticipated sub-d folk.

Given your oft shared tales as a sub-d hacienda owner, I'm sure you recognize the pattern, for better or worse.

[Just the facts]

They get the present and anticipated outer perimeter subdivision folks to and fro, service vendors to them and back to town again, and move a good amount of flow through traffic to bypass Norman/Moore/OKC/MID-DEL, easing the growth of traffic count on the span of 35 between the S. Canadian and I-40, and likely bringing new services closer to the aforementioned anticipated sub-d folk.

Given your oft shared tales as a sub-d hacienda owner, I'm sure you recognize the pattern, for better or worse.

I am fully aware of the pattern - that is why I am wondering why there is any interest left in repeating what already didn't work. So what if all these new freeways get built, they will just get congested again, and the whole process will need to be repeated further out. Eventually the cheap cost of expansion gives way to the expensive cost of sustainment and you go broke (see the Southwest Airlines Thread). The state has how many thousands of unsafe bridges and people still want to build more bridges - unbelievable.

[ou48A]

I am fully aware of the pattern - that is why I am wondering why there is any interest left in repeating what already didn't work. So what if all these new freeways get built, they will just get congested again, and the whole process will need to be repeated further out. Eventually the cheap cost of expansion gives way to the expensive cost of sustainment and you go broke (see the Southwest Airlines Thread). The state has how many thousands of unsafe bridges and people still want to build more bridges - unbelievable.

There is a plan in place that should dramatically reduce the number of bad bridges in Oklahoma.
I can understand many of the problems with urban sprawl but the solutions to these problems are not acceptable when they significantly degrade our quality of life.
I don’t think that all but a very small minority of Oklahoma’s would find living stacked one on top of another an acceptable solution or a quality life style.

[Just the facts]

There is a plan in place that should dramatically reduce the number of bad bridges in Oklahoma.
I can understand many of the problems with urban sprawl but the solutions to these problems are not acceptable when they significantly degrade our quality of life.
I don’t think that all but a very small minority of Oklahoma’s would find living stacked one on top of another an acceptable solution or a quality life style.

Driving 100 miles a day sitting in endless traffic isn't quality of life degrading? I am guessing you have never lived in a true urban area. I had an apartment in Norman one time and I was dating a girl that lived out by Macomb. One night I was asked by her mom and dad how I could live with so many people around. Don't tell me you are a Macomb type person.

When I am staying in the hotel in Philly I rarely give a thought to how many people are living within 500 feet of me. However, when I left my phone charger at the office the other night I was glad the office was only 3 blocks away. Since I was already out I decided to stop in the little corner bakery to get me an item before going back up to the room. That is quality of life for me.

[kevinpate]

If I forget something at the office I tend to leave it there, absent a true OMG type emergency, and go in a touch earlier the next day, if necessary, or deal with it at the regular time if it's not modo critical. As for a snack, that's what a well stocked fridge provides, and if it's low, three large grocers, one a 24 hr setup, are within a mile, and the car is in the drive.

But I can agree with you on one point ... I rarely spend much time worrying about the folks who live around me either. Enough of them know me well nuf they can count on me in a pinch, and the rest likely know someone else, so it's all good.

Not knocking Philly, nor anywhere urban, but it's not the only way.

Perhaps I am a modified Macomb person. For me, Norman isn't 100,000 plus folks or all sprawled out. More like 2-4,000, with most of what I need in a 1.5 by 3 mile rectangle, or smaller, and the convenience of occasionally finding other interesting little communities that kick in where my lil' corner of the prairie ends.

[venture]

I think a lot of it depends on what quality of life is to someone specifically. If someone really likes the close together, true urban lifestyle - Oklahoma isn't on their list. I grew up in a typical urban area that pushed together a few hundred thousand people in a fraction the size of OKC. I didn't care for that. While I do get annoyed by the large distance everyone is in the Metro area, I enjoy things being not so congested. I also think that Norman specifically needs some improvements to his transportation infrastructure. Not a ton, but enough to allow for continued growth and development. Having direct access to the core OKC metro population by only one interstate isn't enough.

[shane453]

I can understand many of the problems with urban sprawl but the solutions to these problems are not acceptable when they significantly degrade our quality of life.
I don’t think that all but a very small minority of Oklahoma’s would find living stacked one on top of another an acceptable solution or a quality life style.

Yes it would be so horrible to live in an environment all stacked up on top of each other as they do in a place like Savannah, Georgia, where everyone is within walking distance (on quiet, shaded streets) of several public parks and amenities of daily life.













Can you imagine something so HORRIBLE? Why would those people choose that when they could live their lives like this instead:







Walkable neighborhoods in Norman would not need to be hyper dense places like you're imagining. Chautauqua and Miller neighborhoods are appropriate densities for Norman and if we had continued building with the same urban form, with increases in density where appropriate (near campus) and commercial development in neighborhoods (instead of strewn across 3 miles of I-35) we would not have the same traffic congestion issues.

Another newsflash: many typical suburban developments approach high densities of 4,000+ per square mile. Without any of the benefits (public space, walkability) of the more traditional urban form of the same density. In other words, we are getting ripped off by developers due to our own false perception that suburbia is good because of its supposed low density.

[shane453]

duplicate

[ou48A]

Yes it would be so horrible to live in an environment all stacked up on top of each other as they do in a place like Savannah, Georgia, where everyone is within walking distance (on quiet, shaded streets) of several public parks and amenities of daily life.

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.

[ljbab728]

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.

I agree, OU. Savannah is a very lovely city but it's not everyone's idea of utopia. Some people try to envision a one size fits all world.

[Just the facts]

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?