Wed August 22, 2007
City officials adopt seven priorities

By Bryan Dean
Staff Writer
Roads, public transit and economic development were among the long-term priorities adopted by the Oklahoma City Council on Tuesday.

The council updated a list of priorities developed two years ago by coming up with a new list.

Council members spent several hours at a workshop at the Cox Convention Center coming up with the list of seven priorities covering a range of issues.

Following is a list of priorities adopted with an explanation of each:

Paying for growth
With residential and commercial growth on the fringes of the city comes new roads, water lines and sewers. Maintaining that infrastructure is difficult because the city's revenue isn't growing fast enough to keep pace.
The city is looking for new ways to pay for such needs. The city pays for most of its maintenance with sales tax money. Mayor Mick Cornett said one method the city can seek on its own is impact fees, which pass the cost of new infrastructure on to developers when they are building new houses or commercial developments.

"It's the best solution I've seen so far,” Cornett said. "How far we go with that is an issue that I'm still playing out in my mind.”

Cornett said the city will also work with the Legislature to come up with new revenue streams.

Public trust
Most residents are happy with their city government. A recent survey conducted by a private consultant on behalf of the city showed 77 percent of residents are happy with the direction of the city.
After MAPS and MAPS for Kids, voters passed an increase to the city's hotel tax with more than 80 percent in favor. Maintaining that level of trust is a key if the city wants to accomplish any of its other goals, Ward 3 Councilman Larry McAtee said.

"It's our responsibility to build on that and keep moving Oklahoma City forward,” McAtee said. "If things are going well, there is a tendency to want to just kick back, pat ourselves on the back and say what a great job we've done. But the job is not done. If you're not moving forward, you are moving backward.”


Quality of life
How do you create a city where people want to live?
Council members believe offering a variety of recreational activities is a big part of improving quality of life.

Ward 1 Councilman Gary Marrs said companies often look for cultural and recreational options when deciding where to locate.

"A population as big as our metro area needs choices,” Marrs said. "We need the NBA and we need people who support the philharmonic and ballet. You've got to have a balance.”

Improving quality of life doesn't necessarily mean subsidizing bigger venues and more concerts, Marrs said.

He said the city has to give residents options and let the market drive expansion.

"You've got to have the choices there, and then you have to let the citizens make those choices and fill the seats up,” Marrs said.


Road construction and more
Keepings roads drivable, water running and sewers draining may be the most basic function of city government.
City officials listed maintaining infrastructure as a top priority. The first measure of success for that goal may be this December, when the city asks voters to approve a new general obligation bond issue.

The $760 million bond issue would pay for road repairs, widening and other projects along with parks, public safety, libraries and other basic capital needs.

Ward 5 Councilman Brian Walters, who previously has complained the bond issue doesn't include enough money for projects in his ward, repeated his concerns at Tuesday's meeting. The bond issue includes $25 million for Ward 5 projects and at least $50 million for projects in every other ward.

City officials said the money went for projects most in need. Streets in the worst condition with the highest traffic volumes got funded.

The streets in Ward 5 are generally in good condition because, unlike other wards, the city widened roads before new developments were built.

"My concern is that the bond issue does not allow enough money for Ward 5 to continue being proactive,” Walters said. "We are fixing problems in other areas without being proactive in Ward 5. All I'm asking for is the dollars to continue that proactive approach.”

Ward 6 Councilwoman Ann Simank said the city needs to put a priority on fixing areas that already have problems.

"I really think we need to take a look at the inner core area,” Simank said. "I'm speaking primarily of our neighborhoods. Sometimes there are just not enough resources to get those needs taken care of.”


Duplicating services
Oklahoma City has offered to take over fire service for other metro communities struggling to keep up their own fire departments because of declining sales tax revenues.
Officials from Warr Acres recently said "no thanks” to the offer.

But Oklahoma City isn't giving up. Ward 4 Councilman Pete White said Oklahoma City has to lead the effort or it won't happen.

"The biggest waste of money in government is duplication of services,” White said. "It isn't graft or corruption. I think we would all like to deliver better service for less. The quickest and easiest way to do that is consolidation.”

Ward 7 Councilwoman Willa Johnson said every city in the metro area ought to be looking for ways to save money by combining efforts when possible.

"We are all doing the very same things,” Johnson said. "We need some seamlessness in this. I've had a couple of experiences as a councilwoman where some of those lines of demarcation have caused some consternation for citizens.”


Mass transit
Everyone agrees Oklahoma City's public transit system needs serious improvement, but convincing citizens to invest in it now won't be easy, Ward 8 Councilman Pat Ryan said.
"The need is not critical now, but if we wait until it becomes a burning issue, the cost and the need will be much higher,” Ryan said.

Whether improved transit means a better bus system, light rail or some other solution remains to be decided. Light rail was the most popular idea submitted when the city asked citizens to come up with projects for a possible MAPS 3.

Ward 2 Councilman Sam Bowman said momentum for improved public transit is building both among council members and in the public.

"We are seeing some different users of the public transportation system,” Bowman said. "We are seeing a beginning because of the cost of gasoline, because of quality of life and air quality.”

Economic development
Cornett doesn't just want more jobs in Oklahoma City. He wants high-paying jobs.

The city is looking for more ways to recruit quality employers to the area. But economic incentives are only one piece of the puzzle.

Cornett said the city has to focus on bigger picture issues to truly compete for the best jobs.

"You create a city where people want to live,” Cornett said. "If you are successful in that, you are successful in a lot of economic development areas. You've created an employee base. You've succeeded in addressing educational needs. You've given retirees a reason to stay, and you've given your younger people a reason to not leave when they've completed their education.”

When are we going to hear a MAPS 3 announcement?

I need to restate this.
We do not need light rail!
we need to go further, have a REAL mass transit system.
Improved on the one we have now, have hydrogen fueled fleet, make transit to more places ie major employers,educational sites,shopping,medical,and of course the places that make OKC's quality of live worth while.

I need to restate this.
We do not need light rail! . . . .

Are you kidding? Light rail is the future of commuting between Norman, Edmond, Yukon, MWC and OKC. And trips between downtown and places like the zoo, airport, Penn Square etc. for the Oklahoma City metro, just like most mid-sized and large cities coast to coast. There is such a pile of evidence that light rail transit works for working people, professionals, executives, . . . you name it, that it is not realistic to think or accept that light rail will not work here . . . period. Light rail is also proving to be one of the most effective engines for residential and commercial development, just as trolleys were in the past.

Only Ernest Istook still thinks rail will not work in OKC and fortunately, we might have heard the last of him.

I'd be more than happy to pay my fair share for a light transit system. I'd like to see it happen.

I would too but my fear is that most people in OKC won't.

I'd be more than happy to pay my fair share for a light transit system. I'd like to see it happen.

Reality is that everyone that pays federal income tax, state income tax or buys fule is already paying their fair share for a broad aray of transportation subsidies. The federal money that comes back to Oklahoma is usually in the form of highway construction subsidies, same with the state and the motor fule tax proceeds are overwhelmingly directed toward highway construction and maintainence. City budgets are almost totally allocated to streets . . . the totals are in the hundres of millions of dollars per year. Even a shift of a few percentage points from highways to rail would start to take the pressure off of highways and begin the development of a comprehensive statewide rail transportaion system.

Had most of the budget for relocating five miles of I-40, almost one-half of a Billion Dollars at last count, been directed into developing a state wide rail transportation network, Oklahoma would be well on it's way to becoming a national rail corssroads along with a national highway crossroads.

Thinking outside the 18 wheeler doesn't happen enough in Oklahoma.

But, back to the general topic. I have been a fan of impact fees for quite a while and the discussions about tapping into this source of funding growth has been a topic at City Hall for years. It will make suburban housing more expensive . . . a good thing . . . compared to inner-city housing. I have often suggested assessing a fee of about $1500 on each new house constructed further than about thirteen miles from downtown and using those proceeds to rehab the inner-city infrasturcture. Water and serwer lines in the core are in serious need of repairs and replacement.

I'd like to see a light rail system with at least a few flimsy stations. Could you imagine going to work in okc with a light rail system that goes 70 miles an hour while its away from roads? It be a great way to head to the airport without using taxis.

I would highly suggest you look at this in regards to light rail to bus for mass transit.
Look at the size of the cities with it.
The size of the city in terms of surface and then population.
We need to know where is the population living, working, and playing at that would USE it.
I think making transit to more places ie major employers,educational sites,shopping,medical,and of course the places that make OKC's quality of live worth while.
Its takes more then a shiney car/ or bus to turn my head.
If you're suggesting a large scaled light rail includes more then Edmond and OKC but also Norman.
That may work, but must include a bus line, because its just not possiable to get to all the places that I describe above in a rail system.

Light-rail short around $500 million
By DAVE HELLING
The Kansas City Star


A new report says Kansas City’s voter-approved light rail plan faces a funding shortfall of $433 million to $545 million — even if the federal government pays half of the construction costs.

Officials with HNTB discussed the estimate with the city council’s Transportation Committee this morning and copies were provided to reporters,

“The money is not sufficient to do what was voted on in November, 2006,” said Mark Huffer, general manager of the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority.

Clay Chastain, who proposed the November 2006 ballot measure, did not attend the meeting this morning and was not immediately available for comment.

The estimate assumes construction costs of $1.42 billion to $1.65 billion for the 27-mile line from the Kansas City Zoo to Kansas City International Airport.

Assuming a middle point for costs, $1.54 billion and $770 million in federal funding, the report says the 3/8 cent sales tax extension approved by voters still falls $415 million short.

Engineers also estimated operating costs at $11 million in the first year, with fares and other revenue paying for $6.2 million of that. The total operating shortfall, the report says, would total $73.7 million, in 2007 dollars, through 2034.

Total shortfall considering construction and operating costs: $489 million, assuming the midpoint construction estimate.

“All public works projects of the scale of a 30-mile light rail line have constructability issues and physical challenges,” the report says. “There are several such issues of significance with the November 2006 initiative that should be noted because they result in extraordinarily high capital costs, threaten the feasibility of the project or result in unacceptable environmental or community impacts.”

The full council meets later today to discuss a response to the initiative petition seeking to repeal the plan. Assistant City Attorney Bill Geary told the committee that the petition process to repeal the ordinance was legal, and outlined several possible responses, including another vote on light rail.

Chairman Ed Ford said he believes it will take nine council votes to put the matter on the November ballot. He said that remains an option, as does a February election.



www.kansascity.com | 08/09/2007 | Light-rail short around $500 million (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/story/224933.html)

But, back to the general topic. I have been a fan of impact fees for quite a while and the discussions about tapping into this source of funding growth has been a topic at City Hall for years. It will make suburban housing more expensive . . . a good thing . . . compared to inner-city housing. I have often suggested assessing a fee of about $1500 on each new house constructed further than about thirteen miles from downtown and using those proceeds to rehab the inner-city infrasturcture. Water and serwer lines in the core are in serious need of repairs and replacement.

Soooo...Tax me more to pay for something I don't use because I live in the suburbs?

That would be almost as bad as taxing the childless to pay for public scho....Oh...Wait.

I would like to see the city be able to charge special assessments for building improvements. For example, if they build an expensive drainage system because a church has added a huge parking lot? Assess the church some of the cost for that drainage system.

I would like to see the city be able to charge special assessments for building improvements. For example, if they build an expensive drainage system because a church has added a huge parking lot? Assess the church some of the cost for that drainage system.

Amen.

What I'd really like to see is a connected network of bike trails throughout the metro, i.e., a means to keep bicycle riders off of the roads. Those people are a menace. It's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt or killed.

-- especially in Edmond.

If I lived in.. say south Edmond or the Village, it might be nice to be able to ride my bike to work (safely and on a trail) rather than parking my way to work on the interstates.

Those people are a menace.

That's awfully strong language. Why exactly are they a "menace"? It's not their fault the city doesn't build roads with wide shoulders or even (scandalous!) bike lanes. So they're a menace because you're lazy ass is in a hurry driving to work while you get fatter and fatter?

If someone gets hurt or killed, it's sure not going to be because grams got sideswiped by a bicyclist who wasn't looking where he was going.

That's awfully strong language. Why exactly are they a "menace"? It's not their fault the city doesn't build roads with wide shoulders or even (scandalous!) bike lanes. So they're a menace because you're lazy ass is in a hurry driving to work while you get fatter and fatter?

If someone gets hurt or killed, it's sure not going to be because grams got sideswiped by a bicyclist who wasn't looking where he was going.

Roads -- built for cars, not for bikes.

Car drivers -- they pay ALL of the taxes for the roads.

Bikes -- pay nada for the roads.

And yes, when I drive somewhere, I generally want to get from point A to point B as quick as I can get there without breaking the law. Having some putz, or worse, a gaggle of putzes taking up both lanes while peddling uphill at 18 miles per hour certainly does not help me out in my goal.

In fact, I used to have to take Rockwell from 220th all the way into town to work every day. On weekends, there would sometimes be entire clubs of bike riders out there on Rockwell, sometimes taking up both lanes, sometimes making passing virtually impossible, NEVER yielding.

When I was an active bike rider, I stayed on bike trails almost exclusively. The only time not spent on bike trails was spent as much as possible on back roads getting to bike trails. I'd never ride on major roads unless there was a necessity to do so.

While it is a great thing that you want to be in better shape, I'd urge you to do so without being such a royal pain in the ass for those of us who use the roads for what they were intended to be used for -- things with motors.

Bikes don't pay for anything. Bike riders--98% of the time--also own a car, so yes, they are paying for the roads. And whether they are built just for cars is arguable.

Bikes don't pay for anything. Bike riders--98% of the time--also own a car, so yes, they are paying for the roads. And whether they are built just for cars is arguable.

They pay a tax on fuel for their cars. They pay a tax on license plates also for their cars.

I don't think it's my right to be able to sunbathe in the middle of the road or close it off for street a hockey game -- although either use might be desirable. What makes you think that it should be used for any other purpose it wasn't designed for?

Oh -- and please argue how the street with lanes made big enough for cars, made specifically to withstand the weight exerted by cars are designed "for bikes" even arguably. Any logic you use to arrive at that conclusion would probably also support a use of streets for pedestrians, segways, etc.

The only time your argument would ever come close to holding water is when those streets have bicycle lanes. Other than that, I can't see any reason to believe that a gaggle of bike riders are entitled to slow down motorists who generally count on traffic to flow at a given rate when trying to arrive at a destination at or before a certain time.

If you're riding a bike for the purpose of fitness, why not utilize one of OKC's bike trails? I used to do at least a couple of laps around Hefner every day. Alternatively, I'd ride around at Edmond's Mitchell Park/Coffee Creek addition on their trails.

Well.. this thread has succeeded in getting me ticked off at the SoB who stole my bike last weekend.

Once the price of oil continues to go through the roof, people will begin to look a bit more positively about bike riding. Where I live (Amsterdam) biking is of-course one of the main means of transportation. Bike paths criss-cross the city, people are not obese (figure that!) and the air is clean.

OKC will never be Amsterdam (despite the wonderful Bricktown Canal), but a step in the direction of realizing that urban sprawl is slowing but surely killing the city is a good one. Light rail is great, but without a comprehensive urban development plan that re-focuses the city towards its heart, a biker-friendly policy (and I mean a sincere one), concentrated high-density buildings and zoning that encourages more people in a smaller area, and a basic realization that OKC has greatly surpassed it geographical growth limits, then we will never really have a chance at that urban utopia that so many on this site are dreaming of.

Come on OKC! We can do better than that! Let's get off our fat backsides and use Portland or San Francisco as a model, not Dallas or LA.

David, a lot of people live here because they can be relatively close to their jobs while living on large acreages. I just don't think the San Francisco or Portland lifestyles really play well here. In those places, topography largely limits the sprawl. In OKC? There is essentially no topography. The only thing which might limit our growth somewhere down the road is water. But that's a ways off.

If bikes have to stay off city streets, then how can those who would like to ride to work, get where they are going? Bikes are not only for recreation.

Where is Tim?

Those bikes can stay on back roads which are especially available in OKC. It makes no difference to a bicycle whether he rides on Western or some parallel no-name street. To the cars trying to get to work, it makes a big difference.

Otherwise, riding a bike to work, unless you live and work downtown isn't really a safe or realistic option for 99% of us.

Areas built since 1950 or so do not have through-streets running parallel to main aterials. Cyclist do not like riding with cars anymore than drivers like cyclist. If there is a back way, the cyclist will take it.

Even if only 1% (and considerably more people than 1% could realistically ride to work) of the metro population could feasible ride a bike to work, that would be 13,000 cyclists.

So until a citywide bike network is built, we just have to share the road.

What I'd really like to see is a connected network of bike trails throughout the metro, i.e., a means to keep bicycle riders off of the roads. Those people are a menace. It's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt or killed.

-- especially in Edmond.

If I lived in.. say south Edmond or the Village, it might be nice to be able to ride my bike to work (safely and on a trail) rather than parking my way to work on the interstates.

Makes no difference. They won't use it anyway. In Norman where there are sidewalks all throughout the city bike riders still ride on the city streets taking up lanes of traffic, congesting traffic flow and nearly causing accidents. I've seen it a hundred times. Meanwhile the sidewalks sit relatively unused. I do, however, see the "non-serious" bikers use the sidewalk and by that I mean the ones who use their bikes to get to the store etc. as opposed to the bike riders who wear their fancy little get-ups.

When I had alot more time on my hands (years ago) and road a bike I used to ride from 122nd and Macarthur to Lake Hefner to ride the trails there and I road on subdivision streets and avoided main roads as much as possible even if meant a longer ride than point A to B. When I did have to get on a main road I went against traffic so I could see cars coming at me and would get over into the grass when traffic came. It was more difficult but that way I was never in the way of traffic traveling at 45 mph. I guess today's serious bike riders are just way to weak to peddle off-road. Plus I never wore one of those rediculous outfits either, I just wore a basketball shirt, shorts and a baseball cap backwards.

Just another thing holding us back from being a real progressive city--elitist drivers.

There's a reason they wear those "getups", just like there's a reason basketball players wear the kinds of clothes and shoes they do when they are playing seriously.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Bicycles are considered vehicles, therefore, they are not supposed to be on the sidewalks. It will even get you ticketed in some places.

And it's far safer to ride with traffic, instead of against it.
Canadians Advised: Ride With The Traffic | BikeRadar.com (http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/canadians-advised-ride-with-the-traffic-11985)
Wrong Way Cycling -- Why Bicycling Against Traffic Increases Risks (http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/wrong.htm)
GOOD RIDING HABIT (http://www.bamacyclist.com/articles/ridewithtraffic.htm)

Just Google "ride against traffic"

Just another thing holding us back from being a real progressive city--elitist drivers.

There's a reason they wear those "getups", just like there's a reason basketball players wear the kinds of clothes and shoes they do when they are playing seriously.

That was a joke. They're not serious they just take themselves too seriously. That'd be like you going out to play flag football with your friends and you come out sporting full pads, helmet and a neckroll. Leave the goofy attire to the "pros".

Just another thing holding us back from being a real progressive city--elitist drivers.

There's a reason they wear those "getups", just like there's a reason basketball players wear the kinds of clothes and shoes they do when they are playing seriously.

lol.. cars wanting to not be slowed down by vehicles going less than half the posted speed limit.

oh noes! leetists!

Riders of Bicycles, scooters and motorcycles have the same right to use streets as motorists in automobiles, trucks etc. and are required to observe the same laws and ordinances. A recent law was passed requiring operators of motor vehicles to stay at least four feet (I think that is the correct distance) from bicycles. Suggesting that bicycle riders use the sidewalks is about as lame a comment as I have heard lately. I wouldn't be suprised if there was an ordinance prohibiting the practice in the first place.

I use our local streets for both my car and my bicycle. Unfortunately I also often have to use the streets to walk because of the embarassing lack of sidewalks in Oklahoma City. Observing the rules of the road and practicing a little courtesy and tolerance doesn't seem like too big a deal to me.

Observing the rules of the road and practicing a little courtesy and tolerance doesn't seem like too big a deal to me.

:congrats: :congrats:

Riders of Bicycles, scooters and motorcycles have the same right to use streets as motorists in automobiles, trucks etc. and are required to observe the same laws and ordinances. A recent law was passed requiring operators of motor vehicles to stay at least four feet (I think that is the correct distance) from bicycles. Suggesting that bicycle riders use the sidewalks is about as lame a comment as I have heard lately. I wouldn't be suprised if there was an ordinance prohibiting the practice in the first place.

I use our local streets for both my car and my bicycle. Unfortunately I also often have to use the streets to walk because of the embarassing lack of sidewalks in Oklahoma City. Observing the rules of the road and practicing a little courtesy and tolerance doesn't seem like too big a deal to me.

Bicycles are not always courteous. If I intentionally drove my car in such a way that I held up traffic, you would probably not refer to me as courteous. Motor vehicles are things I have no problem whatsoever sharing a road with. Nor does it bother me to share the road with a bicycle rider who *clearly* has to rely on a bike as his sole means of transportation.

It does bother me, however, for someone else's recreational sport to interfere with my utilization of the road. We are all entitled to use the road so long as our use doesn't interfere with others. When you have 20 bike riders taking up 2 lanes of traffic, riding around in their little bodysuits, that bugs the hell out of me. Especially when they choose to do so on major streets at peak times of use.

. . . . When you have 20 bike riders taking up 2 lanes of traffic, riding around in their little bodysuits, that bugs the hell out of me. Especially when they choose to do so on major streets at peak times of use.

I guess this has happened to you on occasion; so, just because I haven't experienced it during my fifty years of driving, I'm not going to suggest that it doesn't. Perhaps I just don't spend as much time in a car as you do Midtowner. And granted, tight fitting spandex clothing is often not the most flattering wardrobe choice (you won't find me trying to fit my fat ass into those duds) but all these remarks about what people wear when they ride a bike is a little petty, IMO.

And, BTW, what does all of this ranting about people on bicycles have to do with a discussion of the seven priorities that the OKC City Council recently adopted?

Oklahoma City difinitely needs to improve its transportaion network and begin to think about ways to accomodate the many alternate methods of travel available rather continuing to direct 99.99% of our resources into how to move automobiles, mostly with only one person inside, long distances at high rates of speed. Surely we can all agree that this transportation option is a total black hole. Adopting the seven priorities, one of which is improving transportation, seems to me to be a progressive first step.

nobody is arguing that cyclists don't have a right to be on the streets. furthermore, the average motorist does not mind sharing the roads with cyclists. the problem with many motorists occurs when cyclists impede the regular flow of traffic and therefore not 'sharing the road' so to speak. the fact is that the transporation infrastructure of this city is designed around the motor vehicle. while it may be legal for cyclists to be on the roads, they simply were not designed to carry their type of traffic. therefore the minority traffic flow of cyclists ends up impeding the traffic of the majority of motorists.

it is true that cyclists are required to follow the same traffic laws and ordnances as motor vehicle traffic. in practice, however, this is not the case. cyclists routinely treat stop signs and traffic signals as yields and pass through in an unlawful fashion. as evidence in this thread, some cyclists don't even operate their vehicles on the correct side of the road. therefore cyclists often create danger and confusion for operators of motor vehicles.

given the logic that cyclists enjoy the same right to use the roads as motor vehicles, then it must be acceptable for one to use the interstate. however, the interstates have something called 'minimum speed' that eliminates the possiblity of cycle traffic. minimum speed exists due to the fact that traffic flows far more safely when all operators are traveling at near the same speed.

the average speed limit on the highway is 60mph. minimum speed is 40mph or a little over 2/3 the average limit. the same principle of traffic flow safety can be applied to city streets where the average limit is 45mph. applying the 2/3 coefficient, the safe minimum speed would be 30mph. the generally accepted safe speed for passing through neighborhoods and school zones is 25mph. to put this into perspective, the average cyclist tops out around 18mph. traffic flowing at 18mph with traffic flowing at 45mph is not safe... there's too great a differential in the speeds. furthermore, by blocking motorists, cyclists expect them to travel on city streets at a rate that is slower than the average limit in a school zone. this is not courteous.

I suppose that cyclists wouldn't lose any patience with me if I were to drive my tractor at 5mph in front of them in such a way as they couldn't legally pass.

-M

In the article that kicked off this thread, one of the points was trust of our municipal government, and by association, trust of our elected officials. The article stated:

Most residents are happy with their city government. A recent survey conducted by a private consultant on behalf of the city showed 77 percent of residents are happy with the direction of the city.

After MAPS and MAPS for Kids, voters passed an increase to the city's hotel tax with more than 80 percent in favor. Maintaining that level of trust is a key if the city wants to accomplish any of its other goals, Ward 3 Councilman Larry McAtee said.

"It's our responsibility to build on that and keep moving Oklahoma City forward,” McAtee said. "If things are going well, there is a tendency to want to just kick back, pat ourselves on the back and say what a great job we've done. But the job is not done. If you're not moving forward, you are moving backward.”



I am of the opinion that our elected city officials, across the board, have steadily and substantially improved across the board in recent times as has the quality of appointees to our boards and commissions. Public trust is essential to our continued progress as a city and the greater the number of citizens that spend time interacting with the city's planning and administration process, the better. There are several public boards and commissions that are responsible for many of the day to day decisions that control how our city works and looks. Having a look at their agendas and meeting times on the city's website and occasionally attending one of these meetings is an effective way to find out what's going on and why.

One thing I would like to see is our City Council meet at least once each quarter in the evening and really promote that as way to facilitate good quality public input. It would take a while to develop good attendance, but with good press coverage and thoughtful planning of the agenda, I think it would be an effective tool to improve our city government over time.

Well said m.

Also, ODTG, most of my encounters with rude bicyclists occurred when I lived in Edmond. They are a plague down there. Fortunately, the city is building a rather expansive network of trails. Unfortunately, I think most of the spandex-clad avengers would rather show off their pure awesomeness to the city by parading down the city's thoroughfares in groups of no more than 6.

nobody is arguing that cyclists don't have a right to be on the streets. furthermore, the average motorist does not mind sharing the roads with cyclists. the problem with many motorists occurs when cyclists impede the regular flow of traffic and therefore not 'sharing the road' so to speak. the fact is that the transporation infrastructure of this city is designed around the motor vehicle. while it may be legal for cyclists to be on the roads, they simply were not designed to carry their type of traffic. therefore the minority traffic flow of cyclists ends up impeding the traffic of the majority of motorists.

it is true that cyclists are required to follow the same traffic laws and ordnances as motor vehicle traffic. in practice, however, this is not the case. cyclists routinely treat stop signs and traffic signals as yields and pass through in an unlawful fashion. as evidence in this thread, some cyclists don't even operate their vehicles on the correct side of the road. therefore cyclists often create danger and confusion for operators of motor vehicles.

given the logic that cyclists enjoy the same right to use the roads as motor vehicles, then it must be acceptable for one to use the interstate. however, the interstates have something called 'minimum speed' that eliminates the possiblity of cycle traffic. minimum speed exists due to the fact that traffic flows far more safely when all operators are traveling at near the same speed.

the average speed limit on the highway is 60mph. minimum speed is 40mph or a little over 2/3 the average limit. the same principle of traffic flow safety can be applied to city streets where the average limit is 45mph. applying the 2/3 coefficient, the safe minimum speed would be 30mph. the generally accepted safe speed for passing through neighborhoods and school zones is 25mph. to put this into perspective, the average cyclist tops out around 18mph. traffic flowing at 18mph with traffic flowing at 45mph is not safe... there's too great a differential in the speeds. furthermore, by blocking motorists, cyclists expect them to travel on city streets at a rate that is slower than the average limit in a school zone. this is not courteous.

I suppose that cyclists wouldn't lose any patience with me if I were to drive my tractor at 5mph in front of them in such a way as they couldn't legally pass.

-M



Hear, Hear. And also cheers to Midtowner's post.

The problem is that cyclist aren't courteous. They have an entitlement attitude about sharing the road, as in: "we have the same right to the road as motorists so you'll just have to deal with it."

Tell me it doesn't bug any of you to come up behind someone doing 38 mph in the fast lane on the interstate. And don't say that never happens because it's happened to me on more than one occasion.

Yes, cyclist do have the same right to the road but they have to be courteous about it and smart about it. Those who ride their bikes for transportation rather than sport, for the most part, are smart about it.

Remember, even if a cyclist has the same right to the road, if they're not smart or safe about it and an accident does happen, a half ton pickup truck traveling at 45 mph beats a bicyclist traveling at 18 mph anytime (not to mention commercial trucks who have a more difficult time seeing cyclist). You may say that you had the same right to the road, but alot of consolation that does when you're eating your meals through a tube.