So you think the SC route should have been aligned differently for expansion but also don’t want it expanded. Makes sense

And the argument that most people drive by you and others is so weak. There’s literally no other option in the majority of the city. Of course most people drive. Maybe if we spent money on things other than roads for cars people could use other means.

This “most people drive so let’s build more roads” is a circular argument. With this logic no one would ever build any bridges. Why should we build a bridge I’ve hardly seen anyone forge the river? Must not be enough demand for a bridge.

First, if it was straight lines its much easier and cheaper to expand. And can be done based on changing downtown area growth/patterns.

Second, we could have put $140,000,000 into buses and had the model system in the country. More would use it. Now you have a very limited scope expensive system which is best as a tourist trap. And thats fine if it had been sold that way. It sold as “the last mile” but they forgot about all the other miles just to get to it have to be by car.

Like I have said its gonna be good for OMNI and CC, and for bar hopping. But it fails as a great way to get people out of cars. $140,000,000 in buses and hubs woulda done that.

I realize you won’t change your mind nor me mine. We can at least agree on that. But for MAPS to survive this is great news that the SC will not be on it. That would have failed. Now we can move forward with other projects if they do them smartly.

Maybe because 80 percent of people in the US drive as a means to commute? Just thinking out loud.

That doesn't explain why people think road spending is required, but public transit spending is a "subsidy." How many times do you see people complaining about how roads don't directly pay for themselves? But there are constant demands for public transit to directly pay for itself.

Also if we had better investment in public transit, that 80% number would shrink.

I never said the streetcar as it stands now is good public transportation. What it is, is a good starting point. The streetcar should immediately be expanded to OCU, Capitol Hill, and OUHS. We have to connect the places where people live with the places where people work. These expansions would link some of the most affluent neighborhoods in okc AND link many lower and working class neighborhoods with job centers and entertainment. This would immediately make the streetcar a viable system for thousands of OKC residents of all incomes and push the needle of economic development along the entire route. This seems like a much better use of funds than widening some stretch of NW 122nd because a Walmart goes in...

Any alternative transportation investment Is more egalitarian than adding more lanes for cars. Bike lanes, sidewalks, buses, streetcars, light rail, etc, etc all have much lower barriers to use than roads.

While I am very pro public transit. I really don't understand what the benefit of expanding the SC would be over a high frequency, few stop trolley or buses to those places. Make them electric, or a NG/Hybrid to get the pollution benefits.

Care to elaborate on how my statement is disingenuous?
Transit projects are used all the time to cater to the elite. Whether they actually use it or not is up for debate but you can’t say many light rail projects are always built in areas that would truly use them the most. Many, streetcar projects being no exception, are built in middle to upper class areas and just like in OKC’s case, having a streetcar where most people drive.

It’s nice to have some “feel good” stories like some of those on here where people claim they wouldn’t have done ‘x’ if it weren’t for the streetcar, but be real! I would bet an overwhelming majority of the people that use this have driving as part of a daily routine in their lives. For them this streetcar is nothing more than a novelty item. You and other transit advocates can claim that this is just the start or centerpiece to the system all you want. It’s bull. This isn’t good transit anyways as it won’t induce enough riders being vastly inferior to the automobile. Where is the incentive?

This streetcar is living proof of a mass transit project built to cater to the “rich.” Less you want to define rich in a way where you can spin what you said. This 250 million could have been spent way better. Look at how much BRT mileage(though it won’t be true BRT) we’re getting for the price. Compare it to this.

Even in Dallas I believe there was an article saying how much of their network was disproportionately built in wealthier areas that are able to choose between it or a car. Having a system that offers alternatives to get people out of their car is great and I’m all for it. Having one that offers a real means of travel for those who don’t have a choice and not have it taking twice as long as a car would is crucial.

That doesn't explain why people think road spending is required, but public transit spending is a "subsidy." How many times do you see people complaining about how roads don't directly pay for themselves? But there are constant demands for public transit to directly pay for itself.

Also if we had better investment in public transit, that 80% number would shrink.
You make a good point and I’ve never been a fan of that logic which I agree many people possess of excepting public transit to pay for itself. Me being pro freeway, pro sprawl, etc. I’ll almost always get those who agree with me and respond to my comments saying something like that which I’ll always call them out on. But at the same time many transit advocates will attempt to spin that argument to support rail lines and the like claiming freeways are to expensive to build and don’t pay for themselves while a billion dollars a mile is slowly becoming the norm for many heavy rail projects in the city with light rail inevitably headed in the same direction.

Widening Rockwell and memorial road wouldn’t be useful for 99.99% of residents. Does that mean we don’t have to pay for that now?
It still caters to a mode share that the majority of commuters use so you have more of argument to support that than mass transit. Js

While I am very pro public transit. I really don't understand what the benefit of expanding the SC would be over a high frequency, few stop trolley or buses to those places. Make them electric, or a NG/Hybrid to get the pollution benefits.

If you build streetcar-like stops for the busses on key corridors, and pass ordinances either limiting sprawl, or encouraging density along transit routes, I'd be inclined to agree. However, as it stands now, the streetcar is an excellent way for someone like my mom to try public transit and dig it. If we are to make it as a world class city we have to step up our game in providing alternate modes of transport besides the automobile so that all people feel comfortable and normal using something other than a car.

The streetcar is really a real estate development tool. Tracks are permanent so people invest in adjacent areas.

It's a highly inefficient public transportation tool (much cheaper and better ways to move people) but there are big economic development advantages.

The most important piece of implementing any semblance of an "efficient public transit tool" is to upzone, inrease density, and limit sprawl. The streetcar, by having fixed rails, is a density quazi-incentive. But for real change in how we get around, we must must must limit sprawl and somehow encourage density city wide. We can do this by updating policy and by "building it and they will come".

I think the low hanging fruit here is to build a vast protected bike network. would be the cheapest option by far and I thoink would see massive use if done right. I think it's the best thing we can do for ourselves right now, even as sprawling as we are.

I often think about the huge amount of baby boomers who live in euclidian suburbs. What will happen to them when they can't drive anymore? Without public transit, many of them will age out alone, isolated, and unable to go anywhere. can't walk down the street to grab supplies or food, can't take public transit either.

FYI, from what I'm hearing there is almost no chance the streetcar will be expanded through MAPS 4.

and if true... then i won't be voting for MAPS 4. unless there are some major trails, bikeways, etc in it.. but i have a feeling those won't be there either

I would be rather surprised if MAPS 4 doesn't have some element of trails, sidewalks, or bike infrastructure in the plan.

I often think about the huge amount of baby boomers who live in euclidian suburbs. What will happen to them when they can't drive anymore? Without public transit, many of them will age out alone, isolated, and unable to go anywhere. can't walk down the street to grab supplies or food, can't take public transit either.

Due to the great prosperity this country has seen since WWII, almost all Boomers and their families have the assets to move into the newest homes in the newest areas, farther and farther out.

And with their own parents, most go into senior or assisted living centers which provide mobility, to the extent they want it or can still do it.

So, they don't care about being able to drive when they are no longer completely independent.

There are plenty of people in that generation who don't have the means, but they also don't vote or frequently vote against their own interests.

I should know, I am at the tail end of the baby boom and I'm sad to say that my generation has done a great deal to mess up American cities.

I would be rather surprised if MAPS 4 doesn't have some element of trails, sidewalks, or bike infrastructure in the plan.

Nothing has been decided but I know in the initial discussions the amount of $50M has been proposed for bike lanes, sidewalks and trails.

That is out of what looks to be around $1B that would be collected under MAPS4.

$50M won't even make a dent in these areas.

I often think about the huge amount of baby boomers who live in euclidian suburbs. What will happen to them when they can't drive anymore? Without public transit, many of them will age out alone, isolated, and unable to go anywhere. can't walk down the street to grab supplies or food, can't take public transit either.

i don't know when does that actually happen ??

my grandmothers for instance both drove into there late 80's and 90's

Great to hear and very lucky for them!

Nothing has been decided but I know in the initial discussions the amount of $50M has been proposed for bike lanes, sidewalks and trails.

That is out of what looks to be around $1B that would be collected under MAPS4.

$50M won't even make a dent in these areas.

no kidding... might as well not even have it on there if only $50M is what it is getting...

It would be nice if Maps 4 funded streetcar style stops for buses. And this is going to sound silly, but what if we painted things on the roadway that indicates a bus route? Definitely not permanent by any means, but this gives something for people to develop around. We did have a bus follow streetcar tracks for over a week after Devon Tower incident after all.

Tons of riders on the streetcars last night. A random Wednesday, but there was a concert in the gardens and the weather was incredible.

I will be very disappointed if the streetcar isn't expanded up to 23rd with MAPS.

It would be nice if Maps 4 funded streetcar style stops for buses. And this is going to sound silly, but what if we painted things on the roadway that indicates a bus route? Definitely not permanent by any means, but this gives something for people to develop around. We did have a bus follow streetcar tracks for over a week after Devon Tower incident after all.

More on my painted line comment. China actually has an automated streetcar that actually relies on painted lines.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/11/can-we-just-call-this-a-bus/545189/

More on my painted line comment. China actually has an automated streetcar that actually relies on painted lines.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/11/can-we-just-call-this-a-bus/545189/

ok. that was a cool read. thanks for sharing

More on my painted line comment. China actually has an automated streetcar that actually relies on painted lines.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/11/can-we-just-call-this-a-bus/545189/

Pretty cool system, but it'd never work here, OKC can't paint anything on streets that lasts a decent amount of time...

Read the link in the story about sorriest bus stops in America and we could actually be in that competition and win it handily with some of the really horrible stops we have here.

Not a real positive post, I know, but it's reality.

Instead of expanding the streetcar this go-around, I believe the plan is to put much more emphasis on bus service and shelters.

It still caters to a mode share that the majority of commuters use so you have more of argument to support that than mass transit. Js

People will use the infrastructure that is provided to them.

People will use the infrastructure that is provided to them.

or what is the fastest and most convenient

People will use the infrastructure that is provided to them.
Or enables them to do what they want in the first place.

People will use the infrastructure that is provided to them.
And?

And?

And you keep making the argument that majority of commuters drive so the majority of of funds should be spent on roads. Of course the majority of commuters drive there is literally no other option .

And you keep making the argument that majority of commuters drive so the majority of of funds should be spent on roads. Of course the majority of commuters drive there is literally no other option .
And maybe the roads are there because a vast majority of the citizens actually WANT to drive and enjoy the benefits that it gives them.

And you keep making the argument that majority of commuters drive so the majority of of funds should be spent on roads. Of course the majority of commuters drive there is literally no other option .
Right but not once did I ever say there should be no efforts to provide other options; the city just has to be smart about it. My point is that it makes sense not many would whine about an interchange costing 150 million or a road like Memorial or Rockwell being widened to the tune of millions whilst throwing a fit over 2-3 million going towards a bike lane or a bus route. Well, it may not make total sense but it is understandable. Especially when, as my point is, the super majority of people drive.

Not only do they drive but they live in an environment that is much cheaper to suit to cars VS. walkability. What I mean by that is the nature of suburban sprawl will always cause first last mile issues. I do think those that oppose transit are a bit shortsighted but again I understand where they are coming from.

Anything further discussion on this topic I suspect will quickly devolve into land use choices of which I’m sure by now you know my opinion on. I don’t know what else to say.

And maybe the roads are there because a vast majority of the citizens actually WANT to drive and enjoy the benefits that it gives them.
Wait a minute, you’re telling me those residents only drive because there isn’t a protected bike lane or transit route with 2 transfers at minimum taking them to downtown!? /sarc

Let’s be real, the less dense a particular part of the city is the higher chance a residing person in that area is further away from any theoretical mass transit route that the city offers. That should be 101 knowledge. You can build transit all you want to the suburbs but unless it’s part of a broader system with many transfer stations and/or park & rides it will likely see very little ridership especially if it’s relative to the mode share of the cities it connects with. If it is the former than you are still likely to require driving no matter what though you reduced miles driven.

To add to what you said(maybe this is what you meant by benefits): this also affords them a lifestyle they couldn’t get in a dense area.

And maybe the roads are there because a vast majority of the citizens actually WANT to drive and enjoy the benefits that it gives them.

Maybe. Hard to gauge what the vast majority prefers when the vast majority has literally no other option. necessity and preference are two different things

If I could get a bus that takes me from Yukon to my office in less than 50 minutes, I would leave my vehicle at home.

Right but not once did I ever say there should be no efforts to provide other options; the city just has to be smart about it. My point is that it makes sense not many would whine about an interchange costing 150 million or a road like Memorial or Rockwell being widened to the tune of millions whilst throwing a fit over 2-3 million going towards a bike lane or a bus route. Well, it may not make total sense but it is understandable. Especially when, as my point is, the super majority of people drive.

Not only do they drive but they live in an environment that is much cheaper to suit to cars VS. walkability. What I mean by that is the nature of suburban sprawl will always cause first last mile issues. I do think those that oppose transit are a bit shortsighted but again I understand where they are coming from.

Anything further discussion on this topic I suspect will quickly devolve into land use choices of which I’m sure by now you know my opinion on. I don’t know what else to say.

I completely agree with what you're saying. my point is that the people living in these car dependent environments shouldn't block alternative transport options in the dense areas just because they wouldn't use them.

Let’s be real, the less dense a particular part of the city is the higher chance a residing person in that area is further away from any theoretical mass transit route that the city offers. That should be 101 knowledge. You can build transit all you want to the suburbs but unless it’s part of a broader system with many transfer stations and/or park & rides it will likely see very little ridership especially if it’s relative to the mode share of the cities it connects with. If it is the former than you are still likely to require driving no matter what though you reduced miles driven.

Adding to my statement about miles driven, that along with other failed initiatives like congestion pricing(see London and how articles try and spin it as a success even with the Stockholm solution now ultimately being needed to keep it bringing in revenue) or doing away with R-1 zoning are the next steps for the quiet pro-urbanism crowds in the smaller cities to take while they push their agenda. I’m seeing it firsthand in LA. How much longer until GoGators proposes removing LOS a development requirement and substitutes it for miles driven even though it will bear little to no relevancy to a vast majority citizens.

But hey as long as it’s good for me, right? I fail to see how that logic is different from the evil suburbanite crowd mad about “their” money going towards mass transit and bike lanes.

More on my painted line comment. China actually has an automated streetcar that actually relies on painted lines.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/11/can-we-just-call-this-a-bus/545189/

You will soon have automated buses. Which is why SC is a dead end money pit, its not moveable to changing dynamics. Buses can have routes changed pretty easy. Rails are stuck in place

Rails are stuck in place
That's the point.

Adding to my statement about miles driven, that along with other failed initiatives like congestion pricing(see London and how articles try and spin it as a success even with the Stockholm solution now ultimately being needed to keep it bringing in revenue) or doing away with R-1 zoning are the next steps for the quiet pro-urbanism crowds in the smaller cities to take while they push their agenda. I’m seeing it firsthand in LA. How much longer until GoGators proposes removing LOS a development requirement and substitutes it for miles driven even though it will bear little to no relevancy to a vast majority citizens.

But hey as long as it’s good for me, right? I fail to see how that logic is different from the evil suburbanite crowd mad about “their” money going towards mass transit and bike lanes.

I dont know what this means. what is a LOS a development requirement and why do i want to remove it?

I completely agree with what you're saying. my point is that the people living in these car dependent environments shouldn't block alternative transport options in the dense areas just because they wouldn't use them.
There’s no disagreement with me there. But it’s important to remember they want to see improvements too. OKC is blessed to have little to no traffic issues. Now I feel inclined to state I understand and respect perspective and I only say that to prevent The Travellers from responding to me calling me rude.

The reason I say that is because mass transit NEVER reduces traffic. It adds to it and makes it worse. This is great for urban planners who openly admit this is a plan of theirs as an attempt to “encourage” people to use mass transit. Mass transit almost always encourages density which as studies have shown most people will drive if they can afford it less than option is less convenient than using transit IE NYC where even their system has been bleeding ridership(along with a grocery list of other transit agencies at a time where rail expansion has been hot).

Now people would be wise to question mass transit without road capacity improvements to account for induced/latent demand caused by any sort of infrastructure initiative which is no way shape or form limited to car based ones. This takes into account the car based infrastructure will be the most impacted as it is the least efficient form of travel.

Look no further than the largest metros and see why one might be hesitant to want an assurance their lifestyle will be protected and not the mantra of “out with the old and in with new” thrown at them. It happens all too. I remember when I first moved to LA I saw billboards claiming the Expo like would reduce traffic on the 10 from DTLA to SM. After it opened travel times became worse. I don’t think those issues are correlated much at all but you get my point.

I dont know what this means. what is a LOS a development requirement and why do i want to remove it?
Because it exists to ensure car travel remains viable for the users or residents of a development and those around with little to no consideration of trying to reduce vehicle miles traveled which for whatever reason is a main goal nearly every city now.

This is trying to be forced on the population in every which way. With tolls or by closing streets completely like Cuomo and the anti freeway freeway agency NYSDOT want to do to NYC. It’s evident there and here in LA with the transit density bill attempting to be forced upon California every legislative season even though the residents have voted it down which is a bill to de facto eliminate R1 zoning almost completely. Or perhaps going after the LOS in favor of VMT.

PS, I realize many of these issues don’t affect OKC yet, but ACOG and the city is seemingly moving as close to it as possible while avoiding pissing off its residents who won’t let them get away with the sh!t that the LA city council and LAMTA(Metro) is able to. It’s a slippery slope, IMO. I don’t blame anyone living anywhere for having reason to be wary about it.

PPS, sorry for not adding this originally: LOS = level of service used for traffic measurements as well as VMT = vehicle miles traveled

Something to ponder. America was putting railroads all over the country before the car was even invented. If rail was so great then every town would have had mini trains and railed roads. Yet when car came along it changed and expanded our country like never before. It opened up everything. It was the choice of a vast majority of people to use for a way of getting around.

Other forms are fine but there are limits. OKC is the most spread out city in the country with Jax and maybe one more. Cars are a part of our city and will be. We also have to be wise with spending. Jax has a great bus system and OKC messed up putting all their money in SC. Its a massive money pit to nowhere. We needed to do buses and serve way more people than the limited scope SC.

Extending the SC would be a bad move as then every neighborhood around downtown wants one. Plaza district will say extend it there and capitol will say me too and so on. The cost is astronomical for the buck. Buses coulda been added and not required town up streets and lost business.

Tell me, we have so much Class A space open in downtown where are all these businesses SC was gonna bring in? SC does not bring in it serves a small group of people and is a pet project. Roads are used by all.

Ironically the SC is built on live roads lol. Think about that for a moment

Something to ponder. America was putting railroads all over the country before the car was even invented. If rail was so great then every town would have had mini trains and railed roads. Yet when car came along it changed and expanded our country like never before. It opened up everything. It was the choice of a vast majority of people to use for a way of getting around.

Other forms are fine but there are limits. OKC is the most spread out city in the country with Jax and maybe one more. Cars are a part of our city and will be. We also have to be wise with spending. Jax has a great bus system and OKC messed up putting all their money in SC. Its a massive money pit to nowhere. We needed to do buses and serve way more people than the limited scope SC.

Extending the SC would be a bad move as then every neighborhood around downtown wants one. Plaza district will say extend it there and capitol will say me too and so on. The cost is astronomical for the buck. Buses coulda been added and not required town up streets and lost business.

Tell me, we have so much Class A space open in downtown where are all these businesses SC was gonna bring in? SC does not bring in it serves a small group of people and is a pet project. Roads are used by all.

Ironically the SC is built on live roads lol. Think about that for a moment
+1

It should also be mentioned outright as you alluded to it that the streetcar cars were failing before they were bought out. Not only that, but the streetcar spurred the first variations of suburbs. Rail and bikes caused cities to sprawl. It’s a fact. Traveling great distances(more than a mile) between live, work, and play is a relatively new concept in the history of cities.

The automobile isn’t responsible for sprawl. The streetcar is. People choosing a superior form of transportation is what ultimately led to the demise of streetcars. IIRC, Henry Ford perfected the mass assembly line which didn’t help trains.

That's the point.


And as demographics and downtown moves more west those same rails are still stuck in place - maybe the wrong place. What happens when west builds out and becomes entertainment hub. Say Bricktown slows down a lot and some of the clubs/bars move to new hot spot. Now you have a tram to nowhere and no way to fix it. Buses could adjust easily though.

All cities go thru phases of growth and moving targets. It will happen here too. It may be 10 years. But the problem with rails is you are stuck with them. Why do you think SC failed in OKC years ago? Part of it was a growing and changing city and people not using it. You can’t force people to use it so they abandoned and tore/covered it up. We are relearning an old lesson at a huge cost. Dallas used to have West End as a hotspot but then it died out and went elsewhere. Its come back but not like before. Thats an example of cities and things changing. But rails are not changeable.

It's not all about demand, supply, driver/rider preferences, and not nearly as simple as some make it out to be - there are a few other things that affected the history of the streetcar and automobile.

https://fee.org/articles/the-great-american-streetcar-myth/

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/08/how-america-killed-transit/568825/

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/10/streetcar-named-desire/380/

...Rail and bikes caused cities to sprawl. It’s a fact. ...

The automobile isn’t responsible for sprawl. The streetcar is. ...

Cite, please?

Cite, please?
Just google streetcar suburbs if this article isn’t sufficient for you:

https://www.livingplaces.com/Streetcar_Suburbs.html

As for my bikes causing sprawl claim, I’ve invested no research into that theory. It’s one I came to—as I stated in my reply that you omitted parts of—that historically travel in cities was extremely local. The bicycle was invented AFTER the train, IIRC, and that’s why I believe bicycles contributed to sprawl before the car. I won’t argue this point any further, again, as I don’t have the facts to back it up.

It's not all about demand, supply, driver/rider preferences, and not nearly as simple as some make it out to be - there are a few other things that affected the history of the streetcar and automobile.

https://fee.org/articles/the-great-american-streetcar-myth/

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/08/how-america-killed-transit/568825/

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/10/streetcar-named-desire/380/
Citylab is a joke of a publication. What’s next are you to cite Streetsblog? LOL!

I’ve actually read all three of of those articles and they don’t dismiss any of my claims and spin things to the way they want the viewer to take them as. I suppose in my statements I should have said it wasn’t the only reason, but to say the streetcar demise is a giant conspiracy by GM and the government that brainwashed an entire country is comical to the same extent of the those who claim the moon landing was fake.

Those suburbs grew around the streetcar track basically. Which is what we hope to accomplish with OKC streetcar.

This movement though is nothing compared to what occurred in the 1950's when American's starting buying cars in mass after the war.

I don't see bikes causing anymore sprawl than the discovery of horseback riding. I would prefer a horse when traveling a good distance compared to a bike. Especially, in a pre-car world with less roads to ride on. :)

So sprawl is okay so as long as it caused by streetcars?

I’m aware the sprawl was accelerated by private cars and freeways. I support suburban sprawl. I support large massive freeways. I prefer it. I will argue it provides a superior quality of life in many regards. I am simply point out facts to keep perspective on things.

So sprawl is okay so as long as it caused by streetcars?
Streetcars don't cause the same kind of sprawl as automobiles. And the "sprawl" they do cause, tends to still be walkable, dense, and more sustainable.

Citylab is a joke of a publication. What’s next are you to cite Streetsblog? LOL!

I’ve actually read all three of of those articles and they don’t dismiss any of my claims and spin things to the way they want the viewer to take them as. I suppose in my statements I should have said it wasn’t the only reason, but to say the streetcar demise is a giant conspiracy by GM and the government that brainwashed an entire country is comical to the same extent of the those who claim the moon landing was fake.

Why is Citylab a joke? The articles I posted seem to be accurate and valid. I never said anything about the conspiracy you reference, and the articles I posted say that the streetcar's demise is *not* a giant conspiracy by GM and the government, so you actually agree with Citylab, even though you think it's a joke. :doh:

I guess streetcars vs automobiles is Oklahoma’s modern version of the farmers vs ranchers. Lol.

Streetcars don't cause the same kind of sprawl as automobiles. And the "sprawl" they do cause, tends to still be walkable, dense, and more sustainable.

Thing is, OKC was/is top 3 spread out city and thats not going to change. This happened before the new SC. You can’t put that back in the box we are a very big land wise city. So we can’t all the sudden be a core city like many want that ship sailed decades ago.

We can still do things smartly. The smarter play woulda been getting top notch bus service all over city. Since buses use roads and cars use roads you double down on keeping roads up to standards and this makes both drivers and bus riders happy. Once you do that you now have a feeder system into downtown (along with other areas). And then for much less cost some nice lux mini buses to route within the core. Now you have a system.

What we have now is a bad bad bus system and an expensive pet SC circular.

Thing is, OKC was/is top 3 spread out city and thats not going to change. This happened before the new SC. You can’t put that back in the box we are a very big land wise city. So we can’t all the sudden be a core city like many want that ship sailed decades ago.

We can still do things smartly. The smarter play woulda been getting top notch bus service all over city. Since buses use roads and cars use roads you double down on keeping roads up to standards and this makes both drivers and bus riders happy. Once you do that you now have a feeder system into downtown (along with other areas). And then for much less cost some nice lux mini buses to route within the core. Now you have a system.

What we have now is a bad bad bus system and an expensive pet SC circular.

Dang it... i Always Hate it when i have to agree with OKCGuy...

but sadly, he summed up my thoughts here better than i think i would have..

so this^^^^^

Thing is, OKC was/is top 3 spread out city and thats not going to change. This happened before the new SC. You can’t put that back in the box we are a very big land wise city. So we can’t all the sudden be a core city like many want that ship sailed decades ago.

We can still do things smartly. The smarter play woulda been getting top notch bus service all over city. Since buses use roads and cars use roads you double down on keeping roads up to standards and this makes both drivers and bus riders happy. Once you do that you now have a feeder system into downtown (along with other areas). And then for much less cost some nice lux mini buses to route within the core. Now you have a system.

What we have now is a bad bad bus system and an expensive pet SC circular.

I will agree with buses. We should have a top notched bus system that people can be proud of and want to ride.

Things could change regarding sprawl. We don't know how economic conditions will look 15,30,45 years into the future. Personal automobile hasn't been around that long in human history and most people in the world can't afford to enjoy this benefit. Not to get too political, but one thing Democrats and Republicans seem to indirectly agree on is that standard of living is slowly going to crap. Hopefully, both sides are wrong on this.

Why is Citylab a joke? The articles I posted seem to be accurate and valid. I never said anything about the conspiracy you reference, and the articles I posted say that the streetcar's demise is *not* a giant conspiracy by GM and the government, so you actually agree with Citylab, even though you think it's a joke. :doh:

He doesn't like these types of publications because they are for the most part anti-sprawl, anti -highway, pro mass transit publications.

Thing is, OKC was/is top 3 spread out city and thats not going to change. This happened before the new SC. You can’t put that back in the box we are a very big land wise city. So we can’t all the sudden be a core city like many want that ship sailed decades ago.

We can still do things smartly. The smarter play woulda been getting top notch bus service all over city. Since buses use roads and cars use roads you double down on keeping roads up to standards and this makes both drivers and bus riders happy. Once you do that you now have a feeder system into downtown (along with other areas). And then for much less cost some nice lux mini buses to route within the core. Now you have a system.

What we have now is a bad bad bus system and an expensive pet SC circular.

We absolutely can reign is sprawl and become a decent city. It would just take a fraction of the effort it took to create the sprawling mess. I do not believe in throwing good money after bad. Just because OKC sprawls doesn't mean the city has to go broke making it easier to sprawl even more. Just because it has been the norm doesn't mean we cant learn from our mistakes.

Cheap land and cheap development makes a cheap city.

He doesn't like these types of publications because they are for the most part anti-sprawl, anti -highway, pro mass transit publications.

Yeah, been tired of his single-lane (well, eighteen-lane) mind for a while, need to push back sometimes...

PluPan, did you even read the articles?

To stop sprawl, you would have to convince Oklahoma City as an entity to not invest and promote the entirety of Oklahoma City.

It’s a giant ass city, sprawl is part of having giant city limits.

Not necessarily. Mitigating sprawl doesn't have to mean that people already on the periphery or in sprawly areas have to be negatively impacted. We can do things like policy/zoning changes, smart TOD paired with things like no parking minimums, some kind of incentive for building in a particular style or near nodes of density, making it easier to build ADUs, multifamily units, live/work spaces, etc. just to throw out a few suggestions. Mitigating sprawl actually will help everyone, even in those areas you fear would need to not be promoted or invested in, as the tax base to spending ratio will go down, freeing up more money to fix things like potholes on the infrastructure we have already built.