People Movers (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-matters-with-ed-kelley-people-movers/multimedia/video/974727023001)

I know many will not agree with me, but I think it is ridiculous how in this video the editor of the Oklahoman lauds the Kilpatrick for being such a catalyst of economic development and how it's great that additional lanes are planned. While he also is talking about the fact that it is a success story in regards to how it is funded, it seems the main appeal to him is the development aspect. Mr. Kelley even says that it contributes to our quality of life.
:doh: It's the worst example of sprawl in the city's history. As we have talked about on here before, development follows infrastructure and you just have to wonder what NEED the city/ODOT/Turnpike Authority saw in creating this road. If only we could have focused on mass public transportation with the same resources...

He advocates urban development in other op-ed videos and I even believe he lives downtown, so this video surprised me.

People Movers (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-matters-with-ed-kelley-people-movers/multimedia/video/974727023001)

I know many will not agree with me, but I think it is ridiculous how in this video the editor of the Oklahoman lauds the Kilpatrick for being such a catalyst of economic development and how it's great that additional lanes are planned. While he also is talking about the fact that it is a success story in regards to how it is funded, it seems the main appeal to him is the development aspect. Mr. Kelley even says that it contributes to our quality of life.
:doh: It's the worst example of sprawl in the city's history. As we have talked about on here before, development follows infrastructure and you just have to wonder what NEED the city/ODOT/Turnpike Authority saw in creating this road. If only we could have focused on mass public transportation with the same resources...

He advocates urban development in other op-ed videos and I even believe he lives downtown, so this video surprised me.

It's also one of the reasons that traffic congestion in OKC is always cited as being insignificant compared to other major US cities. Even cities with great mass transmit have much worse traffic. Keep in mind that one of the main purposes for that road was to take through traffic away from our main in-town freeways and that is a good thing. The Kilpatrick is not that much of a commuter road even if some use it for that reason in that it doesn't connect the right areas for that purpose.

The comparative lack of congestion is a major OKC advantage and it is very positive quality of life issue.
It helps makes OKC more attractive for new and expanding business.

We need to stay ahead of the curve and build more streets & highways and build a commuter rail mass transit system

People Movers (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-matters-with-ed-kelley-people-movers/multimedia/video/974727023001)

I know many will not agree with me, but I think it is ridiculous how in this video the editor of the Oklahoman lauds the Kilpatrick for being such a catalyst of economic development and how it's great that additional lanes are planned. While he also is talking about the fact that it is a success story in regards to how it is funded, it seems the main appeal to him is the development aspect. Mr. Kelley even says that it contributes to our quality of life.
:doh: It's the worst example of sprawl in the city's history. As we have talked about on here before, development follows infrastructure and you just have to wonder what NEED the city/ODOT/Turnpike Authority saw in creating this road. If only we could have focused on mass public transportation with the same resources...

He advocates urban development in other op-ed videos and I even believe he lives downtown, so this video surprised me.

You say that like OKC is some statistical anomaly on sprawl. Unless suburbs become prohibitively more expensive to live in or OKC schools transition to being scene as better than the surrounding area schools, there will be continue to be more residential growth in the suburbs than their will be in the core. If they had ignored how/where people want to live for the past 60+ years then it would be more tax dollars going to Edmond/Moore/Norman/Yukon and less to the City now.

You say that like OKC is some statistical anomaly on sprawl. Unless suburbs become prohibitively more expensive to live in or OKC schools transition to being scene as better than the surrounding area schools, there will be continue to be more residential growth in the suburbs than their will be in the core. If they had ignored how/where people want to live for the past 60+ years then it would be more tax dollars going to Edmond/Moore/Norman/Yukon and less to the City now.

I know that we are not alone with problems regarding sprawl, and I suppose I have come to realize that to be a great city we must appeal to disparate groups of people seeking different lifestyles. It's just that when the default is the suburbs and the center city is more of a novelty, I personally don't like it.

You are right about the quality of schools; families are what will sustain the inner city. It is not as easy to "be the change you want to see" and be a pioneer when children's futures are at stake. However, as Betts and others have pointed out, if a child is gifted they will rise to the top no matter what. It is in the process of taking the below average and average children to a higher level where most suburban schools shine. Moreover, inner city teachers themselves are of equal quality and talent compared to their suburban counterparts, they just do not have the privilege of dealing with as many involved, proactive parents.

As a counterpoint to your last sentence, I don't believe people would have wanted to look out that far to live if the services and infrastructure weren't already planned to be there by the city through expansion of the city limits and if more focus had been put on maintaining the inner city and allaying the perceived concerns that led to "white flight". I realize that, presently, the tax revenue we receive from these locations is great, but if Oklahoma City had established itself as the premiere place to live in the metro, the same revenue opportunities could have been realized in a more dense environment (we wouldn't have to worry about Edmond and Moore taking away the best potential development). People used to live in a city for a reason, to expand their networks socially, culturally, and economically. Now it seems it is just so they can experience the benefits of these things while going to back to what is more so a small town life, taking for granted the environment that attracted people to "the city" (as us Okies like to call it) in the first place.