I think that 2,000,000 sq feet of parking is for the 900,000 sq feet of residential. They don't intend for people to drive their car to the central hub and then take local mass transit the final 4 or 5 blocks.

http://www.unionstationneighborhoodco.com/expanded-detail.aspx?id=6

You can think that all you want. I saw nothing that validates that reasoning. Are you actually trying to say that a residential development requires more square feet for parking than for the residential? Just as I said before, the parking that Denver is planning is for multiple reasons just as the OKC parking would be. Our parking is not intended just for the transportation hub.

Out of curosity, what if you could park in a remote lot just outside downtown and be dropped off and picked up right at your office door by a private shuttle bus. Would that be worth $150 per month (including the parking)?

Maybe, if the hours were right. (My TOD is 5 AM to 3 PM but somewhat flexible. ) Seems a bit steep on the shuttle bus ($2.50 a day avg) but would be worth it in inclement weather. For that kind of money, remote parking should be in a secured lot at least. I know enough people in our building alone that would probably fill a 50 space lot with a deal like this - if the terms were right.
If this is a serious possibility (versus idle speculation) please PM me. Our employee's union would be interested in offering subsidies to members.

Maybe, if the hours were right. (My TOD is 5 AM to 3 PM but somewhat flexible. ) Seems a bit steep on the shuttle bus ($2.50 a day avg) but would be worth it in inclement weather. For that kind of money, remote parking should be in a secured lot at least. I know enough people in our building alone that would probably fill a 50 space lot with a deal like this - if the terms were right.
If this is a serious possibility (versus idle speculation) please PM me. Our employee's union would be interested in offering subsidies to members.

Idle speculation at this point.

You can think that all you want. I saw nothing that validates that reasoning. Are you actually trying to say that a residential development requires more square feet for parking than for the residential? Just as I said before, the parking that Denver is planning is for multiple reasons just as the OKC parking would be. Our parking is not intended just for the transportation hub.

I don't have to think it - I read it right on the Denver plan. They don't want you to drive your car downtown to their station development, they want you take rail into downtown. Most of the parking is for the people that will live there, but I am sure they also know that people working in the 2,500,000 sq feet of office/hotel space will also not all take the train. I wonder how much of the parking is required by zoning laws. I'll bet if they didn't have to they wouldn't provide any parking - but that is just specualtion on my part.

On Edit - I will call them on Monday and ask.

Our parking in our hub plan is primarily for the future. They assume that Santa Fe parking and the Cox Convention center underground garage resolves immediate Amtrak needs. The planned future garage is primarily for inter-city/state High Speed Rail and car rental companies. It would be located by the old U-Haul bldg in Brictown. It is probably not needed for at least 15-20 years.

Our parking in our hub plan is primarily for the future. They assume that Santa Fe parking and the Cox Convention center underground garage resolves immediate Amtrak needs. The planned future garage is primarily for inter-city/state High Speed Rail and car rental companies. It would be located by the old U-Haul bldg in Brictown. It is probably not needed for at least 15-20 years.

Thank you for clearing that up. I am still interested in talking to someone at the Denver Rail Station project about their parking requirements. Do you know anything about their parking situation?

I think that some on here would love to ban all automobiles and force everyone to look at the world in their own myopic sense. Nothing that can be said will change their mind. So be it. LOL

I travel extensively and use trains where I can. Almost every train station I go to has nearby parking. If our hub plan includes inter city trains we will need convenient parking. Heaven forbid, some people who use the system will also use cars...GASP. Those ignoramuses.

Lol

I think that some on here would love to ban all automobiles and force everyone to look at the world in their own myopic sense. Nothing that can be said will change their mind. So be it. LOL

I travel extensively and use trains where I can. Almost every train station I go to has nearby parking. If our hub plan includes inter city trains we will need convenient parking. Heaven forbid, some people who use the system will also use cars...GASP. Those ignoramuses.

Rover - you are free to use your car as much as you want, but why should tax dollars to build a place for you to park it take priority over other transportation options?

I'm going to agree with Rover on this one. While I'm already carless when I'm doing things downtown, people are going to be driving downtown for quite a while - like indefinitely. When we're in NYC, my relatives from Connecticut drive down. There are plenty of cars in Manhattan, if quite a few less per capita than here, and the same holds true for Chicago and San Francisco. I like the idea that, if we're going to be building parking with my tax dollars anyway, we build the planned parking garage for the hub. It helps set the concept of the hub as the transit center for downtown, and it's close enough to everything downtown that people can easily walk from it, as well as being close to Bricktown and Deep Deuce, which is soon going to have more restaurants than Automobile Alley.

Rover - you are free to use your car as much as you want, but why should tax dollars to build a place for you to park it take priority over other transportation options?

Why do we need the rest of our organs? Get rid of the heart and the lungs. All we need is our head, right?

I think credibility is lost if anyone is suggesting that OKC will be a public transit only, or even public transit predominant city anytime in the next 100 years..even in the core. It isn't that way anywhere in the world and never will be. This insistence that the only reasonable options are on the extreme is just fantasy. Thank goodness the people in control are more balanced, pragmatic and realistic. Moving to a better city design will take decades, but it will never eliminate the things that get certain people frothing.

Rover - you are free to use your car as much as you want, but why should tax dollars to build a place for you to park it take priority over other transportation options?


Just to remind you that most of this discussion started in the Sandridge thread when it was reported that the city sold Sandridge one of it's monthly parking garages. It's not like we want a ton more garages over better public transporation options but how about atleast replacing the parking spaces they just sold off to a few private companies?

We seem to be getting a little off track. I am not saying that parking garages shouldn't be built downtown. All I am saying is that building a parking garage at a central hub will divert commuter rail passengers back into their cars. It is a multi-modal hub, not a park and ride lot for local transit. The intent is to pick up passengers in Norman, Midwest City, Edmond, and a few other places and have them ride rail into downtown. Once downtown they then transfer to streetcars, taxis, pedicabs, walking, inner-city rail, HSR, and city bus. If you live in Edmond and your destination is Midtown why would you drive all the way from Edmond to park in a garage at the central hub, then transfer to local transit when you could just park in Midtown. Then if you want to go to another part of downtown you would ride local transit. If they build a parking garage at the hub who would ride commuter rail?

How many people who go to Penn Sq Mall drive to 63rd and Penn and hop on the #8 bus for the final half mile? Answer, no one. They park at the mall.

Why do we need the rest of our organs? Get rid of the heart and the lungs. All we need is our head, right?

I think credibility is lost if anyone is suggesting that OKC will be a public transit only, or even public transit predominant city anytime in the next 100 years..even in the core.


While I agree that car dominance will persist in OKC due to the sprawl, I do think that the core could/will easily become a place where people could live without a car. In fact, I think that the historical central city will evolve into a place with good transit and enable the ability to be independent of a car by choice within our lifetime. The suburbs will undeniably be either a "Park n' Ride" or a "Bike n' Ride" if modern history in other cities is any guide.

I think that OKC will become even more competitive with other cities by developing choice. Choice to live only by car, partly by car, or entirely without a car easily within the next twenty years depending on your proximity to the core. And that really can't be a bad thing economically or culturally speaking.

But back on topic, let's be real. Downtown real estate is too valuable to spend on low density surface parking lots or badly designed garages for the sake of people making 5 minute trips or front door access. Use the new streetcar to distribute the parking load with new future garages appropriately sized and reasonably spaced. For that matter, it will enable distribution to a great many more under-utilized streets spaces as well.

Found this interesting new feature on Zillow. They have compiled a walk score for every house in America. Each point on the score translates to $3,000 in property value. Sadly, they used "as the crow fly" distances in their calculation. I can't drive my car "as the crow flys".

http://www.walkscore.com/how-it-works.shtml

That is cool. Interestingly, the highest walkability I found was at NW Expressway and May area. 63rd and Western was high too. Downtown was good but it counts Sage Market as a downtown grocery. Don't think they are even in business.

Doesn't seem to take into account sidewalks, ramps, traffic danger, etc. Uses a pretty simplistic algorithm apparently. It is about as accurate as its estimated home pricing.

...The intent is to pick up passengers in Norman, Midwest City, Edmond, and a few other places and have them ride rail into downtown. ...If they build a parking garage at the hub who would ride commuter rail?...
And how does have a parking garage next to the Hub change that? Folks commuting FROM Norman et al are not going to be using it BUT those that are here in the Metro that don't have convenient access may just drive to the Hub and continue on to Norman et al from there. Same as those that park at the Amtrack station now and ride the Heartland Flyer to points south. Those that are at points south visiting OKC aren't going to be using the parking garage. This IS a Intermodal Transit Hub, I would presume that that could also include cars????

How are you going to get around in Norman and Edmond when you get there without a car?

How are you going to get around in Norman and Edmond when you get there without a car?

Walk. Lol

Walk. Lol

lol -so you drive your car to the downtown hub, pay to park, ride the train to Norman, and walk to OU. That makes a lot of sense. :)

lol -so you drive your car to the downtown hub, pay to park, ride the train to Norman, and walk to OU. That makes a lot of sense. :)

Lol I would, but I also don't have that typical Oklahoma attitude where I have to drive my car to the front door of my destination.

I'm not sure why I got started in on this thread cause it doesn't matter to me either way how I get where I'm going as long as I get there.

My "walk" comment was just made for a smart ellic response that nobody else had put on here. Just laugh at JTF and not take it so personally. ;-) lol

I'm not sure why I got started in on this thread cause it doesn't matter to me either way how I get where I'm going as long as I get there.

My "walk" comment was just made for a smart ellic response that nobody else had put on here. Just laugh at JTF and not take it so personally. ;-) lol

To be honest, it doesn't matter anyhow. A parking garage is not going to be part of the downtown hub for at least 20 years.

To be honest, it doesn't matter anyhow. A parking garage is not going to be part of the downtown hub for at least 20 years.

So we're on the same page for now. :Smiley199

So we're on the same page for now. :Smiley199

We can talk about it again in 18 years. I put an entry in my Outlook calendar.

We can talk about it again in 18 years. I put an entry in my Outlook calendar.

And I need to do the same.

Why do we need the rest of our organs? Get rid of the heart and the lungs. All we need is our head, right?

I think credibility is lost if anyone is suggesting that OKC will be a public transit only, or even public transit predominant city anytime in the next 100 years..even in the core. It isn't that way anywhere in the world and never will be

I don't know what you mean, because I know a lot of cities where public transit is predominant.

I don't know what you mean, because I know a lot of cities where public transit is predominant.

Just curious what cities in the US are predomantly public transit? Don't know the numbers, but NYC would seem to be the only possible candidate, and only if you consider only Manhattan. I still don't think OKC will be like Manhattan even in 100 years.

Just curious what cities in the US are predomantly public transit? Don't know the numbers, but NYC would seem to be the only possible candidate, and only if you consider only Manhattan. I still don't think OKC will be like Manhattan even in 100 years.

I hope not. :-)

How are you going to get around in Norman and Edmond when you get there without a car?

The same way you do now? How do folks get round after taking the Heartland to Ft. Worth? How do you get around when you come into any airport or train station? Sounds like you are saying they shouldn't even bother unless someone lives right next door to whatever mass transit exists and it goes directly to their destination??? Don't bother coming to the OKC airport unless you only want to eat at Sonic & the airport version of POPS???

The same way you do now? How do folks get round after taking the Heartland to Ft. Worth? How do you get around when you come into any airport or train station?

It doesn't matter, a parking garage is not part of the hub for 20 years.

Just curious what cities in the US are predomantly public transit? Don't know the numbers, but NYC would seem to be the only possible candidate, and only if you consider only Manhattan. I still don't think OKC will be like Manhattan even in 100 years.

Only NYC. The four big boroughs all are predominately public transit:

Manhattan: 58% use transit, 21% walk, 9% drive (or carpool)
Brooklyn: 60% use transit, 9% walk, 25% drive
Bronx: 57% use transit, 7% walk, 31% drive
Queens: 51% use transit, 6% walk, 40% drive

Less than half of commuters drive in SF, Boston, and DC.

SF: 32% use transit, 10% walk, 47% drive
Boston: 33% use transit, 14% walk, 48% drive
DC: 37% use transit, 11% walk, 44% drive

Chicago and Philadelphia are next with about 26% using public transit in each.

In OKC 94% drive, 0.8% use transit, and 1.4% walk to work.

I have read a recent world study indicating that car use grows until commuting is around one hour each way, at which time driving peaks, and even starts to decline. Such is the case with many congested cities. That means jobs need to keep moving from the outside to the inner core and they need to be desirable jobs.

I have read a recent world study indicating that car use grows until commuting is around one hour each way, at which time driving peaks, and even starts to decline. Such is the case with many congested cities. That means jobs need to keep moving from the outside to the inner core and they need to be desirable jobs.


Interesting point. Since OKC has almost no real traffic congestion, commute times are very short (right at 20 min each way, below national average). Also because the city is so sparsely populated, driving is the only feasible mode of transportation. Out of 74 U.S. cities with a population over 250,000, OKC ties with Wichita and Ft. Wayne, IN, for second-to-last place for amount of commuters using public transit. Arlington, TX, has the lowest amount of public transportation use per capita (0.1%).

And that is why we can't justify trying to give everyone Class A bus or rail service. It needs to be available in higher density urban zones of the city.

Only NYC. The four big boroughs all are predominately public transit:

Manhattan: 58% use transit, 21% walk, 9% drive (or carpool)
Brooklyn: 60% use transit, 9% walk, 25% drive
Bronx: 57% use transit, 7% walk, 31% drive
Queens: 51% use transit, 6% walk, 40% drive

Less than half of commuters drive in SF, Boston, and DC.

SF: 32% use transit, 10% walk, 47% drive
Boston: 33% use transit, 14% walk, 48% drive
DC: 37% use transit, 11% walk, 44% drive

Chicago and Philadelphia are next with about 26% using public transit in each.

In OKC 94% drive, 0.8% use transit, and 1.4% walk to work.

Where did you get these figures? This is good data.

95.48% commute? Doesn't make sense? Percentages need to add up to 100% or you have data missing or is flawed.

Not doubting the numbers, but what data is missing?

95.48% commute? Doesn't make sense? Percentages need to add up to 100% or you have data missing or is flawed.

Not doubting the numbers, but what data is missing?

This:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Island_Tramway

http://www.rioc.com/images/trams.jpg

95.48% commute? Doesn't make sense? Percentages need to add up to 100% or you have data missing or is flawed.

Not doubting the numbers, but what data is missing?

Not everyone commutes. There are lots of people who either work from home, are homemakers, are unable to commute due to physical disabilities, are in prison, etc.

Do they ever use transportation? They need to add a category to make the numbers add to 100%.

I'd be more skeptical of data that did add up exactly to 100%. There is always extreme outliers.

You've got bikes, segways, wheelchairs, rickshaws, roller blades, skateboards, and probably some other crazy stuff that could qualify as "other" on the survey.

95.48% commute? Doesn't make sense? Percentages need to add up to 100% or you have data missing or is flawed.

Not doubting the numbers, but what data is missing?

The numbers I provided add to 96.2%. :)

In any case, I didn't report the numbers for people that work at home or use other means of transportation. I also rounded up for the total figure for the % of commuters driving in some form.

I believe the numbers are from the American Community Survey conducted by the US Census Bureau. You should be able to access the data from their website here: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/

This is the full breakdown I have for OKC proper:

81.1% drive alone to work
12.4% carpool
0.8% use public transit
1.4% walk
1.3% use other means of transportation
3.0% work at home

http://www.arts-wallpapers.com/desktop_wallpapers/travel_places/New-York-City_Wallpapers/images/New_York_City%20Manhattan%20Traffic.jpg

They travel in cars...they just happen to be taxis. They take the train in to avoid the traffic jams coming into the city.

And to compare NYC in any way is pretty silly. OKC will not look this way in 100 years. We need to make realistic plans and encourage good behavior and design. But we cannot think we are or ever will be NYC.

Rover - why do you keep equating the use of mass transit with tall buildings? You can be walkable/mass transit city without 10 miles of skycrapers. You have to look outside America to find them but there are plenty of examples.

I am solidly for promoting mass trans. But this idea that we are going to be NYC, or some Euro city is a pipe dream. Part of making things happen is to be realistic rather than trying to sell a bill of goods that will never be achieved. It is great to have dreams, but important to not be hallucinating.

And, oddly enough, mass trans usually is used most in cities with high density. And high density cities usually have more and taller buildings. Imagine that.

When you say we are not going to be like NYC, what aspect of NYC do you think we are trying to emulate?

I think what Rover is trying to say is that OKC, by its very nature, is not (and probably never will be) urban to that degree. The density required to make mass transit work doesn't exist here, and would be hard pressed TO exist here. OKC is a car-created city and continues to expand with that in mind.

Think about how long it took Dallas and Houston to create a mass transit system that actually worked, and they've both been much larger cities than OKC for a much longer time. Even thinking we're in the same part of the planet as NYC or even most smaller Euro cities isn't correct. Europe is dense by the fact of how long it has had to develop. OKC is just a kid in diapers compared to most euro cities...we just grew into our pants really fast.

I think what Rover is trying to say is that OKC, by its very nature, is not (and probably never will be) urban to that degree. The density required to make mass transit work doesn't exist here, and would be hard pressed TO exist here. OKC is a car-created city and continues to expand with that in mind.

Think about how long it took Dallas and Houston to create a mass transit system that actually worked, and they've both been much larger cities than OKC for a much longer time. Even thinking we're in the same part of the planet as NYC or even most smaller Euro cities isn't correct. Europe is dense by the fact of how long it has had to develop. OKC is just a kid in diapers compared to most euro cities...we just grew into our pants really fast.

Okay, first of all I don't know anyone on the pro-mass transit side that has ever said OKC could be, should be, or would even want to be as urban as NYC. NYC is at the far end of the urban scale and is not the threshold where walkability and mass transit become viable. Somewhere between the densities of OKC and NYC is where that point is crossed and many of us think that OKC is closer to that point than NYC is. As UP pointed out earlier, the low density nature of OKC's post WWII suburban sprawl does not lend itself to mass transit, but the urban core of OKC absolutely does because it already existed there once. The urban core of OKC once boasted something like 70 miles of streetcars and nearly every sizable town in Oklahoma was connected to OKC via the interuran system. So you can't tell me it isn't possible because it has already been done once. You might as well say it is impossible to go to the moon.

In the next 20 years it will be possible to live within the urban core of OKC and not need to own a car. You might need to rent one if you want to drive out of town, but you won't need to own one as part of your daily life.

This 'historical' photo is courtesy of Doug Lodenback's blog site

http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2007/09/okc-trolleys-part-1.html
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trolleys/whenoktooktrolley_map02x.jpg

A little side fact - the main terminal on that map was located where the new Devon Tower is being built.

I think there are several scenarios of mass trans that work here in OKC. The trick is to create a good cost/benefit. It will not be beneficial to start and will be a publicly supported system that most OKC citizens will pay for for the benefit of a few with the hope of someday being self supporting. For that to happen though, OKC will have to become much more dense than it is now or will be for quite awhile. And that is okay. It has to start somewhere.

In Europe there are many barriers to driving which don't exist here...at least YET. First, most of the old cities in the old core sections have narrow streets built before cars...WAY before cars. The buildings being close to the streets keep the streets from widening. Second, gas is much more expensive than in the US, discouraging needless driving and large cars are not for common people. Third, the population grew up with streetcars, trains, etc. as a normal way of life. In the US, often there is still a stigma that if you can't afford your own car you ride the bus.

But, since this is a thread on downtown parking, we digress. Our mass trans will not for the next two or three decades serve a large enough population to start lowering our requirement for more parking, provided the business side of downtown keeps growing. It is necessary for there to be MUCH more employment downtown, which of course means more commuters and more parking. AFTER the commuters come, many will prefer to convert to core dwellers or to locate close to commuting lines. It is a progression that will take years and years. But make no mistake, there has to be dramatic growth of employment downtown to fuel this. Otherwise, our mass trans will be like the little train that used to run on the teeny tracks around the zoo...good for entertainment but not a sustainable transportation option. Regardless, parking options will be necessary.

At the risk of the mods moving the last 10 posts to one of the other transit threads, many of us believe that implementing a quality mass transit system in the urban core will produce the needed density to make it successful.

It is basically a loss leader, but then again, so are all investments. Just like building freeways and giant parking lots enticed people in large numbers out to the suburbs, quality mass transit and walkability will entice large numbers of people back to the urban core.

You are right, highways and parking lots were built so people could be coerced to like living in safe peaceful neighborhoods and liked the freedom of driving their own car. People don't want peace, quiet, freedom, safety, etc. They only tolerate that stuff because the government forced it that way.

It must be really frustrating to the cool smart people that some classless dummies actually prefer living in a single family residence with a yard. As soon as everyone wises up I am sure we will all ride buses and live downtown.

Mass trans, IF done properly, will indeed enable many people to live a life the way they want or the way they have to. But, the price of gas and the efficiency of automobiles will have a much bigger and quicker effect on people using mass trans.

Back to topic PLEASE.

In Europe there are many barriers to driving which don't exist here...at least YET.


Wouldn't a limitation on parking be a barrier to driving, just like gas prices and narrow streets in Europe? We continually remove this barrier by building new parking in downtown. There is definitely a double standard when it comes to parking vs transit, which are basically alternative goods in this case. For example, when downtown parking is at capacity, we have a choice to make about how we spend our money. Here are a few of the alternatives:

1- We can build a parking garage (to my knowledge the only alternative that has been attempted so far)
2- We can conduct a public information campaign directed at downtown parkers who live on existing bus routes, teaching them how the bus could potentially make their commute less stressful and cheaper. This could include print materials and personal consultations with route planners. It could also include working with companies to provide transit passes for free to their employees. Because of the nature of our bus routes (downtown-centered, highest frequency at rush hour) downtown employees are the best possible candidates for switching to transit- and if they knew it was an option, they could do it tomorrow.
3- We can invest in safe bike boulevards with careful navigational assistance extended to near-downtown areas where downtown employees are likely to live, along with a public information campaign about those safe routes and benefits of cycling. Secure cycle parking also provided- we can fit a lot more cycles than cars in a given space. Again, this campaign could include print materials and personal consultations with people who could help select the correct type/size of bike and a safe route. Companies may also be interested in sponsoring this for employees- think about the emphasis our major corporations are placing on employee health and wellness.

The first alternative allows an increase in the total number of cars coming downtown each day, until the new garage is filled and we begin at square one.

The second and third alternatives will allow the number of cars coming downtown to stabilize (or at least slow the growth of parking demand).

I don't think an additional garage is a horrible idea at all. But when we build a garage, we are making a choice. If we spent an equal amount of money on targeted, personal campaigns to help people learn how to change their transportation mode when accessing downtown, we could avoid being back in the same position in a few years as employment continues to grow downtown. At this point, attempting all three alternatives would be pretty great.

You could also discourage any company from moving downtown if there are insufficient parking opportunities. You all forget that there have to be jobs downtown for all this density you wish. To think that all the employees of a company want to live downtown is just ignorance. To limit the pool of potential employees to those living on a bus route or even a streetcar route is just as ill advised. Part of what is attractive to a company is the ability to recruit the best talent and the more you limit them the less likely they are to consider downtown. Why do you think Devon invested in building so many parking spaces? But not all companies are going to be able to build their own, so a public need arises. And, if you restrict the retailers to only those who can reach them by mass trans, than you eliminate a huge part of their market potential.

A balanced approach is needed and investment in parking garages is one. If the city builds some in strategic locations then surface lots become far less attractive economically. For the same price, most people would rather park in a garage protected from the weather and somewhat protected. There is only so much income one can generate from surface lots and once the land is more valuable for some other kind of development we will see the surface lots go away because the can't compete. Black markets exist when other markets don't fill the need. Without the adequate parking facilities of a city, the black market is the surface lots...undesirable, but filling a demand.

I would be curious as to what percentage of downtown residents now own cars? In Oklahoma, I believe it will be a long time before even the diehard core dwellers abandoned their cars. And if there are cars there has to be parking.

By the way, some of the worst traffic situations in the world I have encountered are in European and other world cities where there is inadequate parking and cars are parked in locations making it hard to walk or drive....places like Athens comes to mind. I can list the many ways the government has attempted to create ways to discourage car use in the city and has failed. In fact, some of their efforts created worse driving and air quality issues.

My husband and I each have a car. It's not gaining mileage very quickly, but he works up in far northwest OKC, so he drives to work every day. Once we're home, we pretty much eschew cars unless it's bitterly cold or raining too hard for an umbrella. All my neighbors have two cars as well, although some walk to work. Judging by the cars on the street in Deep Deuce, there aren't a lot of carless people out there. We did have a waitress at Louies or McNellies one night who said she and her husband were not car owners, but she said it was hard because of our poor public transit.

I agree with Rover. Without encouraging car use downtown, we need to make allowances for people who work or want to travel downtown, especially now when we have no easy public transit around downtown. Parking garages also encourage density......of cars, which is not a bad thing.

I am one of those people who would live in the suburbs for the schools - and the other things for kids that are not presently available in OKC's CBD - BUT would love to drive to a suburban commuter rail station and ride from Edmond (hold your collective gasps) to OKC, Norman, or even the 63rd St area. We are all that different from Salt Lake City and Albuquerque and both places have built commuter rail sstems that are very successful.

You could also discourage any company from moving downtown if there are insufficient parking opportunities. You all forget that there have to be jobs downtown for all this density you wish. To think that all the employees of a company want to live downtown is just ignorance. To limit the pool of potential employees to those living on a bus route or even a streetcar route is just as ill advised.

If you read my whole post, I totally agree. We need parking downtown, and lots of it, because the car is an essential part of life in 99% of our city. The potential new garage is definitely warranted for the very reasons you describe. I'm not saying limit employment so that everyone has to live on a bus route and no one drives downtown- That was apparently your interpretation. All I'm saying is that there are thousands of existing parking spaces being used by people who already live on bus/bike routes who are not aware that they might be able to easily bike/bus to the office. So by trying some alternative strategies and getting those people to consider leaving their car at home from 9-5, we could replenish some parking supply without building.

While building the new garage is a good short-term strategy, we need a complementary long-term strategy to slow the growth in demand for parking so we aren't in the same position every five years. Surely you can see the logic of that perspective?

I understand what you are saying, but I would hope we are growing employment rapidly downtown and require parking garages to be built. But I agree that hopefully it isn't a 1 for 1 growth. We would hope that for every 1000 jobs created downtown we might only need parking for 750 people. Slowly but surely we can build up the permanent core density.

I am one of those people who would live in the suburbs for the schools - and the other things for kids that are not presently available in OKC's CBD - BUT would love to drive to a suburban commuter rail station and ride from Edmond (hold your collective gasps) to OKC, Norman, or even the 63rd St area. We are all that different from Salt Lake City and Albuquerque and both places have built commuter rail sstems that are very successful.

I am going to start doing that next month taking the light rail from Aurora to my new office in LoDo a few blocks from Union Station. I am staying in a friends condo until he gets back from the South Pole in February and we are planning on looking for a rental in Aurora in January for the time being because the light rail is already there now. Right now the light rail is being expanded into other parts of Denver, after we get the house sold here in Austin and my wife moves up there we may look in a different part of Denver depending upon where she gets a job but we are planning that location around light rail park-n-ride stations. At my friends place he is 1.5 miles from Nine Mile Station in Aurora, so I will have a short drive. I would prefer a place closer but that will more than likely be a place we buy rather than rent so sometime in the next few years.

At my friends place he is 1.5 miles from Nine Mile Station in Aurora, so I will have a short drive.

You are going to drive a 1.5 miles? You can walk it in 17 minutes, and that is if you take your time. Ride a bike and you can be there faster than you can drive and park.

I've always thought that it would nice to live close to DT to walk to work on nice days, but it would sure be nice for those people who do that to have the option to catch a bus for the 4 or 5 blocks when it is raining or really cold.