Updated MSA numbers came out:

OKC:
2015- 1,356,965
2016- 1,373,211

Increase of 16,246 residents.

DFW led the country with an increase of 143,435 residents. Crazy.

143k! Holy Moley.

Hard to believe with all of those horrible freeway hindering the quality of life there. ��

143k! Holy Moley.

Since Oklahoma can't draw new residents very fast, it ought to do more to attract visitors to help its economy and raise tax revenues.. Having casinos near the Texas border is certainly one great way to do it, but why not more ways?

With the cheap cost of housing and food, I'm surprised that the area relators and chamber of commerce don't try to promote the metro as an inexpensive and safe place to retire. We have relatively warm winters and fairly low crime for a metro if you stay out of bad neighorhoods.

With the cheap cost of housing and food, I'm surprised that the area relators and chamber of commerce don't try to promote the metro as an inexpensive and safe place to retire. We have relatively warm winters and fairly low crime for a metro if you stay out of bad neighorhoods.

Retirees tend to go places that are more coastal or closer to natural beauty. Ft Smith, Arkansas is a big retirement area as is much of northern Arkansas in the Ozark mountains. People who retire here likely have some kind of ties to the area, whether they were already living or working here, have lived away and moved back when retiring, or have some kind of family connection to this area. The eastern side of Oklahoma has more potential to attract retirees. I don't the state markets its portion of the Ozarks and Ouachitas to the extent it could. When people think of Oklahoma they think this.

http://www.stephen-weaver.com/images/large/SGWeaver_20070602_6173.jpg

And not this.

http://d1pk12b7bb81je.cloudfront.net/images/photos/1268262499-bluehillsahead.jpg

I think we should try to model ourselves more off Texas. Geographically, our state isn't any different than Texas aside from Texas having the Gulf coast. I know it's probably unpopular, but starting out with our tax system would be a start. Get our budget problems fixed, and work on improving education.

I think we should try to model ourselves more off Texas. Geographically, our state isn't any different than Texas aside from Texas having the Gulf coast. I know it's probably unpopular, but starting out with our tax system would be a start. Get our budget problems fixed, and work on improving education.

Not trying to start a Texas vs Oklahoma beef, but Texas has mountains and deserts in the west, the hill country in the central and south central areas, the piney woods in East Texas. The Texas landscape is very diverse.

Not trying to start a Texas vs Oklahoma beef, but Texas has mountains and deserts in the west, the hill country in the central and south central areas, the piney woods in East Texas. The Texas landscape is very diverse.

So is Oklahoma, with 10 different geographic regions in the state.

So is Oklahoma, with 10 different geographic regions in the state.

I was gonna say he was also describing OK.

I just googled the regions for Texas and Oklahoma.

Texas has 7 distinct geographic regions, Oklahoma has 10 distinct geographic regions.

So is Oklahoma, with 10 different geographic regions in the state.

Yep. Josh's description read almost exactly how I'd describe OK.
The problem is, most Okies don't even know about this states geography. And I believe that's because, in my opinion, most Okies don't travel much. I also don't believe the state tourism dept. advertises such places effectively.

There's only one part of the state I haven't been up to this point, and that's the SW corner where the Wichita Mountains are (they're on my list when I have a free weekend pop up).

Tepid growth for both city and State. Reflects States poor management, Uber red politics and oil dominated industrial base.

Yeah cause Texas is just super blue.

Yeah cause Texas is just super blue.

Ironically, Texas can be seen as more Republican than OK in some respects. The biggest difference is Texas makes itself a viable option for new businesses and industries. People are moving there from all over the country because of the economic possibilities.
I would like to see verifiable evidence for claims that politics are causing droves of people to leave and/or are impacting people from moving here.

I'm not arguing one way or another, I am just curious if there is any actual evidence that can be used in this conversation.

Ironically, Texas can be seen as more Republican than OK in some respects. The biggest difference is Texas makes itself a viable option for new businesses and industries. People are moving there from all over the country because of the economic possibilities.
I would like to see verifiable evidence for claims that politics are causing droves of people to leave and/or are impacting people from moving here.

I'm not arguing one way or another, I am just curious if there is any actual evidence that can be used in this conversation.

I bet on gopokes being sarcastic with that statement....

Tepid. But not surprisingly reflects of the scope of our current bust.

Updated MSA numbers came out:

OKC:
2015- 1,356,965
2016- 1,373,211

Increase of 16,246 residents.

DFW led the country with an increase of 143,435 residents. Crazy.

From a percentage standpoint, not sure if the gap is quite as big as it appears...

Not saying growth couldn't be better, but a similar percentage would still have only been 25k or so.

I bet on gopokes being sarcastic with that statement....

Ha, actually, I did pick up on the sarcasm and was intending to enhance that argument that was between the lines.

So is Oklahoma, with 10 different geographic regions in the state.

If I recall correctly, Oklahoma actually is the most geographically diverse state. Northeast and southeast Oklahoma are so different from central Oklahoma...

Tepid growth for both city and State. Reflects States poor management, Uber red politics and oil dominated industrial base.

While these easy talking points, they're almost all constants which means that they're not reasons to reference for slowing population growth. Of those three, only the first one with the incredibly poor funding of state agencies and schools could be a factor, but I also doubt that. It's not like people were moving to Oklahoma for it's education system before (I say this as a former Oklahoma teacher who is proud of what the state's teachers are able to do). Economic ebbs and flows are a far better indicator of why growth has slowed.

If I recall correctly, Oklahoma actually is the most geographically diverse state. Northeast and southeast Oklahoma are so different from central Oklahoma...
I thought Hawaii was no. 1.

From 2015-16, the OKC metro was the 19th fastest growing among metros of more than a 1 million people (out of 53 metros). From 2010-16, OKC was the 14th fastest growing among 1 million +. It seems that many of the country's largest metros slowed in growth from 2015-16.

[QUOTE=gopokes88;988760]Yeah cause Texas is just super blue.[/QUOT

No TEXAS is super well managed, extremely diverse (racially), pro business, pro active, great schools, great medical facilities, great airport's, great highways, shall I continue. Look at Oklahoma just the opposite in ALL those areas.

Ironically, Texas can be seen as more Republican than OK in some respects. The biggest difference is Texas makes itself a viable option for new businesses and industries. People are moving there from all over the country because of the economic possibilities.
I would like to see verifiable evidence for claims that politics are causing droves of people to leave and/or are impacting people from moving here.

I'm not arguing one way or another, I am just curious if there is any actual evidence that can be used in this conversation.

Exactly. Agree with your first paragraph

[QUOTE=gopokes88;988760]Yeah cause Texas is just super blue.[/QUOT

No TEXAS is super well managed, extremely diverse (racially), pro business, pro active, great schools, great medical facilities, great airport's, great highways, shall I continue. Look at Oklahoma just the opposite in ALL those areas.

I wish I lived in the Texas you're talking about. Lol. Unfortunately, it does not exist in this world. Texas has maybe the worst planned transit system in the U.S. (see the green line park-and-ride implementation), incredibly congested highways, and absurd legislation (worse than Oklahoma, in my opinion). And, you lose credibility claiming Oklahoma is the opposite of pro-business... Oklahoma is absurdly pro-business to the detriment of funding things. Just DFW has a much larger population than Oklahoma so comparing the two is silly. However, none of this is really about complimenting Texas, but about bashing Oklahoma... You lose credibility when you paint Texas as a utopia (it's not) and then literally call Oklahoma the opposite of that. Everyone is fine with nuanced critique, and Oklahoma has a lot to work on, but c'mon.

[QUOTE=dcsooner;988827]

I wish I lived in the Texas you're talking about. Lol. Unfortunately, it does not exist in this world. Texas has maybe the worst planned transit system in the U.S. (see the green line park-and-ride implementation), incredibly congested highways, and absurd legislation (worse than Oklahoma, in my opinion). And, you lose credibility claiming Oklahoma is the opposite of pro-business... Oklahoma is absurdly pro-business to the detriment of funding things. Just DFW has a much larger population than Oklahoma so comparing the two is silly. However, none of this is really about complimenting Texas, but about bashing Oklahoma... You lose credibility when you paint Texas as a utopia (it's not) and then literally call Oklahoma the opposite of that. Everyone is fine with nuanced critique, and Oklahoma has a lot to work on, but c'mon.

Congested highways. Don't make me laugh.

[QUOTE=dcsooner;988827]

I wish I lived in the Texas you're talking about. Lol. Unfortunately, it does not exist in this world. Texas has maybe the worst planned transit system in the U.S. (see the green line park-and-ride implementation), incredibly congested highways, and absurd legislation (worse than Oklahoma, in my opinion). And, you lose credibility claiming Oklahoma is the opposite of pro-business... Oklahoma is absurdly pro-business to the detriment of funding things. Just DFW has a much larger population than Oklahoma so comparing the two is silly. However, none of this is really about complimenting Texas, but about bashing Oklahoma... You lose credibility when you paint Texas as a utopia (it's not) and then literally call Oklahoma the opposite of that. Everyone is fine with nuanced critique, and Oklahoma has a lot to work on, but c'mon.

I submit that the discussion was based on population growth and my reference was not specific to DFW but ALL of Texas . No, I do not think Texas is utopia BUT to deny that Oklahoma is poorly run with huge budget decifits or low teacher pay or low college educated citizenry or poor roads or many dishonest or flat out criminal legislators is consciencous stupidity.

[QUOTE=dankrutka;988830]

Congested highways. Don't make me laugh.

Why do you say that?

[QUOTE=dankrutka;988830]

I submit that the discussion was based on population growth and my reference was not specific to DFW but ALL of Texas . No, I do not think Texas is utopia BUT to deny that Oklahoma is poorly run with huge budget decifits or low teacher pay or low college educated citizenry or poor roads or many dishonest or flat out criminal legislators is consciencous stupidity.

No one said that. And that's not what your post said either. And you did paint Texas unrealistically as a vehicle to trash Oklahoma. If you make honest arguments where your criticism is supported by evidence and constructive, it'll be welcome. But do you realize how it comes across when you post on OKCTalk that Oklahomans are an uneducated citizenry? What is your purpose in doing so? Do you expect to insult people (often with unsupported or incorrect info) into enacting change? The difference in college attainment rates between Oklahoma (32%) and Texas (33%) is probably minimal. Walking into someone's house and calling them stupid usually doesn't go over well.

College attainment source: https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/new-state-state-college-attainment-numbers-show-progress-toward-2020-goal

[QUOTE=Plutonic Panda;988836]

Why do you say that?the freeway system works great in Texas. Mass transit is NOT the way to go. For a city of the size of Dallas, the freeway system is amazing. Look no further than Portland, Oregon which is a quarter of the size of DFW and has way worse traffic.

Every time I'm in Dallas traffic flows. It gets congested at certain times, but it flows. From a city that wastes 100 billion on rail, traffic here never ends. Freeways need to be widened and mass transit needs to come secondary. Dallas does great in this regard.

Schools in the DFW are great. Roads in DFW are great. Income in DFW IS great. Corporations are relocating to Dallas suburbs because of their freeways over the bs transit expansion that is plaguing Los Angeles. I can't wait until this fad ends.

Texas doesn't have congested highways? I guess you haven't been to or seen pictures of the highways of Dallas, Austin, and especially Houston. They're all growing so fast they can't keep up and it's like Los Angeles. The traffic around DFW is one of the reasons why I didn't move there from Ohio in 2013 and I chose OKC instead. And it's also the primary reason why I don't want OKC to be another Dallas.

Lol, PluPlan. Compared to OKC, DFW highways are an absolute nightmare. Give me your phone number and I'll FaceTime the next time I'm sitting in a 45 minute delay at 11pm on the highway. I completely avoid driving during huge chunks of the day because traffic is so bad. OKC is a dream in comparison.

Don't believe me, check Google Maps traffic at 5pm any weekday. The entire metro is red.

Lol, PluPlan. Compared to OKC, DFW highways are an absolute nightmare. Give me your phone number and I'll FaceTime the next time I'm sitting in a 45 minute delay at 11pm on the highway. I completely avoid driving during huge chunks of the day because traffic is so bad. OKC is a dream in comparison.

Don't believe me, check Google Maps traffic at 5pm any weekday. The entire metro is red.
Yeah, that's 5pm on a Wednesday!!!! Of course compared to OKC traffic is worse. OKC actually has a decent freeway network for its size.

[QUOTE=dcsooner;988837]

No one said that. And that's not what your post said either. And you did paint Texas unrealistically as a vehicle to trash Oklahoma. If you make honest arguments where your criticism is supported by evidence and constructive, it'll be welcome. But do you realize how it comes across when you post on OKCTalk that Oklahomans are an uneducated citizenry? What is your purpose in doing so? Do you expect to insult people (often with unsupported or incorrect info) into enacting change? The difference in college attainment rates between Oklahoma (32%) and Texas (33%) is probably minimal. Walking into someone's house and calling them stupid usually doesn't go over well.

College attainment source: https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/new-state-state-college-attainment-numbers-show-progress-toward-2020-goal

My desire as a native Oklahoman is to speak truth and to incite those who still call the state home to expect more from those whom they elect to lead. Continuing to vote solidly RED when by most measures of prosperity or growth or pay or health or.... The State consistently ranks in the bottom 25th percentile -relative to those measures. Those are the reasons, IMO WHY Oklahoma has tepid growth more that Topography. Your Governor and legislature is a joke, inept in every way but citizens are so partisan they stick with the status quo

Yeah, that's 5pm on a Wednesday!!!! Of course compared to OKC traffic is worse. OKC actually has a decent freeway network for its size.

For what it is worth my comment is in regard to the quality of the highways not the congestion on them

Texas doesn't have congested highways? I guess you haven't been to or seen pictures of the highways of Dallas, Austin, and especially Houston. They're all growing so fast they can't keep up and it's like Los Angeles. The traffic around DFW is one of the reasons why I didn't move there from Ohio in 2013 and I chose OKC instead. And it's also the primary reason why I don't want OKC to be another Dallas.
Bro, I can't argue with someone who thinks any city in Texas has traffic as bad as Los Angeles. I just can't take you seriously.

Get on Google Maps anytime of the day and it will be red all over. That's the case only with one or two freeways in Dallas and it's not all the time. 101 stays gridlocked until 1am. No freeway in Texas or anywhere else in the country except a couple ones in NYC have that problem.

For what it is worth my comment is in regard to the quality of the highways not the congestion on them
Yes I know

Lol, PluPlan. Compared to OKC, DFW highways are an absolute nightmare. Give me your phone number and I'll FaceTime the next time I'm sitting in a 45 minute delay at 11pm on the highway. I completely avoid driving during huge chunks of the day because traffic is so bad. OKC is a dream in comparison.

Don't believe me, check Google Maps traffic at 5pm any weekday. The entire metro is red.

The traffic on I-35, I-635 does flow at a slow pace (25-35 mph) especially during rush hours; it gets slower (snails pace) if there's an accident. Dallas' growth his been enormous in the last 50 years; there are continuous upgrades and new extension added to their interchanges--it's an everlasting nightmare compared to what we complain about here in OKC. As far as the Metroplex, overall, they have done an outstanding job for a metro area of 7.5 million.

Updated MSA numbers came out:

OKC:
2015- 1,356,965
2016- 1,373,211

Increase of 16,246 residents.

DFW led the country with an increase of 143,435 residents. Crazy.

:backtotop

DenverPoke, could you supply us with the link or the source of your population info on OKC's 1,373,211 population estimate for 2016 which increased by 16,246 residents.

If OKC continues at this pace, we should hit 1,438,195 come 2020.

2016 = 1,373,211 + 16,246 x 4 years [64,984] = 1,438,195

I drive on I-35 in DFW and both the E & W versions do not flow in many places. It backs up and you sit in traffic jams for long stretches. It's really bad. This isn't speculation. I live here and drive it. I know what traffic is like in LA as I'm there often. It's awful there too.

And, PluPlan, DFWs transit system fails primarily from poor design. Park and rides will never succeed. The green line, for example, should have been built through the cores of towns where housing existed or could be built. Instead, they chose to build a park and ride system. The parts of the DART that runs through cities works great.

[QUOTE=dankrutka;988841]

My desire as a native Oklahoman is to speak truth and to incite those who still call the state home to expect more from those whom they elect to lead. Continuing to vote solidly RED when by most measures of prosperity or growth or pay or health or.... The State consistently ranks in the bottom 25th percentile -relative to those measures. Those are the reasons, IMO WHY Oklahoma has tepid growth more that Topography. Your Governor and legislature is a joke, inept in every way but citizens are so partisan they stick with the status quo

First, you could start by speaking truth. You regularly post inaccurate generalizations without specifics. Second, none of your feedback is constructive. Everyone is aware of the problems you're bringing up and many people on this board are dedicating their time and energy to address them. So, instead of posting why you think Oklahoma sucks constantly, take the time to type out some ideas of things Oklahomans could actually do. Make a difference, be the change. Not just an internet complainer. It's a bad sign when someone like me who probably agrees with every one of your complaints is worn out by your negativity.

I not sure why people are saying Dallas, or for that matter, Texas freeways are poorly designed or ineffective. Dallas as a metro area has nearly 8 million people living in it. Obviously there is going to be major congestion on the roadways because there is a crap ton of vehicular traffic in the DFW area. It would take nearly double the amount of lanes to accommodate that traffic, that just isn't realistic or feasible. That doesn't take away from the fact that Dallas' freeway system isn't comprehensive or done properly. Same for many other Texas metros.

Houston and San Antonio have fantastic loop systems that help move traffic around the cities and help relieve traffic from the other freeway arteries and interstates.

I also want to say that I appreciate everyone who posts here. I don't agree with PluPlan on a lot of things, but he's definitely made me see things from a different perspective. And I know everyone who posts here cares about OKC. I have no ill will towards anyone on this board and I really believe this board makes OKC a better place. I love that I can keep engaging with OKC here after moving away. Best. :)

I drive on I-35 in DFW and both the E & W versions do not flow in many places. It backs up and you sit in traffic jams for long stretches. It's really bad. This isn't speculation. I live here and drive it. I know what traffic is like in LA as I'm there often. It's awful there too.

And, PluPlan, DFWs transit system fails primarily from poor design. Park and rides will never succeed. The green line, for example, should have been built through the cores of towns where housing existed or could be built. Instead, they chose to build a park and ride system. The parts of the DART that runs through cities works great.
Thats one of the only freeways that you can say that about and it's primarily because of the deficiencies and construction and will be fixed soon.

The transit system always has people on it when I'm using it. When people can afford a car they will buy one.

Mass transit and more density is not the way to go, imo. It's good for certain areas, but I think it has more to do with the way a city is built.

Btw, Dallas is supposed to be working on a subway system. I don't know of the status update of that.

I not sure why people are saying Dallas, or for that matter, Texas freeways are poorly designed or ineffective. Dallas as a metro area has nearly 8 million people living in it. Obviously there is going to be major congestion on the roadways because there is a crap ton of vehicular traffic in the DFW area. It would take nearly double the amount of lanes to accommodate that traffic, that just isn't realistic or feasible. That doesn't take away from the fact that Dallas' freeway system isn't comprehensive or done properly. Same for many other Texas metros.

Houston and San Antonio have fantastic loop systems that help move traffic around the cities and help relieve traffic from the other freeway arteries and interstates.

Name me a city you think designs freeways better than Texas.

The only city I can think of is Salt Lake City of course it's hard to compare that due to its geographical constraints.

I also want to say that I appreciate everyone who posts here. I don't agree with PluPlan on a lot of things, but he's definitely made me see things from a different perspective. And I know everyone who posts here cares about OKC. I have no ill will towards anyone on this board and I really believe this board makes OKC a better place. I love that I can keep engaging with OKC here after moving away. Best. :)
I agree with you! I learn so much from your posts too! You're a great poster on this site.

I think Dallas does a decent job accomodating traffic despite so much growth. Roads, bridges and highways are constantly being updated and improved. Traffic is bad sometimes but with so many highways there are many travel options. However, I think the disagreement here comes from differing perspectives on overall experience and economic impact. Many here see Dallas as a model of progress and others see it as a model to avoid. We are young in our growth as a city. We haven't yet seen tens, hundreds of thousands of new residents. While DFW stuck pretty hard to a very auto-centric model , we have a chance to look at what they are doing and how they live, and do a better job of planning and anticipating growth based on how we want to live. (I realize there are several pedestrian friendly areas in the DFW area and both Dallas and Ft. Worth downtowns are infilling, but these areas are oases in a vast vast vast desert of sprawl) Do we want to create more and more sprawl requiring endless highway updates, or do we want to encourage pedestrian nodes, public transit, and a way of building that will return more money on our investments and require less maintenance. I'll agree DFW does a fine job doing what it does, but I don't want to live there, and I don't want OKC to grow in the same way. We have an opportunity to be smarter in our growth.

Dallas traffic is horrendous at times. However, it continues to invest in infrastructure including roads because they have no choice with the insane amount of growth it has experienced. I live in Plano where 10,000 jobs are being either relocated or created from the Corporate US Headquarters moving from Southern California to Plano. Also, Liberty Mutual is building a new corporate campus and consolidating offices and creating a new "regional headquarters in Plano, thus creating an additional 5-10,000 jobs! This has created much new wealth in DFW and the creation of residual companies coming here, it does pay the price with smog, traffic etc.. I really wish OKC could be more proactive and aggressive with corporate headquarters?

FWIW, I was playing with the data on census.gov... from 2010-2016 the population growth for Oklahoma as a whole was 4.6%. The population grown for the US as a whole was 4.7%, so a pretty negligible difference. Texas was 10.8%, so was impressive, but comparing us to other states in the region, Kansas was 1.9%, Missouri was 1.7%, Arkansas 2.5%, New Mexico 1.1%, and Louisiana at 3.3%.

Dallas traffic is horrendous at times. However, it continues to invest in infrastructure including roads because they have no choice with the insane amount of growth it has experienced. I live in Plano where 10,000 jobs are being either relocated or created from the Corporate US Headquarters moving from Southern California to Plano. Also, Liberty Mutual is building a new corporate campus and consolidating offices and creating a new "regional headquarters in Plano, thus creating an additional 5-10,000 jobs! This has created much new wealth in DFW and the creation of residual companies coming here, it does pay the price with smog, traffic etc.. I really wish OKC could be more proactive and aggressive with corporate headquarters?
I would advocate for more sprawl as it's cheaper for the government to subsidize freeways and give people cheaper living options increasing quality of life. Less density gives more bang for their buck. Many countries in Europe subsidize the extremely expansive housing through social government programs that make for socialistic type societies.

Think mass transit is a golden key? Go buy a home in London and see how big it is. Than instead of complaint about traffic, have fun planning your life around mass transit waiting for two or even three trains before you can get on one.

Fact of the matter is, those cities are primarily designed for people that live close by where they work. The US isn't designed like that. Even it's most dense cities, ala NYC, won't funcation in that way because of how expensive housing is. Gentrification is cool in cities like OKC, horrible for cities like LA and NYC.

I've seen many studies that have shown that if a person can afford a car they will opt to buy one and found it to be true by my own accounts. Not trying to be anecdotal here either. There is also the many downsides to mass transit. The suburbs are growing faster now than the cities anyways and it doesn't look like that trend will be reversed.

You can give people the option by creating walkable areas such as downtown OKC and Midtown, but keep in mind, there will need to be areas that act as thoroughfares for the drivers because drivability is just as important as walkability. Cities can function without mass transit, but they can't function without roads. So OKC better be careful in how it handles its walkable areas.

People are always going to have the option to live in a walkable community and excitingly so, it's getting better in OKC. But simply saying OKC needs to decide if it wants to sprawl like Dallas, I say yes it should. If the population grows and demand is there.

That's where I take issue with the induced demand argument as I look at ting regionally. Best examples of that can't observed in a city like OKC because there aren't enough people. To me that speaks that induced demand is balcony. But for the sake of argument, let's say the Hefner Parkway was constantly congested and the Kilpatrick was built to alleviate that.

Now the new urbanists will have you believe this is induced demand and they'll probably give you some explanation of a person that might choose to go and eat at a restaurant further down the road than they would if they freeway wasn't widened or built. I call bs on that. Not only because there is no way you can prove that and even if a couple people do a day, it won't be in the numbers required to back a freeway up. You likely see congestion reduced on the Hefner Parkway which took stress off of the regional freeway network.

Even though that argument can't be made because it didn't happen in OKC. The Kilpatrick still has low ADT accounts. Traffic on the Newley expanded I-40 in DTOKC hasn't soared. Just as someone could lay claim to I-35 to Norman, I can just easily say growth. That's the problem I have with NY Tines article about the 405 article "Was it worth it" which it was as it cut down the rush hour zone from 9 hours at the end of the day and 8 hours at the beginning of the day to 4-5 hours. It that's an argument I'll save for a another time if someone wants to bring that up.

As I said, this doesn't have to be an either or scenario. I understand mass transit can be very beneficial to a city, but I see no problem with the park and ride set-up in Dallas. It helps a lot of people.os Angeles even has multiple Park and ride stations. America is a suburban nation. America is no longer exclusive to that either. Many areas in India, China, Western Europe, Astralia, Canada, and countries in Northern Africa are becoming heavily reliant on cars and developing suburbs. Hell, Canada has some of the widest freeways in the world. You think Vancouver is a good model for sustainability? Beyond its sprawl which could rival Dallas, its housing costs is among the most expansive in North America. Same thing with every city that shoots to be a model for urbanism: Portland, Seattle, NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. the more dense they are, the bigger suburbs they have because many can't afford to live in the cities and many don't want to. Just wait until you start reading articles about how millennialis are moving back to the suburbs which is already happening.

Toyota did a survey for its employees and moved based on the fact they said how horrid traffic was because SoCal refused to expand its freeways in and around the LA metro with very few exceptions and would rather spend 80 billion dollars on mass transit to the claim it would fix traffic. News flash; apparently no one from Metro has gotten the memo from Sydney, Australia that mass transit doesn't work to solve traffic problems. Mass transit only solves it for those who ride it. It's just as expensive as freeways if not more in many cases and it doesn't solve congestion issues in fact will make them worse by adding higher density areas like all of these stupid apartment and retail centers that are stacked on top of each other with parking garages(which I support some and definitely the parking) but the roads aren't being expanded or invested in.

So now you have to sit on a train that takes just as long to get to downtown from Santa Monica because they couldn't build it the right way because the costs would have been astronomical. Again, these projects will put more cars on the road and cause more congestion. That isn't a problem in OKC, yet. Enjoy it while it lasts.

The point of my post being that it's how cities are developed and there would have be a radical change in how modes of transit are funded and how people want to live. As it stands, suburbs are growing and show absolutely no signs of stopping. I'm against radicalism especially if it's forces down people's throats which is what exactly would have to be done to get people to have our countries mass transit system function like Europe which I hate using as an example because they have more people than US shoveled in an area half of the size AND it was developed waaaaay before the automobile in fact was developed before bicycles or trains. Paris moved and in some cases demolished entire blocks of buildings to make way for the wide boulevards you see now.

If the change from suburban to urban happens naturally which I don't think it ever will, it will take probably a hundred years or more. Alas, I am extreme version of a suburban and freeway supporter as I would have liked to have seen the Bay Area and Los Angeles freeway proposals come to fruition which many would find me crazy on. If you want to see those let me know and I'll start a new thread.

This side discussion of traffic needs to go elsewhere considering this thread is about population growth.

I would advocate for more sprawl as it's cheaper for the government to subsidize freeways and give people cheaper living options increasing quality of life. Less density gives more bang for their buck.


Cheaper for the city in the short term.. The value per acre of low density sprawl is rarely enough to pay for the maintenance of roads and services needed over time. The quality of life you speak of is heavily subsidized. If people who lived in sprawling subdivisions had to pay for the extra miles of roads, water pipe , police, fire, etc. to make up for the lack of tax revenue it would be extremely expensive to live there.

I understand that we are a suburban city, nation. We can't just bomb all the sprawl and start over. All I am saying is that since we aren't a mega metro yet, we can begin to think about alternatives to auto based sprawl. and restrict that type of development from here on out. We have room and time to build infrastructure that is inherently more economically stable and we can begin to create an atmosphere that is pleasant by reducing the necessity of the automobile.

Cheaper for the city in the short term.. The value per acre of low density sprawl is rarely enough to pay for the maintenance of roads and services needed over time. The quality of life you speak of is heavily subsidized. If people who lived in sprawling subdivisions had to pay for the extra miles of roads, water pipe , police, fire, etc. to make up for the lack of tax revenue it would be extremely expensive to live there.

I understand that we are a suburban city, nation. We can't just bomb all the sprawl and start over. All I am saying is that since we aren't a mega metro yet, we can begin to think about alternatives to auto based sprawl. and restrict that type of development from here on out. We have room and time to build infrastructure that is inherently more economically stable and we can begin to create an atmosphere that is pleasant by reducing the necessity of the automobile.
It has nothing to do with long or short term. An investment is an investment. You need to invest maintenance be it freeways or mad transit. Bart is a good example of this. I don't even remember how many billions of dollars needed to just repair the system, but it's a massive amount. No different than the freeway except it only carriers people. Freeways don't have this issue. Freeways carry freight, delivery services, along with its commuters that use it to get to and from work.

How many billions of dollars do you think use interstates and freeways vs. rail dedicated for commuters(i.e. subways and light rail)?

The same argument can be made for the 100+ billion it will take to build the HSR in central California. Go ahead and give me a rough guess on how long you think it will take to pay that off and by the time it's paid how many millions or billions in repairs will it need?

How many billions of dollars did it take to complete the 3 mile or so expansion? Metro doesn't estimate it will pay off the multi billion dollar expansion of the purple line until like the 2050s which is why it needs federal grants to get it done before the original 2034 timeline.

The same can be said for water lines, sewer lines, and other basic infrastructure. You can make that argument of x amount of tax dollars per square foot but in one way or another every city service has to be subsidized and if it isn't through freeways it will be through social services because of the astronomical costs of building housing and the cost of real estate in urban areas vs suburbs.

People do pay for those things. They come in form of property taxes, sales taxes, vehicular registration and tagging, fuel taxes, energy taxes, local bond measures...

If the demand was there for people to want to live downtown, it would happen and the suburbs would fall. But that doesn't happen. The good thing about urban living is it's always there. In OKC's place, it's again becoming a viable alternative which is a great thing but the majority of people will continue to live in the suburbs and it will expand faster.

I think the street car is a fail because it runs along at grade. I know this is an unpopular opinion here but I think that money would have been better spent on saving for city wide light rail to get people who can't afford to own a car and/or live downtown an option to commute there.

To me, the street car is nothing more than a novelty item because it will be mainly comprised of a bunch of middle class hipsters using it for awhile and something to showcase investment. That's part of the reason I shake my head when I see people getting excited that streetcar renderings are included in like two or three developments pointing it out like that's actually a factor as to whether or not that development wouldn't have happened. I can turn around and make the same case about traffic lanes as that they included those because the development would not have happened without streets for cars. But of course that's a ridiculous notion to make because it's part of the infrastructure and the street car is a selling point for hotel patrons and residents. I could brain storm a million other things that would be as well. Doesn't mean every one of those would be something worth investing in.

At some point OKC needs to wake up and form a true comprehensive transit system and as per Hutch, that seems to be happening. I'm not saying the street car is bad investment per say because the reason I'm 100% against the one proposed in DTLA is that LA is already so congested and adding more forms of transit be it more, rideshares, dedicated bike lanes, mass transit that shares vehicle lanes is just a lack of planning.

Now OKC doesn't have that problem yet but it's row on the downtown streets couldn't support roads as wide as the ones in LA without major demolition. Seeing as the streetcar really won't make traffic worse since traffic problems in OKC are almost nonexistent, I really have no argument against other than the fact I just don't like it.

It's not that I don't like street cars I think they're great in tourist areas like beach or lodging towns. That's just a personal preference. A fully functional rail system should have its own route dedicated and separated from other forms of transit to maximize headways and get the people on it from point to point b since they already have to deal with negatives such as having to find transit to a station, wait for it, put with other people, etc... Yes there are benefits to it such as not having to worry about traffic, but that's moot if has grade crossings. Once again, the street car in OKC won't suffer from this, but beating a dead horse, I think the 130 million could have gone towards improving the existing bus routes, adding BRT along Classen and NWE, and/or a regional light rail system which is much more important than a commuter to and from Norman and Edmond which are wealthy suburbs and will probably be primarily used by those who can afford a car but choose to ride the rail.

One thing I want to add about OKC transit... I know we are off topic hopefully a moderator can move these posts sorry...

But I hope regional transit planners in OKC don't make the same mistake the ones in SoCal have made. There are many transit agencies in and around Los Angeles the main ones being Metro, Metrolink, Amtrak, Big Blue Bus(Santa Monica), OCTA, and of course San Diego has its own transit under SANDBAG or something. Only two of those work together and that Metro and Big Blue Bus. If you connect to OCTA(Orange County Transit Authority) or Metrolink you have to have individual cards or passes separate from each other. Metro monthly passes without discounts are $130. Than metrolink depending on the zone is $150 and it's a little paper card that can easily be ripped or lost.

It would be nice if one TAP(transit access pass) would work with all agencies including Amtrak. Correct me I'm wrong, but I believe in the Northeast you can get a monthly Amtrak pass.

I am without a car in LA right now so I have come to see both sides and how valuable transit can be. I rely on my bike and rail & bus. In Los Angeles it's a breeze as Metro basically covers the LA basin and the Valley and I get an Orange County pass free from Disney. I however spend $200 a month for a Metrolink pass additionally which is a sh!t ton of money for me right now.

I will start a thread detailing some cool things about being car free in LA that OKC should take note of and things it should learn from.

One thing is Embark should work to be the parent agency across the metro having its own busses go into the suburbs on certain routes and have what is called a TAP card where you can load set amount of money, monthly pass, one way trip, etc. this is a plastic reusable card valid for 10 years.

One thing I don't like about it is the fact it isn't connect to an account. Strictly uses some technology to tap to load. It's nice but having it tied to an account by option would be better or be able to use Apple Pay and load it like a credit card onto your Apple Wallet would be nice. This way if you didn't have a monthly pass and you weren't near a machine to load money onto your tap card, you could do it via an app or online.

OCTA also has an app where you can purchase a one way or round trip ticket that loads into your phone and simply push use to use it and it stays on for a set amount of time and you show the bus driver, he gives you thumbs up, and you're on your way.

Lots of opportunities and I hope OKC gets it right. I also hope the streetcar doesn't stay free for too long where people get used to that.

Either way whether you advocate for transit or freeways, I hope everyone submitted ideas through the GoBond idea tracker. Syngery creates more and I'm sure it helps the people planning this stuff become more motivated to do so when they know the people in the city are excited about it too.

In terms of sprawl vs density, one of the hidden costs of sprawl is its designed to be disposable. The "nice" areas right now will be marginal 30 years from now, just like many of the more sought after neighborhoods in OKC 30 years ago (like the Putnam City school district area) are now experiencing some problems. The Moore neighborhood I lived in as a child was an upper-middle class neighborhood back in the 90s but if you go to that subdivision today, you can tell that it has declined some. If development remains focused on sprawl, this will be a never-ending cycle. OKC isn't the only city that's experiencing this. It's even worse in Charlotte since its growing and sprawling at a much faster rate.

The solution is simple. The city should have a policy stating that if a developer wants to build subdivisions north of a specific point (given OKC's current sprawl I would say Covell would be a good cutoff point for now), the developer has to pay for all the infrastructure to be run out there as well as road widening if it's needed. The city shouldn't pay for that because it's not a good long-term investment.

If a person wants to live out in the boonies, it's their right and their choice to do so, but they shouldn't expect city services if they are going to live out there.

True, bchris. I grew up in the Warwick neighborhood and went to PC North. The neighborhood is old but still somewhat clean but not really nice like it was in the '80s. Other neighborhoods in the area are worse. And I've heard that PCN is getting kinda ghetto now. People used to move into the area for that school as it was a good school.

In terms of sprawl vs density, one of the hidden costs of sprawl is its designed to be disposable. The "nice" areas right now will be marginal 30 years from now, just like many of the more sought after neighborhoods in OKC 30 years ago (like the Putnam City school district area) are now experiencing some problems. The Moore neighborhood I lived in as a child was an upper-middle class neighborhood back in the 90s but if you go to that subdivision today, you can tell that it has declined some. If development remains focused on sprawl, this will be a never-ending cycle. OKC isn't the only city that's experiencing this. It's even worse in Charlotte since its growing and sprawling at a much faster rate.

The solution is simple. The city should have a policy stating that if a developer wants to build subdivisions north of a specific point (given OKC's current sprawl I would say Covell would be a good cutoff point for now), the developer has to pay for all the infrastructure to be run out there as well as road widening if it's needed. The city shouldn't pay for that because it's not a good long-term investment.

If a person wants to live out in the boonies, it's their right and their choice to do so, but they shouldn't expect city services if they are going to live out there.

It isn't just the sprawl, but the quality of the structures built. In an attempt to make things as affordable as possible, we tend to only consider first costs and are pretty lax in our building requirements. Over time, inflation tends to make it look like value is retained as true value in a structure actually declines. On top of that, we tend to have pretty liberal lending laws/policies which let people buy the most they can afford, and then they have little left over for maintenance, landscaping, improvements, etc. Over time, poorly constructed structures not properly maintained will deteriorate. Just the fact.

True, bchris. I grew up in the Warwick neighborhood and went to PC North. The neighborhood is old but still somewhat clean but not really nice like it was in the '80s. Other neighborhoods in the area are worse. And I've heard that PCN is getting kinda ghetto now. People used to move into the area for that school as it was a good school.It has nothing to with being disposable which is not true or exclusive to sprawl. First off you define what type of sprawl you're even talking about because is such a vague term. If we're talking about suburban sprawl, I can pull tons of examples of dilapidated urban sprawl from all over the world. Sprawl has nothing to do with being urban or suburban.

As for the quality of structured built, you can build the best structure in the world and if you don't take care of it it will go in decline.

Suburban development is NOT designed to be disposable any more or less than urban development is. Cities change, areas get better and worse, and life goes on. Nothing stays the same forever.

It has nothing to with being disposable which is not true or exclusive to sprawl. First off you define what type of sprawl you're even talking about because is such a vague term. If we're talking about suburban sprawl, I can pull tons of examples of dilapidated urban sprawl from all over the world. Sprawl has nothing to do with being urban or suburban.

As for the quality of structured built, you can build the best structure in the world and if you don't take care of it it will go in decline.

Suburban development is NOT designed to be disposable any more or less than urban development is. Cities change, areas get better and worse, and life goes on. Nothing stays the same forever.
I think maybe you meant quote bchris here.

I think maybe you meant quote bchris here.i did my bad.

Not sure exactly where to put this and since this is the most recent thread, I thought I would leave it here:

OKC rejects deannexing land to Mustang

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record April 11, 2017

OKLAHOMA CITY – A developer’s request for Oklahoma City to deannex land to Mustang had City Council members questioning their adherence to the city’s master plan.

“I’m not against deannexing areas,” Councilman James Greiner said. “But we have to decide whether or not it’s good for the city. … When you read the benefits and costs, it’s clear to me that this is not a good deal for Oklahoma City.”

Councilman Larry McAtee disagreed, saying that what’s good for a satellite community such as Mustang is good for Oklahoma City and the larger metro area.

That also was the belief espoused by the seven landowners of Crout Cos., who have been working with Walton
Management in developing the area on Mustang Road just north of the Canadian River with housing, shops, offices and recreational attractions. President Robert Crout said the large-lot, single-family residences would be built at a density requiring public water and sewer service, resources Oklahoma City does not provide in the area. Crout and attorney David Box have been lobbying for the change for two years and had finally negotiated enough changes in the plan to satisfy the Oklahoma City Planning Department.

But the issue died anyway after a 4-5 vote Tuesday. McAtee was joined in the minority by Mayor Mick Cornett, Mark Stonecipher and Todd Stone. It was one of Stone’s first actions as a new council member, succeeding Pete White.

If approved, the agenda item would have diminished the corporate limits of Oklahoma City by about 1,000 acres on the far southwest side. The action would have been followed by annexation by city leaders in Mustang.

Councilman Ed Shadid said the issue was one of the most important policy decisions ever, setting a precedent that would invite more developers to nibble at the edges of the city’s 620 square miles. At worst, it would push speculators to buy property and sit on it as they leveraged one city against the other.

City Hall and its elected officials spent years developing PlanOKC, he said, referring to a comprehensive blueprint intended to guide growth for 10 years at a time. Councilwoman Meg Salyer said she was concerned about circumventing that work.

City staff members reported that if the site developed as proposed, Oklahoma City would forgo property tax and future sales tax revenues. The estimated economic benefit to the city would be $70,700 per year in avoided maintenance and public safety service costs balanced by costs of $192,000 to $549,000 per year in unrealized revenue from property and sales tax.

Greiner said that facilitating the growth of that area ultimately will put more pressure on Oklahoma City to extend utilities and other infrastructure in the area, re-creating the scenario again.

McAtee noted the irony of his peers’ support of the next agenda item, a deannexation of 4 acres to Nichols Hills to serve as a public works and utilities yard. That property is already owned by the other municipality even though it is within Oklahoma City limits.