I really appreciate what Steve does and he is a great asset to OKC which a bunch of other cities lack. I look over news in Dallas all the time and have yet to see any reporter in a city of 7 million people devoted as Steve Lackmeyer here in OKC. While I have disagreed with him in the past, I really respect him and what he does.

Pete is great as well. We are so lucky to have people like Pete and Steve caring so much about OKC. I also appreciate ton of other posters such as Spartan and JTF who don't even live here, but still care about their city and participate in this forum devoting their time to make this city better. There are so many people on this site that provide very valuable information about progress and do things like Urban Pioneer starting the FBB putting in valuable time for others. When I go around and tell people things like what's about to be built, I've had some people ask me how I know information like this and if I have insider sources and I say "nope, it all comes from OKCTalk".

Steve and Pete play two different roles but both obviously care about the city or they wouldn't be doing what they do.

I disagree, Steve Brown a reporter from Dallas is the best in the game and been reporting on downtown development in Dallas for almost 35 years.

Steve Brown | Dallas Morning News (http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/author/sbrown/)

I came from Canton, Ohio to live in OKC last September. The better economy, shorter and less severe winters, and being able to pursue my passion of storm chasing are all reasons for my move. Not to mention, I want to live in a city that has a bright and prosperous future to it. Oklahoma City is that. I'm hoping that we can get some more big projects confirmed in the coming years. But at the same time, I just like not seeing what I saw in Canton, Ohio; a dead downtown, burnt out and abandoned buildings, a list a thousands of abandoned houses that needed to be tore down, and people getting excited about the next gas station or drug store.

Yeah, Canton is rough. Really rough. That downtown is incredible though, even considering that Canton was much larger in its heyday. And welcome to OKC, now I can finally count a Buckeye that has taken my place in OKC. :D

I came from Canton, Ohio to live in OKC last September. The better economy, shorter and less severe winters, and being able to pursue my passion of storm chasing are all reasons for my move. Not to mention, I want to live in a city that has a bright and prosperous future to it. Oklahoma City is that. I'm hoping that we can get some more big projects confirmed in the coming years. But at the same time, I just like not seeing what I saw in Canton, Ohio; a dead downtown, burnt out and abandoned buildings, a list a thousands of abandoned houses that needed to be tore down, and people getting excited about the next gas station or drug store.

Hey, the brewing war between the super 7-11s and Oncue on NW Expressway is something to get excited about!

Yeah, Canton is rough. Really rough. That downtown is incredible though, even considering that Canton was much larger in its heyday. And welcome to OKC, now I can finally count a Buckeye that has taken my place in OKC. :D

I found a video of Downton Canton from the 1980s on Youtube and it amazes me how practically NOTHING has changed since then. It's still a dead downtown area. Especially compared to what it used to be in the 50s. Canton's population peaked at 116,000 in the 1950 census. Since then it's been on the down turn. It's so depressing to see a city decay. Part of why I love OKC; so much development going on.

New 2014 county & metro area population estimates will be released tomorrow by the US Census Bureau, anxious to see the OKC metro growth rate from 2013-2014.

New population figures are out. As of this writing, only counties are out, so I had to do a little spreadsheet action and add them up manually. Apologies in advance if I turn out to be a bit off since I'm writing this at 2 am lol.

OKC
2014 Population: 1,336,767, +17,090 since last year (or about +1.3% yoy, +6.7% since 2010)
Total new migrants: +8,352 (+2,718 International Migrants, +5,634 Domestic Migrants)
CSA Population (OKC+Shawnee): 1,408,578

This area has added roughly 83,700 so far this decade, compared to approximately 50,000 between 2000-04. FWIW the 1.3% figure is a little under the average growth of 1.5ish% this area has experienced over the past decade, so interpret it as you wish.

One thing that struck me was while most counties grew at the same 5 year average, Cleveland County basically stalled, adding only 18 people net, thanks to a net outmigration of 1,783 people. Obviously, the impact of the Moore tornado was captured here. I know that census looks at housing units added (or subtracted) from an area when doing these estimates. But given how many people were displaced and living with family, in hotels, shelters, etc., this may be an overly aggressive level of outmigration that would not be shown during the official count in 2020.

The rest of the state is definitely more of a mixed bag.

Tulsa:
2014 Population: 969,224, +7,663 since last year (or about +0.8% yoy)
Total new migrants: +3,042 (+1,182 International Migrants, +1,860 Domestic Migrants)
CSA Population (Tulsa+Muskogee+Bartlesville+Tahlequah): 1,131,805

Lawton:
2014 Population: 123,033 (-2 since last year). Poor Lawton, with numbers like this, they don't get a breakdown LOL.

This last estimate definitely picked up on the beginning of energy slowdown. In looking at the counties out west that were going gangbusters due to oil drilling, you definitely see a slowdown. Custer County only grew 0.7% in 2014, compared to 2.9% in 2013. Similar story for several of the big oil counties in the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale area in Texas.

A disturbing amount of counties in the eastern half of the state are losing population and have been for several years. An unfortunate number have now more deaths than births.

Here is my source (http://www.freep.com/story/news/2015/03/26/county-population-database-michigan-census/70442980/) if anyone is interested. Official metro numbers should be out today or tomorrow, so it will be interesting to see how we stack up with other MSA's.

Canadian County was/is the fastest growing county in the state, percentage wise.

For some reason, I strongly believe this will be a strong year for growth in OKC proper, despite the downturn in the energy industry.
Tulsa keeps lagging behind, although growing... Just not at a very fast (or respectable) pace.

People have speculated for the past 10 years when Tulsa's MSA will finally break 1 million and it seems it's just crawling along.
In the meantime, I can't wait for OKC to hit 1.5 million MSA. That would firmly put it in it's own place within it's tier. It's already outpaced Memphis and Louisville over the last 10 years, if I'm not mistaken. (and I mean YOY on average MSA overall)

OKC including Shawnee is not unreasonable, but Tulsa including Bartlesville, Muskogee, and Tahlequah is absurd. It would less absurd if the OKC CMSA were to include Chickasha, Stillwater, and Pauls Valley.

I wish that every time the energy industry slowed or dipped that it wouldn't throw everything into question in OKC and Oklahoma.

Thanks for posting this.

If the 1,336,767 number is the same one they end up publishing for the OKC MSA, that means our growth rate slowed down between 7/1/13 and 7/1/14.

Through the first 3.5 years of the decade, we had been on a pace to grow at 15.2% from 2010-20 and now that number would be 14.8% and likely to slow more for at least the next two years or so.

We grew at 14.3% from 2000 to 2010; looks like for 2010-20 that may drop a bit.

For 1990 to 2000, the growth rate was 12.8%

Official data is out: American FactFinder - Results (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk)

The 1,336,767 is the correct count for the OKC metro area, good job adaniel!

We are coming very close to passing Memphis, with their metro population at 1,343,230...

I'd be interested to see OKC's growth in relation to the National Economy…This could be totally errant, but it seems like we see our largest spikes when the national economy is down.

The growth rate from 1990 to 2000 wasn't all that bad especially considering how dark those years were for this area. I wonder how much the slowdown in the 2014 number can be blamed on the 2013 tornadoes. I remember somebody posting a long time ago that they believed the city's growth rate would take a hit because of that. Some of that may be reflected in these latest numbers. Since oil didn't plunge below $70 until the closing months of 2014 I don't think the oil slowdown will be reflected until the 2015 numbers. I think OKC's growth rate was also boosted during the early years of this decade because of how poorly the economy was in most of the rest of the country. People who previously would have never considered living in Oklahoma City were coming here to escape the recession. Now that the national economy is in real recovery my guess is some of that is coming to an end.

I think the city's growth rate will continue to slow as long as oil is down and I also believe the negative press this area has received almost daily so far in 2015 will have at least some impact. Hopefully the oil prices return to a level where it can propel growth because its a fact of life that energy is the primary driver of growth here.

I'd be interested to see OKC's growth in relation to the National Economy…This could be totally errant, but it seems like we see our largest spikes when the national economy is down.

The economy in Oklahoma and Texas are usually counter-cyclical to the broader national economy.

When energy prices are high, OK benefits and the nation suffers; and vice versa.

OKC including Shawnee is not unreasonable, but Tulsa including Bartlesville, Muskogee, and Tahlequah is absurd. It would less absurd if the OKC CMSA were to include Chickasha, Stillwater, and Pauls Valley.

I agree, I think CSA population data should be limited to cities that are within a 30 mile radius.

I also always wondered why the census bureau hasn't classified the metro area as the Oklahoma City-Norman MSA, as they do other cities, with Norman having roughly 120,000 people and 20 miles away?

For example, the Birmingham metro area is classified as the Birmingham-Hoover, AL MSA, with Hoover, AL being 18 miles away to the south of Birmingham, and has a population of 85,000...

Official data is out: American FactFinder - Results (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk)

The 1,336,767 is the correct count for the OKC metro area, good job adaniel!

We are coming very close to passing Memphis, with their metro population at 1,343,230...

Thanks!

I should add I'm almost certain the Census readjusted OKC's 2013 population (which they do from time to time), so that shaves about 900, or 0.1% off this years official growth rate. Everything else should be correct.

We are still at 41 largest metro, but we should pass Memphis next year even with the prospect of slightly slower growth; the rate of change there is practically nonexistant. Sad since that is my dad's hometown.

Even still, we rank 79 out of 381 (21st percentile) in terms of percentage growth.

Something I just noticed as well. At OKC's current population, we represent about 35% of the state's total population yet are accounting for 67% of the state's growth since 2010. Please keep this in mind next time some bubba legislator shakes their fist about how OKC gets all the funding and attention.

OKC including Shawnee is not unreasonable, but Tulsa including Bartlesville, Muskogee, and Tahlequah is absurd. It would less absurd if the OKC CMSA were to include Chickasha, Stillwater, and Pauls Valley.

My thoughts, exactly. I was really wondering why these cities are included in Tulsa's CSA.

Calculating MSA and CSA are dependent on commute patterns. I personally dislike the CSA metric. While it can be good for showing cities' economic influence a lot of times counties are included that are in no way part of the immediate metro area. There are some exceptions like Raleigh and Durham in NC, but for 99% of metro areas in the US I go by the MSA population and ignore the CSA.

OKC including Shawnee is not unreasonable, but Tulsa including Bartlesville, Muskogee, and Tahlequah is absurd. It would less absurd if the OKC CMSA were to include Chickasha, Stillwater, and Pauls Valley.

As bchris stated, all about commuting patterns, my friend. The official breakdown is if 25% of a county's workforce is driving into a designated core "urban county" then it's part of the MSA, if it is less than 25% but more than 15% AND it can at least stand as a separate micropolitan area or MSA itself, than it is part of the CSA. Can't speak for Muskogee or Tahlequah/Cherokee County, but I know a ton of people commute b/w Tulsa and Bartlesville (ConocoPhillips), certainly as many between OKC and Shawnee.

And this is far from the most extreme example. Allentown PA is now part of the Greater NYC CSA even though its 90 miles to Mahattan. Durant is now part of Dallas/FW CSA even though its 95 miles to DTD. The most extreme one I found was Vero Beach being a part of Miami CSA, even though its about 140 miles to Miami.

I know that Census data is empirical and blind, but the issue is that so many funding-related things, such as congestion mitigation funding from FTA/USDOT, brownfields money, tax credits, Section 8 vouchers, and more - all tied to these designated geographies. As was mentioned earlier, OKC is accounting for 67% of the state's growth despite that Tulsa's CMSA covers all of NE Oklahoma. This is a problem because not only does the state fail to support OKC, but they usually pass laws specifically designed to hinder the success of Oklahoma City's revitalization.

The Chamber Junta got the NBA tax credit, but since then it's been bad. Transportation funding still treats OKC and Tulsa as if they are somehow equal, when in fact OKC is over 50% bigger and will soon be twice as large. That's the reality. ODOT refuses to incorporate any design dignity into anything they do in downtown. The legislature specifically targets OKC's minorities (Oklahoma County has the second highest percentage of non-whites after Texas County) and OKC's urban revitalization mechanisms (eminent domain, backward condo laws, and vacant/abandoned registry for just three examples). Now in order to get funding to someday finish the AICC, we also have to support equal pork funding for some tchotchke "Tulsa's Route 66 Can You Believe It Or Not Museum of Oklahoma Pop Culture In The Brady District" or whatever.

The way that this parallel universe of state government remains stacked against OKC is a three-pronged phenomenon: 1, Incredibly strong lobbies for rural and backward interests; 2, Gerrymandering that includes Westmoore HS in the same senate district as Duncan, Oklatucky.; and 3, Insufficiently aggressive local leadership to overcome this.

These numbers suck.

These numbers suck.

I really wonder what Oklahoma is doing differently than the other side of the Red River that is causing so much more tepid growth. Some like to include OKC and Tulsa in the Texas triangle yet growth up here doesn't come close to what the metro areas in Texas are seeing. Even the smaller Texas metros like Midland-Odessa are seeing huge percentage gains. Meanwhile OKC is only seeing moderate growth and Tulsa is pretty close to stagnant. There isn't any real reason that OKC and Tulsa's MSA shouldn't both be 2% year over year or higher. Oklahoma's economic base is not all that different from Texas. What are they doing on the other side of the Red River that isn't being done here?

I really wonder what Oklahoma is doing differently than the other side of the Red River that is causing so much more tepid growth. Some like to include OKC and Tulsa in the Texas triangle yet growth up here doesn't come close to what the metro areas in Texas are seeing. Even the smaller Texas metros like Midland-Odessa are seeing huge percentage gains. Meanwhile OKC is only seeing moderate growth and Tulsa is pretty close to stagnant. There isn't any real reason that OKC and Tulsa's MSA shouldn't both be 2% year over year or higher. Oklahoma's economic base is not all that different from Texas. What are they doing on the other side of the Red River that isn't being done here?

There has to be some study on the matter and a historian can trace the growth of Dallas and Houston compared to the surroundings.

Overall taxes in Texas are on par with OK or higher, but they can claim no income taxes and that is attractive on its face. They had strong leadership in Congress and the Presidency which led to some investment benefits over other areas. Houston was a shipping hub and Dallas a rail hub years ago. Not sure how that evolved. Years ago Dallas was known as an center for insurance and cotton and banking, so it seems it was established a very long time ago as a regional hub.

Dallas has huge sprawling highways, great 6 lane roads, beautiful landscaping, extensive light rail system and bus system that is constantly getting upgrades.

OKC needs to start expanding our highways, build a light rail system through out the metro, widen and reconstruct our roads, expand our airport, beautify the city, and kick these idiots out of office who keep proposing these backwards bills.

I think the two biggest factors in our sh!tty growth is lack of infrastructure and backwards politics.

Here comes the hand wringing.....

Lord knows I don't like being defensive here cause we all know OK needs to work on some things, but even with a slowdown this year OKC is in the top fifth of metros as far as growth rates are concerned.

Its important to note about 2/3rds of TXs growth is coming from naturally expanding Hispanic population, either through immigration or birth rates. So I don't see how you can compare the two on a large scale.

This area needs to keep creating jobs and investing in itself independent of what the state does, but growth just for growth's sake is what cancer cells do. Its not a viable municipal strategy.

Dallas's light rail and wide freeways only happened after Dallas was larger than OKC is now. I can't compare today's OKC with today's Dallas. Look at Dallas when is was a metro area of 1.3million and compare their infrastructure to OKCs.

Regardless, the numbers released are not impressive and this place just doesn't feel like it's booming.

DART began in 1983. Dallas was already a city of 900,000 by then.

Can't imagine the responses if OKC was actually doing poorly.

Dallas's light rail and wide freeways only happened after Dallas was larger than OKC is now. I can't compare today's OKC with today's Dallas. Look at Dallas when is was a metro area of 1.3million and compare their infrastructure to OKCs.the highways aren't much larger than what is in OKC on the fringes. A lot of the highways in the DFW metro are 6 lanes. They are just better built and designed.

God I hate that word....booming. What is that supposed to entail, anyway? What are the standards for it?

I've heard people on this board use the term "booming" to describe Los Angeles and Miami, yet according to these population statistics they experienced quite a bit of outmigration (i,e, people are leaving these areas).

On the flip side, some of the stronger economies in the middle of the country like Omaha and Minneapolis (places that are supposed to be "booming") or even Richmond VA or Salt Lake City recorded solid yet modest growth, or at a minimum, less than OKC. So what are we to make of these figures?

DART began in 1983. Dallas was already a city of 900,000 by then.You're an employer and you want rail based transit in your city. So let me ask you something, are you going to care about how, when, and why it was built? No. What matters is that it is there. Plenty of other cities the size of OKC or close to it have light rail.

God I hate that word....booming. What is that supposed to entail, anyway? What are the standards for it?

I've heard people on this board use the term "booming" to describe Los Angeles and Miami, yet according to these population statistics they experienced quite a bit of outmigration (i,e, people are leaving these areas).

On the flip side, some of the stronger economies in the middle of the country like Omaha and Minneapolis (places that are supposed to be "booming") or even Richmond VA or Salt Lake City recorded solid yet modest growth, or at a minimum, less than OKC. So what are we to make of these figures?yet Miami and LA are still recording population growth. They are desirable cities. OKC is not

I wish OKC could be and I know it can. We need to invest more in our schools, roads, highways, and mass transit. Growth follows infrastructure, not the other way around.

Go back and see what funded Dallas and Houston's huge freeways. A few decades ago, both cities suffered from some of the worse traffic in the USA. It got to the point they had to act and committed to freeway construction. The current freeway system and DART were born from a crisis in their transportation network. OKC is NO WHERE near the mess that forced Dallas and Houston to act.

yet Miami and LA are still recording population growth. They are desirable cities. OKC is not


You clearly misunderstood me. They are recording population growth because of immigrants and a high birth rate. Native born residents are leaving. Over 12,000 in Miami/Ft Lauderdale and over 61,000 in LA/OC. That's just in one year.

Now is the time for OKC and OK to work on infrastructure and schools. No doubt about it; all I am saying is that OKC is not that much different from Dallas was when it was the size of OKC. Dallas was well behind many cities in the 80s and caught up as they grew. OKC must pick up the pace, but by all accounts it is doing so now. Boston, NYC, DC, Chicago, Atlanta, SF, and Philly all had rail well before Dallas did. Dallas woke up and caught up. OKC awoke, it just needs to make sure it now invests as Dallas did.

I don't care at the moment if we don't widen a single highway. Our interchanges need to be rebuilt and stacked. No bs excuses of not having room which seems like that same one is used to defend all of these cloverleaf half ass interchange.

Kilpatrick needs to be extended into a new loop that goes around Norman to I40. New highway for east Oklahoma county. A new highway cutting through Moore. SH74 turned into a four lane divided wrapped around Edmond over Waterloo. NW 39th turned into below grade 8 lane highway with service roads and capped under Bethany. May, Penn, Western, SE 89th, and a number of other roads widened to six lanes with turn lands and median with landscaping. New mass transit upgrades and bus routes upgraded. New bike lanes and greenway throughout the city connecting Edmond-OKC and Norman.

Commuter rail Piedmont-Guthrie-Edmond-OKC-Norman-Blanchard-Chickasha. Light rail from Norman-OKC-Midwest City-Yukon-Mustang-Edmond. HSR connecting OKC-Dallas-Austin-Houston-San Antonio.

So that, the city will boom.

Now is the time for OKC and OK to work on infrastructure and schools. No doubt about it; all I am saying is that OKC is not that much different from Dallas was when it was the size of OKC. Dallas was well behind many cities in the 80s and caught up as they grew. OKC must pick up the pace, but by all accounts it is doing so now. Boston, NYC, DC, Chicago, Atlanta, SF, and Philly all had rail well before Dallas did. Dallas woke up and caught up. OKC awoke, it just needs to make sure it now invests as Dallas did.


That is very fair and I agree with you.

You clearly misunderstood me. They are recording population growth because of immigrants and a high birth rate. Native born residents are leaving. Over 12,000 in Miami/Ft Lauderdale and over 61,000 in LA/OC. That's just in one year.
I see.

PluPan, If only more people cared as much as you do about your surroundings, OKC would be amazing. I am afraid OKC suffers from complacency as much as anything.

IMO, I prefer to live in a metro area between, 1.5. - 1.8 million, I think that is about my speed, even though Dallas is nice to visit, too many people for me. I think within the next five years, in 2020, the OKC metro will be around 1.5 million, I think that's fair.

Canadian County continues fast growth, new Census Bureau data shows | News OK (http://newsok.com/canadian-county-continues-fast-growth-new-census-bureau-data-shows/article/5404723)

I agree, I think CSA population data should be limited to cities that are within a 30 mile radius.

I also always wondered why the census bureau hasn't classified the metro area as the Oklahoma City-Norman MSA, as they do other cities, with Norman having roughly 120,000 people and 20 miles away?

For example, the Birmingham metro area is classified as the Birmingham-Hoover, AL MSA, with Hoover, AL being 18 miles away to the south of Birmingham, and has a population of 85,000...

I think OKC is so significantly larger than ANY other city in central OK that it doesn't make sense to call out any other suburb in the metro title. OKC just dominates central Oklahoma (not to mention OK in general) so much that no other city has enough of a job or commute pattern to matter.

Unlike here in Seattle area where ours is called Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue MSA where these three are the primary job and commute cities for the region.Same for Dallas-Ft Worth (no other metro city really matters for traffic) and Chicago-Naperville (I wonder why they include Naperville since it doesn't really stack up other than being an anchor for the west - but honeslty I'd say Aurora is moreso than Naperville). Denver-Aurora also comes to mind.


I personally wonder why Shawnee is not included in the MSA as I'd include it in the MSA and put Stillwater in the CSA; me personally. Under my idea, OKC metro would be 1.4m and OKC-Stillwater CSA would be 1.5m.

How about the Oklahoma CIty-Lawton-Stillwater-Tulsa Combined Statistical Area. The population is 2,469,625.

OKC is experiencing slower growth in part because of how far we have had to come. In the 80s Dallas had a big tv show, called "Dallas", that glamorized the city. OKC has been struggling to shed a bad image, and while we have been making progress and seeing very nice growth, we are way behind the big Texas cities as far as our image goes.

OKC needs to develop its urban core. A metro rail system, a dozen new towers downtown, the streetcar and walkable neighborhoods from 13th down to the interstate. Give us another 10 years. Win a few NBA championships. The people who come to visit OKC will have a lot of good things to say about it. In the meantime, the city needs to really improve its public schools. And the chamber needs to support candidates who aren't an embarrassment.

Here's the thing Tulsa and OKC will NEVER be major cities! As we continue to grow the major cities will grow faster then us. We may beat some other large cities but we won't ever be considered major cities. I think both cities needs to focus on how to be the best large cities in the country. Both cities are getting new major retailers because we are so small. They have been in the big cities for years and nobody there cares anymore. So smaller cities like OKC and Tulsa are getting more major retailers now because they are a big deal in smaller cities. So right now I think both cities need to continue to focus on making our cities better so we don't become small cities.

I personally wonder why Shawnee is not included in the MSA as I'd include it in the MSA and put Stillwater in the CSA; me personally. Under my idea, OKC metro would be 1.4m and OKC-Stillwater CSA would be 1.5m.

Shawnee is not included in the MSA and Stillwater is not in the CSA because they both don't meet the thresholds of the MSA and CSA. For a county to be a part of an MSA, at least 25% of that county's residents must work in the central county, CSA is at least 15%.

The latest data I could find is from 2011, OnTheMap (http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/)
22.6% of Pottawatomie County's workers are employed in Oklahoma County, just shy of MSA requirement but meets CSA's.
Only 10.0% of Payne County's workers are employed in Oklahoma County, so it doesn't meet CSA requirement.

Dallas has huge sprawling highways, great 6 lane roads, beautiful landscaping, extensive light rail system and bus system that is constantly getting upgrades.

OKC needs to start expanding our highways, build a light rail system through out the metro, widen and reconstruct our roads, expand our airport, beautify the city, and kick these idiots out of office who keep proposing these backwards bills.

I think the two biggest factors in our sh!tty growth is lack of infrastructure and backwards politics.

When are you going to quit the narrative that DFW is good at transportation? The highways are logjammed nightmares and the DART is an example how NOT to do rail. Yet you just keep saying it... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

When are you going to quit the narrative that DFW is good at transportation? The highways are logjammed nightmares and the DART is an example how NOT to do rail. Yet you just keep saying it... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯The highway are not logjammed nightmares and DART is excellent. I've used it twice now and it takes me wherever I need to go.

I will am not going to stop saying it because I'm not wrong. DFW is great at transportation. This literally goes around and around with people of OKCTalk here. It is absurd.

You need to understand the context of when I say DART is good. I'm not comparing it to urban rail lines such as Chicago, Philly, or NYC. For the suburban city that Dallas is and should stay as, DART does an excellent job. I've talked with multiple people who live it and use it everyday.

For the millionth time, Dallas does have packed highways. I AM THERE ALL THE TIME! THEY MOVE!!!!!! Mostly. Remember, DFW is closing in on 7 million people. You can't build big enough highway to where there will never be back ups. Have you missed my post on where I point out I was driving in DFW area highways at 4:3- doing 80-85? Do you just choose to ignore that because you want to believe Dallas has nightmare highways that are parking lots?

This sentiment is a joke. I don't know how else to put it to you. If I remember right, you actually live in the DFW area. So there are either two things going on here, you either just want to paint a bad image on Dallas because you disagree with their development practices or Dallas has just done such a good job at moving 7 million people, you fail to realize how bad other cities clog up that have 7 million people.

I visit Dallas about once a week and sometimes more. Other than 35E & Stemmons Freeway, Dallas highway move good. I have never once encountered a traffic jam on George Bush or Sam Rayburn Tollways that wasn't accident or construction related. I will hit the occasional back-up on Central Expressway due to the sheer volume of cars and yes, that is bad traffic. There is no telling with that highway. It makes me think of an LA type highway that randomly back-ups various times of the day, although more often than not, I'm able to move at the speed limit(at the very least 10 under). The NDT is usually packed with cars, but it moves. I'll hit the occasional snag right around Mockingbird and Lovers LN, but it generally stays above 20MPH and doesn't last more than a mile or two before it is back up and moving. There are a couple other places it backs snags up after 635, but again, for the most part, it is only for a mile or two and it still moves above 35MPH and I'd say 80% of the highway from 635 to 380 moves well over 70MPH.

If so, I'd like to know the times of day you, Adaniel, and anyone else who thinks Dallas has nightmare traffic. I'd also like to know what highway it was and how fast you were moving. Please be specific. It is annoying how I'm giving near exact specs of highway, speed, and time of day and all I get in return is a general statement of Dallas traffic or a couple names like the obvious 35E and 635. Then Adaniel who says it constantly backed-up which is complete and udder BS because I was on it earlier this week about 2pm and it was moving just fine.

Also, let me remind people once more, Dallas has nearly 7 million people. I don't know why, I just get the feeling that some people fail to factor that in when there is a back-up in Dallas traffic and all of sudden, the whole city is like that all of time.

Here is some interesting growth info.

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/releases/2015/cb15-56_graphic.jpg


The Villages, Fla., Nation’s Fastest-Growing Metro Area for Second Year in a Row

Florida was home to the nation's fastest growing metro area from 2013 to 2014, according to new U.S. Census Bureau metropolitan statistical area, micropolitan statistical area and county population estimates released today.

The Villages, located to the west of the Orlando metro area, grew by 5.4 percent between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2014, to reach a population of about 114,000. State population estimates released in December revealed that Florida had become the nation's third most populous state. Today's estimates show Florida's growth to reach this milestone was propelled by numerous metro areas and counties within the state.

Florida contained seven of the nation's top 50 numerically gaining metro areas between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2014, and these areas accounted for more than three-quarters of the state's population gain over the period:

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach (with a one-year gain of about 66,000).
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford (about 50,000).
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater (about 41,000).
Jacksonville (about 23,000).
Cape Coral-Fort Myers (about 18,000).
North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton (about 16,000).
Lakeland-Winter Haven (about 11,000).
In addition, eight counties within these metro areas were among 50 counties nationwide that gained the most population between 2013 and 2014. Collectively, these counties accounted for more than half of the state's population gain over the period:

All three counties in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach metro area: Broward (with a population gain of about 24,000 over the period), Palm Beach (about 22,000) and Miami-Dade (about 21,000).
Two counties in the Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford metro area: Orange (about 26,000) and Osceola (about 11,000).
One county in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater metro area: Hillsborough (about 22,000).
The single counties that comprise the Cape Coral-Fort Myers and Lakeland-Winter Haven metro areas: Lee (18,000) and Polk (11,000), respectively.
Furthermore, six metro areas in Florida were among the 20 fastest-growing in the nation between 2013 and 2014. In addition to The Villages, they were Cape Coral-Fort Myers (sixth), Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island (10th), Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford (16th), North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton (18th) and Panama City (19th).

"Florida's ascension, revealed when the 2014 state population estimates were released last December, was a significant demographic milestone for our country," Census Bureau Director John H. Thompson said. "These county and metro area estimates provide a more detailed picture of how this happened, showing growth in areas such as central and southern Florida."

Migration to Florida from other states and abroad was heavy enough to overcome the fact that in about half the state's counties, there were more deaths than births over the 2013 to 2014 period.


Lone Star State's Notable Growth

There were two states -- Texas (with 11) and California (with 10) -- with even more counties than Florida on the list of the top 50 numerical gainers. Two Texas metro areas -- Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land and Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington -- were the only ones in the country to add more than 100,000 residents over the 2013-2014 period. Within the Houston metro area, Harris County alone gained almost 89,000 people, more than any other county in the nation. The Lone Star State also had four metro areas among the nation's 20 fastest growing by rate of change: Austin-Round Rock (third), Odessa (fourth), Midland (ninth) and Houston (11th).

With a population increase of 8.7 percent from July 1, 2013, to July 1, 2014, Williams, N.D., remained the nation's fastest-growing county (among counties with populations of 10,000 or more in 2013), although its growth slowed from the previous one-year period. Following Williams on the list were Stark, N.D. (7.0 percent), whose growth accelerated from the previous year; Sumter, Fla. (5.4 percent); Pickens, Ala. (5.1 percent); and Hays, Texas (4.8 percent).

Man. I just can't believe that those Texas cities are growing with those large highways that people on here constantly gripe about being a detriment to growth and blah blah. . . :)


Counties

Los Angeles, Calif., is still the nation's most populous county with a July 1, 2014, population surpassing 10.1 million.

Between 2013 and 2014, North Carolina became the ninth-most populous state (up from 10th). Its growth was fueled by two counties that were among the 50 top numerical gainers: Wake (Raleigh), which added about 24,000 people over the period, and Mecklenburg (Charlotte), which grew by about 20,000.

Although New York fell out of third place in state population between 2013 and 2014, it did have three counties among the top 50 numerical gainers. Each was a New York City borough: Kings (Brooklyn), which added about 19,000; Queens, which gained about 18,000; and Bronx (with an increase of about 11,000).

Among the largest counties (those with total populations of 250,000 or more in 2013), the three fastest growing were in Texas: Fort Bend, Montgomery and Williamson. Each grew by at least 3.8 percent over the period.

Among very small counties, Sterling, Texas, was the fastest growing of those with a population of fewer than 5,000 people in 2013 (8.9 percent growth). Among those in the 5,000-9,999 population range, McKenzie, N.D., led in rate of growth (18.3 percent).

The fastest-losing county between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2014 (among counties with 2013 populations of 10,000 or more) was Chattahoochee, Ga., which declined by 4.2 percent. Hale, Texas (-3.0 percent) and Colfax, N.M. (-2.9 percent) followed.
Wayne, Mich. (Detroit) remains the county with the largest numeric decline, by far, at just less than 11,000. The next largest decline belonged to Cuyahoga, Ohio (Cleveland) at slightly more than 4,000.

More interesting notes


Metro areas

The Carolinas were home to four of the nation's 20 fastest-growing metro areas between 2013 and 2014: Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, S.C.-N.C. (second); Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Beaufort, S.C. (13th); Raleigh, N.C. (15th); and Charleston-North Charleston, S.C. (17th).

The nation's metro areas contained about 272.7 million people in 2014, an increase of about 2.4 million from 2013.

Bismarck, N.D., was the fastest-growing metro area outside of the South or West between 2013 and 2014 (22nd overall).

Overall, 298 of the 381 metro areas in the United States gained population between 2013 and 2014.

There were 53 metro areas with 2014 populations of 1 million or more. New York was the nation's largest metro area in 2014, with about 20.1 million people.

The Tucson, Ariz., metro area surpassed the 1 million population threshold between 2013 and 2014.

Micro areas

The nation's micro areas contained about 27.2 million people in 2014, an increase of about 13,000 from 2013.

The two fastest-growing micro areas between 2013 and 2014 were in North Dakota: Williston and Dickinson.

Two Utah micro areas, Heber and Vernal, also were among the top-five fastest growing between 2013 and 2014.

Overall, fewer than half (244 out of 536) of the U.S. micro areas gained population between 2013 and 2014.
Puerto Rico

San Juan continued to be the most populous municipio (which are similar to counties), with 365,575 residents on July 1, 2014, followed by Baymón with 194,210 and Carolina with 165,820 residents.

Gurabo had the largest numerical increase of any municipio between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2014, gaining about 246 residents.

Four municipios experienced growth in their populations between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2014: Gurabo (0.52 percent growth), Barceloneta (0.08 percent growth), Culebra (0.06 percent growth) and Toa Alta (0.01 percent growth). The remainder experienced a population decline over the period.

Each of Puerto Rico's seven metro areas and five micro areas declined in population between 2013 and 2014.

In the coming months, the Census Bureau will release 2014 population estimates of cities and towns, as well as national, state and county population estimates by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin.

Population Estimates for Counties and Metro Areas (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-56.html?intcmp=sldr1)

Again, I live in DFW, I don't just visit it once a week. I drive here all the time. You can discount that if you choose. Jeff Speck wrote in Walkable Cities about how/why the DART is the model for what NOT to do with transit. Give it a read. It's got a ton of problems, is way underused, and is often unusable. For example, I love transit and want to take it this weekend, but the train runs so infrequently that it would take me 2 hours to get home. So, I'm driving... which means I'm going to face terrible traffic as always.

Again, I live in DFW, I don't just visit it once a week. I drive here all the time. You can discount that if you choose. Jeff Speck wrote in Walkable Cities about how/why the DART is the model for what NOT to do with transit. Give it a read. It's got a ton of problems, is way underused, and is often unusable. For example, I love transit and want to take it this weekend, but the train runs so infrequently that it would take me 2 hours to get home. So, I'm driving... which means I'm going to face terrible traffic as always.

Driving in Dallas makes me want to kill. I hate the fact that I have to go down there for good metal shows that skip OKC, but it is what it is.

Again, I live in DFW, I don't just visit it once a week. I drive here all the time. You can discount that if you choose. Jeff Speck wrote in Walkable Cities about how/why the DART is the model for what NOT to do with transit. Give it a read. It's got a ton of problems, is way underused, and is often unusable. For example, I love transit and want to take it this weekend, but the train runs so infrequently that it would take me 2 hours to get home. So, I'm driving... which means I'm going to face terrible traffic as always.I am willing to take a gold bet I have driven more miles than you in DFW area this year. I'm not discounting you, I just want to know what highways they are, what times of day you are encountering bad traffic, and how fast you're moving.

Jeff Speck needs not to concern himself with Dallas. If his cities are as prosperous and great as you say they are, you should have no issue finding a job and living in one seeing as you'd save money, be healthier & live longer, and very other benefit the resident urbanist continue to claim urbanism provides.

Man. I just can't believe that those Texas cities are growing with those large highways that people on here constantly gripe about being a detriment to growth and blah blah. . . :)

Pretty sure all those large highways were built in response to demand, growth, and congestion because automobile traffic was already the standard. Not the other way around...

It's pretty apparent a metro of 1.3 million doesn't and SHOULDN'T need the infrastructure of a 6 million+ metro. Not to say that there aren't plenty of things we can improve upon and plan for, but the whole Dallas vs OKC is such old diatribe by now. Dallas is not OKC's end-all and personally, I'm tired of coming to OKCtalk and reading about how superior Dallas is...

I was contemplating our population growth, and I think OKC is still poised for a population 'boom'. Just because the figures were not as strong as hoped for, does not mean we are stagnating or will never grow at a faster rate. This city has come such a long ways since 2000, but the transformation hasn't translated into population growth YET. For all we have done and all that has been accomplished, we are just now approaching the tipping scale in terms of critical mass Downtown and to be honest, a lot of it was catch-up. We are just now starting to see big-city development roll-in: Metropolitan, OG&E Energy Center, 499 Sheridan, The Steelyard, The LIFT, GE Research Center, the massive amounts of manufacturing and energy services, a very good real estate and office market, new retail offerings, Chisholm Creek, Glimcher, rail transit connecting Tulsa and OKC, OKC Streetcar, improved transit, etc.

We are at a momentous point in time for Oklahoma City and I truly believe that momentum has just begun to snowball within the last year or so. The projects listed above alone are a strong sign of that snowball-effect gaining traction and a city that is poised for high-growth.

Plu, remember our talk about passion aligning with the facts? The data doesn't support you man. It just doesn't.

Traffic congestion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_congestion#United_States)the data doesn't support me. Cool. Guess we'll just leave at you think I'm lying because I'm there all the time and traffic is flowing just fine most of the time.

All the cities around the world that are booming WITHOUT stacked highways....
Well, I would certainly consider Dallas to be booming as it added over 100,000 people last year alone. So did Houston. The only cities in the US to do so.

Whatever other cities are booming, good for them.

Ugh, as usual PluPan you have completely derailed a thread to discuss Dallas, freeways, your (terrible) driving habits, and/or traffic. Bravo.

And are you really as a 21 year old kid who does not even live here going to try and challenge adults who live here permanently and have to put up with stuff DAILY and the impact it has on their lives? Am I really hearing you correctly?

Ugh, as usual PluPan you have completely derailed a thread to discuss Dallas, freeways, your (terrible) driving habits, and/or traffic. Bravo.

And are you really as a 21 year old kid who does not even live here going to try and challenge adults who live here permanently and have to put up with stuff DAILY and the impact it has on their lives? Am I really hearing you correctly?
Exactly the crap I expected. No exact examples of why you think Dallas has bad traffic. This 21 old kid has also talked to 'adults' who do live and work in Dallas and they feel the same way. Just another example of how disconnected the Internet is from reality.

I'll post a thread about it.