They're getting $12 million from the Texas enterprise fund and more money from Houston. My goodness.

So they're getting like a break from their 2014 property taxes? $12M to a $241B corporation is a senior manager's expense account. It's a nice gesture from Texas, but it's a bit like giving your millionaire uncle a $125 gift certificate to Ruth's Chris.

So they're getting like a break from their 2014 property taxes? $12M to a $241B corporation is a senior manager's expense account. It's a nice gesture from Texas, but it's a bit like giving your millionaire uncle a $125 gift certificate to Ruth's Chris.

I get that. But $12 million from the state and then more from Houston is not exactly chump change. I wonder how Oklahoma's incentives stack up.

Another set of towers that will look great from 20 miles away and won't do squat for the people standing on the sidewalk right in front of them. I would prefer that kind of development stays in Houston.

It will stay in Houston, along with thousands of jobs it houses....thousands to walk those street level neighborhoods that can be developed near by. I love how so many new urbanists hate job creation and can't see a connection to a healthy city. I guarantee that that magnitude of a development in core OKC would hugely increase livable density in DD, Btown, AA, Film Row, Core to Shore, MidTown, SOSA.

Ironically, Vancouver is now facing a problem with their core because they think they have TOO MUCH housing and too few jobs in the core area, with companies chased out to the burbs. Their problem is commuting OUT, not in.

That said, I think it is possible to do both.

...or Rover, they could make the new develop enhance the skyline AND the street it is on.

That is why I said they can do both. But, I would rather have this development as is than to not have the jobs, like some.

I guess you have to wonder what the real localized economic impact is of a business whose employees park in a company owned on-site parking garage, eat in a company owned on-site cafeteria, work-out in a company owned on-site gym, and drive home 15 miles in a single occupant vehicle.

Another example of absolute and extreme dogma at work. You seem a lot more intelligent than to actually believe your one note diatribe. To ignore the economic impact of a business like that locating in our core is absurd. To think it wouldn't contribute to more and better development in and around downtown is silly. To think Devon's only impact is outside of downtown is crazy. Do we want ONLY Devon and this type of development downtown....absolutely not. But to think the core is better off without the jobs and that having a couple more thousand people downtown won't allow for more good livable development downtown is just unreasonable and totally illogical.

It is horrible street interaction. The building doesn't interact with the rest of the city in any meaningful way.

That said a $500 million building going downtown, even with bad street interaction, is better than an empty lot.

Another set of towers that will look great from 20 miles away and won't do squat for the people standing on the sidewalk right in front of them. I would prefer that kind of development stays in Houston.

I wish more people read what was written rather than what they think was written.


Improve Reading Comprehension | Scholastic.com (http://www.scholastic.com/parents/resources/article/developing-reading-skills/improve-reading-comprehension)

Then some things need to be written more clearly and without constant agenda.

An apology would suffice.

Texas has big slush funds available to attract business.....

Texas cities also have much more momentum than OKC. Houston and Dallas are simply massive and Austin is one of America's favorite cities and on the shortlist of cities recent college grads would most like to move to. For OKC to have come as far as it has - that is to get Devon Tower, the Thunder, and all the other downtown developments - without being a 'boomtown' ala Austin and having the national image it has is simply remarkable. When these new tower(s) get announced that will further solidify it. I don't think OKC's peer cities (Tulsa, Memphis, Louisville) are anywhere close to getting the kind of announcement coming to OKC when these new tower(s) finally are announced.

An apology would suffice.

If you are offering, I will be glad to accept for all of us.

If you are offering, I will be glad to accept for all of us.

I think everyone wishes both of you would stop.

Texas cities also have much more momentum than OKC. Houston and Dallas are simply massive and Austin is one of America's favorite cities and on the shortlist of cities recent college grads would most like to move to. For OKC to have come as far as it has - that is to get Devon Tower, the Thunder, and all the other downtown developments - without being a 'boomtown' ala Austin and having the national image it has is simply remarkable.

Agree, but where I disagree is with your term "boomtown." OKC is a boomtown by virtually any measure. Austin is running out of space for development and has become a traffic nightmare. Houston is one of the most sprawling, unappealing cities in the US. Dallas is a sprawling traffic mess. So we're not growing "quite as fast" as these cities? OK by me.

But OKC is one of the fastest-growing cities in the US, with one of the lowest unemployment rates, and with genuine increases in per capita income. Also, while we are growing, we're growing at a more manageable rate than the Texas cities.

Austin in particular is losing what was once great about itself: it's laid back, funky bohemianism and it's environmental treasures. it's being transformed from an environmental oasis into an ecological disaster of traffic gridlock, unsustainable cost of living increases, and destruction of water and natural resources.

I think everyone wishes both of you would stop.

Fair enough - back to mystery towers and what we can learn from Texas.

Agree, but where I disagree is with your term "boomtown." OKC is a boomtown by virtually any measure. Austin is running out of space for development and has become a traffic nightmare. Houston is one of the most sprawling, unappealing cities in the US. Dallas is a sprawling traffic mess. So we're not growing "quite as fast" as these cities? OK by me.

But OKC is one of the fastest-growing cities in the US, with one of the lowest unemployment rates, and with genuine increases in per capita income. Also, while we are growing, we're growing at a more manageable rate than the Texas cities.

Austin in particular is losing what was once great about itself: it's laid back, funky bohemianism and it's environmental treasures. it's being transformed from an environmental oasis into an ecological disaster of traffic gridlock, unsustainable cost of living increases, and destruction of water and natural resources.

I agree about Austin. I have been only once, back in 2007, but I saw then that its clear the city was never meant to be as large as it has become and with a metro approaching 2 million only served by a single interstate, it has becoming a major traffic nightmare. I would hate to live in Round Rock and have to commute to downtown Austin, but that's what a lot of people do. Personally I thought the city was overrated, but then again I didn't really get to experience much of the nightlife. I wonder if Austin will see a bust like most cities with that type of speculative booms do.

Nonetheless, Austin still has the 'hype' factor surrounding it. It would be nice to see the kind of building boom they have seen here in OKC, even if on a smaller scale. The Austin skyline was virtually unchanged for many years and then starting around 2008 towers starting going up like weeds.

I think everyone wishes both of you would stop.

Agreed.

But this thread will continue to wander from the actual subject until new and specific information is found/released. That is why it deteriorates into gross arguments about generalization in urban building design and community planning.

I think we need to quit obsessing on Texas. While we can point out all the flaws, they have done many, many things right. Austin downtown out to the University is taking on a very urban characteristic with lots of high and mid-rise housing, upscale, mid-scale and lower end hotels, many great restaurants and pockets of club scenes, etc., etc. Dallas has implemented a wide spread and seemingly successful mass trans rail system. San Antonio found a way to turn a sewer into a downtown development magnet.

With regards THIS project, from what we know, the first floor or two will be retail/mixed use. The tower will generate work for hundreds and will improve density downtown and income for hundreds to live and shop downtown. So, why are we wringing our hands worried about what Houston, or Austin, or Dallas just got and how screwed up they are? WE appear to be on the brink of a new brick in the downtown structure and it sounds like a winner, from what we know.

Here's an idea to add to more speculation: If we were talking about the CBD, where would be places a company could logically (without tearing down a bunch of buildings) place a tower. Stage Center and the Preftakes block have already been identified. The place where the Chamber of Commerce site at EK Gaylord, 4th and the railroad tracks have been talked about. Also, the parking lot facing Reno in Bricktown in front of the U-Haul building has also been discussed. Obviously there is a lot of space in the Core to Shore area as well. What other areas am I leaving out?

Then some things need to be written more clearly and without constant agenda.

No offense, Rover, but you have a pretty consistent agenda/point of view also. It's not bad to come to a situation with a consistent ideology (e.g., Rover is unapologetically pro-business, Just the Facts is unapologetically pro-new urbanism), but its also good to question your own assumptions when having a dialogue with those who don't adhere to your ideological bent. Just my perspective.

An apology would suffice.

If you are offering, I will be glad to accept for all of us.
LOL you two should get a room.

...Also, the parking lot facing Reno in Bricktown in front of the U-Haul building has also been discussed...

I must have missed that. When was that discussed and who was the rumored tenant? Inquiring mind would like to know :-)

No offense, Rover, but you have a pretty consistent agenda/point of view also. It's not bad to come to a situation with a consistent ideology (e.g., Rover is unapologetically pro-business, Just the Facts is unapologetically pro-new urbanism), but its also good to question your own assumptions when having a dialogue with those who don't adhere to your ideological bent. Just my perspective.

No offense taken. Thanks for the feedback and apologies to readers of the thread.

I indeed am pro-business AND pro responsible development. You may be surprised to know I am actually very pro new-urbanism (PRINCIPALS). But any philosophy taken to its extremes isn't wise. If we have a new tower, the owners shouldn't have carte blanche to build whatever they want, but whatever is within the rules put in place which reflect the true wishes of the community it wishes to fit in with. Those wishes should be memorialized in covenents, rules, laws, etc. and enforced properly. Those rules shouldn't be made to compensate for supposed conspiracies of motor companies and politicians, etc. I believe heavily in the power of freedom of choice and in the laws of economics. This city is improving as we mature, become more educated, and learn more about what we want and don't want as a community. Our community future is not to be found in any book or in any single person's interpretation of the cure to all social ills. That was tried in many communist communities and has failed miserably.

From what we have seen on here, there is no reason yet to believe this soon to be announced project will be irresponsible or unwise. Why don't we wait and see what we are faced with. Then, judgement will occur and we can debate the merits all day long. And still, we won't totally know how good or bad it is/will be until years have passed and the entire area develops. I think we get so myopic we fail to see how we ARE creating all those great neighborhood things, but we don't have to do it on each and every block and it isn't going to happen in a year.

I am looking forward to finding out who is building. And, I hope it is bringing new jobs. AND, I hope it enhances the market for housing and shopping downtown, not to mention entertainment and the arts. With all the business energy focusing on downtown, we will have all that we want....in time.

I think everyone wishes both of you would stop.

Amen brother! Preaching to the choir only works the first time! We are here to talk about this tower that is about to be built in our backyard! That is all we want to see, hear, smell, drink, and breath! Not Houston, Dallas, or Austin.

We are so close, I can breath it!

I must have missed that. When was that discussed and who was the rumored tenant? Inquiring mind would like to know :-)

There was not a rumored tenant, it was more of an idea of where one could go.

I agree about Austin. I have been only once, back in 2007, but I saw then that its clear the city was never meant to be as large as it has become and with a metro approaching 2 million only served by a single interstate, it has becoming a major traffic nightmare. I would hate to live in Round Rock and have to commute to downtown Austin, but that's what a lot of people do. Personally I thought the city was overrated, but then again I didn't really get to experience much of the nightlife. I wonder if Austin will see a bust like most cities with that type of speculative booms do.

Nonetheless, Austin still has the 'hype' factor surrounding it. It would be nice to see the kind of building boom they have seen here in OKC, even if on a smaller scale. The Austin skyline was virtually unchanged for many years and then starting around 2008 towers starting going up like weeds.

It won't be a "bust," it will just change. It already has. Don't get me wrong: it's a great city with many wonderful charms. It has just changed remarkably, and not all for the better. I would like to see OKC grow and change more, but at a more sustainable pace than Austin, and that is what is already happening.

OKC has much, much better infrastructure to accommodate boom growth than just about any other city.

Even with the rapid population growth, there is virtually zero traffic any time of day and tons of room for in-fill and new development in every direction.

For those reasons, the City could continue to grow very quickly and even pick up the pace, and you would probably never see the problems in Dallas and Austin.

...or Rover, they could make the new develop enhance the skyline AND the street it is on.I actually think the bottom is great. . . the top is kind of boring.

It will stay in Houston, along with thousands of jobs it houses....thousands to walk those street level neighborhoods that can be developed near by. I love how so many new urbanists hate job creation and can't see a connection to a healthy city. I guarantee that that magnitude of a development in core OKC would hugely increase livable density in DD, Btown, AA, Film Row, Core to Shore, MidTown, SOSA.

Ironically, Vancouver is now facing a problem with their core because they think they have TOO MUCH housing and too few jobs in the core area, with companies chased out to the burbs. Their problem is commuting OUT, not in.

That said, I think it is possible to do both.
Quick Vancouver Update (as Rover's statement is a little bit old news)

Vancouver is working HARD to solve this problem; they are way ahead of most cities in terms of downtown jobs already but they have 'overbuilt' in residential somewhat so that not everyone who lives downtown works downtown. The real problem is they have view cones which protect views of the northshore mountains from city hall, which limits most of the height that can be achieved in the core. They don't want any supertall towers blocking any mountains from the other side of town. This has put office space in the downtown peninsula at a significant premium, where it is much cheaper to rent out in the suburbs and many companies do so (it also helps to have a subway system in place. ..). Today there are a number of significantly sized office towers under-construction in downtown Vancouver and more proposed, but I do hope city hall will relax those height restrictions to really give the city a much needed boost.

I know this isn't mystery tower but I did want to note this about Vancouver since I am close. .. :)

With OKC's current infrastructure, what would be the guess as to how many people we could hold and still function reasonably? Obviously where the extra population is placed would make a difference but assuming the most strategic. Would going from 600k to about 1M and the metro from 1.3M to 2.5M+ be a realistic guess?

With OKC's current infrastructure, what would be the guess as to how many people we could hold and still function reasonably? Obviously where the extra population is placed would make a difference but assuming the most strategic. Would going from 600k to about 1M and the metro from 1.3M to 2.5M+ be a realistic guess?

That is probably about right. I would say OKC's current infrastructure could support about 3 million people. Downtown is going to get denser but there is still a lot of suburban infill that can be done. I do think existing freeways will need to be widened though to support that many people. In an OKC with 3 million people, I wouldn't even want to think of what I-35 and I-44 will look like. I think I-35 could already stand to be widened to at least 4 lanes going each direction between Norman and downtown. Plan for the future and make it 5 lanes going each direction with one HOV lane.

Actually it is a pretty well-documented paradox that adding more lanes adds more traffic and congestion rather than alleviating it.

That is probably about right. I would say OKC's current infrastructure could support about 3 million people. Downtown is going to get denser but there is still a lot of suburban infill that can be done. I do think existing freeways will need to be widened though to support that many people. In an OKC with 3 million people, I wouldn't even want to think of what I-35 and I-44 will look like. I think I-35 could already stand to be widened to at least 4 lanes going each direction between Norman and downtown. Plan for the future and make it 5 lanes going each direction with one HOV lane.

Yikes. Go back to Charlotte if that's your type of city.

That is probably about right. I would say OKC's current infrastructure could support about 3 million people. Downtown is going to get denser but there is still a lot of suburban infill that can be done. I do think existing freeways will need to be widened though to support that many people. In an OKC with 3 million people, I wouldn't even want to think of what I-35 and I-44 will look like. I think I-35 could already stand to be widened to at least 4 lanes going each direction between Norman and downtown. Plan for the future and make it 5 lanes going each direction with one HOV lane.I agree completely with this! I am not sold at all on induced demand, like some claim. Obviously, if you only add one lane each way, when a highway gets overcrowded, it won't do much. But if we made I-35 to Norman 8 lanes plus an HOV lane each way(which would amount to 10 lanes to Norman, that would solve the traffic problem for years to come I guarantee it! OKC has really has moderate traffic right now, our interchanges just suck. The two highway's I think will definitely need to be widened is I-35 from downtown to Norman, and that stretch of I-35 from I-44 and I-40. It needs to be 6 lanes now.

Also, I wouldn't mind 5 lanes each direction plus an HOV lane, but I think a better way to do it would be to make it 8 lanes, 2 HOV lanes, and four express toll lanes with high speed limits. I promise that would solve the traffic problem on that highway decades. OKC does have a bit of growing though before something like that would be supported though lol

Oh, and I also think a light-rail would be good going along I-35 to Norman and downtown. That would be a great starter project, from the airport to downtown to Norman.

I know I go against a lot of people on this board saying that, but I like big highways and especially BIG TALL towers!!!!!!! thats just me. ;p

I agree completely with this! I am not sold at all on induced demand, like some claim. Obviously, if you only add one lane each way, when a highway gets overcrowded, it won't do much. But if we made I-35 to Norman 8 lanes plus an HOV lane each way(which would amount to 10 lanes to Norman, that would solve the traffic problem for years to come I guarantee it! OKC has really has moderate traffic right now, our interchanges just suck. The two highway's I think will definitely need to be widened is I-35 from downtown to Norman, and that stretch of I-35 from I-44 and I-40. It needs to be 6 lanes now.

Also, I wouldn't mind 5 lanes each direction plus an HOV lane, but I think a better way to do it would be to make it 8 lanes, 2 HOV lanes, and four express toll lanes with high speed limits. I promise that would solve the traffic problem on that highway decades. OKC does have a bit of growing though before something like that would be supported though lol

Oh, and I also think a light-rail would be good going along I-35 to Norman and downtown. That would be a great starter project, from the airport to downtown to Norman.

I know I go against a lot of people on this board saying that, but I like big highways and especially BIG TALL towers!!!!!!! thats just me. ;p

Where will we build homes if we need all this room for new mega highways?

I-35 from Norman to OKC should be at least 4 lanes each way, traffic is horrible during the morning and evening rush hours with just 3 lanes, I have literally witnessed the traffic getting worse over the last few years, and will continue to get worse as OKC continues to grow. ODOT should implement planning for this now to at least add a lane in each direction.

OKC has much, much better infrastructure to accommodate boom growth than just about any other city.

Even with the rapid population growth, there is virtually zero traffic any time of day and tons of room for in-fill and new development in every direction.

For those reasons, the City could continue to grow very quickly and even pick up the pace, and you would probably never see the problems in Dallas and Austin.

Um yea, try driving from OKC to Norman at about 5:30pm during the week, not fun.

I-35 from Norman to OKC should be at least 4 lanes each way, traffic is horrible during the morning and evening rush hours with just 3 lanes, I have literally witnessed the traffic getting worse over the last few years, and will continue to get worse as OKC continues to grow. ODOT should implement planning for this now to at least add a lane in each direction.

I believe it was 1996 - 97 when they increased it from a 4 to a 6 lane road, which wasn't that long ago.

Well, we are growing a lot faster than we did back in the late 90's. I was in Dallas for the last few days visiting family, and my grandfather in law was telling me that Dallas will be building and underground freeway from Dallas all the way to Plano, I find that very interesting. He stated there is just not anymore room to add lanes, so now they have to go under, wow.

I believe it was 1996 - 97 when they increased it from a 4 to a 6 lane road, which wasn't that long ago.
And it took over 12 yrs to do it.

Um yea, try driving from OKC to Norman at about 5:30pm during the week, not fun.

Well we can't have heavy traffic at 5:00, geez then we will really be going downhill..

Well, we are growing a lot faster than we did back in the late 90's. I was in Dallas for the last few days visiting family, and my grandfather in law was telling me that Dallas will be building and underground freeway from Dallas all the way to Plano, I find that very interesting. He stated there is just not anymore room to add lanes, so now they have to go under, wow.

Are we growing "a lot" faster? I am very confident that we will, but I don't think we were growing all that slow before, either...tbh. Moving to the Rust Belt puts things in perspective.

As for our highway network...it's phenomenal, overbuilt, and puffed up. We don't need more. Lets look at things we don't have maybe?

A light rail line from Norman to Edmond, that stops in Downtown OKC, that would work wonders.

Where will we build homes if we need all this room for new mega highways?THE TOWER SPARTAN!!!! up up up!!!! lol jk. . . I understand not every highway needs to be a huge mega highway. . .hell Dallas still has a bunch of 6 lane highways that serve just fine for a metroplex of 7 mil. A few highways I don't think will ever need to be widened is 235 and the portion of I-44 from I-35 to Hefner Parkway(but I wish they would reconstruct this one and add landscaping and make it below grade near Pennsquare.

Maybe this would help if I said I am in favor of building a light-rail system before adding any new highways or widening any of them.

Yikes. Go back to Charlotte if that's your type of city.Does Charlotte have a lot of big highways??? I thought Charlotte was pretty big on new urbanism? Then again, I haven't really seen much of the city other than some of the awesome developments some have posted on here.

Does Charlotte have a lot of big highways??? I thought Charlotte was pretty big on new urbanism? Then again, I haven't really seen much of the city other than some of the awesome developments some have posted on here.

Charlotte has 4 lanes going in each direction with one of them an HOV lane on I-77, the main highway through the metro area.

Charlotte and OKC are really on a similar development track, Charlotte is just about 15 years ahead of OKC. Both cities share numerous similarities in the nature of their development as well as their disastrous urban renewal attempts in the 1970s. If downtown OKC keeps doing what it's doing, plus gets a few high-rise residential towers, it will look like Charlotte by 2020 or 2025.

Well, we are growing a lot faster than we did back in the late 90's. I was in Dallas for the last few days visiting family, and my grandfather in law was telling me that Dallas will be building and underground freeway from Dallas all the way to Plano, I find that very interesting. He stated there is just not anymore room to add lanes, so now they have to go under, wow.I have a VERY hard time believing that. I keep up with developments in Dallas all the time and haven't heard anything of it. There is plenty of room to build in Dallas and there is a ton of infill available. . .

Charlotte has 4 lanes going in each direction with one of them an HOV lane on I-77, the main highway through the metro area.

Charlotte and OKC are really on a similar development track, Charlotte is just about 15 years ahead of OKC. Both cities share numerous similarities in the nature of their development as well as their disastrous urban renewal attempts in the 1970s. If downtown OKC keeps doing what it's doing, plus gets a few high-rise residential towers, it will look like Charlotte by 2020 or 2025.Awesome!!!!!! I hope the interchanges in Charlotte are better lol

Awesome!!!!!! I hope the interchanges in Charlotte are better lol

Charlotte has ONE nice interchange, where I-77 intersects with I-485 with a 4-level stack. The rest are cloverleaf interchanges much like I-44/I-235.

How is traffic in Charlotte at rush hour - free flowing?

Charlotte has ONE nice interchange, where I-77 intersects with I-485 with a 4-level stack. The rest are cloverleaf interchanges much like I-44/I-235.Well, it's doing better than OKC I guess lol. . .

How is traffic in Charlotte at rush hour - free flowing?

It isn't. Charlotte has grown to a size beyond what its infrastructure was designed to support. Both highways and city streets are parking lots during rush hour. However, Charlotte is a very easy city to get around when it's not peak times due to better design of their major thoroughfares.

Well, it's doing better than OKC I guess lol. . .

I would say in terms of highways, OKC has much better infrastructure than Charlotte. One nice interchange doesn't mean much when the others are terrible. Where OKC could really learn from Charlotte is their design of city streets/boulevards. Edmond's main thoroughfares are more similar to how they are designed in Charlotte.

d
e
r
a
i
l
e
d
!

Um yea, try driving from OKC to Norman at about 5:30pm during the week, not fun.

That's a 20 mile commute during rush hour traffic. Why would anyone expect this to be fun or traffic free?

I would say in terms of highways, OKC has much better infrastructure than Charlotte. One nice interchange doesn't mean much when the others are terrible. Where OKC could really learn from Charlotte is their design of city streets/boulevards. Edmond's main thoroughfares are more similar to how they are designed in Charlotte.

But Edmond's layout dumps all traffic on a few streets. Edmond always seems more congested to me than Oklahoma City. And if a street in okc get a little backed up, you can just use the grid. In Edmond when it gets congested, you're just screwed.

Well we can't have heavy traffic at 5:00, geez then we will really be going downhill..


That's a 20 mile commute during rush hour traffic. Why would anyone expect this to be fun or traffic free?It's really getting bad though. It would be nice if OKC would stay ahead of it.

I-35 between Norman and OKC can indeed be a freaking parking lot twice a day ... for about 20-25 minutes in the am and in the pm.

No big. One needs to simply slightly adjust departure times. Then it's just like buttah: smooth, not necessarily good for you, but certainly won't kill you.
Bumping the lanes up hasn't changed this. Adding another pair of lane won't either. Figuring out making I-35 easier is like figuring out downtown parking. You can't put 3X cars in X space, but you can shift over slightly and there's room for all, and then some.

I-35 is a perfect example of induced demand (or whatever it's counterpart is). I have several friends who used to work downtown, but lived in Norman, who have either quit their jobs and started working in Norman, or moved to OKC. They did it to avoid traffic. Because for each of them there's a tipping point, a certain number of minutes of commute, beyond which they are unwilling to travel. If you open more lanes, you reduce the commute time, meaning those people don't change jobs, and they don't move. They keep commuting. This means even more cars on the highway, until traffic becomes just as bad as it is right now.

Now, yes, it's true that if we add 8 more lanes each direction, it will take us a very long time to fill up the interstate. But you're also talking about spending a billion+ dollars because people don't want to sit in traffic an extra 15 minutes. I'd much rather we put in a light rail system. If it gets busier we can just run the trains more frequently. A train from Norman to downtown, running every 5 minutes in the morning and after 5 pm, will help alleviate congestion just as well as another highway lane. Even if you don't use it, every guy on that train one less jackass in front of you who you have to honk at.