It is no secret that I think we are on the cusp of monumental shifts if everything for transit systems to the built environment to national boarders to currency systems. I came across this story today and though others would find it interesting.

More bikes sold than cars in Italy for first time since WW2 - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9581180/More-bikes-sold-than-cars-in-Italy-for-first-time-since-WW2.html)


More bikes sold than cars in Italy for first time since WW2

For the first time since the end of the Second World War the number of bicycles sold in Italy has overtaken the number of cars.

In a radical departure for the car-mad country, home to legendary marques such as Fiat, Ferrari and Lamborghini, 1,750,000 bikes were bought in 2011 compared to 1,748,000 motor vehicles.

As austerity cuts deepen and petrol prices hit a new high, the purchase of new cars has dropped to levels not seen since the 1970s.

Families are buying bikes, ditching their second cars and signing up to car pool schemes – a major shift for a nation which has one of the highest car ownership rates in the world, with around 60 cars for every 100 people.

Car ownership became a symbol of the Italian economic miracle in the 1960s and has steadily grown since, but as unemployment rises and living costs soar, it has become an unaffordable luxury for many Italian families.

...

Out of a population of 60 million, 6.5 million Italians use a bike to get to work or school, while 10.5 million use them occasionally, mostly at weekends.

Italians have a new-found appreciation of the convenience of bikes and the fact that they do not pollute the environment.

“People who have only ever driven cars are changing their thinking,” Antonio Della Venezia, the president of the Italian Federation of Bike Lovers, told La Repubblica newspaper.

“I don’t think Italy will go back to the levels of cars sales that we saw before 2008.”

Is that necessarily a good thing? I mean wouldn't that kind of signify a country being poor if people can't afford cars or gas? Now, I'm not saying if you ride a bike you're poor. I, myself just forked out quite a bit of money for a new road bike and I ride a lot around Edmond. If this is just one country I don't really understand how this would be of any significance. I'm not trying to argue or say you're just wrong, but I just don't see that this means anything and how this is good. I also recall reading somewhere that the overall ownership of cars is increasing more than ever. I will try and find that article in a bit when I get time.

No doubt global car ownership is increasing. China alone can drive the world market up (at least until they learn it is a dead end road). If you get a chance watch the documentary Urbanized and pay close attention to the part on Bogota, Colombia and Amsterdam. Truth be told, no country in the world can afford the automobile. We have a cheap oil on a global scale because of the US military. What do you think will happen to our oil prices over time if the US military is scaled back?

No doubt global car ownership is increasing. China alone can drive the world market up (at least until they learn it is a dead end road). If you get a chance watch the documentary Urbanized and pay close attention to the part on Bogota, Colombia and Amsterdam. Truth be told, no country in the world can afford the automobile. We have a cheap oil on a global scale because of the US military. What do you think will happen to our oil prices over time if the US military is scaled back?Someone else told me me I should watch that documentary as well. I will search it on Netflix and if is not on there I will go buy it on Cinema now. I understand your point though. I think with alternative fuels, higher gas tax, and creating some sort of system as to where you would pay much higher taxes if you chose to live outside of the city core, you could successfully fund a high quality expansive highway highway network. I am a suburb guy. However I would love to see OKC really start to become an urban city, but with nice and beautiful suburbs. I would be willing to pay higher taxes for living outside of the core because I understand it isn't fair to the people that will hardly use the highways and pay for all the sprawl. I also truly believe in creating a task force that would monitor and tackle sprawl before it happens. But my point is, I think countries can afford the automobile if it is done right.

It is on NetFlix instant view and by DVD.

You know another thing so you know a little more about me. I am in favor of some of your views(the posts I have seen you make over the last 6 months or so). I think all highway spending should be completely frozen and they need to build an expansive light rail service across the metro and then wait 6 months and do a study of what highways and roads need to be widened, removed, ect. because of the people that will choose the light rail over driving. Which I'm sure the numbers will surprise people. Just saying, to keep my views in perspective.

I think with alternative fuels, higher gas tax, and creating some sort of system as to where you would pay much higher taxes if you chose to live outside of the city core,

Why should a pay more taxes for living outside the urban core? I do not live there, do not work there, or hardly ever go there!

Why should a pay more taxes for living outside the urban core? I do not live there, do not work there, or hardly ever go there!

The thinking is that those living outside of the urban core should pay more in taxes because of the extra money the city has to spend to extend services outside of the urban core. When you move to the urban core most of the infrastructure is already there and little extra expense to the city is involved.

Why should a pay more taxes for living outside the urban core? I do not live there, do not work there, or hardly ever go there!Well then you wouldn't have to pay higher tax. I would because I live in Edmond. I think that some kind of system needs to be created to where you could pay for something called a sprawl tax(included on property taxes) and I would support higher gas tax. Since you live in the core and don't drive as often I am sure this shouldn't be a problem, yes?

Well then you wouldn't have to pay higher tax. I would because I live in Edmond. I think that some kind of system needs to be created to where you could pay for something called a sprawl tax(included on property taxes) and I would support higher gas tax. Since you live in the core and don't drive as often I am sure this shouldn't be a problem, yes?

As I stated earlier, I live OUTSIDE the urban core. I do not work there and hardly ever go there. I should not have to subsidize services that I do not use.

The economic term for taxes used to cover the costs of urban sprawl are called "impact fees." They are paid only once at the time a house is built (in a new development) and are meant to cover the marginal costs of building roads, schools, water lines, etc. into undeveloped land. They are NOT meant to subsidize economic development in urban areas. I hear all the time that "development should pay its own way." Following that logic, redevelopment in the urban core should be paid for by individuals living there and businesses located there. That does not happen, because most structures in the urban core are older and valued lower (and generate less property taxes) than newer structures in the suburban areas. Thus, redevelopment of core areas requires subsidies from non-core areas. A good example is MAPS in OKC (a sales tax for the all of Oklahoma City which is used primarily for downtown development.)

I would love to see a map of actual property and other taxes paid in various areas of the metro, along with ongoing infrastructure maintenance, etc. expenses. One might be surprised at who pays for who here in OKC. Let's include sales tax collections.

Not making a value judgment either way but lots of people pay taxes for things they don't personally use. My parents paid taxes to support public schools even though my brother and I never set foot in one all the way through our childhood, and they were (somewhat) happy to do so. We need highways but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a comprehensive conversation about how transportation dollars should be spent.

As I stated earlier, I live OUTSIDE the urban core. I do not work there and hardly ever go there. I should not have to subsidize services that I do not use.

The economic term for taxes used to cover the costs of urban sprawl are called "impact fees." They are paid only once at the time a house is built (in a new development) and are meant to cover the marginal costs of building roads, schools, water lines, etc. into undeveloped land. They are NOT meant to subsidize economic development in urban areas. I hear all the time that "development should pay its own way." Following that logic, redevelopment in the urban core should be paid for by individuals living there and businesses located there. That does not happen, because most structures in the urban core are older and valued lower (and generate less property taxes) than newer structures in the suburban areas. Thus, redevelopment of core areas requires subsidies from non-core areas. A good example is MAPS in OKC (a sales tax for the all of Oklahoma City which is used primarily for downtown development.)

As mentioned by others, everyone pays taxes to the benefit of things they don't use. That argument has no validity. And to classify expenses for roads, schools, water lines, etc. as marginal shows a substantial lack of understanding what is involved.

As an example, there is no direct correlation to money that the city spends to build roads in suburban areas and what you are charged for your house. The cost of your house absolutely reflects the cost of building roads and infrastructure in your subdivision but not what the city builds.

As mentioned by others, everyone pays taxes to the benefit of things they don't use. That argument has no validity. And to classify expenses for roads, schools, water lines, etc. as marginal shows a substantial lack of understanding what is involved.

As an example, there is no direct correlation to money that the city spends to build roads in suburban areas and what you are charged for your house. The cost of your house absolutely reflects the cost of building roads and infrastructure in your subdivision but not what the city builds.

"Marginal cost" is an economics term that describes the additional costs incurred from a specific action. In this case, what are the additional costs incurred by the city (roads, schools, water lines, etc.) due to one additional family moving into a new development on the edge of town. If my explanation still does not make sense, I would encourage you to get at any Principles of Economics textbook and look up the term "marginal cost."

Vaflyer, impact fees are good at balancing the one-time costs of sprawl development, but we don't have impact fees in OKC. They tried to implement them but it didn't work politically. Besides, the one-time costs of sprawl development aren't the only concern- it's the ongoing maintenance that can't pay for itself (look at almost every neighborhood that was developed in the 50s-70s).

Honestly it's a lot easier to make the argument that people who are living in the urban core on crumbling streets and sidewalks with bursting water mains are "subsidizing" unneeded street widening, ADA crosswalks, and new water/sewer in the NW 150s.

As I stated earlier, I live OUTSIDE the urban core. I do not work there and hardly ever go there. I should not have to subsidize services that I do not use.

The economic term for taxes used to cover the costs of urban sprawl are called "impact fees." They are paid only once at the time a house is built (in a new development) and are meant to cover the marginal costs of building roads, schools, water lines, etc. into undeveloped land. They are NOT meant to subsidize economic development in urban areas. I hear all the time that "development should pay its own way." Following that logic, redevelopment in the urban core should be paid for by individuals living there and businesses located there. That does not happen, because most structures in the urban core are older and valued lower (and generate less property taxes) than newer structures in the suburban areas. Thus, redevelopment of core areas requires subsidies from non-core areas. A good example is MAPS in OKC (a sales tax for the all of Oklahoma City which is used primarily for downtown development.)T
he concept is that it cost more for the city to make sure people living way the hell outside of the core are able to get into the core rather than just providing for people that already live in the core. I know what you're saying. But, what you have done. The city goes around and asks people if they go to the core or not. Then if you get caught going to downtown Oklahoma City and they catch you, you get fined? It all comes down to where you live. If you live in Yukon, Edmond, MWC, Mustang, Moore, Norman, ect... I think people should have to pay a sprawl tax of some kind on their yearly property taxes and building outside the core. I also think again there should be a higher gas tax. Maybe tax higher in the suburbs.. I don't know exactly how that would work or be implemented but something needs to be done to address sprawl. No offense, but you are contributing to it, as am I. So I think we need to pay our fair share because it isn't fair to the people that live in say Deep Deuce having to pay for six lane(most likely going to have to be widened in the coming years) highway going out into the suburbs that THEY will probably never use. Keep in mind I live Edmond.

Well then you wouldn't have to pay higher tax. I would because I live in Edmond. I think that some kind of system needs to be created to where you could pay for something called a sprawl tax(included on property taxes) and I would support higher gas tax. Since you live in the core and don't drive as often I am sure this shouldn't be a problem, yes?

Why would OKC have any influence on a different city's property taxes?

Gas taxes are a perfectly sufficient mechanism to account for the cost of roadways, and if we used property taxes to pay for the local needs of that area, it'd be much more suitable for paying for that area's needs, as opposed to trying to construct some sort of sprawl tax.

Why would OKC have any influence on a different city's property taxes?

Gas taxes are a perfectly sufficient mechanism to account for the cost of roadways, and if we used property taxes to pay for the local needs of that area, it'd be much more suitable for paying for that area's needs, as opposed to trying to construct some sort of sprawl tax.

I agree with this statement. Most costs of sprawl are localized to the specific city where it is occurring. Let's take Norman as an example.

The state, via gas taxes (mostly), pays for the construction and maintenance of state and federal highways in Norman and those leading to Norman. Currently, the state is funding the upgrading and widening of I-35 in Norman. Even if sprawl never occurred in Norman, I-35 needs many of the safety updates and bridge/pavement reconstruction that the state is doing so all of the expenses of the I-35 projects cannot be attributed to sprawl.

The other major costs of sprawl are paid for by people living in Norman (and those non-Norman residents shopping in Norman).

Some examples of recent Norman city "sprawl" expenses and their major source of funding.

1) Two new fire stations and their equipment - city sales tax
2) Widening of city streets (non-state/federal) - property taxes
3) New and renovated schools - property tax
4) New/bigger country jail - county sales tax
5) Additional police and fire personal - city sales tax

Notice that in each of these five examples, Norman residents or people who "elect" to shop in Norman are funding sprawl and not residents in other cities. The only example where sprawl costs are passed on to others outside Norman is via federal and state roads. The gas tax, however, functions as an indirect "user fee" on those using the roads. The more that you drive on the roads, the more gasoline you must purchase, so the more taxes that you will pay.

My conclusion from this exercise is that sprawl costs are mostly localized to the community that it occurring in and any type of "sprawl tax" that taxes residents in one city to pay for the expenses of another city is unnecessary.

One last thing to remember, as Oklahoma adds population, our new residents/neighbors must live somewhere so some sprawl is inevitable.

"Marginal cost" is an economics term that describes the additional costs incurred from a specific action. In this case, what are the additional costs incurred by the city (roads, schools, water lines, etc.) due to one additional family moving into a new development on the edge of town. If my explanation still does not make sense, I would encourage you to get at any Principles of Economics textbook and look up the term "marginal cost."

Whichever definition of marginal you are using doesn't improve your argument and no textbook is necessary to know that.

As mentioned by others, everyone pays taxes to the benefit of things they don't use. That argument has no validity. And to classify expenses for roads, schools, water lines, etc. as marginal shows a substantial lack of understanding what is involved.

As an example, there is no direct correlation to money that the city spends to build roads in suburban areas and what you are charged for your house. The cost of your house absolutely reflects the cost of building roads and infrastructure in your subdivision but not what the city builds.

They pay for state run parks and state infrastructure, and they pay for things in their own city that they don't use. But an Edmond resident's property taxes dont' go to OKC funded projects, unless the Edmond resident does business in OKC that would add money to that pool. So if we're talking about the outskirts of OKC paying a higher tax rate, that'd be one thing. It'd be a bad idea in my mind, but it'd be something that could actually be done.

But if we're talking Plutonic Panda's suggestion? The idea that someone even thought of that is baffling to me. Edmond isn't OKC, it's a separate city run by it's own government. One city cannot impose higher property on another city and take the revenues to fund their own projects. It's that basic, that's why there are city limits, because that's the extent that a city can impose city laws. If someone wants their property taxes to fund OKC, then they can move to OKC. Otherwise, we already have mechanisms for outside residents using a city to provide funding for that city, in the form of sales tax.

I agree with this statement. Most costs of sprawl are localized to the specific city where it is occurring. Let's take Norman as an example.

The state, via gas taxes (mostly), pays for the construction and maintenance of state and federal highways in Norman and those leading to Norman. Currently, the state is funding the upgrading and widening of I-35 in Norman. Even if sprawl never occurred in Norman, I-35 needs many of the safety updates and bridge/pavement reconstruction that the state is doing so all of the expenses of the I-35 projects cannot be attributed to sprawl.

The other major costs of sprawl are paid for by people living in Norman (and those non-Norman residents shopping in Norman).

Some examples of recent Norman city "sprawl" expenses and their major source of funding.

1) Two new fire stations and their equipment - city sales tax
2) Widening of city streets (non-state/federal) - property taxes
3) New and renovated schools - property tax
4) New/bigger country jail - county sales tax
5) Additional police and fire personal - city sales tax

Notice that in each of these five examples, Norman residents or people who "elect" to shop in Norman are funding sprawl and not residents in other cities. The only example where sprawl costs are passed on to others outside Norman is via federal and state roads. The gas tax, however, functions as an indirect "user fee" on those using the roads. The more that you drive on the roads, the more gasoline you must purchase, so the more taxes that you will pay.

My conclusion from this exercise is that sprawl costs are mostly localized to the community that it occurring in and any type of "sprawl tax" that taxes residents in one city to pay for the expenses of another city is unnecessary.

One last thing to remember, as Oklahoma adds population, our new residents/neighbors must live somewhere so some sprawl is inevitable.

One correction, the gasoline tax only covers half of the construction and maintenance of state and federal roads. The gas tax started running a deficit in the late 1950s. The current gasoline tax only raises about $25 billion per year but the Feds spend about $50 billion a year on interstate construction. According to the Highway Engineers Association (not sure what their actual name is) the US Government needs to spend something like $1.5 trillion to get the federal interstate system up to a C grade. We aren't going to get to $1.5 trillion withour current gasoline tax that only generates $25 billion per year. That will take 60 years.

T
he concept is that it cost more for the city to make sure people living way the hell outside of the core are able to get into the core rather than just providing for people that already live in the core. I know what you're saying. But, what you have done. The city goes around and asks people if they go to the core or not. Then if you get caught going to downtown Oklahoma City and they catch you, you get fined? It all comes down to where you live. If you live in Yukon, Edmond, MWC, Mustang, Moore, Norman, ect... I think people should have to pay a sprawl tax of some kind on their yearly property taxes and building outside the core. I also think again there should be a higher gas tax. Maybe tax higher in the suburbs.. I don't know exactly how that would work or be implemented but something needs to be done to address sprawl. No offense, but you are contributing to it, as am I. So I think we need to pay our fair share because it isn't fair to the people that live in say Deep Deuce having to pay for six lane(most likely going to have to be widened in the coming years) highway going out into the suburbs that THEY will probably never use. Keep in mind I live Edmond.

Norman is the 3rd largest city in the state. Why should its people be penalized for living there instead of in the larger city of the area? When do you draw the line? Should people in Fort Worth have a penalty for not living in Dallas? I can see what you are trying to achieve, but in reality this idea could only work in a city that controls everything. I also think you would find people go after the politicians who would suggest such a thing.

I'm not sure of your situation, being only 18, but when you get to that point of your life when you are cutting the multi-thousand dollar check every December to the county...your tune might completely when it comes to property tax.

Why should a pay more taxes for living outside the urban core? I do not live there, do not work there, or hardly ever go there!

This has been asked before and can be answered by saying, "Why should I pay taxes for schools if I don't have children? Why should I pay for fire and police for the central city if I live in the burbs? Why should I etc, etc, etc......" I am all in favor of city government encouraging people to rebuild and remodel inner city structures, but the city is what it is and we all pay taxes for projects across the ENTIRE city.

Now, as a former OKCitien who visits family and friends frequently, I have seen the results of light rail in Dallas and Denver - even Salt Lake City on a smaller scale. Those cities are all a bit more urban than OKC. Dallas has far greater traffic congestion than OKC, Denver has a horribly overburdoned highway system and Salt Lake City has a limited amount of room within which to grow. I think OKC's light rail would be successful if it were done the right way, rail put in the right places and everything done to make the use of the rail system most convenient for the rider. My opinion is that the need for the light rail isn't immediate nor should tremendous ridership be expected immediately. The day will come again when gas prices skyrocket and, if not built, we will be wishing there was a good alternative. Rail systems don't happen overnight. They take decades to build out. If it can be done, OKC should be planning for a large scale system today and starting to look for initial funding sources TODAY - knowing it will be 2050 before it may be completed.

The main issue is in places like OKC, DFW and the like is that most people don't work in the core, they work outside of the core. Of the 37 years that I lived in OKC I worked a total of 7 months in Downtown OKC, the rest of the time it was always in Northwest OKC. The majority of the people that I have known have always worked in suburban OKC. Until the majority of employment is in the urban core (not just downtown) this will be the norm and the suburbs will be the norm of where people choose to live. The majority of people are not willing to give up the space of the burbs for a much smaller space, I know that we aren't going to especially when the smaller space costs significantly more (like it did in Austin and here in Denver) and a smaller condo type of space doesn't address our needs. The more demand for urban living the higher the prices go and the space goes down. Light rail helps balance the urban and suburban areas.

No matter what the urbanists wishes are, sprawl isn't going away, it even exists in urbanist meccas like NYC, Boston, Chicago, DC, etc. because many people desire living in the burbs even if they work in the core. The main goal should be to increase urban living by those who wish to live there, I know there is a chicken/egg issue in getting a place like OKC to grow urban housing but penalizing suburban development isn't going to necessarily drive urban development. Getting people to move to areas like The Paseo, Plaza District and Gatewood neighborhoods is going to do more than discouraging sprawl. Is there really that much new entry level or step up development happening in the far areas of OKC since the mortgage crisis?

I think the last two response show where an issue is in this debate. Suburban OKC is not the same as Norman, Edmond, Mustang, Del City, MWC, etc. Those are completely separate entities. If there is to be any type of suburban penalty it can only be directed at those with in the OKC city limit.

If anything the next major move that should be done is de-annexing a bunch of the undeveloped suburban OKC land so the city isn't responsible for so much.

I think the last two response show where an issue is in this debate. Suburban OKC is not the same as Norman, Edmond, Mustang, Del City, MWC, etc. Those are completely separate entities. If there is to be any type of suburban penalty it can only be directed at those with in the OKC city limit.

If anything the next major move that should be done is de-annexing a bunch of the undeveloped suburban OKC land so the city isn't responsible for so much.

Or just making it off-limits to development. You're right on your first part. The towns and cities around OKC should develope their own cores. Norman sprawl shouldn't border Moore's sprawl, which then borders OKC's sprawl, which is adjacent to Edmond's sprawl. This is why I think any future regional rail should NOT have park and ride lots but instead connect urban centers to urban centers.

Or just making it off-limits to development. You're right on your first part. The towns and cities around OKC should develop their own cores. Norman sprawl shouldn't border Moore's sprawl, which then borders OKC's sprawl, which is adjacent to Edmond's sprawl. This is why I think any future regional rail should NOT have park and ride lots but instead connect urban centers to urban centers.

But I selflishly want my park and ride. You're right, though, and I'd even happily see my little part of town on the edge de-annexed. I was surprised to see that I lived in the city limits.

Deannexation would also assist our police and fire departments to an extent by reducing the area they are required to cover. The trick is to do it without drastically decreasing revenues from property taxes.

Or just making it off-limits to development. You're right on your first part. The towns and cities around OKC should develope their own cores. Norman sprawl shouldn't border Moore's sprawl, which then borders OKC's sprawl, which is adjacent to Edmond's sprawl. This is why I think any future regional rail should NOT have park and ride lots but instead connect urban centers to urban centers.
Park and rides are a cash cow for light rail, they get riders to ride rail that normally wouldn't ride a bus. I know, I am one of them. Any rail system needs to address the needs of urban and suburban residents, otherwise it isn't going to get the necessary support to move forward.

If all rail does is make sprawl easier we aren't solving anything. We can no longer afford the massive subsidies to keep sprawl going. I have a hard time understanding why we would use rail to make our problems worse when we could use rail to eliminate the problem.

How does a park and ride make money? Just like a road, rail loses money every time someone uses it. If you lose money on every transaction you can't make it up in volume. And what good is TOD if that TOD is located on Tecumseh Road? If people will live in medium to high density on Tecumseh Road why won't they live in medium to high density in downtown Norman or downtown Moore where all the infrastructure already exists?

okay - gotcha now. I was looking at park and ride lots all over the country to see if they even charge for parking. :)

BTW - almost none of them do unless you park there for more than 24 hours.

So what would be the difference between a 'park and ride' lot and a freeway off ramp?

With a park and ride, the only thing being replaced is the trip between the rail station and the downtown OKC station. The person will still live in a subdivision on the urban fringe. With the addition of another transportation system won't that just creat more incentive to develop along the fringe?

Actually, let me back up a second. Maybe we should talk about real locations. Where would one of these park and rides be?

In our local situation I think the likely locations for the first stations and Park & Ride are downtown Edmond and Norman. Initially the majority of riders would drive from housing developments just outside those downtowns. But once ridership is established by those first individuals, TOD would begin in those two towns and at the stops near employers and downtown OKC. I think mixed use development in Edmond and Norman (in addition to OKC) would explode resulting in exactly the urban fabric and reduced rate of sprawl JTF frequently writes about. Mustang, Yukon, MWC, and Moore are other locations I think this pattern could be repeated. It certainly is not the perfect new urbanist solution, but I think it is the most likely one for metro OKC.

In our local situation I think the likely locations for the first stations and Park & Ride are downtown Edmond and Norman. Initially the majority of riders would drive from housing developments just outside those downtowns. But Once ridership is established by those first individuals, TOD would begin in those two towns and at the stops near employers and downtown OKC. I think mixed use development in Edmond and Norman (in addition to OKC) would explode resulting in exactly the urban fabric and reduced rate of sprawl JTF frequently writes about. Mustang, Yukon, MWC, and Moore are other locations I think this pattern could be repeated. It certainly is not the perfect new urbanist solution, but I think it is the most likely one for metro OKC.

A swing and a miss, for me (and, yes, I know I'm being selfish, but ...). I would like to include Eastern OK Co. in the list of people who would like to use the rail system with a P&R collector ... on Choctaw or Anderson Road? Sorry JTF, but this is how I see my entry ticket into using the rail.

Does the rail line in Choctaw run into MWC Dubya? I know there is one out there but honestly have no idea where it connects with the primary rights of way mentioned in commuter rail discussions.

Does the rail line in Choctaw run into MWC Dubya? I know there is one out there but honestly have no idea where it connects with the primary rights of way mentioned in commuter rail discussions.

I'll have to research that and get back.


I only know, at this juncture, that I hear the train whistles blowing when I'm out at night (locking up barnyard animals, etc.) and wistfully remember being able to ride the train to work when I lived elsewhere (but couldn't have as many animals -- I know, I know, I've made my bed ...)


I'll get back with ya.

The Choctaw line does not go to MWC.

I could see a station at 23rd and Main in Choctaw.

In our local situation I think the likely locations for the first stations and Park & Ride are downtown Edmond and Norman. Initially the majority of riders would drive from housing developments just outside those downtowns. But once ridership is established by those first individuals, TOD would begin in those two towns and at the stops near employers and downtown OKC. I think mixed use development in Edmond and Norman (in addition to OKC) would explode resulting in exactly the urban fabric and reduced rate of sprawl JTF frequently writes about. Mustang, Yukon, MWC, and Moore are other locations I think this pattern could be repeated. It certainly is not the perfect new urbanist solution, but I think it is the most likely one for metro OKC.

I wouldn't consider downtown Norman or downtown Edmond stops (or even central Moore) to be a park and ride, even if they had a 1,000 car parking garage. That would be urban center to urban center.

I wouldn't consider downtown Norman or downtown Edmond stops (or even central Moore) to be a park and ride, even if they had a 1,000 car parking garage. That would be urban center to urban center.

Eventually that is what would develop - but initially the majority of commuters would drive from a nearby subdivision to a parking lot near the station. These are the riders that need to be attracted to get the service established. The Farmer's Market area and the area around the Dental Depot on 15th St in Edmond are the most likely P&R locations I think. Once the service is established, I agree the demographic would shift as TOD transforms the downtown area of Edmond and Norman.

I think we may be debating semantics and timing......

That is my main issue - why establish a new place for TOD to take root when we already have places that need it. If the long-term goal is to urbanize downtown Edmond, why build the train station somewhere else.

That is my main issue - why establish a new place for TOD to take root when we already have places that need it. If the long-term goal is to urbanize downtown Edmond, why build the train station somewhere else.

Gotcha - that is exactly why I think it should be in downtown Edmond. Somewhere in the Farmer's Market area would be a great location. But most of the initial ridership will come from people driving to downtown Edmond (such as me if I still live out there when commuter rail starts) from developments outside of downtown Edmond. That is why there will be a need for a P&R component.

Okay, so maybe you are right and we just off on terminology or something. A station in downtown Edmond could house rail facilites, Starbucks, some pace to eat, a florist/gift shop, residential/hotel, and a large parking garage for use by commuters as well as people taking part in other activites in and around the station.

okay - gotcha now. I was looking at park and ride lots all over the country to see if they even charge for parking. :)

BTW - almost none of them do unless you park there for more than 24 hours.
RTD charges for some P&R locations, it depends on if you are in the service zone or not and how long you are parking. Most of the P&R here in the Denver area that I know of are in the older suburban areas and some of them were built years before the light rail was in, some are new and some were surface lots that have been expanded with garages. The one that I use at times is in an area of Aurora originally built out in the 70's and there are some mid-to-high rise apartment/condo buildings in the area built back then, not all the stops have a P&R. The light rail line that I use doesn't go out to the newer areas like where we bought (have our closing tomorrow). I know one of the new lines going west has P&R in a similar area of Lakewood, it ends at the Jefferson County offices and there is a P&R there.

Since my wife and I commute together if I work late I take the train home and my wife picks my up at the last station (for now, it is being extended up I-225 and eventually to DIA) and is a couple of miles from our current house (about 6 miles from our new one), my office is about 6 blocks from a stop in downtown. If she gets a job that we cannot commute together I will start taking the train. The only time that I have parked at the P&R is going to the Broncos game, it is great for that and didn't fill up on Sunday morning like it does on weekday mornings and there was a day Rockies game that day as well, it is usually full by 7:30 AM on weekdays.

So Bluedogok - is it safe to say that the park and ride and the last station on the line played some role in your choice to move so far out?

No, there are developments much further out than where we are buying and areas still being built, our house was built in 1999. It is a factor in using light rail if the need presents itself, if it wasn't there we probably would have bought where we did because of the market out there and I would just drive in. We would have preferred closer in but age/price/size just didn't tend to lend to one that we felt confident enough to buy for the prices offered. Area pricing and quick resale is the main reasons why we bought the house we did. In this market anything in the 200's has been selling fast, ours was on the market for 3 days when we looked at it and we made an offer two days later that was accepted, many houses we looked at online in this price range had similar results. We are planning to build something in the mountains in a 5-10 year time frame, we are also planning on having our own businesses going that we can locate in the small town that we will build near. We didn't want to buy too much house since we are not planning on living out our years there, we pre-qualified for double the house we bought (even though my wife is making half of what she did in Austin) and our payment (including taxes/insurance) is only $100 more than our rent and our rent was "reasonable" in this market.

One correction, the gasoline tax only covers half of the construction and maintenance of state and federal roads. The gas tax started running a deficit in the late 1950s. The current gasoline tax only raises about $25 billion per year but the Feds spend about $50 billion a year on interstate construction. According to the Highway Engineers Association (not sure what their actual name is) the US Government needs to spend something like $1.5 trillion to get the federal interstate system up to a C grade. We aren't going to get to $1.5 trillion withour current gasoline tax that only generates $25 billion per year. That will take 60 years.

Virginia governor Bob McDonnell wants to discontinue a state gasoline tax and raise the state portion of the sales tax to increase road funding.
McDonnell wants to scrap gas tax, boost sales tax for roads - Richmond Times-Dispatch: Latest News (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/mcdonnell-wants-to-scrap-gas-tax-boost-sales-tax-for/article_1925346a-59d1-11e2-87ec-0019bb30f31a.html)

On the eve of the 2013 General Assembly session, Gov. Bob McDonnell is proposing increasing the state’s sales tax and eliminating the gas tax in an overhaul of the way the state funds its transportation needs.
He wants to hike the state and local sales tax to 5.8 percent from 5 percent and permanently shift the revenue source for transportation to a tax that is rising from one that is increasingly in decline.

I just read that article Dubya61. Typical politician - chasing the symptoms and not the disease. If he lowers the cost of driving, people will drive more. If people start driving more it will cost the state more in new construction and maintenance, thus causing a short-fall in the new sales tax he just created. And around and around we go.

Like smoking, we should tax people out of the market place. I have no problem getting rid of a per gallon tax and replacing it with a sales tax - but gasoline should be taxed as a sale. When I buy a burger at McD's for $1 it really cost me $1.07. The gas pump should do the same thing. You pump your gas and it says $100, then tax is applied and you get two line items on your receipt; one for $100 worth of gasoline and one for $7 in taxes. If they don't want to do it that way then they can imbed the sales tax in the price (just like they do now).

Finally, I am really getting sick and tired of government choosing which industries should get preferable tax treatment. Why do I have to pay sales tax on a bicycle and the food I use that helps me power that bike, but someone driving a car doesn't have to pay a tax to keep their car running.

Your comments just sent me on an interesting (to me, at least -- I find all my ideas interesting!) tangent. Why can't we pay a use tax? It'd be hard to calculate, and the advent of alternative fuels is making it even harder, but let's say that I want to send my kids to school X. The school (who would get just a bare minimum government infrastructure fund) would calcuate their annual cost, divide that by the number of students there and bill me for my daughter's portion. We almost have a targeted tax there with the amount of school supplies that I buy at the beginning of the school year. Clearly, the dry-erase markers aren't for my daughter specifically, but it's an excellent targeted tax to give the school some of their required supplies. How about we do that with the roads. Cars who are tagged in County X are billed a per mile usage fee for the cost of road maintenance. Manage overages and underages (is that a word?) like my bank does mortgage escrow. Any new roads would be toll roads until paid for or, as mentioned in another thread, paid for by the land developer. We could target our taxes a whole lot more and let people pay for the government they want or use.
Clearly my idea is very pie-in-the-sky and careless, but it's my shiny object for the moment.

It could actually be very simple. Just charge by the miles driven. Every year you have to renew your tag. Just calculate how many miles was driven for the year, multiply by the tax per mile, and send a bill to the car owner. Then offer different types of payment options. You can pay all at once or pay 1/12 every month (with a 10% tax deferment penalty of course for the monthly option). You could even have it added to your car payment just like property taxes are added to a mortgage payment. If you sell the car you have to document the milage so you would pay your share of the tax and the new owner would pay their share at the end of the year. Easy peasy.

And of course, the tax collected should cover the cost of road construction, maintenance, and replacement. My guess is most people won't like paying their fair share.

It could actually be very simple. Just charge by the miles driven. Every year you have to renew your tag. Just calculate how many miles was driven for the year, multiply by the tax per mile, and send a bill to the car owner. Then offer different types of payment options. You can pay all at once or pay 1/12 every month (with a 10% tax deferment penalty of course for the monthly option). You could even have it added to your car payment just like property taxes are added to a mortgage payment. If you sell the car you have to document the milage so you would pay your share of the tax and the new owner would pay their share at the end of the year. Easy peasy.

And of course, the tax collected should cover the cost of road construction, maintenance, and replacement. My guess is most people won't like paying their fair share.

cars do little to no damage to roads ... your entire premise is very flawed ... i guess you don't buy anything ... how do you think those products get to the stores?? roads are used (directly or indirectly) by EVERYONE in society (save the guy in montana that has a self sustaining farm and doesn't connect with the outside world)

cars do little to no damage to roads ... your entire premise is very flawed ... i guess you don't buy anything ... how do you think those products get to the stores?? roads are used (directly or indirectly) by EVERYONE in society (save the guy in montana that has a self sustaining farm and doesn't connect with the outside world)

I am going to have to call BS on cars not doing damage. I live along road that gets almost NO truck traffic, and potholes form all the time, and the road didn't magically appear there all by itself either - it had to be built which isn't free. But anyhow, it doesn't matter as trucks have to renew their tags as well so charge them also. Sooner or later we have to start paying what things cost. We have kicked the can about as far down the road as we can kick it (how far in advance did Devon pre-pay on P180, 20 years?)

My guess is most people won't like paying their fair share.

Then we'll seek out the cheaper options. Reduce our taxes by reducing our use.

Potholes are usually formed when the road bedding gives way usually through getting washed out a bad packing job by the contractors or by water that gets underneath the surface and freezes the divits that result cause the road above to crumble under the weight of any vehicle.

Then we'll seek out the cheaper options. Reduce our taxes by reducing our use.

That would be the plan.

A big part of the cost of roads isn't the damage done by the vehicles driving on them. It is just basic entropy.
..

This is why, JTF, you are right and wrong. The cost isn't the direct damage done by the cars as much is it is the cost that is required to spend to maintain a wide, smooth surface to drive on.


I totally get that - 100%, but you can't send a bill to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Someone has to pay. So who should pay for the damage done from nature?

I'm not trying to debate the funding formula - I am just trying to establish that people who use roads pay for them. Now if the City says they want to build a network of bike cooridors and sidewalks (or even an entire part of town dedicated to such modes of transportation) I would have no problem either taxing people in said district or a tax on bicycles, bicycle parts, etc..., if the money went to fund that.

I can't find this video on youtube so here is a link to it.

Bogota Shows How to Reinvent Cities : TreeHugger (http://www.treehugger.com/cars/bogota-shows-how-to-reinvent-cities.html)

JTF - This is one of those circumstances when a tax is reasonable in the abstract, but in practicality is not. The cost of administration & enforcement would exceed the tax that is collected, especially when you factor in more government offices, employees, pensions, etc.

OKCTalker, are you saying if people using the road had to pay the full cost of the road then we couldn't afford them? If so, I agree. So if we can't afford them why do we keep building more of them?