With all the major development and investment taking place in DT it seems that the rest of OKC is only gaining "some" ground. First, Downtown OKC is the front door to the city so we want outsiders to see a vibrant, modern central business district and OKC has certainly gained much accolades for this and is to be commended! Now what about the other segments of OKC? Do you feel it is being neglected at the cost of Downtown? Examples being shoddy roads all over the city, run down neighborhoods, landlords not making any investments in their properties. Dilapidated buildings and run down apartments buildings that should be bulldozed! What are some of your thoughts on how OKC can play catchup with it's infrastructure needs and nice, aesthetic development?

We've always had shoddy roads and rundown neighborhoods, even back when we completely ignored downtown at the benefit of the rest of OKC. We know how successful that strategy was for us. We know how successful this strategy is for us. Investing in the heart of the city results in by far the greatest ROI.

Besides once-nice suburban decline is the result of continued sprawl and not downtown. We need a home building moratorium or a geographic growth boundary in order to maintain what we have. The same actions that built these now declining burbs in the 60s, 70s, and 80s have led to newer ones that can't compete because someone can and will always go out further.

I dunno. In the area I live, which is South Walker, I've been pleasantly surprised by improvements the city and a couple local businesses have made. My neighborhood is quite old, my house being built in 1941 along with a lot of homes on my street. Sadly, the area in general has long been neglected, even though the homes themselves have actually been pretty well maintained save a few unfortunate eye sores.

However, in the past few years there's been noticeable improvement. The 44th St corridor has never looked better, and we very much appreciate the sidewalks and the upgraded look of the area as a result. The circular intersections and old lampposts are eye-catching and I'm very sure the local business appreciate the attention to the aesthetics. Variety Health Center also bought the old Lafayette Elementary at 44th and Walker about half a decade back, and have since just recently completed a new OKC park that focuses on health, an historically-sensitive addition to the building, as well as a full renovation of the original structure plus some very nice landscaping. It's a fantastic anchor to the east end of the streetscape and a vital resource to the surrounding community. Also planned from the 2007 GO Bond is for my neighborhood to be resurfaced and a sidewalk added. I do believe that Walker from 44th to 59th will also be gaining a sidewalk from either the GO Bond or MAPS3. I'm not sure when this will begin for my area, but they have completed similar work in other inner-Southside neighborhoods as well and they look terrific. Surrounding schools such as my Southeast, Capitol Hill, Parmalee, Lee, Webster, and others have all undergone or are currently undergoing renovation. The Southern Oaks library just reopened after a lengthy makeover and the building looks GREAT! It has been PACKED every day since. I'm seeing old apartment complexes renovated and vacancies filling up in once-desolate shopping centers that have also seen face-lifts in the past few years.

I really feel as if the inner-city is enjoying some well-needed TLC. I'm loving every bit of it.

That's the price of sprawl, and whether or not we live in those far-flung areas it is something that we all pay for. The costs of making capital improvements to 620 square miles is prohibitive. It has been mentioned earlier the ROI is relatively low as well so there is little incentive to attempt to do so. I go back to the words of Jeff Speck in an interview he did with the Atlantic Cities about post-war, auto-centric neighborhoods:

"So many of these places are unlovable and therefore not savable, nor worth saving. Why should a postwar sunbelt "city" that consists of nothing but cookie cutter chain stores, cubicle farms, and ticky-tacky houses claim our attention, when we have hundreds of historic downtown cores with underused infrastructure, beautiful buildings with empty upper floors, and great social amenities like churches, restaurants, cafes, and pubs..."

The experience on the ground bears out. While I enjoy walking no matter where I am (in a city, in the countryside, in a walker's paradise, along an inhospitable STROAD), I clearly see how investments made in Bricktown, the CBD, and Midtown are more worthy than investments that could be made along NW Expressway where I actually live. These efforts have benefited the entire metro area, rather than just a few thousand people who happen to live in a particular subdivision. Perhaps the failure, if there has been one, of our civic leaders, city planners, and urban cheerleaders has been the inability to articulate that to the people who feel neglected by the city's rightful focus on the core.

Lastly, I would say that the city definitely has disappointed me with its focus on the convention center over the quality of life measures from MAPS 3. Sidewalks and trails should have been the first item tackled, as no matter where I go in OKC everyone is clamoring for more sidewalks. Giving greater attention to this desire might have done more to satisfy citizens that those who have power and influence are looking at QOL issues for the entire city and not just the downtown area.

I second Architect2010. I have family in the Walker & 44th area and they've made some nice upgrades to the area.

City improvements for the urban core and suburban areas do not have to be an either/or proposition. Synergy is created when disparate groups work together for mutual benefit. The downtown core is benefiting from the tax dollars spent in the dreadfully suburban parts of town, and the suburbanites benefit from having cool destination restaurants and entertainment venues downtown (not to mention the renewed pride of city). That synergy is disabled when people create a scramble for the proverbial last piece of pie. Sure, there is only so much money to go around and wise choices have to be made regarding its distribution, but there is limitless "attention" that can be given - limitless energy and potential. I agree with Spartan; the city should recognize it's feasible boundaries and enforce them. However, that doesn't mean that existing and in-fill suburban development is the evil enemy of all that is good in Oklahoma City. Conversely, I also agree with those who suggest that excessive attention may be given to the Convention Center. But that doesn't mean that the MAPS 3 emphasis upon downtown investment is disproportionate and somehow neglectful of other parts of the city.

^^
Good post. The OP thinks that somehow we have to choose between city and suburban for targeted improvements and that's just not the case.

I will say that the 2007 bond measure is greatly improving infrastructure around town but because its not sexy stuff you aren't going to see posts about on OKCTalk. Even my grandparents long neglected neighborhood off of NE 23rd is finally seeing some improvements in the past few years.

Conversely, I also agree with those who suggest that excessive attention may be given to the Convention Center. But that doesn't mean that the MAPS 3 emphasis upon downtown investment is disproportionate and somehow neglectful of other parts of the city.

I definitely agree with this -- I do not support the premise that we are ignoring our suburban areas. I also think that if the civic leaders had shown more urgency for the sidewalks/trails and senior aquatic centers, projects that both would be dispersed throughout they city, it might have done more to inspire confidence that MAPS is for the entire city. I worry that the way we go about handling this iteration of MAPS might lead to an aversion to vote for more projects after these are completed. We've already got people running for council vowing to slow down the investments we're making in our core -- a position that really should be unthinkable at this point. I'd have a hard time seeing voters support this kind of candidate if other projects that might actually touch their neighborhoods were given more consideration.

Great post Rick!!!! :)

The Memorial/Quail Springs corridor has great commercial development outside of the urban core with nice modern office buildings, quality homes and apartments, and diverse shopping and eating choices.

I enjoy the developed parts of OKC outside of the core. Furthermore, I live in an area of sprawl (Council/Wilshire). Just a short drive, bike ride, or jog from here is the Lyrewood area, infamous on these forums along with several other areas of NW Oklahoma City. While I would love for these areas of the city to enjoy the good fortune currently blessing the downtown area, the investment needed to do so would be difficult to compel. The reason for that is the sheer size of this city. That is not to say that the area should be ignored, and I don't think that it is. Many people that I hear in passing do lament the investments going into Bricktown rather than into their own neighborhoods; I disagree, and I believe nearly every participant here does as well.

However the money that we are raising to improve OKC only goes so far, and there will be winners and losers. A primary example is the plan for sidewalks. Council members Skip Kelly and Pete White voiced opposition to the sidewalks master plan because some wards of the city would be nearly left out completely. So there are certain times when development unfortunately becomes a zero-sum game. In those times, you have to favor development that gets you more bang for your buck.

I wish the parts of the city that are presently underdeveloped or falling apart could see more investment, and I do believe OKC is trying its best to spread the love (improvements to NE 23rd and Walker/44th have already been mentioned). It is just unfortunate because a city of this size will always have a bigger challenge on its hands than a more compact place would.

I have the same feelings as far as our city leaders currently thinking that life revolves around the downtown area. In an effort to become a "Big League City" many parts of the city are being neglected. I did not vote in favor of the latest MAPS 3, but I must say the transformation downtown has been tremendous. Between the MAPS projects, and the stagering investment from the private sector, downtown is no longer the blighted area it once was.

That being said, there is more to Okc than downtown. 607 square miles worth. When all of the MAPS3 projects are completed, what would we want in a MAPS 4 should there ever be one?. This city has to focus on roads and infrastructure. If we true ly want to be a big league city, and invite new business and industry, we have got to address these issues that are all over the Oklahoma City. If there is to be a MAPS 4, it needs to be solely for roads and infrastructure. Nothing else. And not downtown either.

The best investment for Lyrewood would be an added police presence. You know, build a temporary division right in the middle of the hood.

The best investment for Lyrewood would be an added police presence. You know, build a temporary division right in the middle of the hood.

temporary?

I think once OKC get it's core in shape, it will really start to focus on the "rest" of it.

I thought this article about Montgomery County (DC Suburb) was interesting. Not sure if this was the best spot for it, but it looks like an issue parts of our metro is dealing with concerning downtown.

Montgomery County looks to get hip - The Washington Post (http://wapo.st/12vqxse)


Bianca Blomquist, 24, a lobbyist who lives in Columbia Heights. “Went up to eat there a couple of times. Wasn’t bad. Seemed all right for a suburb . . . It’s kind of cookie-cutter. At least I perceive it to be that way a little more.”

Would she consider living there?


“Maybe after 35, but I’ve never perceived myself as an in-betweener. I either want an urban setting or a rural setting. But the in-between? I don’t like it that much.”


Officials also want to take a look at liquor laws that have left Silver Spring and other parts of the county “under-barred,” as one planner put it, meaning a shortage of places for people to meet and drink.

I shake my head when I hear people say we can have a city both for cars and for pedestrians. No city in the world has accomplished this - ever. Heaven knows Le Corbusier tried though.

Now, why can't you make a city for both cars and pedestrians? That just sounds unreasonable.

The space devoted to making vehicle transit fast and efficient makes it very inefficient and dangerous for pedestrians.

Can't you balance it out? I mean, not giving either or the advantage with the exception the core areas, give the pedestrians the advantage obviously. When I think of OKC, I imagine downtown, but I also think of the metropolitan area as well. Just like when I think of Dallas, I think of Fort Worth included.

You let me know if you find a metro area anywhere in the world where traffic flows freely and pedestrians can get to everything the need. Downtown OKC tried it by following IM Pei who was a follower of Le Corbusier. They created very wide one-way streets to move traffic rapidly and then moved pedestrians to elevated skywalks, underground tunnels, and interior arcades. We saw how that turned out.

DnA3aOUAipw

Conservative state lawmakers are pushing to harshen the penalties for driving without insurance. Doesn't strike me as a bad idea but shouldn't there be something constructive done as well? If we are going to impound peoples' cars and fine them up to $1000 for driving without insurance, shouldn't we give them a reasonable alternative? The numbers I am familiar with are that it takes $10 million per mile to construct/rebuild a 4 lane road and $2 million per mile to build sidewalks. If the money from driving w/o insurance tickets went to funding sidewalks it would be more popular and less oppressive.

The space devoted to making vehicle transit fast and efficient makes it very inefficient and dangerous for pedestrians.

This is absolutely the case. Bricktown is a prime example: it is at once the most walkable part of the city as well as it's biggest nightmare for motorists. In contrast is NW Expressway -- usable by cars and a terrible host for pedestrians.

This is absolutely the case. Bricktown is a prime example: it is at once the most walkable part of the city as well as it's biggest nightmare for motorists. In contrast is NW Expressway -- usable by cars and a terrible host for pedestrians.

There are many days the Expressways hardly feels better in cars

I get uncomfortable when this sort of topic comes up ... I see it as a misunderstanding of how reinvestment in the urban core benefits the entire city, and also skips over what's been done for the rest of the city.
Consider that southeast Oklahoma City benefited greatly from the decision to buy the old General Motors plant and retrofit it for Tinker expansion, or that southeast Oklahoma City is seeing hundreds of new high paying jobs coming in with the city's successful recruitment of Boeing. And can anyone deny that quality of life was improved in far west Oklahoma City with the new Council Road/I-40 junction, or the city's assistance in bringing the new factory outlet mall to town? Miles and miles of roads are being widened and repaved in northwest Oklahoma City, where the new Patience Latting Library opened on NW 122 is arguably the best one in the city. NE 23 has seen millions spent cleaning up the corridor and making it a better stretch for commercial redevelopment. The city has also helped bring the JFK neighborhood back to life with dozens of new modern homes being built among the older residences. The city has invested millions in the Softball Hall of Fame in northeast OKC, a greatly under-appreciated venue that helps support restaurants and shops in the Adventure District.
The city is looking at how to turn around fortunes along I-240 in southwest Oklahoma City, which some might argue is a victim of uncurbed sprawl. Likewise, some would argue that Lyrewood Lane is a victim of sprawl that took place in the 1970s. Could Memorial Road go the same direction in 20 years?
I don't know.
I can tell you that redevelopment of the urban core is "viral." I've seen with my own eyes how redevelopment of downtown has spurred investment in the former Skid Row (now known as Film Row), Paseo, NW 23, Lincoln Heights Neighborhood, Mesta Park, Stockyards, and numerous historic neighborhoods stretching from NW 23 to Crown Heights.
As a city, we've been allowing continued sprawl while also trying to fix the damage done by past sprawl, all as the ongoing sprawl ends up leading to new problems. Yes, some may argue this is not the ideal way to progress as a city. But some may also argue that with the OKC school system still falling short (despite several hundred million being invested by the city in schools throughout the city), those sprawl areas in the overlapping boundaries of suburban school districts are what have allowed the city to enjoy continued growth in population.
And remember, the argument goes, if your population isn't growing, you're dying.
Walkability is great. And it's entirely possible that the embryonic efforts downtown can spread in the same way MAPS triggered a wave of investment as I've detailed. Public transit is obviously needed, and most agree it's entirely weak in OKC. But I've not seen the sort of momentum with public transit that will result in funding for transit that will cover all 622 square miles in OKC. Supporters of the streetcar system argue (stop me if this sounds familiar), start with the urban core, and create the momentum that will allow it to spread.
I realize this is a very long and complicated post that probably includes things for both sides of this debate to pick apart. But from my almost 20 years of experience covering this issue, it's not an "either-or" question between downtown and "the rest of OKC."

Amen, Steve.

Great post by Steve.

Something that bears repeating: Does anyone think that the Plaza District and Uptown/23rd street would be revitalizing if downtown and Bricktown were allowed to float on as they did pre-MAP's? Lots of historical neighborhoods like Crown Heights and Miller and Crestwood, neighborhoods that aren't particularly close to downtown, have seen home appreciation unheard of in this state. It was the initial burst of interest from downtown growing that eventually led people to explore these areas. And by urban "osmosis" interest will eventually start spreading into other second ring areas. I actually know people my age who are looking into areas like Belle Isle and some of the older neighborhoods along Portland Avenue in West OKC. You already see this Houston. Their Downtown has developed nicely, and with redevelopment just about tapped out in the Inner Loop, you are now starting to see interest pick up in areas between 610 and Beltway 8, essentially their second ring area.

Steve, my money is on suburbia collapsing completely. It is only made possible by massive public subsidies from federal support to maintain the highways, to federal support for new home construction, to a military industrial complex all too willing to go to war with every nation that threatens the free flow of oil at market prices. It has bankrupted the country. Cities that survive will be the ones that can keep the wheel of commerce turning when the wheels of cars no longer do.

Now, why can't you make a city for both cars and pedestrians? That just sounds unreasonable.

Q1ZeXnmDZMQ

Steve, my money is on suburbia collapsing completely. It is only made possible by massive public subsidies from federal support to maintain the highways, to federal support for new home construction, to a military industrial complex all too willing to go to war with every nation that threatens the free flow of oil at market prices. It has bankrupted the country. Cities that survive will be the ones that can keep the wheel of commerce turning when the wheels of cars no longer do.

This story appeared today:

$5 Gas Returns To Southland « CBS Los Angeles (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/02/18/5-gas-returns-to-southland/)


“I pay 75 bucks like three times a week to come to work,” said one woman. “You have to work to eat…if you don’t work, you don’t eat.”



She is going to be hosed when she can't afford to get to work.

Steve, my money is on suburbia collapsing completely. It is only made possible by massive public subsidies from federal support to maintain the highways, to federal support for new home construction, to a military industrial complex all too willing to go to war with every nation that threatens the free flow of oil at market prices. It has bankrupted the country. Cities that survive will be the ones that can keep the wheel of commerce turning when the wheels of cars no longer do.

Just because you want to see the collapse of suburbia, doesn't mean that betting on it is a safe investment. People live how they want because they want to live that way - not because it is the most financially beneficial way to live. You have likely made sacrifices to live an urbanist life - just as others have sacrificed to live a suburban life. You want a sense of community and density; others want a sense of individuality and space. Now, I want to make it clear: I agree with many of your conclusions. However, a mindset shift (not financial hardship) is all that will tilt people away from further sprawl.

With that being said, I would like to return to the main thrust of this thread by asking for anyone to prove as wrong the point that both Steve and I have made. We have suggested that urban life and suburbia (not unnecessary sprawl) can co-exist and even synergistically benefit each other. I suggest it is myopic and antiquated to suggest a "limited good" mindset - that there is only so much prosperity to go around and that urban and suburban must deny the other to obtain what is available.

However, a mindset shift (not financial hardship) is all that will tilt people away from further sprawl.



Not being able to afford where you live is about the fastest way I can think of to trigger a mindset shift.

Just because you want to see the collapse of suburbia, doesn't mean that betting on it is a safe investment. People live how they want because they want to live that way - not because it is the most financially beneficial way to live. You have likely made sacrifices to live an urbanist life - just as others have sacrificed to live a suburban life.

Wanting to see it - and predicting it are two different things. Also, I live in suburbia on a cul-de-sac where everyone has to drive for everything (except for me - I ride my bike). Ironically, I remember when we bought our house I was happy we lived in the back of the subdivision because traffic would be less. Now that I spend the first .6 miles of my bike ride just to reach the entrance I wish I lived closer to the front. No matter where I go 1.2 miles is spent just in the subdivision.

Now back to your question. What do you mean co-exist? Do you mean a section of OKC can be car-oriented and totally different section can be pedestrain oriented, or that the same area can serve both cars and pedestrains at the same time?

Wanting to see it - and predicting it are two different things. Also, I live in suburbia on a cul-de-sac where everyone has to drive for everything (except for me - I ride my bike). Ironically, I remember when we bought our house I was happy we lived in the back of the subdivision because traffic would be less. Now that I spend the first .6 miles of my bike ride just to reach the entrance I wish I lived closer to the front. No matter where I go 1.2 miles is spent just in the subdivision.

Now back to your question. What do you mean co-exist? Do you mean a section of OKC can be car-oriented and totally different section can be pedestrain oriented, or that the same area can serve both cars and pedestrains at the same time?

No offense intended here, but I have become a believer that you spew this ignorant crap for the purpose of trolling to get someone into a conversation. I also believe you ride a bike, not for the purposes you espouse, but because you can't afford the gas due to not working very often as evidenced by how much you are in this forum. If this is the case, you probably need to spend more time trying to find your wife a better paying job. If my beliefs are not spot on, then please accept my apology for inferring you are a deadbeat.

No offense intended here, but I have become a believer that you spew this ignorant crap for the purpose of trolling to get someone into a conversation. I also believe you ride a bike, not for the purposes you espouse, but because you can't afford the gas due to not working very often as evidenced by how much you are in this forum. If this is the case, you probably need to spend more time trying to find your wife a better paying job. If my beliefs are not spot on, then please accept my apology for inferring you are a deadbeat.

Apology accepted.

Sid - I like your last 2 posts a lot, but it isn't going to happen. So since we know it isn't going to happen what is the only possible outcome? Our currency is based on debt and the #1 source of debt is home loans (#2 is car loans). Our system requires us to build more houses, abandon homes that are debt free, and new houses require new roads, which are driven on by new cars (as debt-free cars are crushed and recylced to be sold as new cars - with new debt). Our entire way of life isn't sustainable.

Wanting to see it - and predicting it are two different things. Also, I live in suburbia on a cul-de-sac where everyone has to drive for everything (except for me - I ride my bike). Ironically, I remember when we bought our house I was happy we lived in the back of the subdivision because traffic would be less. Now that I spend the first .6 miles of my bike ride just to reach the entrance I wish I lived closer to the front. No matter where I go 1.2 miles is spent just in the subdivision.

Now back to your question. What do you mean co-exist? Do you mean a section of OKC can be car-oriented and totally different section can be pedestrain oriented, or that the same area can serve both cars and pedestrains at the same time?You could make the downtown area pedestrian friendly and suburbia car friendly. When I say that, I don't mean completely making it impossible to drive cars in downtown and walking in suburbia. I just don't understand why you can't make downtown and advantage to peds and balance cars and peds in the suburbs. Put in bike lanes, 12ft. sidewalks, have up to date cross walks(meaning the newer style where a light will completely change just for a ped. Project 180 seems to be doing to incorporating the best of both worlds.

ps I did watch that video and it was interesting and had some good points. I still think that you can have a city that can provide happiness to both pedestrians and cars. I love cars and am a huge advocate. I also ride my bike a looooooot. One thing that could be improved is the way drivers act towards bikers on the road. I had someone throw a drink at me one time in Edmond for riding my bike on a two lane road. The are assholes out there, but I still ride.

Because fundamentaly you cannot have both coexist without one interrupting the other. There's isn't much of a middle ground, walk ability is all psychological. A mile is a mile. When walking down the sidewalk of a busy fast-moving street, the first thing you think of is "I hope I don't get run over by a car". That fear reduces the urge to walk other than for exercise. The traffic is simply moving too fast. How do you bring that fear down, you reduce your speeds. Speed limit signs don't work at reducing speed, so you need to reduce speed by any of the methods used to calm traffic: more controlled intersections, on street parking, reduced building setbacks, speed bumps, smaller traffic lanes, etc. Don't have to do all of the above, but you have to do one or some of them to get traffic to naturally slow down. Now you have made driving an inconvenience and have made walking easier. There is not much of a middle ground, you are either walkable or you are not, you are either car friendly or you are not.

By adding "points" to one side, you must reduce "points" to the other side of the argument. That is to say, the more walkable you are, the less car friendly you are. Vice versa. Chicago strikes a "decent" balance between the two, but commuting by car is still a painfully slow process and the scale is swung to the walkable side. I can't think of any cities I have been to that provide a perfect balance between pedestrian and auto.

As far as suburban areas are concerned, northwest OKC, especially north of Memorial is very nice as is SW OKC South of I-240. I definitely understand the concern about how blighted once nice suburban areas have become, but I am not sure its possible to fully revitalize them. I am also not a huge fan of turning vast sections of suburban OKC into urban prairie like Detroit has done. I think the focus should be on better building codes, landscaping, zoning, and overall smarter suburban growth to prevent the current up-and-coming suburban areas from going to crap in 20 years like west OKC has.

I also don't see suburbia collapsing any time soon. Millennials are far more urban-minded than previous generations, but plenty are still choosing suburbia, especially in OKC where people tend to marry and have children young. I think one of the biggest barriers to people becoming lifelong downtown residents and raising families there rather than just living there in their twenties will be the fact most people would rather have their kids in Edmond, Deer Creek, or Moore schools rather than OKC schools.

I get uncomfortable when this sort of topic comes up ... I see it as a misunderstanding of how reinvestment in the urban core benefits the entire city, and also skips over what's been done for the rest of the city.
Consider that southeast Oklahoma City benefited greatly from the decision to buy the old General Motors plant and retrofit it for Tinker expansion, or that southeast Oklahoma City is seeing hundreds of new high paying jobs coming in with the city's successful recruitment of Boeing. And can anyone deny that quality of life was improved in far west Oklahoma City with the new Council Road/I-40 junction, or the city's assistance in bringing the new factory outlet mall to town? Miles and miles of roads are being widened and repaved in northwest Oklahoma City, where the new Patience Latting Library opened on NW 122 is arguably the best one in the city. NE 23 has seen millions spent cleaning up the corridor and making it a better stretch for commercial redevelopment. The city has also helped bring the JFK neighborhood back to life with dozens of new modern homes being built among the older residences. The city has invested millions in the Softball Hall of Fame in northeast OKC, a greatly under-appreciated venue that helps support restaurants and shops in the Adventure District.
The city is looking at how to turn around fortunes along I-240 in southwest Oklahoma City, which some might argue is a victim of uncurbed sprawl. Likewise, some would argue that Lyrewood Lane is a victim of sprawl that took place in the 1970s. Could Memorial Road go the same direction in 20 years?
I don't know.
I can tell you that redevelopment of the urban core is "viral." I've seen with my own eyes how redevelopment of downtown has spurred investment in the former Skid Row (now known as Film Row), Paseo, NW 23, Lincoln Heights Neighborhood, Mesta Park, Stockyards, and numerous historic neighborhoods stretching from NW 23 to Crown Heights.
As a city, we've been allowing continued sprawl while also trying to fix the damage done by past sprawl, all as the ongoing sprawl ends up leading to new problems. Yes, some may argue this is not the ideal way to progress as a city. But some may also argue that with the OKC school system still falling short (despite several hundred million being invested by the city in schools throughout the city), those sprawl areas in the overlapping boundaries of suburban school districts are what have allowed the city to enjoy continued growth in population.
And remember, the argument goes, if your population isn't growing, you're dying.
Walkability is great. And it's entirely possible that the embryonic efforts downtown can spread in the same way MAPS triggered a wave of investment as I've detailed. Public transit is obviously needed, and most agree it's entirely weak in OKC. But I've not seen the sort of momentum with public transit that will result in funding for transit that will cover all 622 square miles in OKC. Supporters of the streetcar system argue (stop me if this sounds familiar), start with the urban core, and create the momentum that will allow it to spread.
I realize this is a very long and complicated post that probably includes things for both sides of this debate to pick apart. But from my almost 20 years of experience covering this issue, it's not an "either-or" question between downtown and "the rest of OKC."

Well said.
It is clear that core growth spurs growth in all quadrants of a metro because it creates a mind-set of possiblities. But, like the AICC, the under-current of divisiveness and the inability to FINISH projects greatly henders more rapid growth in OKC. Since Maps does fund projects, once done their viability is greatly enhanced. But, the length of time it takes to get to some of the projects creates an automosphere of second-guessing. Light Rail is a prime example, it has been voted for many times, once defeated by your own Senator - Inhofe - and now by 'lower priority' (despite being the real reason most voted for Maps 3). The longer it takes, the more people will fight the concept of possible benefits. Whether intentional or not, there is an apparent atmosphere of doing things 'half way' in Oklahoma City in particular. The roads are full of potholes, mass trans in nonexistant, there are mountains of garbage - literally and along side the roads. There is a lack of community concern about environmental issues - like trash and resource maintaince (water in particular). There is a toxic political climate in the state that only current city leaders have kept 'in-check' in OKC. There is a total lack of understanding that cultural and infrastuctual improvements never pay for themselves - but pay great dividends to the growth of a community. Perhaps it is the geography of the metro area, people don't seem to claim OKC, they claim Norman, Edmond, Yukon, MWC, Southside, NW OKC. This is the real value of the downtown renaissance - the creation of a community from a group of communities - a center of gravity. All of the improvements over the last 20 years have just allowed OKC to 'keep up with the Joneses'. How you FINISH (including maintenence and beautification) the projects (all) that have been started may determine whether you keep up or leap ahead.

Light Rail is a prime example, it has been voted for many times, once defeated by your own Senator - Inhofe - and now by 'lower priority' (despite being the real reason most voted for Maps 3). The longer it takes, the more people will fight the concept of possible benefits.

Light rail is not a prime example. Maps 3 included a street car system, not light rail. It was Ernest Istook who derailed a previous proposal for light rail in OKC.

Light rail is not a prime example. Maps 3 included a street car system, not light rail. It was Ernest Istook who derailed a previous proposal for light rail in OKC.
Thanks for the clarrification on who killed the 'street car system', the ' I's ' often mixed me up. I have lived in many cities that have both light rail and 'street cars', I assure you that most people don't know or care about the difference as long as it gets them from point A to point B. While it is true that 'rail' is used more for commuter and mass trans, there are several systems where the 'street car' is the main transporter. While I do appreciate the asthetic and functional difference - most people will equate one with the other depending on their personal experiences and expectations. In the end they are both 'railed' systems to get people from here to there. If this system fails there will be no support for the larger, long-range system because most will not see the difference. The benifit of the 'street car' system coming first is that they are generally more popular and visually impacting in the areas they serve. But every friend or family member I talk to in Oklahoma, most of whom are generally supportive of these systems, do not equate any difference and do specifically site these histories of 'failed', terminated, altered, or delayed projects - like it or not.

Light rail is not a prime example. Maps 3 included a street car system, not light rail. It was Ernest Istook who derailed a previous proposal for light rail in OKC.

he derailed street car in the original maps ... but that part of maps was not funded .. it required federal dollars ... our current Maps3 street car will not

If this system fails there will be no support for the larger, long-range system because most will not see the difference. The benifit of the 'street car' system coming first is that they are generally more popular and visually impacting in the areas they serve.

This is exactly why OKC dodged a bullet when the original MAPS rail system was scrapped. It was only thrown in to silence opposition from the Meridian Road hotel cabal. It was a poorly conceived route which would have failed miserable, and destroyed any hope for another rail initiative probably forever. The streetcar has to come first in any regional rail plan. Someone who leaves their car behind in Edmond or Norman has to have a way to get around once they get downtown. This is why Tulsa needs to develop a streetcar system to make an OKC/Tulsa rail connection viable for businesses and travelers on both ends. Otherwise, it will just be people from Tulsa coming to OKC because Tulsa bound people would have a mobility problem once they got there.

This is exactly why OKC dodged a bullet when the original MAPS rail system was scrapped. It was only thrown in to silence opposition from the Meridian Road hotel cabal. It was a poorly conceived route which would have failed miserable, and destroyed any hope for another rail initiative probably forever. The streetcar has to come first in any regional rail plan. Someone who leaves their car behind in Edmond or Norman has to have a way to get around once they get downtown. This is why Tulsa needs to develop a streetcar system to make an OKC/Tulsa rail connection viable for businesses and travelers on both ends. Otherwise, it will just be people from Tulsa coming to OKC because Tulsa bound people would have a mobility problem once they got there.

Generally a good point, but unless Tulsa has change significantly (and they may have) their bus system was much better than what is in OKC - where the rail system will be more impactfull.

No one from OKC is going to ride a Tulsa bus. It just isn't going to happen. People in OKC don't even ride their own buses.

Lol! I take one every month. And there are always people on the bus with me.

Yes, but you are a trailblazer.

If our bus system were better, I would be a "choice rider." But, the route I need only runs once an hour, and once I get downtown, the circulators (Discovery?) doesn't run until 10:00 am. - which is after it would do me any good to get from the transit center to my building. I don't have the luxury of knowing I can leave the office at a certain time each night - and the idea of waiting 55 minutes for the bus is reason enough for me to drive downtown every day.

I'm looking forward to the street car system, but until I have a more convenient public transportation option to get me downtown (from inside the core), I'll continue to drive.

If our bus system were better, I would be a "choice rider." But, the route I need only runs once an hour, and once I get downtown, the circulators (Discovery?) doesn't run until 10:00 am. - which is after it would do me any good to get from the transit center to my building. I don't have the luxury of knowing I can leave the office at a certain time each night - and the idea of waiting 55 minutes for the bus is reason enough for me to drive downtown every day.

I'm looking forward to the street car system, but until I have a more convenient public transportation option to get me downtown (from inside the core), I'll continue to drive.

This is why OKC should create a public transit zone. If you want access to public transit live inside the zone. If you don't want to live in the transit zone get a car. Serve a smaller area really well instead of a large area poorly. There is a finite amount of money available. That money can be spent in 60 sq miles, or it can be spent in 600 sq miles. I prefer the 60.

I had the same problem when I lived at 50th & Lincoln. 50 minute frequency meant zero room for error. I took the 18 and it worked out fine but it isn't convenient to have so few options.

And that's not that too far from the center of town. It really does come down to convenience. My bus option does not need to be as convenient as driving my own car, but there is only so much I'm willing to put up with since I have a paid off car that costs very little to maintain - gas costs less than a bus fare - and my employer pays for my parking.

he derailed street car in the original maps ... but that part of maps was not funded .. it required federal dollars ... our current Maps3 street car will not

I'm well aware of that and wasn't trying to imply anything else.

This is why OKC should create a public transit zone. If you want access to public transit live inside the zone. If you don't want to live in the transit zone get a car. Serve a smaller area really well instead of a large area poorly. There is a finite amount of money available. That money can be spent in 60 sq miles, or it can be spent in 600 sq miles. I prefer the 60.
I like this idea. What kind of boundaries are you imagining for Oklahoma City?

This is why OKC should create a public transit zone. If you want access to public transit live inside the zone. If you don't want to live in the transit zone get a car. Serve a smaller area really well instead of a large area poorly. There is a finite amount of money available. That money can be spent in 60 sq miles, or it can be spent in 600 sq miles. I prefer the 60.

What would you expect the cost to develop and support the transit options for this area to be and requisite population density? Would you support any streets, parking, etc. or just rail, bus, etc. ? Would the mass trans be on top of current infrastructure cost? What is the density in the 60 contiguous square miles surrounding downtown?

It was discussed at length here

http://www.okctalk.com/transportation/26602-bus-system.html

I would prefer a neighborhood based bus systems. For example, a local transit hub would be located in the Plaza District. The neighborhoods around the Plaza District would be served by small capacity (20 passenger) buses running circular loops. The primary purpose of these buses would be to collect riders within the residential areas and deliver them to the Plaza District hub where daily needs and service would be concentrated. From here people could shop at local business or connect to other local buses serving adjacent neighborhoods.

There would 7 or 8 of these hubs are the urban core plus the 1 in downtown. The hubs would also be connected by express buses running every 30 minutes. Every house in the urban core would be 3 blocks or less from a bus stop with a bus coming by every 15 minutes. I think I calculated it would take 95 or so buses which is fewer than what COPTA has now. If there was sufficient demand buses between hubs could be replaced with streetcars.

The result would be the neighborhood commercial district would return as the center of neighborhood life.

I just found this video. I have not seen anything that compares to this video in explaining why you can't simultaneously create a pedestrian and automobile environment. It truly is one or the other, but not both.

siaDqubNUWE

A 60 square mile service area would make it very efficient for that 60 square mile area, but the result outside of the service area would be illegal under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act. The FTA/DOT regulations apply the Act through their regulations, and any service cuts which have a disparate impact on minorities is not permitted by agencies that receive federal transportation funding.

I worked on this issue when the Dayton, Ohio RTA proposed service cuts that were almost exclusively through low income neighborhoods. It’s been a few years since I’ve looked at the issues, but I believe OKC could beef up service in the urban core, but reducing service is a very delicate task.

The FTA/DOT regulations apply the Act through their regulations, and any service cuts which have a disparate impact on minorities is not permitted by agencies that receive federal transportation funding.

Define 'disparate'. Yes poor minority areas of OKC would lose serivce but poor minority areas in OKC would also gain service. Since service would be cut to north, west, and NW OKC you could say that most service cuts would be to middle and upper middle class areas.

Because, as you state, poor minority areas of OKC would lose service, you can't cut it. Just because other parts of town will receive better service does not get you around the laws, as written. I'm not advocating this is the best way to do things, but under the current framework, you cannot cut service in its entirety to a predominantly minority neighborhood.

We threw up enough obstacles when Dayton RTA just wanted to reduce service – I can’t imagine what would have happened if they tried to completely eliminate service to neighborhoods where the bus system, no matter how inconvenient and poorly run it may be, is the primary mode of transportation to a majority of the residents.

Maybe a complete scrub and re-work of how we do mass transit, then. Even I, well outside of that 60 sq. mile region, would applaud it if there could be some tendrils of mass transit that do service the "lesser mass transit" regions of OKC. Let's reduce service outside that 60 sq. miles so that we can really get it right inside the mass transit zone.

Because, as you state, poor minority areas of OKC would lose service, you can't cut it. Just because other parts of town will receive better service does not get you around the laws, as written. I'm not advocating this is the best way to do things, but under the current framework, you cannot cut service in its entirety to a predominantly minority neighborhood.

We threw up enough obstacles when Dayton RTA just wanted to reduce service – I can’t imagine what would have happened if they tried to completely eliminate service to neighborhoods where the bus system, no matter how inconvenient and poorly run it may be, is the primary mode of transportation to a majority of the residents.

So the federal bureaucracy once again stands in the way of doing the right thing (please see my posting on Progress Traps).