Thanks for the response UP, and I'm glad that it sounds like you want to work with him. Extending the olive branch is not just respectable, but also puts the onus on the other side.

I think as long as the two pro-transit factions work together, OKC will succeed in getting a comprehensive and efficient system off the ground. Something that benefits everybody, not just downtowners or carless Walmart shoppers (our current bus system's target market).

We also need to band together to keep bus-essential developments (like a new social security office or county health clinic) within a limited bus grid. We can figure out infrastructure capital costs pretty easily - but ongoing O+M funding needs to be secured for more rail and bus (the latter of which will be more expensive but necessary).

Streetcars honestly are easier because they generate taxes and run light on O+M costs long term.

Some wards legitimately don't want that. James Greiner for instance. Greenwell is a huge improvement for Ward 5. Also, if/when Pete White retires, that ward is going to be a problem. I can see it now. You somehow have a liberal democrat w a conscience who represents SE OKC, need I say more?

Now really might be the best time to make these changes stick.

While he may have a conscience, he often votes irrationally. I think OKC will soldier on once he elects to hang up his cleats.

Well I do appreciate urbanism in most of it's forms. The pictures of the Savannah restaurant initially put out on twitter by Allison Barta Bailey, copied here, and referenced in the court proceedings lend an idea that the building and thus the corner could be activated in an inspired way that includes preservation. It is a worthwhile discussion at least. I also respect the private property rights arguments and the fact that no public money has been asked for. Still... it's another freaking parking garage!

Regarding Ed... I appreciate many of the arguments that he makes on many important issues. It's a shame that our conflict on the streetcar system became so unnecessarily personal. And if you talk to people who have conflicts with him and some of his core his supporters, on no matter what the issue, they apparently often become unnecessairly personal once things heat up. He and his core supporters often question people's personal motives and the result is that it then becomes hard to judge his sincerity on the issue at hand. Now mind you, I am not without my own flaws. I gave cause for some of this conflict and have debated him when possible with relish. That is my nature.

But all of this has led up to serious irony. Ed was first a streetcar supporter. Then he wasn't. He has created an unnecessary conflict between public transit proponents about "bus versus streetcar". This continues today even though our goal has always been to elevate all of public transit. Then, with great irony, the streetcar system was trumpeted by him and his attorney as an alternative solution to the parking and access problem on this 499 project.

I have been arguing for years that the streetcar system can address our fundamental downtown pedestrian access problems, activate sidewalk activity, allow for remoting the locations of parking garages, and ultimately be the mechanism by which a commuter rail and bus system distributes and picks up downtown workers each day.

After seeing building after building torn down for parking, I am convinced the only way the mindset will start to change is only after the streetcar system is built and up and running. And unfortunately, the 499 parking garage design may be an solid indicator that the city will be willing to accept the destruction of the absolute most core part of our city for the First National Center project.

Regarding Ed... It is hard to say what the motivations are behind taking up this cause. Urbanist philanthropist? Political ambitions? Personal vendettas with Larry Nichols? All of the above?

Regardless of his motivations an whether or not they are sincere or not sincere, I agree with Pete. The only way to properly way to create an opinion on each of the causes that he takes up is to consider them individually.

I am willing to let go of the past and work together with Ed and the other City Council members to build a comprehensive public transit system. Streetcar supporters won. The streetcar system is going to get built. It is going to set the standard by which all other public transit in this city should be weighed. Our bus system merits the same levels of investments. Policies regarding how we build and fund bus shelters should be reevaluated. The Regional Transit Authority should be formally created and a funding mechanism should be approved.

These broader debates regarding preservation, urbanity, parking garages, density, walkability, are only going to resolved though a comprehensive alternative to using automobiles to get everywhere. And we need $1.2 billion and a few people to retire or die off to do it.

Omg what an amazing post.

Omg what an amazing post.

This is as level-headed and as rationale that you can respond. I think that logic applies to pretty much everything, but if you take things on a case-by-case basis, what Shadid has been doing lately has completely changed my opinion on him. Even if he doesn't win, he spent a ton of money out of his own pocket and pushed back against something that would otherwise have been easily approved and has made people at least question the DDRC and the City. I think that the judge is going to rule quickly in favor of the City, but it seems like, if anything, that this will make the process for demolition of any building in the CBD, or surrounding areas, (whether it is Historically protected or not) a little more intensive.

While he may have a conscience, he often votes irrationally. I think OKC will soldier on once he elects to hang up his cleats.

You have to include him and make sure he understands how this is evolving. I think he was just surprised at how this project has evolved and seemed okay once streetcar experts reached out to him. He'll probably be extremely supportive of a Capitol Hill extension.

Omg what an amazing post.Thanks so much! I really want to see our city continue to progress.

Any word when the judge will announce his decision?

He had said sometime after the 4th, but that's all we know.

Judge has ruled! Bus station is gone........

Judge has ruled! Bus station is gone........

Not surprising

Let me get the keys and i'll go start up the dozer.....let's get this pig kicked!!!!

Now all Devon needs is higher-profit oil.

Now all Devon needs is higher-profit oil.

As do all energy companies, but Devon did not need higher profit oil to build the Devon Energy Center back in 2008/2009 which was a much more ambitious project started when oil prices were lower than today ($40/bbl in the months leading up to construction) and the economy as a whole was much worse. I seriously doubt that is a concern right now as it pertains to funding for this project.

Judge rejects Oklahoma City councilman's bid to save Union Bus Station | News OK (http://newsok.com/judge-rejects-oklahoma-city-councilmans-bid-to-save-union-bus-station/article/5433638/?page=2)

As do all energy companies, but Devon did not need higher profit oil to build the Devon Energy Center back in 2008/2009 which was a much more ambitious project started when oil prices were lower than today ($40/bbl in the months leading up to construction) and the economy as a whole was much worse. I seriously doubt that is a concern right now as it pertains to funding for this project.

They did that back when they were in legit Class C digs. Not a hard sell to their board of directors who must look out for their investors first and foremost. Now they are doing so from legit Class A digs, and proposing even more overhead at a time when their overhead costs are attracting more investor scrutiny. Don't underestimate the importance of that. Devon is doing this project on the cheap because they can not get away with building another first-class development right now. That's a good way to get Carl Icahn'd.

They did that back when they were in legit Class C digs. Not a hard sell to their board of directors who must look out for their investors first and foremost. Now they are doing so from legit Class A digs, and proposing even more overhead at a time when their overhead costs are attracting more investor scrutiny. Don't underestimate the importance of that. Devon is doing this project on the cheap because they can not get away with building another first-class development right now. That's a good way to get Carl Icahn'd.

We'll have to agree to disagree on their financial position and its effect on their ability to build a new building. Remember, this was well into the planning phase when the price of oil was still $100/bbl. Devon is still betting on the price of oil rising to around $65 to $70 by year's end and increasing throughout next year. They are not making decisions on a long term investment, like an office tower, based on where oil is today....just as they didn't in 2009 regardless of their Class C office space at the time(the vast majority of their office space was still Class A or High Class B back then with the class C in first national making up a small part that was mostly storage). I will almost garuntee you that commodity pricing has not had any effect on 499's design. Now if Sandridge or CHK had proposed this, I would probably agree with you.

Additionally, Devon is not the only company involved here with a decent chunk of the building to be leased by someone else whether that be BOK or another unannounced company.

We'll have to agree to disagree on their financial position and its effect on their ability to build a new building. Remember, this was well into the planning phase when the price of oil was still $100/bbl. Devon is still betting on the price of oil rising to around $65 to $70 by year's end and increasing throughout next year. They are not making decisions on a long term investment, like an office tower, based on where oil is today....just as they didn't in 2009 regardless of their Class C office space at the time(the vast majority of their office space was still Class A or High Class B back then with the class C in first national making up a small part that was mostly storage). I will almost garuntee you that commodity pricing has not had any effect on 499's design. Now if Sandridge or CHK had proposed this, I would probably agree with you.

Additionally, Devon is not the only company involved here with a decent chunk of the building to be leased by someone else whether that be BOK or another unannounced company.

You're not hearing me. I get that oil is a good investment. What I'm saying is that privately traded commodities companies are under pressure from investors to focus on the cash cow and downplay the overhead costs. Gotta look "fiscally conservative" in order to be considered well-ran.

Except according to all the PR and press, Devon isn't the one building this... They are just a tenant. :rolleyes:

Oklahoma City's traffic study recommends eliminating downtown's bike lane | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/5433732?utm_source=NewsOK.com&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=ShareBar-Twitter)

So we tear down the Union bus station and other few historic buildings left to build two MORE parking garages, and subsequently decide we need to remove one of the few dedicated bike lanes downtown so we can widen the street for MORE cars.

Wonderful. :mad:

Brutal.

From jeepnokc; note sign on pick-up door:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/bus071515.jpg

Oklahoma City's traffic study recommends eliminating downtown's bike lane | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/5433732?utm_source=NewsOK.com&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=ShareBar-Twitter)

So we tear down the Union bus station and other few historic buildings left to build two MORE parking garages, and subsequently decide we need to remove one of the few dedicated bike lanes downtown so we can widen the street for MORE cars.

Wonderful. :mad:

Except the study came back and said our current capacity is fine. It's just the possibility that these new parking garages may potentially bring additional peak traffic between 4:55 and 5:10, for which we must clearly take out our only N-S dedicated bike route..

Also don't worry these garages will maybe have street level retail.. except no on-street parking to support said street level retail, which is fine because Okies are clearly comfortable with garage parking for retail trips.

It's okay though, we can "bridge" the planning disconnect by going around on the Oklahoma River trail, then right at Overholser, and back around from Hefner! Who needs Walker anyway? Besides everyone knows that good bicyclists only use treeless waterfront trails.

I think I want to get back on the plane and return to the place I spent my vacation. Confederate flag wavers, bad city planning, terrible governor, food stamp recipients being compared to animals. Oklahoma is looking UGLY right now.

There is basically one guy holding back the ability to fully implement urbanist street designs. A very nice guy with good intentions. But his priority is CARS FIRST! Until he retires and is replaced with modern street design theories, we will be in this suburban street design tug-of-war.

I think I want to get back on the plane and return to the place I spent my vacation. Confederate flag wavers, bad city planning, terrible governor, food stamp recipients being compared to animals. Oklahoma is looking UGLY right now.

Come on now, don't go all Bchris on us.

There is basically one guy holding back the ability to fully implement urbanist street designs. A very nice guy with good intentions. But his priority is CARS FIRST! Until he retires and is replaced with modern street design theories, we will be in this suburban street design tug-of-war.

Is this person an engineer who's full name rhymes with flames?

So, what can citizens do to address this? It sounds like there's political will, right?

So, what can citizens do to address this? It sounds like there's political will, right?

Not really. I think you would find that the overwhelming majority of people in the OKC area are still car centric. I'm a proponent of walkability/bikes/etc, and even I sometimes feel like screaming at the bike riders who are on the road in the middle of things. We really do need bike lanes to make it safe for cars and bikers, but I don't think the majority of the public has waken up to the benefit of that yet. This is just my opinion, but I think most of that comes from the fact that where they live, being on a bike is a nuisance and not a benefit. So much of the city lacks sidewalks and then when there are sidewalks and bikers still ride in the street, people get frustrated because they don't understand why the bikers aren't using the sidewalk. And so much of the city is not bike/walk friendly, most people don't see how being on a bike gets you anywhere. Or how you're supposed to get home with things you get. it's mostly lack of education but Oklahomans are a VERY lazy bunch. Give them their fast food and their car and they're happy driving from one store to the next in a vastly stretching strip malls.

That whole idea IS changing, but its very slowly and mostly due to Millennials (I'm one of those weird ages of people that's stuck between Millennials and GenX/Y...so I guess I get a little of both worlds. Old enough to still remember how to use a book, but young enough to pair it with a cell phone LOL). I say that because I think the next generation of politics in Oklahoma will look VERY different than it does today and that will start in OKC before anywhere else in the state.

Except the study came back and said our current capacity is fine. It's just the possibility that these new parking garages may potentially bring additional peak traffic between 4:55 and 5:10, for which we must clearly take out our only N-S dedicated bike route..

Also don't worry these garages will maybe have street level retail.. except no on-street parking to support said street level retail, which is fine because Okies are clearly comfortable with garage parking for retail trips.

It's okay though, we can "bridge" the planning disconnect by going around on the Oklahoma River trail, then right at Overholser, and back around from Hefner! Who needs Walker anyway? Besides everyone knows that good bicyclists only use treeless waterfront trails.

Cycling on Walker will still be important, which is why there are alternatives being suggested for the stretch in question. Just because dedicated bike lanes are removed from the current configuration doesn't mean that there won't be any bike infrastructure in the next configuration. Check out the "Boston sharrow" in the link below. It could be used to connect the bike lanes north of this segment on Walker to the south. This is an opportunity to explore adaptation for cycling in a growing downtown area. Solutions are out there, they just need to be brought into the conversation, and now is a good time for that.

Boston Bikes debuts ?sharrows on steroids? - Local news - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/local/blogs/starts-and-stops/2013/11/20/boston-bikes-debuts-sharrows-steroids/PXrtrx9c1YO6T0JOCn3vFJ/blog.html)

I work in the area and can count on one hand how many times I have seen the bike lane used by a bicycle. WHen I do see a bike they are almost always traveling on the sidewalks-- which just makes me scratch my head. The bike lanes currently are nothing more then a turn lane at peak hours.

I think that if we are going to enable biking as a reasonable alternative to the automobile, we have to build logical corridors that instill the sense of safety. What this project demonstrates is that there are often consequences that affect other long-range plans. Downtown OKC would actually be an easier place to install long distance biking corridors if we hadn't compromised the grid repeatedly by allowing super blocks to be constructed.

Dewey was a great semi-protected biking corridor. However, St. Anthony's expansion cut it in half. The route was then shifted to Walker. We have very few through corridors to achieve these goals.

I do think that priorities and urban design sensibilities are changing. But politically speaking, the default is to compromise and try to afford satisfaction in all areas. The Planning Department has never had nor exerted political clout to protect their plans.

I really appreciate Devon. I think that this project will enable a great many more people to be located downtown. However, it obviously isn't going to happen without a fair bit of compromise to ideals.

So much of the city lacks sidewalks and then when there are sidewalks and bikers still ride in the street, people get frustrated because they don't understand why the bikers aren't using the sidewalk.

The thing is, cyclists really shouldn't be riding on the sidewalk downtown -- sidewalks are for pedestrians. (Though I will say in certain areas, I'd rather be on a sidewalk irritating people that are walking than having some texting idiot in a Malibu up and over my rear wheel.)

https://www.okc.gov/trails/Documents/bikeregs.pdf

I hope there can be some compromise reached on Walker. Hate to lose that bike lane.

We had a decent little run but the self-loathing appears to be back.

Construction fence going up today. Thanks to metro for the photo:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/499sheridan072015.jpg

It's odd that they used some shape and unique features for their centerpiece tower and this one is just going to be a rectangle. Lame design.

I wouldnt say lame, but uninspiring. if it were a bit taller i think it would look better, esp next to Devon. REgardless looking forward to seeing cranes in the skyline again

You have to remember that Devon will be a tenant of this building. They aren't the owner like they are with the tower

You have to remember that Devon will be a tenant of this building. They aren't the owner like they are with the tower

That isn't necessarily true.

The ownership of the property and who is investing in the development has never been clear or fully disclosed.

So much of the city lacks sidewalks and then when there are sidewalks and bikers still ride in the street, people get frustrated because they don't understand why the bikers aren't using the sidewalk.

Bikes are never supposed to be on sidewalks, but you can get away with it here because the pedestrian traffic is so fragmented. You'd basically be lynched riding a bike on a sidewalk in a more urban pedestrian city.

What's funny is that I was in Denver last week when this came up, and all I could do was look at all the buildings and parking garages that are much much bigger than 499 and then notice all the bike lanes that go right past them. And Denver has way more cars coming into its downtown every day than OKC.

This is in no way a traffic issue. It's a cultural one.

^^^^^^^^
You're right. Bikes are SUPPOSED to be in the street, not the sidewalk. The fact that automobile drivers not only don't understand this but are irritated by bikes in "their" street is the problem, NOT that bikes aren't on the sidewalk "where they belong."

If you look at their renderings, it shows bike lanes right in front of the building/parking/store fronts.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/9842d1419097531-499-sheridan-hinesnow18.jpg

If you look at their renderings, it shows bike lanes right in front of the building/parking/store fronts.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/9842d1419097531-499-sheridan-hinesnow18.jpg

Which is probably more salesmanship than true intent. Basically, they tell us they want to be part of the urban renaissance of downtown OKC and then build something in contradiction to it.

Glad to see the skyline footprint going further west.

Bikes are never supposed to be on sidewalks, but you can get away with it here because the pedestrian traffic is so fragmented. You'd basically be lynched riding a bike on a sidewalk in a more urban pedestrian city.

Not all cities...

Seattle Department of Transportation: Seattle Bike Rules (http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikecode.htm)
Section 11.44.120 RIDING ON A SIDEWALK OR PUBLIC PATH. Every person operating a bicycle upon any sidewalk or public path shall operate the same in a careful and prudent manner and a rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of pedestrian traffic, grade and width of sidewalk or public path, and condition of surface, and shall obey all traffic control devices. Every person operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or public path shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian thereon, and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian. For more information about the Seattle Bicycle & Pedestrian Program, call (206) 684-7583.

Just came back from vacation in Texas and we passed by Austin going and coming back. I counted 8 cranes in their skyline (might have been 10) and we can't even get 1 started. What a joke!!!.

Just came back from vacation in Texas and we passed by Austin going and coming back. I counted 8 cranes in their skyline (might have been 10) and we can't even get 1 started. What a joke!!!.

It'll be started here pretty soon. Demolition is set to begin

It'll be started here pretty soon. Demolition is set to begin

Saw them putting up barricades yesterday morning.

Just came back from vacation in Texas and we passed by Austin going and coming back. I counted 8 cranes in their skyline (might have been 10) and we can't even get 1 started. What a joke!!!.

We're no Austin. Wouldn't exchange Austin's aggressive growth for Oklahoma City's moderate growth. My relatives in the Austin area have concerns about the influx of people coming into their community. I'll leave it at that.

Just came back from vacation in Texas and we passed by Austin going and coming back. I counted 8 cranes in their skyline (might have been 10) and we can't even get 1 started. What a joke!!!.

Counting OUHSC we have 4 cranes going right now.

Back in 2011 we had 9 going at one time, when the rest of the country was struggling.

Just came back from vacation in Texas and we passed by Austin going and coming back. I counted 8 cranes in their skyline (might have been 10) and we can't even get 1 started. What a joke!!!.

BChris sock account?

Have you not seen the cranes up at the new GE complex? Or over at OUHSC?

It shouldn't be too long before we have 499 Sheridan, the OG&E Energy Center and the Convention Hotel all going up at once, and all in a row.

...along with cranes going up for the Steelyard plus the couple other hotels going up in Bricktown.

I believe there is one up at St Anthonys as well.

Yeah about Austin.

"This place has changed so much since I've been here I don't even recognize it anymore. It's like my Austin is gone."

-9 month resident of Austin.

Sounds great.

^^^^^^^^
You're right. Bikes are SUPPOSED to be in the street, not the sidewalk. The fact that automobile drivers not only don't understand this but are irritated by bikes in "their" street is the problem, NOT that bikes aren't on the sidewalk "where they belong."

This article seems relevant: It's Safer to Walk and Bike Where More People Walk and Bike - CityLab (http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/07/why-its-safer-to-walk-and-bike-where-more-people-walk-and-bike/397568/)

I just spent the past few days biking around San Francisco. It was glorious.

Yeah, great article. I saw that a few days ago and gave it a RT.

Not sure why the results were deemed 'unexpected', because it seems intuitive to me. While it didn't specify about injuries, I'll bet the severity of injuries were a lot less even if more people got hurt.

https://twitter.com/OKCNightCourt/status/623838987690467329

Not all cities...

Seattle Department of Transportation: Seattle Bike Rules (http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikecode.htm)
Section 11.44.120 RIDING ON A SIDEWALK OR PUBLIC PATH. Every person operating a bicycle upon any sidewalk or public path shall operate the same in a careful and prudent manner and a rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of pedestrian traffic, grade and width of sidewalk or public path, and condition of surface, and shall obey all traffic control devices. Every person operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or public path shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian thereon, and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian. For more information about the Seattle Bicycle & Pedestrian Program, call (206) 684-7583.

That's interesting. I've never been to Seattle, but I imagine that it's virtually impossible to ride a bike on the sidewalks in the urban areas. I mean, if you actually tried to follow these guidelines in an area where there are lots of people on the sidewalk, that is, if you yielded to pedestrians and gave audible signals, it would pretty much render riding a bike on a sidewalk impossible. This wouldn't even be possible on Park Ave in downtown OKC on most days.

That being said, I also imagine that Seattle has a lot of bike / pedestrian trails within the city or trails that are separate from the urban infrastructure, just like the ones by the Oklahoma river and the ones we are building around the city. In those cases, it seems the above guidelines would be universal and functional.

What I find interesting about this suggestion that bike lanes be removed from Walker is that it doesn't remove bikes from the road, it just forces them into the regular flow of traffic where lanes are shared by bikes and cars. Now, I don't have any statistical analysis at my fingertips, but I'm not sure how that "fixes" anything. Wouldn't you just have the same traffic problems, but those problems would be compounded by bikes slowing down the flow in the very lanes this study wants to "speed up"? The bikes have a right to be there whether there is a bike lane or not. By taking them out, we're still going to have the same (but very brief) traffic created by the parking structures, but now you have a less safe environment for everyone who is allowed to use the roads.

Of course, the net effect could just be that less people ride their bikes downtown. But then I don't get this whole exercise of trying to create a viable and vibrant urban district in downtown. Isn't that the whole point? Why even have a bike share program if we can't make it safer for those bikes to be on the road? I think this revelation that this project could force another step backwards in the effort to making downtown competitive with other urban environments in the country just reinforces how un-urban the whole thing is.

If you've ever walked on a college campus you know pedestrians & bikers can coexist on the same path to a pretty decent extent. Sometimes you see collisions, but its rare, though very hilarious.

I think it causes way less of a disruption than bikers on roads, honestly. Not to mention the results of crashes are way less severe.