I wish we'd just remove this section of 235 and replace it with an at grade street/blvd

And I wish people would quit cluttering board with ideas that will never happen, neither us are going to get what we want.

And I wish people would quit cluttering board with ideas that will never happen, neither us are going to get what we want.

Feel free to mute me. I see nothing wrong with expressing ideas no matter how improbable they are, especially ideas that promote values that i feel we need to become more comfortable with, like promoting connectivity, walkability, increased intensity for greater tax rev per parcel, etc., in order to become a better city. I value criticism as it helps me refine my views.

I wish we'd just remove this section of 235 and replace it with an at grade street/blvd

You are entitled to your opinion. But I ask you how you feel that would be effective? As posted earlier, 80,000+ cars use I-235. That is a lot for a street or a boulevard. Those poor saps who live in Edmond who work downtown, or vice versa...Just my question for you. Not criticizing.

You are entitled to your opinion. But I ask you how you feel that would be effective? As posted earlier, 80,000+ cars use I-235. That is a lot for a street or a boulevard. Those poor saps who live in Edmond who work downtown, or vice versa...Just my question for you. Not criticizing.

First of all, a majority of the 80,000 cars are likely commuters and driving during peak times so most of the time there is way more than enough road for what traffic is there. And during peak times, it jams or is verry slow. Not the greatest solution to a problem, especially considering the solution destroyed active neighborhoods, severed the core in two, and perpetuates the very problem it tried to solve (easy travel/bad traffic).


With that being said, where would all the traffic go?

Some of the traffic would go away instantly because through traffic would stick to i-35 or 44.

Most of the traffic would simply disperse into the grid (which already can be faster than getting on 235 during rush hour).

and some would choose to walk, bike, or carpool as it becomes easier to do those things.

Over time, the removal of the highway would help deter future sprawl, would promote intensity and a diverse mix of uses, and would eventually help public transit become more of a viable option.


here is an article that i found that touches on the issue and talks a bit about historical examples of this being successful. https://medium.com/@chrisjagers/where-will-all-the-traffic-go-68648bc111ae

Reading my followup post (#54) would also answer your question further. What I'm arguing is that over time, the benefits of restoring the grid and redeveloping that land would out way the costs of losing the highway.

I wish we'd just remove this section of 235 and replace it with an at grade street/blvd

I second this. I realize it is technically unrealistic at the current point in time but I believe the OKC urban core would be much better off with I-235 removed. I think it should be replaced with a boulevard, at least as far north as 36th St. Above that, it can transition into a highway.

A few weeks ago when I-235 was closed due to the construction, the world didn't end. I took Western those days and it didn't really seem any busier than usual. In addition to opening up new land for development, removing I-235 would reconnect inner NW and NE OKC and jump-start revitalization of the NE side, which thus far has lagged behind the inner NW side. There are a lot of great neighborhoods in NE OKC that at one time connected seamlessly with neighborhoods we all know and frequent but were segregated off once the highway was built. Once again, I know that removing I-235 is more than likely unrealistic at this point but I do think it would be beneficial.

First of all, a majority of the 80,000 cars are likely commuters and driving during peak times so most of the time there is way more than enough road for what traffic is there. And during peak times, it jams or is verry slow. Not the greatest solution to a problem, especially considering the solution destroyed active neighborhoods, severed the core in two, and perpetuates the very problem it tried to solve (easy travel/bad traffic).Fine, I'll bite here. What difference does it make whether they are commuters or not? It's 80,000 cars using that freeway. I've used it plenty of times going to Norman. If 80,000 commuters use that freeway and view as the best route to their destination that is good government at work giving them that option. If you remove it and just say "eh, they'll be forced to use I-35," that is bad government.

As far as it destroying neighborhoods, there are other factors in that. Freeways aren't the sole evil variable that killed neighborhoods. Sure, it did a number on many neighborhoods, but I am pleased with that outcome. It could have been better, but humans are learning and evolving creatures. Freeways and cars are the future. Freeways are a piece of infrastructure that we are learning how to better build. Mistakes were made and this thread is specifically about trying to fix those mistakes. That doesn't include tearing down the freeway. Certain neighborhoods and areas of the city will be affect. It's a necessary evil.



With that being said, where would all the traffic go?It would clog up the streets. People's commutes aren't going to change. You are going to create more pollution while restricting the will of the people. Currently they are choosing to live where they live. If you remove this freeway to try and "force" people to locate closer to work, that is bad government. The option is there for people to live in or close to downtown and they choose not to. That is their choice. Traffic isn't going to disappear.


Some of the traffic would go away instantly because through traffic would stick to i-35 or 44.No, traffic wouldn't "stick" to these routes in that sense. They'd be forced to use them because there is no viable alternative.


Most of the traffic would simply disperse into the grid (which already can be faster than getting on 235 during rush hour).It is in no way shape or form this simple and would result in many negative effects. Rush hour on 235 currently only lasts for about 30 minutes or so but it needs to be widened, none the less if congestion is becoming an issue. To say that congestion wouldn't increase is just a lack of foresight.


and some would choose to walk, bike, or carpool as it becomes easier to do those things.How would it be easier to do these things? It would be easier to walk where if the freeway were removed? Along the Boulevard? Why isn't the induced demand argument being used here? It would be easier to carpool? Really? A commute that would take longer would further entice someone to sit in a car longer not having the comfort or privacy of their own? Again, where it is easier to bike? So that's your argument? Because of course it would be easier to bike or walk on a freeway that isn't there because freeways aren't made for biking or walking. They're made for getting cars from point a to point b quicker, safer, and more efficiently that surface streets do.


Over time, the removal of the highway would help deter future sprawl, would promote intensity and a diverse mix of uses, and would eventually help public transit become more of a viable option. Sprawl is a good thing which allows people to live in a larger home with a larger yard much cheaper than they could get closer to the core. Point in case, every major city that is surrounded by suburbs containing a much larger population than the urban area. There are ways to help public transit other than just simply giving the big f u to the drivers that pay for it.



here is an article that i found that touches on the issue and talks a bit about historical examples of this being successful. https://medium.com/@chrisjagers/where-will-all-the-traffic-go-68648bc111ae I'll read this and comment on it later.


Reading my followup post (#54) would also answer your question further. What I'm arguing is that over time, the benefits of restoring the grid and redeveloping that land would out way the costs of losing the highway.Tell that to the 80,000+ people that use this corridor everyday and let me know what they say. I'd say your argument that restoring the grid outweighs the cost of a freeway is nothing more than your opinion and a rather unpopular one at that.

I second this. I realize it is technically unrealistic at the current point in time but I believe the OKC urban core would be much better off with I-235 removed. I think it should be replaced with a boulevard, at least as far north as 36th St. Above that, it can transition into a highway. It isn't just unrealistic in this current point in time, it isn't happening ever. With autonomous cars, mass transit will become even more obsolete than it already it is.


A few weeks ago when I-235 was closed due to the construction, the world didn't end. I took Western those days and it didn't really seem any busier than usual.Same thing happened with the 405 here in Los Angeles when it was closed. There is a good reason for that. Drivers heeded the warning and avoided it. As for Oklahoma City, there isn't much there to begin with. Plus it was shut down on a weekend. Permanently remove it and you really want to compare that to a temporary shutdown? What planet are you living on? LOL.

Western didn't seem any busier to you so that is your basis for tearing down a freeway and assuming no increased traffic or pollution on local streets because again, traffic didn't seem any busier to you?


In addition to opening up new land for development, removing I-235 would reconnect inner NW and NE OKC and jump-start revitalization of the NE side, which thus far has lagged behind the inner NW side.

There are a lot of great neighborhoods in NE OKC that at one time connected seamlessly with neighborhoods we all know and frequent but were segregated off once the highway was built. Once again, I know that removing I-235 is more than likely unrealistic at this point but I do think it would be beneficial.
OKC doesn't need to worry about any shortage of develop-able land for a very long time. There are better ways to connect the two sides of the freeway.

Where are your facts to assume a freeway removal would jump start a revitalization of NE side? If it did happen what would happen to the current residents? Gentrification is not always a good thing. In fact, in many places it is bad. So what will happen to the current residents of the NE side when it gets revitalized because the big bad freeway left town and rents go up due to this revitalization? You've already pissed off tens of thousands of drivers and commuters... So again, who is this benefiting?

Meanwhile, you can fix these things by adding a cap in the high priority areas and building wider bridges to allow for development alongside them over the freeway which would yield an increase in tax dollars, connect the two sides, the entire NE side wouldn't see rents go up due to some weird jump start in development thing(though it wouldn't happen anyways), the nearly 100,000 drivers that use this freeway would still have it not using surface streets coming to a stop and going again which would increase pollution, new land would be available to develop(another non-issue if the freeway is or isn't there), and much more.

The beef here isn't the freeway and that's what I don't like. It's the fact that you want to fundamentally change the way people live because that is the broader issue here. The freeway is the symptom, or if you want to go the strawman argument route like Mr. Parking Garage District guy goes, crack, like parking garages. All of course which are supported by the majority and desired as such. So what am I missing here? Because removing this freeway won't do sh!t. You'll have to change people's lifestyles and I'm against that in all fashion. People should live how they want to live and the government needs to accommodate that. If it means the demand is there for a 50 lane freeway, then so be it. Add 40 lanes. You build to serve the people.

You'll have to change people's lifestyles and I'm against that in all fashion. People should live how they want to live and the government needs to accommodate that.

Just want to point out that government already spent 70+ years changing the way people lived through zoning, transportation infrastructure, and finance rules that created an automobile-dependent geography.

The private sector noted demand for detached houses and car-friendly neighborhoods. Government subsidized it and gave this development pattern a legal monopoly. You can read a detailed history in the book Suburban Nation.

Hey guys, if y'all want to debate the merits of destroying highways that's fine and dandy but could you do it in another thread? This one is about the Innovation Link as a project. That said, does anyone have any insight as to the likelihood of this getting built? Any thoughts on developments in the area which might tend to suggest money will be directed to the innovation link project? Any word as to which city officials, politicians, or corporations are behind this? Heck, I'd even be pleased to hear your opinions on this development and how it might impact either side of i-35. Do you like it?

Just want to point out that government already spent 70+ years changing the way people lived through zoning, transportation infrastructure, and finance rules that created an automobile-dependent geography.

The private sector noted demand for detached houses and car-friendly neighborhoods. Government subsidized it and gave this development pattern a legal monopoly. You can read a detailed history in the book Suburban Nation.
It was innovation. Mass production made cars cheap and people wanted to drive. Along with that new infrastructure was needed to accommodate that. People chose to live in the suburbs as the choice was given to them. They weren't forced.

I don't read many books on the account of my ADHD it's hard for me to concentrate but I do study these issues and read many articles as well as having gotten to know many people and planners that I trust. I haven't read the entire suburban nation book but I have read parts and I see things that are misleading in it. Anecdotely, I have been told by a few who have read it that is more pushing an agenda than anything else.

To add to that, it is no longer just one nation developing like the US, Canada, Australia, India, China, Malaysia, and many other counties are building large new freeway networks and are experiencing suburban sprawl. Suburban sprawl is a good thing for millions and millions of people.

Mass transit is also heavily subsidized as well. It's infrastructure, of course it will need to be subsidized. Another hypocrisy is that no one screams induced demand when a rail line is expanded or frequencies are increased nor can I think of another industry where induced demand is used as some argument as not moving forward with something.

Hey guys, if y'all want to debate the merits of destroying highways that's fine and dandy but could you do it in another thread? This one is about the Innovation Link as a project. That said, does anyone have any insight as to the likelihood of this getting built? Any thoughts on developments in the area which might tend to suggest money will be directed to the innovation link project? Any word as to which city officials, politicians, or corporations are behind this? Heck, I'd even be pleased to hear your opinions on this development and how it might impact either side of i-35. Do you like it?It would be nice but it always seems, especially more so on OKCTalk(even more so than other websites) that conversations quickly devolve into anti-car posts and I feel like contrast is needed so that's why I reply.

Hey guys, if y'all want to debate the merits of destroying highways that's fine and dandy but could you do it in another thread? This one is about the Innovation Link as a project. That said, does anyone have any insight as to the likelihood of this getting built? Any thoughts on developments in the area which might tend to suggest money will be directed to the innovation link project? Any word as to which city officials, politicians, or corporations are behind this? Heck, I'd even be pleased to hear your opinions on this development and how it might impact either side of i-35. Do you like it?

No idea on the likelihood of it getting built. Nobody really knows that information. Turning the freeway back into a streetgrid is sort of the ultimate version of this plan, which is why the conversation has started to drift that way.

People are going to select whatever living arrangements and transportation are the most convenient and cost-effective. Frequently that will be a lifestyle that has received significant government subsidies.

The problem that OKC is going to have in the future is that, while we have a very good freeway system in place today, it's going to cost mega-buttloads of money to upgrade it to handle the traffic we'll have 10 and 20 years from now. We don't have that kind of money available. So our short commute times and light traffic are going to get a whole lot worse in the coming years. Cost estimates for a metro-wide rail system put the cost at about the same amount we spent redoing 4 miles of the Crosstown Expressway. Right now a mass transit system would actually be low-hanging fruit. It would be dirt cheap to implement, relative to the costs of adding another deck onto I-35 or something like that.

OKC has no shortage of cheap suburban housing. Financial estimates by the city itself indicate that we need to limit future sprawl and build more density in the core. This doesn't mean that you can't go live out in the 'burbs. That's 99% of our city right now. But hopefully as the city grows, 30 years from now the suburbs will be 90% of the city, and we'll have 10% that's a dense urban core. We don't have a pressing need to remove I-235 right now. There's a ton of empty land near our downtown, and we've got probably 20 years of room to grow, even without crossing over to the NE side. But at some point, it'll make serious sense to look at returning that freeway to a normal grid. Do it from Reno to 50th and you'll see a ton of money start flowing into the northeast side.

People are going to select whatever living arrangements and transportation are the most convenient and cost-effective. Frequently that will be a lifestyle that has received significant government subsidies.I'm not so sure about that. Another thing is I've met a lot of people who don't want to necessarily live right next to where they work. I can certainly see that it's nice to separate your work life from your personal life. That being said, I'm sure if people were offered the same kind of home you'd expect in the suburbs(same sized yard, square footage, etc.) right next to where they worked(mostly downtown) and had it subsidized, you would have a sizable amount of people that would choose to go that route. But a lot of people don't want to live next to downtown with skyscrapers, narrow streets, etc... Again, this shows through housing statistics. So you would need to factor in that group as well.


The problem that OKC is going to have in the future is that, while we have a very good freeway system in place today, it's going to cost mega-buttloads of money to upgrade it to handle the traffic we'll have 10 and 20 years from now. We don't have that kind of money available. So our short commute times and light traffic are going to get a whole lot worse in the coming years. Cost estimates for a metro-wide rail system put the cost at about the same amount we spent redoing 4 miles of the Crosstown Expressway. Right now a mass transit system would actually be low-hanging fruit. It would be dirt cheap to implement, relative to the costs of adding another deck onto I-35 or something like that.They can find a way to upgrade the system as it grows. Dallas is doing just that. Virtually every city does that. It costs 700 million for a brand new 10 lane freeway. They had to tear down of the original elevated one, install new utilities, built several new bridges from scratch, and correct me if I'm wrong, but they also built several new bridges over the Oklahoma River. There are many other factors as well that were necessary and attributed to the cost of this new freeway. A 10 lane wide, urban freeway is not going to be cheap to build from scratch and is not a fair comparison for widening or constructing new roads especially the ones that are further away from the core.

Also, you are a poster I have a lot of respect for, but come on man. A single rail line from Norman to OKC would likely cost almost twice as much as the Crosstown project. The Expo line extension here in LA, which was 6.6 miles, cost 1.5 billion dollars. That's only for 6.6 miles!!!! They also f@cked up but placing the rail at grade in several spots. Go look at light-rail projects around the country. I get that it isn't very fair to compare rail projects in LA vs. OKC seeing as there are obvious costs differences such as intense labor union laws in California, higher land acquisition costs, etc.., but a system wide rail system would cost every bit of 5 billion dollars and that'd probably be for only 3 lines. I mean a line to Norman-DTOKC-Edmond Station would probably run close or over 3 billion. That's stations, installing card and vendors, signing contracts to get security on the train, there are so many variables. Though I'm certainly not an expert and my costs estimates could be off, if I were a betting man I'd say that estimate is on the conservative side. I think the Adventure District rail line had estimates at half a billion or close to it.


OKC has no shortage of cheap suburban housing. Financial estimates by the city itself indicate that we need to limit future sprawl and build more density in the core. This doesn't mean that you can't go live out in the 'burbs. That's 99% of our city right now. But hopefully as the city grows, 30 years from now the suburbs will be 90% of the city, and we'll have 10% that's a dense urban core. We don't have a pressing need to remove I-235 right now. There's a ton of empty land near our downtown, and we've got probably 20 years of room to grow, even without crossing over to the NE side. But at some point, it'll make serious sense to look at returning that freeway to a normal grid. Do it from Reno to 50th and you'll see a ton of money start flowing into the northeast side.I agree with the first part of your paragraph but I just simply disagree in the notion I-235 will need to be removed and I highly doubt it will ever happen.

Also, you are a poster I have a lot of respect for, but come on man. A single rail line from Norman to OKC would likely cost almost twice as much as the Crosstown project. The Expo line extension here in LA, which was 6.6 miles, cost 1.5 billion dollars. That's only for 6.6 miles!!!! They also f@cked up but placing the rail at grade in several spots. Go look at light-rail projects around the country. I get that it isn't very fair to compare rail projects in LA vs. OKC seeing as there are obvious costs differences such as intense labor union laws in California, higher land acquisition costs, etc.., but a system wide rail system would cost every bit of 5 billion dollars and that'd probably be for only 3 lines. I mean a line to Norman-DTOKC-Edmond Station would probably run close or over 3 billion. That's stations, installing card and vendors, signing contracts to get security on the train, there are so many variables. Though I'm certainly not an expert and my costs estimates could be off, if I were a betting man I'd say that estimate is on the conservative side. I think the Adventure District rail line had estimates at half a billion or close to it.

There is absolutely no way that the OKC commuter rail project as currently proposed would cost that much. The proposed service is commuter (heavy) rail from Edmond to Norman (via BNSF's Red Rock Sub), and modern streetcar from Santa Fe Station to Tinker (via Reno, east to Sooner, and then following the former OCA&A trackage) - all with one hour headways (iirc). The infrastructure is already largely in place. Appendix B of the ACOG CentralOK!go study appendices (http://www.acogok.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ACOG_CentralOKgo_FinalReportAppendices_12-03-2015.pdf), completed in late 2015, lays out the estimated capital and operating costs - and estimates the total capital cost to be approximately $670MM, including all necessary improvements and commuter rail vehicles, for the combined 34.6 mile north-south corridor - and then a further $380MM for the 10 mile eastern corridor. That's just over $1B for just under 45 miles of public transit, or approximately $23.3MM per mile - FAR more bang for your buck than your LA example of $227.3MM per mile for the Expo Line. A western extension of our proposed system to WRWA would likely cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $250MM - $350MM, assuming commuter (heavy) rail, reusing the existing Packingtown Lead that goes past the airport, and land acquisition to lay new tracks from the Packingtown Lead down into the airport - though I do not believe any formal study and cost analysis has been done for that, so my numbers are just an extremely rough guesstimate. Reusing existing corridors saves a significant amount of money!

Back to your assertion that the N-S line would cost more than double the cost of the Crosstown Realignment - the numbers so far do not support that conclusion. As mentioned above, the N-S corridor proposed for commuter rail service is estimated to cost approximately $670MM (page B-16 of the CentralOK!go Final Report Appendices, linked above; routes N1 and S1 combined). For reference, the 4-mile realignment of the I-40 Crosstown cost $680MM, according to ODOT's page on the project (https://www.ok.gov/odot/What%27s_New/I-40Crosstown.html). Hoya is correct here.

Photo taken in 1936, looking southeast:
https://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r960-fedc920f7afb89996af68f5c80cd5e8e.jpg
http://newsok.com/gallery/3065/pictures/71877

Google Maps image for comparison:
https://image.ibb.co/j5cRaQ/i235_and_13th.png

There is absolutely no way that the OKC commuter rail project as currently proposed would cost that much. The proposed service is commuter (heavy) rail from Edmond to Norman (via BNSF's Red Rock Sub), and modern streetcar from Santa Fe Station to Tinker (via Reno, east to Sooner, and then following the former OCA&A trackage) - all with one hour headways (iirc). The infrastructure is already largely in place. Appendix B of the ACOG CentralOK!go study appendices (http://www.acogok.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ACOG_CentralOKgo_FinalReportAppendices_12-03-2015.pdf), completed in late 2015, lays out the estimated capital and operating costs - and estimates the total capital cost to be approximately $670MM, including all necessary improvements and commuter rail vehicles, for the combined 34.6 mile north-south corridor - and then a further $380MM for the 10 mile eastern corridor. That's just over $1B for just under 45 miles of public transit, or approximately $23.3MM per mile - FAR more bang for your buck than your LA example of $227.3MM per mile for the Expo Line. A western extension of our proposed system to WRWA would likely cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $250MM - $350MM, assuming commuter (heavy) rail, reusing the existing Packingtown Lead that goes past the airport, and land acquisition to lay new tracks from the Packingtown Lead down into the airport - though I do not believe any formal study and cost analysis has been done for that, so my numbers are just an extremely rough guesstimate. Reusing existing corridors saves a significant amount of money!

Back to your assertion that the N-S line would cost more than double the cost of the Crosstown Realignment - the numbers so far do not support that conclusion. As mentioned above, the N-S corridor proposed for commuter rail service is estimated to cost approximately $670MM (page B-16 of the CentralOK!go Final Report Appendices, linked above; routes N1 and S1 combined). For reference, the 4-mile realignment of the I-40 Crosstown cost $680MM, according to ODOT's page on the project (https://www.ok.gov/odot/What%27s_New/I-40Crosstown.html). Hoya is correct here.Commuter rail is entirely different from light rail. OKC needs to light rail to compete with the freeways. Commuter rail won't cut it.

Commuter rail is entirely different from light rail. OKC needs to light rail to compete with the freeways. Commuter rail won't cut it.

Do you want to explain this absurd assertion?

I-235 will eventually need 8-10 lanes (4-5 each direction). Here's what the new interstate Oklahoma City master plan may present:

http://kwtv.images.worldnow.com/images/13757717_SA.jpg
There's too much invested in the redo of I-235/50th street/I-44 interchange to reverse that project; OKC may need to consider an inter spoke-wheel of criss-cross X diagonals (NW-SE/NE-SW) (v v v see below v v v) to connect the flow of interstate traffic as the use of street grids traffic increase beyond 2020; that's where the 2017 Go-Bonds street projects could provide relief.

http://www.hirnverbrandt.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Peter-Andrew5.jpg?x17399
Criss-cross diagonals would require additional over-paths to I-40/I-44, I-35/I-40, I-44/I-35 & ***I-235/I-44*** would become the central master interchange as the city spreads out to connect to the new Eastern Oklahoma County & Turner turnpikes.

OKC's future growth depends on the complementary pieces for all of these projects (includes the Turner & Eastern Oklahoma turnpikes).
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/p-r-div/maps/state/2017/okc.jpg
Our interstate map would look similar to Nashville on a slightly larger scale:

http://www.scadvocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/b11-300x300.jpg

Do you want to explain this absurd assertion?yeah if you disagree please do. There is a reason you see light rail throughout major cities and then them using commuter rail to connect to other suburbs and nearby cities.

It's ridiculous to compare commuter rail to a freeway as commuter rail won't run frequently enough and the amount of people that will use I-40 over commuter rail will likely be 5x more.

yeah if you disagree please do. There is a reason you see light rail throughout major cities and then them using commuter rail to connect to other suburbs and nearby cities.

It's ridiculous to compare commuter rail to a freeway as commuter rail won't run frequently enough and the amount of people that will use I-40 over commuter rail will likely be 5x more.

Dude, you're like a bull in a china shop right now. Someone mentions a downfall of highways and you go in full out attack mode.

At any rate, there's no talk of running commuter rail within the inner loop of OKC as a public transit solution. Light rail inside the loop, Commuter to further off suburbs and less dense areas of OKC proper.

Hey.....I was making the comment the other day, that adventure district line would be phenomenal. Think about all the universities that come here for the women's college word series.and all the activities and entertainment in that area (tinseltown, zoo, casino/track), museums and I think there's also an osu campus over there, and last but not least the softball stadiums). Think of all the potential revenue and how that could literally jump start my old neighbhood (creston hills) on the eastside which of course we all know the brooking institution suggested the OUHSC/Innovation district should work to connect better with.

What exactly will it take to buy more streetcars from brookville and use the old adventure line and generate more revenue and an urban life with proactive approach to mass/public transit? I know acog is doing studies on this but if the line is already there what's stopping us from funding phase 2 and 3 of the streetcar and reviving the adventure line and a capitol hill line? Lol, in case you can't tell this has me jumping with elation....I think the streetcar will be a big hit here....especially if we do it right and include those who will use it daily.

Dude, you're like a bull in a china shop right now. Someone mentions a downfall of highways and you go in full out attack mode.

At any rate, there's no talk of running commuter rail within the inner loop of OKC as a public transit solution. Light rail inside the loop, Commuter to further off suburbs and less dense areas of OKC proper.
Highways aren't in downfall and I didn't interpret any post saying anything like that.

^ ^ ^ Post #82 ^ ^ ^ OKC_on_mines

The streetcar project plans so far:

http://www.brookvillecorp.com/Files/Admin/News%20Photos/Oklahoma-City---BROOKVILLE-Liberty-Streetcar-WebRes.jpg

Brookville's price is $4.8 million each for the first five streetcars and $4 million for the sixth.. OKC has an option to buy a 6th Liberty model streetcar bringing the total to $28.9 million.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoZh6rgVIAANdXQ.jpg
The rail infrastructure will cost $50 million--partnership between Herzog Contracting Corp., & Stacy and Witbeck for the 4.9 - 6.9 miles of "service track."

• A 4.6-mile main line through the central business district linking Midtown and Bricktown.
• A 2.3-mile "Bricktown loop" providing an option for frequent service between Bricktown & the MAPS 3 convention center complex.

All the costs for construction of the maintenance facility, intermodal hub (Santa Fe Depot), streetcars have come in under budget so far.

OKC_on_mines: Great idea if we could stretch the streetcar lines to the Adventure District--a tourist novelty that would be a feather in OKC's cap. However, we would need another $50 million to make that work. There's unknowns about following:


• Not sure what lines are in use or abandoned by the rail line in the Adventure District?
• Whether they could be linked from the streetcar routes?
• Not sure if you could use the same rail lines for the streetcar?

(?) Could be considered for future streetcar route expansion. The OU Health Science Center District is being mentioned for expansion; that's close to the Creston Hills' neighborhood.

I'm not so sure about that. Another thing is I've met a lot of people who don't want to necessarily live right next to where they work. I can certainly see that it's nice to separate your work life from your personal life. That being said, I'm sure if people were offered the same kind of home you'd expect in the suburbs(same sized yard, square footage, etc.) right next to where they worked(mostly downtown) and had it subsidized, you would have a sizable amount of people that would choose to go that route. But a lot of people don't want to live next to downtown with skyscrapers, narrow streets, etc... Again, this shows through housing statistics. So you would need to factor in that group as well.

They can find a way to upgrade the system as it grows. Dallas is doing just that. Virtually every city does that. It costs 700 million for a brand new 10 lane freeway. They had to tear down of the original elevated one, install new utilities, built several new bridges from scratch, and correct me if I'm wrong, but they also built several new bridges over the Oklahoma River. There are many other factors as well that were necessary and attributed to the cost of this new freeway. A 10 lane wide, urban freeway is not going to be cheap to build from scratch and is not a fair comparison for widening or constructing new roads especially the ones that are further away from the core.

Also, you are a poster I have a lot of respect for, but come on man. A single rail line from Norman to OKC would likely cost almost twice as much as the Crosstown project. The Expo line extension here in LA, which was 6.6 miles, cost 1.5 billion dollars. That's only for 6.6 miles!!!! They also f@cked up but placing the rail at grade in several spots. Go look at light-rail projects around the country. I get that it isn't very fair to compare rail projects in LA vs. OKC seeing as there are obvious costs differences such as intense labor union laws in California, higher land acquisition costs, etc.., but a system wide rail system would cost every bit of 5 billion dollars and that'd probably be for only 3 lines. I mean a line to Norman-DTOKC-Edmond Station would probably run close or over 3 billion. That's stations, installing card and vendors, signing contracts to get security on the train, there are so many variables. Though I'm certainly not an expert and my costs estimates could be off, if I were a betting man I'd say that estimate is on the conservative side. I think the Adventure District rail line had estimates at half a billion or close to it.

I agree with the first part of your paragraph but I just simply disagree in the notion I-235 will need to be removed and I highly doubt it will ever happen.

I don't know that removing I-235 will ever happen. I don't even know what hoops they'd have to jump through to remove an interstate, if they'd have to have federal approval or not. And I'm not going to pretend that the state of Oklahoma is suddenly going to become super-progressive when it comes to favoring urban lifestyles over suburban and rural ones.

From the perspective of Oklahoma City itself, for the city, removing 235 would be a no-brainer. You don't want to make it easy for people to move out to Edmond and build their expensive homes in another municipality. In that sense Edmond is your competition, not your friend. The city should worry about the needs of its own citizens, and not bend over backwards for the desires of those who live in its suburbs. But it wouldn't be politically viable to say that out loud, and I don't think you could get the state legislature to be on board with removing it for just that reason. You'd have to have ODOT on board, and I don't think they'd sign on for something that was clearly seen as an attack on Edmond.

I just bought a house in OKC, and while I liked the idea of going in the Mesta Park area, when I looked at size and cost and the school district, I ended up buying elsewhere. I'm not going to criticize people for buying in the 'burbs, because while I'm within the city limits, it's definitely a suburban neighborhood. But if the economics of the situation were different, I'd have probably picked a different house.

My vision for OKC in like 2045 or so would include a significantly denser core. We'd have a mass transit system connecting Norman to Edmond, and probably Yukon to MWC. Most areas inside the inner loop would be serviced by either a streetcar or by a dependable (and frequent) bus system. And at every stop on our metro-area rail system, you'd have a dense little TOD neighborhood extending two or three blocks from the rail station. Imagine if there were 25 different mini-Bricktowns scattered throughout the city, all connected by a rail line. You could get a brownstone in one of these places for cheaper than you could downtown, and you'd get a pseudo-downtown experience, while still being a decent distance from work. I think that would appeal to a lot of people. You could also buy a traditional suburban home a few blocks away, and now you're in walking distance to an urban-ish area, while still being able to have your white picket fence and a big dog.

A convenient and useful mass transit system makes these sorts of development possible. And when that possibility exists, I think a lot of people will choose it over a home in a suburb that doesn't have those same amenities. It's all about providing options for your residents. And people will generally desire the places that give them the most options. Now I don't have to take the freeway if I don't want to. I think we can build this type of city a lot cheaper than we can the city that has a 12 lane I-35 running all the way from Norman to Edmond. Once we've got a city with those options, eliminating I-235 starts making a lot more sense.

Hoya,
That's the best comment I've read on this website in a long time. I completely agree.

I don't know that removing I-235 will ever happen. I don't even know what hoops they'd have to jump through to remove an interstate, if they'd have to have federal approval or not. And I'm not going to pretend that the state of Oklahoma is suddenly going to become super-progressive when it comes to favoring urban lifestyles over suburban and rural ones.

From the perspective of Oklahoma City itself, for the city, removing 235 would be a no-brainer. You don't want to make it easy for people to move out to Edmond and build their expensive homes in another municipality. In that sense Edmond is your competition, not your friend. The city should worry about the needs of its own citizens, and not bend over backwards for the desires of those who live in its suburbs. But it wouldn't be politically viable to say that out loud, and I don't think you could get the state legislature to be on board with removing it for just that reason. You'd have to have ODOT on board, and I don't think they'd sign on for something that was clearly seen as an attack on Edmond.

I just bought a house in OKC, and while I liked the idea of going in the Mesta Park area, when I looked at size and cost and the school district, I ended up buying elsewhere. I'm not going to criticize people for buying in the 'burbs, because while I'm within the city limits, it's definitely a suburban neighborhood. But if the economics of the situation were different, I'd have probably picked a different house.

My vision for OKC in like 2045 or so would include a significantly denser core. We'd have a mass transit system connecting Norman to Edmond, and probably Yukon to MWC. Most areas inside the inner loop would be serviced by either a streetcar or by a dependable (and frequent) bus system. And at every stop on our metro-area rail system, you'd have a dense little TOD neighborhood extending two or three blocks from the rail station. Imagine if there were 25 different mini-Bricktowns scattered throughout the city, all connected by a rail line. You could get a brownstone in one of these places for cheaper than you could downtown, and you'd get a pseudo-downtown experience, while still being a decent distance from work. I think that would appeal to a lot of people. You could also buy a traditional suburban home a few blocks away, and now you're in walking distance to an urban-ish area, while still being able to have your white picket fence and a big dog.

A convenient and useful mass transit system makes these sorts of development possible. And when that possibility exists, I think a lot of people will choose it over a home in a suburb that doesn't have those same amenities. It's all about providing options for your residents. And people will generally desire the places that give them the most options. Now I don't have to take the freeway if I don't want to. I think we can build this type of city a lot cheaper than we can the city that has a 12 lane I-35 running all the way from Norman to Edmond. Once we've got a city with those options, eliminating I-235 starts making a lot more sense.

Thank you for posting this. It sums up many of my thoughts in a more lucid way than I seem to be able to communicate. I think it would be a great thing to have dense nodes around transit stops connected by transit.

^ ^ ^ Post #82 ^ ^ ^ OKC_on_mines

The streetcar project plans so far:

http://www.brookvillecorp.com/Files/Admin/News%20Photos/Oklahoma-City---BROOKVILLE-Liberty-Streetcar-WebRes.jpg

Brookville's price is $4.8 million each for the first five streetcars and $4 million for the sixth.. OKC has an option to buy a 6th Liberty model streetcar bringing the total to $28.9 million.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoZh6rgVIAANdXQ.jpg
The rail infrastructure will cost $50 million--partnership between Herzog Contracting Corp., & Stacy and Witbeck for the 4.9 - 6.9 miles of "service track."

• A 4.6-mile main line through the central business district linking Midtown and Bricktown.
• A 2.3-mile "Bricktown loop" providing an option for frequent service between Bricktown & the MAPS 3 convention center complex.

All the costs for construction of the maintenance facility, intermodal hub (Santa Fe Depot), streetcars have come in under budget so far.

OKC_on_mines: Great idea if we could stretch the streetcar lines to the Adventure District--a tourist novelty that would be a feather in OKC's cap. However, we would need another $50 million to make that work. There's unknowns about following:


• Not sure what lines are in use or abandoned by the rail line in the Adventure District?
• Whether they could be linked from the streetcar routes?
• Not sure if you could use the same rail lines for the streetcar?

(?) Could be considered for future streetcar route expansion. The OU Health Science Center District is being mentioned for expansion; that's close to the Creston Hills' neighborhood.

Laramie

Me and you are here (points from my eyes to yours). Ok so at 50 million, if the vote this September is passed to extend the tax then we could potentially see AT LEAST midnight service for all of our bus routes and possibly a few 24/7 services for , lets say, the number 5 and 8 bus . then we could also fund the adevtnure line project and THEN still have money left over for the capitol hill project. Im serious man, I bumped into one of the parents for the UCLA freshman softball pitcher at garage burger in midtown. I asked how they liked OKC. They said they liked it but wished more things stayed open later.

If I had one complaint about my city....just one, it would be our mentality concerning hospitality; for example, the fact we have buses that only run until 6-7 during the week and not service on Sundays is sooooo illogical to me. The people working at bars and restaurants, those working at the hospital in the northwest expressway corridor, the single mom going to school at O triple c.....they need to go to work, grocery shop, hang out, spend time with their kids, shop, go to church, and a bunch of other odds and ends on Sundays and after work during the week. Sure we have 4 routes that have midnight service. I was so excited when Jason ferbrache at embark announced it. But, its only four routes.....and none of them serve the eastaide......in fact the #23 route is advertised as a crosstown bus but it doesn't go east of the capital/va hospital.....

With that said, why is ihop, Denny's, and waffle house the only business after midnight? Why can't we have a 24/7 city? Whereas is the courage from my fellow okies to run their business 24/7 and invite people in their communities to support them and count on them all day every day? Why should Walgreen and cvs corner the market on 24/7 business in local communities? I mean this with every ounce of pride in my fellow okies, this city, the state, and everything 405.....so no shade thrown here. But Im really curious to find out what the logic is behind our inherent desire to close things down early and shut down on Sundays? Im a believer, so yes I worship...but biblically speaking the Sabbath = Saturday? So where are our city officials coming from with no Sunday service on a streetcar we already paid for? Hunh? Wait what? We can and should do better.....with all the game changers and monumental projects going on all at once Im sure we are anxious to see OKC in the year 2020 and beyond....but aren't we taking two steps back if we don't get it right?

Idk....Im just a okie so what do i know

Hoya,
That's the best comment I've read on this website in a long time. I completely agree.

+1

I second this. I realize it is technically unrealistic at the current point in time but I believe the OKC urban core would be much better off with I-235 removed. I think it should be replaced with a boulevard, at least as far north as 36th St. Above that, it can transition into a highway.

A few weeks ago when I-235 was closed due to the construction, the world didn't end. I took Western those days and it didn't really seem any busier than usual. In addition to opening up new land for development, removing I-235 would reconnect inner NW and NE OKC and jump-start revitalization of the NE side, which thus far has lagged behind the inner NW side. There are a lot of great neighborhoods in NE OKC that at one time connected seamlessly with neighborhoods we all know and frequent but were segregated off once the highway was built. Once again, I know that removing I-235 is more than likely unrealistic at this point but I do think it would be beneficial.

For 30 years, the Broadway Extension ended at NW 36th Street. All traffic went down Robinson to 23rd. Southbound traffic continued down Robinson. Northbound traffic was on Broadway. In addition, US77 (on Lincoln north of 23rd) was southbound on Robinson and northbound on Broadway:
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4319/36176103801_3e4b32e046.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/X7KZiB)2017-08-01_8-33-54 (https://flic.kr/p/X7KZiB) by rte66man (https://www.flickr.com/photos/rte66man/), on Flickr

When I-235 was extended to 23rd in the late 80’s (using BNSF Row for the most part), Robinson was converted back to a residential street and the neighborhood (Jefferson Park) has made a remarkable recovery IMO due to the great reduction in traffic (as well as its proximity to the Paseo District).

The I-235 overpass at 23rd was built so it could go over both the BNSF tracts and 23rd. There was no other feasible way to get 235 across. Tunneling would have been cost-prohibitive and very prone to flooding.

All that is to say that removal of 235 anywhere between I-44 and I-40 is not realistic. Not including the multi-BILLION removal cost, the traffic from Edmond and other points would either be forced onto city streets or east to the grossly inadequate, built in the early 60’s I-35. You would have to keep the 23rd St overpass because there would be no feasible way to connect your proposed boulevard to the existing road north of 23rd. I would much rather see some form of the “lid” be implemented.

Commuter rail is entirely different from light rail. OKC needs to light rail to compete with the freeways. Commuter rail won't cut it.

Light rail isn't part of the regional transit discussion right now and if we built a system, it would likely be decades away - not to mention ridiculously expensive, since there are few abandoned rail corridors in OKC that haven't been built over. Commuter rail is far cheaper, and - given sufficient frequency of service during peak demand - is *absolutely* competitive with freeways. Indeed, the proposed N-S corridor would directly compete with I-35, I-235, and the Broadway Extension.

Light rail isn't part of the regional transit discussion right now and if we built a system, it would likely be decades away - not to mention ridiculously expensive, since there are few abandoned rail corridors in OKC that haven't been built over. Commuter rail is far cheaper, and - given sufficient frequency of service during peak demand - is *absolutely* competitive with freeways. Indeed, the proposed N-S corridor would directly compete with I-35, I-235, and the Broadway Extension.wrong. Light rail is being discussed for the regional transit plan.

Commuter rail is not competitive with freeways at all. Low frequencies. Few stops. Nothing about it is competive with freeways. All it would do is offer an alterrnive for commuters. An alternative for those that choose to take would be in the minority. Not saying that's a bad thing either.

I don't know that removing I-235 will ever happen. I don't even know what hoops they'd have to jump through to remove an interstate, if they'd have to have federal approval or not. And I'm not going to pretend that the state of Oklahoma is suddenly going to become super-progressive when it comes to favoring urban lifestyles over suburban and rural ones.

From the perspective of Oklahoma City itself, for the city, removing 235 would be a no-brainer. You don't want to make it easy for people to move out to Edmond and build their expensive homes in another municipality. In that sense Edmond is your competition, not your friend. The city should worry about the needs of its own citizens, and not bend over backwards for the desires of those who live in its suburbs. But it wouldn't be politically viable to say that out loud, and I don't think you could get the state legislature to be on board with removing it for just that reason. You'd have to have ODOT on board, and I don't think they'd sign on for something that was clearly seen as an attack on Edmond.

I just bought a house in OKC, and while I liked the idea of going in the Mesta Park area, when I looked at size and cost and the school district, I ended up buying elsewhere. I'm not going to criticize people for buying in the 'burbs, because while I'm within the city limits, it's definitely a suburban neighborhood. But if the economics of the situation were different, I'd have probably picked a different house.

My vision for OKC in like 2045 or so would include a significantly denser core. We'd have a mass transit system connecting Norman to Edmond, and probably Yukon to MWC. Most areas inside the inner loop would be serviced by either a streetcar or by a dependable (and frequent) bus system. And at every stop on our metro-area rail system, you'd have a dense little TOD neighborhood extending two or three blocks from the rail station. Imagine if there were 25 different mini-Bricktowns scattered throughout the city, all connected by a rail line. You could get a brownstone in one of these places for cheaper than you could downtown, and you'd get a pseudo-downtown experience, while still being a decent distance from work. I think that would appeal to a lot of people. You could also buy a traditional suburban home a few blocks away, and now you're in walking distance to an urban-ish area, while still being able to have your white picket fence and a big dog.

A convenient and useful mass transit system makes these sorts of development possible. And when that possibility exists, I think a lot of people will choose it over a home in a suburb that doesn't have those same amenities. It's all about providing options for your residents. And people will generally desire the places that give them the most options. Now I don't have to take the freeway if I don't want to. I think we can build this type of city a lot cheaper than we can the city that has a 12 lane I-35 running all the way from Norman to Edmond. Once we've got a city with those options, eliminating I-235 starts making a lot more sense.i agree with everything you said except it being a "no brainer" for OKC to remove I-235. Thankfully that won't ever happen but discussing for the sake of arguing about it I just have to say regional connectivity is better than a city only thinking about itself. Fortunately we have regional planners that understand this and freeways are built to connect suburbs and commuters as well as inner city travel.

I'm sure a lot of people will choose it over a home in the suburbs but it will still be a very small group given as 80% of all home growth took place in the suburbs.

Other than that, I pretty much agree about the transit plan you had. That'd be great. I'd also add more car based transit, but I love you plan. We aren't disagreeing on much here.

i agree with everything you said except it being a "no brainer" for OKC to remove I-235. Thankfully that won't ever happen but discussing for the sake of arguing about it I just have to say regional connectivity is better than a city only thinking about itself. Fortunately we have regional planners that understand this and freeways are built to connect suburbs and commuters as well as inner city travel.

I'm sure a lot of people will choose it over a home in the suburbs but it will still be a very small group given as 80% of all home growth took place in the suburbs.

Other than that, I pretty much agree about the transit plan you had. That'd be great. I'd also add more car based transit, but I love you plan. We aren't disagreeing on much here.

So you agree with everything he said except the main point of his post, and your response to him saying that removing 235 is bad for Edmond and good for OKC is, wait for it: "But it would be bad for Edmond".

I'm sure you'll come back and tell me why it wouldn't be bad for OKC though, once again conveniently ignoring the reality that 235 has totally cut the East Side off from the growth and prosperity of the rest of the core.

wrong. Light rail is being discussed for the regional transit plan.

I'm sorry, but it's just not. The 2005 Regional Fixed Guideway Study (http://www.acogok.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2005-COTPA-Fixed-Guideway-Study-Executive-Summary.pdf) mentioned Light Rail Transit as an available technology, and it scored well in their initial assessments, but it was ultimately not chosen for study because the Annualized Cost per Rider was estimated at $108 - more than 4 times the study's threshold of $25. Instead, the study focused on enhanced bus service, Bus Rapid Transit, and Commuter Rail alternatives among multiple corridors. The results of the FGS study led to the creation of the 2030 Fixed Guideway Plan (http://www.gometro.org/Websites/gometro/files/Content/694121/FGS_Map_System_Plan_Vision_2030.pdf), which does not include Light Rail Transit. Additionally, three of the corridors identified in the Fixed Guideway Plan were studied in further detail in the CentralOK!Go Commuter Corridors Study (http://www.acogok.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ACOG_CentralOKgo_FinalReport_12-03-2015.pdf) (Summary (http://www.acogok.org/commuter-corridors-regional-transit-rail-mpo/)), which - along with public input - recommended commuter rail as the locally preferred mode of transit for the Edmond and Norman corridors, and Modern Streetcar for the Midwest City/Tinker corridor. Additionally, the Intermodal Transit Hub Master Plan (http://www.acogok.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/hubreport.pdf) contains no provisions for Light Rail Transit, and is instead geared towards the planned services identified in the Fixed Guideway Plan: Modern streetcar, commuter rail, intercity rail (conventional and high speed), and bus service (local and intercity).

If anyone is talking about Light Rail Transit for OKC, I sure can't find anything official anywhere - and I can find no studies that have been undertaken to even see if it's feasible.


Commuter rail is not competitive with freeways at all. Low frequencies. Few stops. Nothing about it is competive with freeways. All it would do is offer an alterrnive for commuters. An alternative for those that choose to take would be in the minority. Not saying that's a bad thing either.

It absolutely is competitive - again, depending on frequency of service during peak demand - and depending on where your trip begins and ends. If I lived in Edmond and worked downtown, on a normal 8a-5p schedule, I'd choose commuter rail in a heartbeat over dealing with traffic. Refer to the CentralOK!go Commuter Corridors Study; it shows that a substantial number of people would think similarly. It's not a direct comparison, because of the disparaties in size between the two metro areas, but for one example: Metra is showing very, very well that it can compete favorably with Chicagoland freeways.

So you agree with everything he said except the main point of his post, and your response to him saying that removing 235 is bad for Edmond and good for OKC is, wait for it: "But it would be bad for Edmond".

I'm sure you'll come back and tell me why it wouldn't be bad for OKC though, once again conveniently ignoring the reality that 235 has totally cut the East Side off from the growth and prosperity of the rest of the core.

Yeah I will. There are tons of people that live, work, and play in OKC, Edmond, Norman, Midwest City, etc. and are beneficial to the city. It is now sounding to me like you are saying OKC shouldn't factor in the benefits of the suburbs and the tens of thousands of people that commute to and from them. All of which, provide money for OKC.


235 has totally cut the East Side off from the growth and prosperity of the rest of the core.So explain to me all of the projects along with the Health Sciences Center and Adventure District... What you said is 100% untrue. It has not cut off the growth of the east side.

I agree with what he said would be a good transit system for OKC because I support transit. Not at the cost of tearing out freeways. I clearly outlined what I agreed with him on and what I didn't.

Hoya made a great post. Though I do think it's weird the reactions he got which reinforces my view that there is a sizable amount of posters on this website that really don't seem to understand what transit is. I also seem to notice they salivate over it even more so than when I have discussions with other posters on Skyscraper page in cities such as San Francisco, NYC, and LA about these matters. But whatever, to each their own. It seems to me Hoya's point was that the city needs to change the way it is planning in the core.

If you wanted to turn around and make OKC into something you'd have to remove freeways for, you'd need to remove parking, many streets and greatly narrow them, reroute the entire bus network, and commuter rail would be second thought. But we live in the real world and not some transit advocates wet dream. If I had my way we'd have 23rd St. 6 lanes and a grade separated interchange at Classen. But guess what, we aren't living in some freeway advocates wet dream either. I understand this.

The point behind the discussion is that removing 235 is much more than just about removing the freeway. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this debate wouldn't even have gotten this far if me or some other poster who understands realities wouldn't have responded to that ridiculous post which is probably the 1,000th one to suggest removing 235 and why it won't happen and shouldn't. I didn't even read Hoya's post as even disagreeing with mine apart from a few things. It seemed to me he just posted what he wanted to see and I think parts of it are cool.

double post

I'm sorry, but it's just not. The 2005 Regional Fixed Guideway Study (http://www.acogok.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2005-COTPA-Fixed-Guideway-Study-Executive-Summary.pdf) mentioned Light Rail Transit as an available technology, and it scored well in their initial assessments, but it was ultimately not chosen for study because the Annualized Cost per Rider was estimated at $108 - more than 4 times the study's threshold of $25. Instead, the study focused on enhanced bus service, Bus Rapid Transit, and Commuter Rail alternatives among multiple corridors. The results of the FGS study led to the creation of the 2030 Fixed Guideway Plan (http://www.gometro.org/Websites/gometro/files/Content/694121/FGS_Map_System_Plan_Vision_2030.pdf), which does not include Light Rail Transit. Additionally, three of the corridors identified in the Fixed Guideway Plan were studied in further detail in the CentralOK!Go Commuter Corridors Study (http://www.acogok.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ACOG_CentralOKgo_FinalReport_12-03-2015.pdf) (Summary (http://www.acogok.org/commuter-corridors-regional-transit-rail-mpo/)), which - along with public input - recommended commuter rail as the locally preferred mode of transit for the Edmond and Norman corridors, and Modern Streetcar for the Midwest City/Tinker corridor. Additionally, the Intermodal Transit Hub Master Plan (http://www.acogok.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/hubreport.pdf) contains no provisions for Light Rail Transit, and is instead geared towards the planned services identified in the Fixed Guideway Plan: Modern streetcar, commuter rail, intercity rail (conventional and high speed), and bus service (local and intercity).

If anyone is talking about Light Rail Transit for OKC, I sure can't find anything official anywhere - and I can find no studies that have been undertaken to even see if it's feasible.

I am very happy to report to you, that are you mistaken. Not trying to be snarky, this is a good thing. It does appear, that light-rail is under consideration for OKC.

This is from Hutch's post


http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13634&d=1488395118

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=43068&p=985975#post985975




It absolutely is competitive - again, depending on frequency of service during peak demand - and depending on where your trip begins and ends. If I lived in Edmond and worked downtown, on a normal 8a-5p schedule, I'd choose commuter rail in a heartbeat over dealing with traffic. Refer to the CentralOK!go Commuter Corridors Study; it shows that a substantial number of people would think similarly. It's not a direct comparison, because of the disparaties in size between the two metro areas, but for one example: Metra is showing very, very well that it can compete favorably with Chicagoland freeways.How? I chat with people and read posts all the time complain of the lack of frequency. Freeways don't close off of peak demand. The downside is that the become packed but in major cities so do trains and it can take just as long as commuting if not longer than freeways even in LA after having to wait 2-3 trains because they're full and then it tacks on even more time if you have to transfer lines or even worse, modes of transit.

Of course the point here is not something transit will solve. It is much cheaper to build large roads and freeways serving a sprawled out city than it is transit to serve people in the same fashion roads and freeways do. You'd have to change how people live. Something I'm against. Giving them the option to, I'm for. That's why I support OKC's transit plan. I think this will benefit the city.

Commuter rail is not competitive with freeways because it isn't trying to be. If you think that, then I don't know what else to say here. It's a good alternative. The point of New Urbanism doesn't really seem to me to encourage cities that need commuter rail to cities like Edmond as alternatives to freeways. Freeways are used by commuters, yes. Just because that fact doesn't make them competitors. The idea behind New Urbanism to me seems to be that they want people to live closer to work. Commuter rail doesn't help that. It's an alternative to pro-sprawl lifestyle.

The very fact you say depending on where your trip begins and ends is hilarious. If you really want to try and make commuter rail competitive then it only wins for those who choose to ride if they enjoy it. If you bring numbers into play and want to compare it against freeway drivers, it looses by the number drivers that drive on the freeways. Think about how many drivers would drive from OKC to Edmond while you and x amount of other people use commuter rail. Your number would pale in comparison to traffic counts on 235.

Before you come back and say something about how you'll be passing gridlocked traffic, remember to factor in by the time you get to the station depending on where you get off of work from, a driver who drove out of the parking garage at work might already be halfway home. Pretty soon he'll be in a self driving car enjoying all of the benefits of mass transit without the hassles. While you wait for your train having potential delays, subject to inclement weather etc., hopefully if the government is doing its job right, traffic won't be too bad for the driver. Maybe you'll pass him 3/4 of the way to Edmond. Once you get there than what? Where do you live? Park and ride? So at this point do you support sprawl now or are you opting to live in the urban housing in Downtown Edmond? Where do you live? Right next to the commuter rail station? If so, you're giving up a huge yard and triple the square footage you could have gotten living in house that doesn't have the type of transit connection yours might have.

Of course all of that is subjective and you might not give two sh!ts about the square footage and large yard. Fine. I support you to have the ability to live that way. Hell, I live that way right now. I have no car. I bike. I use the subway and light-rail and ride the bus. It's cool but I'm over it. I want a house in the suburbs and a car. I'm getting there. People like me shouldn't have to be burdened with other people like me because Hoya and others like him think removing 235 is a good idea and we now have to deal with horrid traffic. It's the same thing here in Los Angeles with the issue of getting 101 from Cahuenga Pass to Downtown widened which is taking forever to do.

....
The point behind the discussion is that removing 235 is much more than just about removing the freeway. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this debate wouldn't even have gotten this far if me or some other poster who understands realities wouldn't have responded to that ridiculous post which is probably the 1,000th one to suggest removing 235 and why it won't happen and shouldn't...

Exactly. If you would have let this thread remain focused on it's intended purpose, the Innovation Link, we could all be enjoying a discussion instead of listening to off-topic snark. However, you just can't pass up an opportunity to engage in opinions that differ from yours. Even when they aren't on point. Sheesh.

Yeah, how dare me post a response to someone else's opinion that doesn't agree with it. Sheesh.

Btw, I wasn't the one who who went off topic to begin with. :)

Light rail was and is a potential new corridor to the Nw and to the airport. Neither of those has been selected or studied and neither are moving forward at all at this time. Commuter rail to the airport would likey be the better choice.

The light rail being referenced in this discussion is the extension of the streetcar up Classen and down to Capitol Hill. Whether or not that should be categorized as light rail or streetcar is another argument entirely (and one that couldn't be solved until it was actually up and running anyway). That was the recommendation in ACOG's OK!Go study. Whether or not that's what we end up with depends on way too many factors. (I am of the opinion that it absolutely should happen, or we've wasted money on the streetcar system downtown.)

http://www.acogok.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Central-OK-GO_Executive-Summary_FINAL-for-PRINT.pdf

I don't know that removing I-235 will ever happen. I don't even know what hoops they'd have to jump through to remove an interstate, if they'd have to have federal approval or not. And I'm not going to pretend that the state of Oklahoma is suddenly going to become super-progressive when it comes to favoring urban lifestyles over suburban and rural ones.

From the perspective of Oklahoma City itself, for the city, removing 235 would be a no-brainer. You don't want to make it easy for people to move out to Edmond and build their expensive homes in another municipality. In that sense Edmond is your competition, not your friend. The city should worry about the needs of its own citizens, and not bend over backwards for the desires of those who live in its suburbs. But it wouldn't be politically viable to say that out loud, and I don't think you could get the state legislature to be on board with removing it for just that reason. You'd have to have ODOT on board, and I don't think they'd sign on for something that was clearly seen as an attack on Edmond.

I just bought a house in OKC, and while I liked the idea of going in the Mesta Park area, when I looked at size and cost and the school district, I ended up buying elsewhere. I'm not going to criticize people for buying in the 'burbs, because while I'm within the city limits, it's definitely a suburban neighborhood. But if the economics of the situation were different, I'd have probably picked a different house.

My vision for OKC in like 2045 or so would include a significantly denser core. We'd have a mass transit system connecting Norman to Edmond, and probably Yukon to MWC. Most areas inside the inner loop would be serviced by either a streetcar or by a dependable (and frequent) bus system. And at every stop on our metro-area rail system, you'd have a dense little TOD neighborhood extending two or three blocks from the rail station. Imagine if there were 25 different mini-Bricktowns scattered throughout the city, all connected by a rail line. You could get a brownstone in one of these places for cheaper than you could downtown, and you'd get a pseudo-downtown experience, while still being a decent distance from work. I think that would appeal to a lot of people. You could also buy a traditional suburban home a few blocks away, and now you're in walking distance to an urban-ish area, while still being able to have your white picket fence and a big dog.

A convenient and useful mass transit system makes these sorts of development possible. And when that possibility exists, I think a lot of people will choose it over a home in a suburb that doesn't have those same amenities. It's all about providing options for your residents. And people will generally desire the places that give them the most options. Now I don't have to take the freeway if I don't want to. I think we can build this type of city a lot cheaper than we can the city that has a 12 lane I-35 running all the way from Norman to Edmond. Once we've got a city with those options, eliminating I-235 starts making a lot more sense.

I'm really digging this idea.

I am very happy to report to you, that are you mistaken. Not trying to be snarky, this is a good thing. It does appear, that light-rail is under consideration for OKC.

This is from Hutch's post

You're right, I had completely missed that information. It will be interesting to see if it actually happens - I think LRT will be a hard sell to OKC because of the higher infrastructure costs - but some method of transit up the NW Expressway corridor and out towards the Airport will be sorely needed. Sorry for the argument!

But additionally, sorry for derailing (Ha!) the conversation; let's get back to talking about the Innovation Link proper. I think it's a pretty darn cool idea and I hope it happens!

You're right, I had completely missed that information. It will be interesting to see if it actually happens - I think LRT will be a hard sell to OKC because of the higher infrastructure costs - but some method of transit up the NW Expressway corridor and out towards the Airport will be sorely needed. Sorry for the argument!

But additionally, sorry for derailing (Ha!) the conversation; let's get back to talking about the Innovation Link proper. I think it's a pretty darn cool idea and I hope it happens!
I agree and I'm really excited about this. One option they could do is create a BRT line for now and upgrade it to rail later. Some BRT lines have the advantage of being able to run 24/7 like what Metro in la Is planning for the Orange Line in the Valley. They can't do that for the subways because they aren't quadruple tracked like NYC, only double tracked. So now way to run it 24 hours due to maintenance. But these plans have me very excited! I'd just like to see a loop included on the south side in 44/40/240/35 and maybe a line down MLK Boulevard and through 23rd St.. this is really exciting stuff.

Chicago-based Perkins+Will to plan Innovation District

By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record March 29, 2018

OKLAHOMA CITY – Roy Williams reminded city business leaders and civically engaged residents that there’s a 10-year road map to create the Innovation District.

The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber president and CEO gave an update about the district during Wednesday’s Mayor’s Development Roundtable. The district stretches north and south from NW 13 Street to Fourth Street, southeast to the railroad tracks, east to Lottie Avenue, and west to Robinson Avenue.

The Brookings Institution and the Project for Public Spaces started studying the area in October 2015. Their findings showed the district had potential to be a hub for new ideas and getting them to market. Now, the entities involved in the district are negotiating a contract with the Perkins+Will architecture firm, which will create a master plan for the area. The firm’s closest office is in Austin, Texas.

The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City is finalizing the contract with the firm, which should be completed in a couple of weeks. President and CEO Cathy O’Connor said the master plan should take about a year. The final results should give direction on where more retail, office space, and housing can be added.

The Brookings Institution found that there’s potential for the district to bring innovative energy or medical-related products to market. The master plan should help find what’s the best place for those types of facilities.

“(The plan will find) what’s needed to support the innovation economy that we’re trying to put more effort into,” O’Connor said.

Perkins+Will’s work will be paid for by the alliance, the state Office of Management and Enterprise Services, the Oklahoma Health Center Foundation, the Presbyterian Health Foundation, and the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center.

The alliance, OUHSC, the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, the health center foundation and PHF are helping to find an executive director for the district.

The health center foundation is reinventing itself to take on overseeing the Innovation District.

Foundation President Terry Taylor said there is a nationwide search to find the next director. The foundation is working with a national search firm to find the right person. He said there have been a few interviews with potential directors. He said he thinks someone should be hired in the next six months.

During his presentation, Williams showed images of Innovation Link, a land-cover bridge that was proposed by Miles & Associates architects. The $200 million OKC Innovation Link would span from NE 13th Street to NE Eighth Street, over Interstate 235. It would go only as far east as Oklahoma Avenue and west to Walnut Avenue.

Williams didn’t say if money had been found to pay for the project. The bridge plan was shown to several people, including civic leaders who could have included it in the latest bond projects’ list. But it was not funded.

Chicago-based Perkins+Will to plan Innovation District

By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record March 29, 2018

OKLAHOMA CITY – Roy Williams reminded city business leaders and civically engaged residents that there’s a 10-year road map to create the Innovation District.

The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber president and CEO gave an update about the district during Wednesday’s Mayor’s Development Roundtable. The district stretches north and south from NW 13 Street to Fourth Street, southeast to the railroad tracks, east to Lottie Avenue, and west to Robinson Avenue.

The Brookings Institution and the Project for Public Spaces started studying the area in October 2015. Their findings showed the district had potential to be a hub for new ideas and getting them to market. Now, the entities involved in the district are negotiating a contract with the Perkins+Will architecture firm, which will create a master plan for the area. The firm’s closest office is in Austin, Texas.

The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City is finalizing the contract with the firm, which should be completed in a couple of weeks. President and CEO Cathy O’Connor said the master plan should take about a year. The final results should give direction on where more retail, office space, and housing can be added.

The Brookings Institution found that there’s potential for the district to bring innovative energy or medical-related products to market. The master plan should help find what’s the best place for those types of facilities.

“(The plan will find) what’s needed to support the innovation economy that we’re trying to put more effort into,” O’Connor said.

Perkins+Will’s work will be paid for by the alliance, the state Office of Management and Enterprise Services, the Oklahoma Health Center Foundation, the Presbyterian Health Foundation, and the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center.

The alliance, OUHSC, the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, the health center foundation and PHF are helping to find an executive director for the district.

The health center foundation is reinventing itself to take on overseeing the Innovation District.

Foundation President Terry Taylor said there is a nationwide search to find the next director. The foundation is working with a national search firm to find the right person. He said there have been a few interviews with potential directors. He said he thinks someone should be hired in the next six months.

During his presentation, Williams showed images of Innovation Link, a land-cover bridge that was proposed by Miles & Associates architects. The $200 million OKC Innovation Link would span from NE 13th Street to NE Eighth Street, over Interstate 235. It would go only as far east as Oklahoma Avenue and west to Walnut Avenue.

Williams didn’t say if money had been found to pay for the project. The bridge plan was shown to several people, including civic leaders who could have included it in the latest bond projects’ list. But it was not funded.

so? no more Automobile Alley?

I personally think OKC is getting ridiculous with these "districts". Why not just have the Oklahoma Health Center stand on it's own merit and just create the lid over I-235 without taking away an already uber successful, historic district to try to make the 'innovation' connection. ....

I may be speaking with not enough knowledge, but I believe the reason is so that all the components of an "Innovation District" are covered. Research, Medical, Bio, GE, etc. that are connected to a work/live/play area with plentiful housing within walking distance, and of course all of the breweries, bars, restaurants, and shops that Auto Alley has and will continue to develop moving East and West off of Broadway.

It seems like if we can achieve a true Innovation District, the chances of landing many more companies go up based on the designation on a national or worldwide level.

During his presentation, Williams showed images of Innovation Link, a land-cover bridge that was proposed by Miles & Associates architects. The $200 million OKC Innovation Link would span from NE 13th Street to NE Eighth Street, over Interstate 235. It would go only as far east as Oklahoma Avenue and west to Walnut Avenue.

I'm pretty sure that's backwards and should be as far east as Walnut and as far west as Oklahoma Avenue, considering Oklahoma is the west side of the highway and Walnut is on east side.

so? no more Automobile Alley?

I personally think OKC is getting ridiculous with these "districts". Why not just have the Oklahoma Health Center stand on it's own merit and just create the lid over I-235 without taking away an already uber successful, historic district to try to make the 'innovation' connection. ....

I agree.

Isn’t innovation district more a description than a “brand”? “Innovation district” is a concept being pushed in other cities as well.

I think what is throwing everyone off is the use of the word "district" (which I know is most common for these types of areas). If it had a non "district" name (such as the Research Triangle in North Carolina) it wouldn't seem odd for it to overlap with multiple other districts. The reason Automobile Alley was included was because qualifying for some of the assistance they've sought has required checking a number of things off of the list that simply don't occur currently on the east side of 235, such as coffee shops, retail, etc. AA was lumped in and counted toward existing amenities.

It is something that was immediately concerning because Automobile Alley is of course a venerable, standalone district with its own identity (and in fact its own existing management and funding through the BID), and the district's stakeholders have no intention of ceding their autonomy. At the same time I don't think doing so is a part of the plan for the Innovation District. So I think it just requires continued communication and cooperation between all parties (this has been and is being done). But I also think perhaps branding away from "district" in the future might be helpful and clarifying.

Great points Urbanized.

If they want to create an Innovation District that LINKS Automobile Alley and the Oklahoma Health Center; then I think that is appropriate message rather than their wanting to call AA + OHC the "Innovation District". This is the same way as we call our Historic, Entertainment District known as Bricktown - rather than calling the area Entertainment District.

I chime in on this because OKC has been district happy lately, coming up with a 'district' name for every new development. And it appeared as if many were wanting to jump on the Innovation bandwagon to rebrand OHC as the Innovation District (which would require adding in AA to fit the definition).

I hope the Oklahoma Health Center can be an Innovation District in it's own right; why not develop it's own walkable, retail area within its own boundary and let Automobile Alley continue to mature and grow as it is. This is what we should do as a city rather than jumping on every single buzz word that some city we want to be more like is doing or has its areas defined (see 'Arts District') when we really have no basis for it. ...

I think the emphasis is on the R&D being done in the area. Whereas this board focuses on the physical landscape, the planners of the innovation areas start with seeing what organizations, technologies and industries exist and are synergistic. They then want to use the neighborhood to be a magnet for the area as a place where community, interaction, etc. bind the players together and act to recruit other players. We want buildings, they want industries. Urbanism is just their way of creating the environment for them to exist. In the end, they both need each other, but it doesn't start out as real estate plays.

great points Rover.

I really don't see this taking off until Automobile Alley, Deep Deuce, and Midtown are fully developed. We're going to hit a point (probably in the next 10 years) where there's no more room for the 8-10 story limited service hotels, or the 4-5 story wood frame apartment buildings. Not that there won't be a market for them, there just won't be room for them. Not in the aforementioned areas. Eventually somebody's going to take a chance and build one on the other side of 235. Or they will as long as the city and state are willing to play ball (the Oklahoma School of Science and Math has some massive green space that it doesn't look like they're using).

My guess is that here in the next decade or so we'll start seeing these sorts of developments at 10th street and 4th street just on the other side of the interstate. In a way it'll be like starting Deep Deuce from scratch, except not quite as bad because stuff will be within a short walk. And it'll be easier if the streetcar expands that direction. Once they've got a foothold, then you'd see pretty steady growth. You need a local population to support things like coffee shops and restaurants. But once that starts to grow, they can quit pretending that Automobile Alley is part of this area. It's going to require cooperation from the city, the state, and OU to lay the proper foundation for this area. If everybody tries to do their own thing, it'll never work.

Regardless, I think we're a bit premature here. Our existing downtown districts are still filling out. We've got Core 2 Shore, the Cotton Mill area, the Wheeler District, and Strawberry Fields that are also in line. The Innovation District has the benefit that it's between two decently developed places in downtown and OU Medical, and it is close to some of our more mature districts. But I don't think there's any economic incentive to make that jump until the existing neighborhoods are complete.

I believe OU Med Center and OU employ almost 10,000. Factor in the visitors to the various clinics, etc. Then add in the students. All in all, that area is a great economic area and could easily support coffee shops, restaurants, housing, etc. OU has a MBA program on that side of 235 as well. Lots and lots of potential to infill the area. But it needs planned.

BTW, the new Embassy Suites over there is pretty big and seems to be plenty busy already.

I believe OU Med Center and OU employ almost 10,000. Factor in the visitors to the various clinics, etc. Then add in the students. All in all, that area is a great economic area and could easily support coffee shops, restaurants, housing, etc. OU has a MBA program on that side of 235 as well. Lots and lots of potential to infill the area. But it needs planned.

BTW, the new Embassy Suites over there is pretty big and seems to be plenty busy already.

It was planned... planned to make that kind of activity difficult. (I.e. around efficiently driving from your home to a parking garage without having to walk anywhere.)

I've stayed at that Embassy twice on visits to the city and it was great. But we still had to hop in the car.

I do agree that with great urban planning the city could very well create an Innovation District within the confines of the Oklahoma Health Center; adding in streetfronts/sidewalks/local transit without leeching on established mature districts like DD, BT, and AA. Hopefully the players will adopt the true meaning of Innovation district instead of what I fear will be a redistricting campaign to hype up our medical research area.

It was planned... planned to make that kind of activity difficult. (I.e. around efficiently driving from your home to a parking garage without having to walk anywhere.)

I do think the hospitals in the area probably do try to make it convenient for their patients and families and have been less concerned about new urbanism. Patient care is and should be their first priority.

That said, they have started the process to convert it to a more well rounded and appealing urban area with a diversity of innovative industries present. A conversion will take time, money and some strong visionaries.