Its an opinion board right? Or is there a test I missed?

If not mistaken your opinions are based on using existing rail line which is a pipe dream “in my opinion”.

We are decades away from a real rail solution and up and running. Where will funding come from?

we are not very far away from having a vote to fund the Regional transit Authority that was formed recently

if that vote passes we WILL get regional commuter rail

we are not very far away from having a vote to fund the Regional transit Authority that was formed recently

if that vote passes we WILL get regional commuter rail

My opinion still stands that it will take a few decades at best to get this to all outer 4 corners.

If you've read the fixed guideway study the four corners aren't even planned (for commuter rail). Yes it will probably take a decade or more to get Norman/Edmond done, but I don't think anybody thought it would be five years or less.

If you've read the fixed guideway study the four corners aren't even planned (for commuter rail). Yes it will probably take a decade or more to get Norman/Edmond done, but I don't think anybody thought it would be five years or less.

Which was my original post/point. Thanks

I'm not sure anyone here was arguing to the contrary. Those paying attention have long known this was a long game.

Some very perceptive comments.

At the last RTA meeting, our consultants briefed us on their detailed analysis of the BNSF corridor between Edmond and Norman. Based on the significant amount of freight service through the corridor, their recommendation is to acquire a portion of the BNSF right-of-way and install a separate dedicated commuter rail line. Throughout most of the corridor, the ROW has enough extra space to allow for it. And while there are several expected pinch points that would need to be resolved (mostly additional bridges), overall it appears very workable. Surprisingly, they were able to layout a preliminary alignment with only a single flyover to switch sides of the ROW that avoids all BNSF sidings and yards, does not interfere with freight service to companies along the line, and most importantly does not require switching across a single BNSF freight track. While additional technical reviews and discussions with BNSF are still required, the initial work is very positive.

Station spacing was also briefly discussed, and the consultants noted that the number of proposed commuter rail stations along the corridor from earlier studies likely needs to be reduced to some degree for optimal travel times and similar to other successful systems.

Does it feel like all this talk about too many stations is overblown? The current amount doesn't seem too crazy and nobody is advocating for more stations besides maybe two additional ones that people mentioned North of Edmond and in Guthrie. Also, there was the talk about taking away the station from OU-Norman earlier in the thread. All those stations would either be at the end or second to the end of the line and they don't affect the commute of all the existing stations. Yeah if you're commuting from Purcell all the way to Guthrie it's not going to be the fastest route but then again it was never going to be that.

It just seems crazy that some people are advocating for dropping the 23rd st station so there wouldn't be a single stop between the Chesapeake Energy/63rd station and downtown. That's a full 5-6 mile gap in coverage. People are expecting a hyperloop from their North Edmond living room to downtown. Elsewhere in this forum it was mentioned that the 23rd st corridor has the highest bus ridership and it's a natural connection point for future light rail or bus rapid transit. I guess you could make an argument for only one Moore station and maybe even cutting the Capital Hill station but I truly hope these "consultants" don't convince people that central and south okc should miss out on a completely reasonable and fair number of commuter stops. Otherwise we're looking at a bunch of park-and-rides and nowhere to park and ride to.

Does it feel like all this talk about too many stations is overblown? The current amount doesn't seem too crazy and nobody is advocating for more stations besides maybe two additional ones that people mentioned North of Edmond and in Guthrie. Also, there was the talk about taking away the station from OU-Norman earlier in the thread. All those stations would either be at the end or second to the end of the line and they don't affect the commute of all the existing stations. Yeah if you're commuting from Purcell all the way to Guthrie it's not going to be the fastest route but then again it was never going to be that.

It just seems crazy that some people are advocating for dropping the 23rd st station so there wouldn't be a single stop between the Chesapeake Energy/63rd station and downtown. That's a full 5-6 mile gap in coverage. People are expecting a hyperloop from their North Edmond living room to downtown. Elsewhere in this forum it was mentioned that the 23rd st corridor has the highest bus ridership and it's a natural connection point for future light rail or bus rapid transit. I guess you could make an argument for only one Moore station and maybe even cutting the Capital Hill station but I truly hope these "consultants" don't convince people that central and south okc should miss out on a completely reasonable and fair number of commuter stops. Otherwise we're looking at a bunch of park-and-rides and nowhere to park and ride to.

I think the question is how many people are going to go from Edmond/Norman to 23rd Street directly? If Broadway to the Capitol and the Capitol complex in general were more walkable, I could maybe see it, but at present, I think it can be left off for now. If in the future the density and demand can be proven, then the stop can always be added later.

Also if HSC/Capitol has a streetcar line by the time commuter rail comes online (not that that's any kind of certainty), a commuter rail stop might be unnecessary...

(to be clear I'd prefer a 23rd street stop initially because neighborhoods)

Rapid Rail should be the feeder line from communities to communities, and then you should be able to transit to more local destinations from each station. Adding to many stops will slow the rapid in rapid transitz

If you want to see what not to do, come check out the A-Train to DART green line until it gets downtown. It’s all Park and Ride. It’s so poorly designed.

Rapid Rail should be the feeder line from communities to communities, and then you should be able to transit to more local destinations from each station. Adding to many stops will slow the rapid in rapid transitz

Then I'm confused. Why would OKC even join and help pay for the regional transit system if they only get two OKC stops - downtown and the south OKC one (The 63rd St stop basically being Nichols Hills and assuming we're cutting the 23rd St and Capital Hill stops) ? It sounds like your vision for the system is to quickly transport Norman and Edmond residents to their job in downtown OKC and then quickly transport them back home. How does OKC benefit?

New businesses? Edmond and Norman residents are already content to sit in traffic for an hour to get to their jobs in OKC so I don't see it inducing too much job creation that wouldn't already naturally be created. New sales tax? Again, they already drive to OKC to spend money. New transit oriented development? OKC wouldn't get to create any besides at crossroads mall as the downtown station is already pretty transit oriented. And then finally you've already established that it's not picking up OKC commuters. It's like the boulevard all over again where we prioritized the quick commute of suburbanites over those who actually live in the city. Basically this transit line subsidizes the inefficient and unsustainable suburbs (which I would be okay with) but people want to also cut out access to OKC residents so Edmond/Norman residents can save 5 minutes on their commute. Again, why would OKC residents help pay for this when people are trying to cut out the benefits to OKC citizens?

According to ACOG 50% of the Cleveland County workforce commutes to Oklahoma County each day, there are a multitude of benefits to getting as much of that traffic off the road as possible. Also, if the "regional" transit authority favored OKC that could make the tax vote in those areas a harder sell.

(that said I am in favor of a 23rd stop)

Then I'm confused. Why would OKC even join and help pay for the regional transit system if they only get two OKC stops - downtown and the south OKC one (The 63rd St stop basically being Nichols Hills and assuming we're cutting the 23rd St and Capital Hill stops) ? It sounds like your vision for the system is to quickly transport Norman and Edmond residents to their job in downtown OKC and then quickly transport them back home. How does OKC benefit?

New businesses? Edmond and Norman residents are already content to sit in traffic for an hour to get to their jobs in OKC so I don't see it inducing too much job creation that wouldn't already naturally be created. New sales tax? Again, they already drive to OKC to spend money. New transit oriented development? OKC wouldn't get to create any besides at crossroads mall as the downtown station is already pretty transit oriented. And then finally you've already established that it's not picking up OKC commuters. It's like the boulevard all over again where we prioritized the quick commute of suburbanites over those who actually live in the city. Basically this transit line subsidizes the inefficient and unsustainable suburbs (which I would be okay with) but people want to also cut out access to OKC residents so Edmond/Norman residents can save 5 minutes on their commute. Again, why would OKC residents help pay for this when people are trying to cut out the benefits to OKC citizens?

It’s almost like I answered that in the quoted post...

But they

It’s almost like I answered that in the quoted post...

But they

But you didn't... You basically said "Big train must go fast. Too many stops in OKC make big train go not fast." And I'm saying that in that case it primarily benefits Norman and Edmond. OKC has an obligation to look out for its citizens, not those of the suburbs. Now we could have a win-win for both OKC and the suburbs but it isn't going to happen by cutting service to OKC citizens.


According to ACOG 50% of the Cleveland County workforce commutes to Oklahoma County each day, there are a multitude of benefits to getting as much of that traffic off the road as possible. Also, if the "regional" transit authority favored OKC that could make the tax vote in those areas a harder sell.

(that said I am in favor of a 23rd stop)

I feel like this furthers my point. 50% of OKC isn't commuting to Cleveland County or Edmond. This primarily benefits the suburbs and not OKC. So it kinda sounds like the "regional" transit authority favors the suburbs and that will make the tax vote in OKC a harder sell. But don't get me wrong, there are still benefits to OKC like less parking garages needed downtown, being able to take the train to OU football games, etc but when the suburbs are getting so many stations and benefits while people want OKC to get so few, it starts to make the whole transit system feel a little lopsided.

Rapid Rail should be the feeder line from communities to communities, and then you should be able to transit to more local destinations from each station. Adding to many stops will slow the rapid in rapid transitz

I guess I can try to explain it a different way then:

Rapid Rail is for transit from a big central place (Edmond/Village/Downtown/Moore/Norman) to another big central place.

Once you get to big central place, you switch to local transit to get to many smaller places.

If you want public transit you need a system that can move large amounts of people from one big area to another, and a system that can then break up those big groups of people and deliver them to their individual destinations or pick them up from small areas and take them to the big central area to get on the fast train.

This involves having to change modes of transit, from a bus in Edmond, to Rapid Rail, to a streetcar in Downtown as an example. I think the frequent talk about Park & Ride are expecting something different than a feeder line. If we had enough Right of Way we could run both: an express train that stops at the big spots, and another train that stops at every stop.

The benefit for OKC, aside from being able to transit to the suburbs where stuff happens as well, can include:

- reduced traffic
- increases business from folks leaving the suburbs to spend money in OKC proper.
- increased marketability if the city as a destination for new businesses and new employees by making it easy to work inside the city while living outside the city

Does it feel like all this talk about too many stations is overblown? The current amount doesn't seem too crazy and nobody is advocating for more stations besides maybe two additional ones that people mentioned North of Edmond and in Guthrie. Also, there was the talk about taking away the station from OU-Norman earlier in the thread. All those stations would either be at the end or second to the end of the line and they don't affect the commute of all the existing stations. Yeah if you're commuting from Purcell all the way to Guthrie it's not going to be the fastest route but then again it was never going to be that.

It just seems crazy that some people are advocating for dropping the 23rd st station so there wouldn't be a single stop between the Chesapeake Energy/63rd station and downtown. That's a full 5-6 mile gap in coverage. People are expecting a hyperloop from their North Edmond living room to downtown. Elsewhere in this forum it was mentioned that the 23rd st corridor has the highest bus ridership and it's a natural connection point for future light rail or bus rapid transit. I guess you could make an argument for only one Moore station and maybe even cutting the Capital Hill station but I truly hope these "consultants" don't convince people that central and south okc should miss out on a completely reasonable and fair number of commuter stops. Otherwise we're looking at a bunch of park-and-rides and nowhere to park and ride to.

its because this will be a commuter rail line. If it were a light rail line then most would definitely agree that 23rd is a must. But commuter rail has fewer stops at major destinations - this is what we're building.

Let me give you an example of where I live: here in Seattle there is only ONE commuter rail stop and it is in downtown Seattle. This despite Seattle being about 25 miles end-to-end N-S, which is the direction CR goes. North of Seattle there are stops at the suburbs Edmonds (yes, we use an S at the end), Mukilteo before getting to the terminus in downtown Everett. South of Seattle there are stops at suburbs Renton, Kent, Auburn before terminating in downtown Tacoma or Lakewood (Tacoma suburb further south). Could we have an additional stop inside the city of Seattle? Sure. But it would make the system inefficient - that's the key with CR, lots of folks at the major destinations.

We're advocating OKC to have 3-4 stops in its city limits (not just one like Seattle). Downtown-63rd-Memorial or 122nd going North and Crossroads going south - these are natural 'destinations' of how OKC is laid out and despite also being 25 miles N-S, OKC isn't set up with a line of suburbs the same way Seattle is, OKC's suburbs are radial.

Anyway, Seattle does have and is building light rail as well which has/will have 5 stops in Seattle city limits north of downtown and has about 4 stops in southern Seattle limits.

I hope this illustrates the difference in rail technology and expectations of stops.

OKC residents also benefit from being able to possibly use the system at OKC stops to go to the suburbs. And it isn't just OKC residents paying but the suburbs. Also consider OKC will have the most track mileage AND the biggest station/destination.

OKC would have 4 stops in city limits (122nd or Memorial, 63rd, Downtown, and Crossroads). These are totally appropriate for Commuter Rail in terms of spacing and the current rail alignment N-S. Also these are major destinations (63rd, Crossroads) or obvious connections points where additional transit modes could intersect.

If OKC were a bit more dense, one could argue a stop for Britton, 23rd, and Capital Hill (also major destinations or intersection) but this would negate the efficiency of being a Commuter Rail in the same way that Sounder doesn't have a signal stop in the city of Seattle other than one downtown. These destinations are better served with other transit mode(s), again like what is done in Seattle. ..

Rail doesn’t reduce traffic though. That said, I support this rail line and the logic that it won’t directly support OKC if it doesn’t have a grocery list of stops is ridiculous. Light rail should serve that purpose. Commuter rail, not so much. Your tax dollars go to building roads in Alaska you’ll likely never drive on. On top of that this is regional tax if not mistaken, so it isn’t only OKC’s money going into this.

The benefit for OKC, aside from being able to transit to the suburbs where stuff happens as well, can include:

- reduced traffic
- increases business from folks leaving the suburbs to spend money in OKC proper.
- increased marketability if the city as a destination for new businesses and new employees by making it easy to work inside the city while living outside the city

Why would a city want to make it easier for someone to live outside of it? What does a city benefit by doing that? During the interstate boom cities raised or segregated tons of inner city neighborhoods and destroyed incredibly valuable real estate in the attempt to make it easier for people to live somewhere else. Needless to say, It didn’t work out well for cities.

They gain:

- people spending money inside the city and contributing to the tax base, without needing as many resources in the budget as people living inside the city.
- increase in tourism income
- increase in income from businesses moving to the city and hiring more people.
- some people will move to the city knowing they can easily reach the suburbs if they want to work there or go there for recreation

its because this will be a commuter rail line. If it were a light rail line then most would definitely agree that 23rd is a must. But commuter rail has fewer stops at major destinations - this is what we're building.

Let me give you an example of where I live: here in Seattle there is only ONE commuter rail stop and it is in downtown Seattle. This despite Seattle being about 25 miles end-to-end N-S, which is the direction CR goes. North of Seattle there are stops at the suburbs Edmonds (yes, we use an S at the end), Mukilteo before getting to the terminus in downtown Everett. South of Seattle there are stops at suburbs Renton, Kent, Auburn before terminating in downtown Tacoma or Lakewood (Tacoma suburb further south). Could we have an additional stop inside the city of Seattle? Sure. But it would make the system inefficient - that's the key with CR, lots of folks at the major destinations.

We're advocating OKC to have 3-4 stops in its city limits (not just one like Seattle). Downtown-63rd-Memorial or 122nd going North and Crossroads going south - these are natural 'destinations' of how OKC is laid out and despite also being 25 miles N-S, OKC isn't set up with a line of suburbs the same way Seattle is, OKC's suburbs are radial.

Anyway, Seattle does have and is building light rail as well which has/will have 5 stops in Seattle city limits north of downtown and has about 4 stops in southern Seattle limits.

I hope this illustrates the difference in rail technology and expectations of stops.

I'm actually glad you brought up Seattle. It got me reading about how their system works and was funded. It's only solidified my opinion. From wiki:
"The predecessor to Sound Transit was a 1995 ballot measure that was rejected by voters because of its $6.7 billion cost.[7] The first Sound Transit ballot measure passed in 1996 as the current mix of buses, commuter rail and light rail, at a cost of $3.9 billion. By proposing a much smaller light rail system, the remaining funds could be used for the two other services, ensuring that the entire Seattle area received services from the measure.“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Transit

Seattle got light rail as part of the deal for the suburbs’ commuter rail. It sounds like their regional transit plan acknowledged that the commuter rail was of primary benefit to the suburbs so they threw it in to balance out the light rail which was of primary benefit to Seattle city proper. (you could even argue that this deal favored the city but maybe Seattle paid a higher percentage, I don't know) But all this talk acting like the commuter rail will bring people into the city where they can transfer over to local transit like light rail. I sincerely doubt we get light rail in even the next 40 years unless its packaged with this transit system. So unless that happens, its utility is decreased and its benefit to OKC taxpayers is negligible if not downright wasteful.

Also, Seattle’s commuter rail schedule: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/sounder-service.pdf
Doesn’t really seem like it has much service for Seattle citizens going to the suburbs. Looks like 90% of the schedule is designed to get commuters downtown during rush hour and then get them back home before the last train leaves at 6:30 pm. So not designed to increase sales tax as nobody can even stay in the city past 6:30.

Rail doesn’t reduce traffic though. That said, I support this rail line and the logic that it won’t directly support OKC if it doesn’t have a grocery list of stops is ridiculous. Light rail should serve that purpose. Commuter rail, not so much. Your tax dollars go to building roads in Alaska you’ll likely never drive on. On top of that this is regional tax if not mistaken, so it isn’t only OKC’s money going into this.

Yeah I hope my state and city money don’t go to building roads in Alaska… If this was state or federal money building the commuter rail I would be fine. But it sounds like OKC money (in addition to suburb money) building “COMMUTER” rail for suburban “COMMUTERS”

The benefit for OKC, aside from being able to transit to the suburbs where stuff happens as well, can include:

- reduced traffic
- increases business from folks leaving the suburbs to spend money in OKC proper.
- increased marketability if the city as a destination for new businesses and new employees by making it easy to work inside the city while living outside the city


They gain:

- people spending money inside the city and contributing to the tax base, without needing as many resources in the budget as people living inside the city.
- increase in tourism income
- increase in income from businesses moving to the city and hiring more people.
- some people will move to the city knowing they can easily reach the suburbs if they want to work there or go there for recreation

These are for the most part good points. But I’m still saying that the benefits to OKC that you’ve outlined aren’t necessarily worth the money spent and pale in comparison to the benefits the suburbs get out of the deal. And also lets see:

- plutonic panda touched on it but train’s don’t necessarily reduce freeway traffic. The induced demand of freeways for the most part ensures they’re going to eventually reach capacity but the commuter rail gives suburban commuters the ability to not have to sit in that traffic.
- the trains operate on a commuter schedule and aren’t conducive to people riding downtown to spend money not to mention what I can only assume is an abysmal weekend schedule
- Yes this could help our city in attracting businesses and I’m excited by the possibility of it making us more like a “big league city” but try selling that unmeasurable concept to taxpayers
- “increase in tourism income” - I would be amazed
- more unmeasurable concepts, etc

Seriously not trying to be a troll. Just a concerned OKC taxpayer, who even grew up in the suburbs, that recognizes a raw deal when he see’s one. (all this being years away but I would rather the discussion start now before we're too far gone)

Yeah I hope my state and city money don’t go to building roads in Alaska… If this was state or federal money building the commuter rail I would be fine. But it sounds like OKC money (in addition to suburb money) building “COMMUTER” rail for suburban “COMMUTERS”
The point I’m making with that comment is infrastructure is for the greater good. This is a regional effort to connect the metro. People need to understand that, especially those like GoGators. Like it or not these suburbs are part of the city and idealistic views are just that. Favor sprawl or not, it’s important to connect the suburbs and offer them an alternative. This type of rail is common in many major cities in the US.

PS, this comment isn’t necessarily directed entirely at you. Just some general points.

As a political matter, I can't imagine the State Capitol Corridor not wanting a stop or being denied one.

As a political matter, I can't imagine the State Capitol Corridor not wanting a stop or being denied one.

unless they are contributing money they could absolutly be denied one

I don't know if commuter rail should skip 23rd street or not. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on that. But if it does get left out, I think the streetcar should have a dedicated 23rd street expansion. Maybe the city could coordinate with the state to include the capitol in a mass transit system, and get some funding from them.

I'm actually glad you brought up Seattle. It got me reading about how their system works and was funded. It's only solidified my opinion. From wiki:
"The predecessor to Sound Transit was a 1995 ballot measure that was rejected by voters because of its $6.7 billion cost.[7] The first Sound Transit ballot measure passed in 1996 as the current mix of buses, commuter rail and light rail, at a cost of $3.9 billion. By proposing a much smaller light rail system, the remaining funds could be used for the two other services, ensuring that the entire Seattle area received services from the measure.“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Transit

Seattle got light rail as part of the deal for the suburbs’ commuter rail. It sounds like their regional transit plan acknowledged that the commuter rail was of primary benefit to the suburbs so they threw it in to balance out the light rail which was of primary benefit to Seattle city proper. (you could even argue that this deal favored the city but maybe Seattle paid a higher percentage, I don't know) But all this talk acting like the commuter rail will bring people into the city where they can transfer over to local transit like light rail. I sincerely doubt we get light rail in even the next 40 years unless its packaged with this transit system. So unless that happens, its utility is decreased and its benefit to OKC taxpayers is negligible if not downright wasteful.

Also, Seattle’s commuter rail schedule: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/sounder-service.pdf
Doesn’t really seem like it has much service for Seattle citizens going to the suburbs. Looks like 90% of the schedule is designed to get commuters downtown during rush hour and then get them back home before the last train leaves at 6:30 pm. So not designed to increase sales tax as nobody can even stay in the city past 6:30.

You obviuosly didn't keep reading wiki. Our light rail is costing more than $6.7 BILLION dollars! There are/have been 3 phases ST1, ST2, and ST3.

ST1 and ST2 are largely just the city of Seattle and Airport, so I'll just focus on them.

* ST1 cost $3.9 billion, which only went from Seattle south to the Airport. This line avoids huge employment areas around Boeing field and includes a very costly tunnel only to become a cheap surface rail in the minority section of South Seattle before heading to the airport. ......

* ST2 cost $17.8 billion, expanded ST1 from Seattle 5 miles further north to the UW (Husky stadium). There were other items in the bundle but that's all we got for light rail.

So for a total of $21.7 billion we don't even fully cover the city of Seattle with light rail.

Commuter Rail (Sounder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sounder_commuter_rail)) cost way cheaper to implement and fully serves its purpose - COMMUTE. It was never meant for the citizens of Seattle to go to the suburbs when there's already extensive commuter and suburb bus.

I do agree that we should have done better with COMMUTER RAIL here, the schedules alone suck and the route misses most of the population (especially north) but again the demand is only there for crush rush hour - so Sounder is just a rush hour commuter rail (I suspect OKC's will run moreso like Chicago's METRA which runs back and forth all day than just crush rush hours).

Now, back to the finances and light rail - you laugh at the initial ST cost of $6.7 billion proposal from 1996; get this.

ST3 costs $53.8 billion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Transit_3) which will finally finish light rail through the Seattle city limits (to Northgate u/c and then on North to 145th street) and continue further North to Everett and South from the Airport to Federal Way (NOT Tacoma, btw). Also new E-W line is also u/c from Seattle to Bellevue to Redmond/Microsoft (which is good for me, btw haha). But $53.8 B to sit on a light rail from Everett to Seattle or Federal Way to Seattle (both N-S, about 30 miles, who knows how many stops) will probably take at least 1.5 hours for the commute. Sounder Commuter Rail does Everett to Seattle in an hour and again, cost way less.

So for $70+ billion we have 3 light rail lines for Seattle, some minor expansion of Sounder commuter rail, shift of commuter bus from "local" to Sound Transit and a few expansions (especially North), and expansion of Tacoma's city light rail. I think ST also paid for I-405 express toll lanes.

Way more than the $3.9 billion you quoted.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/oklahoma/articles/2019-06-10/hobby-lobby-donates-land-for-oklahoma-city-transit-hub-plans

nice way to get Hobby Lobby workers to use Transit.

Wow! That's great, unexpected news from a player you wouldn't necessarily think is thinking about that kind of thing.

This is fantastic. I've long scoffed at the term "hub" for the current situation. But also, I'd love to have expanded service out of that hub and this will very much help. For example I want to serve Bethany out of that hub (Bethany has zero service currently).

This is fantastic. I've long scoffed at the term "hub" for the current situation. But also, I'd love to have expanded service out of that hub and this will very much help. For example I want to serve Bethany out of that hub (Bethany has zero service currently).

I really would like for Yukon to start a shuttle service to get into the Embark system.

Why would a city want to make it easier for someone to live outside of it? What does a city benefit by doing that?

Annex all but a 1 or 2 mile circle around the CBD, and you'll quickly find your answer.

I really would like for Yukon to start a shuttle service to get into the Embark system.

IMO, in principle, it would be VERY easy for Yukon itself to make this happen. They only need to go 3-4 miles (ideally if they got involved they'd go for more) from Mustang/Reno (they could build a park and ride here or really I suspect the existing lots could absorb a modest bus using group) to the Reno Mini Hub and then they're in. Once that hub is re-done probably more possibilities open up as well.

Why would a city want to make it easier for someone to live outside of it? What does a city benefit by doing that? During the interstate boom cities raised or segregated tons of inner city neighborhoods and destroyed incredibly valuable real estate in the attempt to make it easier for people to live somewhere else. Needless to say, It didn’t work out well for cities.

Let OKC block everyone coming in from the 'burbs to work and spend money and see how that works out for them.

Let OKC block everyone coming in from the 'burbs to work and spend money and see how that works out for them.
But wait the core subsidizes the rest of the city! /sarc

Let OKC block everyone coming in from the 'burbs to work and spend money and see how that works out for them.

Straw man

But wait the core subsidizes the rest of the city! /sarc


It does

It does
Well, we’ve had this discussion before. You made good points but I still don’t fully agree.

If bethany pays for service they can have service as far as Yukon and mustang they voted not to have future service. Dont blame embark or okc. it's those cities choice.

IMO, in principle, it would be VERY easy for Yukon itself to make this happen. They only need to go 3-4 miles (ideally if they got involved they'd go for more) from Mustang/Reno (they could build a park and ride here or really I suspect the existing lots could absorb a modest bus using group) to the Reno Mini Hub and then they're in. Once that hub is re-done probably more possibilities open up as well.

So currently, if I drive myself over to the Reno hub, which is a little closer to me than the furthest stop along NW expressway, the total trip time from the Reno hub to my office takes about an hour, which doesn't account for waiting for a bus at either the Reno hub or the Downtown exchange. I would think having an express bus from Yukon to DT would cut out the local stops going from Reno hub to DT, but the DT to Britton and Broadway still takes a bit of time.

I definitely am not blaming Embark or OKC for lack of service to Bethany or Yukon. I fully blame Yukon in not wanting to link up with the core, i.e. Edmond's CityLink service.

Let OKC block everyone coming in from the 'burbs to work and spend money and see how that works out for them.

A different way to say what I just said a few comments above yours, but yeah.

This idea that the city would be "just fine" without the thousands of taxpaying constituents who live outside its urban core is about as plausible as a bicycle wheel continuing to work upon removal of its spokes.

Like it or not, OKC is GIGANTIC in terms of total land mass. Either embrace the challenge or annex the areas you urban elites feel doesn't fit into your vision of #1OKC and let them leverage their own tax dollars to create infrastructure you insist can only be accessed by moving within walking distance of the Chesapeake arena.

Can't have it both ways.

A different way to say what I just said a few comments above yours, but yeah.

This idea that the city would be "just fine" without the thousands of taxpaying constituents who live outside its urban core is about as plausible as a bicycle wheel continuing to work upon removal of its spokes.

Like it or not, OKC is GIGANTIC in terms of total land mass. Either embrace the challenge or annex the areas you urban elites feel doesn't fit into your vision of #1OKC and let them leverage their own tax dollars to create infrastructure you insist can only be accessed by moving within walking distance of the Chesapeake arena. Can't have it both ways.

There isnt any tax dollars out there to leverage. How much sales tax do you think is generated in the OKC city limits east of I-35? Enough to fix one pot hole a year?

There isnt any tax dollars out there to leverage. How much sales tax do you think is generated in the OKC city limits east of I-35? Enough to fix one pot hole a year?

The OnCue on Sooner road probably fills a couple potholes with the money they make off contractors and military members buying coffee in their way to Tinker each morning.

There isnt any tax dollars out there to leverage. How much sales tax do you think is generated in the OKC city limits east of I-35? Enough to fix one pot hole a year?

It depends on where exactly you mean. Just generally "east of I-35" includes a pretty large sales tax base in southeast OKC, including the area immediately around Tinker AFB. On the other hand, if you were to specify "East of I-35 and north of NE 23rd St" - basically the northeastern leg of the city limits that extends from Forest Park north-eastward out to near Luther - then your point would be quite valid. Nearly that entire area is very low density and the sales taxes generated almost certainly do not cover the City's necessary expenses out there.

The OnCue on Sooner road probably fills a couple potholes with the money they make off contractors and military members buying coffee in their way to Tinker each morning.

That OnCue is in Del City.

It’s two miles south of Del City and solidly in OKC.

Maybe you need to become more familiar with the actual city limits?

https://www.okc.gov/residents/do-i-live-in-oklahoma-city

You must be talking about Oncue #117 I thought you were talking about Oncue #107 also on Sooner Road.

Regardless, they are going to have to sell a lot of coffee at that location to maintain the 200+ square miles of city east of I-:35

An area more than twice the size of Boston just on the east side of I-35 to maintain and we are talking about coffee sales of one gas station. I think we start seeing the problem now

couldn't have said it better. Having that 'area' skews the numbers and makes OKC less efficient because they have to serve the area which bring little to nothing to the table.

DEANNEX!!!!

You must be talking about Oncue #117 I thought you were talking about Oncue #107 also on Sooner Road.

Regardless, they are going to have to sell a lot of coffee at that location to maintain the 200+ square miles of city east of I-:35

An area more than twice the size of Boston just on the east side of I-35 to maintain and we are talking about coffee sales of one gas station. I think we start seeing the problem now

You said that there isn’t anything east of I-35 and that the entire area doesn’t collect enough taxes to pay for a single pothole.

I listed just one store east of I-35 that alone more than likely pays for at least two potholes, and I ignored many businesses that are much larger and have much more impact. Because even one gas station collects more than the entire area of OKC east of I-35 like you argued.

To add: I’m not arguing that the rural outskirts of OKC are anywhere close to self sufficient or anything like that, or that they deserve the same everything as the core. I just don’t see them as useless non-contributing sectors of the city, and especially the focus on “east of I-35” comes across as having some demographic undertones even if that isn’t intended that way.

No demographic undertones intended. I’d advocate for De-annexing Gaillardia as much as anywhere in the city. It’s not about who lives where or how affluent an area is. Its just math

No demographic undertones intended. I’d advocate for De-annexing Gaillardia as much as anywhere in the city. It’s not about who lives where or how affluent an area is. Its just math

So, you pick ONE neighborhood of which you are probably totally unfamiliar with the developments on all sides of, and claim that it isn’t against a demographic. I call BS. Why not single out other neighborhoods farther out, more remote, less connected, but of a different demographics? What’s your REAL beef with Gaillardia?

So, you pick ONE neighborhood of which you are probably totally unfamiliar with the developments on all sides of, and claim that it isn’t against a demographic. I call BS. Why not single out other neighborhoods farther out, more remote, less connected, but of a different demographics? What’s your REAL beef with Gaillardia?

Haha really? I was just using an example of an affluent area to say my east of I-35 example had nothing to do with demographics.

I would de annex everything that lies north and west of the turnpike and Hefner parkway. There is that better? I don’t have any “beef” with an area of OKC. What a strange thing to say. How does someone have “beef” with a neighborhood?

So, you pick ONE neighborhood of which you are probably totally unfamiliar with the developments on all sides of, and claim that it isn’t against a demographic. I call BS. Why not single out other neighborhoods farther out, more remote, less connected, but of a different demographics? What’s your REAL beef with Gaillardia?

Yikes.

Straw man

Not sure you know what a straw man is. You said "Why would a city make it easier for someone to live outside of them" the opposite of easy is hard, which to the fullest extent is blocking.

That OnCue is in Del City.

Actually, that is OKC based on the map on OKC's webstie. The Boeing buildings are also OKC and they run thousands of dollars a day through food trucks. And the Heart Hospital

*There are two OnCues on Sooner near Tinker, one is Del City and one is OKC.


Haha really? I was just using an example of an affluent area to say my east of I-35 example had nothing to do with demographics.

I would de annex everything that lies north and west of the turnpike and Hefner parkway. There is that better? I don’t have any “beef” with an area of OKC. What a strange thing to say. How does someone have “beef” with a neighborhood?

So you don't think the Quail Springs area pays for itself? How about the huge chunk of land south of the turnpike, north of 44, East of 77 and West of 35? Nothing but towers and a dog kennel.