Hutch ???

the Mayor recently talked like the city bus system / streetcar would NOT become part of the RTA in the future is that still the current thinking ??

Buses are certainly more useful to the locals. The reason is that metros and streetcars are typically only used for the very most common destinations, but most locals are not going to the very most common destinations. In most urban cities, you can walk from your house 4 to 6 blocks to a variety of bus stops that will take you to 50 to 100 places that you may need to go, whereas the metro/streetcars may be 5 to 15 blocks away and will take you to 10 to 20 places you need to go.

Problem for Oklahoma City and the argument against going crazy with the bus system is that the bus system in this environment is not very likely to take the locals to many places they need to go because 1. most aren't within a mile of the bus stop 2. the bus they can access is only going to pass a few places on their way to another connection and trips are going to take a long time.

Obviously those who need it will take it, and we need to work to come up with a more comprehensive system that can serve the needs of those with less resources...but a comprehensive bus system really only works when it's creating an efficient network between spaces...when spaces people are trying to get to are miles and miles apart, efficiency is hard to achieve.

Even better: Don't put a "no more permits" boundary. Put a "surcharge" boundary (we can call it an "extension zone". You want OKC Utilities and services...developer pays all upfront capital costs (I think they currently do this anyway), + hefty impact fees, and then residents pay a surcharged rate for all utilities to the area along with increased taxes to cover maintenance in the "extension zone". If rich people want to go live out in the boondocks, let them go live out in the boondocks and pay the true maintenance cost of the area. You don't have to make it inaccessible to have a sensible cost structure to what usually starts out as premium areas. It's not like Deer Creek sprouted up with 1200 square foot homes and 300 unit apartment complexes.

Exactly.

I'm all for continuous progress in the city core, but the reality is we have a HUGE footprint. The 1OKC idea has a lot of merit when considering racial/ethnic/demographic unity, but also should stand for bringing together the urban and suburban contingents to a single idea on what a city would look like that services ALL of its residents.

I happen to live in SWOKC, but work near the capital. A significant portion of my expenditures feed into the OKC revenue system (aside from the property taxes that goGators failed to properly identify). To say my voice is irrelevant because I don't share a zipcode within the CBD or closely adjacent is small-minded and will limit the true potential of 1OKC.

So, it is rich people that create sprawl and cost us a regional transit system? That’s what seems to be the focus of this thread.

Surcharges, taxes, fees, whatever, aren’t going to keep people who can afford it from living wherever and however they want. It may however force middle, lower-middle, and lower income families to pay higher costs when they are seeking a preferred lifestyle and educational opportunities for their family that doesn’t exist in the inner city.

I have a novel idea.... improve schools and job opportunities in areas you wish people to live. Use carrots, not sticks.

Exactly.

I'm all for continuous progress in the city core, but the reality is we have a HUGE footprint. The 1OKC idea has a lot of merit when considering racial/ethnic/demographic unity, but also should stand for bringing together the urban and suburban contingents to a single idea on what a city would look like that services ALL of its residents.

I happen to live in SWOKC, but work near the capital. A significant portion of my expenditures feed into the OKC revenue system (aside from the property taxes that goGators failed to properly identify). To say my voice is irrelevant because I don't share a zipcode within the CBD or closely adjacent is small-minded and will limit the true potential of 1OKC.

Where has it been said anywhere in this discussion that you or anyone else’s voice is irrelevant based on zip code?

By way of Steve, a couple more quotes from the Mayor on this general topic from last night's town hall in Northeast OKC with Nikki Nice:

https://twitter.com/stevelackmeyer/status/1143661292328275968


OKC, Holt notes, has the burden of paying for infrastructure for one of the country's most spread out cities. Just NE OKC is 130 square miles - the size of Atlanta, @NikkiNiceOKC notes.

"The city is too big" - Holt.

If you think this is just a few randos on the forum arguing that the city is too big, you haven't been paying attention to the right people.

So, it is rich people that create sprawl and cost us a regional transit system? That’s what seems to be the focus of this thread.

Surcharges, taxes, fees, whatever, aren’t going to keep people who can afford it from living wherever and however they want. It may however force middle, lower-middle, and lower income families to pay higher costs when they are seeking a preferred lifestyle and educational opportunities for their family that doesn’t exist in the inner city.

I have a novel idea.... improve schools and job opportunities in areas you wish people to live. Use carrots, not sticks.

You have exactly 0% chance of improving schools in an area with 90% of residents being bottom 60% earners, so that pretty well discards whatever notion of carrots and sticks you're alluding to.

In general, it would be interesting to know whose arguments specifically you are referring to? It would seem an amalgam of various people's disparate viewpoints rather than an attempt at honest conversation.

What you said in your second paragraph is exactly the point. The people who can afford to build these new communities need to do exactly that. They need to build new communities. All that has been built in the last 50+ years in all quadrants of the city has been new subdivisions, with the developers always knowing that subdivisions come and fade and that they will have several more cracks at it before it's time to sell the business or hand it over to their kids.

Nothing you've offered here tells us what to do with the 50 square mile area from May and NW 10th to Council and Wilshire which is loaded with non-competitive housing and business stock, and there are no less than 5 similar (or worse) sections of this massive city that offer nothing but forgotten housing stock because it was built cheap and with planned obsolescence.

You overestimate the number of people in this metro who can stomach a $150/sq ft. build minimum barrier to entry + high taxes and long distances from existing job opportunities. A great many people buying in the Deer Creek area cannot afford to live there if they were to pay the true cost of what it takes to develop and sustain that area for any reasonable length of time (50+ years).

If the 5% of this population that can genuinely afford to develop these sparsely populated areas out of scratch want to pay for it...by all means, go ahead, but the requirements need to necessitate a 30 to 50 year investment rather than a 10 to 15 year investment. The problem comes when the city subsidizes the upper middle and middle classes to be able to overcome the barrier to entry ultimately to the benefit of the upper class that develops, sells for a quick buck, and moves on to the next "up and coming area". Had the upper middle class just stayed put and the middle class followed suit, whatever area they came from would likely have not fallen in status such that the "preferred lifestyle and educational opportunities" would have continued to have been fostered in the areas in question...unless your argument is that MacArthur and 63rd is "the inner city".

If you can make a solid argument for why Deer Creek in 2040 is not going to look like all sorts of Dallas suburbs built in the 90s look today, then by all means do so. That's all we're asking for. Assurance that a newly built "community" is not going to be irrelevant within 30 years. But the real absurdity is that that argument has to be requested in the 1st place.

...
Nothing you've offered here tells us what to do with the 50 square mile area from May and NW 10th to Council and Wilshire which is loaded with non-competitive housing and business stock, and there are no less than 5 similar (or worse) sections of this massive city that offer nothing but forgotten housing stock because it was built cheap and with planned obsolescence....

You have no idea what you're talking about if you think the area from May/NW 10th to Council/Wilshire is made up of cheaply built housing with planned obsolescence. If that's not what you meant, then please clarify, but otherwise you're talking completely out of your a**. We live in Venice (1 block off of May) and our house was built in 1950 and will probably still be standing 100 years from now, along with almost every other house in Venice (although *technically* Venice isn't in your area, it literally abuts it). The Mayfair area is the same way, along with Lakeside, Windsor Hills, and just tons more that I don't have time to look up right now. Yes, there is crappy housing in that area (and some in Venice), but to make the generalization you did is just wrong.

You have exactly 0% chance of improving schools in an area with 90% of residents being bottom 60% earners, so that pretty well discards whatever notion of carrots and sticks you're alluding to.

In general, it would be interesting to know whose arguments specifically you are referring to? It would seem an amalgam of various people's disparate viewpoints rather than an attempt at honest conversation.

What you said in your second paragraph is exactly the point. The people who can afford to build these new communities need to do exactly that. They need to build new communities. All that has been built in the last 50+ years in all quadrants of the city has been new subdivisions, with the developers always knowing that subdivisions come and fade and that they will have several more cracks at it before it's time to sell the business or hand it over to their kids.

Nothing you've offered here tells us what to do with the 50 square mile area from May and NW 10th to Council and Wilshire which is loaded with non-competitive housing and business stock, and there are no less than 5 similar (or worse) sections of this massive city that offer nothing but forgotten housing stock because it was built cheap and with planned obsolescence.

You overestimate the number of people in this metro who can stomach a $150/sq ft. build minimum barrier to entry + high taxes and long distances from existing job opportunities. A great many people buying in the Deer Creek area cannot afford to live there if they were to pay the true cost of what it takes to develop and sustain that area for any reasonable length of time (50+ years).

If the 5% of this population that can genuinely afford to develop these sparsely populated areas out of scratch want to pay for it...by all means, go ahead, but the requirements need to necessitate a 30 to 50 year investment rather than a 10 to 15 year investment. The problem comes when the city subsidizes the upper middle and middle classes to be able to overcome the barrier to entry ultimately to the benefit of the upper class that develops, sells for a quick buck, and moves on to the next "up and coming area". Had the upper middle class just stayed put and the middle class followed suit, whatever area they came from would likely have not fallen in status such that the "preferred lifestyle and educational opportunities" would have continued to have been fostered in the areas in question...unless your argument is that MacArthur and 63rd is "the inner city".

If you can make a solid argument for why Deer Creek in 2040 is not going to look like all sorts of Dallas suburbs built in the 90s look today, then by all means do so. That's all we're asking for. Assurance that a newly built "community" is not going to be irrelevant within 30 years. But the real absurdity is that that argument has to be requested in the 1st place.
And yet you can’t give me a factual accounting of who actually pays for themselves and who doesn’t. You just want governments to design and force people to live in neighborhoods fitting your description of ideal. Why not just force lower income into government dictated subsidized inner city dense high rise housing? Oops... I think that has been tried before. I’ve been to China, Eastern Europe and Chicago. Saw the results.

Yes, there are dilapidated houses in OKC neighborhoods.... and rat infested high rises in ghettoes in dense urban areas. Neglect is neglect.

His point, implicitly, it that we are already being forced to live in the pattern we are developing now, which is pattern unsustainable long term.

And yet you can’t give me a factual accounting of who actually pays for themselves and who doesn’t. You just want governments to design and force people to live in neighborhoods fitting your description of ideal. Why not just force lower income into government dictated subsidized inner city dense high rise housing? Oops... I think that has been tried before. I’ve been to China, Eastern Europe and Chicago. Saw the results.

Yes, there are dilapidated houses in OKC neighborhoods.... and rat infested high rises in ghettoes in dense urban areas. Neglect is neglect.

This has been studied to death and proven over and over.

http://www.impactfees.com/publications%20pdf/sprawl.pdf

The cost of providing infrastructure and municipal services is higher with sprawl. Studies in California and Florida have shown these extra costs to be on the order of $20,000 per residential unit (Nicholas, et al., 1991 as cited, p. 1). Similarly, study by Rutgers University comparing a sprawl development in New Jersey with a more compact infill development found a differential of about $25,000 per residence (Bragado, et al., 1995). Another study, looking specifically at sewer hookups cost found that in Tallahassee, Florida, sewer hookups cost $11,433 in suburban areas compared to $4,447 for the mostly black, center-city neighborhoods nearest the sewage treatment plant. Despite this nearly $7,000 difference in real cost, all households pay the same price of about $6,000 for sewer connection. The urban residents paid $2,000 extra in hookup costs, while suburban homes received a subsidy of $5,000 (Longman, 1998).
Costs of services to different areas of a municipality are also influenced by location. Simply put, the further away developments are from the service centers that serve them, the more costly it usually is to provide those services. Another critical issue facing communities is whether new development occurs in areas where existing facilities, namely schools, libraries, parks and police stations can absorb capacity. Cities witnessing both rapid suburban growth and urban disinvestment at the same time can have situations where taxpayers are paying for new facilities while other facilities are being underutilized. Between 1970 and 1995, the number of public-school students in Maine declined by 27,000, yet the state spent more than $338 million building new schools in fast-growing suburban towns (Longman, 1998).
Finally, street connectivity and route distance can be more influential than physical proximity. The maze-like effect of cul-de-sac development, for example, makes it more time consuming and expensive for police to watch neighborhoods on the beat. Rarely, however, do communities try to quantify these differences and make different areas pay appropriately. (See case study on Lancaster, California for a write-up on one community that has set up location-variable impact fees).

You have no idea what you're talking about if you think the area from May/NW 10th to Council/Wilshire is made up of cheaply built housing with planned obsolescence. If that's not what you meant, then please clarify, but otherwise you're talking completely out of your a**. We live in Venice (1 block off of May) and our house was built in 1950 and will probably still be standing 100 years from now, along with almost every other house in Venice (although *technically* Venice isn't in your area, it literally abuts it). The Mayfair area is the same way, along with Lakeside, Windsor Hills, and just tons more that I don't have time to look up right now. Yes, there is crappy housing in that area (and some in Venice), but to make the generalization you did is just wrong.

"Loaded with" were the words I used, not "Made up entirely of"

And yet you can’t give me a factual accounting of who actually pays for themselves and who doesn’t. You just want governments to design and force people to live in neighborhoods fitting your description of ideal. Why not just force lower income into government dictated subsidized inner city dense high rise housing? Oops... I think that has been tried before. I’ve been to China, Eastern Europe and Chicago. Saw the results.

Yes, there are dilapidated houses in OKC neighborhoods.... and rat infested high rises in ghettoes in dense urban areas. Neglect is neglect.

You and I agree that neglect is neglect and that this is the problem. The responsibility of neglect essentially falls on the individual. Where cities are complicit is that in affording many the opportunity to be negligent because there are no real ramifications for the negligence. This is because moving out out out is relatively speaking cheap cheap cheap.

You and I agree that neglect is neglect and that this is the problem. The responsibility of neglect essentially falls on the individual. Where cities are complicit is that in affording many the opportunity to be negligent because there are no real ramifications for the negligence. This is because moving out out out is relatively speaking cheap cheap cheap.

Or like for being an inner city slumlord? City complicity isn’t confined.

"Loaded with" were the words I used, not "Made up entirely of"

You're still wrong. I'd guess it's more like half and half, if even that. If you want to blast truly cheaply built housing with planned obsolescence, go north of Hefner Road all the way up to where-the-hell-ever (with a few exceptions). We used to live on NW 162nd Terrace between May and Penn, and there were literally houses that were the exact floor plan as ours with the exact same address, but on 161st Street, or 163rd Terrace, and that was repeated through the entire crappy subdivision.

You're still wrong. I'd guess it's more like half and half, if even that. If you want to blast truly cheaply built housing with planned obsolescence, go north of Hefner Road all the way up to where-the-hell-ever (with a few exceptions). We used to live on NW 162nd Terrace between May and Penn, and there were literally houses that were the exact floor plan as ours with the exact same address, but on 161st Street, or 163rd Terrace, and that was repeated through the entire crappy subdivision.
Guess you never looked just across May to your west when you drove into your choice of a crappy neighborhood. Or look anywhere else around you. Anyone familiar with that area would know of the many nice neighborhoods with well built houses up there. If you were so fired up that people shouldn’t want to live up there, you shouldn’t have done it yourself. Choose better for yourself next time. My guess is there a lot of people living in the neighborhood you despise who are grateful for being able to afford a house in a safe neighborhood with good public schools. Sorry it wasn’t good enough for you.

Guess you never looked just across May to your west when you drove into your choice of a crappy neighborhood. Or look anywhere else around you. Anyone familiar with that area would know of the many nice neighborhoods with well built houses up there. If you were so fired up that people shouldn’t want to live up there, you shouldn’t have done it yourself. Choose better for yourself next time. My guess is there a lot of people living in the neighborhood you despise who are grateful for being able to afford a house in a safe neighborhood with good public schools. Sorry it wasn’t good enough for you.

We had 2 days to choose a place to rent in OKC when we flew here from Seattle because I got a job offer here and had to move in 2 weeks. You can only look at a few places in your price range and area in that time, we got inside 3 or 4 after driving around for all day each day looking at places. Our first choice was on 50-something-ish street not far from where we currently live, and he ended up taking so long to decide he didn't want to deal with cats that we had to settle for that place and never liked it nor the area, but it was what we had to choose at the time. Our only other choice was to live in a hotel once we moved here and had a truck full of our stuff sitting around until we found a place. Also, we don't have kids, so schools had nothing to do with our decision.

We had 2 days to choose a place to rent in OKC when we flew here from Seattle because I got a job offer here and had to move in 2 weeks. You can only look at a few places in your price range and area in that time, we got inside 3 or 4 after driving around for all day each day looking at places. Our first choice was on 50-something-ish street not far from where we currently live, and he ended up taking so long to decide he didn't want to deal with cats that we had to settle for that place and never liked it nor the area, but it was what we had to choose at the time. Our only other choice was to live in a hotel once we moved here and had a truck full of our stuff sitting around until we found a place. Also, we don't have kids, so schools had nothing to do with our decision.

Not questioning your choice, but rather your characterization of a whole sector based on a narrow experience. There are lots of very well built homes and whole neighborhoods of custom homes in unique neighborhoods near where you picked. But, as you say, price can be an issue. Just don’t say everything north of, or west of, or south of, etc is crappy when it isn’t true.

By the way, your experience shows why lots of people get where they are. You left what many on here think is Mecca to come to OKC for a job and probably affordable living. People go to and buy in areas that balance their ability to pay with their preferred needs and lifestyle choices, as well as their current situations. I assume you picked the neighborhood for cost, availability, and proximity to your new job.

A lot of this stuff will start to get fixed if we quit expanding outwards forever. Affordable housing isn't a bad thing, the problem in OKC is that we've got large areas of inner city and inner ring suburbs that aren't seeing reinvestment because it's cheaper and easier to go farther out.

Not questioning your choice, but rather your characterization of a whole sector based on a narrow experience. There are lots of very well built homes and whole neighborhoods of custom homes in unique neighborhoods near where you picked. But, as you say, price can be an issue. Just don’t say everything north of, or west of, or south of, etc is crappy when it isn’t true.

By the way, your experience shows why lots of people get where they are. You left what many on here think is Mecca to come to OKC for a job and probably affordable living. People go to and buy in areas that balance their ability to pay with their preferred needs and lifestyle choices, as well as their current situations. I assume you picked the neighborhood for cost, availability, and proximity to your new job.

WTF? I'm not the one that said everything between NW 10th/May and Council/Wilshire was "loaded with" crappy houses, that was Teo, I said it wasn't, it was maybe half and half. I also said there were tons of houses north of Hefner were crappy, never ever said "everything" in any of my posts. Fully aware that Rose Creek right up the road from where we used to live (as well as other subdivisions) is full of nice houses. We had no choice in leaving Seattle, we moved there from Chicago because we were tired of the cold, got there and wife couldn't get a job in the journalism industry and I got laid off in the Great Recession 1.5 years after we moved there and 1 month before unemployment ran out, a job in OKC (never wanted to move back here) came up and we had pretty much no other choice or option, so we had to take move back to OKC, it wasn't voluntary. We rented everywhere until we bought 3 years ago, never purchased. And you assume wrong about picking the neighborhood - we had no choice, we could only find a few options in the limited time and had to choose that one, which was further away from my job than any of the other choices, but it was the only one that we could get into on such short notice. And I don't have a narrow experience of neighborhoods in OKC, lived here for decades before leaving in 1995. You're just wrong about all of what I said and did.

Not questioning your choice, but rather your characterization of a whole sector based on a narrow experience. There are lots of very well built homes and whole neighborhoods of custom homes in unique neighborhoods near where you picked. But, as you say, price can be an issue. Just don’t say everything north of, or west of, or south of, etc is crappy when it isn’t true.

By the way, your experience shows why lots of people get where they are. You left what many on here think is Mecca to come to OKC for a job and probably affordable living. People go to and buy in areas that balance their ability to pay with their preferred needs and lifestyle choices, as well as their current situations. I assume you picked the neighborhood for cost, availability, and proximity to your new job.

Some people talk about our sprawl as some asset. No one from out of town is at the intersection of 164th and May passing Track house neighborhoods and a 7-11 and thinks "Yes OKC is the move for me"

No company is determining a potential relocation to OKC based on a new turning lane on 178th and Penn.

Some of you are professionals at getting completely and totally off topic, let’s pull it together and talk about the RTA.

Some people talk about our sprawl as some asset. No one from out of town is at the intersection of 164th and May passing Track house neighborhoods and a 7-11 and thinks "Yes OKC is the move for me"

No company is determining a potential relocation to OKC based on a new turning lane on 178th and Penn.

First of all, sounds like you don’t know the area at 164th and May very well.

Secondly, companies do consider cost of living, availability of affordable housing, commute times, etc. when picking relocation and/or expansion targets. They may consider the quality of area public schools so their employees don’t need the cost of private schools. They also look at many other issues like product logistical issues, raw materials logistics and costs, cost of warehousing, local wages, available trained skilled employees, etc, etc. Maybe they locate to be near support function/service providers like banks, etc. Some locate near available customers. Everyone wants to make THEIR personal hot button the most major one, but it is rarely one thing, let alone THEIR one thing.

Companies may not relocate for a turn lane, but they don’t for a bus route either unless a majority of their employees are low paid.

but they don’t for a bus route either unless a majority of their employees are low paid.
They certainly do consider access to transit/alternative modes of transportation.

First of all, sounds like you don’t know the area at 164th and May very well.

Secondly, companies do consider cost of living, availability of affordable housing, commute times, etc. when picking relocation and/or expansion targets. They may consider the quality of area public schools so their employees don’t need the cost of private schools. They also look at many other issues like product logistical issues, raw materials logistics and costs, cost of warehousing, local wages, available trained skilled employees, etc, etc. Maybe they locate to be near support function/service providers like banks, etc. Some locate near available customers. Everyone wants to make THEIR personal hot button the most major one, but it is rarely one thing, let alone THEIR one thing.

Companies may not relocate for a turn lane, but they don’t for a bus route either unless a majority of their employees are low paid.

seemed to be pretty high on Amazon's HQ2 list of requirements,

seemed to be pretty high on Amazon's HQ2 list of requirements,
Yes, that’s why we lost it.

They certainly do consider access to transit/alternative modes of transportation.
As they do affordable housing, and cost of living, and good schools, and commute times, and support services, and weather, and entertainment, and cost of doing business, and access to high speed data, and local incentives, and tax rates, and .....
For most, bus stops is a relatively minor data point when considering the future health of a company.

HQ2 is a complete scam and sets a horrible precedent.

good thing it went to DC and NYC

Yes, that’s why we lost it.

Never claimed it was.

Never claimed it was.
Actually, they identified major categories, of which logistics as a whole was one of eight...the 5th listed. The first thing mentioned in their logistics criteria was relating to proximities of highways. Second was time to get to a major airport and air connections to major cities. Third was to identify all other means of transportation available to the site. Given that Amazon is a logistics company first and foremost, this shouldn’t be any surprise.

By the way, it’s location criteria indicated it wanted to be within 30 miles of a population center, not exactly wanting to dictate being IN the center.

Operating costs, incentives, and available labor source were also high priorities.

Also in top 8 was housing costs, cost of living, recreational opportunities, quality of life and community fit.

As they do affordable housing, and cost of living, and good schools, and commute times, and support services, and weather, and entertainment, and cost of doing business, and access to high speed data, and local incentives, and tax rates, and .....
For most, bus stops is a relatively minor data point when considering the future health of a company.
You specifically said, "but they don’t for a bus route either unless a majority of their employees are low paid." The point is they do.

You specifically said, "but they don’t for a bus route either unless a majority of their employees are low paid." The point is they do.
I’ve never worked for, with or consulted for a company that expanded or located because of bus stops. Most executives and well paid personnel don’t ride busses to work, even in bigger more urban cities.

You're still wrong. I'd guess it's more like half and half, if even that. If you want to blast truly cheaply built housing with planned obsolescence, go north of Hefner Road all the way up to where-the-hell-ever (with a few exceptions). We used to live on NW 162nd Terrace between May and Penn, and there were literally houses that were the exact floor plan as ours with the exact same address, but on 161st Street, or 163rd Terrace, and that was repeated through the entire crappy subdivision.


We had 2 days to choose a place to rent in OKC when we flew here from Seattle because I got a job offer here and had to move in 2 weeks. You can only look at a few places in your price range and area in that time, we got inside 3 or 4 after driving around for all day each day looking at places. Our first choice was on 50-something-ish street not far from where we currently live, and he ended up taking so long to decide he didn't want to deal with cats that we had to settle for that place and never liked it nor the area, but it was what we had to choose at the time. Our only other choice was to live in a hotel once we moved here and had a truck full of our stuff sitting around until we found a place. Also, we don't have kids, so schools had nothing to do with our decision.

You continue to argue against perceived word choice (I never said "crappy") and arbitrary lines chosen (I understand that Founders Tower is a luxury residential tower that is south of Wilshire and west of May) rather than the crux of the argument. The crux is wide-spread non-competitive housing and business stock. I don't care how nicely built it is, a 900 square foot, 2 bedroom 1 bathroom @ Ann Arbor and 42nd St. is by definition non-competitive because standards of living and location rules the roost of value, not just quality of build.

What higher building standards today can do is increase cost. When you increase the barrier to entry, you force many who have an amount of disposable income to stay put and reinvest in their current area, rather than abandon and take part in the "new, next great neighborhood" because the barrier to entry is, and this is a crux point, artificially low. The issue isn't the rich. The issue is a system that tricks upper middle class and middle class individuals into managing their lives and resources as if they were rich by making it affordable to buy in a neighborhood that is 0/5/10 years old, and sell 15 years later having seen their home value not even keep up with inflation. Middle Class families cannot afford to not have their #1 asset not even keep up with inflation when they're already taking a loss on the interest of their mortgage. Unfortunately, everything is marketed that they're making good decisions and ultimately the losers are not only the individuals, but also the cities that continue to see areas in which they have invested the collective's resources enter a long, sometimes interminable period of degradation and depreciation.

Nobody should be convinced that Ann Arbor and 42nd is going to see renaissance in even our children's lifetimes, especially if nothing is done to curb sprawl. Why would anyone reinvest in that area when it has nothing to offer but a massive renovation project at every level? What we're seeing happen in places like Gatewood took us half a century to return to after many began to abandon these areas. The difference between Gatewood today and 42nd and Ann Arbor, is proximity to the urban core and relative lack of competition for a similar lifestyle experience. There may be various neighborhoods in OKC's core, but there is only one core, and those lines are permanently drawn by interstate highways. Some tangential areas may benefit from the boom, but once we reach the point of critical mass in the core, even if the next step is to move back out into the areas built out in the 50s and 60s, there are so many more 50s/60s era neighborhoods and a limited supply of people with resources to invest in them. The supply and demand economics will not favor these areas the same way it did the areas that have been undergoing "gentrification" over the last 10 to 25 years all throughout American cities.

The crux, again, is non-competitive. Nobody here who is bemoaning "idealistic urbanists" is providing 1. good arguments as to why we should continue to promote policy that creates the aforementioned development patterns or 2. good counterarguments to why we shouldn't consider new policies that curb those same patterns (and they *are* patterns). And to tie this back into the the theme of the thread, Rover, in a counter argument said I am blaming the rich for why we didn't get a regional transit system. 1. I'm not blaming the rich, I'm blaming the system, that the rich exploit to their advantage (I'm not interested in dogging them for continuing to do something they've been doing for thousands of years). 2. we're not going to not get a regional transit system. We'll get a regional transit system and 42nd and Ann Arbor is going to be largely ignored which will only increase the non-competitive factor of the area.

And lest anyone get overzealous about their beloved PCO area, 42nd and Ann Arbor is a cipher that represents any of 50,000 (also a cipher) different intersections in this city that will likely see a continued decline well into the end of this century.

ODOT creates office for mass transit
(https://jrlr.net/23rd-and-Lincoln/2019/07/02/odot-creates-office-for-mass-transit/)

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma Department of Transportation announced Monday the formation of the new Office of Mobility and Public Transit, which will focus on coordinating statewide efforts to expand Oklahoma’s public transportation infrastructure.

Legislated under House Bill 1365, the new office will take on all existing responsibilities from ODOT’s Transit Division, including oversight and management of the state’s public transit systems and the federal grants the agency receives. The office will also work to develop a major statewide public transit policy that will address major expansions to the state’s current public transit networks, especially into rural Oklahoma.

“The public in Oklahoma has probably never been more focused on transit,” said ODOT Executive Director Tim Gatz. “We have dedicated revenues at both the state and federal level that are available for transit services in both the urban and rural areas, and the department is the state’s designee to administer those funds for the rural operators.”

... (https://jrlr.net/23rd-and-Lincoln/2019/07/02/odot-creates-office-for-mass-transit/)

rural Oklahoma? the transit focus needs to be in the urban areas and from the suburbs to urban areas. ...

Why WHY does this state always get civic amenities/spending so backwards? Rural is rural for a reason - there's no need to send a bus empty out in rural Oklahoma just for the sake of it. ... You'd NEVER have MASS transit in rural areas. Chose to live in rural and invest in the resources (car) to do so.

Mass Transit is about urban connectivity - so ODOT need to change their mission or get out of this business and leave it to the cities. ... They should have told the truth - this mission is about supporting urban areas (OKC Metro's) transit expansion and not put foot in their mouth talking about rural transit.

Any news on the RTD progress? How are the stakeholders feeling about timing/chance of success for a tax increase since MAPS 4 passed?

I just mentioned the RTA in another election thread, which reminds me, does anyone have an approximate timeframe on when this is going to be voted on?

Also, does this need to pass with 50%+ in all six jurisdictions, or does it just need 50% overall?

All the estimates I saw after it was formed officially was two years from that point.

This is a bit off topic but since its slow I thought given many following this appreciate transit and London has embarked on an incredible expansion of their subway system. I can't wait to explore it one day this looks insane.

Here is a post with pictures from SSP: http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8782274&postcount=376

A YouTube video from B1M which is an awesome channel showcasing development and engineering around the world:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swSeHxk9TGI

Wonderful video. Thank you for sharing.

Yeah, that was really cool.

Those pictures are incredible.

Yeap and if you are into that check out their other videos. They have some pretty great stuff.

It’s sad we can’t even expand our light rail and get commuter rail going. Hopefully that changes soon.

Yeap and if you are into that check out their other videos. They have some pretty great stuff.

It’s sad we can’t even expand our light rail and get commuter rail going. Hopefully that changes soon.

You see that cost? No way Oklahoma could ever get anywhere close to funding anything remotely like that. Oklahoma gets the shaft from the Feds in terms of funding, and the state does not have a ton of funds, either. London is more dense than OK ever will be, and has 5 times as many people.

Yes, rail would be nice. But with how spread out the city is, there is not really a fiscally feasible way to go about connecting areas without alienating others. Just my opinion, though.

You see that cost? No way Oklahoma could ever get anywhere close to funding anything remotely like that. Oklahoma gets the shaft from the Feds in terms of funding, and the state does not have a ton of funds, either. London is more dense than OK ever will be, and has 5 times as many people.

Yes, rail would be nice. But with how spread out the city is, there is not really a fiscally feasible way to go about connecting areas without alienating others. Just my opinion, though.
Well of course something like that won’t ever see the light of day here but we should have light rail(NOT STREETCAR) for the south side, connecting Norman, and commuter rail connecting Edmond with real bus service. Our mass transit is a joke and my comparison is how near space age transit is being built in London and japan and we can’t even get commuter rail going.

IIRC, commuter rail here was said to be operational within the next few years but that doesn’t look like a remote possibility now.

In Oklahoma's defense, the entire town of Little Axe could fit comfortably in Tottenham Court stop.
Assuming you removed the 6 billion people normally jamming that tube stop at rush hour.

Just saw this wonder who doles out the money to cities and how much OKC gets?


Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Big news, Oklahoma! I’m proud to support infrastructure in your state with $13.7 million from @USDOT for bus improvements across the state. SO important for helping people get where they need to go safely.
1:41 PM · Aug 12, 2020·T

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1293618631943901185

RTA now has a website and social media (Twitter, FB)

https://rtaok.org/

Awesome!

According to a link on their site they said the NWE BRT should begin construction Q3 2021. That is good news and it will take a couple years to complete which leads me to believe this won’t be some amateur rank project. I am excited to see more renderings and plans.

I’m still mixed on reducing classen to 2 lanes instead of three but oh well. I just wish they’d widen the footprint of the road a hair to allow for class 4 bike lane.

pretty nice front page if you ask me. :)


RTA now has a website and social media (Twitter, FB)

https://rtaok.org/

I'm surprised they didn't have a dedicated section for BRT (instead put it in "Other" future modes), since OKC is already building BRT. OKC built/started Streetcar and it has a section but not BRT?

Regarding RTA tax vote.

16637

https://twitter.com/RTACentral/status/1344044749444050944


No firm timeline not at the moment.

16673

I will be attending, but also what's the point of having social media if these kinds of things aren't going to be released there?

They've since been tweeting the info so I rescind my befuddlement

Just a reminder that this is tonight at 6:30PM.

Zoom link: https://bit.ly/3rxm8DP

Just a reminder that this is tonight at 6:30PM.

Zoom link: https://bit.ly/3rxm8DP

Just started.

I'm a little surprised that they're starting to talk about the commuter stuff now. MWC/DC just ripped out yet another crossing of the line they would use. I mean i guess they would have had to re-do it anyway and the right of way is really the "win" on that line. But it just seems odd to be bringing up these conversations at the same time the burbs that will be served are pulling up the lines.

I was disappointed that they were saying it would likely be 3-5 years before a funding vote. But I'm willing to be patient and let this early process play out.