Embark (OKC Metro Bus Service)

[Just the facts]

USG60 - it all comes down to land use. There are so many advantage to higher density I wouldn't even know where to start naming them. If the new urbanism took off in OKC and everyone bought into it then at some point the urban core would become saturated. At that point each new block would have the same density as the proceeding black. Prior to WWII new blocks were built just the like the block that came before them. There were not subdividions like we know today, there was just a continuation of the existing urban fabric. After the automobile, everything changed. The houses got further apart, business got further apart, and people got further apart. The automobile stopped being a luxury and became a neccesity and then it became a self-perpetuating cycle. You had to have a car because it was too far to walk. You can't build things close together because you needed room for parking. So the cycle repeats.

[Just the facts]

Let me also add that the 50 sq mile urban core of OKC can hold a lot more people than is currently living there and a streetcar system paired with a neighborhood based bus system could go a long ways in bringing about that density. For example, places like Capitol Hill, Stockyard City, Classen/23rd, and Lincoln could easily become very high density with multiple mid-rise apartments and condos. 10 and 15 story residential units would not be out of the question and would be very similar to places like Little 5 Points or Buckhead in Atlanta. It just takes vision and a desire to get there. We need only look at Deep Duece to see what is possible, and the snowball isn't even rolling there yet.

[Maynard]

...It just takes vision and a desire to get there...

[Snowman]

USG60 - it all comes down to land use. There are so many advantage to higher density I wouldn't even know where to start naming them. If the new urbanism took off in OKC and everyone bought into it then at some point the urban core would become saturated. At that point each new block would have the same density as the proceeding black. Prior to WWII new blocks were built just the like the block that came before them. There were not subdividions like we know today, there was just a continuation of the existing urban fabric. After the automobile, everything changed. The houses got further apart, business got further apart, and people got further apart. The automobile stopped being a luxury and became a neccesity and then it became a self-perpetuating cycle. You had to have a car because it was too far to walk. You can't build things close together because you needed room for parking. So the cycle repeats.

In the end even around WWII most of the block you talk about were closer to suburban than urban.

[Larry OKC]

Oklahoma metro has pretty much always had cheap land and plenty of it, no real incentive to build in the core and up, instead of the outlying areas and out. Unless someone just really likes vertical and they don't care about the cost, they are probably going to go with the more bang for the buck option. Some people like being stacked on top of each other, others like elbow room etc. We just seem to have more of the elbow room folks than the stacked.

[MikeOKC]

Greater Tokyo: 35 Million + people. Suburbs all over. Tokyo is a fair example of a city that naturally extended outward. Is that right?

[Just the facts]

In the end even around WWII most of the block you talk about were closer to suburban than urban.

Check out these photos of OKC prior to WWII.

http://www.dougloudenback.com/downto...ge/vintage.htm

[RadicalModerate]

Yep, but that would be against the law.

So . . . Like just change the law.
It's been done before . . .


"I have an interesting side question, Kerry, where are growing populations supposed to live once "downtown" is full? Either towns have to grow or new towns have to appear. At some point towns have to grow outward. By definition, aren't the new fringes of a town going to be "the suburbs?" I guess I am needing a better definition of suburbs to thoroughly appreciate the finer details of this discussion (which I am enjoying :-) ) And, I think, I'm tring to find the moral center in all this and ain't havin' much luck."

Go UP, Young Man and Grow UP With the City . . . =)
Remember The Urban Core in "Bladerunner"?

[Just the facts]

So . . . Like just change the law.
It's been done before . . .

No point in changing the law, just reduce the city limits. If people want to live out in the sticks that is fine, they just shouldn't expect paved roads, city water, police, fire, cable tv, etc.

Did you see the article today about the $50 million expansion of the Hefner water-treatment plant? 50% to 70% of water usage is to water the lawn.

[RadicalModerate]

If people want to live out in the sticks that is fine, they just shouldn't expect paved roads, city water, police, fire, cable tv, etc.

At this point in time--in Oklahoma County--isn't it a bit difficult to determine exactly where "the sticks" begin or end? (Surely not just north of the Cowboy Hall of Fame, as indicated on the maps on Page 1 of this thread.)

Did you see the article today about the $50 million expansion of the Hefner water-treatment plant? 50% to 70% of water usage is to water the lawn.

That sort of water squandering illustrates an entirely different form of "high density" . . .
(And there ought to be a law addressing the issue, since "Common Sense" is now pushing up daisies out in the boondocks.)

[Just the facts]

The images from the this thread were just of the mass transit zone. I have a whole other map of what the OKC City Limits should be.

BTW - I love your "Common Sense" is now pushing up daisies out in the boondocks comment. Let me add that those daisies are watered twice a week for 30 minutes.

[Snowman]

Check out these photos of OKC prior to WWII.

http://www.dougloudenback.com/downto...ge/vintage.htm

OKC had full blocks built out to Grand Boulevard at the time, only a small percentage of the city was being built in an urban fashion even then.

[Just the facts]

OKC had full blocks built out to Grand Boulevard at the time, only a small percentage of the city was being built in an urban fashion even then.

The downtown urban core was denser than it is today because it was built when people had to walk (or ride a horse). However, it didn't take long for the first streetcars to be introduced that allowed people to live further away and thus reduced the density that would occur in a pedistrian only environment. However, the most recent parts of OKC (built since the 1960s) are the least dense parts of the city. OKC's lack of a massive expanse of high density areas reflects the time period in which the city was founded and developed.

To see how a town would be built today in a car dominated environment check out Nocatee, FL. It is a brand new town and it 100% requires a car, even to take kids to the local park. Their main street is a 6 lane freeway that runs through town. Single interchanges are larger than entire 1,000 person towns in Oklahoma.

http://www.nocatee.com/

[shane453]

Lack of population density would be a pretty bad argument for cutting service outside of the inner loop. Yes, the inner loop is probably densest area on average, mostly thanks to the southside. The average density on the southside (15th to 240, Shields to 44) is 5,481 ppm, which over the 12 square mile area is the highest density part of the city- certain areas of the southside will average 7-8,000 ppm. For the most populated parts of the northside, (44 to 235, 10th to 39th) the average density is just over 4,000 ppm. Granted, there are density pockets on the inner northside which are some of the best numbers in the city, ie 10th to 36th, Penn to Western which is about 5,700 ppm.

But look at those late 20th Century neighborhoods. Something way out there like NW Expressway to Memorial between Macarthur to Rockwell. Density of 4,563 ppm, currently barely served by transit with Route 8 at NW Ex and Mac. Or, 63rd to Memorial between Penn and May, density of 4,711 ppm. This selection includes some very wealthy areas with large lots. Currently served by transit by routes 8 and 7 at 63rd and May, and Route 5 along Memorial and Penn north of Hefner Road.

And perhaps the biggest piece of pie missed by a fantasy OKC transit system operating on arbitrary boundaries defined by highway routes would be the area west of 44 and north of 10th Street. For example, 10th to 39th, between Macarthur and Portland, with a density of 5,067 ppm spread over a 4.7 mile area. This last area is currently serviced by three significant transit routes (10, 23, and 38). It has high density and a fairly consistent residential grid. There is just no argument for removing this area, where there are no doubt people already relying on transit, including disabled and poor people, who may have made home purchases or signed leases based on transit.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I feel that you are ignoring the social complexities of transit planning in a big way.

[Just the facts]

Shane - the problem is limited funding. The challenge is operating a bus system that provides the most benefit at the lowest cost. If there is an isolated area of high density and a need for mass transit then maybe a local neighborhood system would be in order.

[Cocaine]

I have an interesting side question, Kerry, where are growing populations supposed to live once "downtown" is full? Either towns have to grow or new towns have to appear. At some point towns have to grow outward. By definition, aren't the new fringes of a town going to be "the suburbs?" I guess I am needing a better definition of suburbs to thoroughly appreciate the finer details of this discussion (which I am enjoying :-) ) And, I think, I'm tring to find the moral center in all this and ain't havin' much luck.

Well you do realize that population doesn't grow forever don't you. Even when you look at okc today there's still plenty area so let's say downtown fills up okay then people renovate and build house's on the east side, then the south side. Then they go further out but sooner or later our population is gonna crash or we end up like paris all the affluent people live near down town and and the working class people live in further out of the city and have hard time getting to work.

[Frustratedoptimist]

I posted the following question last week in the Streetcar thread, but I don't think anyone saw it. It seems relevant to this topic as well, so I'll repost it here:

"Does anyone know if the city plans to consider hiring a company, other than Metro, to operate the streetcar, specifically, one that already operates a rail system? I sure hope so, considering the public and City Council have all acknowledged that there are serious issues with our current transit system. The funding issue is a biggie, no doubt about it, but it can't be the whole story. Perhaps we need to see our options and proposals from other transit companies to make sure OKC and the forthcoming RTA members get the best deal and best operator. If Metro comes out ahead, great, at least we will have seen all of our options."

Every presentation and news story I see from Metro staff, it appears they already think they're running the streetcar. I'm not sure I trust them running it if they can't operate transit effectively. How much longer should we allow the money excuse? Other transit systems seem to serve more people with less.

[Snowman]

I posted the following question last week in the Streetcar thread, but I don't think anyone saw it. It seems relevant to this topic as well, so I'll repost it here:

"Does anyone know if the city plans to consider hiring a company, other than Metro, to operate the streetcar, specifically, one that already operates a rail system? I sure hope so, considering the public and City Council have all acknowledged that there are serious issues with our current transit system. The funding issue is a biggie, no doubt about it, but it can't be the whole story. Perhaps we need to see our options and proposals from other transit companies to make sure OKC and the forthcoming RTA members get the best deal and best operator. If Metro comes out ahead, great, at least we will have seen all of our options."

Every presentation and news story I see from Metro staff, it appears they already think they're running the streetcar. I'm not sure I trust them running it if they can't operate transit effectively. How much longer should we allow the money excuse? Other transit systems seem to serve more people with less.

Metro Transit is not a company it is the branding of the transit system run by the government agency OKC created (The Central Oklahoma Transportation & Parking Authority or COTPA) to plan/manage it's transit and parking assets. Most of the current issues are inherited from bad decisions made long ago made more difficult by how bad the system is most anyone who can do something else do something else and has for decades.

[Larry OKC]

Which goes back to Frustratedoptimist's core point & one I have asked before, no matter if it is a city entity or a company:

I'm not sure I trust them running it if they can't operate transit effectively.

[Frustratedoptimist]

Thanks Snowman. So does this mean we can't fire them? No offense, but I don't buy the "inherited problem" excuse. The current staff have been there several years. Why would we give them more financial and operating responsibility, especially something as important to public and private investment as this streetcar, when they can't successfully manage thier current finances and operations? I don't think we citizens would have supported the streetcar as much if we had known city leaders were just going to let MT/COTPA operate it.

[Just the facts]

Anyone tasked with providing mass transit to 600 sq miles with a budget the size that is available in OKC would fail. The money and service is simply spread to thin. Keep the budget the same and reduce the service area is the best solution.

[betts]

Anyone tasked with providing mass transit to 600 sq miles with a budget the size that is available in OKC would fail. The money and service is simply spread to thin. Keep the budget the same and reduce the service area is the best solution.

I think that's the only solution. Although, I'd really like to increase the budget and build covered bus stops, provide GPS bus tracking and actually have signage that includes route information. Those last three things would increase bus ridership significantly, I suspect.

[Just the facts]

I think that's the only solution. Although, I'd really like to increase the budget and build covered bus stops, provide GPS bus tracking and actually have signage that includes route information. Those last three things would increase bus ridership significantly, I suspect.

Reducing the service area (and the reduction in buses, drivers, and fuel cost that come with it) would allow for the very things you just mentioned. WiFi should also be available and I would even like to see 5 volt USB power ports added to the bus seats.

[Frustratedoptimist]

I agree that reducing and rerouting the service area will help reduce some costs, but I don't agree that adding more bells and whistles to each bus is going to increase riders. I'd like to see them focus more on running on time, service area, customer service, shelters, and signs, etc. Not to rag on them too much, but I really think we need to ask some hard financial questions before we give them a much larger budget and higher level of responsibility. Not to mention, rail operations is a whole different animal, shouldn't we hire a rail firm to handle that part? With all this said, where does the conversation of the regional system fit in?

[shane453]

No one is currently providing service to 600 square miles of Oklahoma City. 75% of the transit system is already within your imaginary inner core. The portion that currently served and is not within your transportation zone includes two very significant, high density commercial/medical/residential strips (Memorial Rd and the area around NW Expressway and Hefner Parkway), important low-middle income areas with large commercial areas (just west of 44 and between 10th and 39th Expressway), and low-income areas in the east and Mid-Del which includes one of the region's largest employment centers.

Just saying, they are already trying to serve only what is important.

I'm not disagreeing with you that transit service would be more efficient with a much smaller network area- that's obvious. Probably the best thing we could do would be cut back to two east-west routes on northside and southside, and three north-south routes (maybe May, Western, MLK), and try to run those 7 routes on 10-15 minute frequency. I just think you need to consider the greater social picture which Metro Transit obviously does- it leads them to reduce frequencies rather than coverage when they need to pinch pennies. It is no light matter to remove transit from people who depend on it. We could also make welfare programs more efficient by changing eligibility requirements- unfortunately, welfare programs are part of a greater social good and we can't do that. Transit has reached a similar state in most of America.

PS I know you are very stubborn and your way is right, but regarding your neighborhood scheme, I still think you need to realize the Oklahoman conception of neighborhood wayfinding is not some globular organic path. We think of getting around in terms of corridors. This is not exclusive to Memorial Road and the suburbs. Consider the linear Main Streets in small towns and small urban neighborhoods like the Plaza. Consider Western Avenue, Classen, 23rd Street, Automobile Alley... Because we have arranged our space linearly since 1889, that's how we imagine the space around us, so the most efficient service pattern would mimic that cognitive process.