What's Your Personal Take On The Walkability and "Busability" of the OKC Metro? (Oklahoma City: sales)

[AllTimeLow99]

I've researched and seen quite a few people complain about this aspect of OKC but I want to hear from some actual residents or people who're familiar with the city proper and tell me if

1. It's possible to bus around town successfully - ?

2. What is the walkability like around the inner core metro area?


Would someone living right in the core have everything they need at their disposal in walking distance? Thanks!

[flintysooner]

Originally Posted by AllTimeLow99

1. It's possible to bus around town successfully - ?

It is rather difficult. The bus system leaves a lot to be desired.

Originally Posted by AllTimeLow99

2. What is the walkability like around the inner core metro area?

The inner core is actually pretty walkable now, at least compared to what it was 20 years ago, and it is really improving all the time.

Originally Posted by AllTimeLow99

Would someone living right in the core have everything they need at their disposal in walking distance? Thanks!

Not yet. Probably the most significant missing retail is a full service grocery store and a drug store.

Others will be able to comment better about these things though.

[AllTimeLow99]

Originally Posted by flintysooner

It is rather difficult. The bus system leaves a lot to be desired.

The inner core is actually pretty walkable now, at least compared to what it was 20 years ago, and it is really improving all the time.

Not yet. Probably the most significant missing retail is a full service grocery store and a drug store.

Others will be able to comment better about these things though.

Thanks man. Good to know.

[RelosAlot]

FlintySooner, thank you so much for saying 'Not yet.' That's how I see it -- OKC is coming along nicely. I'm a newby and find it livable with a few caveats. We're not there yet but we're heading in the right direction.

[Redshadowz]

Hey liberal, you don't want to move here, and I don't want you moving here. Because I was once like you, I had a fundamental misunderstanding about economics. Thus, I first didn't realize the impracticality of mass transit in Oklahoma City, and I especially didn't understand who was actually going to pay for it.


Look at the Oklahoma city budget. Scroll down to page 349...

http://www.okc.gov/finance/FY14%20Pr...0Web%20Con.pdf


Of the $13.44 million spent in 2012-2013 on public transportation. Only about $1.9 million came from fares(called "Public Transp. Cash Fund"). That is about 14%. Which means for every $7 the city spends on bus service, only $1 comes from fares, and the other $6 comes from other taxes.


On average a bus takes about 3 times longer to get from point A to point B than an automobile. I live in Midwest city and to travel to my friends house, who lives on Rockwell. It would take the bus 1.5 hours to go from the closest bus stop from my house(about half a mile from me), to the closest bus stop from him(about 3/4ths of a mile from him). The total time I would be away from my house, just in travel time(including walking time), to go there and back, would be nearly four hours.

The truth is, it is basically impractical to have mass transit unless population density is very high. Because you either need to drive up ridership(which requires density). Or you have to drive up the cost of parking and/or produce very bad traffic(density or total population), to make mass transit practical as an alternative to just driving.



The question really is, what is downtown anyway? And secondly, why would a business even want to build downtown to begin with? I'm sure the land is considerably more expensive, the property taxes would be considerably higher, and parking is much more difficult.

The truth is, most of downtown Oklahoma City is government buildings or businesses that get heavy government funding of some sort. Most of the rest is just a couple banks and then the Devon tower. And they only build there, because they generally aren't allowed to build almost anywhere else because of zoning laws. And much of the time, Oklahoma city basically pays them off by bribing them, usually either with free land, tax credits, or some other kind of financial incentive(we spent like $84 million on fixing up the Ford center to attract the Thunder basketball team, by putting a sales tax on everyone, whether they like basketball or not).

Moreover, as I mentioned before, mass transit is really not about providing viable transit across the entire metro area. There is really no bus service that would be practical for Oklahoma City. Buses near downtown probably only average about 10 mph. Which is considerably faster than buses in New York City, which only average about 5 mph(because of the traffic).

Since we recognize that bus service is basically impractical as a real way of getting around town, unless you live in a relatively small area near downtown. And since we recognize that 86% of the operating budget is paid for by general taxes. We need to recognize that all bus service really is, is a subsidy for any person or business that lies near downtown. This subsidy does attract business and people to downtown, but pulls money away from areas further away from downtown.

And while that might sound good on the surface, because its ultimate effect is to increase population density and investment in downtown. It comes at the cost of a massive increase in the cost of real estate, which drives up cost of living. And there is absolutely no correlation between population density or the availability of mass transit, and a high standard of living. It is usually quite the opposite.



I'm not a fan of the philosophy of government investment. The idea behind it is, the city can invest X amount of money and they will get Y amount of money back in taxes. The problem with that concept, is that they don't discuss where the money comes from. You and me. One of the popular arguments is that, by building infrastructure, they'll bring up the real estate values of the areas, which will allow them to collect more in property taxes(since they are a percentage of total value). Where exactly does the extra money required to pay the higher property taxes come from? And more important, does higher government tax revenue mean that the people are better off?

What really happens, is that there is a shift toward investment in downtown, at the loss of the periphery. This investment grows the city and state government considerably, and makes the people near downtown reliant on government services and subsidies. Which allows the government to grow more and more, until you end up with nothing but a bunch of hippies living in downtown, sucking off the government, usually at the expense of everyone else.


I feel sorry for Tulsa. They send all their money to the capital in Oklahoma City, subsidizing the crap out of the Oklahoma City economy.


And for a state that seems to pride itself so much on minimal government. You guys sure seem to love your handouts and subsidies. Go take an economics course, then rethink some of your political positions.


With that said.. No one wants mass transit more than I do. I used to work for BNSF railroad, and I absolutely adore railroads. Railroads are a far more efficient/effective means to move practically anything. If we were going to have an effective mass transit system in Oklahoma City, it would have to be on rail of some sort. But the cost of putting in something like "light rail", is many many times the cost of putting in bus service. The average cost of light rail is $35 million a mile of track.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_..._and_operation

If you were to try to put in what most mass transit loves want for downtown OKC, you would need to put a track every 1/4th mile or less in downtown OKC. As an example, for a 4 mile by 4 mile area, that would require 128 miles of track, for a total cost of $4.448 billion. New York City has 660 miles of track, and much of that is actually underground(which is considerably more expensive than a typical light rail system). To replicate a system of rail remotely similar to New York City's, would probably cost about $50 billion. The current budget of OKC's rail system is only $13.44 million, and only $1.9 million of that is funded through fares.

Lets pretend that you even wanted to put in 100 miles of light rail in the cheapest area to build in downtown. The minimum cost to build such a system would probably be about $2 billion. Even if you built it over the course of 10 years, that would be $200 million a year. Which is about 15 times the current mass transit budget. And even if you attracted a considerable increase in ridership. Its doubtful that it could come anywhere close to allowing for the mass transit to pay for itself. And even if you could make the system pay for twice as much as it is now(lets say 30% instead of 14%), it would still probably require about $50-$100 million more a year in tax revenues(beyond fares), to support the new light rail system over the long-term(since there would need to be a lot more people maintaining the system, plus we would probably take out 15 or 30-year bonds to pay for it).




The truth is, the discussion doesn't need to be about whether or not we want mass transit or not. The discussion really needs to be about, why is mass transit so damn expensive anyway? I mean, if the people want mass transit so badly, and it is supposedly a good system. Then why doesn't someone just build a private system? Even if you argue that it would cost billions to build a transit system, it isn't as if there aren't large businesses who don't spend billions in investments all the time. I mean, the Devon tower cost about $750 million. I know there are buildings in other cities that cost several billion to build. There are factories and power plants, which cost in the billions(I know nuclear power is crazy expensive), but still get built without any government aid.

The point is, you can only address the problem with mass transit, by understanding why mass transit is so expensive in the first place. And once you understand the cause, you'll realize that its silly to use the cause as the solution.

One last thing, if you think buses are more energy efficient, you're wrong. Buses are HORRIBLY inefficient. Light rail really isn't more efficient overall than a high MPG car. And the highest MPG cars are more efficient than light rail(because they don't have so much stop and go). As a means of transportation, a car full of people is about as energy efficient as it gets.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...aste-of-energy


With that said. I do want more sidewalks and bike lanes. About $100 million of the budget this year will be spend just on building more roads here in Oklahoma City. And about $10.5 million a year is going to be spent on road maintenance. And of that $10.5 million on maintenance, only about $5.5 million(about half) comes from fuel taxes(page 41). They could build considerably more sidewalks with the same kind of $5 million deficit that they already spend to cover road maintenance each year.


For reference. A mile is 5280 feet. Most sidewalks are about three feet wide. A yard of concrete from Dolese costs about $100 a year. A yard of concrete is enough for 27 linear feet of sidewalk. So in just concrete it would cost about $19,500 per mile of sidewalk, then probably double that for labor costs(if you were hiring non-union labor to build the sidewalks at least). Based on $40,000 per mile, $5 million would build 125 miles of sidewalk. In 2012-2013, the city of Oklahoma City intends to build 20 miles of sidewalk(page 17).