Answer to "Why Do You Still Live in Oklahoma?" (Oklahoma City: lease, crimes)

[okcpulse]

Originally Posted by dvxhd

Honestly, I've never complained about taxes until I moved here even though I pay less here than I have anywhere else. The thing though is elsewhere I can usually see that my tax dollars are being put to use. At home, they did a pretty good job of keeping the roads maintained. Traffic has become a serious concern, so they put lots of money into public transportation to keep people moving. They put lots of money into the central core, and lo and behold, when house prices were plummeting throughout the area, the central zip codes were one of the few parts of town that actually saw land values rise. Every election I actually voted in favor of more taxes so that they could improve the quality of life, as I didn't think people were taxed enough there, as there was (and still is) lots of room for improvement.

How can you NOT see your tax dollars put to use in Oklahoma City??? Do you honestly have some high expectation placed over Oklahoma City that is onerous ? Or is it that you are not seeing your tax dollars spent in the right place.

Your tax dollars in Oklahoma City have been put to work in the following places, and if this does not satisfy you, then you have set the bar to a point that sets up Oklahoma for failure, as many others have done on this very forum.

- Widening of NW 178th (County property taxes)
- Widening of NW 164th (County property taxes)
- Widening of NW 150th (County property taxes)
- Widening of N Santa Fe (County property taxes)
- Widening of N Pennsylvania (County property taxes)
- Widening of N May (County property taxes)
- Resurfacing of May from 36th to Wilshire (County property taxes)
- Reconstruction of N Memorial/Broadway Extension Interchange (State/Federal Tax Dollars)
- Surface rehabilitation of I-44 from I-40 to NW 63rd (Federal tax dollars)
- Surface rehabilitation of I-44 from Grand Blvd to I-35 (Federal tax dollars)
- Reconstruction and relocation of I-40 from I-35 to I-44 (Federal tax dollars)
- Resurfacing of NW 63rd from May Avenue to Western Avenue (County property taxes)
- Resurfacing of NW Classen (County property taxes)
- Resurfacing of Western Avenue from NW 36th to Wilshire (County property taxes)
- Resurfacing of May Avenue (County property taxes)
- Widening of Portland from Memorial (State taxes)
- I-235/I-44 interchange (Federal taxes)
- New library in NW OKC (County property taxes)
- MAPS for Kids - Remodel or reconstruction of OKCPS, all 89 school structures (City sales taxes, county property taxes)
- Original MAPS projects (City sales taxes): Canal, Chesapeake Energy Arena, Bricktown Ballpark, Oklahoma River, Civic Center Music Hall, Fairgrounds Improvements, etc.
- MAPS 3 projects will soon be under way

And this is just on the north side. I haven't even begun to scratch the surface.

Billions of dollars of investment has been put into downtown OKC from Bricktown to Deep Deuce to Midtown, the Oklahoma Health Center and the Oklahoma River. And there is MUCH more to come for these areas. If this isn't enough, then I am afraid that no matter what golden miracles Oklahoma City pulls in the future, it won't be enough to meet your expectations, with all due respect.

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by okcpulse

How can you NOT see your tax dollars put to use in Oklahoma City??? Do you honestly have some high expectation placed over Oklahoma City that is onerous ? Or is it that you are not seeing your tax dollars spent in the right place.

Your tax dollars in Oklahoma City have been put to work in the following places, and if this does not satisfy you, then you have set the bar to a point that sets up Oklahoma for failure, as many others have done on this very forum.

- Widening of NW 178th (County property taxes)
- Widening of NW 164th (County property taxes)
- Widening of NW 150th (County property taxes)
- Widening of N Santa Fe (County property taxes)
- Widening of N Pennsylvania (County property taxes)
- Widening of N May (County property taxes)
- Resurfacing of May from 36th to Wilshire (County property taxes)
- Reconstruction of N Memorial/Broadway Extension Interchange (State/Federal Tax Dollars)
- Surface rehabilitation of I-44 from I-40 to NW 63rd (Federal tax dollars)
- Surface rehabilitation of I-44 from Grand Blvd to I-35 (Federal tax dollars)
- Reconstruction and relocation of I-40 from I-35 to I-44 (Federal tax dollars)
- Resurfacing of NW 63rd from May Avenue to Western Avenue (County property taxes)
- Resurfacing of NW Classen (County property taxes)
- Resurfacing of Western Avenue from NW 36th to Wilshire (County property taxes)
- Resurfacing of May Avenue (County property taxes)
- Widening of Portland from Memorial (State taxes)
- I-235/I-44 interchange (Federal taxes)
- New library in NW OKC (County property taxes)
- MAPS for Kids - Remodel or reconstruction of OKCPS, all 89 school structures (City sales taxes, county property taxes)
- Original MAPS projects (City sales taxes): Canal, Chesapeake Energy Arena, Bricktown Ballpark, Oklahoma River, Civic Center Music Hall, Fairgrounds Improvements, etc.
- MAPS 3 projects will soon be under way

And this is just on the north side. I haven't even begun to scratch the surface.

Billions of dollars of investment has been put into downtown OKC from Bricktown to Deep Deuce to Midtown, the Oklahoma Health Center and the Oklahoma River. And there is MUCH more to come for these areas. If this isn't enough, then I am afraid that no matter what golden miracles Oklahoma City pulls in the future, it won't be enough to meet your expectations, with all due respect.

I had an awful weekend, so thanks for the laugh.

It's interesting that the majority of the examples you used are basic things taxes have to cover, namely roads. Without a means to get around, a city would be heavily crippled. Public transit is extraordinarily lacking. Where's the spending on that? Before you argue that proposed street car, take OKC off that pedestal you put it on and think about its coverage area critically. It isn't really getting mass people from their homes to work because it isn't planned to go into more residential areas. You also didn't mention the lack of social services in this state. The Okie mindset is that people who may need those services are parasites. I used to do volunteer work at home for services that would get total or partial government funding, from a planned school for HIV-positive children to a shelter for transgendered people who had been totally disowned by their families and lost everything they had. Doesn't Oklahoma also rank in the bottom 5 or 10 in education spending? And despite all those places you listed, there are large parts of the city that just look neglected even though they are perfectly fine areas. Some of that stuff doesn't even sound like it's meant for locals, but rather tourists. I still don't get why OKC wants to spend so much on tourism when at this point in time it's not as lucrative an industry as others could be for this city. That ridiculous commercial is a great example: it was poorly put together and has some highly odd word choices. "Collision of cultures", really? That doesn't exactly have a friendly, inviting vibe to it. And how much of that video prominently featured the Devon Tower? That would be like New York releasing a promotional video that showed the Empire State Building for 3/4 of the video. When you consider how little vacation Americans get and how expensive it is to get to Oklahoma City, I highly doubt you will see a significant increase in visitors when they have hundreds of other options all around the world. At home I could fly to the East Coast cheaper than I could to OKC, even though it's twice as far.

[okcpulse]

The examples I used are examples you gave in your earlier post. You didn't specify public transit, a problem that city leaders are trying to solve. It's a broken design hampered by a grid system that works so well for private automobiles that it's a failure for public transit. Once city leaders reach an agreement on a much more efficient design for public transit routes and service, then they can talk money. You can't fund a new system until it is designed, and OKC hasn't gotten to that point yet. You describe the Okie attitude towards public transit as if it were a problem that can't be fixed. Many in OKC were raised in the car. Once you demonstrate to locals the benefit of public transportation, it will change their minds. Like anyone, their minds can be changed. They are people, after all.

I don't put OKC up on a pedestal. It is a place I am passionate about because I have a vision for my hometown, however OKC does get attacked often for failures that occur in other cities, so I at least try to set the record straight. OKC is not perfect , but it's not a write off either.

You also mentioned that there are areas of neglect in parts of the city that, again, are not unique to OKC. Try traversing the roads of the extravagant side of Houston and then come back and tell me the same story. San Felipe was a canyon, literally, until Houston finally got around to fixing the roadway. Texas is more that 1 billion in debt on freeway and highway maintenance and construction. Sure, many of Texas' roads are nice, but the costs are spiraling out of control and the cost is getting passed off to the taxpayer at an enormous expense. It was sustainable in the 1990s, but now Texas is reaching a critical mass to the point that it is going to get really expensive to live in the large cities.

[okcpulse]

Also, Oklahoma City doesn't spend as much on tourism as you think. Most of the footage is geared toward attracting new industry, and drawing tourism from the region is more of a focus than nationally.

As far as flights go, I have emphasized multiple times that Oklahoma City's situation with air travel is the fault of the airlines, not OKC. The airlines set the rates. The airlines chose a hub and spoke system to bolster their profit margin.

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by okcpulse

The examples I used are examples you gave in your earlier post. You didn't specify public transit, a problem that city leaders are trying to solve. It's a broken design hampered by a grid system that works so well for private automobiles that it's a failure for public transit. Once city leaders reach an agreement on a much more efficient design for public transit routes and service, then they can talk money. You can't fund a new system until it is designed, and OKC hasn't gotten to that point yet. You describe the Okie attitude towards public transit as if it were a problem that can't be fixed. Many in OKC were raised in the car. Once you demonstrate to locals the benefit of public transportation, it will change their minds. Like anyone, their minds can be changed. They are people, after all.

I don't put OKC up on a pedestal. It is a place I am passionate about because I have a vision for my hometown, however OKC does get attacked often for failures that occur in other cities, so I at least try to set the record straight. OKC is not perfect , but it's not a write off either.

You also mentioned that there are areas of neglect in parts of the city that, again, are not unique to OKC. Try traversing the roads of the extravagant side of Houston and then come back and tell me the same story. San Felipe was a canyon, literally, until Houston finally got around to fixing the roadway. Texas is more that 1 billion in debt on freeway and highway maintenance and construction. Sure, many of Texas' roads are nice, but the costs are spiraling out of control and the cost is getting passed off to the taxpayer at an enormous expense. It was sustainable in the 1990s, but now Texas is reaching a critical mass to the point that it is going to get really expensive to live in the large cities.

The bus system here isn't even skeletal. At this point in the city's development, buses are probably the best bet because they're relatively cheap and do the job. A lot of cities have commuter buses as well, which make a handful of stops in more remote areas, then go express to a major employment district. I don't buy that car argument either, because notoriously automobile-dependent cities have public transit systems with decent ridership by American standards. Eventually people come around to it and use it. Seriously, in parts of the city widening the roads just isn't an option because homes and businesses would have to be destroyed to make way for it.

I felt you were putting it on a pedestal because of pride in questionable decisions made at the city level. I don't understand what the point of those canals is, except to be like San Antonio. That new pedestrian bridge is another. What is the point of that? If it's for city beautification, public arts or whatever, fine. But the tax rate is so low here it seems to me that OKC could have better spent its money on something the city needs more urgently when intake isn't high enough.

About the Texas roadways thing... you do realize OKC has the same fate, don't you? The large land area and local climate mean that more money will need to go toward roadwork. Things you would want to make OKC special (like in the last paragraph) cost money, but so does building and maintaining roads. Eventually, something will have to give: either you sacrifice tax-funded luxuries or infrastructure/services, or pay more in taxes. To me it comes off that OKC wants to have its cake and eat it too.

And in your other post: it is not the airlines' fault that the airport is so lightly trafficked. They won't come here or expand service and competition unless there's a market for it. They spend millions of dollars in research so that they know where to go to ultimately increase profits. If OKC were lucrative, they would come here. You could blame Dallas for that, as it's so close... but that's not likely the case. Boston and Philadelphia are roughly the same distance to New York as OKC is to Dallas, yet those airports are much busier. San Diego is closer to LA than OKC is to Dallas, but its airport is busier as well. Furthermore, air traffic into/out of LA and New York is so congested that those cities have multiple airports (as do San Francisco and Washington). Many airlines also have a presence at those multiple airports because they can make money on those routes. The point with all this is that the airlines won't expand operations here because there's no money in it, or not enough to be worth it.

[looking4infothxalot]

I live in Moore and tbh Oklahoma is pretty much the same as every other place of similar size except the crime statistics are off the charts here. I know you want to feel good about living here but honestly it's not that much different than any other place and it's much more boring than places in New Mexico or Missouri and there are so many social problems here, mainly crime.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I live here, just a few blocks from where the May 20 tornado hit and what I saw were people from all over the US rushing in to help us out because they saw the non stop coverage on CNN and Cantor Fitzgerald just gave out fist fulls of cash to tornado victims, they didn't have to do that, they are located in NY. I saw a lot of people from NYC, firefighters, volunteers from Texas and Wisconsin as well as some from Oklahoma so to say this state has a monopoly on good works is a distortion of reality. There are other places with plenty of people willing to help others out and other places have less crime, too. Oklahoma also has a huge homeless problem. There are soooo many homeless people it's outrageous! It really is a huge problem! I mean, have you noticed how many there are in OKC? Homeless people in Utopia? How could this be?

Admit traveling thousands of miles as a volunteer to help complete strangers is the mark of a good person willing to help others, is it not? I don't know if I would do it and I'm from Oklahoma where everyone always wants to help yet there are people all over this country who will drop everything to do just that. Would you? Americans tend to have this quality, it sets us apart as a nation but it is national, not regional. It's a national characteristic.

It's pathetic the way people refuse to build shelters in Oklahoma schools. You want to say Oklahoma is so caring yet after May 20, there is debate about whether schools should have shelters? It should be absolution without question. This is what good people would insist on, their children safe when they are away at school yet there is all this debate about providing this safety which would require a few reinforced rooms in each school, it can even be the restrooms yet there's all these people in the government trying to stop it. There's no excuse for that.

So please, take off the rose colored glasses. Oklahoma has social problems just like every place else. Instead of lying to yourself, why don't you and others endeavor to make this place the utopia you think it is in your mind, okay?

Thanks.

P.S. Oklahoma City does have the best drivers, I'll give you that. Drivers from other states? They are so aggressive and terrible.

[okcpulse]

Originally Posted by dvxhd

The bus system here isn't even skeletal. At this point in the city's development, buses are probably the best bet because they're relatively cheap and do the job. A lot of cities have commuter buses as well, which make a handful of stops in more remote areas, then go express to a major employment district. I don't buy that car argument either, because notoriously automobile-dependent cities have public transit systems with decent ridership by American standards. Eventually people come around to it and use it. Seriously, in parts of the city widening the roads just isn't an option because homes and businesses would have to be destroyed to make way for it.

The argument is based more around the city street grid and the layout of the freeways, not so much the automobile. Oklahoma City's bus system is designed as a hub and spoke system, forcing many riders to transfer downtown to another bus to get to their destination. That in turn makes it inefficient. It is useless to take the bus in OKC when getting there by car or cab is much quicker.

Several studies are now under way to explore better systems that city leaders can implement. One of those has already been accomplished with the re-branding of the public transit system. METRO Transit will change to EMBARK. Oklahoma City is working to reconnect the public with its transit to boost ridership. Other cities that are notoriously car-dependent have less arterials and are laid out in a fashion that makes it easier to establish bus routes.

Originally Posted by dvxhd

I felt you were putting it on a pedestal because of pride in questionable decisions made at the city level. I don't understand what the point of those canals is, except to be like San Antonio. That new pedestrian bridge is another. What is the point of that? If it's for city beautification, public arts or whatever, fine. But the tax rate is so low here it seems to me that OKC could have better spent its money on something the city needs more urgently when intake isn't high enough.

At the time the canal was introduced, several other cities had begun building their own waterways. It certainly wasn't to copy San Antonio. The canal is a tribute to the old North Canadian River, which once flowed through what is today Bricktown before its channel was rerouted and straightened in the 1950s. The canal was part of a nine-project package to rejuvenate downtown and to draw city residents back downtown. The new pedestrian bridge is both for city beautification and public arts, and will serve as a link to the new central park which will be build to the north and south of the new I-40. City leaders have the surrounding area target for revitalization, with the new park being the centerpiece.

Originally Posted by dvxhd

About the Texas roadways thing... you do realize OKC has the same fate, don't you? The large land area and local climate mean that more money will need to go toward roadwork. Things you would want to make OKC special (like in the last paragraph) cost money, but so does building and maintaining roads. Eventually, something will have to give: either you sacrifice tax-funded luxuries or infrastructure/services, or pay more in taxes. To me it comes off that OKC wants to have its cake and eat it too.

Not true, at all. Here is the difference between Texas and Oklahoma... TxDOT can finance highway construction both on a state and federal level using grant-anticipated revenue bonds. The highway building spree that is trying to catch up with growth is running at the rate of $10 billion a year. At this rate, the debt service is mounting and Texas is trying to recoup the debt service by adding managed toll lanes to federally funded roads. The multi-billion dollar behemoth in Dallas is being co-financed by several corporations who will recoup the costs of construction by splitting I-635 and I-35E between free lanes and managed toll lanes.

In Oklahoma, highways are maintained on a pay-as-you-go basis. They cannot borrow against the state and federal money they receive on an annual basis.

Where Oklahoma City is concerned... city arterials (such as MacArthur, May Ave, NW 122nd, etc) are maintained not by the state, but by county property tax revenues that are financed by GO bond packages (General Obligation bonds). The last GO Bond election passed, which was $885 million that goes toward county roads and capital projects such as schools and libraries. These elections are typically held every 5 to seven years, with new elections held as previous GO bonds are retired. City leaders are able to get these packages approved by keeping property tax rates from increasing by retiring old bonds (paying them off) and then selling the new bonds.

The MAPS projects are civic improvement packages and are financed with a one cent sales tax on a temporary basis. MAPS sales tax built the canal, sports arena, the minor league ballpark, overhaul of the Civic Center, building the Oklahoma River lakes, remodeling or rebuilding all of the OKCPS district public schools, and now the current MAPS 3 package.

GO Bonds that maintain the infrastructure require a 60% super-majority to pass since property taxes are used to pay for the packages. Sales tax packages require only a 50% simple majority. This is required by the state constitution.

So, while Oklahoma City recognizes maintaining infrastructure, it also makes quality-of-life projects a priority as well. Without these amenities, Devon Energy would most certainly have relocated to Houston, and Continental Energy would have likely done the same. Lack of quality of life amenities is why United Airlines turned down OKC in favor of Indianapolis in 1989. Boosting tourism is the icing on the cake, however quality of life for local residents is the driving factor behind all of the projects happening in OKC now.

Originally Posted by dvxhd

And in your other post: it is not the airlines' fault that the airport is so lightly trafficked. They won't come here or expand service and competition unless there's a market for it. They spend millions of dollars in research so that they know where to go to ultimately increase profits. If OKC were lucrative, they would come here. You could blame Dallas for that, as it's so close... but that's not likely the case. Boston and Philadelphia are roughly the same distance to New York as OKC is to Dallas, yet those airports are much busier. San Diego is closer to LA than OKC is to Dallas, but its airport is busier as well. Furthermore, air traffic into/out of LA and New York is so congested that those cities have multiple airports (as do San Francisco and Washington). Many airlines also have a presence at those multiple airports because they can make money on those routes. The point with all this is that the airlines won't expand operations here because there's no money in it, or not enough to be worth it.

No, it is not the airlines' fault for light traffic at WRWA. However, the airfares are. OKC is one of the more expensive spoke destinations. Why is that? Also, the airlines chose a hub and spoke system, which ultimately led to companies wanting to locate to hub airport cities due to more direct flights, because that is the purpose of a hub.

When the hub and spoke system for airlines was established after the airline industry was deregulated, Oklahoma City was a much smaller market and was not really feasible for a hub. Fast forward decades later, a growing city struggles with a non-hub airport. But not all is lost. Airlines are working with OKC to offer more direct flights, and several non-stop cities have been added in the last five years, but it is a work in progress. As long as the market and passenger counts at the airport grow, we have a greater chance of more options for flights.

For those who wonder how the Oklahoma City sales tax rate is broken down, here is a brief list of sources to which your 8.375% on the dollar is distributed:

4.5% - Oklahoma state sales tax
3.875% - Oklahoma City sales tax
Of the 3.875%,

2% goes to the city general fund
1/8 % goes to the Oklahoma City Zoo (permanent)
.75% goes to Police and Fire (permanent)
1% goes to MAPS (7 year temporary)

Because cities and towns in Oklahoma cannot use property taxes to fund the general budget, they are forced to use sales taxes. Here is the link for the current sales tax rate schedule by city and town for Q2 2013:

http://www.tax.ok.gov/publicat/copos/copo2Q13.pdf

Hoe this helps!

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by okcpulse

The argument is based more around the city street grid and the layout of the freeways, not so much the automobile. Oklahoma City's bus system is designed as a hub and spoke system, forcing many riders to transfer downtown to another bus to get to their destination. That in turn makes it inefficient. It is useless to take the bus in OKC when getting there by car or cab is much quicker.

Several studies are now under way to explore better systems that city leaders can implement. One of those has already been accomplished with the re-branding of the public transit system. METRO Transit will change to EMBARK. Oklahoma City is working to reconnect the public with its transit to boost ridership. Other cities that are notoriously car-dependent have less arterials and are laid out in a fashion that makes it easier to establish bus routes.

Oh you got me with that grid system. No other city in America is largely grid-like. Except Phoenix. And Las Vegas. And San Franciso. And Denver. And Manhattan. And... I could go on. The problem isn't how the city is laid out, it's that there just aren't enough routes. And hey, the beauty of buses is that unlike rail, their routes can be easily changed. It seems to me that it just isn't a priority in this town. OKC is set up in a way that deters public transit development. A lot of cities have taken proactive steps to encourage public transit usage, from higher gas taxes, to fewer parking garages/spaces, to more expensive parking meters and so forth.

Originally Posted by okcpulse

At the time the canal was introduced, several other cities had begun building their own waterways. It certainly wasn't to copy San Antonio. The canal is a tribute to the old North Canadian River, which once flowed through what is today Bricktown before its channel was rerouted and straightened in the 1950s. The canal was part of a nine-project package to rejuvenate downtown and to draw city residents back downtown. The new pedestrian bridge is both for city beautification and public arts, and will serve as a link to the new central park which will be build to the north and south of the new I-40. City leaders have the surrounding area target for revitalization, with the new park being the centerpiece.

And how "successful" has OKC been in developing downtown? When I was looking for apartments I came across outrageous prices without the convenience of that sort of living. It seems people live there as a social status, but it's barely livable. You may be able to walk to work, but you will be limited in entertainment and will have no access to basic services, including grocers and health care. I lived in a high density area when in Asia, and I could walk to get groceries, to see the doctor (including specialists), to a large number of bars and restaurants, to the movie theater, to the park, to the subway and bus routes, to work, to a gym, to the barber... the list goes on! I would gladly pay downtown OKC prices if I had that sort of convenience. Whatever you want to believe, that part of town will take a very long time to come of age. The whole country is littered with cities that started renaissance projects decades ago, and they are further along than OKC, but still have some time to go to reach their goals.

Originally Posted by okcpulse

No, it is not the airlines' fault for light traffic at WRWA. However, the airfares are. OKC is one of the more expensive spoke destinations. Why is that? Also, the airlines chose a hub and spoke system, which ultimately led to companies wanting to locate to hub airport cities due to more direct flights, because that is the purpose of a hub.

When the hub and spoke system for airlines was established after the airline industry was deregulated, Oklahoma City was a much smaller market and was not really feasible for a hub. Fast forward decades later, a growing city struggles with a non-hub airport. But not all is lost. Airlines are working with OKC to offer more direct flights, and several non-stop cities have been added in the last five years, but it is a work in progress. As long as the market and passenger counts at the airport grow, we have a greater chance of more options for flights.

Yes, the airfares are the problem as I've already mentioned: NO COMPETITION!!! More routes would mean more competition, which would mean lower fares. Just price JFK-LHR for some flight next spring and see for yourself. While you're at it, look at how many airlines actually fly between those two airports and how many different flights (even on the same carrier) there actually are. That's a transatlantic flight and has more airlines (and number of flights) serving that route than any route into/out of OKC. You still just don't seem to get the concept of that industry. Those hubs are there for a reason: DEMAND! Of course there are people just connecting in those hubs, but a fair number of locals use their local airport too, as do tourists and business travelers. OKC is just not a tourist destination. The majority of people I've met here have little interest in long-distance travel (which the airlines have likely noticed as well), and there are probably just enough flights for business travelers. Altogether, that is why the airport isn't growing. Like I said about buses earlier, they aren't stuck on a route forever so it's relatively easy to reassign planes from routes and even start up new hubs. St Louis and Las Vegas are good examples. Both were former hubs that have since been decommissioned. After AA took over TWA, it retained St Louis as a hub, but has since dismantled it. Denver is a wonderful opposite example: it's actually developed into a hub for multiple airlines. In sum: the problem is OKC.

[okcpulse]

Originally Posted by dvxhd

Oh you got me with that grid system. No other city in America is largely grid-like. Except Phoenix. And Las Vegas. And San Franciso. And Denver. And Manhattan. And... I could go on. The problem isn't how the city is laid out, it's that there just aren't enough routes. And hey, the beauty of buses is that unlike rail, their routes can be easily changed. It seems to me that it just isn't a priority in this town. OKC is set up in a way that deters public transit development. A lot of cities have taken proactive steps to encourage public transit usage, from higher gas taxes, to fewer parking garages/spaces, to more expensive parking meters and so forth.

Yyy... no. I am not talking about the traditional block grid. I am talking about the one mile grid along which major arterials are placed. There are only a handful of cities that are built up along the one mile grid. Those are (other than OKC) Tulsa, Wichita, Phoenix, Chicago and Denver... to an extent. Phoenix, Chicago and Denver are all larger markets, and are naturally going to have greater demand for public transit. And, like I have said before, it IS a priority for which OKC is developing a plan and until that plan is finalized, nothing can be implemented. This isn't Sim City. You can't just easily change routes or increase routes and bing! Problem solved! No, more buses need to be purchased and ridership needs to be increased. Cities alone cannot implement higher gas taxes. Fewer parking garages are not going to solve the problem. More expensive parking meters might.

Originally Posted by dvxhd

And how "successful" has OKC been in developing downtown? When I was looking for apartments I came across outrageous prices without the convenience of that sort of living. It seems people live there as a social status, but it's barely livable. You may be able to walk to work, but you will be limited in entertainment and will have no access to basic services, including grocers and health care. I lived in a high density area when in Asia, and I could walk to get groceries, to see the doctor (including specialists), to a large number of bars and restaurants, to the movie theater, to the park, to the subway and bus routes, to work, to a gym, to the barber... the list goes on! I would gladly pay downtown OKC prices if I had that sort of convenience. Whatever you want to believe, that part of town will take a very long time to come of age. The whole country is littered with cities that started renaissance projects decades ago, and they are further along than OKC, but still have some time to go to reach their goals.

Well, how successful? Last time I checked, over 1,000 units are under construction or are in the planning stages and 400 more are proposed. Developers did aim toward a higher end market, and are taking a second approach at building more affordable rental units. Most are under construction or are going in Deep Deuce. The conveniences you noted cannot exist on a local level until there are enough rooftops. The market will respond to demand.

Originally Posted by dvxhd

Yes, the airfares are the problem as I've already mentioned: NO COMPETITION!!! More routes would mean more competition, which would mean lower fares. Just price JFK-LHR for some flight next spring and see for yourself. While you're at it, look at how many airlines actually fly between those two airports and how many different flights (even on the same carrier) there actually are. That's a transatlantic flight and has more airlines (and number of flights) serving that route than any route into/out of OKC. You still just don't seem to get the concept of that industry. Those hubs are there for a reason: DEMAND! Of course there are people just connecting in those hubs, but a fair number of locals use their local airport too, as do tourists and business travelers. OKC is just not a tourist destination. The majority of people I've met here have little interest in long-distance travel (which the airlines have likely noticed as well), and there are probably just enough flights for business travelers. Altogether, that is why the airport isn't growing. Like I said about buses earlier, they aren't stuck on a route forever so it's relatively easy to reassign planes from routes and even start up new hubs. St Louis and Las Vegas are good examples. Both were former hubs that have since been decommissioned. After AA took over TWA, it retained St Louis as a hub, but has since dismantled it. Denver is a wonderful opposite example: it's actually developed into a hub for multiple airlines. In sum: the problem is OKC.

The Oklahoma City Airport Trust has been pushing for YEARS for more routes, but it is up to the airlines to grant those routes. OKC has to show the airlines the numbers to convince them that a route is feasible. Again, you are comparing larger markets with more heavily populated regional trade areas to Oklahoma City. Denver was already a hub before building the new Denver International Airport and serves a trade area of almost 4 million people, not to mention it is a larger market for business. Hence the demand is there for more routes to more cities. It is much easier to establish that type of hub since the demand is there.

FYI, each hub that has been decommissioned has seen a substantial drop in passenger traffic. The most recent victim is Memphis. You say the majority of people you met in OKC have little interest in long distance traffic. That still doesn't represent the market as a whole, when most people I know in OKC travel long distance on a regular basis. Some drive clear to Dallas to catch a nonstop flight. You are pitting OKC against larger markets. JFK-LHR? Denver? St. Louis? You are setting OKC up for failure. The old terminal was completely demolished for a new terminal that can be easily expanded. That did help in attracting more flights, but the work isn't done. Passenger traffic has increased since 2009.

And if Memphis, a larger tourist market than OKC, is up against tough odds for losing hub status, then you can see that OKC's push for more flights for our market is going to be a difficult job.

Delta to Drop Money-Losing Memphis as Hub as It Cuts Flights - Bloomberg

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by okcpulse

Yyy... no. I am not talking about the traditional block grid. I am talking about the one mile grid along which major arterials are placed. There are only a handful of cities that are built up along the one mile grid. Those are (other than OKC) Tulsa, Wichita, Phoenix, Chicago and Denver... to an extent. Phoenix, Chicago and Denver are all larger markets, and are naturally going to have greater demand for public transit. And, like I have said before, it IS a priority for which OKC is developing a plan and until that plan is finalized, nothing can be implemented. This isn't Sim City. You can't just easily change routes or increase routes and bing! Problem solved! No, more buses need to be purchased and ridership needs to be increased. Cities alone cannot implement higher gas taxes. Fewer parking garages are not going to solve the problem. More expensive parking meters might.

Exactly... so why does OKC keep trying to jump the gun and put in things it can't sustain? I saw they want a bigger convention center, but there isn't enough hotel space in the proximity and the airfares are too high. Cities can't implement those taxes, but the state can. Someone in Blythe, CA pays more in gas taxes to fund transit in LA, someone in Sedona, AZ pays more in gas taxes to fund Phoenix transit. The problem is that Okies won't support that. In general, bus routes in grid cities travel along a single street, and then you get off and transfer to another to get where you need to go. You can't really bring up that larger vs. smaller market argument either, when OKC wants to build a useless streetcar to nowhere. A shuttle service would be more practical, but the city wants to build something that won't have significant ridership most of the year. That's exactly my complaint about taxes here: I'm not reaping benefits of my tax dollars. Commuter rail from suburbs to downtown would be far more practical, as would a light rail connecting residential areas to downtown. However, the city just wants something that loops around the downtown area. That is a waste of spending.

Originally Posted by okcpulse

Well, how successful? Last time I checked, over 1,000 units are under construction or are in the planning stages and 400 more are proposed. Developers did aim toward a higher end market, and are taking a second approach at building more affordable rental units. Most are under construction or are going in Deep Deuce. The conveniences you noted cannot exist on a local level until there are enough rooftops. The market will respond to demand.

The conveniences I mentioned also have to do with the market (citywide and localized). There's a very useful marketing tool that breaks down what kind of people live in an area, and it appears the people moving downtown aren't known for affluence. People who have told me they live downtown talk about it as if they're bragging, then get upset when it doesn't impress me. If I lived there, I would be throwing away money on rent just to say I live downtown, and would have less money to spend on entertainment, or more aptly in my case to save for my move. Some of these other conveniences people want (Trader Joe's being a notable example) won't open up here because of backwoods laws in place and/or lack of density.

Originally Posted by okcpulse

The Oklahoma City Airport Trust has been pushing for YEARS for more routes, but it is up to the airlines to grant those routes. OKC has to show the airlines the numbers to convince them that a route is feasible. Again, you are comparing larger markets with more heavily populated regional trade areas to Oklahoma City. Denver was already a hub before building the new Denver International Airport and serves a trade area of almost 4 million people, not to mention it is a larger market for business. Hence the demand is there for more routes to more cities. It is much easier to establish that type of hub since the demand is there.

FYI, each hub that has been decommissioned has seen a substantial drop in passenger traffic. The most recent victim is Memphis. You say the majority of people you met in OKC have little interest in long distance traffic. That still doesn't represent the market as a whole, when most people I know in OKC travel long distance on a regular basis. Some drive clear to Dallas to catch a nonstop flight. You are pitting OKC against larger markets. JFK-LHR? Denver? St. Louis? You are setting OKC up for failure. The old terminal was completely demolished for a new terminal that can be easily expanded. That did help in attracting more flights, but the work isn't done. Passenger traffic has increased since 2009.

And if Memphis, a larger tourist market than OKC, is up against tough odds for losing hub status, then you can see that OKC's push for more flights for our market is going to be a difficult job.

Delta to Drop Money-Losing Memphis as Hub as It Cuts Flights - Bloomberg

The trust can push all it wants. Airlines won't expand service until there's a demand for it. New Orleans is comparably sized to OKC, but it's busier. That's because tourists are going there. Salt Lake City is comparably sized too, and would you look at that: busier airport. That bold part is just you echoing what I've been saying: there is no demand for more routes. You can also drop the hub fixation too, as there are cities that aren't hubs that have more competition on routes, mostly because airlines will operate special routes into/out of those cities because of high demand. New York, Las Vegas and LA are good examples, as airlines that don't treat them as hubs still have special routes they created between non-hub cities. And regarding the drop in passenger traffic... it seems that between OKC and PHX alone, at its height Southwest operated four flights per day and AmericaWest/US Airways served the route too. Long prior to the US/AA merger, that route was dropped and Southwest cut service to two flights each way per day. Now why would airlines do that?

I'm not setting OKC up for failure, it's just reality that the airport isn't going to improve dramatically in the near future and the problem is with the city. Knowing people who do travel is anecdotal, because I can say at my office only one coworker in my area has left the country and the rest seem to have no interest in doing so. Most are actually content going camping/to the lake or to Texas. By and large, people I've met in OKC seem to prefer to stay close while on vacation. You can theorize all you want, but the airport's progress is hindered by the people and the city itself.