So just a quick update to this and what I’ve found.
Since being VERY vocal about these projects I’ve received two death threats and probably had dozens if not many more people block me. The two groups I know of kicked me out or told me not to post again unless I had something to support their cause. I’ve been talking to one of the people on Facebook messenger, Micheal Nash who has made questionable claims but I’m engaging and arguing in good faith. I’ve even made a couple devils advocate arguments for him.
I’ve tried contacting KFOR. The news desk lady has transferred me to the news director twice. First last week he didn’t return my call. Tried again today and it was a busy tone. I’ll try again tomorrow.
Micheal Nash and others have made claims like over 600 homes destroyed, no environmental studies being done, anger over no long term planning, and the lack of evidence to show these roads are needed. All of these points are either malarkey, knee jerking fear mongering, or borderline untruthful and I’ll explain why based on what I’ve discovered.
1, regarding the 600+ homes issue. My guess is they took the map showing the potential routes and looked at all the homes inside the shaded area. I don’t have my computer with me at the moment just my mobile phone and I’m not going to count every property in the shaded area, but it isn’t hard to see that you could probably come up with a couple hundred properties, commercial and residential, for the 3 new proposed turnpikes in the south metro. I wouldn’t be surprised if they went over every building that was in the shaded area in the entire plan and came up with the 600 number as I could believe that.
For the sake of argument let’s say there are 600 homes in the shaded areas for the south OKC turnpikes, the final proposed ROW will be anywhere from 300-600 feet at the most and what’s shown is a 1500 foot wide corridor where final alignments will be chosen. So there’s no real way to tell how many homes and buildings will be needed. It wouldn’t entirely be bad to say a few hundred properties may be needed but throw 600 number out there and not even add a disclaimer that it likely won’t be near this much or these numbers are going to be refined is bad reporting. KFOR and NewsOk are the main culprits. Steve plays the part of being pro urbanist and anti car yet lives in the far flung suburbs and drives everywhere.
2 They are doing environmental studies and will get more into that once final alignments are chosen. How do I know? I’ve been talking to the program director for these projects. I must be special right! Haha I wish. The number to call is on the website. Collin is a very nice guy and will call you back pretty quickly. He even remembered me when I sent an e-mail awhile back suggesting sand filters to mitigate pollution concerns and they’re going to consider things like wildlife over and under crossings. So the “they aren’t doing environmental impact statements” is a bunch of bull.
3. They are doing long term planning. They’ve tried to do long term planning. Now this is where some of the more experienced members on this board might want to chime in and lend me a hand as I’ll be attending meetings and attempting to meet or send documents to the news director at KFOR. From what i understand these alignments were in fact studied by Norman itself along with ACOG and ODOT until citizens in Norman started complaining and the city pulled out. ACOG AND ODOT kept moving forward until ultimately pulling the plug did identify the need for a loop running along northern Norman and southeast. I haven’t been able to find a map but any additional information or corrections would be appreciated.
There’s also a congressional lawmaker around the north east part of Edmond who is trying to get a bill passed to open up a future expansion north continuing the Kickapoo to around Guthrie. This of course is being weaponized by the oppositions off the south turnpike groups trying to scare and rile people up that way to gain more support I guess. Well, even the author of the bill said it won’t happen for 15+ plus years until this current plan is completed and it contradicts the oppositions complaints of them not having warning due to no long term planning. Rhetorical question obviously but why oppose a long term planning bill then?
4. The lack of evidence to show they are needed. I do agree the OTA should do more to make the case but I believe they have and given the growth in the metro it is important to plan for these corridors so they don’t become gridlocked surface arterials. I also think these are studies that will be had once more information comes out and the opposition is jumping the gun on purpose just try and get this shut down. They don’t want to see the proof that these are needed because that’s one more hole in their argument.
PS, my debates with Micheal Nash have been civil and he’s been a nice guy to talk to even though he opposes these roads. I think it’s a tad hypocritical of him telling me this
You shall always do as you're told ... No questions asked. I'll keep that in mind
In private message when I’ve been either kicked out of his group or told not to post unless it’s pro anti access Oklahoma. I say it’s one or the other because one group kicked me out and the other asked me not to post.
Anyways sorry for the long post. I’m passionate about the development of Oklahoma and I want to see these roads built. I can understand some points against it but all things considered I support them. I like to have an open mind so I’m always open for discussion. Those opposing this don’t seem to want that.
PPS, sorry for any typos or confusing wording. I’m tired as hell but I’ve been meaning to post this. Any confusion or sources needed to be cited just ask and I’ll fix it.
Author
Topic: ACCESS Oklahoma (Read 44788 times)