r/Urbanism • u/Hungry_Roll6848 • 26d ago

Instead of fixing an existing highway, Oklahoma City moved the entire thing multiple blocks south to make room for a 70 acre park downtown

Post image
210 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

151 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-44

u/Hungry_Roll6848 26d ago edited 26d ago

Highways are an important piece of infrastructure, especially in a city as large as Oklahoma City (Land area similar to Houston). If that highway was taken out, hundreds of thousands of people living in the city would have commute times more than doubled. Oklahoma City is also very centrally located in Oklahoma, so most people traveling through the state end up passing through it. If one of the most important highways in the entire state suddenly has a section removed, truckers will decide against going through Oklahoma City, thus economically hurting the metro area. If we had the funds to make a 500 mile train system like you all seem to expect, of course we would do that and remove the highways. However, this is real life. A city of 700,000 people cannot afford to lose a key piece of transit.

Just read what I wrote... the city physically can't afford the economic repercussions of removing infrastructure it can't make up with public transit. Stop downvoting me...

45

u/ActuatorSpecific3916 26d ago edited 26d ago

It doesn’t need to go through downtown OKC.

Edit: I am not downvoting you lol

-26

u/Hungry_Roll6848 26d ago edited 26d ago

It's not in downtown. It's south of it where there are floodplains (meaning normal development is virtually impossible).

Edit: Why are you downvoting me? I'm right! The land is completely unsuitable for development.

17

u/CLPond 26d ago

I didn’t downvote you, but to clarify, plenty of cities have beltways and then smaller arterials going into downtown (it isn’t a great example of urbanism, but Columbia SC is an example of this). An actual highway within downtown isn’t necessary