Obviously, this writer for the Oklahoman has no clue. Sure, we don't need a subway, but we do need to improve public transportation in OKC. A rail line like DART would help traffic congestion in many areas.
--------------------

City urged to build subway for public transportation

By Don Gammill
The Oklahoman

We've all had those moments when the mouth speaks before the mind engages. It's like pressing the accelerator before putting the gearshift in drive. Lots of noise, no movement.

For instance ...

The caller, whose voice sounded as though it belonged to an elderly gentleman, asked: "Why don't we have subways in Oklahoma?"

Without a real thought, I answered: "I guess they're afraid that if they dug the tunnels, they'd strike oil or gas."

I was bad. He was serious.

"We need public transportation," he said.

I noted that we have buses and trolleys.

"Yeah," he said. "But they still have to get through traffic."

After one more quick comment, he hung up before I even could ask his name. However, he did say he read this column. I hope so. I'd like him to call back and give me a second chance.

This isn't New York or Washington, D.C. This is Oklahoma. We don't need subways. Only a handful of our cities -- OK, fewer than that -- are big enough for buses. None are big enough for an underground train.

I rode the subway system a few years ago in Washington. However, the trips were of some distance. I can't see spending all those millions to build a system that's going to take me, say, from the Ford Center to the State Fair Park. It wouldn't even get up to speed.
Plus, we don't have as many people. Although Oklahoma City and Tulsa are spread out over many miles, consider the number of people and vehicles, as compared with those other locations.

Public transit is showing a marked increase in ridership nation- and worldwide, particularly where gasoline prices are at record levels. Factors in its favor: a decrease in fuel consumption, as well as no need for new related taxes, government mandates or regulations.

Oklahoma's two largest cities -- Oklahoma City and Tulsa -- both showed marked increases last year in ridership on buses. The American Public Transportation Association says this leads to expanded routes and improved passenger service.
However, other benefits can be pointed out, and not only for the metropolitan areas. Smaller cities and towns have trolleys that allow leisurely travel and nice views of historic downtowns or other sites.

All that without digging that tunnel in hard red clay.
If you want to ride the subway, visit those big cities. If you want to see the sites, ride the bus, the trolley or just drive your own vehicle.

And, of course, there's always carpooling ...
.
By the way ...

National Work Zone Awareness Week ended Sunday, but that's no reason to forget those men and women whose lives are endangered by drivers as they construct or repair our streets and highways.

Ten people were killed last year in Oklahoma work zones -- nine motorists and one Oklahoma Department of Transportation worker. In all, 613 people were injured in 1,068 collisions.

State officials say work zone collisions have increased 26 percent since 2003.
You can help reduce those statistics by keeping a proper distance between your vehicle and the one ahead, traveling at a safe speed and paying attention. Enjoy your week and drive safely.

You are absolutely right, Patrick. Gammill seemed to suggest it was subway or noway for other forms of public transportation. Light rail should have been mentioned. In fact, light rail is something we need to think seriously about NOW, so we can actually have it 15 years from now. It's back to that "resting on our laurels" thing I worry about. I know I have asked this several times, but seriously, what is happening now that wasn't envisioned, and on the drawing boards, a decade (or more) ago? I can't think of a single visionary thing. Not one.

On another note about mass transportation......I remember as a little boy of five or six, all the talk in town was of a monorail system for Oklahoma City. The brand spankin' new one at the fairgrounds was a "prototype." Yep. We're still talking about public transit! Some things never change.

We need a decent grid of light rail way before 15 years is over.

Too many good ol' boys in the system 'derail' the talks in their infancy...

I'm not trying to say we need a system as complex as New York's, or as ambitious as DART, but a nice start up line from Norman to Moore to OKC and back might be a nice goal for the next 5-10 years. As gas prices rise, this makes more and more sense.

Unfortunately, I think we'll get a new turnpike before we get any form of mass transit. :mad:

Yay for more turnpikes!
(haha, that was my sarcastic voice)

I've been on subways all over the country, as well as bus systems, heck, now that I think about it, the best light rail system IMO, is BART (San Francisco/San Jose).

Wasn't OKC one of the largest cities in the country area wise a few years ago? And this guy is suggesting we DRIVE more??
This is one thing I absolutely despise about this state, the fact that people ARE NOT OPEN TO CHANGE. Why isn't the ball on the table?

As John said:
Too many good ol' boys in the system 'derail' the talks in their infancy...
These same good 'ole boys are the ones that voted out the lottery and tattoos, and kept cockfighting (until we got national attention)! They are a dying breed, yes they are, and let's teach our children well!

We need to participate, with the rest of the world, in our global future.
"just drive your own vehicle" should not be in the top 3 options for this large of a city. The bus system here in town is poorly planned and takes way too long to get somewhere. I've used it before, and I had to plan ahead 3 hours to get to the capital from North Western Ave! Maybe it's changed a little since then, but the routes are too long regardless. I have friends in large cities that rely on buses and subways and only have to leave work an hour early, could you imagine? Apparently that's all we can do, is imagine it.

What can I do to help change this pattern of thought?

(Oh, and can we get a smiley that shoots itself in the head, that would describe the way I feel about this)

Before light rail or similar is considered, the city *must* enact some sort of sprawl limitations.

The urban sprawl in OKC is absurd and without achieving a decent population density, a major investment in public transit can't be justified.

BART (San Francisco/San Jose)

If only it actually went to San Jose. I remeber hearing that every county in the Bay Area voted for it, except Marin and San Mateo, effectively relegating it to an East Bay to the City system. At least it now goes to the airport.


without achieving a decent population density, a major investment in public transit can't be justified.

I agree. Few rail systems are door to door service, even in our biggest cities. They're usually about connecting denser districts. You ride it to a part of town and walk to your destination. You hear complaint after complaint that you can't always park right at your destination, even in downtown! Well, no commuter line or light rail system is going to stop at every building and every storefront. Of course, it could be supplemented with our trolleys, but even then they'd have to route those things for function more than the sight seeing routes they follow right now.

The flip side is that density often follows public transit, but overall I agree that we don't seem to even have critical number of dense districts to start with. As of now, I think a park and ride system could be justified that connects Edmond, Norman, downtown, and the airport.

But what we should do is spend the money to plan a system and see if some density builds up in anticipation of a system. One day, it will be a neccesity. When that will be, I can't say, but it would be nice that when we need to have it to function, the city is developed in a way that makes it the most effecient. You're right, Sprawl is a problem and needs to be controlled now if it is ever going to work.

the city *must* enact some sort of sprawl limitations.


Could someone explain what this term means? Does it mean that the government starts prohibiting people from living, or starting residential neighborhoods, in certain areas until a "downtown" (or some critical population mass) has been achieved? The term "urban sprawl" is inherently crafted to engender a negative response, so perhaps my interpretation is incorrect. Help me understand what is meant by "sprawl limitation."

If the intent is to have government planners prohibit private devlopment of suburban communities *solely* for the purpose of achieving a specified "central" population density in a particular region, then that's the kind of "limitation" I really don't think the government needs to be involved in.

-SoonerDave

I'm still wondering if a light-rail system would work. I think i've heard about a study done by okc metro that looked into this.

One thing you have to understand is that even with our technology today it's still hard to solve the congestion problems of many cities. L.A. for example has been known for widening avenues and they would become congested once again is 5 years more-or-less. For OKC to get a light-rail system in the no-so-distant future (10-15 years) would let us be more than prepared for the issues of city traffic. It would be nice for one day that I could use the light rail to access Bricktown. Without having to pay for parking or even look for parking. It would also be cool if they wanted to make a signiture station by making it go undergrowd for just one subway station in Downtown OKC also. Just imagine the property values that would go up near the stations in the city.

"Sprawl Limitation"
I am not sure if it was Portland, Oregon or Seattle, Washington , but one of the metro areas started to limit the growth of the suburbs since they took up so much space and resource use. I think "sprawl limitation" is just that.

I think we need to start with a downtown circular.

Once it is successful and we get tons of companies downtown, then we could start the N-S lightrail or commuter rail lines (Edmond, Norman to downtown) - as this would justify due to the increased downtown daytime population.

But the downtown circular would alleviate the "parking woes" and provide a nice civic infrastructure to give the city one more piece of the "big city" pie.

In fact, the downtown circular was part of the METRO plan and it was first to be implemented. While I dont agree with their construction plan (I think the whole circular route should be constructed, not split into four phases - that's stupid!!!), I was glad to see it was mentioned FIRST.

The downtown circular would use low floor light rail vehicles (See Portland Streetcar) which typically serve shorter/denser routes in the inner city. I'd like to see a circular that starts up near OCU heads over to Asia District down Classen to the St. Anthony/Midtown area, over to the Memorial, down through the CBD, over to the Civic Centre, down to the Stage Centre complex, to Reno, head EAST into Bricktown, turn on Walnut up through DDuece, then head toward the OK Health Centre then up to the Capitol (then if they wanted, they could send it West from the Capitol to connect at Asia District).

It would not have to be a CIRCLE to be a circular, it could be spurs - but the key is it would provide mass transit options for the inner city and downtown. I say build the entire alignment first, then build another spur - say from the CBD go North on Broadway a bit to cover AAlley and South to cover Dowtown South and the Riverside (maybe Capital Hill), then maybe another spur to go SW to into Stockyard City.

With those routes, we would cover all of the inner city attractions and districts central to downtown AND it would be a trolley circular that would draw everyone into downtown for work, for play, for life!!

THEN --- (or at least after the first circular line) we could talk about Commuter Rail or "heavy" light rail (raised floor) from downtown to Edmond, Norman, and the airport. Heavy Commuter Rail would use the Union Station while heavy light rail would use the downtown transportation centre (just different tracks than the circular) just like in Downtown Portland [although they have NO centre but they use different tracks].

That Oklahoman reporter should be chastised, because we need to start a transit system here. Perhaps not necessarily a subway (although lots of cities have a subway under their downtown that emerges as street rail/bus, why couldnt OKC??).

Oh, another thing!!!

We dont have to have density to justify a transit system. Have you all ever heard of TOD?? (Transit Oriented Development). What this is - is usually a once rural, blighted, or recently gentrified area where a transit system was introduced whose NODE or station caused development surrounding it. Such TODs produce their own density - and is something that could work in OKC. Build such a system through not the most dense existing area (hey reduces the costs anyways) but one which connects the city's attractions. Then have developers come in and build TODs at the station nodes, which in themselves - provides the density and primary users of the system!!!

See Vancouver, BC SkyTrain for exceptional TODs; but it wouldnt have to be an ARLM (automated rapid light metro) system or a Heavy Metro like DC/NYC/Chicago to have TODs. High floor (Heavy) light-rail could also crate TODs. Dont believe me, see Portland's new North RED line. (creating TOD in a recently gentrified neighbourhood in N. Portland - to the Greyhound dog track).

We could do it!! We just need vision and the message!

--- okcitian, it was Portland that limited sprawal and introduced light rail and TODs!!! (Seattle is sprawal city, dont even have mass transit [although a line from downtown SEA to the airport if finally u/c here])!!!

Help me understand what is meant by "sprawl limitation."

It means that city planners don't just rubber stamp every housing development and strip center that comes across their desk.

It also means you don't continue to build freeways in the middle of cow pastures.

And there are usually tax incentives for developing and buying in certain areas of town.


If you really want to learn more about smart growth and city planning, read The Death and Life of Great American Cities and Suburban Nation.

Sounds like all of you should write the author of the above stated article.

I'd love to see some sort of light rail connect downtown to the capitol complex and the zoo area but it would really just be for tourists and maybe a handful of locals that want a fun day out.

To really justify the millions (if not billions) for substantial mass transit you have to have a great deal of pent-up demand of commuters and I don't see that as even close to being the case in OKC right now.

First of all, you can get anywhere in the Metro much faster in a car -- there is virtually no traffic at all, at least not by most city's standards.

Secondly, everyone there already owns a car apart from the small group of people that ride the busses, which are hardly packed. In fact, I would bet ridership in OKC is very low compared to any city that implemented a rail system.


I just don't see where the ridership would come from that would begin to justify the expense.

But as stated, if there was an effort around linking a few of the key areas of town for tourism, then you just write off the expense and hope you make some if it back through tourists spending their money around town.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was a little irked by that article. I thought it was very short-sighted and a tad arrogant.

If the intent is to have government planners prohibit private devlopment of suburban communities *solely* for the purpose of achieving a specified "central" population density in a particular region, then that's the kind of "limitation" I really don't think the government needs to be involved in.

Actually, your argument works for sprawl limitation. Current policy is for government to spend money and resources for infrastructure *solely* for the purpose of aiding private development. We pay higher taxes to support the building and maintenance of an expanded infrastructure to accommodate sprawling development. We could use that money to better maintain and update existing infrastructure to encourage developers to use the resources already available to them, resulting in a much more dense and well maintained city overall, while cutting back on spending for the building and maintenance of uneeded infrastructure. If they want the city to sprawl, let the developers build the infrastructure.

Sprawl is simply building new developments at the expense of the old developments and added infrastructure to support it.

Sprawl = Waste, both public and private.

The new home building in OKC (and the retail that follows it) has been far out of proportion of the population growth.

Basically, people are leaving one area of the Metro for another. By far the biggest example of this is the shift from NW OKC to the Quail Springs / Edmond area. I went to Putnam City and we just had a 25-year class reunion and the huge majority of people that still lived in the area had moved to Edmond.

Now, the PC school district is suffering like the OKC district started to hurt in the 60's. And already people are starting to choose Deer Creek schools over Edmond as they are seen as better and much of the population is living in new, more expensive housing.

It's an endless cycle where cities rot in concentric circles from it's core. And without traffic or geographic limitations, OKC will continue to sprawl out into the pastures for no real reason, other than most people want a brand new house and are chasing the school district de jour.

And the new development is largely ugly and soulless and tends to isolate people from on another, which completely defeats the purpose of a community in the first place.


There are dozens of ways in which sprawl kills the soul of the city and those that can't merely afford to move out to an Edmond McMansion pay the biggest price, and the gaps and separation between haves and haves not becomes wider by the day.

There are so many things wrong with the idea of a mass transit system in central Oklahoma....I just don't know where to start.

You will never reorient the travel habits of Oklahoma commuters because they won't trade the convenience of personal transportation door-to-door to and from their workplace. That city infrastructure is in place right now. I drive *maybe* 16 minutes from my home to my office, and I have no interest in trading that for any mass transit system. OKC is one of the most navigable cities anywhere for a car; heavens, I can get from SW 104th and May on the north side of Cleveland County to Memorial Road on the north side of Oklahoma County in less than 30 minutes! Tell me why I'd want to trade that for a train or subway?

Someone might counter that the point is to focus development in a more urban area, but that's a chicken-and-egg argument that's already been decided; the core OKC population is already suburban. If that weren't already the case, we wouldn't have to rely on sports and special events to *get* people downtown.

If you want to create some sort of transit system, the best I think you'll be able to sell is a souped up version of the trolley system we have downtown, because I think the thrust of this discussion is focused on how changes downtown would make a transit system more useful.

Lastly, even if you were to drum up conceptual support for a huge mass transit system, the first time you explain the cost and then put the taxes to pay for it up to a vote of the people, it will be crushed. One need only look at the Heartland Flyer, which is a money-sucking loser of epic proportions, to realize the demand for transit just isn't there. To suggest we "build it and they will come" is something someone *else's* tax dollars - not mine - are welcome to gamble on...

-SoonerDave

I think I'm falling in love with Hot Rod!
*sigh* Alas, I am married.

I love the idea of a circular, and it makes perfect sense! I know my husband would commute to the downtown area if he could in a heartbeat. And we would take advantage of going to Bricktown without the parking hassels. I honestly hate parking down there, but that's just me. Could you imagine how the Drunk Driver rate would go down? I seriously think a decent form of public transportation would help that area. I mean, as it is, we go downtown or to bricktown to get drunk and eat. Sad but true.


L.A. for example has been known for widening avenues and they would become congested once again in 5 years more-or-less.
L.A. has one of the cleanest subway systems in the country, you wouldn't know it though, because nobody utilizes it! :(

I'm really not sure about a light-rail system, or even a subway system here, but something would be nice. Even if Metro decided to change their hours, or have sub-stations for car-pooling.
I mean, we don't even have HOV lanes here, we're so far behind.
:Smiley236

It's an endless cycle where cities rot in concentric circles from it's core. And without traffic or geographic limitations, OKC will continue to sprawl out into the pastures for no real reason, other than most people want a brand new house and are chasing the school district de jour.

Why are those not 'real' reasons? If someone opts, based on their own values, to increase their own personal standard of living to a nicer home, and/or in pursuit of a better school district for their children, who is anyone to say that reason isn't 'real' or valid?


And the new development is largely ugly and soulless and tends to isolate people from on another, which completely defeats the purpose of a community in the first place.

No offense, but this is an opinion. You may think its ugly, maybe even I do, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe I think downtown cores are ugly. Does that make it right? Of course not. But neither opinion makes a sound basis for public policy.


There are dozens of ways in which sprawl kills the soul of the city and those that can't merely afford to move out to an Edmond McMansion pay the biggest price, and the gaps and separation between haves and haves not becomes wider by the day.


Good grief, its a class warfare issue, haves versus have-nots? We should control urban sprawl to make sure we limit the opportunities for those who *do* have the means to improve their standard of living because not *everyone* can do so at the same time? Sorry, but I just can't buy into that concept.

I know, I know, this is getting off-topic, so I'll stop for now, but if the best reason we can come up with for stopping "urban sprawl" is to force people back into downtown regions, thereby manufacuring a justification for massive expenditures for unneeded mass transit systems, then in that vein the Oklahoman article was spot-on target.

-SoonerDave

I'm not going to get into an all-out debate on urban sprawl as there have been many full books written on the subject (including the two I mentioned previously) so I'll merely say this: The cities most often rated as "best" and "most livable" have adopted responsible development plans and do a good job of creating real community rather than a endless series of anonymous tract home developments and Wal-Marts.


And no, I'm not trying to turn anything into class warfare, just concerned about what's best for communities overall, including those with means.

Well, as I've tried to research "community development" as it relates to "urban sprawl," I find most roads lead back to some environmentalist tripe about "sustainable" communities. And that almost inevitably leads to the same psudeo-religious mantra about taking away our cars and herding people back to the cities. Gimme a break.

The only reason I make this point in a thread that started about the "Oklahoman" being wrong regarding an article about a subway is that it seems all part of the same theme - the suburbs are evil, people who live in the suburbs aren't part of "real" communities, people who drive cars have this (implicitly dumb) "midwestern mindset" that they have to park conveniently; the end-game, ultimately, is that its up to the government to "re-educate" us about what constitutes the "right" way to live. And I find that to be utter, utter nonsense.

If the marketplace can construct an attractive downtown centerpiece to which people gravitate, thus creating the need for improved or alternate transportation mechanisms (be they rail, subway, buses, or hang gliders), that's great. But creating them under the pretext of "recreating" a city under the assumption that everyone in suburbia is not living "right" is presumptive condescension in the extreme.

-SoonerDave

I've been on subways all over the country, as well as bus systems, heck, now that I think about it, the best light rail system IMO, is BART (San Francisco/San Jose).
Wasn't OKC one of the largest cities in the country area wise a few years ago? And this guy is suggesting we DRIVE more??
This is one thing I absolutely despise about this state, the fact that people ARE NOT OPEN TO CHANGE. Why isn't the ball on the table?


If you've done any driving in the Bay Area or LA during rush hour, or driven onto Manhattan on a Friday afternoon, then you understand that our traffic situation is vastly different.

If you've ever been stuck in a subway car with a crack addict marching back and forth, just inches away, howling for money, then you can understand why folks like me appreciate private transportation. In other words, it's a pro rather than a con.

It fascinates me that some seem to think that people in places like NYC use public transportation for reasons other than the expense and inconvenience (read "massive traffic jams") of private transportation. Oklahomans will begin to surrender the relative solitude of private transportation for the cattle-cars of public transportation when it takes two hours to drive 15 miles to a parking garage that charges $35 a day.

I'm reminded of the recent post in which the author pointed out the apparent desire of some on the boards to re-create other metropolitan areas here.



As John said:
These same good 'ole boys are the ones that voted out the lottery and tattoos, and kept cockfighting (until we got national attention)!

We need to participate, with the rest of the world, in our global future.


Right: lotteries + tatoos + lightrail - cockfighting = global future. Well said.

I'm not trying to say we need a system as complex as New York's, or as ambitious as DART, but a nice start up line from Norman to Moore to OKC and back might be a nice goal for the next 5-10 years. As gas prices rise, this makes more and more sense.

I agree, that is a good idea. However, we must avoid forcing the creation of such a thing in the abscence of a clearly indicated public desire. The need must be unambigious, and it must have broad public support.

When thinking about this issue I'm reminded of the car-pool lane albatross. Several years ago I spent a few months in training in the lower Bay Area. The training facility was in Sunnyvale/San Jose but I wanted to stay at the "W" in the lower east Bay. The hotel was great, but the commute was horrific. One of the more infuriating aspects of the drive was the almost complete emptiness of a carpool lane next to four lanes of bumper-to-bunper traffic, mile after mile. The carpool lane was a joke, an idea that sounded good to some policy-making tree-hugger, but which had virtually no resonance with the actual people doing the driving.

I hope that we can be more practical in our state.

Before light rail or similar is considered, the city *must* enact some sort of sprawl limitations.

The urban sprawl in OKC is absurd and without achieving a decent population density, a major investment in public transit can't be justified.

I believe that most here feel that urban living has value. However, I think that it's safe to say that the vast majority of Oklahomans want the absolute opposite. You define the result of their impulse as 'sprawl' which, of course, casts an unflattering light upon it. I submit that it's merely the triumph of the suburban influence over the urban, solitude and space over 'density'.

As long as people in the metro can build 3000' of house on an acre or two of land for $90-100/ft then the suburbs will triumph.

Policies designed to curb the suburban impulse will fail, and rightly so. People should be free to live where they choose: in a condo next to the Harkin or, in my case, on an acre in the 'burbs'.

I sometimes sense that folks on the Board would be willing to use politics to coerce their fellow citizens into compliance with policies advantageous to urbanites at the expense of suburbanites. I'm not sure just how much such an urge differs from the oft-complained of 'good-old boys' combating the lottery, tatoos, casino-gambling, parimutuel horse racing, etc.

One day I must read "The Magnificent Ambersons" by Booth Tarkington. Many years ago I saw Welles's film version of it: it was excellent. As I recall, one of it's themes was the change wrought by the advent of the automobile. Often, old cities centers were constructed in the days when it was neccesary to live within walking distance, or horse/carriage ride, to one's work. "Density" was neccesary. The automobile freed people from the confines of the city. People left the old city to follow their dream of a house with a yard, suburbia. That process is still at work.

After reading posts here for a year (off and on) I've come to perceive a distinct desire to put the genie back in the bottle. Legislation designed to combat what you call 'urban sprawl' is a perfect example of that desire. People left the city for a reason, and they keep leaving for the same reasons. Artificial means of preventing, or at least subverting, their impulse, are wrong, no matter how unappealing their impulse is to you and to others here.

If you've done any driving in the Bay Area or LA during rush hour, or driven onto Manhattan on a Friday afternoon, then you understand that our traffic situation is vastly different.

I completely understand that our situation is vastly different. And I don't necessarily think a Subway system is the answer here. I was merely giving my opinion on what I've noticed elsewhere.



If you've ever been stuck in a subway car with a crack addict marching back and forth, just inches away, howling for money, then you can understand why folks like me appreciate private transportation. In other words, it's a pro rather than a con.

Right, then where do you fit in on this discussion for *Public* transportation? I have had crack addicts inches away from me on OKC city busses. I hate to tell you, but there are crack addicts in any part of OKC. I thought the entire focus of this conversation involved our opinions regarding an article written in the Oklahoman. If you want to drive your car, or wait forever for a taxi, go ahead.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Subvertia
As John said:
These same good 'ole boys are the ones that voted out the lottery and tattoos, and kept cockfighting (until we got national attention)!

We need to participate, with the rest of the world, in our global future.

Right: lotteries + tatoos + lightrail - cockfighting = global future. Well said.


I think you've grossly misinterpreted me. And I don't appreciate your sarcasm. I was merely pointing out the fact that we are so far behind the times with the rest of the country regarding legalization of tattoos, the lottery, and the simple fact that cockfighting was legal until way too recently.

Excuse me for wanting change and cultural advancement for my hometown. As far as the lightrail is concerned, that wasn't me. I never said that's what I wanted. I did say that I would like Oklahoma City to look into alternate methods of public transportaion and that I would prefer for OKC to take responsibility as far as pollution, hence, taking part in our global future.

Awesome, awesome post, Malibu. :congrats:

I agree with HFK. If one wants to live in a urban setting, more power to them, but as for me, I like having lots of room between my house and the next. Don't fence me in. ;)

As for public transportation, I know that I won't use it if I don't have to. I don't like being limited as to when and where I'm going by a bus or train schedule.

I have a quarter-acre just outside the Loop. I couldn't ask for anything more - at least, not on my budget.