# Civic Matters > Suburban & Other OK Communities > Norman >  could okc metro garner ridership to support lightrail train system?

## decepticobra

not too long ago, i read a story regarding that the greater okc metro area is in the early stages of planning a light rail system that would involve several lines and would be somewhat akin to the current dart rail lines that exist in the dallas metro area. 

while i do feel okc area does have the potential, i also realize that okc is just on the economic rebound from years past that were dubbed as an oil bust. however the revitalization of bricktown and downtown are swinging business back into our favor. 

personally, i would like to see at least ONE light rail line built now, or soon. ...a route that i do believe would garner consistant ridership and could spur the development of other future rail routes/lines for the okc metro. 

the route the okc metro needs most right now is one that would serve from north to south (vice versa). it would basically run from norman and end its terminus in edmond. it would have stops at: ou campus, norman regional hospital, sooner mall, 19th and I-35 area in moore, moore hospital, bricktown, state capitol, penn square mall, ocu, quail springs mall, uco. 

it could include other stops as well, or have stops that deviate from these altogether. this is just my idea of some stops i believe would be beneficial to the line. about 10 or 12 stops somewhere between norman and edmond would be enough stops to pick up enough riders to support the operating costs for the line, but not too many stops to make riding it mundane or tidious. 

what are your views?

----------


## stlokc

This issue has been explored with some depth elsewhere on this site. My own feelings are mixed. The OKC metro area is certainly getting to the population level that other cities have reached when planning their own light rail lines, especially considering it would take a number of years to put it together. I personally would love to see such a system, with a north to south orientation from Edmond to Norman, and a secondary line from the Airport to downtown and on to Midwest City. I know nothing of the details of what has been talked about, although other posters on this site do. 

The problem, of course, is the sprawl and lack of density in OKC, and the relative easy traffic. Unless y

----------


## stlokc

Sorry. Unless you live right near a station, you're going to be driving some distance just to get to the light-rail line to begin with. My bet is lots of people would wind up just going ahead and driving the rest of the way. And lots of Oklahomans love their land. Makes it hard and expensive. That's why we've got to encourage density and clusters of development so that building a line makes economic sense. 

Oklahoma City has below-average salaries. If we wake up in 5 years with a nuclear Iran and a billion more cars in China and the developing world, we may have $8 or $10 gasoline and OKC is going to wish it had another commuting option.

----------


## BBatesokc

As unpopular as my opinion is, IMO it will not pay for itself and we'll all be paying the bill regardless if we ever use it and like the Heartland Flyer it will be devoid of even 50% capacity.

----------


## Snowman

> not too long ago, i read a story regarding that the greater okc metro area is in the early stages of planning a light rail system that would involve several lines and would be somewhat akin to the current dart rail lines that exist in the dallas metro area. 
> 
> while i do feel okc area does have the potential, i also realize that okc is just on the economic rebound from years past that were dubbed as an oil bust. however the revitalization of bricktown and downtown are swinging business back into our favor. 
> 
> personally, i would like to see at least ONE light rail line built now, or soon. ...a route that i do believe would garner consistant ridership and could spur the development of other future rail routes/lines for the okc metro. 
> 
> the route the okc metro needs most right now is one that would serve from north to south (vice versa). it would basically run from norman and end its terminus in edmond. it would have stops at: ou campus, norman regional hospital, sooner mall, 19th and I-35 area in moore, moore hospital, bricktown, state capitol, penn square mall, ocu, quail springs mall, uco. 
> 
> it could include other stops as well, or have stops that deviate from these altogether. this is just my idea of some stops i believe would be beneficial to the line. about 10 or 12 stops somewhere between norman and edmond would be enough stops to pick up enough riders to support the operating costs for the line, but not too many stops to make riding it mundane or tidious. 
> ...


The studies the city has done so far favor Commuter rail for the Edmond, Norman & Tinker routes. Light rail looked more favorable in some zones but none of them were even in the first round that might happen. In any case the experts said the downtown area needs mass transit to distribute people before implementing the regional rail system.

----------


## decepticobra

yeah, i forgot to mention tinker as a possible stop...although looking at the possible stops ive already mentioned, including adding tinker to the mix would make for a lot of meandering from norman to edmond. ...maybe a rail spur to tinker/mwc somewhere along the shopping mecca on 29th street. ...thats all there really is to mwc anymore. 20 years ago 29th street was commercially dead, and the commercial hub of mwc seemed focused on midwest and reno where target and walmart could practically stare each other down competitively on opposite ends of reno. ..today that area is a shopper's graveyard. 

back on track, and by that i mean train tracks...which are some tracks id love to see built connecting norman to edmond, as everyone knows how chaotic the traffic congestion can be on I-35 and I-235 during rush hour, a rail line only makes viable sense to help alleviate these commuter corridors.

----------


## BoulderSooner

OKC to MWC (tinker)   OKC to edmond   okc to Norman    okc to yukon  ... and okc NW (adventure line)    are all part of a multi city funded AA process that is just now starting ...

they would be commuter line  not Light rail ...       

also to bates point ... do you think roads pay for themselves??

----------


## BBatesokc

> OKC to MWC (tinker)   OKC to edmond   okc to Norman    okc to yukon  ... and okc NW (adventure line)    are all part of a multi city funded AA process that is just now starting ...
> 
> they would be commuter line  not Light rail ...       
> 
> also to bates point ... do you think roads pay for themselves??


That's not even comparable.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> That's not even comparable.


i disagree

----------


## BBatesokc

Roads are a necessity - Lightrail is not. And that's just the beginning of the differences that don't make the two comparable.

----------


## HangryHippo

> Roads are a necessity - Lightrail is not. And that's just the beginning of the differences that don't make the two comparable.


That's one.  What are your other reasons that supposedly make these systems incomparable?

----------


## Just the facts

> Roads are a necessity - Lightrail is not. And that's just the beginning of the differences that don't make the two comparable.


If you have good rail system most roads aren't necessary.  Think how much money would be freed up if no one had to own a car.

----------


## BBatesokc

> If you have good rail system most roads aren't necessary.  Think how much money would be freed up if no one had to own a car.


I prefer to concern myself with reality. 

When this city can get a bus system that proves effective as an alternate means of transportation people are willing to forego cars for then you might have my support.

----------


## kevinpate

> ...  Think how much money would be freed up if no one had to own a car.


And suburbia housing additions would all be spooky little ghost towns if folks would just load their bikes and toys and what not on u-hauls and move on into the nearest urban core.

Both possibilities are merely fantasies on the large scale here on a more practical planet, as proven time and time again by the inhabitants.

Not opposed to light rail.  Just can't think of a community I've been to, ever, either on-line or via boots on pebbles, where the total populace could get by sans vehicles.  Though i must admit, I do sort of like a vision of a small island, a big ol lotto win keeping the lights on and flipping a coin to decide if I'm gonna stroll to the other side or kayak around to the other side.

----------


## rcjunkie

> If you have good rail system most roads aren't necessary.  Think how much money would be freed up if *no one had to own a car*.


No one needed a car, and you get from station to final destination by ? (mobile aircraft, twinkling of nose, big wheel, horse drawn cart)

----------


## Sheetkeecker

> No one needed a car, and you get from station to final destination by ? (mobile aircraft, twinkling of nose, big wheel, horse drawn cart)


I still have my Big Wheel. Lots of miles on it.   :Bow:

----------


## BBatesokc

> I still have my Big Wheel. Lots of miles on it.


I want the electric car the guy built that looks just like an oversized Big Wheel.

The debate when I was a kid...... Big Wheel vs. Green Machine!

----------


## ou48A

> If you have good rail system most roads aren't necessary.  .


A world of fantasy and candy land^.

Good roads are necessary for a prosperous society.

 Passenger Rail / light rail are best used to augment and help decongest crowded situations, but even rail options can become over crowded.

You cannot haul farm products from every farm to market on poor roads, like we had many years ago. 
Many goods and services that make life better would not be feasible without a network of good roads that allow a relative rapid response.

----------


## Just the facts

I have been to several place where I didn't need a car.  In fact, having a car would have been a burden.  I lived in Philadelphia for 2 months and never sat in a car one time.

----------


## Just the facts

> A world of fantasy and candy land^.
> 
> Good roads are necessary for a prosperous society.
> 
>  Passenger Rail / light rail are best used to augment and help decongest crowded situations, but even rail options can become over crowded.
> 
> You cannot haul farm products from every farm to market on poor roads, like we had many years ago. 
> Many goods and services that make life better would not be feasible without a network of good roads that allow a relative rapid response.


You missed the point.  My subdivision has 1200 residents and 4 miles of road.  Do you think 300 people per mile is reasonable?

----------


## BBatesokc

I could conceivably live in NYC and not need a car - but comparing OKC to NYC is ludicrous. Can't speak for Philly, as I've never been there.

----------


## betts

There's nothing wrong with planning for the future, because it's going to take some time to implement even commuter rail.  If we could decrease car traffic by even 10 to 25% we would improve air quality and decrease wear and tear and congestion on our roads.  There are people living in Oklahoma City who would rather not drive a car, or who would rather use a car infrequently.  After driving from Norman to OKC during rush hour a while back, I suspect there are people who would be delighted to ride past those sitting in traffic on a train, were it an option.  As was noted, however, we need a better system to distribute people once they arrive downtown.  That might be the best argument for a phase II extension of the streetcar to the Health Sciences  Center first, actually, as it is a significant employer relative to areas such as 23rd St. and OCU.

----------


## NoOkie

> I could conceivably live in NYC and not need a car - but comparing OKC to NYC is ludicrous. Can't speak for Philly, as I've never been there.


One of my sisters gets by in Portland just fine without a car.

Doesn't alleviate the need for roads though, buses make up a large part of their public transportation network.  When I was there visiting, I was able to get around without renting a car with little to no inconvenience.  I think a big factor in this was the frequency of their buses(every 15 minutes during peak hours), I do recall waiting a bit for the train to down town.

----------


## semisimple

OKC doesn't need light/commuter rail now or anytime in the forseeable future. The highway system in OKC is more than adequate with remarkably little congestion even at rush hour. I would much rather see money directed towards developing a more urban environment in the downtown area first, along with a streetcar focused on downtown-area transit, before a comprehensive light rail system is built connecting downtown to the suburban areas of the city and suburbs like Edmond and Norman (as exists in DFW, for instance). Instead, OKC could take advantage of its highways, build up good express bus service to the suburbs and earn a dedicated ridership _before_ jumping ahead to invest billions in light rail.

A light or commuter rail system would fail miserably in OKC for one simple reason: driving directly to your desintation is faster and much more convenient. This is exactly the problem with the commuter rail line in Austin, which has only ~1700 riders per day with 10x the subsidy per passenger of the bus system (i.e., a waste of resources). By the time you park at a station, wait on a train, ride for 40 minutes on a train that stops a dozen times and goes no more than 50 mph, get off and walk several blocks to your destination, the trip has taken longer than if you had just driven directly--even with little Austin's big city-sized traffic problems. The rail system is also slower than the express bus routes that run from the suburbs into downtown. Clearly for the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in the Austin rail line's service area (a few hundred thousand at least), the comfort and convenience of driving outweighs the money saved in fuel costs by riding a train (or bus for that matter). You can be sure the results would be even worse in OKC.

----------


## adaniel

Well I wouldn't say that it would be a "miserable failure" for light rail to be in OKC, but it would be a bit tricky to pull it off. A Norman-Downtown-Edmond line could be done successfully, but anything outside of that would be risky. Truthfully, any midsized city with little traffic congestion will have trouble convincing the masses to give up their cars. The RailRunner System in Albuquerque (who's MSA is within 200K of ours) get like maybe 4K riders/day. A lot of that is due to the large number of tourists flying into ABQ and visiting SF as well as the large number of state workers working in SF but living in ABQ due to SF high housing costs. We obviously do not have that dynamic in OKC. 

One thing that works in OKC's favor is that white collar employment is starting to coalesce around downtown. Cities like Austin, Dallas, etc. have more of their workforce in suburban office districts. Even the DART system in Dallas is a bit of a question mark and will be until more people start working downtown. 

No doubt the bus service here could use some improvements, but investing in express bus service would be a waste IMO. Fair or not, bus service is viewed with far more negativity than trains in these parts due in large parts to socioeconomic stereotypes. In Dallas, it was not uncommon to see trains packed with standing room only at rush hour while buses are maybe 25% full.

----------


## mugofbeer

The problem with so many people when it comes to forward thinking projects such as light rail is that they only think of what is right in front of their noses.  Come on folkls, look a little further.  Look ahead to $6-8-10/gallon gasoline, to $50K average price for a car, 30 years from now.  Even if we started seriously thinking about a full scale light rail system, it would be 10-15 years down the road before the first line were built.  When people start howling about how behind the times OKC is because we have such poor public transportation, THAT is when the system should be available.  Yes, public transportation is just like a highway, it is never going to fully pay for itself.  THose of you who think differently can afford a car (or 2 or 3).   Not every one can nor does every one want to drive.  We drive in OKC because we HAVE to (unless you want to ride a bike or use the horribly substandard bus system).  Think about someone beside yourself and think about what life will start to be like with $8/gallon gas.  As for those who think it only benefits those who live near the line, just go look at the full park-and-ride lots in cities such as Dallas and Denver.  Denver put the P & R's in some of the most inconvenient places, but they are still packed on weekdays.  I ride it every day to work and I live about 2 miles from the line.  It is wonderful.  With OKC's growing downtown and the far flung suburbs of OKC, people who will commute will love light rail and it will only grow as it ages.

----------


## Just the facts

Mug - you hit it right on the head.  Any city that is not planning for life without affordable gasoline will not survive the near future.  For places like OKC (and Oklahoma in general) there will be a huge competitive disadvantage compared to cities that are taking these steps right now.  If your future is built on low gasoline prices and those low prices go away – you’re sunk.  Also, the goal of any rail system should not be to make owning a car more convenient or facilitate urban sprawl in any way.  It should be to render the automobile a useless tool and encourage traditional neighborhood development.

----------


## BBatesokc

Any sort of a fixed rail system IMO is not at all the answer to the future needs of individuals. An alternative way (or more efficient way) to power our personal vehicles is. People are not going to flock to trains or buses in Oklahoma even with $5-$6 gas (which MIGHT happen in the near future). People will cling to their cars because they make sense to them and their wants and needs. I am one of those people. I find most people spend money on far less useful crap that they will simply spend less on if gas starts biting a bigger portion of their budget. If gas starts costing me $700 more a year, then I guess I'll do without buying a new iPad every year - I'd cut my cable bill down, eat out less, etc. but the car will still be in the driveway. I'd even consider being a one-car family instead of each of us having one and often an extra or two in the garage. But I want (value) my freedom to not be around a bunch of strangers and come and go as I please - not be herded around on a rail system on the government's schedule.

Could I see a lot more people using mass transit, if its done right, to get them to and from work, or to and from downtown OKC? Yes. But beyond that, its useless to me unless I'm a tourist somewhere.

----------


## Midtowner

> A world of fantasy and candy land^.
> 
> Good roads are necessary for a prosperous society.
> 
>  Passenger Rail / light rail are best used to augment and help decongest crowded situations, but even rail options can become over crowded.
> 
> You cannot haul farm products from every farm to market on poor roads, like we had many years ago. 
> Many goods and services that make life better would not be feasible without a network of good roads that allow a relative rapid response.


NYC and most major world-class cities would beg to differ.  

As we head towards $5 gas and beyond, many middle class people will be turning to mass transit.  This is already the case in foreign countries which have had those sorts of prices for some time now.  The U.S. needs to upgrade its mass transit infrastructure or it'll be left behind.

----------


## mugofbeer

> Any sort of a fixed rail system IMO is not at all the answer to the future needs of individuals. An alternative way (or more efficient way) to power our personal vehicles is. People are not going to flock to trains or buses in Oklahoma even with $5-$6 gas (which MIGHT happen in the near future). People will cling to their cars because they make sense to them and their wants and needs. I am one of those people. I find most people spend money on far less useful crap that they will simply spend less on if gas starts biting a bigger portion of their budget. If gas starts costing me $700 more a year, then I guess I'll do without buying a new iPad every year - I'd cut my cable bill down, eat out less, etc. but the car will still be in the driveway. I'd even consider being a one-car family instead of each of us having one and often an extra or two in the garage. But I want (value) my freedom to not be around a bunch of strangers and come and go as I please - not be herded around on a rail system on the government's schedule.
> 
> Could I see a lot more people using mass transit, if its done right, to get them to and from work, or to and from downtown OKC? Yes. But beyond that, its useless to me unless I'm a tourist somewhere.


Well, Mr. Bates, it seems your opinion is just your bull-headedness to use a car no matter what.  You basically proved my point that you simply see your own narrow view of the world and refuse to see that there are multitudes who are in totally different situations than you and  think completely differently than you.  OKC is far less affluent than Denver and with $6-10 gasoline, many won't be able to afford to drive in such a widespread city.  

I'm no mega-tree hugger but I ride the rail because I enjoy it, I burn only a fraction of the gas it takes me to drive the 14 miles to work, it is far less of a pain in the rump during rush hour, I can read the paper, read a book, listen to the radio or my MP3 and, because my employer pays for a tax-deductible mass transit pass, it saves me a bundle (well in excess of $1000/yr gasoline and parking) even at todays gasoline prices - that isn't chump change.  

I look around and see hundreds just like me but I also see students going to U of Denver or U of CO - Denver, poor people and people who ride simply because they want to.  I see people who bring their bikes on the train and ride a while, then finish their commute on their bike.  Denver put many of their Park-and-ride garages in places that require a 1-2 block walk (in far colder and snowier weather than OKC) and, IMO, put in too many stops so it takes longer to ride on most days than to drive.  But Denver also just finished expanding all their stops to accomodate 4-car trains because ridership continues to rise.  

Open your eyes and see you aren't the only goose in the flock - others want and need high quality mass transit and light rail is on it's way.  If OKC is to be a major city and forward thinking, OKC needs to start planning for the system now because it will still be 10-15 years before anything would be built.

----------


## Snowman

> OKC is far less affluent than Denver and with $6-10 gasoline, many won't be able to afford to drive in such a widespread city.
> ...
> OKC needs to start planning for the system now because it will still be 10-15 years before anything would be built.


While I think it is important we start planing more urban development and mass transit, I have serous doubts the suburbs are ever going away. Even OKC's most likely regional mass transit lines will still go nowhere near large sections of the city. There are already some alternatively powered vehicles on the market that are cost competitive to replace current vehicles just under $4 p/g for people driving at least 25+ miles a weekday and if gas prices continue to gradually move up in price the volume & range of offerings will likely increase. If 10-15 years is accurate then that leaves at least one or two normal vehicle purchasing cycles depending on the person's ownership habits and when they last purchased a vehicle before it even opens.

----------


## BBatesokc

> Well, Mr. Bates, it seems your opinion is just your bull-headedness to use a car no matter what.  You basically proved my point that you simply see your own narrow view of the world and refuse to see that there are multitudes who are in totally different situations than you and  think completely differently than you.  OKC is far less affluent than Denver and with $6-10 gasoline, many won't be able to afford to drive in such a widespread city.  
> 
> I'm no mega-tree hugger but I ride the rail because I enjoy it, I burn only a fraction of the gas it takes me to drive the 14 miles to work, it is far less of a pain in the rump during rush hour, I can read the paper, read a book, listen to the radio or my MP3 and, because my employer pays for a tax-deductible mass transit pass, it saves me a bundle (well in excess of $1000/yr gasoline and parking) even at todays gasoline prices - that isn't chump change.  
> 
> I look around and see hundreds just like me but I also see students going to U of Denver or U of CO - Denver, poor people and people who ride simply because they want to.  I see people who bring their bikes on the train and ride a while, then finish their commute on their bike.  Denver put many of their Park-and-ride garages in places that require a 1-2 block walk (in far colder and snowier weather than OKC) and, IMO, put in too many stops so it takes longer to ride on most days than to drive.  But Denver also just finished expanding all their stops to accomodate 4-car trains because ridership continues to rise.  
> 
> Open your eyes and see you aren't the only goose in the flock - others want and need high quality mass transit and light rail is on it's way.  If OKC is to be a major city and forward thinking, OKC needs to start planning for the system now because it will still be 10-15 years before anything would be built.


I love it, my statements are "bull-headedness" and I'm not considering those poor souls in Denver. Try reading my statements and this thread again. This thread is about OKC, not Denver, NYC, Philly or anywhere else. Sure, use them to try and make a point or draw comparisons, but my specific statements only concerned OKC and my perspective. Nothing bull-headed about that. 

Have the tax pays pay billions for rails they won't ride. Regardless, the majority is still going to own cars and choose to use them. 

FYI - I have a feeling my flock is bigger than yours and don't hold your breath that light rail is coming to OKC and if it does don't expect it to make much of a dent at all. And don't pretend all those driveways full of cars, empty metro buses, empty trolleys and empty Heartland Fliers are not pretty good indicators.

----------


## ou48A

> NYC and most major world-class cities would beg to differ.  
> 
> As we head towards $5 gas and beyond, many middle class people will be turning to mass transit.  This is already the case in foreign countries which have had those sorts of prices for some time now.  The U.S. needs to upgrade its mass transit infrastructure or it'll be left behind.


Can you deliver a Steinway or my new washer and dryer to my home on the sub way?
Can you haul my friend’s cattle to the city market on a commuter rail train?

Good roads make life possible in big Cities and trains help. 
But you can’t have a prospers big city without good streets and highways. 
All big American cities have roads for good and smart reasons.

To be clear I would like to see central Oklahoma develop a commuter rail system on the condition that it’s a system that is faster than an uncongested drive. It would be smart to do things now that would help aid in the effort. But it would also be just as smart to develop diversity in our vehicle fuel mix, improve vehicle fuel efficacy’s and increase our fuel/ energy supplies.

----------


## NoOkie

> I love it, my statements are "bull-headedness" and I'm not considering those poor souls in Denver. Try reading my statements and this thread again. This thread is about OKC, not Denver, NYC, Philly or anywhere else. Sure, use them to try and make a point or draw comparisons, but my specific statements only concerned OKC and my perspective. Nothing bull-headed about that. 
> 
> Have the tax pays pay billions for rails they won't ride. Regardless, the majority is still going to own cars and choose to use them. 
> 
> FYI - I have a feeling my flock is bigger than yours and don't hold your breath that light rail is coming to OKC and if it does don't expect it to make much of a dent at all. And don't pretend all those driveways full of cars, empty metro buses, empty trolleys and empty Heartland Fliers are not pretty good indicators.


Honestly, I think half the reason our buses are so unused is their bad schedule(once an hour for major routes) and bad routing.  An overhaul of bus routes and time tables would probably help some.

I don't think a car and public transit are mutually exclusive.  I know plenty of people in Atlanta that live in the suburbs and work downtown.  They drive to the closest station and then ride the train in(Don't forget that for downtown workers, parking fees are often a significant piece of the commute cost).  You can reap the cost savings of riding the train/bus to work, while still having a car for personal use or days that you know you need to run a bunch of errands at lunch.  

Personally, I prefer to use alternative modes of transportation to get to work(Bicycle for me) but still drive when I need the benefits of a car.  People get too wrapped up in the rhetoric of urban planning and sustainability or the status quo(for lack of a better way of putting it).  The world doesn't have to go "car free", we just need to make options available that are suitable to the needs of enough people to *allow* them go "car lite" if they want to.  And with gas prices more than likely going nowhere but up, I imagine that will be a fair number of people sometime in the future.

----------


## BBatesokc

> Honestly, I think half the reason our buses are so unused is their bad schedule(once an hour for major routes) and bad routing.  An overhaul of bus routes and time tables would probably help some.
> 
> I don't think a car and public transit are mutually exclusive.  I know plenty of people in Atlanta that live in the suburbs and work downtown.  They drive to the closest station and then ride the train in(Don't forget that for downtown workers, parking fees are often a significant piece of the commute cost).  You can reap the cost savings of riding the train/bus to work, while still having a car for personal use or days that you know you need to run a bunch of errands at lunch.  
> 
> Personally, I prefer to use alternative modes of transportation to get to work(Bicycle for me) but still drive when I need the benefits of a car.  People get too wrapped up in the rhetoric of urban planning and sustainability or the status quo(for lack of a better way of putting it).  The world doesn't have to go "car free", we just need to make options available that are suitable to the needs of enough people to *allow* them go "car lite" if they want to.  And with gas prices more than likely going nowhere but up, I imagine that will be a fair number of people sometime in the future.


I don't have an issue with those points. 

My argument locally however would be, we shouldn't spending millions upon millions on a light rail system when we can't even get attractive bus routes operational. I've tried to ride our buses, just to see what its like, and it was a joke. I'm in SE OKC (near SE 44 and Sooner) and it only takes me 12 minutes to get to the downtown (YMCA or my wife's work). So, light rail would be a terrible solution for me as it would most likely extend my commute by an hour and I'd have to walk several blocks to get to the same place I can get in 12 minutes and park in front of the door all year long.

----------


## Dubya61

> Mug - you hit it right on the head.  Any city that is not planning for life without affordable gasoline will not survive the near future.  For places like OKC (and Oklahoma in general) there will be a huge competitive disadvantage compared to cities that are taking these steps right now.  If your future is built on low gasoline prices and those low prices go away  youre sunk.  Also, the goal of any rail system should not be to make owning a car more convenient or facilitate urban sprawl in any way.  It should be to render the automobile a useless tool and encourage traditional neighborhood development.


JTF.  Agreed.  After reading other posts, I'm not sure "light rail" is the right term (which you didn't specifically use ... just others in this thread), but, "What you said".

----------


## NoOkie

> I don't have an issue with those points. 
> 
> My argument locally however would be, we shouldn't spending millions upon millions on a light rail system when we can't even get attractive bus routes operational. I've tried to ride our buses, just to see what its like, and it was a joke. I'm in SE OKC (near SE 44 and Sooner) and it only takes me 12 minutes to get to the downtown (YMCA or my wife's work). So, light rail would be a terrible solution for me as it would most likely extend my commute by an hour and I'd have to walk several blocks to get to the same place I can get in 12 minutes and park in front of the door all year long.


Your situation is such that mass transit doesn't work for you, that's cool.  Honestly, it probably wouldn't work for me in my current situation unless they ended up putting a high frequency bus down Britton road.  I can drive to work in less than 10 minutes, barring a train, and bike there in about 15.  But for, say, all my co-workers that live in Norman and work in NW OKC, light rail or some BRT or some other express option might be a good thing provided it had good scheduling and a sensible route.

I think there is some merit to your point that we need to work on improving the mass transit we have before we go light-rail crazy.  We do need effective buses/trolleys/whatevers to get people off the arterial light rail line and to their offices, after all.  Seems like there's a constant chicken/egg debate going on regarding public transit, though.  I definately fall into the field of dreams camp, you clearly don't.  :Smile:

----------


## BBatesokc

> But for, say, all my co-workers that live in Norman and work in NW OKC, light rail or some BRT or some other express option might be a good thing provided it had good scheduling and a sensible route.


Even that scenario just doesn't make sense to me. 'NW OKC' is a BIG area. I'm guessing I could make a commute from central Norman to 'NW OKC' in about 35 - 45 minutes by car. Possibly longer if you must travel during peak times.

I just don't' see how you'll fill trains with people that will at least double their commute times and cause themselves more inconvenience on a daily basis. Not to mention, most people I know are in professional jobs that may require them to use their car during the day and often require extended work hours. 

Sure, sure, "other city's do it" - but I'm not talking about them.

I just think you'll spend millions and then we will all have to continue to subsidize the system while not utilizing it and still paying for high priced gas.

I'd rather see more emphasis put on a better bus system, more dedicated bike paths (not just a wider shoulder) and incentives/motivation for employers to offer more flexibility for staggered work times to cut back on morning and evening congestion.

I'd ride my bike to downtown (weather permitting) for my almost daily records checks if a route was available. My wife and I would also consider taking the bus for trips downtown if it didn't involve a very long walk (no sidewalks and subjected to the weather). Fortunately, we car pool some and her work allows her to come in early and leave early on staggered days. 

We also began working out early at the Y in the morning and after work to avoid the rush hours. The streets are literally empty at 5am when we leave and are no problem when we head home at 6:30-7:30pm.

----------


## BoulderSooner

we "subsidize" roads each and every day

----------


## NoOkie

> Even that scenario just doesn't make sense to me. 'NW OKC' is a BIG area. I'm guessing I could make a commute from central Norman to 'NW OKC' in about 35 - 45 minutes by car. Possibly longer if you must travel during peak times.
> 
> I just don't' see how you'll fill trains with people that will at least double their commute times and cause themselves more inconvenience on a daily basis. Not to mention, most people I know are in professional jobs that may require them to use their car during the day and often require extended work hours. 
> 
> Sure, sure, "other city's do it" - but I'm not talking about them.
> 
> I just think you'll spend millions and then we will all have to continue to subsidize the system while not utilizing it and still paying for high priced gas.
> 
> I'd rather see more emphasis put on a better bus system, more dedicated bike paths (not just a wider shoulder) and incentives/motivation for employers to offer more flexibility for staggered work times to cut back on morning and evening congestion.
> ...


In this case, Britton and Broadway.  Depending where in Norman/the general southern part of the metro and time left, the commute can be between 30 minutes to an hour for my co-workers.  We had one guy quit because he was so tired of the drive.  And sure, some people need to drive.  I don't think extended work hours would be a big deal with decently scheduled trains.  An Edmond to Norman train wouldn't have to be a twice a day deal, you could run multiple times with it.  My uneducated opinion is a Norman/Edmond line and a Mustang-Yukon/TAFB line paired with BRT on NW Expressway and one of the prominent e/w roads down around the 240 area(I'm a northsider and pretty ignorant about traffic flow south of Reno other than the interstates) and maybe 23rd or just better bus service in general would be ideal.

That of course, is all coupled with the improvements you want to see.  You need sidewalks and bike infrastructure(As a cyclist, my self-interest can't agree with you enough on this one!) and better bus routes to make all this stuff work.  Hell, I'd take a wide shoulder (Most of our arterial roads lack them) and some sidewalks to start with.  I think that a rail system needs to be the final piece of the puzzle, not the first.

Again though, I don't expect the whole city to go car free.  Heck, I wouldn't ditch my car even if I lived in Portland or Denver or somewhere else that has great public transit.  They're too useful.  But I sure do like using mine less and extending the useful service life/decreasing wear and tear.

----------


## BBatesokc

> we "subsidize" roads each and every day


And I fail to see a point in that statement.

Does that mean lets subsidize even more projects? I personally want to see less subsidized - we can start with the low life's in my part of town who live in their subsidized housing, use their food cards, etc. But that's another topic. But lets not take even more on - especially projects that have such huge price tags and will be utilized by so few.

I don't see the rush to 'be like everyone else.' I met a very nice couple two weeks ago that moved here from NY because they tired of their 2 hour commute (via train) to work and home each day. They love the 'you can get anywhere in 20 minutes' that comes with living in OKC.

If I wanted to living in a high density metropolitan area with subways, trains and taxis in abundance then I'd move to a state with such a city. OKC is not that city and is no less for it.

----------


## BBatesokc

> I used the buses in OKC all the time and now I don't own a car.  But I don't use public transit because it is faster.  I use it because it saved me about $5k a year.  I would submit that if fuel prices go up, you will see a lot of people willing to put up with a 30 minute commute on the bus vs a 15 minute car ride if it saves them thousands of dollars.


I have serious doubts Oklahoma will see "a lot of people" turning to our buses (unless gas gets over $6/gallon, and even then I doubt we will see half full buses).

Even in 2008 (a historic gas price high for the last 7 years) Oklahoma City was ranked dead last in a Metro Public Transit Ridership study by the Texas Transportation Institute. Problem is, when prices go up and more people do ride the buses, the city will tout a "100% increase in ridership" - which sounds impressive until people hear the real dismal numbers of butts in seats.

----------


## BBatesokc

> What I am seeing is a whole generation of people willing to consider alternatives.


Possibly, but 'willing to consider alternatives' often comes down to more than a specific generation. I'd say that's mostly true within my circle of friends, but certainly not true in the circles I often work within. 

Give me a sheltered bus stop within 1/4 mile of my house with regular and on time buses that can get me to downtown within 45 minutes and I'm in. Otherwise..... not gonna happen.

----------


## Cocaine

I think it's better to build light rail in okc along with commuter rail. We would really need both people in OKC need more options and so do people in the surrounding cities, Mostly because it would work really well like a line that goes from down to the adventure district to a lot of the offices/ businesses on nw expressway. It would also be good to extend the down town street car to OCU and also build separate light rail line on the south side. As for commuter rail as long as every city involved pay their fair share then it should work out fine. Also we don't need to build it on rail tracks that are currently used by freight trains. If we do that we could end up having restrictions on the time the trains run (like day time only). Also if the price of gas does go up more people will take public transportation but it never rank any where near the top in country.

----------


## mugofbeer

> I love it, my statements are "bull-headedness" and I'm not considering those poor souls in Denver. Try reading my statements and this thread again. This thread is about OKC, not Denver, NYC, Philly or anywhere else. Sure, use them to try and make a point or draw comparisons, but my specific statements only concerned OKC and my perspective. Nothing bull-headed about that. 
> 
> Have the tax pays pay billions for rails they won't ride. Regardless, the majority is still going to own cars and choose to use them. 
> 
> FYI - I have a feeling my flock is bigger than yours and don't hold your breath that light rail is coming to OKC and if it does don't expect it to make much of a dent at all. And don't pretend all those driveways full of cars, empty metro buses, empty trolleys and empty Heartland Fliers are not pretty good indicators.


Mr. Bates, I never said it was about Denver.  Denver and Dallas are living, breathing, current-day examples of cities that haves successful and growing rail systems that are packed like sardines during rush hour.  Neither city has been without cost overruns and problems so the key is to learn from their mistakes, plan it out well in advance and plan your city around liklihood of a system.  

Before the light rail was built in Denver and Dallas there were empty busses in those cities, too.  Build a light rail system that is clean, safe, fast and convenient and the people will use it - especially when commuters sitting in traffic jams day-after-day watch the rail trains zipping past them during rush hour and especially after 10-20 more years of inflated gasoline prices, inflated car costs, population growth and growing highway congestion.  Just like in Dallas and Denver, there will also be far more people who won't use it for their own reasons.  It is just one of many solutions to future transportation needs just like there are many brands of cars to buy.

Using the empty Heartland Flyer as an example, here, has nothing to do with commuter rail.  The only similarity between the two is the rail.  But even with the Heartland Flyer, if it started in San Antonio and went here and then on to Tulsa and KC/MO or St. Louis, you'd have far more people using it.  Safety, speed, cleanliness and convenience.  I don't see the Heartland Flyer being any of those (well, safety).

----------


## Just the facts

We know one thing is for sure - when gas hits $4/gallon it starts having a serious impact on the economy, which means someone is driving less.  Maybe the pain threashold for Brian is north of $5/gallon but I hit that point back at $3/gallon.  I have no doubt that Brian will still drive if gas goes to $10/gallon as will other people.  The good news for them is that they won't have any traffic to worry about.  The bad news, most of the place to drive to will be out of business.

----------


## Sheetkeecker

Almost no city rail project, or anything like it is possible now. 
The main reason is, it will be forced to become a gigantic money pit of governmental waste and graft. 
ONLY if it were privately run, and most city govt.'s would be revolted by such an idea.
It would need about $15 a ride in order to pay the cradle-to-grave benefits the workers would demand.
This idea, or anything remotely like it, it doomed in today's society of workers.
Just a fact.

----------


## mdeand

> Mr. Bates, I never said it was about Denver.  Denver and Dallas are living, breathing, current-day examples of cities that haves successful and growing rail systems that are packed like sardines during rush hour.  Neither city has been without cost overruns and problems so the key is to learn from their mistakes, plan it out well in advance and plan your city around liklihood of a system.  
> 
> Before the light rail was built in Denver and Dallas there were empty busses in those cities, too.  Build a light rail system that is clean, safe, fast and convenient and the people will use it - especially when commuters sitting in traffic jams day-after-day watch the rail trains zipping past them during rush hour and especially after 10-20 more years of inflated gasoline prices, inflated car costs, population growth and growing highway congestion.  Just like in Dallas and Denver, there will also be far more people who won't use it for their own reasons.  It is just one of many solutions to future transportation needs just like there are many brands of cars to buy.
> 
> Using the empty Heartland Flyer as an example, here, has nothing to do with commuter rail.  The only similarity between the two is the rail.  But even with the Heartland Flyer, if it started in San Antonio and went here and then on to Tulsa and KC/MO or St. Louis, you'd have far more people using it.  Safety, speed, cleanliness and convenience.  I don't see the Heartland Flyer being any of those (well, safety).


I don't mean to derail this interesting discussion, but the references to the Heartland Flyer being "empty" stuck out.  I've ridden Amtrak from Norman to Ft Worth three times in the last two years and on every occasion the four passenger cars were 90 percent full.  That, of course, is anecdotal evidence, but it remains more valid than the conclusory statements that the Heartland Flyer travels empty.

As for commuter rail, the number of commuters from Norman to downtown OKC, the state capitol and the Health Science Center alone (many of whom have to pay for parking) is significant. A change of commuting habit from autos to commuter train for the Norman folk would not be an insurmountable issue at all.

----------


## Sheetkeecker

> I don't mean to derail this interesting discussion, but the references to the Heartland Flyer being "empty" stuck out.  I've ridden Amtrak from Norman to Ft Worth three times in the last two years and on every occasion the four passenger cars were 90 percent full.  That, of course, is anecdotal evidence, but it remains more valid than the conclusory statements that the Heartland Flyer travels empty.
> 
> As for commuter rail, the number of commuters from Norman to downtown OKC, the state capitol and the Health Science Center alone (many of whom have to pay for parking) is significant. A change of commuting habit from autos to commuter train for the Norman folk would not be an insurmountable issue at all.


Smarter folks would propose a way to do this as a private enterprise (with limited subsidy to start, perhaps) on this as a test bed for future expansion. 
Might answer a lot of questions better than any other methodology.
Government never does this well. Never.

----------


## Superhyper

and Private Enterprise has? Private businesses are terrible at infrastructure. In this kind of situation that goal is to provide a service (transportation), not to make a profit. If you run it to make a profit, you decrease the system's ability to cheaply and efficiently provide transportation. Thus you harm the people using your system and you reduce the positive economic impacts it could have. It's trendy to say "government's bad at everything and free enterprise is always good", but the facts simply don't back that up. There are certainly things I don't want government doing (can you imagine if they only clothes you could buy were preselected by the government? They'd never have the right size in anything anywhere), but there are plenty of things I don't want to depend on private enterprise for either (clean water, transportation, healthcare, etc..). It boils down to the fact that for this kind of project you need an organization that is focused on delivering a public good to the service area, not extracting as much money as possible from it.

----------


## Just the facts

If transportation was left to private sector across the board (road, railroads, airlines, etc) everyone would still be walking.  You can't say that passenger rail should only be delivered by the private sector and then at the same time continue the huge multi-trillion dollar automobile subsidy.  When Delta builds their own airport in OKC and GM builds their own roads then we can talk about passenger rail being private.  Until then, government (preferably local and state) has to build the infrastructure.

----------


## Jersey Boss

> If transportation was left to private sector across the board (road, railroads, airlines, etc) everyone would still be walking.  You can't say that passenger rail should only be delivered by the private sector and then at the same time continue the huge multi-trillion dollar automobile subsidy.  When Delta builds their own airport in OKC and GM builds their own roads then we can talk about passenger rail being private.  Until then, government (preferably local and state) has to build the infrastructure.


+1- Well stated, sir.

----------

