Like I said I don't know how it would turn out, but the paragraph in bold should take a little of the shine off the need for light rail...Less than 2% in gridlocked and crowded Dallas?

Mass Transit Hysteria

Take the plunge, save the planet.

BY P.J. O'ROURKE
Wednesday, March 16, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

The new transportation bill, currently working its way through Congress, will provide more than $52 billion for mass transit. Mass transit is a wonderful thing, all right-thinking people agree. It stops pollution "in its tracks" (a little ecology-conscious light-rail advocacy joke). Mass transit doesn't burn climate-warming, Iraq-war-causing hydrocarbons. Mass transit can operate with nonpolluting sustainable energy sources such as electricity. Electricity can be produced by solar panels, and geothermal generators. Electricity can be produced by right-thinking people themselves, if they talk about it enough near wind farms.

Mass transit helps preserve nature in places like Yellowstone Park, the Everglades and the Arctic wilderness, because mass transit doesn't go there. Mass transit curtails urban sprawl. When you get to the end of the trolley tracks, you may want to move farther out into the suburbs, but you're going to need a lot of rails and ties and Irishmen with pickaxes. Plus there's something romantic about mass transit. Think Tony Bennett singing "Where little cable cars / Climb halfway to the stars." (And people say mass transit doesn't provide flexibility in travel plans!) Or the Kingston Trio and their impassioned protest of the five-cent Boston "T" fare increase, "The Man Who Never Returned." No doubt some lovely songs will be written about the Washington County, Ore., Wilsonville-to-Beaverton commuter rail line to be funded by the new transportation bill.

There are just two problems with mass transit. Nobody uses it, and it costs like hell. Only 4% of Americans take public transportation to work. Even in cities they don't do it. Less than 25% of commuters in the New York metropolitan area use public transportation. Elsewhere it's far less--9.5% in San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, 1.8% in Dallas-Fort Worth. As for total travel in urban parts of America--all the comings and goings for work, school, shopping, etc.--1.7 % of those trips are made on mass transit.

Then there is the cost, which is--obviously--$52 billion. Less obviously, there's all the money spent locally keeping local mass transit systems operating. The Heritage Foundation says, "There isn't a single light rail transit system in America in which fares paid by the passengers cover the cost of their own rides." Heritage cites the Minneapolis "Hiawatha" light rail line, soon to be completed with $107 million from the transportation bill. Heritage estimates that the total expense for each ride on the Hiawatha will be $19. Commuting to work will cost $8,550 a year. If the commuter is earning minimum wage, this leaves about $1,000 a year for food, shelter and clothing. Or, if the city picks up the tab, it could have leased a BMW X-5 SUV for the commuter at about the same price.

We don't want minimum-wage workers driving BMW X-5s. That's unfair. They're already poor, and now they're enemies of the environment? So we must find a way to save mass transit--get people to ride it, be eager to pay for it, no matter what the cold-blooded free-market types at Heritage say. We must do it for the sake of future generations, for our children.

That's it! The children. The solution to the problems of mass transit is staring us in the face. Or, in the case of my rather short children, staring us in the sternum. All over America men and women, at the behest of their children, are getting on board various light-rail systems that don't even go anywhere. And these trips--if you factor in the price of cotton candy, snow cones and trademarked plush toys--cost considerably more than $19. Yet we're willing to stand in line for ages to utilize this type of mass transit. All we have to do is equip Hiawatha with a slow climb, a steep, sudden plunge, several sharply banked curves, and maybe a loop-the-loop over by St. Paul.

The new mass transit can harness clean, renewable resources. "Unplug the Prius, honey! I'm taking the waterslide to work!" And it need not be expensive. In fact, we might be able to make certain advantageous cuts in transportation spending. A few reductions in Amtrak's already minimal maintenance budget would turn the evening Metroliner into a reeling, lurching journey through the pitch dark equal to anything Space Mountain has to offer. And here is a perfect opportunity for public/private partnership. The Disney Co. is looking for new profit centers. The New York subway can become a hair-raising thrill ride by means of a simple return to NYPD 1970s policing practices.

Not all of the new mass transit has to be frenetic. Bringing groceries home on the tilt-o-whirl presents difficulties. We can take a cue from the lucrative cruise ship industry--every commute a mini-luxury vacation. Perhaps this wouldn't be suitable in areas without navigable water. But don't be too sure. Many "riverboat casinos" are completely stationary, and a lot of commuters don't want to go to work anyway. Slot machines could be put on all forms of mass transit. Put slot machines on city buses and people will abandon their cars, or abandon their car payments, which comes to the same thing.

This is a revolutionary approach to mass transit. It can save the planet. And it can save me from taking the kids to Orlando. Now I can stay home in D.C. and send them for a ride on Washington's new, improved Metro of Horrors, where scary things jump out at your from nowhere--things like $52 billion appropriations for mass transit.

Mr. O'Rourke is the author, most recently, of "Peace Kills: America's Fun New Imperialism" (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2004).

According to the Urban Land Institute, the % of workforce commuting by public transit is...
New York-54%
D.C.- 33%
Bay Area- 32%
Atlanta- 15%
LA- 10%

I would post the link, however, you must be a Wall St. Journal subscriber to view.

How desperate does one have to be to quote P.J. O'Rourke to make an argument?

I'm guessing his percentages include such populous places as Bozeman, Montana.

Geez, we get that you won't be riding public transit, but look on the bright side: if any percentage of the driving public in OKC decides to opt for public transit as a means to getting to work, there will be fewer tie-ups and more parking spaces for you. And, with fewer people damaging the roads, you might encounter fewer pothholes destroying the suspension on your large SUV.

Thanks for the kind words Cid, and yes I completely agree that the Underground system downtown should be connected to the Santa Fe light rail/commuter rail station. That could also be a terminus for buses going to other parts of downtown and the trolley service through Bricktown, all covered right there in front of Santa Fe Depot along E.K. Gaylord in between Sheridan and Reno. Having some retail/restaurants there would make it a nice place to wait if you are transfering from say commuter rail from Norman to light rail northbound to the OUHSC, or if you're arriving from Edmond and riding a bus a few blocks west to Oklahoma Tower, etc.

How desperate does one have to be to quote P.J. O'Rourke to make an argument?

I'm guessing his percentages include such populous places as Bozeman, Montana.

Geez, we get that you won't be riding public transit, but look on the bright side: if any percentage of the driving public in OKC decides to opt for public transit as a means to getting to work, there will be fewer tie-ups and more parking spaces for you. And, with fewer people damaging the roads, you might encounter fewer pothholes destroying the suspension on your large SUV.

Drive a 4 cylinder Accord...Point I was trying to make with the piece was even in Dallas with horrific traffic VERY few people use mass transit options

Increased traffic through population growth doesn't necessarily result in an increase in mass transit riders

Point I was trying to make with the piece was even in Dallas with horrific traffic VERY few people use mass transit options

Then you may want to check your stats. DART ridership has been off the charts since day one.

Since day one??

Hundreds of millions of tax dollars later, fewer people than ever are riding Dallas' light-rail system

Dallas Business Journal - June 14, 2002 by Wendell Cox

Light rail is promoted as the panacea to commuter woes. Too bad it doesn't work, as can be seen by looking no further than Dallas' DART.

Since the Dallas Area Rapid Transit light-rail system opened in 1996, it has enjoyed an ongoing flurry of positive press releases, dutifully reported and expanded by the media. DART statements often suggested that the light-rail line was taking many cars off the road, that ridership was ahead of projections and people loved the service. Criticism bordered on political heresy.

It would therefore have come as no surprise if the 2000 Census data confirmed a big increase in transit ridership to work, with people abandoning their cars for light rail.

However, not only did the Census find that the percentage of people using transit for work had declined in the DART service area, but the actual number also declined. In other words, fewer people ride DART today than before spending $1 billion on light rail.

In 1990, approximately 40,000 people rode transit to work, all on buses, in Dallas County on a daily basis. By 2000, workers using transit had dropped to 36,900 -- a decline of 3,100. This is after opening three light-rail lines that converge on downtown and a commuter-rail line, all of which cost $1 billion in taxpayer spending aimed at reducing traffic congestion.

During the same period, 7,900 more people began working at home, representing 10% of the employment increase in Dallas County. It is notable it was achieved with virtually no taxpayer funding. The big surprise was that 31,500 more people used car pools in 2000 than in 1990. This may be an indication that the investment in high-occupancy vehicle lanes, unlike transit, is having an effect.

Work trips are the principal cause of daily traffic congestion in Dallas and other cities around the world. It is true that barely one-third of trips are work trips, but they are concentrated in just a few hours of the day -- the morning and evening rush hours. If transit does not take people who are going to work out of their cars, it cannot reduce congestion. The Census data clearly shows it has not in Dallas.

Of course, light rail and commuter rail are popular for recreational uses, such as travel to Stars games or the Zoo. But this does not help commuters facing traffic delays day in and day out, every morning and evening and certainly is not worth $1 billion. The news is that nearly 40% of new Dallas County workers chose not to drive alone -- and there was not a transit rider among them.

The DART publicists can't even take comfort in pointing to other places in Texas where the news was worse -- because there were none. Commuter use of transit was up 3,100 in Austin and 1,200 in Houston. Like Dallas, San Antonio experienced a decline, but a much more modest one. It is important, however, to recognize that the Austin and Houston increases were miniscule in relation to the number of new workers driving alone to work. In Austin, 2.4% of new workers used transit, and 0.8% in Houston.

Like in Dallas, these cities experienced substantial car-pooling growth -- 19,000 in Austin and 26,000 in Houston. In both cities, many more people began working at home than were attracted to transit. In Austin, working at home increased by 7,000 people, and in Houston by 8,800.

Perhaps the ultimate embarrassment for DART is the fact that transit work-trip ridership actually increased in the part of the Metroplex outside Dallas County and not served by light rail.

Local transit officials grasp fruitlessly for coherent explanations. One suggested that transit agency surveys of transit riders are more accurate than the Census, even though the Census surveys many more people using all methods of commuting. Another suggested that when rail serves more suburban employment locations it will do better.

This betrays either fabrication or a profound misunderstanding of urban transport in the United States. Transit does not carry a significant share of commuters to any suburban location in the United States.

The bottom line is this: Nearly 20 years after the DART election, and more than $350 million in annual DART sales tax collections, fewer people ride transit to work in Dallas County than before. Dallas citizens should insist that its elected leaders demand funding from DART on things that matter -- like adding new road capacity and filling potholes.

While employment in Dallas County rose more than 225,000 since 1980, transit work trips dropped more than 5,000. DART has not delivered. It has not delivered because it cannot. Neither the Dallas area, nor any other area in the United States, can begin to afford to build as many rail lines to go as many places as fast as would be necessary to provide an alternative to the automobile.

Transit rail might be in the interest of a few urban planners, the companies that will build it and a few local officials who buy the DART propaganda. But as the DART experience shows, its role in solving the problems of day-to-day traffic congestion is nil -- or less.

Cox is a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Austin.



Contact the Editor Need Assistance? More Latest News

We have to take all external references with a grain of salt. OKC is not the only city fighting with this debate right now. Many medium sized cities are going through the same thing, but it comes down to a system layout that works best and connects the population bases with the core business districts.

One negative is that OKC is so widely spread out, you don't have the luxury of a true CBD able to push all the people to. You are going to have to find ways to feed people to downtown, Northwest Express, Edmond, Norman, various universities, the airport, etc.

One of the ideas by a poster earlier on where they think a line should be ran...if that was done, mass transit would be useless to me. Which we all know...its not going to work for everyone, but one of the key things will be to find where the mass of people work and where they actually live.

Its going to be a huge project and cost millions, if not over a billion, dollars to put together effectively for a metro area the size of ours.

Didn't Dallas JUST get light rail?

We can't expect a system to "take-off" overnight! Every system in our new/post WWII cities have build-up areas outside of the traditional inner city areas and therefore the population typically does not exist in mass for the first several lines of a transit system. But as was mentioned previously, you can improve your first few lines with T.O.D. and creative routings/marketing. Then, once people are on-board, you can expand the system to the more dense post wwII areas, aka suburbs.

While Dallas is a great city and role model, I think OKC should not look at the negatives of DART but look at the successes of it and Denver. Better yet, we should model ourselves after our peer city - Portland, OR. Everyone here knows that OKC is very similar to Portland in many ways (albeit we are smaller) but Portland is the leader in the nation on Light Rail. They started with a starter line to the East (Gresham) then expanded as the rail took off. Portland also has a Downtown Streetcar circular - which Im sure will be OKC's first rail system, then adding in commuter rail..

one thing I couldn't stop thinking when viewing some of the negative rail posts - is the "statistics" that you guys are quoting to support your views seem to always forget about the richest cities in the nation (IE Chicago, New York, SF) which are also the most urban and heavy users of transit. Your stats like to focus on Dallas, Salt Lake and so on, who are smaller, post wwII, and NEW TO RAPID TRANSIT - SURE their numbers will be small for a while, but wait until the TOD sets up in Dallas! And they continue to expand DART to the current populated areas.

OKC should take this route. Begin with the downtown circular with the suggestions of BG and Cid and others. This will grow downtown as a destination as well as its own residential market. It may also develop the business market which will lead to .... next, first commuter rail line would be from somewhere near Edmond to downtown with stops at Britton Road, N. 63rd, N. 23rd (with a shuttle to the Capitol), this route could be extended up to Guthrie. The next commuter line should be from downtown Norman to downtown with stops at an OU commuter rail station, downtown Moore, Crossroads, Capital Hill/25th; this line could be extended to Purcell.

My ideas follow BG's in the routing of the commuter rail network. I think BG needs to "expand" the circular in downtown a bit so that it circulates through downtown and hits more of the expansion areas like Bricktown, Deep Duece, Triangle/Flatiron, Downtown South, and West downtown (although I did like that you have great coverage for the CBD, AAlley, and midtown). .. Most circular lines dont go in a straight line for their route but instead run in a circle to hit many areas and certainly OKC's downtown would accomplish this.

Otherwise, I am very happy with the results and the creativity that is on this site. I am NOT surprised by the results of the MAPS 3 survey though - but I am happy to see that the public spoke out, hopefully this will be a trend that will continue and will lead OKC into one of the most progressive major cities.

I think the draw of downtown (daytime workforce 50,000, entertainment options rather unlimited), capitol (daytime workforce 20,000), ORC (daytime workforce 15,000+), OUHSC, PLUS the campuses of OU Norman (22,000+ with 10,000+ faculty) and UCO (15,000+) would make this N-S commuter rail line viable. Im not saying that 50,000 downtown daytime workforce would ride the rail exclusively or that all 22,000 students would either;

Im saying that all of those (and more) draws combined .... makes the N-S commuter rail idea viable for OKC since there are those draws (like 22,000 OU students who would like to come downtown for top entertainment). The downtown circular is a no-brainer that Im not sure anyone would oppose (esp since the OK Spirit has proven success).

Easy180, try posting updates that aren't half a decade old :)

May 17, 2007

$8.1 billion in impact


DART Rail delivering riders, dollars

In addition to growing ridership of more than 60,000 daily passenger trips, new research shows the investment in DART Rail is paying off at a rate of almost two to one.

Listen to the DART Rail Economic Impact Briefing Audio and
view DART Rail Construction and TOD Video
(Opens in a new window)

Drs. Bernard Weinstein and Terry Clower from the University of North Texas Center for Economic Development and Research project the state of Texas will enjoy more than $8.1 billion in economic activity from the North Texas region's investment of $4.86 billion to build the current 45-mile light rail network and the planned 48-mile rail expansion scheduled for completion in 2013.

"To say DART Rail's impact has been substantial for the Dallas region's economy would be an understatement," says Weinstein. "It's a trend that's impossible to miss; the local business community certainly hasn't."

View the Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Dallas Area Rapid Transit Operations and Capital Expenditures Report
(Opens in a new window)

While the North Texas region is receiving the bulk of the benefit in the form of economic activity and increased tax revenue, the development of DART Rail also means $3 billion in labor income to Texas. It also means more than $200 million in indirect business taxes (state and local sales and use taxes, property taxes, license and permit fees) to Texas.

"Those kind of numbers speak for themselves," says DART President/Executive Director Gary Thomas. "What strikes me most is how much economic activity actually exceeds the public monies it took to create the DART Rail lines in the first place. The message is clear, if ever there was any doubt: Transit pays off in a big way."

Additionally, DART's annual operating expenditures ($342 million) create an extra $500 million in statewide economic activity. That number is projected to increase to more than $650 million annually by 2014.

New Growth, New Tax Revenue
The rail lines have also done much to enhance Dallas' profile as a global, urban city - the kind of place that's as attractive to live as it is to do business. One of the driving trends in local real-estate development circles has been transit-oriented development (TOD). In fact, previous studies by the UNT economists have shown DART's growing rail system has stimulated $3.3 billion in TOD. These projects are transforming neighborhoods and creating new destinations throughout DART's 13 cities. They've added a lot of "wow factor" to the region as a whole and have helped it attract new business and investment.

View the Fiscal Impacts of DART's Transit-Oriented Development Report
(Opens in a new window)

That $3.3 billion is projected to yield $78 million in annual property tax revenues (based on 2006 rates) for North Texas cities, counties and school districts. Weinstein's and Clower's review of TOD projects estimates that new retail developments near DART Rail stations will produce $650 million in taxable sales per year. This is projected to generate $40.6 million in sales tax income for the state and $6.5 million for local municipalities.

Green, Orange lines going strong
Moving forward, a big part of the Dallas region's economic future is riding on DART. Last fall, the agency began major construction on the new Green Line - a 20-station project that extends 27.7 miles from the Pleasant Grove section of Southeast Dallas northwest through the city center to Carrollton.


Fair Park Station looking north

View a slide show of
DART Rail Green Line aerial construction photos.
(Opens in a new window)
The first four stations are scheduled to be in service by September 2009. When complete in 2010, the Green Line will serve several regional business, medical, and entertainment destinations including Baylor University Medical Center, Fair Park, Victory Park, the Dallas Market Center, the UT Southwestern Medical District, Love Field Airport, and the cities of Farmers Branch and Carrollton.

A 14-mile, seven-station branch known as the Orange Line will extend from the Green Line in northwest Dallas to DFW International Airport by 2013. In addition, DART's Blue Line will extend to the east in 2012, and south in 2018. And a second rail line will open in the Dallas Central Business District in 2013 to accommodate the completed 93-mile system. Altogether, the rail extensions are expected to add 60,000 weekday passenger trips, essentially doubling ridership.

A number of major, nine-figure TOD projects are planned along both lines.

As the new century unfolds, Dallas is emerging as the global city it has so long aspired to be. The U.S. Census Bureau recently announced that the Dallas-Fort Worth "metroplex" has edged out Philadelphia to become the nation's fourth-largest - and second-fastest growing - metropolitan region. While the area continues to burgeon, DART Rail's success has impressed upon the entire region that rail transit can be a critical tool for economic development; in fact, non-transit cities in the area have begun a regional dialogue to find creative ways of getting transit, particularly rail.

Then you may want to check your stats. DART ridership has been off the charts since day one.

Was just using that to argue it hasn't been off the charts since day one as guru said...Understood it was from '02

I guess I just don't understand Easy180's opposition to studying it and developing a plan. I hear a lot about how the pro-rail group is rushing to build something but it seems that the anti-rail people are rushing even faster not to plan. I am as big of a fiscal conservative as anyone (probably more than anyone on this forum) and I think rail offers one of the best long-term solutions to commuting problems. It has worked in the this country for 100 years.

Freeways perform worst when they are needed the most, during rush hour. Imagine if you had a product that when you needed it the most it always performed at its worst. That is today's freeway system. However, rail perfroms consistantly at any level of usage. In fact, the more crowded that train is, the better it performs. If a 200 passenger train has 200 people on-board it doesn't slow down, but a freeway at capacity slows to stand still. If you look at cost to expand capacity rail wins hand down. To achieve a 33% capacity expansion of a typical freeway miles of new road have to be built. We all know how much that cost. To get a 33% expansion of a 3 cars train all you have to do is add a single $300,000 car. If you have to expand beyond the capacity of the rail platform all you have to do is add an additional train.

At one time many cities, including OKC, had rail systems that rivaled that of existing road infrastructure and those rail system carried more people than todays freeways. So don't tell me that it can't be done because we already did it once.

In short. Freeways at capacity peforms worse. Rail at capacity perfroms better.

I think light rail could work, and agree that it's time to think about it before you need it. I think the key is to keep it simple initially, with opportunities for expansion if needed or desired. A north-south line between either Guthrie or Edmond and Norman is something I would certainly use. Want to go out to the movies, to dinner or (hopefully) to a basketball game in Bricktown without parking issues? Hop on the train and pick up a pedicab or walk from the station. Want to go to the football game in Norman without parking issues? I'd love to take the train. A simple line like that, with radial buses or trollies to key places like the health sciences center, capital, etc. is a very attractive idea to me.

Thank you Betts. This is exactly the kind of service I would like to start with. Here in Atlanta parking at the train station is free if you stay less than 24 hours. It is only $4 per 24 hour period if you stay longer.

If you park in Edmond and go to Norman on game day you spend $4 on round trip rail fare. Just for fun lets say the trip takes you 1 hour each way. Under the Easy180 plan you drive the 40 miles to Norman and avarge 20 mpg. That is $24 in gas plus 80 miles on your car and the trip takes in excess of 2 hours each way. Let say you then pay another $20 for parking in Norman. You are now up to $44 in travel expense. Unless you plan to take 10 other people in your car I think the train is your best option.

Kerry, I've taken MARTA to the Perimeter Mall myself. My daughter lives near Metropolitan Parkway and works at Perimeter. On Marta, it takes about 20 minutes to get up there, whereas most of the time on the highway it takes 40 to 75 minutes, depending on the time of day. How much nicer not to sit in traffic. A lot of people in Atlanta still don't use MARTA, obviously, but when I've ridden it, it's been quite full and is a tremendous time saver if it goes where you want to go.

I would imagine the OU stop, which would probably be located where the tracks run by the Duck Pond at Brooks a short walk from campus, would have additional service for OU football games as the stadium is basically right next to such a stop. And if OU ever decides to build a new basketball arena *crosses fingers* the massive Duck Pond parking lot east of the stadium would make a fantastic location also next to the rail station. There would still be enough room on that eastside that abutts the park for some surface parking and additional parking for students/faculty, transit riders, and Sooner football/basketball fans could be created in a new multi-level garage to the north along Jenkins or Trout south of Sarkeys.

This area could also have new academic buildings (the only real area for expansion on campus) along and east of Jenkins to Trout and urban-style student apartments/townhomes where the Bishops Landing apartments and some rent homes are currently along the tracks north of the park. All of a sudden you have the OU campus extended all the way to the commuter rail stop with student housing and football/basketball all within a short walk of the stop. Campus Corner is not far down a well-lit and landscaped Brooks where it turns into a pedestrian-only street at Jenkins and then connects to Asp in between Price Hall and the new Wagner center under construction.

This would be an excellent example of "transit-oriented development" or TOD which makes a rail stop something much more and increases density around it. The same could happen with retail, restaurants, and especially high density residential around the other proposed commuter rail stops such as in downtown Norman, Moore, Crossroads (could redevelop the mall into something more mixed-use), in downtown, near the state capitol (could tie in with the redevelopment of 23rd Street into a mixed-use district west of the capitol building along I-235), in north OKC, and in downtown Edmond. I'm amazed at the TOD's here in Denver, just google Englewood or Littleton-Downtown and you'll see some great examples of what could also be successful in OKC and surrounding communities.

It certainly would be good for those events, but what are we talking about 6 home games for football all year

Light rail is certainly intriguing, but do we get our $500 million worth if only 3 to 5% of Okies use it?

I don't know...Why I am still up in the air about it

TOD in Edmond could finally give the city a dynamic core.

It certainly would be good for those events, but what are we talking about 6 home games for football all year

Light rail is certainly intriguing, but do we get our $500 million worth if only 3 to 5% of Okies use it?

I think a lot of it is intangible. You have to think about the effect having rail will have on people--and businesses--relocating here, and the effect it will have on our image. Light rail combined with the NBA will go a long ways towards our national image improving.

I think a lot of it is intangible. You have to think about the effect having rail will have on people--and businesses--relocating here, and the effect it will have on our image. Light rail combined with the NBA will go a long ways towards our national image improving.

Can't disagree with that jbrown...Those dam* intangibles!!

TOD in Edmond could finally give the city a dynamic core.

I couldn't stop thinking until a did a sketch.

Central Station Concept 1:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=107022609557984163662.00000112dd8116b57abd1&om=1&z=15

I can see both sides of the argument.

I remember in San Jose when light rail was first introduced.... there were so many empty trains.. yet the freeways were still packed with motorists.

It just seems some people are so attached to their cars, the convenience of getting to and from locations on their own terms and time.

It's been awhile so I'm sure it is successful now, the traffic has just gotten worse and worse, but it took a lot of time for it to become commonplace for people to commute. But, we did go to events downtown to avoid traffic jams and parking fees.

I do recall taking Bart quite frequently to San Francisco for different events. If we didn't have to stop so often at the stations, it would have been better. It seemed to take forever to get there and back compared to driving.

The one thing I would appreciate is getting to and from Bricktown from Edmond and enjoying the evening without worrying about a designated driver.

The money that will be spent bothers me a bit. We have such a need for other things such as educational needs, improved schools, better teacher pay, etc etc.

Still, like I said, I can see both sides.

I couldn't stop thinking until a did a sketch.

Central Station Concept 1:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=107022609557984163662.00000112dd8116b57abd1&om=1&z=15

Nice concept. You should be an architect. ;)

One city that has been overlooked in mentioning (I think, anyway) has been St. Louis. I'm a big Cardinals fan and love using their MetroLink service when I'm in town. They have a simple system, with a two-line system. Right now, the main line runs from Lambert International in NW St. Louis to Scott AFB in suburban Illinois (SE St. Louis metro area). They have just added a second line that branches off at Forest Park (their mid-town, basically) and runs WSW toward SLU, then SW to Shrewsbury.

Here's their map. If you know St. Louis at all, you'll see that the MetroLink connects all the big hotspots for that area:

http://urbanrail.net/am/slou/saint-louis-map.gif

I think copying what St. Louis did would likely work, with the second line being an E-W route and/or a NW Expressway route. Here's more info on the MetroLink: St. Louis MetroLink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis_Metrolink)

my light rail phase 1 ideas (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=114564274036136809344.00000112de85125089b54)

my light rail phase 1 ideas (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=114564274036136809344.00000112de85125089b54)

I like. Easily expandable. I like the location of the terminus--a good, central location with exisiting infrastructure.

Could the line in the vicinity of the Capitol go underground? There is already way too much crap cluttering the capitol grounds as it is. It could just join 23rd when it is below grade. EDIT: Is there enough right-of-way for the rail on 23rd? Maybe it could stay underground.

EDIT: Capitol Station were commuter rail meets light rail could be fantasic.

A continous loop might flow a little better.

Well, I didn't clarify. Basically it would travel north from the Ford Center, turn east towards Lincoln, circle back around, and turn back south on Broadway, back to the Ford Center. So in the higher traffic areas downtown, you would have trains going in both directions.

I don't know about underground. Isn't light rail just usually in the street?

I see...it is an essentially a terminus A to terminus B with A & B being the same.

DART (red line) goes underground for quite a ways in DT Dallas. There are 3 or 4 stations underground, including Mockingbird Station.

The MetroLink in St. Louis goes underground between the River and Busch Stadium.

Okay, you guys might think I'm crazy, but this would be my plan for Phases I-III of the OKC light rail (or monorail) system. The lines are approximate of course, but this is the general idea I've always been warm to. Here's my breakdown:

Phase I: The Main Line. Connects Will Rogers World Airport to Downtown, Ford Center, Bricktown, Medical Complex, State Capitol/state offices to the Remington Park/Omniplex/Zoo/Softball HOF area.

Phase II: NW Passage. Creates a downtown loop that snakes up Classen to Belle Isle, then shoots NW toward Morgan Rd.

Phase III: Edmond Express. That would shoot off just north of the Capitol and head to Edmond, stopping at UCO.

Anyway, that might be over-complexing things, but that's how I'd do it if I had unlimited funds, no right-of-way issues and 100 percent support. I'd like to add a Phase IV could connect Norman with stops on the south side and Crossroads. Then, a final Phase V could connect Yukon with Midwest City/Choctaw.

Here it is... bash me at will. Haha.

Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=35.516579,-97.524948&spn=0.214055,0.43808&z=11&om=1&msid=104556714912131735465.00000112deacdd22365fb)

Looks OK to me. It would be great to have a rail connection to DTOKC from the airport.

You're going to have a great time getting tracks down NW expressway.

Why not use more exisiting rail right-of-way?

Looks OK to me. It would be great to have a rail connection to DTOKC from the airport.

You're going to have a great time getting tracks down NW expressway.

Why not use more exisiting rail right-of-way?

Because I was doing my ultimate dream scenario connecting as much of the northside population together as possible. I realize some of what I went with could never work, but after I made my original line (WRW to Remington), I kinda just started playing connect-the-dots.

Like I said, a lot of this is approximate. As for the NWX leg? Well, I just think that's vital to commuter-to-downtown work travel. Just look at the map to see what is the most-populated area of OKC. Guess you could snake it around the NW side generally following NWX, but I just went straight up the highway since I just threw it together.

Karried,

When I worked in San Jose about 2.5 years ago the San Jose system was still not be used to its potential. The problem i saw with it is that it seemed to be designed to focus heavily on CISCO employees, many of whom now work from home. Other than CISCO the train really didn't go anywhere. There were no centers of commerce, shopping or residential development along the routes. It didn't even connect to other transit options like CalTrain.

Now that the train goes further south maybe ridership will improve. Another problem was it was way to slow. That is the problem I have with light rail covering long distances. They have to share the roadway with traffic and even though the train has the right of way, it still can't go very fast. Add in all of the stops and in most cases, you can ride your bike faster than taking the train.

VTA might be the best example of bad planning. Of course, this is the San Fran bay area whcih has a history of bad planning.

Would it be possible for trains to have free wi-fi to all passengers? I don't know much about light rail but I think that would be one more selling point to the public and promote ridership.

You know the naysayers said the Heartland Flyer wouldn't work. And it seems to be doing okay. Sure, we have to subsidize it, but most Amtrak lines are subsidized. Really, that's part of the price tag that comes along with public transportation. Even Metro Transit is subsidized. So, we add commuter rail subsidization to the city budget,a nd we're on our way. That's what every other city does. Hopefully it will save us from having to pay EPA fines.

Cars and trucks are subsidized by the general taxpayer too. Oklahoma City is about to take out a 500 million dollar 30 year mortgage to repair its streets, and this is on top of all the other bond issues that included street repair over the last decade or so. If cars paid their own way, this wouldn't be necessary. The argument that "mass transit is bad because it is taxpayer subsidized" is propaganda. All forms of transit are subsidized to one extent or another by the taxpayers.

When I worked in San Jose about 2.5 years ago the San Jose system was still not be used to its potential.


I feared as much.. it was pretty sad to see the empty trains.

I think that is what many people are afraid of happening here.

I hear you Karried but it is kind of like deciding not to have kids because you see someone that can't control theirs. The things is to not base your entire transit plan on one business like San Jose did. Learning from other's mistakes is better than learning from your own. I took a look at VTAs web site and they have added several new line recently so maybe they leaned their lesson.

As for the WiFi - they are looking to put that in here in Atlanta on MARTA. The problem is that when the train goes underground it can't recieve a signal and the technology isn't there yet. MARTA is just putting out an RFP for somone to try and put it in. They also want the wining bid to pay $1,000,000 per year to put the system in and it has to be free to the user.

Remember we want the most bang for our buck with this system, and the public won't support it if it's too expensive. That makes plans with extensive new track systems on existing city streets VERY expensive and probably not feasible, at least for our starter line. That is why I advocated using as few city streets as possible at first and using key streets with high densities and ROW (like a center turn lane) for the trains. I believe 10th from OUHSC to Broadway to E.K. Gaylord to the new blvd. would be feasible because these are already wide streets and they connect most of the important (and growing) areas of downtown.

Then you connect it to the commuter system between Edmond and Norman that uses the existing BNSF tracks, which saves a lot of money. Even if they have to build a new track the fact that it's in the BNSF ROW is a huge savings over tearing up roads, plus that slows the speed of the train down. We need commuters from Edmond and Norman to get to downtown FASTER than they do in their cars, even with a few stops. And then have light rail waiting for them when they get downtown, or they can walk/bike.

Any starter line cannot be too ambitious or the public won't support it. We need the commuter line and an accompanying light rail line connecting OUHSC to the CBD and Bricktown and going down our new fancy blvd. lined with shops and hotels (hopefully). After that we plan the next phases i.e. light rail up Walker and Classen, E-W commuter rail to the airport and Midwest City/Tinker AFB, etc.