If I can ride the rail to and from the thunder games I think I can help myself to a few more beers

I agree with this, but I question Tinker-to-downtown as a the right starting point. I used to live in Edmond and worked downtown. I would gladly have taken a light rail option, if it had been available. Since I took Broadway Ext. normally, I never knew if my commute was going to take 20 minutes or 1 1/2 hrs. It could vary anywhere in between the two, depending on whether there was an accident or not. That commute was 17 miles each way, btw. These days, I still work downtown, but I live in Midwest City, so I'm a prime candidate for using the proposed rail line. But I live about 6 miles from downtown and 3 miles from Tinker. So using a rail system now only gains me a 3 mile advantage, whereas before it would have given me a 12-15 mile advantage. Since I drive a car that gets about 30 mpg and I sometimes work weird hours, gas would probably have to approach $7-$10/gal before the cost/nuisance factor would equal out enough for me to consider using the light rail option.

Don't get me wrong - I live in Edmond and would love that too. I really wish we could start with that also, but it sounds like the easiest and cheapest start would be the MWC - DT line because a lot of the prerequisites are already in place. I think Metro stated the case pretty well above.

My point is that I guess beggers can't be choosers. Let's take what we can get to start the project since they are helping with the costs. Then with MAPS 3 we can expand from there.

My point is that I guess beggers can't be choosers. Let's take what we can get to start the project since they are helping with the costs. Then with MAPS 3 we can expand from there.

I agree with you. I'll take what we can get and hope we expand from there. I was doing some "armchair quarterbacking".

Let's get the MWC line started, because someone else is going to be paying for it. Would I prefer that we had the Norman to OKC line ready to go? Of course. But it's not.

This city needs to start somewhere. If MWC is all that is prepped, then so be it. That's where we'll start. This is ultimately a matter of either taking money to pay for a project that may not be ideal, or not getting free money at all. If my rich old uncle Herbert (or in this case, Uncle Sam) wants to give me a million dollars to build a garden in my backyard, I'll take it, even though I don't really want a garden.

Free money? Someone else paying for it? Yeaahhhhhh.

I wonder if someone could find the average traffic density numbers between MWC and Bricktown...that could be enlightening.

I wonder if someone could find the average traffic density numbers between MWC and Bricktown...that could be enlightening.

You can piece together some of what you're looking for here: ACOG traffic counts (http://www.acogok.org/Programs_and_Services/Transportation_and_Data_Services/TrafficCounts/) Although this won't show where folks are headed, it does show the load on the arteries between those two points.

The numbers are not a surprise at all...keep in mind, as others have stated, this was the only 'transit' project that was on paper enough to be "shovel ready", which is sad.

Not to mention if you consider this as a starter line (or by the time it's implemented maybe it's not), and if MAPS3 has mass transit (which I would almost guarantee), this line could tie into other lines proposed in MAPS3, then voila ---we have more than one line in operation at about the same time, and we got the feds to pay for part of it that otherwise we might have had to foot all the bill on. I'm not sure why people are so upset at this or think it's optional/ up for discussion, as sgray stated, it's take it or leave it, either way we're paying for it, might as well route money to our state for a change. Some of these posters sound like the politicians we've had for decades having no problem routing money we should be getting to other states instead.

Yeah totally agree. How exciting would it be if that actually happens, and then the next step is to run lines from Edmond to Bricktown and Norman to Bricktown? Folks could get downtown or out to Tinker from the two largest suburbs in the metro.

My perspective from living in Norman, top destinations:

Norman to WRWA; Norman to downtown OKC transit station

Bricktown is maybe 4th on my list.

bus rapid transit or regular bus service with increased frequency would be a great substitute or precursor for rail on similar routes.

Hey blangtang,

How is the intra-Norman bus service doing? I know it started up, what, a couple years back? I have yet to use it, but I am curious as to how it's doing.

It's operated by the University, isn't it?

Based on my own experience (I also live in Norman) CART works quite well. The buses are generally clean, on time, and safe. My experience my not represent everyone's though.

Hey blangtang,

How is the intra-Norman bus service doing? I know it started up, what, a couple years back? I have yet to use it, but I am curious as to how it's doing.

It's operated by the University, isn't it?

yep, mostly funded by the Uni, since the late 80's, with a little bit thrown in by City of Norman-sad state of affairs. Although the City of Norman funded a recent study, which gave an upgrade/blueprint on how to carry on in the future-all depending on a city funding source.

CART(cleveland area rapid transit--"rapid" ha ha), yeah its mainly an OU based and funded service that interfaces with the OKC COTPA b.s.

the routes in Norman are decent, but mainly geared toward OU students (since its mainly funded by OU student fees). The City of Norman piggybacks.

the service drops off when classes are out-summer, xmas break, holidays, etc.

the thing that chides my hide, is how CART can get me up to OKC on a Fri afternoon, but I can't get back to Norman till Monday morning on the current schedule.

For example: i catch the last bus from Norman leaving around 5 pm up to downtown OKC for the Friday night NBA Thunder game. All is good and well, i get dumped downtown. Well i'm stuck in OKC till monday morning around 7 a.m. to catch a bus back to the OU campus in Norman.

COTPA + Cart=Major Suck!

I have nothing postive to say, the whole thing needs to be scrapped. COTPA is more focused on wasting money on river cruises and parking garages.

Long live the individual automobile!

While I can't say I agree with your overall sentiment, I have to agree that not having the Sooner Express route run on the weekends confuses me. I would think there would be quite a bit of demand for it, especially if it ran to bricktown at night!

Let's keep this thread on page one!I live in MWC and would like to see a light rail sys. built here!I would park my car around town center and take the train into bricktown anytime I needed! like for a thunder game and a movie or a night out!

Apparently the stimulus is very close to being passed, and they made no mentioned of the transportation money being taken out: Crunch time: Final stimulus details in the works - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/12/stimulus/index.html)

Let's cross our fingers guys...this could be the jumpstart that forces mass transit to start here soon rather than "maybe in 2030".

You said it right "FORCES", which means--take/accept something that we don't need.

Stimulus Watch (http://www.stimuluswatch.org/) has a listing of projects and Midwest City has requested $4,000,000 for construction of light rail- first phase of system.

This is just a drop in the bucket of what would actually be needed to create a light rail line.

(http://www.stimuluswatch.org/)

yep, mostly funded by the Uni, since the late 80's, with a little bit thrown in by City of Norman-sad state of affairs. Although the City of Norman funded a recent study, which gave an upgrade/blueprint on how to carry on in the future-all depending on a city funding source.

CART(cleveland area rapid transit--"rapid" ha ha), yeah its mainly an OU based and funded service that interfaces with the OKC COTPA b.s.

the routes in Norman are decent, but mainly geared toward OU students (since its mainly funded by OU student fees). The City of Norman piggybacks.

the service drops off when classes are out-summer, xmas break, holidays, etc.

the thing that chides my hide, is how CART can get me up to OKC on a Fri afternoon, but I can't get back to Norman till Monday morning on the current schedule.

For example: i catch the last bus from Norman leaving around 5 pm up to downtown OKC for the Friday night NBA Thunder game. All is good and well, i get dumped downtown. Well i'm stuck in OKC till monday morning around 7 a.m. to catch a bus back to the OU campus in Norman.

COTPA + Cart=Major Suck!

I have nothing postive to say, the whole thing needs to be scrapped. COTPA is more focused on wasting money on river cruises and parking garages.

Long live the individual automobile!

The lack of bus service from Norman to OKC and back keeps away a lot of OU students that would go into downtown. The gripe is always "I've had a few drinks and can't drive back and a cab ride is too expensive." They really need to get a better link between Norman and downtown OKC, whether it be rail or rapid bus...

It makes no sense the state's largest city and 3rd largest city, only 20 miles apart, are not better connected.

The lack of bus service from Norman to OKC and back keeps away a lot of OU students that would go into downtown. The gripe is always "I've had a few drinks and can't drive back and a cab ride is too expensive." They really need to get a better link between Norman and downtown OKC, whether it be rail or rapid bus...

It makes no sense the state's largest city and 3rd largest city, only 20 miles apart, are not better connected.


It makes no sense to spend millions on rail or rapid transit to haul a bunch of drunk college students to OKC and back

And it takes 15--20 minutes to drive from Norman to Moore to OKC, how much more connected can you get.

Even if they build light rail or improve rapid bus, they still would not be used.

You said it right "FORCES", which means--take/accept something that we don't need.

For years, politicians here have creatively "FORCED" this issue to stay shelved, regardless of what the people vote for. This may force them to give into what the people, as a whole, want. Not what certain people want (or lobby for).

You said "take/accept something that we don't need." That is your opinion, just as my opinion is that we don't need a future full of 20-lane double-stacked highway or gas-guzzling/polluting automobiles just to move around. So, it's a matter of opinion. If a majority of the folks are of the opinion that it is needed, then it should and will happen.


It makes no sense to spend millions on rail or rapid transit to haul a bunch of drunk college students to OKC and back

And it takes 15--20 minutes to drive from Norman to Moore to OKC, how much more connected can you get.

Even if they build light rail or improve rapid bus, they still would not be used.

Are you aware that a clear majority of the folks here in the area have expressed a solid interest in furthering mass transit? You are certainly entitled to your opinion/vote the same as I or anyone else for that matter, but if more folks want to see mass transit, then it does make sense to fulfill that will of the people. You must understand that on this specific project in midwest city, we have 2 choices: 1) take the money; or 2) give the money to another state. Either way, we are gonna pay our portion for it. Agree or disagree with it, it doesn't matter, because this is where we are now. Take it or leave it.

As far as your second statement, making a generalization that we are spending millions on rail or rapid transit just to "haul a bunch of drunk college students to OKC and back" is simply not fact. How would you know that the $$$ spent on the rail line would solely, or mostly for that matter, be used to haul drunk college students back and forth?

For years, politicians here have creatively "FORCED" this issue to stay shelved, regardless of what the people vote for. This may force them to give into what the people, as a whole, want. Not what certain people want (or lobby for).

You said "take/accept something that we don't need." That is your opinion, just as my opinion is that we don't need a future full of 20-lane double-stacked highway or gas-guzzling/polluting automobiles just to move around. So, it's a matter of opinion. If a majority of the folks are of the opinion that it is needed, then it should and will happen.



Are you aware that a clear majority of the folks here in the area have expressed a solid interest in furthering mass transit? You are certainly entitled to your opinion/vote the same as I or anyone else for that matter, but if more folks want to see mass transit, then it does make sense to fulfill that will of the people. You must understand that on this specific project in midwest city, we have 2 choices: 1) take the money; or 2) give the money to another state. Either way, we are gonna pay our portion for it. Agree or disagree with it, it doesn't matter, because this is where we are now. Take it or leave it.

As far as your second statement, making a generalization that we are spending millions on rail or rapid transit just to "haul a bunch of drunk college students to OKC and back" is simply not fact. How would you know that the $$$ spent on the rail line would solely, or mostly for that matter, be used to haul drunk college students back and forth?

My comment on the college kids was in reference to a post by someone on this thread about how more college kids would ride mass transit from Norman to OKC, so that they could drink without having to worry about a DUI or pay cab fare.

The City already has a bus system, and according to a recent study, the average, daily ridership per bus was 13 (on a 40 passenger bus), I don't see that improving just because we have new buses or light rail.

Maybe if you actually lived in Oklahoma, and specifically the metro Daniel, you would understand the issues with the commute. I'm not sure how long it has been since you picked up and moved to sunny Florida, but pretty much the commute isn't fun and has got worse. I remember when I could get from my Norman home to the airport in 20 minutes. Now? 40-50 minutes depending on traffic.

13 people per bus? IT IS A FREAKING BUS. To most people there is absolutely no time savings in taking a bus than just driving themselves. Train? There will likely be a time savings especially during rush hour and especially while I-35 is going to be torn up for the next few-several years.

Common sense.

My comment on the college kids was in reference to a post by someone on this thread about how more college kids would ride mass transit from Norman to OKC, so that they could drink without having to worry about a DUI or pay cab fare.

I know, but you tied that comment to the millions being spent on the rail and there is much much more to the picture. Also, you don't think they'd have to pay bus or rail fare?

What venture79 said about the Norman route...I take that regularly and it has really gone to hell as far as the traffic load...equally so with edmond...and it doesn't have to be full-on rush hour either. Without getting into another whole debate, the city (and state) has become quite fond of gas-powered vehicles, dysfunctional interchanges, excessive yield signs, and left-hand on/off-ramps.


The City already has a bus system, and according to a recent study, the average, daily ridership per bus was 13 (on a 40 passenger bus), I don't see that improving just because we have new buses or light rail.

When was the last time you rode the bus (in OKC, of course)? In most cities, the bus 'works'. Here, it really only does (for sure) if you can leave a day early. I feel for the folks who have no other choice.

The city doesn't have a "bus system". The city has a collection of buses and a neat, artsy-looking "thing" they call a bus terminal, put in a great location for a sandwich shop. You don't see people eager to lead Metro Transit with the "C-clamp" they've got around them financially. If they try to do more to make it efficient, more of the little funding they already have will be pulled to push it back into the red.

Not even enough money has been allocated to make a little bus system work (some might say on purpose). I hope nobody paid for said study because anyone that lives and moves around within the city already knows the situation well.

It doesn't take a transit scientist to understand what the deal is with OKC's bus system. I can appreciate the standpoint of watching the spending, but we need a "crowbar" that can rip the transit issue off the shelf and force the city and metro leaders to address this...now! And I think that the MWC system might just be that "crowbar".

I also wanted to touch more on your comment about "forcing". What do you suppose has been done to us with roads and cars since they forcefully removed the rail systems we had way back when? You don't see that as forcing one method onto the people? And when gas prices skyrocket, they talk about it like they're planning something, then when the prices go down, it get's quieter and quieter.

The real issue is that there is no commuting problem in Oklahoma City, despite what you may think - and that comes from someone who has lived and commuted in the OKC area all his adult life. Go to a city like Dallas, Los Angeles, Atlanta, or other city with real congestion issues and you'll realize we here in Oklahoma City are spoiled rotten when it comes to the availability and convenience of our metro highways. No offense, folks, but if someone from those areas heard those of us in OKC complain about a 40-minute commute from WRWA to Norman, they'd laugh their heads off.

Just because "someone else will get it" doesn't mean that its a reasonable, intelligent expenditure of funds. That's part of the idiotic, governmental, bureaucratic mentality that is the very essence of wasted taxpayer dollars.

The economies of scale for light rail in central Oklahoma are laughable given our population densities. It is a populist, politically popular notion in our green-hysteria religious frenzy we're in right now, but in real-world, practical terms it makes absolutely no sense to connect OKC to Norman via light rail. Then again, it makes absolutely no sense to continue to subsidize the Heartland Flyer, as it loses money every time it moves, but its cool, nostalgic, and sophomoric, so who cares how much it costs, right?

According to information at wikipedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Costs_of_light_rail_construction_and_op eration) light rail construction projects range from $15 million per mile to as high as $179 million per mile (Seattle). That means that a 20-mile (est) run from Norman to OKC would, optimistically, run somewhere in the ballpark of $300 million. And that's on the cheap end. Amazing how quickly that $465 million disappears, eh?

The point is we can't get worked up into a lather just because someone says "light rail." It is just as ludicrous to superimpose light rail in the OKC area as it would be to superimpose more vehicle traffic in the northeast US.

Just because a sizeable number of folks have expressed an interest in furthering or expanding mass transit doesn't mean they immediately support a half-billion-dollar boondoggle into light rail. While I tend to agree that there is similarly little benefit in the OKC area bus service, I must offer the opinion that you could modernize, expand, and improve that existing service, and correspondingly increase ridership, for drastically less money per additional rider-mile than light rail.

Per cost data drawn from here, (http://www.cleanairnet.org/infopool/1411/propertyvalue-19512.html) CNG buses cost about $275K each, while a slo-fill CNG fueling station runs around $300K. That means that for an allocation of $10 million, you could (theoretically) install 10 CNG fueling stations and purchase something on the order of 28 CNG buses that could serve the entire city. This isn't to say a CNG-based bus alternative is the be-all, end-all; it's merely another perfectly viable option that, compared to light rail, would probably be much more effective for OKC commute issues.

Of course it makes sense to explore mass transit alternatives. We simply cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into the notion that there is one "absolute" solution merely because the government is throwing money at it.

-SoonerDave

SoonerDave,

Would you mind providing the expense figures on our highway costs (complete build-out and maintenance per mile) and then also factor in the cost of the vehicles that run on it, fuel consumption, etc... These figures should also include the next 20/30-year forecast because the highways will have to be widened again and again.

That way you are being thorough and not just biased towards one mode. Interestingly, with all the figures on rail costs in your message, there are no figures at all on interstates (and expansion) for the reader to come to an informed conclusion on the subject. In fact there are no costs at all on road-transit related expenses. And we know highways are very expensive to build and maintain, not to mention the larger land requirements as opposed to rail.

Perhaps it is possible that with the figures sitting side-by-side, that the reader may come to the conclusion that an average-width highway with rapid transit as a load-balancing solution might offer the best cost-benefit. In addition, the headaches of "rush hour" might persuade folks to take mass transit (at least during that time frame) and further aid the load-balance concept, thereby resulting in no need for a 20-lane highway. Who knows...

It makes no sense to spend millions on rail or rapid transit to haul a bunch of drunk college students to OKC and back

And it takes 15--20 minutes to drive from Norman to Moore to OKC, how much more connected can you get.

Even if they build light rail or improve rapid bus, they still would not be used.

Can you name any cities that put in light rail and now they wish to God they hadn't?

Maybe a lot of people like you were bitterly opposed to raising taxes to support the various MAPS projects over the years. But can anyone find someone who thinks doing that was a wrong and stupid way to spend precious taxpayer money?

Can you name any cities that put in light rail and now they wish to God they hadn't?

Maybe they wish they did it another way but when i was in Las Vegas they dropped over 600 million on that POS monorail system them have. Many of the locals think it was built wrong without much planning. If you have been there you know what I am talking about, because its so much easier to cab it because the stations are strangly placed and not close to anything.

Maybe they wish they did it another way but when i was in Las Vegas they dropped over 600 million on that POS monorail system them have. Many of the locals think it was built wrong without much planning. If you have been there you know what I am talking about, because its so much easier to cab it because the stations are strangly placed and not close to anything.

The plan that Las Vegas (read: casinos) put in place is a POS. The equipment is not POS, but the layout and station locations are stupid with one exception--the convention center. Business folk pile into that thing like the world is coming to an end. Trying to use that system while on your vacation there is pointless, simply because you have to walk to egypt to get to it. Definitely bad planning, but not bad equipment, just overpriced equipment.

I think if they'd have put it over the center of the strip, it would have been easy easy to get to (they have those street crossing things with the escalators on them that would have made good, cheap stops that were actually in the line of traffic, you know?

They should have also been more open-minded to other bidders besides Bombardier. Similar situation in the airline industry--that's why you see so many Embraer jets now...cheaper, yet functionally the same. I think Las Vegas could have easily chopped that number in half if they were smart.

Maybe if you actually lived in Oklahoma, and specifically the metro Daniel, you would understand the issues with the commute. I'm not sure how long it has been since you picked up and moved to sunny Florida, but pretty much the commute isn't fun and has got worse. I remember when I could get from my Norman home to the airport in 20 minutes. Now? 40-50 minutes depending on traffic.

13 people per bus? IT IS A FREAKING BUS. To most people there is absolutely no time savings in taking a bus than just driving themselves. Train? There will likely be a time savings especially during rush hour and especially while I-35 is going to be torn up for the next few-several years.

Common sense.

Venture79, pardon my French, but what in the hell are talking about, I don't live in Florida, never have, never will, I have lived in the Norman the past 17 years. I can leave my house in Brookhaven and be downtown in no more than 25 minutes (during rush hour).


If you would think about it, a bus ride would be faster:

If you think the bus is slow, how's this for the train, if you live in the East side of Norman you have to drive to the station on Main, 10--15 minutes, park and walk to station, 5 minutes, stand in line to buy ticket, 5--10 minutes, board train and find seat, 5 minutes, stop in Moore to load/off-load passengers, 15--30 minutes, ride from Moore to OKC, 15--20 minutes, arrive at station in OKC, then you have to walk, catch a bus or cab to your final destination. With that said, a 20--30 minute car ride turned into a 1--1 1/2 hour nightmare.

Can you name any cities that put in light rail and now they wish to God they hadn't?

Maybe a lot of people like you were bitterly opposed to raising taxes to support the various MAPS projects over the years. But can anyone find someone who thinks doing that was a wrong and stupid way to spend precious taxpayer money?


Bunty, you shouldn't speak when you have no clue, I was not opposed to the MAPS projects, if I had lived in the OKC limits, I definately would have voted "YES".
Nothing approved/ funded and completed with MAPS money was a waste like rail transit would be, we do not have the population numbers to justify the millions, if not billons, a light rail system would cost.

Again, before you go blowing smoke, have you facts straight.

I can leave my house in Brookhaven and be downtown in no more than 25 minutes (during rush hour).

I want to follow you through one of these "rush hour" 25-minute runs from Norman to Downtown and see how you're bypassing the gridlock. During off-peak (non rush hour) times with lower traffic loads and no stopping, going the speed limit of 70, it takes me 30 minutes to get up to norman. Could prolly do less than 30 mins during off-peak if going 90 MPH. Are you speeding? Sure enough, looked up the distance and it comes out to about half an hour at minimum 70mph (Not rush hour gridlock).



If you think the bus is slow, how's this for the train, if you live in the East side of Norman you have to drive to the station on Main, 10--15 minutes, park and walk to station, 5 minutes, stand in line to buy ticket, 5--10 minutes, board train and find seat, 5 minutes, stop in Moore to load/off-load passengers, 15--30 minutes, ride from Moore to OKC, 15--20 minutes, arrive at station in OKC, then you have to walk, catch a bus or cab to your final destination. With that said, a 20--30 minute car ride turned into a 1--1 1/2 hour nightmare.

If you studied mass transit design, you would know that each area served by rail should have, at minimum, a skeleton grid bus system with pretty decent frequency on your major arteries...park-n-rides are a nice add-on too. This system not only gets you to the rail stop quick, but also is useful for most of your in-town runs (full coverage, which is the idea). Concerning tickets, I NEVER stand in line to buy fare when I'm using other cities mass transit. For example, I have a Breezecard for Marta in Atlanta...swipe and hop on! Finally, on the stop-times...rapid transit rail systems are like 30 secs or less. Very little wait at each stop. Most of the light rail I've used is similar.


we do not have the population numbers to justify the millions, if not billons, a light rail system would cost.

If our population was not an issue, then we wouldn't be in an endless loop of expanding and widening our highways, you know? Again, you need to study other areas like ours. Go look at other systems in similarly-populated areas. We have a very unique issue in that we are a very spread-out city, where walking is simply not an option for most people. And there are a lot of people that either can not afford or choose not to have a car.


As I wrote in my previous post, the real truth lies in the huge amount of dollars we are spending on big, wide, paved highways! In addition, we keep widening, and widening, and widening. It's an addiction that is wasteful, and when you pull the numbers on what we spend on highway work alone, the rail numbers won't seem so huge anymore. Also, think about this in terms of waste. Non-commercial traffic dominates the highways. On average, how many persons are in a given automobile on the highway? Now look at how much space that automobile takes up on the road, compared to even a lightly-loaded rail car or bus. Then you look at the fuel use/burn just for that one/two person(s) to have all that car space. Now figure up the cost of the highway, on average, for every car.

Look closely and you'll see why a well-designed transit system (coupled with an average highway size) very well could be the best cost-benefit to us as opposed to an ever-expanding mega-highway, whose big, elevated interchanges would grow with as well.

FYI-Look at how much $$$ we are forking over just for that short section of crosstown interstate. What is it, TEN lanes now???



Again, before you go blowing smoke, have you facts straight.

I want to follow you through one of these "rush hour" 25-minute runs from Norman to Downtown and see how you're bypassing the gridlock. During off-peak (non rush hour) times with lower traffic loads and no stopping, going the speed limit of 70, it takes me 30 minutes to get up to norman. Could prolly do less than 30 mins during off-peak if going 90 MPH. Are you speeding? Sure enough, looked up the distance and it comes out to about half an hour at minimum 70mph (Not rush hour gridlock).




If you studied mass transit design, you would know that each area served by rail should have, at minimum, a skeleton grid bus system with pretty decent frequency on your major arteries...park-n-rides are a nice add-on too. This system not only gets you to the rail stop quick, but also is useful for most of your in-town runs (full coverage, which is the idea). Concerning tickets, I NEVER stand in line to buy fare when I'm using other cities mass transit. For example, I have a Breezecard for Marta in Atlanta...swipe and hop on! Finally, on the stop-times...rapid transit rail systems are like 30 secs or less. Very little wait at each stop. Most of the light rail I've used is similar.



If our population was not an issue, then we wouldn't be in an endless loop of expanding and widening our highways, you know? Again, you need to study other areas like ours. Go look at other systems in similarly-populated areas. We have a very unique issue in that we are a very spread-out city, where walking is simply not an option for most people. And there are a lot of people that either can not afford or choose not to have a car.


As I wrote in my previous post, the real truth lies in the huge amount of dollars we are spending on big, wide, paved highways! In addition, we keep widening, and widening, and widening. It's an addiction that is wasteful, and when you pull the numbers on what we spend on highway work alone, the rail numbers won't seem so huge anymore. Also, think about this in terms of waste. Non-commercial traffic dominates the highways. On average, how many persons are in a given automobile on the highway? Now look at how much space that automobile takes up on the road, compared to even a lightly-loaded rail car or bus. Then you look at the fuel use/burn just for that one/two person(s) to have all that car space. Now figure up the cost of the highway, on average, for every car.

Look closely and you'll see why a well-designed transit system (coupled with an average highway size) very well could be the best cost-benefit to us as opposed to an ever-expanding mega-highway, whose big, elevated interchanges would grow with as well.

FYI-Look at how much $$$ we are forking over just for that short section of crosstown interstate. What is it, TEN lanes now???



Tell me when your ready to follow me and I'll give you my address, I live in the new section of Brookhaven, off of 48th, just S. of Robinson. I take 48th N. to Tecumseh, Tecumseh to I-35, and guarentee you I'll make to to downtown OKC in less than 30 minutes. (and I drive the speed limit)

Again, as for the light rail, it will never work in this area, I hope and pray that we don't waste our money.

Just wandering, since you are so opposed to highways/car travel, how often do you use the present bus system in either Norman or OKC.

Tell me when your ready to follow me and I'll give you my address, I live in the new section of Brookhaven, off of 48th, just S. of Robinson. I take 48th N. to Tecumseh, Tecumseh to I-35, and guarentee you I'll make to to downtown OKC in less than 30 minutes. (and I drive the speed limit)

Don't forget, you said you were going to do this in the middle of rush hour, when the highway is at an almost standstill for a great portion of the i-35 stretch. And you said 25 minutes home-to-downtown, not to be picky or anything...just sayin.



Again, as for the light rail, it will never work in this area, I hope and pray that we don't waste our money.

How do you know it will not work? It has not been done on any scale here in recent years. The old rail back in the day was a great success. How can you be so sure, when there are places less and more populated than us, packed in tighter as a city (obviously easier to walk) and rail/bus has been a great success.


Just wandering, since you are so opposed to highways/car travel, how often do you use the present bus system in either Norman or OKC.

If you read my previous posts within the last couple of days, you'd see where I commented on the insanely non-existent budgets for Metro Transit (as well as CART). I have tried to use the bus here, but they are trying to do too much with too little (and I don't fault the operations themselves for that). You can't do bus alone on a city with our huge spread and have so few buses to add to that. Do you realize that we do not even have a bus that goes to the airport??? The truth of the matter is that Metro Transit has a huge c-clamp around it financially and, IMO, that was done on purpose.

Now, let's talk about CART in your city. The city of Norman doesn't even fund the bus system there at all! OU has had to step up and do what the city wont do. What's up with that? Understand this is a city whose own city council sent a resolution to Governor Henry asking him to save precious rail assets in Oklahoma City and stressing the important of mass transit to our future, and they won't even fund their own little city bus system???

The writing's on the wall around here with regard to the local bus operations. You cannot do something with nothing.

SGRAY:

You are right. POS was not the word of choice as the system was very nice and top notch. But the fact that it was shoved to the side and nowhere near the strip was ridiculous. You are right, if they had an elevated monorail right down the strip it would be more economical.

And rail would work here if you don't over saturate it. Yukon, OKC, MWC (Tinker) as one line. With a spur from meridian corridor going to Will ROgers. Then Edmond, OKC, Moore, Norman.

I frequent norman quite often, and as much as I love driving, sometimes I wouldn't mind parking and riding, even if it takes longer. Hell folks in Los Angeles were very opposed to thier system and now they can't live without it.

Bunty, you shouldn't speak when you have no clue, I was not opposed to the MAPS projects, if I had lived in the OKC limits, I definately would have voted "YES".
Nothing approved/ funded and completed with MAPS money was a waste like rail transit would be, we do not have the population numbers to justify the millions, if not billons, a light rail system would cost.

Again, before you go blowing smoke, have you facts straight.

There are two thought processes when developing a fixed-guideway system for any city. 1) Corridor alignment in areas with sufficient densities 2) Corridor alignment in areas with significant infill opportunities like TOD.

What most cities do, especially in the West, where true ubiquitous densities do not exist, is a combination of the two. Corridor placement is situated along some of the higher densities and through areas of infill opportunity. Same could be done here. We have ample infill space along all the suggested corridors and enough commuting citizens for a system to have an immediate impact.

To say we do not have the population numbers is a misconception of the long-range implications of a functioning, well designed transit system. It's the same mentality of people who are complacent with the status-quo and do just enough to appear busy. Current population is only part of the picture. This region is growing, and highway capacity is shrinking. We need to be proactive and stay ahead of that curve, by providing alternatives in transportation and lifestyle.

It may only take you 25 minutes to get downtown, but do you really believe that will be constant. With the rate of growth in Norman and Moore, in 10 years that commute could increase substantially and your quality of life could suffer.


There is an opportunity here to really change the perception, lifestyles, and status-quo of this city and region. Just because it is, doesn't mean it has to be. Cities around the country have citizens and officials that always say something can't be done. Cities also have leaders - men and women willing to take the risk and successfully prove them wrong.

SoonerDave,

Would you mind providing the expense figures on our highway costs (complete build-out and maintenance per mile) and then also factor in the cost of the vehicles that run on it, fuel consumption, etc... These figures should also include the next 20/30-year forecast because the highways will have to be widened again and again.

That way you are being thorough and not just biased towards one mode. Interestingly, with all the figures on rail costs in your message, there are no figures at all on interstates (and expansion) for the reader to come to an informed conclusion on the subject. In fact there are no costs at all on road-transit related expenses. And we know highways are very expensive to build and maintain, not to mention the larger land requirements as opposed to rail.

Perhaps it is possible that with the figures sitting side-by-side, that the reader may come to the conclusion that an average-width highway with rapid transit as a load-balancing solution might offer the best cost-benefit. In addition, the headaches of "rush hour" might persuade folks to take mass transit (at least during that time frame) and further aid the load-balance concept, thereby resulting in no need for a 20-lane highway. Who knows...

What biases? I will admit to a bias against government throwing money at something merely for the sake of throwing money at it. I was trying to offer the opinion that there are substantially more efficient alternatives than light rail, and tried to offer some base of data on which to support that opinion.

In an effort to meet your request, the closest I could find to a similar piece of information for highway construction was here (http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/policy/07-29-2008%20Generic%20Response%20to%20Cost%20per%20Lane %20Mile%20for%20widening%20and%20new%20constructio n.pdf), wherein the approximate cost for the addition of a single lanes to an existing highway ranged from $2.4 million to $6.9 million per lane-mile. The same document indicates that new highway construction through urban areas ranges from $4.9 milion per lane-mile to $19.5 million. The worst-case figure of $19.5 million is still something on the order of 1/8 the cost of the Seattle $197 million/mile light rail fiasco, with the low-end something on the order of 1/3 the low-end of the light rail new construction range.

Understand, too, that the original discussion centered around a $465 earmark for light rail. I was trying to add some informed analysis on the relative cost of a light rail system versus another, cheaper alternative, in the midst of this frenzy about light rail. I was trying to point out that for a fraction more than 2% of that $465 million "light rail subsidy" package, you could lay a theoretical groundwork for a mass transit alternative that would serve a much greater subset of OKC population leveraging existing infrastructure and tapping a natural resource that is abundant in Oklahoma. And I also specifically stated that I made no pretense that it was a be-all, end-all solution.

The point is we need coherent, cogent research into alternatives for mass transit, not merely to throw money at it because a foolhardy government wants to spend its way out of a fiscal disaster largely of its own creation.

-SoonerDave

Don't forget, you said you were going to do this in the middle of rush hour, when the highway is at an almost standstill for a great portion of the i-35 stretch. And you said 25 minutes home-to-downtown, not to be picky or anything...just sayin.

Just say when, I'm retired, and other than my afternoon nap, I'm ready.



How do you know it will not work? It has not been done on any scale here in recent years. The old rail back in the day was a great success. How can you be so sure, when there are places less and more populated than us, packed in tighter as a city (obviously easier to walk) and rail/bus has been a great success.

It won't work because were to dependant on cars, and that won't change. I just don't think we need to spend millons/billons, on something that's so questionable.


If you read my previous posts within the last couple of days, you'd see where I commented on the insanely non-existent budgets for Metro Transit (as well as CART). I have tried to use the bus here, but they are trying to do too much with too little (and I don't fault the operations themselves for that). You can't do bus alone on a city with our huge spread and have so few buses to add to that. Do you realize that we do not even have a bus that goes to the airport??? The truth of the matter is that Metro Transit has a huge c-clamp around it financially and, IMO, that was done on purpose.

Now, let's talk about CART in your city. The city of Norman doesn't even fund the bus system there at all! OU has had to step up and do what the city wont do. What's up with that? Understand this is a city whose own city council sent a resolution to Governor Henry asking him to save precious rail assets in Oklahoma City and stressing the important of mass transit to our future, and they won't even fund their own little city bus system???

The writing's on the wall around here with regard to the local bus operations. You cannot do something with nothing.

The City of Norman is a great place to live, however, they are not real agressive in areas, they like the idea of bus/light rail passenger service, just at someone else's expense.

SoonerDave,

Using Seattle as a cost comparison is irresponsible. We all know that Seattle has a very unique topography and the engineering feats needed for that system to work are unlike anything we would encounter here (i.e. floating bridges, tunnels, etc). A better estimate of LRT cost is $15 to $60 million per mile. Oklahoma City would be toward the bottom of that range.

SoonerDave,

Using Seattle as a cost comparison is irresponsible. We all know that Seattle has a very unique topography and the engineering feats needed for that system to work are unlike anything we would encounter here (i.e. floating bridges, tunnels, etc). A better estimate of LRT cost is $15 to $60 million per mile. Oklahoma City would be toward the bottom of that range.

That is why I clearly stated it was the worst case among the extremes, and why I offered the best-case ($15M per mile) in the original post.

What biases? I will admit to a bias against government throwing money at something merely for the sake of throwing money at it. I was trying to offer the opinion that there are substantially more efficient alternatives than light rail, and tried to offer some base of data on which to support that opinion.

Your post could be considered biased for rubber and asphalt based on the fact that the scope of your post was highways versus mass transit and included no figures other than those for mass transit.

A lot of cities make use of rail rapid transit because it's pretty darn fast. We need a fast solution because of our land stretch alone.

SoonerDave, do keep in mind that the government, at the federal level, approached the states for a list of projects that could be shovel ready, their cost, purpose, etc... In 2008, the only mass transit solution the state (or cities for that matter) could provide were that one in MWC. In 2008, that is the best Oklahoma or the metro could have on paper? Sure, I agree with you that we need a through design that is lean and doesn't waste money. But the federal government did not and has not thrown money at us. They may see our one plan as a quick waste of money and not award it to us. They may ask why that is all we have. How do you think that makes us look here in the metro on a national level? We have nothing else to present when our neighboring states have systems already up and running??? I think your argument is solid and belongs on the doorsteps of the local government, of which has no active plans for any type of mass transit, not even the makeshift bus thing we have now. You know?


In an effort to meet your request, the closest I could find to a similar piece of information for highway construction was here (http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/policy/07-29-2008%20Generic%20Response%20to%20Cost%20per%20Lane %20Mile%20for%20widening%20and%20new%20constructio n.pdf), wherein the approximate cost for the addition of a single lanes to an existing highway ranged from $2.4 million to $6.9 million per lane-mile. The same document indicates that new highway construction through urban areas ranges from $4.9 milion per lane-mile to $19.5 million. The worst-case figure of $19.5 million is still something on the order of 1/8 the cost of the Seattle $197 million/mile light rail fiasco, with the low-end something on the order of 1/3 the low-end of the light rail new construction range.

Your numbers are close enough to the ones that I see, so I will not challenge those. What you have to understand is that is cost per lane-mile. Now multiply that by the size of the highway and length. Your quote about the $19.5 million being 1/8th the cost of the Seattle "fiasco". Those are two worst-case scenarios--only one problem--that 19.5 million is for one, single lane-mile. See what I'm getting at? We're building a ten-lane 4.5mi crosstown right now that is just under $500million for less than 5 miles! Now granted, the costs have gone up from what, $300million originally? But still, that "fiasco" you mentioned in Seattle is happening right here in OKC with the crosstown highway. And we haven't even built any rail yet.

I think it's safe to assume that if we keep only highways as our mode of transit, in ten years or so, the size will need to at least double to handle the capacity. Try figuring the cost of that I-35 stretch, just from OKC to norman (then you can figure okc to edmond, okc to yukon, etc..) with +/- 6 lanes now, but double that just ten years from now. And figure average highway cost and average rail cost. That should paint a pretty good picture of the situation. Not to mention that we are at the threshold of losing a lot, if not all, of our federal funding due to the excessive emissions from automobiles on the roads here today. Not ten years from now, but today's emissions.[/QUOTE]


Understand, too, that the original discussion centered around a $465 earmark for light rail. I was trying to add some informed analysis on the relative cost of a light rail system versus another, cheaper alternative, in the midst of this frenzy about light rail. I was trying to point out that for a fraction more than 2% of that $465 million "light rail subsidy" package, you could lay a theoretical groundwork for a mass transit alternative that would serve a much greater subset of OKC population leveraging existing infrastructure and tapping a natural resource that is abundant in Oklahoma. And I also specifically stated that I made no pretense that it was a be-all, end-all solution.

Dave... No it DID NOT. Notice the title of the thread. $465 million includes light rail! No, the whole state may get $465 million for everything it wants, total. And the bulk of that is for roads and highways per ODOT. Only $4 million was alotted to the rail line between MWC and bricktown, from what I understand. There has never been a $465 million dollar "light rail subsidy" for Oklahoma.


The point is we need coherent, cogent research into alternatives for mass transit, not merely to throw money at it because a foolhardy government wants to spend its way out of a fiscal disaster largely of its own creation.

I completely agree. Oklahoma and the metro area have nobody to blame but themselves for not researching and planning this out before 2008! And right now, the federal government isn't looking too foolhardy in the face of a state and metro area that have ZERO plans for mass transit--at all--no bus plans, nothing. Just some overpriced 'studies' that were nothing more than colored lines on printed Google maps. In fact, the leaders here look pretty foolhardy for offering a quick-spend 'demo system' as our mass transit plan of choice to the feds. And they may see that and disqualify it.

SoonerDave,

Using Seattle as a cost comparison is irresponsible. We all know that Seattle has a very unique topography and the engineering feats needed for that system to work are unlike anything we would encounter here (i.e. floating bridges, tunnels, etc). A better estimate of LRT cost is $15 to $60 million per mile. Oklahoma City would be toward the bottom of that range.


Seattle's new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the U.S. at $179 million per mile, since it includes extensive tunneling in poor soil conditions, elevated sections, and stations as deep as 180 feet below ground levelhttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3277054972_496e64e642_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3440/3276235129_3a709ca590_o.jpg

That is why I clearly stated it was the worst case among the extremes, and why I offered the best-case ($15M per mile) in the original post.

See my above post. You are comparing an overpriced rail system to a SINGLE-LANE, 1-MILE piece of highway. That is cost per LANE-MILE.

Seattle's new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the U.S. at $179 million per mile, since it includes extensive tunneling in poor soil conditions, elevated sections, and stations as deep as 180 feet below ground level

And that wasn't very smart of them, was it? Kind of like saying we can build a highway for $15 million/mile and when it is only that price per LANE-MILE. Not for the whole highway per mile.

Looking at the pics, I would compare that to building a "highway in the sky".

Who else in the U.S. has built their rail system way up in the air like those pics show? Of course that's expensive. I mean, LOOK at that thing! So is our more than $100 million/mile crosstown here in OKC which isn't even elevated.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3449/3276307033_eb991d39ea_o.jpg
Looking North with downtown in the distance. Thats I-5 there on the right.

OKC is flat, wide open and not nearly as densely built, which will be an advantage when it comes to costs.

Looking North with downtown in the distance. Thats I-5 there on the right.

OKC is flat, wide open and not nearly as densely built, which will be an advantage when it comes to costs.

True. And we can (and should) be smart and learn from others' mistakes and build a better, cheaper system. You know, Seattle would have been much cheaper to go with a dual-track mono-rail config for this set-up (since it had to be elevated) so that you wouldn't have to elevate such a wide chunk of concrete (not to mention the insane costs of that large amount of concrete and huge support pillars). Notice how much wasted space there is on that elevated "road"? And just for two small tracks. It's a bad idea. Just because it had to be light rail or nothing. Seattle's problem is that they, like the Las Vegas casinos, like to get one bid (from the most expensive contractor) and jump to the project, as opposed to getting some more bids and being more agressive about saving money. You see, all these great alternatives to choose from...and sadly, folks get a bad taste in their mouth because the organizations spearheading the projects screw up and drive the cost through the roof! People wouldn't vote for the monorail after the first vote passed because they now thought it was a "bad solution" simply because some organization pushed the price thru the roof. Have they learned their lesson EVEN NOW, seeing as though the "golden ticket" light rail ended up going thru the roof and costing way more than anybody else's light rail system?.?.?.

Notice the pic below:
http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp9/sgrayddsgav/1A99BDE27BC06213.jpg
Now don't you think this would have been much cheaper to elevate, if it had to be elevated--assuming they bid it out correctly and didn't pay four times list price!!!

That is why I clearly stated it was the worst case among the extremes, and why I offered the best-case ($15M per mile) in the original post.

But why even mention it? It's an outlier. Should we bring in exorbitant highway projects like the Big Dig, Hawaii's H3, or I-70 through Glenwood Canyon, CO? No. Apples to Apples please.

But why even mention it? It's an outlier.

Because it was one of the two extremes (low/high) mentioned in that document. I can't help how they compiled the data. It was an honest effort to get the data someone else in this thread had requested. I wasn't trying to gild the lily, just trying to relay what I was able to find.

sgray - I absolutely stand corrected on my misunderstanding of the funding issue. I mistakenly thought there was some omnibus provision for a half-billion-dollar light rail project in the OKC area, which made no sense to me at all, and is part of why I was so stunned. I was clearly mistaken.

I'd love to see OKC pursue a CNG-based bus service plan. I think its very doable, in all honesty...obviously there are myriad details to work out, but it surely seems the basic pieces are out there.

-SoonerDave

Because it was one of the two extremes (low/high) mentioned in that document. I can't help how they compiled the data. It was an honest effort to get the data someone else in this thread had requested. I wasn't trying to gild the lily, just trying to relay what I was able to find.

sgray - I absolutely stand corrected on my misunderstanding of the funding issue. I mistakenly thought there was some omnibus provision for a half-billion-dollar light rail project in the OKC area, which made no sense to me at all, and is part of why I was so stunned. I was clearly mistaken.

I'd love to see OKC pursue a CNG-based bus service plan. I think its very doable, in all honesty...obviously there are myriad details to work out, but it surely seems the basic pieces are out there.

-SoonerDave

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure people were aware that Seattle's case is unusual at best. OKC's topography and built environment lends itself to the lower end of the cost spectrum.

I'd love to see OKC pursue a CNG-based bus service plan. I think its very doable, in all honesty...obviously there are myriad details to work out, but it surely seems the basic pieces are out there.

An alternative to straight up diesel fuel would be a benefit no matter which direction we head, because we're always going to have to have a bus network. CNG should save $ and pollute less, and that is something we could get going right now.

back on topic/ on comparative topic. this pbs show called 'NOW' has a look into the stimulus package, with a detailed picture of charlotte, NC and their transit situation. its about 25 minutes. charlotte is about 1-5 years ahead of OKC, IMO.

Stimulus Roadblock? . NOW on PBS (http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/507/index.html)

I watched that show last night and was going to post the same thing. I think everyone here who has an interest in light rail should watch this show. I am not saying we should copy what Charlotte has done or will do but it gives a great perspective on what could happen here in OKC. The more educated we can get as citizens the better. There are definitely a lot of similarities between us and Charlotte.

That was very interesting. I see why Oklahoma citizens are not informed. Our state is so high on building more roads to receive more federal money because there are not enough citizens to tax. We get our neighbors interested in this information and bring about more awareness on the subject and the state will be hating us. Probably not, but something has to be figured out.

Great information. We need to get "on board." forget that we need density to bring on mass transit.. sensible, well-planned transit will bring on the density we want. What some have been saying all along. I think with new awareness about how transit needs to be funded, changes there will happen too.

I liked the part where he fought hard for light rail and he was so afraid only 3 homeless persons and two criminals would show up to ride. What guts he had. What vision.

back on topic/ on comparative topic. this pbs show called 'NOW' has a look into the stimulus package, with a detailed picture of charlotte, NC and their transit situation. its about 25 minutes. charlotte is about 1-5 years ahead of OKC, IMO.

Stimulus Roadblock? . NOW on PBS (http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/507/index.html)

Thanks for posting this. Very informative for all of us, but especially so for folks that dont really know what the buzz is really about. I burned this video onto DVD and have passed out some copies to help get the word around.

Great information. We need to get "on board." forget that we need density to bring on mass transit.. sensible, well-planned transit will bring on the density we want. What some have been saying all along. I think with new awareness about how transit needs to be funded, changes there will happen too.

I liked the part where he fought hard for light rail and he was so afraid only 3 homeless persons and two criminals would show up to ride. What guts he had. What vision.


And that said by a self-professed conservative republican.

That was a great piece by PBS, thanks for posting blangtang. I think there are probably more parallels between the problems North Carolina is having with transit and our own State's than we would like to admit. The fact that states have a fiscal incentive to build more highways at the expense of everything is something I didn't realize, and probably something that needs to be changed now rather than later.

The density argument is crap. Utter crap. We may not have density on the level of northern cities, but very similiar to other southern cities. And I'm pretty sure that a few of them similiar to OKC have light rail.

The only people that think we have low density are the people that look on wikipedia. Our density stats are scewed by our large land area. I'd say the developed area of OKC is roughly a little over 1/3. That urbanized area definitely has over 2,000 people a square mile. Use another argument.

Actually, look at it yourself. CLICK.HERE. (http://www.rezoneokc.com/blog/)

Besides, building this will help bring more density that is oh so wanted.

The density argument is crap. Utter crap. We may not have density on the level of northern cities, but very similiar to other southern cities. And I'm pretty sure that a few of them similiar to OKC have light rail.

The only people that think we have low density are the people that look on wikipedia. Our density stats are scewed by our large land area. I'd say the developed area of OKC is roughly a little over 1/3. That urbanized area definitely has over 2,000 people a square mile. Use another argument.

Actually, look at it yourself. CLICK.HERE. (http://www.rezoneokc.com/blog/)

Besides, building this will help bring more density that is oh so wanted.

I agree with you 100% that the density issue is overstated, but let's be honest, 2600 ppsm is very low - something you wouldn't go around flaunting. Just as an example, Phoenix, the poster child of urban sprawl, has a city density of close to 3000 ppsm.

Inline with the topic, increased densities is something that will be addressed with a well thought out transit system.