What are we arguing about? We're just comparing transportation options.

And you play poker with kids?

I don't think any mass transit system pays for itself with rider fares. I know the DC Metro doesn't. The benefits, however, are pretty substantial.

I work downtown, and I would use mass transit. Not everyday, but often enough. One problem is that it's difficult to go out for a few drinks after work if you have to drive home. If I could hop on a train, I could indulge a bit and not worry about any unfortunate consequences.

I like the idea of making a downtown trolley free. It would encourage people to travel around the downtown area at lunch or after work if they didn't have to worry about parking.

I think that sounds good, especially if they do it in such a way that it's useful and effectively ties all of downtown together. I like the idea of spending the money to help strengthen to core's appeal, improve access to visitors, and give further boost to the assets previously created by MAPS. It could really push some of the outer districts over the top, just by the extra exposure they would get from a fixed traffic route moving people in and out of those districts all the time. And, as I mentioned before, it could actually be an attraction in and of itself, kind of like the street cars in New Orleans that pass through the garden district.


I love life in the 'burbs and will rarely if ever use any form of mass transit in OKC but I agree with what you've written. I also agree with what Kerry wrote about the streetcars being free.

I would vote for about 150 million or a third of MAPS 3 money going to a downtown streetcar system and improving the metro bus system but if the money for mass transit goes much north of that, there won't be much left for other projects and I start leaning more to voting no.

I am also for the the new convention center for the same reason that BDP mentioned about continuing to strengthen the inter-core, as I think it, the streetcars and the previous MAPS projects all work together to create a synergy downtown.

Just because people mention in a survey that they want improved mass transit doesn't mean that they are willing to spend unlimited tax dollars to have it and unless it is convenient and no more time consuming than driving, it won't be used by the vast majority of our citizens. It will be an expensive amenity that will have very little impact on the use of personal vehicles or traffic congestion in OKC.

No one is advocating "unlimited" moneys be spent on this issue. No one is advocating a subway system.

What I'd like to see happen is for the County to kick this to some sort of body with no political/financial ties to COTPA or ODOT or the Chamber or anyone who has their hand in the transit cookie jar. I'd like to see said group preside over a feasibility study to develop a long term strategy for the development of OKC's transit both in terms of roads and trains and whatever else.

I know it's asking too much to have someone outside COTPA and outside the spoils system that is our transportation industry take a good, hard, well-funded look at this issue.

I do feel that OKC needs to start planning now for an alternative form of transportation. We could be doing things NOW to prepare for an inevitable rail system. For example, buying up right of ways at bargain prices rather than condemning them and facing expensive litigation (for starters).

Unfortunately, transit is too much of a political football. It seems like if certain interests in OKC aren't 'getting theirs,' then on a city/county level, we simply aren't interested in doing anything.

Could rail potentially be more convenient than a car? Certainly. Think 20 years from now when the metro area is at 1.5 million or 2 million. Think of energy being much more expensive. Think of a much more urbanized existence. Alternative and less portable forms of energy (like solar and wind) will be a real part of the mix and will make things like rail much more feasible and cars more expensive.

We can either be planning and preparing for this or we can be caught with our pants down.

Well, consider this angle. Right now we are expanding our interstates and roads like crazy. Today, in 2009. We're going to have to start going vertical with our interchanges to keep up with the load and the wide highways. What if we could offload/balance enough traffic to save even a measly $50-100million/mile +/- and not have to make so many huge expansions to our roads??? That would also be a benefit. And those of you that refuse to or cannot participate can at least enjoy the benefit of less congestion, especially during rush hours, you know?

Midtowner,

The huge problem I see is that the city/metro keep wanting to 'study' and 'prepare to plan for a plan' that will eventually lead to a 'plan of action' which might lead to some kind of action 10-20 years later. In other words, keeping the issue from coming to the table by simply delaying work on the project. We should have had this planned 20 years ago and should already be 5-10 years into a system by now. Consider this: if our highways keep doubling in size every ten years, where will we be in 20 years when we get to the 'plan to act' stage? We need to move on this. NOW.

I do feel that OKC needs to start planning now for an alternative form of transportation. We could be doing things NOW to prepare for an inevitable rail system. For example, buying up right of ways at bargain prices rather than condemning them and facing expensive litigation (for starters).

Could rail potentially be more convenient than a car? Certainly. Think 20 years from now when the metro area is at 1.5 million or 2 million. Think of energy being much more expensive. Think of a much more urbanized existence. Alternative and less portable forms of energy (like solar and wind) will be a real part of the mix and will make things like rail much more feasible and cars more expensive.

We can either be planning and preparing for this or we can be caught with our pants down.

No, we don't need to "plan for an inevitable rail system" because that would be operating on a false premise. Cars and trucks are not going to become obsolete. Gas went to $4.00 a gallon and it had virtually no effect on the publics driving habits. If gas prices get too high and stay there, which they inevitably will, it will make the use of alternative fuels the more attractive choice and the shift will be to them. Cars aren't going away in 20 years or 50 years, they will just be built and powered differently. Advances in technology and producing those vehicles in mass will bring the price in line.

Rail is not a new idea. There is a reason that Union Station sits empty today. Commuter rail used to exist in Oklahoma and it went belly up from lack of demand. The automobile made it obsolete. Our bus system didn't just become what it is recently. It's current state is the level it has shrunk to over the decades because of decreasing demand.

We have spent almost 3/4 of a century building one of the most drivable city's in America. We have planned and built well based on expected demand and consequently have very few problems with congestion or parking.

I hope that the rebirth of our urban core continues to be a huge success and that we can provide an excellent urban existence for those that choose that lifestyle but to assert that the suburban lifestyle is going to somehow become obsolete in 20 years is just silly.


. Consider this: if our highways keep doubling in size every ten years, where will we be in 20 years when we get to the 'plan to act' stage?

Our highways haven't doubled in size every 10 years so your question has no merit.

There is a reason that Union Station sits empty today.

True. General Motors and Standard Oil formed various shell corporations which purchased local rail systems at a generous price, then shut them down.

OKC was one of the markets affected by that scheme.

True. General Motors and Standard Oil formed various shell corporations which purchased local rail systems at a generous price, then shut them down.

OKC was one of the markets affected by that scheme.

Where on earth did you come up with that remarkable assertion?

We have spent almost 3/4 of a century building one of the most drivable city's in America.

You're right. We're a unique city in that things are so spread out that we have to get a car just to go anywhere.



We have planned and built well based on expected demand and consequently have very few problems with congestion or parking.

Which is why our existing cross-town I-40 should not be replaced. It's so well-built! :doh:



Our highways haven't doubled in size every 10 years so your question has no merit.

So I suppose all of this expansion and planned interchange upgrades is just for looks.

What I'd like to see happen is for the County to kick this to some sort of body with no political/financial ties to COTPA or ODOT or the Chamber or anyone who has their hand in the transit cookie jar. I'd like to see said group preside over a feasibility study to develop a long term strategy for the development of OKC's transit both in terms of roads and trains and whatever else.

I know it's asking too much to have someone outside COTPA and outside the spoils system that is our transportation industry take a good, hard, well-funded look at this issue.

I do feel that OKC needs to start planning now for an alternative form of transportation. We could be doing things NOW to prepare for an inevitable rail system. For example, buying up right of ways at bargain prices rather than condemning them and facing expensive litigation (for starters).

Could rail potentially be more convenient than a car? Certainly. Think 20 years from now when the metro area is at 1.5 million or 2 million. Think of energy being much more expensive. Think of a much more urbanized existence. Alternative and less portable forms of energy (like solar and wind) will be a real part of the mix and will make things like rail much more feasible and cars more expensive.

We can either be planning and preparing for this or we can be caught with our pants down.
:congrats:WOW, I actually agree with Midtowner on something, think I'm gonna faint.

I think I have found an excellent way of funding mass transit and roads in Oklahoma.

Bring back the state inspection program.

I do not know if any of you have noticed but, we have hundreds of vehicles on the roads here in OKC that are not safe for the road. These vehicles are cratered, compressed and many are missing the proper lighting that is required by DOT regulations. I have even seen some cars with clear stop, tail and turn signals where the lights are white with not even a hint red, yellow or orange. Some jokesters have even changed their back lights to non standard colors like pink, green and blue.

The state could charge $50 a vehicle per year, $25 for seniors and the disabled who are on fixed incomes. The program would remove the death traps from the road and put money towards transit and road repairs. Money could be divided up between roads and bridges and mass transit.

>Money could be divided up between roads and bridges and mass transit.

'New' money back in the trough would be unlikely to make it somewhere sensible, not when we have other more pressing needs. Which more pressing needs depends on which group of politicos are in the majority at the time.

Moot point though, as getting it back would require sending it to a vote of the populace. The elected ones lack the will to accept responsibility to vote it in. I don't see Joe six pack, or Joe the plumber's helper for that matter, voting to reinstate one of the more despised fees from our past.

Where on earth did you come up with that remarkable assertion?

I thought it was common knowledge.

Great American streetcar scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal)

:congrats:WOW, I actually agree with Midtowner on something, think I'm gonna faint.

Thanks.

I think?

Originally Posted by SouthsideSooner
There is a reason that Union Station sits empty today.


True. General Motors and Standard Oil formed various shell corporations which purchased local rail systems at a generous price, then shut them down.

OKC was one of the markets affected by that scheme.

Sorry but I'm afraid that you have your facts mixed up. What your referring to is the streetcar system in OKC being bought out and shut down by the City Bus Co. in 1947. The conspiracy was to replace streetcars with buses and had nothing to do with automobiles or commuter rail going belly up at Union Station.

The advent of the automobile did have a substantial effect on the demise of streetcar systems across the state and nation however.

Go back and actually read the link you posted.

C'mon man... the bus system was never adequate. They ran it into the ground in order to force widespread adoption of the automobile. The intent was never to run a successful bus operation.

First you say that it was never adequate. Then you say that it was run into the ground. Which is it that you allege?

I don't see how those statements are contradictory in the least. The system was designed to fail, thus inadequate.

A light rail? Its simply not needed. Forbes ranks us as one of the best cities in the nation for commuters. Best And Worst Cities For Commuters - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/24/cities-commute-fuel-forbeslife-cx_mw_0424realestate.html) Anyone who has traveled to other metros, knows this to be true. Because we are a horizontal city, versus a vertical city, its not possible for rail to be more convenient than car (see L.A.). At this point in time, a light rail is a complete waste of money. There's nothing wrong with taking a peak at what we might need in 20-40 years from now, but given that our traffic situation is one of the best in the country, any serious consideration for immediate application is just foolish.

We also need to consider that many cities have found when you connect low-income areas to higher-income areas for a buck for the ride, crime ends up costing them millions. In most cities, suburbs are actively campaigning and demanding that the light rails are NOT brought into their communities. They cannot afford to be robbed, the eventual rise in insurance, and they don't like their loved ones exposed to violent in-person crimes.

This sounds to me like vintage conspiracy theory.

I don't see how those statements are contradictory in the least. The system was designed to fail, thus inadequate.

I don't know if I would say it was designed to fail, but it certainly was not designed to succeed.....

C'mon man... the bus system was never adequate. They ran it into the ground in order to force widespread adoption of the automobile. The intent was never to run a successful bus operation.

Nobody had to "force" widespread adoption of the automobile and to suggest otherwise is just ridiculous. This is from the link that YOU posted....


Randall O'Toole of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, argues that streetcars faded away at the invention of the internal combustion engine and rise of the private automobile and then the bus. At one time, nearly every city in the U.S. with population over 10,000 had at least one streetcar company. 95% of all streetcar systems were at one time privately owned.

Robert C. Post wrote that "nationwide, the ultimate reach of the alleged conspirators extended to only about 10 percent of all transit systems—sixty-odd out of some six hundred—and yet virtually all the other 90 percent also got rid of trolleys (as happened with all the tramcar systems in the British Isles and France)."

And who thinks that this wasn't common in every American city? Street cars were pulled out all over the country because their use was overtaken by the auto. A bus was and continues to be a more flexible transportation tool because it doesn't rely on tracks. It's route can be altered and the vehicle updated without having to meet specific requirements that the rail cars do/did.

There's no conspiracy or mystery about why or how it happened. In the 40's and 50's, we came back from WWII and everyone wanted a car. The boom of the families required a car for each family beacuse the sprawl of housing outpaced the ability of the rail line to keep up. Yet another reason why the busses took over...they could add a route overnight without any physical changes.

Yes many of the rail companies were bought by various groups around the country...many of them so they could kill the brand. You forget we still do that today. So what?

Now, back in the 50's if OKC had a non-sprawling population even half of what we have now, we'd probably still have rail cars and Grand Blvd would still loop the city. But it's not the case. Our bus system sucks and is completely worthless. But do we really know if a rail system that is stuck once put in, would be any better? I'm not sure that we have the population or the density yet to sustain it. If we infilled and didn't sprawl any more than we are now, but hit the 2M mark, maybe I'd see it otherwise, but I've become pretty cold on the light rail concept. Not because I don't want it, but because I think it will fail here.

People are fat and lazy here. If the rail doesnt take them within a parking lot of where they need to be, they'll still take the car. Hell people take their car from one end of a shopping center to the other, you really think they're gonna walk a few blocks after the leave a train station?

I wonder if the people that complain that there is "no place to park in Bricktown" are the same people that will complain that the streetcar/rail/bus doesn't go right by or in front of whatever they are going to?

I live at 21st and May and work at 122nd and May. If there was a bus/rail/streetcar that could get me from one to the other in about 30-45 minutes, was reliable, and was only a quarter mile off, I would take it, but if not, I might only take it to BT/DT. JMHO