Garbage AKA Istook.

A private bus shuttle might not be a bad idea either if that cross-over is worth it.

Any doctors or people on here that commute between the two?

There is a private shuttle that runs between some of the biotech companies on Lincoln and the University Hospital complex.

We commute to downtown for lunch sometimes, and I now live downtown and know of a couple of other doctors who do as well. But, aside from dining, there's not a lot of movement between the CBD and the Health Sciences Center that I know of.

And I should add, Steve: nice effort to pimp your blog on this site with a bit of manufactured controversy. Doesn't that violate board rules?

And you wonder why your industry is in trouble?

Rupert Murdoch or the folks at the Enquirer might enjoy having you around.

Soonerguru, Jeff and his group are soliciting money from the public. I asked them to identify board members and provide some background on Jeff. I think it's my responsibility to do so. This is not dumping on Jeff and I'm bewildered as to why it's seen as being hostile.
The other thing I did was to report that despite the appearance of Mick Cornett on the site, he says he's not endorsing it.
Why is all this bad journalism? If anybody is purposely or unpurposely painting Jeff and Tom with the same brush, I'd question whether it's Jeff himself who is showing the same hostility toward being questioned that Tom has.
If you read everything I've written here and at my blog, can you really paint me as trying to kill transit? And if you can't, then isn't this a case of "we love you when you're asking tough questions of our opponent, but you're a bad reporter when you ask us questions we don't like?"

Steve,

You seem bent on trashing Jeff. Why?

I would love to see you passionately pursue the powerful people in this town with the same aplomb. While I admire your work, I don't recall you doing this with the same zeal to the numerous overlords in this town.

Your implication that Jeff is associated with Tom Elmore is garbage.Steve didn't make that implication did he, or I did I miss something?

To be fair, early in the comment thread I pointed out that Bezdek's group joins other established advocacy groups like Tom Elmore's in pushing for transit. It was not meant to say the two are allied with each other, and I quickly pointed that out when someone remarked on that.
But it's been a source of contention since. I was only trying to point out there are other pro-transit groups out there as well.
Jeff has taken offence to me asking about his group's source of funding, its board members, its non-profit status and Jeff's own professional and educational background. I did so because the group is seeking donations and I encountered readers who wanted me to ask such questions.
I'm really quite bewildered as to why this is all so controversial, and to be honest, as I sit here, I don't even see why this is seen as harsh questioning.
Anyway, I think we'll all move on from this and I'll see week after next if Jeff is still refusing to sit down with me (he revoked his offer to do so when I explained I wouldn't be available until the week after next).
- Steve

Obviously, this has gotten way out of hand. I think a great deal of it has to do with me. I did take offense to the questions on the second round. I answered your first line of questioning as astutely and quickly as possible with answers.

I think it is obvious to everyone that we must have some issues that need to be resolved if we were to move forward in a cordial manner. Because I know you personally, I perceived the line of questioning, and some of the more "loaded" questions as a personal assault on my character. You claim all of the questions are justified, and at this point I am trying to have an open mind. Quite frankly, I don't know what to do other post that drawn out explanation of the organization, how it works, whose involved, why we should do this, ect. Your blog has brought me nothing other than personal embarrassment and a perpetuation of a controversy over nothing. I think at this point my personal intentions, background, and campaign structure are as transparent as they can be.

Your response strikes me as odd, but so be it. At this point people do not know who is funding the group, though as a result of our discussion, they know the group's board members, it's non-profit status, your professional background and your stated intentions on reporting contributions and spending. I appreciate your forthrightness in the answers you provided and I see no embarassment within them. All of these details were being sought out by various readers and I think in general people want to know more about groups like this before they contribute to them.
Have a good holiday weekend Jeff.

Lets clarify this funding. You suggest that I didn't earlier. You seem to express that there is still some mystery to it. It is a public campaign. So far public citizens have donated. We need more if we want to educate and market transit in an effective way.

The website and effort that you see was developed through personal donations by those involved and hundreds, perhaps thousands of volunteer hours. The thing that I find embarrassing and abrasive is this suggestion that I may not be completely forthright. That is where I have the problem with you. This perpetuation of controversy with no basis.

I want to re-post this because I think its interesting and appears to have been buried in the thread.

This is a compressed city council video with Sam Bowman speaking. You will need to fast forward to 2:03

City of Oklahoma City | City Council Archive

City of Oklahoma City | City Council Archive (http://www.okc.gov/council/council_library/forms/CouncilMeetings.aspx?MeetingID=210)

Steve,

Your implication is that Jeff is in the same camp as Tom Elmore on your blog. If anyone has questions, read Steve's comments on his blog.

It's also odd that you, in non-sequitur fashion, suddenly start pumping your blog in the midst of a post about Ernest Istook defunding the trolley.

My observation is you appear to have a personal issue here. It doesn't seem very professional and I've not observed you reporting this way in the past.

It seems as if you're trying to minimize the suggestion you made in your blog that Jeff is even remotely in the same camp as Tom Elmore's organization, even suggesting they support the same initiatives. In fact, if you simply read Mr. Elmore's OWN COMMENTS on this very thread, you would know that Mr. Elmore not only does not support the city-funded Fixed Guideway Study (the basis for Bezdek's proposals), but that he is radically opposed to it, even suggesting a city conspiracy in its creation. Just read his discussion earlier in this thread. There is no room for confusion or doubt and you don't have to be a crackerjack reporter to figure it out.

Aside from the clear deviations in goals between Bezdek and Elmore, there is also a stark difference in strategy and approach. Let's be honest about this. It is wholly inaccurate, misleading, and myopic to lump these guys together in any way, shape, or form. I guess a fourth grader may conclude that both men like things that ride on rails, even if the things look nothing alike, don't serve the same people, and don't provide comparable services.

I know the trad media is loathe to admit that they often miss the mark. In your suggestive blog entry and through your "Who, me?" defense, you devalue your good works, insult our intelligence, and wildly miss the mark. Time to fess up.

I just don't understand why Steve tells Jeff he can't interview him for at least 2 weeks because he is busy, but has the time and chooses to post blogs about MTP and then proceed to interview him in an uncontrolled no-win environment.

I know Steve has mentioned that some of his readers wanted answers, but would it not be professional to honor the time frame he proposed and interview him for a real story and not on a blog? If people wanted to donate and were unsure of MTP's credentials all they have to do is give Jeff a call or simply not donate.

Jeff wanted to set up a meeting with myself and his entire board. A blog post with four questions can be done in five minutes at my desk while I'm working on other stories. I'm only in the office for three days next week, and last night I was working late into the evening. This all started with a post where I dared to point out that Jeff's group was not endorsed by the mayor despite the appearance of his photo on their website. That's when you (I don't know who you are) and a few others took issue with my writing.
As for "uncontrolled," Jeff has been given unlimited space to talk about his group and answer the post questions on the block.
Now, Sooner, I do include links to things I think are of interest, as do other bloggers and such on this site. If this is a problem, fine. But let's also remember this has been a two-way street where people routinely copy and post my stories (against my wishes) and I link repeatedly to OKC Talk. If Pete wants me to cease desist on links, I will of course do that right away. I suspect, however, that you are in the minority of this board when it comes to this complaint.
I'm not out to please you, Jeff or anybody else - I'm simply out to report the news and tell people what's going on. I think I've done that here, and it's unfortunate that Jeff has taken this personally. I'd suggest he meet with a public relations professional to learn how to improve his approach on this matter. I'm not hostile to Jeff, just trying to do my job. I'd be curious what would happen if or when Jeff is confronted by someone who is hostile. I think it was simply a shock to Jeff that I was asking questions related to transparency and accountability for him and his group. It's something I do on a regular basis. As far as I'm concerned, this debate is over. If Jeff wants to get with me and talk more in two weeks, I'm fine with that. If not, I'm ok with that as well.
Any percieved personality clash is on one side only

I'll be short and I will not apologize for it. Oklahoma City right now has the perfect opportunity to be proactive about mass transit and not reactive. If people are going to start taking things personally and worry about the inconsequential, then they need to get out of the way and allow someone else that can get the job done without getting into politics.

In the meantime let Steve do his job as a reporter. Let's discuss mass transit constructively. End of story.

OK gang, now I've gone and tried to offend everybody at some site I'm affiliated with ...

and i should add, steve: nice effort to pimp your blog on this site with a bit of manufactured controversy. doesn't that violate board rules?

if something looks like it violates board rules, please report it. however, in this case, we don't think board rules are being violated.

-M

Look. This wasn't handled well at all. I wasn't initially offered a "sit down" traditional interview. I would be more than happy at this point to provide Steve an interview with myself and the other committee members.

Everyone needs to just calm down and let this thing go.

Steve thinks that he is just doing his job, I felt that it was a personal attack- (rightfully or not). At this point, I would be much happier just to answer questions in a traditional format and advance the transit discussion properly.

My hand is out to Steve in hopes that we can simply move forward cordially.

I've just stayed away from this thread because it's gotten WAY OFF TRACK (pun intended?)

I notice Steve won't begin to respond to the merits of my post.

The essential point is that Steve uses innuendo on his blog and tries to smear Jeff as an associate of Tom Elmore. Then, he assiduously avoids answering to my commentary.

Steve, on what planet is Jeff's organization, plans, approach, etc. similar to Mr. Elmore's?

Now he will try to act all innocent about it. I recognize this tap dance. My child does stuff like this.

Steve, I really think you owe Mr. Bezdek an apology over this. You don't really believe his organization and plans should be compared to Elmore's, do you?

I'll be short and I will not apologize for it. Oklahoma City right now has the perfect opportunity to be proactive about mass transit and not reactive. If people are going to start taking things personally and worry about the inconsequential, then they need to get out of the way and allow someone else that can get the job done without getting into politics.

In the meantime let Steve do his job as a reporter. Let's discuss mass transit constructively. End of story.

In many ways I agree with your comments. However, manufacturing controversy and suggesting that the proponent of this project lacks transparency is untrue, and damaging to this effort. And, fair or not, lumping Bezdek with Elmore does not help matters. Mr. Elmore's combative style has not been particularly effective in advancing transit. To put Bezdek in the same category undermines his efforts.

I understand Steve's profession. It is an important one. Steve usually does a very good job, but his work in this case is vexing.

I do hope he offers a legitimate interview on the project in a setting outside a public blog.

The essential point is that Steve uses innuendo on his blog and tries to smear Jeff as an associate of Tom Elmore. Then, he assiduously avoids answering to my commentary.


Steve's quote was:

"Jeff Bezdek and Mark Gibbs, active members of Urban Neighbors, have formed a transit advocacy group and join Tom Elmore’s North American Transportation Institute and others in pushing for streetcars/rail line transit, etc."

The way I read it was that Jeff's group, Tom's group, and other groups are all pushing for rail transit. No affiliation necessarily implied.

This is what you're making a big deal about?

soonerguru, if you missed it, Urban Pioneer flatly stated "Everyone needs to just calm down and let this thing go."

Jumping on board the let's move along train isn't a terrible, horrible, no good very bad idea. I think I'll buy a ticket myself. Why not come and enjoy the ride.

I'm along for the ride, too! Back on topic.

Thanks all. I will meet with Steve and these issues will be resolved in a cordial manner.

Now I have to ask. The committee is putting together a list of improvements to the web site. Several people have asked me to actually outline conceptual routes for discussion and estimate the costs of these various "legs" or sections. We will also be bumping up information on transit oriented development.

What do you think of these ideas and are there any areas that you think weren't covered enough in this initial website and public campaign? Thanks.

THe question that I don't think has been explained enough is how the ongoing operation and maintenance be funded. I can understand using maps money for the initial funding for the building of a transit system whether that be bus of trolleys. But do you envision the funding from an additional sales tax or from another source?

(snip) But we first must agree if this is the type of project that makes the most sense. Remember, we have a maximum of about 140 million to make the most impact.

My position is that we need the downtown route, plus the beginning of a commuter system, but I'll get to that later.

Why is $140 million the maximum? My impression is that we get about $100 million for each year of a penny sales tax increment. The first two MAPS initiatives lasted 5.5 and 7 years if I read the site correctly. I know the city fathers want their convention center. Do you have an idea how much will be requested for that? Or what the overall request will be?

I see transit as something that is primarily useful for people, and also good for economic development. The convention center is good for some sectors of the city's economy, but I fail to see any direct benefit for the population, other than some sub-$10 jobs at the CC and the hotels it will generate.

In contrast, the original MAPS and MAPS for Kids projects primarily benefitted the people of the city - not in their workaday lives but in providing a wide variety of things to do. I know MAPS 1 also generated a lot of economic development. From the point of view of the likely voters, will they tax themselves for economic development if there is no direct benefit to themselves? For this reason I strongly believe the overall MAPS 3 initiative should have more dollars allocated to transit (and other direct-to-the-people projects) than to the convention center. The sales job will be much easier.

Relatedly, how much interface do you and MTP have with the Chamber of Commerce as they provide guidance to the city on MAPS 3?

My apologies if any of this was covered from your quoted post to now.

Jeff, this will depend on the overall budget for a MAPS 3 initiative.

I strongly believe that in addition to the downtown circulator, one leg of a commuter system must be built at the same time. Other posters have talked about the need to win votes from people who don't and won't live downtown. We know we can't afford the entire system at this time, but a true demonstration would include a commuter component and a downtown streetcar to get the commuters to the major employement centers in and around downtown. The FGS proposes BRT along NW Expressway as the second leg, but BRT will not generate the transit oriented development which I see that most posters here realize is one of the big payoffs for transit.

I propose that the commuter segment of this "Phase 1" be a commuter rail operation between downtown OKC and just east of the OU campus in Norman.

Commuter rail is the cheapest form of rail transit, in part because it uses existing track and doesn't require building an electrical distribution system. The Norman leg would run over the existing BNSF Red Rock subdivision. That line is saturated with freight rail. Utah has solved this problem by building an additional dedicated track for commuter rail along the UP right of way between Salt Lake City and the Hill AFB area.

I haven't surveyed the whole route but there is room for an additional track along most of the Red Rock subdivision from SE 23rd to Crossroads Mall. Additional bridges may have to be built over the Oklahoma River and I-240. There is room for the additional track along much of the route from I-240 into Norman also.

I propose two stations be built in Oklahoma City. The track crosses under I-35 just north of SE 59th street, and there is underutilized land there that presents opportunities for TOD. Crossroads Mall has acres of underutilized parking lot for a park and ride (plus unused land if agreement can't be reached with the mall owners). The mall is also on a downward spiral and may within a few years be a prime TOD site. These two spots are inside Oklahoma City and so rebut the mayor's arguments that commuter rail doesn't bring people into the city.

We should also build a station where BNSF crosses Brooks Street in Norman. Terminating there rather than downtown Norman has two important benefits: the line will be useful for commuters from Oklahoma City to OU, and it will attract some number of votes from OU fans looking to avoid the highway congestion on football game days. The track is about two long blocks east of the stadium.

The mayor has downplayed commuter rail from the suburbs by saying that the suburbs need to help pay for it. This is true, and Norman is very likely to approve participating in a regional rail transit system. Norman and Edmond have the two largest congestion problems in the metro area, but Norman already has an active pro-transit mindset, and groups promoting regional transit. Norman may very well vote to tax themselves for their part of the construction and operation before Oklahoma City does.

The road distance between the two points is 22 miles, so the rail distance may be some 21 miles. I have seen cost estimates between $3 million and $20 million per mile for commuter rail, so I will go out on a limb and say $10 million, or $210 million for the entire line. Norman's participation may be based on percent of ridership or percent of mileage, but for the sake of the argument say they should pay one-third of the construction cost. That leaves Oklahoma City with $140 million. If Moore votes to participate, they get a station too, and that would further reduce Oklahoma City's share.

You estimate the MTP bus re-powering and streetcar at $140 million. If both components were proposed as the first phase, we would be asking for $280 million of the potential MAPS 3. I believe that passage is more likely if the transit component is greater than the convention center. As I said in my previous post, many voters would see transit as a direct benefit to themselves, and the convention center as another MAPS for Millionaires.

I would not change a thing in the MTP proposal, other than to include as a co-equal priority one leg of the eventual commuter system.

I think that there are many different things going on at once. From my dialogue with city leadership, if the pie were split up between a convention center, river projects, core to shore- its doubtful that there would be more than 140 million available for transit. These are all great projects and I hesitate to take particular positions on specifics- primarily because there are so many unknowns. We really don't know how much a convention center appropriately sized for this city will cost. Right now we just have a range.

Regarding commuter rail- time wise I think the most viable start or installation of a leg is the Midwest City/Tinker line. It's short, not all that expensive to repair comparatively, and ODoT has spoken publicly positively about it. It would end up in Bricktown and could easily interface with the streetcar. I think that the biggest thing that it has going for it is accessibility to Federal Stimulus Funds. From an operational standpoint it would not have to "share" tracks at this time with freight trains.

Regarding Norman, Mayor Cindy Rosenthal is on the RDT committee (Regional Transit Dialogue). That group is convening leaders from most metro cities. I think that you will start to see progress towards "splitting costs" and commuter infrastructure but the time line for this process would not be completed before a MAPS vote is finalizes and occurs. MAPS funding for the streetcar and bus improvements could help leverage major federal funding for the the high cost items you describe. Regarding costs- depends if it is installation of new track on right-of-way or sharing tracks with freight trains.

Regarding BRT- BRT can foster TOD in the form of transit hubs or urban centers in suburbia. It is not quite as elegant as rail or as "fixed" but done correctly it could address some real sprawl related costs such as the NW Expressway corridor.

Dialogue with the Chamber- I have had very positive and constructive dialogue with the Chamber. I think that the Convention Center very comfortably fits into their "scope" of economic development and that is why they support it so strongly. With regard to transit, they are just looking for an actual plan that they can support proffered by the city.

If any of you feel conflicted about where emphasis on spending should occur, talk to your city council person. Ultimately, the council will decide on the plan and the ballot language. Regarding transit, I think the most constructive thing that MTP can do is host some transit workshops and perhaps a conference where people from our regional area are brought in to discuss what has worked and what has not.

COTPA does as much as they can with what they have. Unfortunately, they are consumed by the day to day operational issues and budget concerns. These "development" concepts and new technologies should be discussed on a professional platform in workshop and conference format to help educate those who ultimately will make the decision.

Regarding ongoing funding, I think that the Mayor and staff are trying to figure that out. Basically, what would people be willing to permanently tax themselves on, what is reasonable to create a sustained budget? Fortunate, a streetcar of the size that we are discussing would need about 1.5 to 2 million pr year for electricity, operational, and maintenance costs. Roads and bridges are paid for through hidden mechanisms, thus people people have aversion to transit funding because it is more obvious.

GREAT START OF A BLOG DIALOGUE-

What type of permanent tax would you be willing to subject yourself to- to create a sustained operational and maintenance budget?

I would suggest a hotel tax for additional funding.

What type of permanent tax would you be willing to subject yourself to- to create a sustained operational and maintenance budget?

I would probably vote for a higher tax than would a majority of voters region-wide.

Has MTP surveyed how other regional transit agencies have funded their operating costs? Has ACOG? I have heard that some use sales tax and others use property tax.

Does the state set a limit to how much each city can assess in sales tax? If so, how much room is there between the "permanent" tax plus the MAPS penny, and the limit?

I think that there are many different things going on at once. From my dialogue with city leadership, if the pie were split up between a convention center, river projects, core to shore- its doubtful that there would be more than 140 million available for transit. These are all great projects and I hesitate to take particular positions on specifics- primarily because there are so many unknowns. We really don't know how much a convention center appropriately sized for this city will cost. Right now we just have a range.



So, have they expressed any clues on the total amount they are considering for a MAPS 3 initiative?

Regarding commuter rail- time wise I think the most viable start or installation of a leg is the Midwest City/Tinker line. It's short, not all that expensive to repair comparatively, and ODoT has spoken publicly positively about it. It would end up in Bricktown and could easily interface with the streetcar. I think that the biggest thing that it has going for it is accessibility to Federal Stimulus Funds. From an operational standpoint it would not have to "share" tracks at this time with freight trains.



Is there a large market of downtowners who work at Tinker, or MWC residents who work in the area reached by your streetcar? If there were a station and park and ride near the track's crossing of 15th street, you might also pick up a few commuters from points east who wanted to avoid the last six-seven miles of congestion, but I don't think that commuter market is anywhere near as large as the one from Norman to the streetcar service area

The biggest selling point for the average voter will be a line that gives them a choice in commuting. The biggest selling point for the developer community will be a demonstration of the money to be made building transit oriented development. Norman-greater downtown would accomplish both of these much more visibly than MWC-greater downtown.

That being said, if the MWC line were designed to have a reasonable chance of attracting commuters, I would support it. I still think it's very important to include a commuter element in the initial vote, and that a larger overall project that includes even one segment of commuter rail would have a better chance of passing than a smaller one that is more than half for the convention center.

I do agree with you that some degree of viable commuter rail would be a great addition to a public initiative. Again, the problem is time and politics. No politician will support such a major effort without some detailed drawings and cost analysis. Plus, Cindy Rosenthal would need to be prepared with a complimentary public initiative to help finance such a project. Don't forget that such a line would go through Moore as well. All of those people are sitting on the RTD committee. They are great people and one of the primary goals of the committee is to develop consensus and help each other out.

However, there is not enough time and consensus to design and cost analyze such a route by the time this ballot language is formalized. I do think that it should be part of a future initiative though. Tinker and Midwest City might surprise you (with regard to commuters). This line would become operation not through MAPS funding but through Federal Stimulus. The two could be a coincidental in their implementation time line- but the coincidence would be a huge advancement to to a start of a viable system demonstrating and leveraging the kind of other routes you describe.

If you want the votes in OKC then I would say to push for the NW Expressway line. That area has the largest population in OKC and the Expressway is total gridlock most of the day. I doubt a rail line in this area would be lacking in ridership.


RT

Ward 2 Councilman Sam Bowman's recent comments on transportation:
Oklahoma City leaders discuss wish-list for MAPS 3 | OKG Scene.com (http://tinyurl.com/oh4v6z)

NW Expressway would be a great BRT start. Sam Bowman comments are totally relevant. I think the council needs to pow-wow together.

Also, he mentions sidewalks. That came up quite prominently at the APT meeting. If you can't walk or wheel to a transit stop, that is a bit of a problem. Obviously, we can't afford to build sidewalks everywhere at once, but the city might consider a policy change providing sidewalks in a one block radius in all directions around any transit stop. It would be a great and reasonable start.

NW Expressway would be a great BRT start. Sam Bowman comments are totally relevant. I think the council needs to pow-wow together.

Also, he mentions sidewalks. That came up quite prominently at the APT meeting. If you can't walk or wheel to a transit stop, that is a bit of a problem. Obviously, we can't afford to build sidewalks everywhere at once, but the city might consider a policy change providing sidewalks in a one block radius in all directions around any transit stop. It would be a great and reasonable start.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't the recent bond issue passed by the citizens contain a lot of funding for sidewalks?

It did. I think it was specific to "historic neighborhoods". Somebody correct me if I am wrong about this. I don't think anything has been pushed specific to getting to transit stops though.

No. They are doing sidewalk construction and neighborhood street repaving on the Southwest side as well. In the neighborhood bordered by Western and 59th and farther in the south side as well.

Interesting. I will try to find out exactly what the criteria was. I do know that the ADA compliance issue forced them to install all of the new curb cuts and ramps. Some of the ramps "ramp-up" into abandoned lots and odd obstacles.

Interesting. I will try to find out exactly what the criteria was. I do know that the ADA compliance issue forced them to install all of the new curb cuts and ramps. Some of the ramps "ramp-up" into abandoned lots and odd obstacles.

Sidewalks were to be built on all of Proposition 1 projects (Streets). Any resurfacing project in a neighborhood will get an accessible path on at least one side of the street. If it's an historic neighborhood with existing sidewalk, it'll be on both sides if the budget allows, and only to meet ADA. The Reconstruction projects (Part C of Prop. 1), were mainly streetscape-type projects, which include sidewalks for ADA accessible paths. Widening projects were to include sidewalk on one side of the street, but are being designed for both sides should funding and space allow.

Click on each Section for a description of what is to be included: www.okc.gov/bonds2007 (http://www.okc.gov/bonds2007/BondSections.aspx?propParam=1&propText=PROPOSITION%201%20(STREETS))

Sam Bowman comments are totally relevant. I think the council needs to pow-wow together.

Also, he mentions sidewalks. That came up quite prominently at the APT meeting. If you can't walk or wheel to a transit stop, that is a bit of a problem. Obviously, we can't afford to build sidewalks everywhere at once, but the city might consider a policy change providing sidewalks in a one block radius in all directions around any transit stop. It would be a great and reasonable start.

Kudos to Sam Bowman. He has long worked for more sidewalks in neighborhoods all over Oklahoma City. And his comments about the City Council needing to be more involved in MAPS 3 are spot on.

NW Expressway would be a great BRT start.

It’s true that a BRT route on NW Expressway is early on the Fixed Guideway Study (FGS) list. Where, besides the FGS, can you point me to a BRT success story? Wikipedia has a whole list of BRT systems, but many of them are under study, under construction, abandoned, or have minimal routes.

NW Expressway accesses a great commuter market for our system. But BRT is not the answer, and building light rail from scratch would be very expensive. Either Norman or Midwest City would be a much better starter segment for our transit system.

Aren't there as many people living along NW Expressway as ther are in Edmond or Norman?? The should absolutely be a rail plan for NWE even before Edmond or Norman and keep the investment inside OKC.

It’s true that a BRT route on NW Expressway is early on the Fixed Guideway Study (FGS) list. Where, besides the FGS, can you point me to a BRT success story? Wikipedia has a whole list of BRT systems, but many of them are under study, under construction, abandoned, or have minimal routes.

NW Expressway accesses a great commuter market for our system. But BRT is not the answer, and building light rail from scratch would be very expensive. Either Norman or Midwest City would be a much better starter segment for our transit system.

Well again, my guess is that the timing, stimulus funds, and political desire will have the Tinker Line up and running before we see the consensus necessary to deliver the funds for OKC, Moore, Norman route. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't get started building that consensus. RTD (Regional Transit Dialogue by ACoG) is a great start- Mayor Rosenthal is a promising advocate for such a project. But with regard to MAPS and the timing or promise of a commuter line, its probably BRT or the coincidental timing on the Midwest City proposal.

Regarding NW Expressway- it is a huge challenge to do even BRT (Bus Rapid Transit). At least to do it right. NW Expressway is a highway. It is maintained via the city predominantly but still under the jurisdiction of ODoT. I was project administrator the Centennial Project at Penn and NWE. The construction and permitting process wasn't prohibitive, but was certainly more cumbersome.

A successful BRT on NW Expressway means more sidewalks, crossings, pedestrian enhancements to light controls (timing), park and ride lots, attainment of property for comfortable bus stops- I would suggest air conditioned. To work for us and be successful, stops would almost have to be "mini terminals".

I may be speaking ahead of the game, but it is a critical corridor in the FGS that also needs evaluation in these other different areas. Having physically worked out there and been forced to interact with traffic and such- it is an almost alien environment for any sort of personal comfort.

To entice anyone to ride anything out there, above and beyond those who absolutely have to use it, will require a deeper thought in how to make it more hospitable.

By wsucougz

Quote:
Originally Posted by betts View Post

"A great bus and/or trolley system, especially with buses running on natural gas, could and should precede any rail mass transit, which will take years to plan and implement. I read in the journal record the other day that Tulsa had put in, and been granted, $8 million to convert their bus fleet to CNG. It didn't sound like OKC had done the same.

By Metro:

"I saw that, seemed like Tulsa was getting a bunch of that money and OKC was just passing the opportunity right on by...."


By Goldbug

"I saw that, seemed like Tulsa was getting a bunch of that money and OKC was just passing the opportunity right on by....
Actually, OKC will be getting over $10 million in stimulus funds for transit. This will fund bus and paratransit van replacement, improvements to maintenance facilities, and AVL, among other things."

Full information is available on the Metro Transit website. Look under "Stimulus Funding Update." PDF attachment below.

Did anyone see (watch) the city council meeting this past Tuesday? There was probably more discussion about public transit than probably any city council meeting I can remember.

The link is:

City of Oklahoma City | City Council Archive (http://www.okc.gov/council/council_library/CouncilMeetingMain.aspx)

Click on the June 9th meeting. Fast forward to 5:28

I really do think the city council needs a transit workshop with some outside experience brought in from cities where systems work. Also, citizen comments at end.

we have updated the MTP website with new events and news. I was interviewed on KTOK and channel 9 today about the APT meeting tomorrow at the Red Cross. COTPA's budget will be voted on tomorrow at council. The transit agency is pushing for two new routes- 10 and 40.

Saw the media interviews Jeff. Good job! As always the local media is a little aloof when it comes to this topic. Hope you have a good turnout to the discussion forum today, unfortunately I will be unable to make it since it's in the middle of the workday.

im really curious as to the route system that is being proposed. will this system only serve oklahoma city proper? or the greater okc area? ideally i could see a route being constructed that would have both edmond and norman as terminus points for a north/south route..the route should have stops at: ocu, ou, state capitol, 19th street-moore, ed noble parkway, main street norman, bricktown/downtown, penn square/belle isle, etc. basically paralleling the 35/235 corridor and hitting all major points of interest in between without straying too far away from that line.

as far as an east/west route line,.im not so certain it would serve as much of a benefit to connect mid-del to yukon/mustang.

there should be a loop circuit that circles oklahoma city, having stops at all major college campuses within the city as well as large points of interest and area attractions, and major shopping centers.

the real ticket to this transit line's success will be how well planned out the route system will be because that will be instrumental in determining its overall ridership.

maybe you should go to the public input meeting today and voice your concerns about "route". Heck we all know this is just a starting point, people quit thinking this starter line is going to be the end all perfect system. We need to get something going and expand from there, just as we've been talking about for years. This city nor most cities will get behind a full fledged system at the start, it takes proving of a starter line. Again, this is going to be a downtown circulator streetcar and a BUS rapid transit. Not light rail folks, we don't have that kind of money, or at least a consensus of the voters to have the vision to pay for a multi-billion dollar light rail from scratch.

The APT meeting went well Tuesday. A recording will be broadcast on KGOU- NPR. My guess is it will be on OK voices Monday. The room was so packed we could barely fit everyone in comfortably. I believe that Channel 9, KSBI 52, the Oklahoman, and the Gazette are covering it or covered it. Great ideas and passionate speeches were proclaimed. The mtp website Welcome | Modern Transit Project in Oklahoma City (http://www.mtpokc.com) is being updated as new info arrives. We are currently finishing a mathmatical scientific analysis on times, speeds, ect of the current bus system.

Yes, it was crowded. I was encouraged by the turnout and hope the group got some good publicity from the media.

I've brought up the public transportation situation with several people to attempt to glean ideas on how to engage the younger generations in activly supporting this. No new ones to this point but I'll keep trying.

Glad to hear it was packed, I wish I could have taken off work for it. Hopefully we'll see more meetings after 5pm so the working class can show up.

We are currently finishing a mathmatical scientific analysis on times, speeds, ect of the current bus system.

Speaking of the buss system... I got this BS email...

megan.mitchener@okc.gov wrote:
> You are correct, at one point we did have a system map on our web site.
> However, it had not been updated since 2005 and the link was removed
> from the web site. We have had many request to update the map and make
> it available again, but at this time we do not have one available. We
> are working on a component for the new gometro site that will make it
> easier for trip planning. We hope to have the site launched in a few
> months. Thanks for checking.

I figure if that can't put together a pdf in last 4 years of the system map.... they ain't gonna have one 'in a few months.'

Does ANYONE have a saved copy of the old system map?

Speaking of the buss system... I got this BS email...

megan.mitchener@okc.gov wrote:
> You are correct, at one point we did have a system map on our web site.
> However, it had not been updated since 2005 and the link was removed
> from the web site. We have had many request to update the map and make
> it available again, but at this time we do not have one available. We
> are working on a component for the new gometro site that will make it
> easier for trip planning. We hope to have the site launched in a few
> months. Thanks for checking.

I figure if that can't put together a pdf in last 4 years of the system map.... they ain't gonna have one 'in a few months.'

Does ANYONE have a saved copy of the old system map?

Hilarious.

I called back in October and they told me they were working on the system map and a new web site that would be really cool. After no updates, I called back in February. Same story, second verse. I actually was ready to dial 235-ride last week to ask... but after checking their web site with still no updates, I was like forget it.

I hate to harp on it, but if this was a privately owned company, it would have gone out of business a loooong time ago. And we the taxpayers are letting it bleed money!

Does ANYONE have a saved copy of the old system map?

If you email Kara Chiodo at ACOG (contact info here (http://www.acogok.org/Contact_ACOG/)) she may be willing to make you a PDF or image showing the current routes from the data ACOG has on file. However, it would not be an "official" map.

Walter Jacques, one of our APT board members brought it up at a meeting. Absolutely everyone was shocked that one does not exist. I think as a result of the following chaos, there will be one shortly. LOL I guess that a map would somewhat illustrate the issues with our transit situation.