nm

So then I ask why are they proposing it cross Shields so far south then? I don't get that.
Metro, I asked the same question. Tim Johnson (his firm designed much of the original canal, and designed this "sketch") was kind enough to meet with me while he was putting this together for the Bricktown Association, and shed some light on the thinking. I had seen the city's drawing from a number of years ago with the Reno alignment; in fact I had it tacked on my office wall for years. What was explained to me by Tim was that neither the Reno alignment or the boulevard alignment (the part where it comes under the tracks) work well or at all, from an engineering standpoint.

He told me that Reno would likely be outrageously expensive due to mechanicals (HVAC) running from the Cox Center to the Ford Center, and also due to the subterranean Cox Center parking structure, which extends all of the way to the Reno curb (beyond the walls of the Cox).

The problem with the boulevard route under the tracks is that the boulevard and Shields will intersect at an elevation a number of feet below the current Shields elevation, and would actually be BELOW the canal elevation. You would not be able to fly a bridge over it. It is actually a bigger problem than Reno. Either way, the focus seems to be to get to the proposed convention center above all, so it won't be a bad thing to be that far south according to what seem to be the preferred locations for the convention center. None of this means the SW 3rd location would be where it comes through, or even that the others are out of the question (with major engineering hocus pocus); this is all just a sketch to show what COULD happen, much like the previously mentioned pre-MAPS1 conceptuals.

I've watched this thread with a lot of interest since it started, and frankly have been chomping at the bit to post, but I've held back, not wanting to cloud the issue because of my employer's relationship with the City and direct relationship with the existing canal. It will probably come as no surprise to anyone that we support the Bricktown Associaton's initiative, but people might be surprised to find out some of the reasons why. Like I said, I don't think it's a good idea for me to come in here and spend time defending the reasons behind the plan, but I'd encourage you to call Jim Cowan with the Bricktown Association, who is heading up this effort. Jim gave a pretty compelling, impassioned plea for why this is critical to Bricktown's future today at the Bricktown Association membership meeting, and I'm sure he'd love to bend your ear for a few minutes, if you're game.

Also, I have encouraged Jim to register on OKC Talk and discuss the issues in this thread, which I think he plans to do.

Proposed expansion of Bricktown Canal faces opposition
by Kelley Chambers
The Journal Record July 15, 2009

OKLAHOMA CITY – More of a good thing might not be such a good thing.

http://www.journalrecord.com/_images/articles/t_labskc-btown%20canal_MS%2007-15-09.jpg
Jim Cowan, executive director of the Bricktown Association, discusses possible plans for the expansion of the Bricktown Canal during the association’s meeting Tuesday. (Photo by Maike Sabolich)

A proposed extension of the Bricktown Canal is strongly favored by Bricktown Association Executive Director Jim Cowan, but the idea is meeting plenty of resistance.Cowan said he hopes an extension of the Bricktown Canal will make its way onto a new MAPS ballot measure expected to be announced soon.

A sketch of the proposed canal expansion shows it snaking south and west of its current track and hugging three sides of a proposed convention center south of the Ford Center. From there it would head north to the Myriad Gardens. Cowan estimated the canal expansion as proposed would cost $25 million.

Cowan said the expansion is critical for Bricktown’s future because it would keep it connected with downtown and the proposed Core to Shore developments to the south.
“If we don’t dream big about the future of Bricktown, who will?” he said. “That’s kind of our responsibility.”

But Cowan said he has heard concerns about underutilized, sometimes dilapidated retail space along the 10-year-old canal and the practicality of extending the waterway.
Anthony McDermid, principal at TAParchitecture, said the canal expansion would be a poor use of space and public money. He said it would create a barrier, not lead people from the Core to Shore area to Bricktown as Cowan imagines.

“I am afraid the canal proposal could backfire badly and make it much easier for visitors to patronize new development south of downtown,” McDermid said. “As a downtown resident and urban designer, I believe the existing canal is a long way from realizing its potential, especially for canal-side development.”

Cowan said he wants Bricktown merchants to let city officials know that they want to see the canal expanded. He said it will be a vital link between Bricktown and any new development.

“It’s time for us to say specifically to the city what would we like done,” he said. “We have to stay connected.”

McDermid compared a canal expansion to the Underground, the series of subterranean tunnels below downtown, which he said hurts downtown by taking people off the streets. He doesn’t want the canal to ultimately have the same effect.

“It is difficult to imagine widespread support for a plan that seeks to triple the length of the canal and force people to meander around below grade in the cause of connecting downtown to Bricktown,” McDermid said.

The Journal Record - Article (http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=100584)

I'm all for extending the canal. With the new convention center right there, I am positive it is a sure bet that the area around there will be developed quite nicely.

If the city allows this extension plan to add onto the MAPS ballot, then I would suggest that the city put in strict requirements on maintenance (Google suggested spelling) on the old and new canal, complete landscaping, and everything else we can think of to keep all of this above grade.

I can not believe that someone would think that it will create a barrier. Someone need to educate Anthony McDermid that bridges can be built over the canal.

Thunder, I wouldn't be so sure of that, that is what was said with the first canal. Just look at what the true experts are saying about the new proposal. Anthony McDermid is very well known urban planner, and several other urban planners have spoken out against this. Not to mention, if history repeats itself, and we haven't learned or placed any new development guidelines.......... Are you seriously saying Anthony McDermid is the one who needs educating on this topic? What is your experience with Urban Planning and architecture Thunder? You have to understand how certain design elements affect other things.

Another thing that concerns me is the location of the new Convention Center. It is basically going to be another superblock facing the new boulevard and park. We have a superblock convention center now facing the Myriad Gardens. Superblocks have a history of creating a "dead zone" and a barrier to street life. I heard a developer tell me they'd rather see the convention center set back one block, and then have short blocks in front of the convention center of mixed use development to encourage street life around the park and boulevard area. Sure, people will come out of the new convention center into the new park (if we do it right), but what about when there isn't a convention going on or at night? It's a dead zone..

I'm all for extending the canal. With the new convention center right there, I am positive it is a sure bet that the area around there will be developed quite nicely.

If the city allows this extension plan to add onto the MAPS ballot, then I would suggest that the city put in strict requirements on maintenance (Google suggested spelling) on the old and new canal, complete landscaping, and everything else we can think of to keep all of this above grade.

I can not believe that someone would think that it will create a barrier. Someone need to educate Anthony McDermid that bridges can be built over the canal.

1. We don't need a canal to spur development around the convention center and ford center, they will spur development themselves. They don't need a canal.
2. Above/below grade has to with ground elevations, not good/bad quality.
3. I'm fairly certain McDermid is educated on the subject.

I just don't see the canal extension being so critical for BT. Don't they realize a streetcar would move more people at a faster pace from the convention/ford center area to BT than a canal boat ever could.

My never being able to forget how beautiful the canal was in San Antonio doesn't stem from how fast one can travel about in a cliche car. It was about the scenery and feel of the canal.

I would like to see the canal extended here myself, for the sake of having something different to do, than to cruise around in a car like I used to on 12th in the late 90's.

Metro, I believe that BT learned from their mistakes and what they see on the present canal is something they should feel compelled to prevent from happening for the extended canal.

I do agree that the new convention center should be pulled south by a block and use the front area for beautiful landscaping, sidewalks, chairs, and gazebo (spelling?).

Why would we need more streetcars to focus on the new convention center area, onthestrip? Do you think it is a good idea to add more to the traffic? Not everyone can cram into these streetcars. There are those that will actually walk for excercise and/or to enjoy the scenery.

Now, if the convention center is pulled back a block south, and we have a park in the area, then I believe the canal will be a nice touch. We will have people on the boats and walking along side the canal to their destination. It is best to divide/divert the traffic evenly and not just have everyone crammed into streetcars.

Since the relocation of the future convention center is a great idea, I suggest that the canal continue west thru the discussed park area in front of the convention center. The BT people seem to think that the convention center's location is final, but it is not. They need to replan the canal and strongly argue to have the convention center pulled back.

Just to clarify, when I say streetcar I'm referring to a rail based mode of public transportation, not just a car on the street.

Trains on rails? I don't find the image of rails in the middle of streets to be appealing. Gonna be one hella bumpy ride for those driving over the rails.

http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg

Thanks Cuatro.

Do you think it is a good idea to add more to the traffic? Not everyone can cram into these streetcars.

The street cars reduce cars on the road, not people walking. So they actually reduce the traffic. Their purpose is not to move people from Zio's to the Cox center, because, well, that's ridiculous. It's to move people between districts to make all of downtown more accessible once you are there and tie the districts together to leverage their assets...

For example: you eat in MidTown and take the street car to the game. You have dinner in Deep Deuce and take the streetcar to see the symphony. You stay at a hotel in the core and go to bricktown, then lunch at Sage, then visit the memorial, have a beer at McNellie's, and go see a play at Stage Center and then go back to your hotel... all by street car. And with the fixed routes maybe you stopped by the many shops that would benefit from the added guaranteed exposure and easier access for all visitors. It would expand the spending of tourist, both casual and business, by exposing them to more than just the only restaurant our hospitality people know of (which is Hooters) and give locals more options when it comes to parking, dining, and entertainment without having to either walk several blocks both ways (which we already know is not a popular option here) or drive, all by means of a novel, scenic, and stress free way of getting around.

Thanks Cuatro.

Amen...


I swear I need to start the "NO CANAL EXTENTION (right now) WE WANT A STREETCAR" Facebook group.

The street cars reduce cars on the road, not people walking. So they actually reduce the traffic. Their purpose is not to move people from Zio's to the Cox center, because, well, that's ridiculous. It's to move people between districts to make all of downtown more accessible once you are there and tie the districts together to leverage their assets...

For example: you eat in MidTown and take the street car to the game. You have dinner in Deep Deuce and take the streetcar to see the symphony. You stay at a hotel in the core and go to bricktown, then lunch at Sage, then visit the memorial, have a beer at McNellie's, and go see a play at Stage Center and then go back to your hotel... all by street car. And with the fixed routes maybe you stopped by the many shops that would benefit from the added guaranteed exposure and easier access for all visitors. It would expand the spending of tourist, both casual and business, by exposing them to more than just the only restaurant our hospitality people know of (which is Hooters) and give locals more options when it comes to parking, dining, and entertainment without having to either walk several blocks both ways (which we already know is not a popular option here) or drive, all by means of a novel, scenic, and stress free way of getting around.

^^ This :bow:

Why is this a streetcar vs. canal discussion. Jeff, I'd be curious as to your take on this.

Amen...


I swear I need to start the "NO CANAL EXTENTION (right now) WE WANT A STREETCAR" Facebook group.

SWEET! Do it!! I'll join!!!

Why is this a streetcar vs. canal discussion.

IMO...
When the city ASKS people "What would you like to see in MAPS III?".... and the is an overwhelming response for Transit (light rail, streetcars, etc.)..... and now we are only a couple of months away from a MAPS vote.... and suddenly convention centers and canal extension talk being pushed on the public possibly spoiling the potential for the things we REALLY want.... you have to expect people to debate it.... frankly it p****s me off....

What is your opinion about a $78 million exhibit hall being requested by the State Fair board?

IMO...
When the city ASKS people "What would you like to see in MAPS III?".... and the is an overwhelming response for Transit (light rail, streetcars, etc.)..... and now we are only a couple of months away from a MAPS vote.... and suddenly convention centers and canal extension talk being pushed on the public possibly spoiling the potential for the things we REALLY want.... you have to expect people to debate it.... frankly it p****s me off....

I don't think anyone ever said that MAPS III would just be for commuter or light rail. I think it has always been planned to have multiple projects, especially involving Core to Shore, included in the MAPS III projects. And the new convention center and central park were mentioned from the beginning. The only new idea is the canal extension, but really, that's been in the planning for some time now too.

What is your opinion about a $78 million exhibit hall being requested by the State Fair board?

About the same... not right now.

Maybe when the streetcar connects to the Fair Park ;)

I really question how many people in OKC would give up their cars for this street car system. I'd hate to spend $1billion of an entire MAPS package to find out that we won't support such a system. I hate to be pessimistic, but lets start with a small starter line and see how well it's supported first.

An Expo Center at the fairgrounds would be a guaranteed money-maker for the city, as we know how much money our fairgrounds generates. I question though why the money for such a project can't be taken out of the increased hotel-motel taxed we passed to improve the fairgrounds.

I don't think anyone ever said that MAPS III would just be for commuter or light rail. I think it has always been planned to have multiple projects, especially involving Core to Shore, included in the MAPS III projects. And the new convention center and central park were mentioned from the beginning. The only new idea is the canal extension, but really, that's been in the planning for some time now too.

I always knew it was for multiple projects, but they asked us to vote on the website for what we'd like to see. We did, and it seems like they are starting at the bottom of the list! To be clear... I DO think we need the convention center as a component of MAPS III. Core to Shore is different... it's basically zoning. The canal extension is not new... it was an idea on the MAPS III website. It placed 16th out of 28th. (before anyone tire to correct me there were ties) If you look at the the top 6 ideas it's pretty crystal clear that the people want transit and a walkable city.

Transit (light rail, streetcars, etc.) 668
Infrastructure, Including Streets 188
Trails 140
General Parks Improvement/Expansion 123
Sidewalks 100

I really question how many people in OKC would give up their cars for this street car system. I'd hate to spend $1billion of an entire MAPS package to find out that we won't support such a system. I hate to be pessimistic, but lets start with a small starter line and see how well it's supported first.

I'd hate to get too of the topic of this thread but...

That is not the point now! The point is building from he center out! It WILL be a success with downtowners and downtown visitors.

From that success the citzens of the inner city will demand it (happens EVERYWHERE it's started) and will alos increase the density of the inner city because people will want to move in.

At that point, build a canal to Norman for all I care.

amen...


I swear i need to start the "no canal extention (right now) we want a streetcar" facebook group.

do it!

What is your opinion about a $78 million exhibit hall being requested by the State Fair board?

Should be funded by raising the hotel/motel tax, which is STILL well below the national average and is largely paid for by out of towners.

Should be funded by raising the hotel/motel tax, which is STILL well below the national average and is largely paid for by out of towners.

I absolutely agree. 100 percent. This is of little value to the citizens, though it does bring tourism to OKC.

More importantly, we just paid for Fair renovations. This is not the year for that.

Metro is absolutely right about the hotel/motel tax, but some of that new revenue, if it is raised, should be used for beautification as well, IMO.

An unspecified amount of money is being sought for construction of a central park in Core to Shore. What is your opinion of this project being included in a MAPS 3 ballot, especially if the amount is between $50 million and $75 million as some sources suggest?

Why is this a streetcar vs. canal discussion. Jeff, I'd be curious as to your take on this.

I don't find the projects competitive in the least. I guess the only fundamental argument that may be competitive is there is pie, it is only so big, so how do we divide it? The reality though is that a full streetcar system throughout downtown will provide more consistent accessibility (customer traffic) to Bricktown throughout the day thus benefiting those merchants in a more sustainable way.

The canal extension concept is beneficial to them as it will provide a direct pedestrian connection to the existing convention center assets and perhaps future assets. If I had ownership in Bricktown I would be advocating a direct connection too. The streetcars can only handle several hundred at a time versus thousands at once so this connection makes sense for mass exodus after convention/arena events.

Also, from a voting standpoint, a canal extension may make the ballot more palatable for Mr. Joe Citizen. For the most part the canal is relected on positively by voters. A small extension to resolve the pedestrian connection makes sense and may actually help the vote due to the legitimate connection of the canal project to the first MAPS which most see as a success.

I have heard the number 25 mil thrown around for this extension? Is that correct? If so, that's not much in the whole slate. We need around 100 million to end up with a decent streetcar system. I would suggest that the Bricktown people engage in hard work and thoughtful diplomacy as we have done with our city leadership (council and mayor).

Eitherway, the streetcar is not competitive with this project. It costs more but benefits a wide audience of citizenry including the good people of Bricktown.

An unspecified amount of money is being sought for construction of a central park in Core to Shore. What is your opinion of this project being included in a MAPS 3 ballot, especially if the amount is between $50 million and $75 million as some sources suggest?
I've got good reason the park is EASILY going to top $100 million.

Interesting discussion.

My wife had family in this weekend and we met them at Coaches next to the ball park. I dropped of my wife and kids and went to get a parking spot. On my way to Coaches I ran into 3 young guys from Norway (yes Norway) they were traveling thru OKC because they were driving across the country on Route 66, they wanted to know how to get to the Memorial from Bricktown.

There little adventure would have been so much easier if we had decent transportation in Downtown.

I for one believe we need some kind of transportation in Downtown. Whether its a street car or whatever we need something to tie all the emerging districts together (midtown, Deep Deuce, The Memorial, 23rd street, Paseo district, adventure district, Bricktown, Myriad Gardens, Stockyards, etc.) Our city is growing but none of these districts have reached their full potential. We could use a combination of streetcars the boats on the canal and riverboats to reach these destinations and visitors could buy passes to use all the different modes of transportation. Until we have some sort of transportation in place this city will not reach its potential. We are on the cusp of turning that corner, but if something is not done soon we will just be in the same category as much smaller cities. With some kind of transportation in the city we will get that much needed retail in Downtown and much more, but until then we will always be talking about the potential of our city.

It is time to get to the next step and truly become a Major League city instead of us just saying we are.

I love OKC but its time to take some more steps forward and not become stagnant.

The canal boats and riverboats will never become a serious mode of public transportation. They are for novelty.

I do however agree with you that we need to stop calling ourself a MLC and start acting like one. We're not one until we get decent public transit.

I don't like the idea of a taxpayer funded transit startup in the hundreds of millions of dollars with a MAPS style tax. And then year after year after year of even more tax dollars draining because, as has been noted, public transit never makes money.

So basically we should all move to small town america and self sustain?

So, we should fund an idea that will cost us hundreds of millions up front and infinity millions in the long run? That is a lousy business plan with the investors (taxpayers) sure to get screwed.

I don't like the idea of a taxpayer funded transit startup in the hundreds of millions of dollars with a MAPS style tax. And then year after year after year of even more tax dollars draining because, as has been noted, public transit never makes money.

No transit ever makes money. Are you really going to try and argue that cars make the state money? I guess you haven't seen the latest state budget for road and bridge construction and maintenance then.

So, we should fund an idea that will cost us hundreds of millions up front and infinity millions in the long run? That is a lousy business plan with the investors (taxpayers) sure to get screwed.

Ok, I think you've solved it... a MAPs-like penny dedicated to tranist... forever... :)

I don't like the idea of a taxpayer funded transit startup in the hundreds of millions of dollars with a MAPS style tax. And then year after year after year of even more tax dollars draining because, as has been noted, public transit never makes money.

Trolling again? This isn't what is even being proposed. Who has proposed spending hundreds of millions? No one.

Get a clue and get a grip.

Trolling again? This isn't what is even being proposed. Who has proposed spending hundreds of millions? No one.

Get a clue and get a grip.

Luke is never known to troll on here. :tiphat:

Trolling again? This isn't what is even being proposed. Who has proposed spending hundreds of millions? No one.

Get a clue and get a grip.

What would the total startup and maintenance for a rail transit system cost the taxpayers over, say, a decade?

You're effectively defending a business venture that will guarantee to burden the investors (taxpayers) a net loss year after year after year?

And I need to get a grip?

luke, you cant have a different opinion on this board about mass transit. as you see you will be called names, you will be told that you live in the dark ages and that this is scientific consensus. next..... the brownshirts at your door.

Such is the nature of the internet... Mass inferiority complexes. People always want other's to see their opinion or names are called.

I say let people call whoever nerdy internet names like troll and whatnot. They're only looking foolish in the end, so it shouldn't be anyone's problem but their own.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion without name calling, but if second grade antics are to be issued, then someone has to be the big boy and put on the big-boy pants and just take it.

See someone can call me names, but I will just laugh at their inferiority complex and might even help them out in making fun of me, just for kicks. All in the name of fun. :tiphat:

Don't let it bother you Luke, is what I am saying. That is if someone is calling you names. Like them cool Penguins say, "Smile and wave boys. Smile and wave."

I'm not offended by faceless internet name-calling.

It just boggles my mind that someone would defend a guaranteed money losing business at THEIR OWN expense. That's all.

So, we should fund an idea that will cost us hundreds of millions up front and infinity millions in the long run? That is a lousy business plan with the investors (taxpayers) sure to get screwed.

NEWSFLASH: We don't live in a utopia. MAPS and mass transit (quality transit in other metro's) have proven to be a boon to business, despite the fact that transit itself does lose money. I'm okay with you being against transit, but if you're going to use the "money loss" as the case, you should come out against roads, bridges and just about everything else government spent. In reality, we don't and more than likely never will live like this in the U.S.

NEWSFLASH: We don't live in a utopia. MAPS and mass transit (quality transit in other metro's) have proven to be a boon to business, despite the fact that transit itself does lose money

I'm not denying the benefits of rail. The benefits of rail would happen whether taxpayers paid for it or a private entity paid for it.


I'm okay with you being against transit, but if you're going to use the "money loss" as the case, you should come out against roads, bridges and just about everything else government spent.

I have brought up privatization of roads and highways. I think those would be much better kept, faster and safer if they were privatized.

I'm not offended by faceless internet name-calling.

It just boggles my mind that someone would defend a guaranteed money losing business at THEIR OWN expense. That's all.

Roads and Highways are a guaranteed money loosing business at our own expense.....should we get rid of them?

You live in the dark ages and that this is scientific consensus..... I'm kidding of course.

Roads and Highways are a guaranteed money loosing business at our own expense.....should we get rid of them?

No, as I have said elsewhere, we should privatize them.

We would pay less in tolls to private roads because of competition. We would have faster, safer and better roads. We would also have 50 cents a gallon gas tax back in our pockets (among other highway and road taxes we currently pay).


You live in the dark ages and that this is scientific consensus..... I'm kidding of course.

I know, I know, I should just bow down and kiss the boots of ODOT and the Turnpike Authority (who, by the way are raising tolls). There can never be a better way than the money-losing government monopoly way. That's the only way, I know.

;)

What would the total startup and maintenance for a rail transit system cost the taxpayers over, say, a decade?


Enhanced Bus
Technology:Conventional Diesel or CNG Bus
Annual Revenue Miles:9.4 million
Service Frequency:15 – 30 min. Peak, 30 – 45 min. Off-Peak & Weekend
Annual Operating Hours:595,000
Capital Cost:$31.8 million
Annual Operating Cost:$60.3 million
Annual Boardings:6,230,000
Annualized Cost Per Annualized Rider:$0.56


Bus Rapid Transit
Technology:Conventional Diesel or CNG Bus
Annual Revenue Miles:4.6 Million
Service Frequency:30 min. Peak, 60 min. Off-Peak & Weekend
Annual Revenue Hours:194,100
Capital Cost:$40.2 million
Annual Operating Cost:$22.6 million
Annual Boardings:751,200
Annualized Cost Per Annualized Rider:$9.80


Commuter Rail
Technology:Conventional Diesel ; Modern DMU
Annual Revenue Car Miles:645,826
Service Frequency:30 min. Peak, 60 min. Off-Peak & Weekend
Annual Revenue Car Hours:25,050
Capital Cost:$234.0 million
Annual Operating Cost:$9.7 million
Annual Boardings:1,684,600
Annualized Cost Per Annualized Rider:$35.48


Modern Streetcar
Technology:Electric
Annual Revenue Car Miles:215,146
Service Frequency:15 min. Peak, 30 min. Off-Peak & Weekend
Annual Revenue Car Hours:33,270
Capital Cost:$83.2 million
Annual Operating Cost:$3.2 million
Annual Boardings:759,800
Annualized Cost Per Annualized Rider:$19.97

So, from the above estimates from 2005...

Total Capital Cost for full system: ~$389.2 million (2005 Dollars)

Total Operating Cost: 1 year: $95.8 million (2005) or 10 years: $958 million (2005)

Therefore...

Capital and Operating (barring no expansion in those 10 years): $1.347 billion (2005)

Source (http://acogok.org/Newsroom/Downloads08/okfgschap7.pdf)


You're effectively defending a business venture that will guarantee to burden the investors (taxpayers) a net loss year after year after year?

And I need to get a grip?

Who said public transit is a business venture? Do you consider public education, interstate highways, or police and fire services to be business ventures. Yes, public transit is subsidizes - heavily - so are all those other examples.

Now, if you consider the indirect economic impacts a public transit system can bring (i.e. development, reduced traffic congestion, etc) you will find that the burden carried by taxpayers to be negligible. And this does not take into account variables such as lifestyle changes, public perception, and environmental impacts.

Of course it costs more, but I'd bet the return investment along the lines makes up for a great deal of that cost. Who puts in a restaurant or boutique because it is on the bus route??

The sooner we can all agree that Platemaker knows what's best for this city the sooner we can get this stuff rolling.... like my idea of a streetcar system. (joking of course)
OKC Streetcar System - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&gl=us&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=111426230497418153646.00046d25cce9b46dc0043)

Nice map. Why did you stop the Green Line short of Penn Square?

Funny you mention that I just deleted part of that line.... I had it going all the way up Western to Britton (I think Britton has a lot of potential) couldn't figure out the best way to tie in Penn Square so I just deleted that part and gave up.
My aim was to avoid the major street arteries (23rd, Classen, Lincoln) because of fighting traffic and reserve the "cool" secondary streets, like Western for streetcar lines. Plus, I think that the most important thing to actually get people to the neighbor hoods the live in. that map actually is pretty close to the original streetcar system that the city was built around.

Another important factor is that all of my lines intersect at least once with all other lines.... so the most you would ever have to change trains in once. Very much like Boston's set up.

Imagine... the entire population of the historic inner city being within at most 5 block of a line. The city would really come alive.

Who said public transit is a business venture?

Lots of transit companies exist elsewhere in cities and countries all over the world. It's just that when governments form a monopoly and run that monopoly at a loss (burdening its citizens with the debt!) then private companies cannot compete.


Do you consider public education interstate highways, or police and fire services to be business ventures.

I would argue that privatization of all of those would save taxpayers huge money and be more effective.


Now, if you consider the indirect economic impacts a public transit system can bring (i.e. development, reduced traffic congestion, etc) you will find that the burden carried by taxpayers to be negligible. And this does not take into account variables such as lifestyle changes, public perception, and environmental impacts.

I don't disagree that the economic impact of a transit system would be beneficial. Those same benefits would be experienced with a privatized system. I certainly don't think we should burden taxpayers a sure-fire money losing venture year on end.

I'd rather the city solicit bids from rail transit or monorail or bus or whatever companies all over the world and let them build, maintain and reap the profits from the implemented system.

It's a win for everyone. Taxpayers aren't burdened with the debt, a company will most likely be making money efficiently (profit is a good motivator), development will occur along rail lines and (what seems to be the biggest deal to some on this board) our "perception" as a major league city will be validated.

Lots of transit companies exist elsewhere in cities and countries all over the world. It's just that when governments form a monopoly and run that monopoly at a loss (burdening its citizens with the debt!) then private companies cannot compete.



I would argue that privatization of all of those would save taxpayers huge money and be more effective.



I don't disagree that the economic impact of a transit system would be beneficial. Those same benefits would be experienced with a privatized system. I certainly don't think we should burden taxpayers a sure-fire money losing venture year on end.

I'd rather the city solicit bids from rail transit or monorail or bus or whatever companies all over the world and let them build, maintain and reap the profits from the implemented system.

It's a win for everyone. Taxpayers aren't burdened with the debt, a company will most likely be making money efficiently (profit is a good motivator), development will occur along rail lines and (what seems to be the biggest deal to some on this board) our "perception" as a major league city will be validated.

Oh, sounds like you've been huffin' some Wendell Cox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Cox) lately.

Privatization isn't as black and white as you champion it to be. However, PPP's might be a better alternative.

The Great American Streetcar Scandal was possible because it was private.

Oh, sounds like you've been huffin' some Wendell Cox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Cox) lately.

Privatization isn't as black and white as you champion it to be. However, PPP's might be a better alternative.

Never huffed, nor heard of that guy. I'll be sure to check him out though.

I guess I'd rather a private company establish a business or service that I can choose to patronize or not. As it is, however, I am forced to pay for an arena (even if I will never go to said arena. If I do, I will have to pay AGAIN to get in!). I am forced to pay for public school (even though my child is not in public school). I am forced to pay for bus service (even though I don't use it). I am forced to pay for roads that I don't drive on.

I'm not trying to be contrarian here. If there really is a demand for a service or business, then it should be self sustainable. If people are worried about people who can't afford something, then those people can all get together and pay for it.

To say that public transit can never be sustainable isn't true. What is true is that government sponsored public transit has never shown to be sustainable. And that insustainability is pushed onto the backs of the taxpayer whether they use public transit or not.

I don't doubt that if our bus system was contracted out to a private company, they would make it profitable. When you throw government inefficiency in there, it costs everyone time and money.

Never huffed, nor heard of that guy. I'll be sure to check him out though.

I guess I'd rather a private company establish a business or service that I can choose to patronize or not. As it is, however, I am forced to pay for an arena (even if I will never go to said arena. If I do, I will have to pay AGAIN to get in!). I am forced to pay for public school (even though my child is not in public school). I am forced to pay for bus service (even though I don't use it). I am forced to pay for roads that I don't drive on.

I'm not trying to be contrarian here. If there really is a demand for a service or business, then it should be self sustainable. If people are worried about people who can't afford something, then those people can all get together and pay for it.

To say that public transit can never be sustainable isn't true. What is true is that government sponsored public transit has never shown to be sustainable. And that insustainability is pushed onto the backs of the taxpayer whether they use public transit or not.

I don't doubt that if our bus system was contracted out to a private company, they would make it profitable. When you throw government inefficiency in there, it costs everyone time and money.

Edmond's new system is contracted out (McDonald Transit (http://mcdonaldtransit.com/home.htm)) and the capital costs (buses, etc) are being funded by Federal transportation money and ARRA stimulus funds. It's never going to make money, private or public. Overhead is too high and operations/maintenance is too costly. No company would come to Edmond and build a system if ridership was minimal and ability to make money is impossible. Therefore, the population that utilizes the transit system because of a disability, lack of automobility, or aging would now be without any service. What now?

Sorry for the hijack.

Why not put the streetcar to a vote of the people. A County by County vote. Maybe .1/2 - 1 cent county sales tax. I would assume that 1/2 cent county tax in Ok. County would be plenty enough to get the streetcars rolling. Maybe the streetcar issue should not be part of maps this time around?

What would the total startup and maintenance for a rail transit system cost the taxpayers over, say, a decade?

You're effectively defending a business venture that will guarantee to burden the investors (taxpayers) a net loss year after year after year?

And I need to get a grip?

You really think you're clever, don't you.

I noticed how you dodged my question.

Let me ask it again: who is suggesting we spend hundreds of millions on transit for MAPS 3?

That's right. No one.

So why are you being such a sophist about it?

This isn't a political board. This is a discussion of potential ballot items for MAPS 3. There is no proposed ballot item involving "hundreds of millions" of dollars for transit, so the entire centerpiece of your gripe is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I'm fairly certain that is a troll move.

Hey Luke,

On another note: I'm often in favor of sensible privatization. However, in most cases, privatization often ends up costing the taxpayers even more than the same service formerly provided by government.

Like any solution, it in itself is not a panacea. It sure sounds warm and fuzzy, but when put in practice it often fails.

I suspect you're such a philosophical purist you will disagree.

Let me ask it again: who is suggesting we spend hundreds of millions on transit for MAPS 3?

metro.