I agree, the meeting seemed to go over real well.

The main concerns from citizens as a general were:

a) the portal into Bricktown
--Not being wide enough, etc. Not being inviting.

b) the speed/timeframe.
--Getting fixed guideway (not sure if that is the correct term, Jeff) moving forward at a quicker pace, and not sitting on this plan until 2025.

At least that's the general mood I felt in the room.

Another thing that seemed to be talked about was the potential for the Cox Convention Center to be repurposed. This seemed to have an impact on the study and their approach and methodology.

The Journal Record
OKC metro-area leaders: Unite for mass transit

by Brian Brus

Published: June 17th, 2011

OKLAHOMA CITY – A multi-municipality approach to metro-area mass transit might not be such a pipe dream anymore, local government leaders said.

“We’ve made much more progress than many of us ever anticipated with regional transit dialogue,” Norman Mayor Cindy Rosenthal said. “There’s a governance framework and financing options that are being discussed and the progress is making a lot of us hopeful that this is something that could become a reality.”

The latest of public meetings on the viability of a multimodal transportation hub Thursday yielded energetic feedback from residents, said Jerry Church, spokesman for the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments. Many of the comments were esoteric or years far ahead of the plan – questions over the color of paint at a bus station, for example.

“Quite often they don’t understand the realities of timing, and they see a pretty architectural rendering and they want to talk about the colors of the walls,” Church said. “But you’ve got to appreciate that enthusiasm. It means they’re excited, although it’s not going to happen tomorrow.

“The whole idea of maybe riding the train to work isn’t really a pipe dream anymore. It’s almost tangible,” he said. “The atmosphere has really changed over the last 15 years; we’ve done a lot of remarkable things. And, granted, 15 years from now might seem like a long time, but it’s really not.”

A study by the Jacobs consultation company projects that the metro area will have more than 1.7 million people by 2050 with several population-dense areas bleeding into each other, generally identified by Edmond, northwest Oklahoma City, Midwest City and Tinker Air Force Base, Norman, south Oklahoma City and Moore.

By then, the area will need and be able to support a mass transit system comprised of multiple modes, allowing people to switch from one to the other to allow access across the area, the Jacobs study shows. Light rail, for example, will provide the widest range from urbanity to the suburbs at the quickest rate, which will be supplemented by bus lines. Oklahoma’s urban heart will have a streetcar circulator. And high-speed rail will move people from the city to the regional and national level.

Those systems would intersect at a central location – the old Santa Fe railroad station near Bricktown, for instance. That’s the concept that the Oklahoma City Council has in mind as officials implement the preliminary stage in the form of a streetcar circulator approved by voters as part of the MAPS 3 tax issue. If a hub is to be developed over time, it makes sense to pick a good site now so that new pieces can fit with the least fuss. After comparing several factors among proposed sites, the Santa Fe station was identified as the best choice.

To build the fully integrated hub over the next few decades will cost about $128 million in inflation-adjusted dollars, Jacobs said in its overview.

“At this point it’s still just talk,” Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett said. “The assumption was – at least voiced by me – was that the best thing for transit would be if MAPS 3 would pass and our streetcar ultimately would be deemed a success. If those two things would happen, then the next steps in public transit could be taken … toward a system that we could be proud of.”

The city of Oklahoma City can’t do it alone, Church said.

“And the whole notion of what ACOG has been working on focuses on the regional applications. That’s why we’ve managed the hub study. And regionally it’s being accepted very well,” he said.

Edmond’s Citylink bus service is vibrant for its young age of only two years, which bodes well for a cultural attitude change, Church said. Norman, as a college town, likewise has strong bus ridership. And surveys show strong support for mass transit from Tinker Air Force Base, one of the largest employers in the state, he said.

“Norman is fully in support of this because they had to provide local matching funds for the forthcoming commuter rail analysis project,” Church said. “Those funds show a commitment for the whole concept. It’s very reassuring.”

Rosenthal said Norman is the most obvious choice for one of the first corridors and would produce the greatest volume of riders the quickest, at an estimation of 35,000 people traveling from Norman to Oklahoma City daily. A rail option would create a huge impact on congestion, economic efficiency and pollution, she said.

Guy Henson, city manager of Midwest City, said a traffic corridor between Oklahoma City and Tinker would be just as productive. Plus, it has the advantage of a defunct Union Pacific rail right of way already in place.

Rosenthal said the Norman economy as well as the rest of the metro area would benefit from “the next level of transit sophistication.” However, she said it’s too early to talk about paying for the full system. Much more public education will be necessary before even introducing the idea of a transit-funding district, which was also mentioned by Cornett.

The next step in the overall project process will be public meetings to discuss the Downtown Transit Alternatives Analysis study. The first meeting is scheduled for Thursday at First United Methodist Church, 131 NW Fourth St. The DTAA is one of several required studies to qualify the downtown corridor for federal funding and will provide a broader scope of the transportation needs of downtown Oklahoma City beyond the MAPS 3 streetcar.

Much more public education will be necessary before even introducing the idea of a transit-funding district, which was also mentioned by Cornett.

Please, educate the public on what this is!

2050? I think OKC hits 1.7M in 2020, if not sooner.

In 2000, OKC metro was just over 1M. In 2010, OKC metro was just over 1.3M (a 300K boost). You would assume that given the improvements and growth that the metro will at least grow slightly more over the next 10 years - a 400K boost is quite reasonable.

Good times, nonetheless.

I dont think we should do light rail to the suburbs (unless they are only talking about suburban NW OKC to downtown), we should do commuter rail to the suburbs.

As with many news articles involving technical subject matter unfamiliar to the reporter, there are nomenclature mistakes and other unintentional factual errors.

Here's the future system plan presented by Jacobs at the public meeting for the hub study on Thursday that the article is referencing:

905

This plan looks beyond the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study and assumes that our initial rail transit system is successful and embraced by the public.

The FGS proposed (1) Modern Streetcar for the core, (2) Commuter Rail between Oklahoma City and Norman, Edmond and Midwest City and (3) Bus Rapid Transit to NW OKC, Yukon and Will Rogers Airport.

This plan expands rail transit beyond the FGS by replacing BRT to Yukon and Will Rogers with additional Commuter Rail service. It also includes additional Commuter Rail service to the Adventure District. In addition, it replaces BRT to NW OKC with Light Rail service.

The purpose in looking further into the future and assuming additional rail transit service beyond the FGS is to ensure that the recommended hub site is "future-proofed" to as great a degree as possible. By including all potential rail transit service into the operations analysis for the hub, we can be confident the recommended site has the necessary connectivity and capacity to effectively service our regional rail transit system well into the future.

As with many news articles involving technical subject matter unfamiliar to the reporter, there are nomenclature mistakes and other unintentional factual errors.

Here's the future system plan presented by Jacobs at the public meeting for the hub study on Thursday that the article is referencing:

905

This plan looks beyond the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study and assumes that our initial rail transit system is successful and embraced by the public.

The FGS proposed (1) Modern Streetcar for the core, (2) Commuter Rail between Oklahoma City and Norman, Edmond and Midwest City and (3) Bus Rapid Transit to NW OKC, Yukon and Will Rogers Airport.

This plan expands rail transit beyond the FGS by replacing BRT to Yukon and Will Rogers with additional Commuter Rail service. It also includes additional Commuter Rail service to the Adventure District. In addition, it replaces BRT to NW OKC with Light Rail service.

The purpose in looking further into the future and assuming additional rail transit service beyond the FGS is to ensure that the recommended hub site is "future-proofed" to as great a degree as possible. By including all potential rail transit service into the operations analysis for the hub, we can be confident the recommended site has the necessary connectivity and capacity to effectively service our regional rail transit system well into the future.

Is that a recent map? Why doesn't anyone understand the need to implement bus routes based on the grid system, not drawing random lines on a map?

Is that a recent map? Why doesn't anyone understand the need to implement bus routes based on the grid system, not drawing random lines on a map?

The map is from the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study, with several additional commuter rail and light rail lines added as part of the evaluation for the current hub study. The bus routes shown were those in operation at the time of the original FGS. The FGS only looked at future fixed guideway systems, meaning rail or bus rapid transit. It did not evaluate or make recommendations concerning the standard bus system.

I think most now agree that Oklahoma City's bus system is dysfunctional and ineffective.

What is so hard about implementing a simple bus system in metro OKC? Very simply use the street grid system - run busses north - south and east-west. The busses do not deviate from their street. The Penn bus runs from origin to terminus on Penn only. The routes are separated by 2 main grid streets initially in order to maximize resources but still would not require riders to walk more than one grid to a stop; but eventually have a line on every major N, S, E, & W street artery in the metro. Have one intermediate stop on each grid or at major destinations such as hospitals, office parks or shopping centers.The stops are placed at each route intersection and have tracking systems that let riders know how long to the next bus arrival and ideally would show each bus position graphically. It would obviously be necessary to run multiple busses on each corridor to minimize wait times at each interchange stop. In order to serve the NW Corridor more effectively, every N-S artery has a stop on NW Expressway which is served by Express busses to the CBD transit hub. After some detailed demographic and ridership analysis, it shouldn't be very difficult to determine the appropriate number of busses on each corridor. In addition this bus system is ready to interface with a future streetcar or light rail system. Am i merely stating the obvious here? I cannot be the only person who sees how simple this would be to implement......

Poor people rely on the buses to get around so they can't cut service to the suburbs. That leaves less money to improve the system and make it more attractive to people with jobs.

People with jobs tend to stay off the bus because they believe it doesn't work and because, when push comes to shove, it is inconvenient and in this part of the country, they have a car, anyway, with plenty of parking places. In this part of the country, IMO, you're never going to get working people on a large scale to take mass trans on a regular basis unless it is their only reasonable option (no parking or fuel is too pricey) or the system is so seamless that it rivals having their own car. For most people with cars - and most people have cars in OKC - taking a bus makes no sense and it wouldn't even if it was on time and pulled up right in front of their house and job.

You might get people living in a segregated area that was built up to cater to singles who decide to work and live in the same area. A bus system in that area might be useful. But in this part of the country, as soon as the kids start arriving, their parents are going to book to an area not filled with a bunch of singles. And the singles will thank them.

What is so hard about implementing a simple bus system in metro OKC? Very simply use the street grid system - run busses north - south and east-west... Am i merely stating the obvious here? I cannot be the only person who sees how simple this would be to implement......

No, you're not the only person. Problem is, none of us are in a position to implement a grid system. It's been talked about for a while, but COTPA is a bureaucracy and they tend to be resistant to change. I also have no knowledge about how expensive it is to change a system. It seems as if it would be simple, but that may not be the case.

What is so hard about implementing a simple bus system in metro OKC? Very simply use the street grid system - run busses north - south and east-west. The busses do not deviate from their street. The Penn bus runs from origin to terminus on Penn only. The routes are separated by 2 main grid streets initially in order to maximize resources but still would not require riders to walk more than one grid to a stop; but eventually have a line on every major N, S, E, & W street artery in the metro. Have one intermediate stop on each grid or at major destinations such as hospitals, office parks or shopping centers.The stops are placed at each route intersection and have tracking systems that let riders know how long to the next bus arrival and ideally would show each bus position graphically. It would obviously be necessary to run multiple busses on each corridor to minimize wait times at each interchange stop. In order to serve the NW Corridor more effectively, every N-S artery has a stop on NW Expressway which is served by Express busses to the CBD transit hub. After some detailed demographic and ridership analysis, it shouldn't be very difficult to determine the appropriate number of busses on each corridor. In addition this bus system is ready to interface with a future streetcar or light rail system. Am i merely stating the obvious here? I cannot be the only person who sees how simple this would be to implement......

And the funds to buy the extra required buses come from ???????????????

I also have no knowledge about how expensive it is to change a system. It seems as if it would be simple, but that may not be the case.

Maybe in the short-term it would be costly, but they would make way more money long-term. If this is the case, it is extremely short-sided, amateur thinking, IMO.

Maybe in the short-term it would be costly, but they would make way more money long-term. If this is the case, it is extremely short-sided, amateur thinking, IMO.

While I'm not opposed to a bus sysem, transist system in OKC will never be a money maker, the rider support is not there and never will be.

While I'm not opposed to a bus sysem, transist system in OKC will never be a money maker, the rider support is not there and never will be.

Well, you know, our highways and roads are huge money makers. LOL. Seriously, this is the dumbest argument ever. I cannot believe how thickheaded you must be to continue to insist that public transit somehow be profitable. It's not. Neither are sewers, bridges and curbs -- and certainly not roads. We are constantly spending millions on roads that constantly need repairs.

And the funds to buy the extra required buses come from ???????????????

Without really knowing how many busses are presently in the fleet it is hard for me to really know. But my supposition is there are enough to begin service with the present busses by simply realigning how they are assigned routes. For future additions to the bus fleet, I think there is probably an opportunity to use alternate fuel vehicles such as CNG that could provide some sort of DOT assistance.

But I do believe if the service is realigned so the system is easily understandable and provides effective reliable service to it customers, ridership will increase. I agree the bus / transit system will probably not be self sustaing in the short term. However, if gasoline prices in the US ever reach European levels, ridership will likely
increase dramatically to where transit could sustain operations on fares alone.

There are currently 24 bus routes... If you make those routes on the grid system every other mile you can get about 10 miles from whatever center point you start at or a 20 square mile coverage.

If you start on Reno as the east west line you could get north to memorial and south to 149th st.

If you start on Santa Fe for north south then you can get west to Morgan road and all the way east to Westminster.

That's actually only 22 routes 5 in each direction plus Reno and Broadway. so you have two extra routes you can either add to the more urban areas or use on diagonal streets like northwest expressway. Or if the routes need more buses you can use the extra buses to enhance those routes.

Quick question though. Do any other cities use the grid system? if so how many and which ones?

24 routes with how many actual vehicles? I realize I am merely throwing out very basic ideas without any real analysis here, but I wonder how many grid lines could be supported with the current bus fleet. I think the system would be more efficient using a grid and the coverage possible with the present fleet might be surprising.

I honestly do not know if other cities use a grid for their bus routes.

Maybe in the short-term it would be costly, but they would make way more money long-term. If this is the case, it is extremely short-sided, amateur thinking, IMO.

Most public transit systems rely on government support to keep running. In a city where people have cars, anyway, and most would prefer to drive with its associated costs, regardless, it would be hard to financially justify a new system when the old one isn't even being utilized. For what it is worth, a hub system makes me cringe, based on my experience in DC. Works great if you are along a line but useless if you aren't. Looks to me like any "new" money to improve or expand the transit system has already been claimed by the folks who could afford cars in the first place. The poor folks who rely on the buses to get around (with its crappy system, per the ones who want something shinier) only get them because of history. People like myself, who won't use public trans because #1, I don't live in an area where there is any and none is planned, and #2, won't use because I have to have a car to even get to a stop, still get to pay the bill. I am not saying the community shouldn't pay to improve a city and I'm happy to do that if I believe in a project. I think this particular notion will, at best, help a few. I don't think it would be profitable, nor do I think it would work well enough in this city to justify the cost. I've been told I'm, just ignorant but I still haven't had anyone respond to my comments other than to say I just don't know what I'm talking about. No one seems to want to defend the cost or the likelihood that it will be successful other than to say it is a GREAT idea and has already been approved, in part.

24 routes with how many actual vehicles? I realize I am merely throwing out very basic ideas without any real analysis here, but I wonder how many grid lines could be supported with the current bus fleet. I think the system would be more efficient using a grid and the coverage possible with the present fleet might be surprising.

I honestly do not know if other cities use a grid for their bus routes.

Here's the link to the DART system map for the Dallas Metropolitan Area...

DART System Map (http://www.dart.org/maps/pdfmaps/DARTSystemMap06dec10.pdf)

Here's the Denver RTD map for the downtown area...

Denver RTD Downtown Map (http://www.rtd-denver.com/SystemMaps/SystemMaps_pdfs/Downtown.pdf)

Here's the UTA system map for Salt Lake City...

UTA Salt Lake City System Map (http://www.rideuta.com/uploads/salt_lake_system_map_apr_2011.pdf)

Here's the Metro Transit system map for St. Louis...

St. Louis Metro Transit System Map (http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/System_Map_PDFs/MO_System_Map.pdf)

It looks like most functional bus systems are grid based to a great degree.

Here's the link to the DART system map for the Dallas Metropolitan Area...

DART System Map (http://www.dart.org/maps/pdfmaps/DARTSystemMap06dec10.pdf)

Here's the Denver RTD map for the downtown area...

Denver RTD Downtown Map (http://www.rtd-denver.com/SystemMaps/SystemMaps_pdfs/Downtown.pdf)

Here's the UTA system map for Salt Lake City...

UTA Salt Lake City System Map (http://www.rideuta.com/uploads/salt_lake_system_map_apr_2011.pdf)

Here's the Metro Transit system map for St. Louis...

St. Louis Metro Transit System Map (http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/System_Map_PDFs/MO_System_Map.pdf)

It looks like most functional bus systems are grid based to a great degree.

Grid is the way to go if you actually want it to cover a city and make it useful to everyone. If you want to focus on an area - like an entertainment district or, as in DC, the federal hive, they tend to use hubs where there are winners and losers - generally selected at the time the plan is put into place.

The problem with a grid system is that it will require nearly everyone to have to change buses at least one time to go anywhere in town. A quick layout of a 22 route grid based system covering what has been called the urban core produced 72 intersections (integration points). This would require building a facility that protects riders from the elements via shelters and with proper lighting for safety. These riders would then have to wait at that stop for up to 30 minutes for a transfer bus. On a round trip that could mean up to an hour wait time - thus rendering the system useless.

The entire bus system should be scrapped and replaced with nothing. Streetcars will produce transit oriented development that will in turn generate its own riders and the places for them to go. Buses do not generate TOD. Trying to make a bus system work is like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. Buses work best when everyone on the bus is going to the same destination.

The entire bus system should be scrapped and replaced with nothing. Streetcars will produce transit oriented development that will in turn generate its own riders and the places for them to go. Buses do not generate TOD. Trying to make a bus system work is like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. Buses work best when everyone on the bus is going to the same destination.

If they scrap the buses, how do poor people who are using them, now, get to work? They aren't suggesting streetcars will cover the same areas. Let them eat cake?

If they scrap the buses, how do poor people who are using them, now, get to work? They aren't suggesting streetcars will cover the same areas. Let them eat cake?

I am not sure why you singled out the poor, but they would get to work the same way all the other poor people get to work - live close to work, drive, ride a bike, car pool, walk. The reality is 'buses' are an out-dated mode of transportation whose time has come and gone (and which probably never existed in the first place). At best, buses could be used as a feeder system into other modes of transportation but with rare exception, they have never succeeded in being the primary more of mass transit in any city.

Metro transit serves on average 22 people per hour per route with the average travel distance of 6.7 miles. To do this Metro Transit needs 198 employess and 99 buses on 25 routes. Not a very efficient use of money. I suspect 75% of all riders come from 2 or 3 routes over a few specific hours in the morning and afternoon but only the City knows that for sure. It would be cheaper just to haul these people around in rented limos.

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/transit/s5307/okc.htm

The problem with a grid system is that it will require nearly everyone to have to change buses at least one time to go anywhere in town. A quick layout of a 22 route grid based system covering what has been called the urban core produced 72 intersections (integration points). This would require building a facility that protects riders from the elements via shelters and with proper lighting for safety. These riders would then have to wait at that stop for up to 30 minutes for a transfer bus. On a round trip that could mean up to an hour wait time - thus rendering the system useless.

The entire bus system should be scrapped and replaced with nothing. Streetcars will produce transit oriented development that will in turn generate its own riders and the places for them to go. Buses do not generate TOD. Trying to make a bus system work is like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. Buses work best when everyone on the bus is going to the same destination.

I agree 100% to transition to a grid based bus system will require investment to make the system effective - and therefore used. I also agree busses do not produce TOD - that is generally confined to fixed guideway transit. On a fully implemented grid based system, a normal commute from anywhere in the city to any destination would require one or two bus changes max. If each bus is confined to route along one specific street, it is also far easier to synchonize bus arrivals at the transfer points to a reasonable wait - I would say 10-15 minutes max.

BUT - in order for OKC to have a comprehensive, effective, and useful public transit system, busses will be required on some scale. As fixed guideway transit is expanded throughout the city and metro area, the bus system should be reduced in scale and those resources allocated elsewhere.

I am not sure why you singled out the poor, but they would get to work the same way all the other poor people get to work - live close to work, drive, ride a bike, car pool, walk. The reality is 'buses' are an out-dated mode of transportation whose time has come and gone (and which probably never existed in the first place). At best, buses could be used as a feeder system into other modes of transportation but with rare exception, they have never succeeded in being the primary more of mass transit in any city.

Have you ever lived in Chicago or Denver? Bus was my primary form of transit in both those cities and my daughters currently live in Chicago and ride the bus for all transit to work and school. I can't speak for anywhere else, but I didn't own a car when I lived in Denver. Buses are undervalued as a form of transit, IMO. We will never have a rail system that can cover the entire city, whereas buses have the flexibility to very nicely complement rail and streetcar.

Have you ever lived in Chicago or Denver? Bus was my primary form of transit in both those cities and my daughters currently live in Chicago and ride the bus for all transit to work and school. I can't speak for anywhere else, but I didn't own a car when I lived in Denver. Buses are undervalued as a form of transit, IMO. We will never have a rail system that can cover the entire city, whereas buses have the flexibility to very nicely complement rail and streetcar.

As I said, with rare exception buses have never been successful as a primary mode of mass transit and are best used as a feeder system to other forms of mass transit. I doubt the bus system in Denver was considered successful until it integrated with the local rail system and buses are not, and never have been, the primary mode of mass transit in Chicago.

Anyhow, I have said too much so I am going back to just reading the comments. Peace out.

Well, you know, our highways and roads are huge money makers. LOL. Seriously, this is the dumbest argument ever. I cannot believe how thickheaded you must be to continue to insist that public transit somehow be profitable. It's not. Neither are sewers, bridges and curbs -- and certainly not roads. We are constantly spending millions on roads that constantly need repairs.


So you feel that if we waste money on one thing, it's OK, and why not waste money on something else.

I am not sure why you singled out the poor, but they would get to work the same way all the other poor people get to work - live close to work, drive, ride a bike, car pool, walk. The reality is 'buses' are an out-dated mode of transportation whose time has come and gone (and which probably never existed in the first place). At best, buses could be used as a feeder system into other modes of transportation but with rare exception, they have never succeeded in being the primary more of mass transit in any city.

Metro transit serves on average 22 people per hour per route with the average travel distance of 6.7 miles. To do this Metro Transit needs 198 employess and 99 buses on 25 routes. Not a very efficient use of money. I suspect 75% of all riders come from 2 or 3 routes over a few specific hours in the morning and afternoon but only the City knows that for sure. It would be cheaper just to haul these people around in rented limos.

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/transit/s5307/okc.htm

The same argument can be made for anyone who doesn't want to take the bus or drive a car. Move closer to work. That is tons easier for people with money than it is for poor people who need to move to areas that are pretty crappy in order to keep a roof over their heads. To expect the poor to pull up stakes and relocate closer to public trans shows a complete lack of understanding of what it is to be poor.

And as for buses being outdated, are you kidding me? They are essential parts of the transit systems in DC and NYC, especially for people who don't live directly on a line, who aren't able to walk far or who have to carry things to and from their destination.

Here's an interesting item:

Daily boardings in Chicago on average:

Bus - 1,008,613
El - 638,100
Train - 848,440

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/ridership_reports/2010-Annual.pdf

Well, you know, our highways and roads are huge money makers. LOL. Seriously, this is the dumbest argument ever. I cannot believe how thickheaded you must be to continue to insist that public transit somehow be profitable. It's not. Neither are sewers, bridges and curbs -- and certainly not roads. We are constantly spending millions on roads that constantly need repairs.


Just because someone disagrees with you is no reason to start namecalling and being insulting. At least with roads, bridges, sewers and curbs people get to use them once they've paid for them. And of course there is upkeep. But based on what you've written, you have no idea how expensive it is to not only build a new transit system, but it is incredibly expensive to maintain. We lack the public funds to afford to keep a system going for any length of time when people use cars, here. And unlike many other places, we don't have big enough numbers of tourists or workers forced by lack of parking to rely on public transit.

Millions upon millions of people use public trans in NYC and it is relatively landlocked so there is next to no reliable, cheap parking. People just don't have cars, for the most part. OKC is nothing like that.

DC's transit is publically funded and has a massive tourist trade. Plus, federal workers get subsidies to use public trans. We don't have that in OKC.

We are growing but OKC is still not an aviation hub and not a convention destination for hordes of people who are going to take mass trans. We have conventions like rodeos and horseshows that come to town but they drive, typically. Most people have an extra car that they loan out of town people. And hotels are so cheap that visitors rent a car rather than rely on public trans, anyway. They couldn't even keep open the route on motel row in front of the airport.

The only people a new transit system is aimed at is - who? Who is it going to draw and are there enough to maintain it/pay for it over the decades or is it just going to be a boondogle? I know people have their heart set on it. I know it has been partially agreed to - I realise that. I just don't see how it will be affordable. I predict that if it were built, the same people that shun the buses, now, would still end up driving their own cars instead of using public trans. Absent an overwhelming need - which we don't have - it is just too darn inconvenient to take mass trans on a broad scale. It takes a zealot and I haven't seen people really committed to the notion of mass transit in the city. They want something new because they think it will be fundamentally different than what we have. That's why we get comments about how "no one" uses buses (which is flat out wrong) or that our system is so inefficient that it is unworkable - and yet even when it works, it is ignored - and some say because if it is used, it will never be "fixed."

Not even the extensive New York system takes in enough at the fare box to cover all expenses. The idea that it's possible to run a transit system without a subsidy flies in the face of everybody's actual experience. DART, which I think most of us agree is one of the better systems in this part of the country, spends $400 million a year; fares bring in $70 million or so. Most of DART's operating funds, in fact, come from a sales tax.

http://www.dart.org/debtdocuments/BusinessPlanFY10.pdf

That said, people have to get to work, and cars are downright expensive. I don't think transit is any more unreasonable a municipal service than trash pickup.

After a quick look at Google Earth, 21 bus lines would be necessary to provide N-S & E-W service from Council to Douglas and N178th to S149th. This would keep a line within one grid of every major corridor as a start up system. Some routes should have 2 or more busses in order to keep wait time manageable at the transfer stops. Additionally, an express line could run along NW Expway and Classen and another one along Shields. If there were 50 busses in the fleet, maybe that is enough capacity to provide good initial service and have a few in reserve and / or in maintenance.

We subsidize roads, so why should we expect mass transit to be profitable? If we say we can't do it because it hasn't been done, it won't ever be done.

Situations change and people's ideas change.

Oh, and:

Denver daily bus ridership: 212,000
Denver daily light rail: 63,000


http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2010_q1_ridership_APTA.pdf

I think buses can be a successful adjust to rail transit, based on my Chicago and Denver data.

Just because someone disagrees with you is no reason to start namecalling and being insulting. At least with roads, bridges, sewers and curbs people get to use them once they've paid for them. And of course there is upkeep. But based on what you've written, you have no idea how expensive it is to not only build a new transit system, but it is incredibly expensive to maintain. We lack the public funds to afford to keep a system going for any length of time when people use cars, here. And unlike many other places, we don't have big enough numbers of tourists or workers forced by lack of parking to rely on public transit.

Millions upon millions of people use public trans in NYC and it is relatively landlocked so there is next to no reliable, cheap parking. People just don't have cars, for the most part. OKC is nothing like that.

DC's transit is publically funded and has a massive tourist trade. Plus, federal workers get subsidies to use public trans. We don't have that in OKC.

We are growing but OKC is still not an aviation hub and not a convention destination for hordes of people who are going to take mass trans. We have conventions like rodeos and horseshows that come to town but they drive, typically. Most people have an extra car that they loan out of town people. And hotels are so cheap that visitors rent a car rather than rely on public trans, anyway. They couldn't even keep open the route on motel row in front of the airport.

The only people a new transit system is aimed at is - who? Who is it going to draw and are there enough to maintain it/pay for it over the decades or is it just going to be a boondogle? I know people have their heart set on it. I know it has been partially agreed to - I realise that. I just don't see how it will be affordable. I predict that if it were built, the same people that shun the buses, now, would still end up driving their own cars instead of using public trans. Absent an overwhelming need - which we don't have - it is just too darn inconvenient to take mass trans on a broad scale. It takes a zealot and I haven't seen people really committed to the notion of mass transit in the city. They want something new because they think it will be fundamentally different than what we have. That's why we get comments about how "no one" uses buses (which is flat out wrong) or that our system is so inefficient that it is unworkable - and yet even when it works, it is ignored - and some say because if it is used, it will never be "fixed."

Wow, so much to cover here. First of all, a dumb argument is a dumb argument. I didn't call anyone names.

Of course we're not NYC, but we're also not proposing anything close in expense to what that city or Chicago or DC have.

As a point of fact, we already receive federal subsidy for our crappy bus system. It just is poorly designed with silly routes and schedules, therefore no one uses them.

Remember, just because OKC is now a sprawling mess does not mean we shouldn't plan for a future in which we have more density.

You complain about how expensive transit is but the city is investing nearly a billion dollars on road resurfacing and we're spending a billion dollars to redo 8 miles of highway downtown.

It's not a zero sum game, Penny. Transit planning must begin now, and deserves a piece of the pie. And besides, this question was already settled during the MAPS vote, which the citizens supported (largely because of the transit piece).

Seriously, this is the dumbest argument ever. I cannot believe how thickheaded you must be to continue to insist that public transit somehow be profitable.


First of all, a dumb argument is a dumb argument. I didn't call anyone names.

Call me thickheaded and then insist you weren't insulting or name calling.

Beyond that, nothing you said was particularly convincing unless you are already convinced. Continue singing to the choir if it makes you feel better but be aware that namecalling because someone disagrees with you or whose comments you don't understand or comprehend is the first refuge of someone shooting intellectual blanks. I'd like to discuss this, further, but this sort of rudeness is uncalled for. Congrats, you have run off someone that will challenge you to think - and not because you out thought them but because you have made it clear that not only are you willing to be uncivil and rude, you aren't going to man up and admit it. People like you aren't worth discussing idea with because you aren't trying to exchange ideas - you just want to turn it into an argument and behave like a brat. There was absolutely no reason for you to behave like that.

Call me thickheaded and then insist you weren't insulting or name calling.

Beyond that, nothing you said was particularly convincing unless you are already convinced. Continue singing to the choir if it makes you feel better but be aware that namecalling because someone disagrees with you or whose comments you don't understand or comprehend is the first refuge of someone shooting intellectual blanks. I'd like to discuss this, further, but this sort of rudeness is uncalled for. Congrats, you have run off someone that will challenge you to think - and not because you out thought them but because you have made it clear that not only are you willing to be uncivil and rude, you aren't going to man up and admit it. People like you aren't worth discussing idea with because you aren't trying to exchange ideas - you just want to turn it into an argument and behave like a brat. There was absolutely no reason for you to behave like that.

Penny, the term "thickheaded" was perhaps a little too tart, but junkie continues to suggest that roads and other forms of transportation somehow "pay for themselves" when they are a colossal financial rathole. Why is it OK for us to continue to build and resurface roads all the way to Piedmont using city funds but an inner-city transit system must "pay for itself?" That is a dumb argument.

What we're doing right now Penny is subsidizing people to live in the suburbs by stretching our city services, which is indirectly padding the pockets of developers who are simply adding to our sprawl problem. This is not sustainable and no good accountant would say this makes any financial sense.

Of course, this is all OK because people should be able to have their roads widened at 181st and May but a transit system that encourages transit-oriented development and density is a waste of money?

Penny, the term "thickheaded" was perhaps a little too tart, but junkie continues to suggest that roads and other forms of transportation somehow "pay for themselves" when they are a colossal financial rathole. Why is it OK for us to continue to build and resurface roads all the way to Piedmont using city funds but an inner-city transit system must "pay for itself?" That is a dumb argument.What we're doing right now Penny is subsidizing people to live in the suburbs by stretching our city services, which is indirectly padding the pockets of developers who are simply adding to our sprawl problem. This is not sustainable and no good accountant would say this makes any financial sense.

Of course, this is all OK because people should be able to have their roads widened at 181st and May but a transit system that encourages transit-oriented development and density is a waste of money?

NO WHERE, did I say roads or other means of transportation pay for themselves, but why spend millions to build, then spend millions more annually to maintain a street car/cummuter transportation system, that will never come close to breaking even and be an additional tax dollar drain.

let's get this straight, transit systems ARE NOT PROFITABLE AND ARE NOT MEANT TO BE!!!! Please stop saying "transit will never turn a profit", you know, that is why government agencies run them - since NO private person in their right mind would and since transit systems serve the PUBLIC. ...

Now, that I got that off my chest once and for all - what does everyone think of a tax increase to cover transit specifically for the ACOG OKC Metro area? You could choose between something like a 0.55% sales tax increase or some increment to the gas/diesel tax (say 3 cents per gallon?). Either or both of these scenarios could add millions of dollars for transit yet would barely be noticable to the majority of citizens.

Im sure we'd still need a MAPS type initiative for the capital infrastructure (buildings/rails/trains) since that is quite a one-time upfront expense, but the actual busses and operations of bus and streetcar/light rail/commuter rail could be sustained with such a very small tax increase.

would sales tax or gas (or small increment to both) be the best (most revenue) way to go?

nm

what does everyone think of a tax increase to cover transit specifically for the ACOG OKC Metro area? You could choose between something like a 0.55% sales tax increase or some increment to the gas/diesel tax (say 3 cents per gallon?). Either or both of these scenarios could add millions of dollars for transit yet would barely be noticable to the majority of citizens.

Fine by me

let's get this straight, transit systems ARE NOT PROFITABLE AND ARE NOT MEANT TO BE!!!! Please stop saying "transit will never turn a profit", you know, that is why government agencies run them - since NO private person in their right mind would and since transit systems serve the PUBLIC. ...
I can see having a transit system to make sure people who otherwise wouldn't be able to move around could do so. That is the case in DC and NYC - they have no parking, therefore limited cars in the city but still need to move people around. Those systems are aimed at people who aren't poor but the particular circumstances of the city make it the only way to move large numbers of people around. People take public trans because it is their best option. Those cities NEED public transportation. OKC wants it. Big difference.

In OKC, the only people who can't get around are the ones who can't afford cars. And yet, the new transit system is being aimed at people who can afford to drive and who aren't going to use it unless they are ideologically inclined. That is one hell of a sticker price for ideology. Why should tax payers toss money down a money pit for the rest of time for the sake of a select few's ideology? If the argument is that it will somehow enhance the city to the point where revenue pays for it, that is one thing. We all know that isn't going to happen and you are pointing out that it is not going to be profiable or meant to be.

In OKC, the only people who can't get around are the ones who can't afford cars. And yet, the new transit system is being aimed at people who can afford to drive and who aren't going to use it unless they are ideologically inclined. That is one hell of a sticker price for ideology. Why should tax payers toss money down a money pit for the rest of time for the sake of a select few's ideology? If the argument is that it will somehow enhance the city to the point where revenue pays for it, that is one thing. We all know that isn't going to happen and you are pointing out that it is not going to be profiable or meant to be.

Penny, I will have to respectfully disagree with you. There are people who actually hate to drive. Speaking of someone who used to have to drive from an outlying area to downtown, I remember that if I left at 7:15 I would get to work at 7:45. If I left at 7:30 I would get to work at 8:15 at the earliest. I would be frantic not to miss that window because I hated to sit that extra 15 minutes and end up late for work. I moved downtown specifically so I wouldn't have to drive as much.

My two daughters used to play a game with their friends. They would postulate being a multimillionaire and would ask: If you could only have one personal assistant, what would you choose? A cook, a housekeeper, etc. Both of them unhesitatingly selected chauffeur. They picked an apartment in Chicago on the bus line and now that one is moving to San Francisco, she again elected to live near public transport. The both own cars. One stays parked in Chicago for the trips to the grocery store. The other is home with us because they don't want to have to move it from parking space to parking space to avoid a ticket.

I think there are people who are not married to their cars, regardless of how green they are or aren't, but they have no choice here based on the inefficiency of our system.

And again, roads are profitable for no one. We build and maintain them. I do not see why mass transit has to be profitable if other forms of transit aren't.

let's get this straight, transit systems ARE NOT PROFITABLE AND ARE NOT MEANT TO BE!!!! Please stop saying "transit will never turn a profit", you know, that is why government agencies run them - since NO private person in their right mind would and since transit systems serve the PUBLIC. ...

Now, that I got that off my chest once and for all - what does everyone think of a tax increase to cover transit specifically for the ACOG OKC Metro area? You could choose between something like a 0.55% sales tax increase or some increment to the gas/diesel tax (say 3 cents per gallon?). Either or both of these scenarios could add millions of dollars for transit yet would barely be noticable to the majority of citizens.

Im sure we'd still need a MAPS type initiative for the capital infrastructure (buildings/rails/trains) since that is quite a one-time upfront expense, but the actual busses and operations of bus and streetcar/light rail/commuter rail could be sustained with such a very small tax increase.

would sales tax or gas (or small increment to both) be the best (most revenue) way to go?

Exactly my point, the government should not be in the street car/commuter train business.

Judging from the Maps 3 vote, a majority of the voting public of OKC disagrees with you.

Exactly my point, the government should not be in the street car/commuter train business.

should government be in the "continue to build and expand roads everywhere" business?

We should just admit it now; the government should get out of street car, train, road and air transportation subsidization; the future of transportation is the Segway. http://www.smileystar.com/smileys/emotions/rolling%20smile.gif

Penny, I will have to respectfully disagree with you. There are people who actually hate to drive. Speaking of someone who used to have to drive from an outlying area to downtown, I remember that if I left at 7:15 I would get to work at 7:45. If I left at 7:30 I would get to work at 8:15 at the earliest. I would be frantic not to miss that window because I hated to sit that extra 15 minutes and end up late for work. I moved downtown specifically so I wouldn't have to drive as much.

My two daughters used to play a game with their friends. They would postulate being a multimillionaire and would ask: If you could only have one personal assistant, what would you choose? A cook, a housekeeper, etc. Both of them unhesitatingly selected chauffeur. They picked an apartment in Chicago on the bus line and now that one is moving to San Francisco, she again elected to live near public transport. The both own cars. One stays parked in Chicago for the trips to the grocery store. The other is home with us because they don't want to have to move it from parking space to parking space to avoid a ticket.

I think there are people who are not married to their cars, regardless of how green they are or aren't, but they have no choice here based on the inefficiency of our system.

And again, roads are profitable for no one. We build and maintain them. I do not see why mass transit has to be profitable if other forms of transit aren't.

IMO, the only reason a government should pay for a service is if it is needed or it pays for itself. If you are arguing that roads aren't needed, I have to disagree with that. Imagine for a moment what would happen if public roads were no longer funded. Mail trucks go on them - gasoline vendors - ambulances, police and fire. People would have no way to go to work. Grocery stores couldn't be restocked. People need prescriptions that couldn't get through. No utilities because service men couldn't get through. No school buses to get kids to school so they'd have to shut down. Teachers couldn't get to work, anyway. I could go on. People would die without public roads and our quality of life would plummet. Respectfully, I don't see how anyone could equate public roads with public transportation in a city like OKC. It's like saying the air we breathe is no different than frozen yogurt.

You mentioned Chicago and San Francisco. I am talking about Oklahoma City. They are no more similar than what we have here than OKC is to NYC or DC. It works in some places and it is needed in others. But those are two different things.

You are also talking about making a profit, apparently picking up on a phase others have used. I haven't used the term profitable. That, to me, implies that it is making money. What I am talking about goes well beyond simply not making a profit or even breaking even. I am talking about a deep money pit with no way to pay for it unless it gets never ending, sigificant subsidies. It is one thing to use public funds for something that is unprofitable but is needed. It is entirely another to put all of us on the hook for something unneeded and expensive but that some people want but few will actually get to use or want to use.

Do we need a new transit system? No, we don't. We just don't. It would be nice and a lot of people are excited about it but we don't need it. That means the ones who will use it are people who are either poor or people who for reasons of their own prefer the new system to driving a car. The new system is NOT intended to cater to poor people. We are leaving them to use the buses or somehow come up with the funds to move closer to the new system.

You've mentioned that you used to have a hellish commute from an outlying area. The new system won't help that one iota. You made a personal decision because you hate to drive but many poor people don't have that option. Most of them are barely paying the bills - the idea of moving closer in and coming up with utility deposits, deposits, etc. makes that not an option. So we're left with, primarily, a system that is aimed at people who want it but don't need it. But all of us get to pay for it if we live in OKC.

should government be in the "continue to build and expand roads everywhere" business?

That's a suggestion that hasn't been made.

We all pay for things others want and we don't. That's intrinsic to the MAPS projects. I buy books and have never been to the public library. But I'll vociferously support them because some of my fellow citizens want and use them. For ten years I lived without a car, but I paid for roads. I have no children in school but I'm happy to pay taxes so other people's children can go to school. We disagree on the benefits of and reasons for mass transit but willy nilly we will have it. And it, like many of the other MAPS projects, may surprise us all with how it changes the city.

NO WHERE, did I say roads or other means of transportation pay for themselves, but why spend millions to build, then spend millions more annually to maintain a street car/cummuter transportation system, that will never come close to breaking even and be an additional tax dollar drain.

It's not supposed to "break even." Do roads "break even?"

Aren't we paying you a taxpayer-subsidized pension as a retired city employee? Did you "break even" for us as taxpayers? This is a joke of an argument. The streetcar and transit amount to infrastructure that leads to additional development.

Penny: Please pay attention here, so you can understand my argument. By the time it is developed, the streetcar will have recouped its investment at least five times over by private investment. It's happened virtually everywhere else, and I think OKC is not that different. IT IS CALLED "TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT" and it's not a fiction crafted by transit enthusiasts. It is a reality.

[/B]


So you feel that if we waste money on one thing, it's OK, and why not waste money on something else.

Straw man argument. The streetcar will not be a waste of money -- as building and continuing to expand roads to far-flung suburban locations is. It will lead to increased private sector development in the inner city. This isn't a waste of money, this is a boon.

rcjunkie and PennyQuilts apparently haven't gotten the memo that MAPS was passed by voters in 2009 and includes $120 million for the streetcar. Why are we arguing this now? I must ask them: do you agree with Larry Nichols and others that apparently think the will of the voters should be ignored and we should dump the streetcar? I ask this because the polls showed the streetcar to be one of only three items in the MAPS slate that would have passed if it were run independently.

Unless I've missed it, there is an important absence from this conversation, the elderly and the disabled. Most of the people who trumpet "these systems should pay for themselves" are obviously comfortably capable of currently being able to operate a car. I often get categorized as being one hanging on to "ideology".

The reality is, I personally saw my grandparents lose their independence. As they became incapable of driving, the isolation and dependence on others slowly drained them of their health, mind and body.

While I will relish having an option to using my car, I am cognizant of how many people reliable, consistent, and permanent rail transit will enable positive living through longer independence that is entirely unavailable now.

Just ask an older individual. Ask a blind person. Think about it if your a Baby Boomer and you don't have or want to burden your kids.

As the streetcar expands into greater areas outside of downtown, it will enable people to make their location decisions for the long term as the system touches broader housing with diverse pricing. This is about giving people options that they can rely on. Not a bus route they might change tomorrow.

I will be on the Gwin Faulconer Show this Sunday at 7:00 PM on KTOK 1000 AM

Also, there is an Alternatives Analysis meeting today (Thursday) at First Church at 5:30 where the Locally Preferred Alternative will be unveiled. We just had a meeting at 12:00 at the church. About 30 people showed up.

go get 'em UP. We need you guys to start speaking up and defend the streetcar against the cc community. ...

Straw man argument. The streetcar will not be a waste of money -- as building and continuing to expand roads to far-flung suburban locations is. It will lead to increased private sector development in the inner city. This isn't a waste of money, this is a boon.

And that bridge in Arizona is still for sale!!!!!

rcjunkie and PennyQuilts apparently haven't gotten the memo that MAPS was passed by voters in 2009 and includes $120 million for the streetcar. Why are we arguing this now? I must ask them: do you agree with Larry Nichols and others that apparently think the will of the voters should be ignored and we should dump the streetcar? I ask this because the polls showed the streetcar to be one of only three items in the MAPS slate that would have passed if it were run independently.

I know it passed, and therfeore it will and should be built, it's still a money pit and always will be.

Find and post where Mr. Nicholsa said the street car should be dumped and a steak dinner for you and your better half is on me.

I know it passed, and therfeore it will and should be built, it's still a money pit and always will be.

That's interesting, because the cities which have built streetcars have found them to be goldmines in terms of transit-oriented development.

Unless I've missed it, there is an important absence from this conversation, the elderly and the disabled. Most of the people who trumpet "these systems should pay for themselves" are obviously comfortably capable of currently being able to operate a car. I often get categorized as being one hanging on to "ideology".

The reality is, I personally saw my grandparents lose their independence. As they became incapable of driving, the isolation and dependence on others slowly drained them of their health, mind and body.

While I will relish having an option to using my car, I am cognizant of how many people reliable, consistent, and permanent rail transit will enable positive living through longer independence that is entirely unavailable now.

Just ask an older individual. Ask a blind person. Think about it if your a Baby Boomer and you don't have or want to burden your kids.

As the streetcar expands into greater areas outside of downtown, it will enable people to make their location decisions for the long term as the system touches broader housing with diverse pricing. This is about giving people options that they can rely on. Not a bus route they might change tomorrow.

Most disabled people and elderly people are going to have a difficult time waiting for a streetcar. It wouldn't be much different than waiting for a bus. Even with sidewalks and covered stops, they would be more exposed to the elements and have to move further than they typically would if they were going from their home to the car. Most would still need assistance. It is hard being disabled/frail. I imagine it will be many, many years before streetcars ever expands out of the targeted area, if ever.