That is a very conservative estimate. Our growth would definitely have to slow down for that to happen. The metro population jumped by almost 200,000 during the 2000 to 2010 period.

Good point. I wonder what they based that on? Nothing but growth seems to be in our future at, or exceeding, the 2000 to 2010 years.

That is a very conservative estimate. Our growth would definitely have to slow down for that to happen. The metro population jumped by almost 200,000 during the 2000 to 2010 period.

Yeah that has to be very conservative cause in 2010 our metro was at almost 1.3 million people so that's 40 years to get 420,000.

Neighboring communities pledge support for OKC mass transit
By Brian Brus
Journal Record
Oklahoma City reporter
Posted: 07:52 PM Wednesday, September 28, 2011

OKLAHOMA CITY – As City Council members and municipal staff move toward the development of a mass transportation system with a hub near downtown Oklahoma City, some have asked to what degree the other metro-area governments are willing to help share the costs.

A recent show of commitment from those cities should help put those concerns to rest, Edmond Community Development Manager Shannon Entz said.

“The city of Edmond has budgeted and signed a memorandum of understanding to help pay for and support the alternatives analysis for commuter rail,” she said. “So that’s a sign that we’re all moving forward on this together.

We’ve also contributed staff time to keep up with the project and provide input when necessary, to keep Edmond’s interests in mind.”

The Oklahoma City Council this week approved the submission of an application for a Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER, grant worth $17 million through the U.S. Transportation Department. The city has been working with the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments, the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority and the state Department of Transportation to create an Intermodal Transportation Hub Master Plan to design a mass transit system to serve not only Oklahoma City, but neighboring communities as well. Major routes have been discussed that would link Tinker Air Force Base, the University of Oklahoma in Norman and the University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond, for example.

“To create this hub, a significant amount of funding is required to fund both the acquisition of property and the construction needed to create a functional transportation center,” City Manager Jim Couch told council members. “The city of Oklahoma City has identified some funding in the MAPS 3 program for this project, but additional funding is necessary.”

In addition to seeking out federal matching funds, the city has also entered into a memorandum of understanding to formalize a relationship with the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments to participate with the cities of Norman, Edmond, Moore, Midwest City and Del City in a commuter corridor alternatives analysis worth a total of $160,555.

Rick Cain, Oklahoma City’s public transportation and parking director, said the discretionary TIGER grant application will get a boost from the large number of participants backing a plan that links multiple transport modes together, such as buses, streetcars, bicycles and Amtrak rail.

A study earlier this year projected that the metro area will have more than 1.7 million people by 2050 and be ready for a mass transit system allowing people to switch from one type of vehicle to another as they move from job to home and leisure areas. As envisioned, those systems will intersect at a central location – the old Santa Fe railroad station near Bricktown.

To build the fully integrated hub over the next few decades is expected to cost about $128 million in inflation-adjusted dollars, city officials said.

Oklahoma City Councilman Larry McAtee this week asked whether other cities are willing to step up to help pay for such a large sum.

Entz and Norman Mayor Cindy Rosenthal said Wednesday that their cities’ commitment to the long haul has been proven by putting up money for the alternatives analysis, which is expected to take 18 to 24 months to complete.

“This may be a small step, but it’s an important step and shows the interest in the region that we need to look at this with a wider perspective,” Rosenthal said. “We’re in a totally different place than we were three years ago on these issues.

“And there’s no question that what will be required for a regional transportation system that will benefit the entire area is some sort of regional authority which has a revenue stream associated with it,” she said. “That may involve some sort of sales tax or incremental property sales tax growth near the hubs or a hotel-motel tax. It’s going to require a regionwide vote.”

Entz agreed that support for the overall concept of mass transit in central Oklahoma is strong, and that ultimately will need to be justified with a stronger operations plan that supports the several metro communities.

That is probably the most comprehensive article that I have ever read about what is happening with transit from a regional perspective. Great job by Brian and the Journal Record. It really explains where we currently are.

Now if places like Norman and Edmond would put in streetcars on their end of line we would be getting somewhere.

What happened to extending commuter rail to Yukon as well?

What happened to extending commuter rail to Yukon as well?

I think Union Pacific who owns the tracks said, No.

I think Union Pacific who owns the tracks said, No.

Knowing Union Pacific and how stubborn they are, probably so. I'm not sure though, I never heard anything on it.

I just thought that Urban Pioneer had said something about it being added on to the preferred routes or the AA awhile back.

Now if places like Norman and Edmond would put in streetcars on their end of line we would be getting somewhere.

Last week the City of Norman kicked-off its "Moving Forward" initiative, which is the official process for developing a comprehensive transportation plan for the city. There are a number of people on the Citizens Visioning Committee, including myself, who are rail transit supporters. As the name of the committee suggests, you can be assured there will be plenty of discussions involving a future rail transit "vision" for Norman, including development of commuter and intercity passenger rail service, rail stations, and even a modern streetcar line or two.

I still think outside of downtown the best option to place a rail line would be downtown/med district to Tinker,I could only imagine all the people who would use that line.I think there is over 26,000 people at Tinker on any day and add in MWC,Del City's population,I just think that line would be amazing and would have high ridership!

The 2005 Fixed Guideway Study recommended a system plan that included commuter rail between Edmond, Norman, Midwest City/Tinker and Oklahoma City. Based on ridership projections, Yukon was not recommended for commuter rail service at this time. The just completed Intermodal Hub Study looked further into the future and included potential rail service to Yukon, Will Rogers World Airport, and the Adventure District in their evaluations for the requirements of the hub facility. The Alternatives Analysis for commuter rail referenced in the article that is being conducted by ACOG will evaluate the commuter rail corridors identified in the FGS, which at this point in time is where the necessary ridership exists for qualifying for federal funds. That does not mean consideration of future commuter rail to Yukon has been eliminated. Once the initial system is in operation along the major corridors identified in the FGS, further expansion of the system to Yukon would undoubtedly take place at some point in the future. As they say, you've got to start somewhere.

^^Yeah,theres just not that many people in Mustang/Yukon area,infact I think MWC has a higher population than both of those cities combined but Mustang and Yukon are growing fast!Tinker alone has a higher day population than Yukon!

from the article:

To build the fully integrated hub over the next few decades is expected to cost about $128 million in inflation-adjusted dollars, city officials said.

Oklahoma City Councilman Larry McAtee this week asked whether other cities are willing to step up to help pay for such a large sum.
Sorry, but I would only expect the participating communities to pay for the tracks and stations within their respective city limits, with the appropriate counties covering the tracks that may fall between destinations. Why should Edmond or Norman pay for OKC's track/hub? Any more than OKC should pay for the Edmond or Norman station/hub/track.

Also, where is this $128MM and "decades" (plural) just for the hub coming from? They keep talking about connections to other cities and shared cost so it can't be the overall budget for the MAPS 3 stretcars/hub. Thought the hub was budgeted at $10MM and to be completed within about 10 years (mol)???

What happened to extending commuter rail to Yukon as well?

Yukon, the Airport, and potential light-rail to NW side are new official additions to the updated Fized Guideway system plan. It is very much now incorporated into the long range plan although I have not observed Yukon actively engaged in the process nearly as much as Edmond, Norman, and Midwest City.

Here is the current official map that was generated as a result of the hub study.

As a JPG
1000

As a PDF
999

I still think outside of downtown the best option to place a rail line would be downtown/med district to Tinker,I could only imagine all the people who would use that line.I think there is over 26,000 people at Tinker on any day and add in MWC,Del City's population,I just think that line would be amazing and would have high ridership!

You're absolutely right. The Midwest City/Tinker line is one of the three primary commuter rail corridors recommended in the FGS system plan. The line and right-of-way are essentially in place. The fact that it would directly service Tinker Air Force Base is a big deal for Oklahoma City, Midwest City and the State. Tinker has survived the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process a number of times. Undoubtedly we will have to go through that process again. Multiple transportation modes to military bases provide important redundancy in the event of crisis and is certainly rewarded in the BRAC process. Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah, which is one of Tinker's direct competitors during BRAC, now has direct commuter rail service to its front door thanks to Salt Lake City's new Frontrunner service to Ogden. Commuter rail service between Tinker to the new intermodal hub in Oklahoma City would not only provide beneficial transportation options for Tinker workers, it would also be a boom for Downtown and Bricktown businesses. More importantly, it would help maintain Tinker's competitive edge during future BRAC considerations and ensure Oklahoma does not lose one of its largest employers.

Also, where is this $128MM and "decades" (plural) just for the hub coming from? They keep talking about connections to other cities and shared cost so it can't be the overall budget for the MAPS 3 streetcars/hub. Thought the hub was budgeted at $10MM and to be completed within about 10 years (mol)???

Let's get this straight as you may confuse people with this rambling. No offense though.

Maps transit provides $129 million for transit ($130 rounded down based on placement in overall schedule factoring inflation of the various projects).

That amount provides 5 - 6 miles of streetcar track, electric powering system, maintenance facility, and about 6 actual streetcar vehicles. This does not factor any supplemental Federal Funds.

It also provides $10 million for commuter rail and transit connectivity infrastructure that can be used as necessary for a hub facility and connections. The language is intentionally ambiguous so that the Maps 3 Transit Subcommittee may make recommendations for essentially purchasing properties that may be a part of the expanded hub facility, commuter rail right-of way, other uses to properly connect the streetcar to the existing Amtrak service and future 1st phase commuter rail. Santa Fe was also not selected as the site before this $10 million dollar number was formulated.

"Decades" comes from the Hub plan calls for 3 phases to be added as necessary. If you expect the Maps 3 funds to provide for the full build out for High Speed Rail and other expanded service, it does not do that. It simply gets the ball rolling.

from the article: Sorry, but I would only expect the participating communities to pay for the tracks and stations within their respective city limits, with the appropriate counties covering the tracks that may fall between destinations. Why should Edmond or Norman pay for OKC's track/hub? Any more than OKC should pay for the Edmond or Norman station/hub/track.

Because it is all part of a interconnected "system". Edmond people might want to get to Norman right? What if Moore didn't want to participate? Would that mean you wouldn't build the track through Moore and not put a stop in?

These sort of details will have to be worked out over time and after a Regional Transit Board is formulated. But undeniably, there will be "shared" costs in the effort to build a comprehensive system that will probably be funded through some sort of regional tax funneling money into an "overall pot" that the board would spend on the system and locations at their discretion by majority vote.

Marion, please add more if you think something's been left out.

Hutch,What corridor do you think would be built first?Norman/OU and Moore would be an Awesome line as well,by the time a line is built Norman and Moore's combined population might be approaching 200k!I also think that lines to any college campus would be greatly used aswell!

Let's get this straight as you may confuse people with this rambling. No offense though.

Maps transit provides $129 million for transit ($130 rounded down based on placement in overall schedule factoring inflation of the various projects).

That amount provides 5 - 6 miles of streetcar track, electric powering system, maintenance facility, and about 6 actual streetcar vehicles. This does not factor any supplemental Federal Funds.

It also provides $10 million for commuter rail and transit connectivity infrastructure that can be used as necessary for a hub facility and connections. The language is intentionally ambiguous so that the Maps 3 Transit Subcommittee may make recommendations for essentially purchasing properties that may be a part of the expanded hub facility, commuter rail right-of way, other uses to properly connect the streetcar to the existing Amtrak service and future 1st phase commuter rail. Santa Fe was also not selected as the site before this $10 million dollar number was formulated.

"Decades" comes from the Hub plan calls for 3 phases to be added as necessary. If you expect the Maps 3 funds to provide for the full build out for High Speed Rail and other expanded service, it does not do that. It simply gets the ball rolling.

UP,what % of chances do you give that we will recieve Federal funding?Do other cities with similar type streetcar/rail usualy get Federal funding?

UP,what % of chances do you give that we will recieve Federal funding?Do other cities with similar type streetcar/rail usually get Federal funding?

I think our chances are high. That is because we are putting up such a large "match" above the requirements with a 100% local funding. Also, the "Small Starts" FTA program has not been gutted and in fact may have more funding in it based on the bills going forth. While you might think the political climate is bad, not so much for our size project in the particular FTA category that we are applying in. Undoubtedly, it will be competitive. But we are in a position I know of no other project due to the voter support of Maps funding.

Also, the hub TIGER 3 application is "multi-modal" and the Fed's like those types of projects.

Urban: I am not trying to confuse anyone (no offense taken) but that article does NOT make it clear what they are talking about. I fully appreciate and understand that MAPS 3 is OKC only (with our hub potentially serving further regional connections etc down at some point in the future). However, that is NOT the way the article reads. The question remains is the $128MM mentioned in the article for the MAPS 3 hub? Or is it the MAPS 3 Streetcars and hub? Or is it talking about the cost of the commuter rail to these other cities (where the councilman asked if they were going to chip in)? If so how can you possibly build tracks to Edmond/Tinker/Norman etc with only $128MM? That is how much it is going to cost to get just our 5 to 6 miles worth. Just as with the 80 miles of street resurfacing, that number is cut by the number of "lanes" used. I don't see how the numbers in the article make any sense.

If Moore doesn't want to participate, they don't pay for any of the track or a station...it will just run straight through passing them by. If they decide to do that then either the connecting cities will have to pay or the counties/state/feds would have to. the point of that is OKC and Norman aren't paying for the cost of Moore to get a station. They are just potentially paying a higher cost of the connectivity if they really desire it. Same concept with the pipeline to be built from Sardis Lake, don't participate in the costs, you don't get to participate in the water.

Urban: I am not trying to confuse anyone (no offense taken) but that article does NOT make it clear what they are talking about. I fully appreciate and understand that MAPS 3 is OKC only (with our hub potentially serving further regional connections etc down at some point in the future). However, that is NOT the way the article reads. The question remains is the $128MM mentioned in the article for the MAPS 3 hub? Or is it the MAPS 3 Streetcars and hub? Or is it talking about the cost of the commuter rail to these other cities (where the councilman asked if they were going to chip in)? If so how can you possibly build tracks to Edmond/Tinker/Norman etc with only $128MM? That is how much it is going to cost to get just our 5 to 6 miles worth. Just as with the 80 miles of street resurfacing, that number is cut by the number of "lanes" used. I don't see how the numbers in the article make any sense.


From article: "To build the fully integrated hub over the next few decades is expected to cost about $128 million in inflation-adjusted dollars, city officials said."

That is indeed the total estimated/inflated number for all three phases of the hub complete from the actual study. It does not involve any costs pertaining to the rest of the commuter rail system which is around 1 billion dollars for the entire system if you inflate the numbers out of the Fixed Guideway Study

from the article:

Sorry, but I would only expect the participating communities to pay for the tracks and stations within their respective city limits, with the appropriate counties covering the tracks that may fall between destinations. Why should Edmond or Norman pay for OKC's track/hub? Any more than OKC should pay for the Edmond or Norman station/hub/track.

Also, where is this $128MM and "decades" (plural) just for the hub coming from? They keep talking about connections to other cities and shared cost so it can't be the overall budget for the MAPS 3 stretcars/hub. Thought the hub was budgeted at $10MM and to be completed within about 10 years (mol)???

Metropolitan area transit systems, such as those in Dallas, Denver and Salt Lake City, are typically developed and operated by a single, independent regional transit authority (RTA) representing the various communities that are a part of the system. The system is typically built and operated by the RTA within a voter-approved regional transit district (RTD) that includes portions or all of the communities that are part of the system using a voter-approved, permanent dedicated funding source, such as sales tax, that is collected within the RTD. So, the infrastructure and equipment (tracks, stations, trains, parking, buses, stops, etc) necessary for the system are built, acquired and maintained by the RTA using the funds it receives through the RTD. It is not a matter of each City or County being responsible for the portions of the system with their jurisdictional limits. That's not how these systems are developmed and operated.

The recently completed Intermodal Transportation Hub Study looked at development of a facility that could accomodate numerous transportation modes and serve the Oklahoma City metropolitan area well into the future, including modern streetcar, commuter rail, light rail, intercity rail, high-speed rail, bus, bus rapid transit, intercity bus, bicycle, pedestrian and more. Development of the facility was recommended in phases over several decades. The $128 million cited is based on full-buildout of the facility in 20-30 years and assumes all of the mentioned transportation modes are in operation. In the more realisitic near term, development costs for the facility through phase 2, which would accomodate most everything except for high-speed rail is estimated at less than $50 million. Here's a link to the hub study presentation given at the final public meeting...it's worth looking at:

Hub Study Presentation (http://www.acogok.org/Newsroom/Downloads11/HubPublicMeeting61611.pdf)

As to the $10 million dedicated under MAPS 3, it was directed to go TOWARDS hub development and/or commuter rail infrastructure. It was never intended to fund the full cost of development of a new hub facility, for which the land acquisition alone will likely require nearly half of that amount. It is however a significant amount of money and an important down payment, as it will allow us to secure the Santa Fe facility and necessary adjoining properties as Phase 1. In addition, the $10 million is being used as necessary matching funds to seek federal TIGER grant funding for making initial upgrades to the facility. If additional federal funds are not available in the future, the remaining costs for developing the facility would most likely be paid for by the RTA through funding received from the RTD.

Thanks UP and Hutch for explaining the difference in the Fixed Guideway Study and the following Alternatives Analysis(es).

So, if full buildout of the hub is a 20-30 year process (with high-speed rail being the most ambitious), could it be possible that we have some commuter rail within 15 years maybe?

Hutch,What corridor do you think would be built first?Norman/OU and Moore would be an Awesome line as well,by the time a line is built Norman and Moore's combined population might be approaching 200k!I also think that lines to any college campus would be greatly used aswell!

The Norman to Oklahoma City line is an easy choice. The corridor has the highest ridership numbers for commuter rail...it connects everyone in the metropolitan area to the University of Oklahoma...and I live in Norman...d:~). However, it may require more time (double-tracking...dealing with BNSF) and money (double-tracking...dealing with BNSF) to get operational. The Midwest City/Tinker line is primarily state-owned (at least until November...and that's a whole other issue), would probably require less initial infrastructure costs, and as pointed out earlier would serve a very important transportation and economic function. Even though the ridership may be somewhat less than the Norman corridor, it may be worth selecting as the initial line. I'll certainly support whichever line is recommended as first to go, because in the end the most important thing for ensuring the future of rail transit in Oklahoma City is to get something up and running. Once that happens, there's no turning back.

...As to the $10 million dedicated under MAPS 3, it was directed to go TOWARDS hub development and/or commuter rail infrastructure. It was never intended to fund the full cost of development of a new hub facility, for which the land acquisition alone will likely require nearly half of that amount. ...
It is that kind of stuff that is troubling because it is NOT how things were presented during the campaign etc. The implication was that we were going to get the FULL intermodal hub (maybe not the actual high speed rail tracks, but the space for them etc would be incorporated). To go from the often mentioned $10MM figure and it suddenly balloons to $128MM?? just seems like more of the same perception (if not actual) of bait-n-switch type things we have experienced since the original MAPS, I-40 relocation, Skydancer Bridge, the MAPS 3 Trails, the incomplete and too small Convention Center....

$10 million was starter funds I believe. To get the ball rolling on the hub concept.

$10 million was starter funds I believe. To get the ball rolling on the hub concept.

That's what I'd been led to believe all along.

Larry,

I bet you were a NO vote for M3...

There is no way anyone would think you could build an entire intermodal hub for $10 million (especially when the tracks connecting to it cost $20 million per mile).

No offense again Larry, but the $10 million wasn't even part of the original proposal. The original was simply $120 million for streetcar. Councilman White and Bowman wedged it into the program desperate to see Maps kick-off the rest of the system as part of "sausage making".

The Hub Study was the result of Ontrac and Marion working with council/ACOG. They successfully tethered onto MTP's streetcar initiative and thus you see the momentum for the entire regional transit network take on speed.

How you interpret campaign language is entirely up to you. But I think the mayor, myself, and all the volunteers used the words "develop a hub". That is what we are trying to do. No misleading then or now by the people actually trying to do it.

There were probably no others paying more attention to the hub issue before, during and after the MAPS 3 vote than myself and the rest of the OnTrac board. We saw, heard and intently scrutinized everything that was said or written that had anything to do with the hub, and especially anything related to the $10 million added to the transit budget for hub and commuter rail infrastructure. At no time were any of us under the impression that the $10 million was somehow going to build us a new hub facility. It was always quite clear to us that this was meant only as a down payment to get us started.

So, if full buildout of the hub is a 20-30 year process (with high-speed rail being the most ambitious), could it be possible that we have some commuter rail within 15 years maybe?

i would think we will have communter rail sooner than 15 years ..

the key is what kind of RTD and RTA gets set up ...

also of note is that a RTD/RTA if voted and approved will be able to sell its own bonds because it will have a permanent funding source so once it gets set up it will be able to start buidling shortly after ...

the regional AA is a 1 1/2 to 2 year process ... so i would guess that a RTD vote will in the ball park of 3 years away and if passed we could have the start of a system in as little as 5-7 years but more like 8-12 years from today

There were probably no others paying more attention to the hub issue before, during and after the MAPS 3 vote than myself and the rest of the OnTrac board. We saw, heard and intently scrutinized everything that was said or written that had anything to do with the hub, and especially anything related to the $10 million added to the transit budget for hub and commuter rail infrastructure. At no time were any of us under the impression that the $10 million was somehow going to build us a new hub facility. It was always quite clear to us that this was meant only as a down payment to get us started.
i am not trying to give you all any grief over this. While that is great if it was clear to you and Urban and the others directly involved behind the scenes with it, however that is not my recollection of what was presented to the general public. If you or anyone else could be so kind as to post links to articles that indicated that the $10 million for the hub in MAPS 3 was NOT intended to have a fully functioning, developed & complete intermodal hub and not just a "starter"...

I'm not directly involved, it was my understanding this was a starter fund.

Responding by PM to not derail the thread...

Larry,

I tried to respond back to the PM, not sure if I got it sent though. Just in case I didn't send it correctly..... you do a good job digging deep for answers, but life is too short to dwell on those things out of our control. It takes all kinds to make this forum interesting and informative.

i am not trying to guve you all any grief over this. While that is great if it was clear to you and Urban and the others directly involved behind the scenes with it, however that is not my recollection of what was presented to the general public. If you or anyone else could be so kind as to post links to articles that indicated that the $10 million for the hub in MAPS 3 was NOT intended to have a fully functioning, developed & complete intermodal hub and not just a "starter"...

Larry. Remember that you get what you pay for and we cannot wave a $10 million magic wand and get a $150 million "fully functioning, developed and complete intermodal hub". I think almost anyone who voted for MAPS knows about what you get for $10 million, and we don't have anyone to divide that money up like the loaves and fishes. If we buy the Santa Fe station and improve the existing building, I don't think voters will be dissatisfied.

I'm tired of everything being a conspiracy. Transit of all the issues has been and will continue to be THE issue that is most transparent for others to follow by. If you want to go on a rant about the campaigning tatics on Maps in general, start a new thread. Don't throw doubt on the one project and the people that have been the most forthcoming about what is going on.

Nobody official that I can ever recall promised a fully functioning hub for $10 million. If it was described that way by some reporters, it is because they had an elementary understanding of what we were talking about to begin with or didn't have the print space to adequately explain it. Not our problem. Move onward.

I think you will get a fully functional teepee for 10 mill...

I'm tired of everything being a conspiracy. Transit of all the issues has been and will continue to be THE issue that is most transparent for others to follow by. If you want to go on a rant about the campaigning tatics on Maps in general, start a new thread. Don't throw doubt on the one project and the people that have been the most forthcoming about what is going on.

Nobody official that I can ever recall promised a fully functioning hub for $10 million. If it was described that way by some reporters, it is because they had an elementary understanding of what we were talking about to begin with or didn't have the print space to adequately explain it. Not our problem. Move onward.

UP, Larry tends to focus on those kinds of things. Be assured that the vast majority of us appreciate the work and commitment put in by you and others.

I never said I didn't appreciate what Urban and others have tried to do. Urban is absolutely correct, there have been inaccuracies in the reporting that he and Hutch and others may have been the ones to correct (early reports stated that the MAPS 3 unveiling included the DT Streetcars & commuter rail, no mention of the Hub). There is no commuter rail in MAPS 3. Been digging and so far, when the Hub is mentioned and a price tag is attached, it has consistently been $10MM. Still haven't found anything to indicate it was the seed money or starter for a much more expensive $128MM hub. Plenty of stuff about the Streetcars themselves as being that starter point to get the regional system. If folks choose to be blind about what is going on around them, then so be it.

The Mayor made statements more than once that they didn't want to put anything into MAPS 3 that we couldn't pay for ourselves. They didn't want to get in the same situation that we got into with the original MAPS streetcars that were dependent on federal monies. When those funds didn't come thru, we got the rubber tired Spirit Trolleys instead. The Hub is part of MAPS 3, is it not? Doesn't what the Mayor said apply to it as well? What happens to this $128MM hub if the other monies (feds, State, other communities) don't come thru? What are we going to get for our $10MM? Are you honestly going to be happy with it???

The Mayor stated expectations with MAPS 3 are high. I agree.

What are my expectations? Again, those expectations are established by our City leaders...that the announced projects be built: As promised. On time. On budget. To do anything less fits the definition of "disaster" by mayors Cornett, Humphreys & Norick:

Any project that veers off-track, coming in late, over-budget or less than advertised, is disaster, the mayors said.
It was from a rather lengthy article for a Kansas paper from last year. I would have supplied the link but it no longer works. Apparently they were trying to do something similar in Kansas.

As i communicated privately to Urban, I will ask for it again...someone please post a link where it was ever mentioned that the Hub in MAPS 3 was going to cost anything other than $10MM? I have been looking and I haven't found it yet.

As UP said, a different/new thread would be appropriate to complain about the mayor, the city council and the DOK as mouthpiece. You'll get your hub for under $10 million. That's what the Santa Fe station will be - the hub. It will work very nicely for the Heartland Flyer, the streetcar and taxis, which is currently all we need. I'm trying to decide if you think you're being Socratic or are merely ingenuous with your repetitive insistence that structures be built for far, far less than you know they can, because of your interpretation of a promise by a politician, or a newsarticle by a journalist.

No one is going to take an addition $100+ million out of the taxpayers' pockets without their consent. If the time comes when rapid transit has increased to the point that we need a much bigger structure, a parking garage, etc, you'll have your change to campaign against it.

Betts: Sticking to the subject here...I am only insisting that they build the Hub for what they said they were going to. Perhaps you missed it in the article...apparently we are NOT going to get the Hub for $10MM. It is going to cost $128MM (funding unknown). Pretend all that you want that a consistent, pattern of behavior doesn't exist. Every project exists in a vacuum. But whatever....

You're insisting that they build a $128 million hub for $10 million? That's out of touch with reality. As I said, we ARE getting a hub for $10 million (or less). It's going to be multi-modal as well. But it won't be adequate for large volume commuter rail and/or high speed rail, which we don't have right now. What would have been foolish would be to extend the MAPS 3 taxation for another year to collect enough money to build a hub that we won't need for 15 to 20 years.

UP, Larry tends to focus on those kinds of things. Be assured that the vast majority of us appreciate the work and commitment put in by you and others.

Thank you we greatly appreciate the support.

On another note, I am with other OKC Transit reps at the APTA annual convention in New Orleans looking at vendors and their innovations for everything from signs, shelters, switches, and streetcar vehicles. I think there is something in order of 600 booths representing from all over the world. They are said to have set up and moved in three actual modern streetcar vehicles in here.

Hope to bring back lots of great material to challenge the consultants with. Also, I have gone a day early to spend on New Orleans very historic streetcar. They are about to expand it and are giving behind the scenes tours of the system and how it operates.

I never said I didn't appreciate what Urban and others have tried to do. Urban is absolutely correct, there have been inaccuracies in the reporting that he and Hutch and others may have been the ones to correct (early reports stated that the MAPS 3 unveiling included the DT Streetcars & commuter rail, no mention of the Hub). There is no commuter rail in MAPS 3. Been digging and so far, when the Hub is mentioned and a price tag is attached, it has consistently been $10MM. Still haven't found anything to indicate it was the seed money or starter for a much more expensive $128MM hub. Plenty of stuff about the Streetcars themselves as being that starter point to get the regional system. If folks choose to be blind about what is going on around them, then so be it.

The Mayor made statements more than once that they didn't want to put anything into MAPS 3 that we couldn't pay for ourselves. They didn't want to get in the same situation that we got into with the original MAPS streetcars that were dependent on federal monies. When those funds didn't come thru, we got the rubber tired Spirit Trolleys instead. The Hub is part of MAPS 3, is it not? Doesn't what the Mayor said apply to it as well? What happens to this $128MM hub if the other monies (feds, State, other communities) don't come thru? What are we going to get for our $10MM? Are you honestly going to be happy with it???

The Mayor stated expectations with MAPS 3 are high. I agree.

What are my expectations? Again, those expectations are established by our City leaders...that the announced projects be built: As promised. On time. On budget. To do anything less fits the definition of "disaster" by mayors Cornett, Humphreys & Norick:

It was from a rather lengthy article for a Kansas paper from last year. I would have supplied the link but it no longer works. Apparently they were trying to do something similar in Kansas.

As i communicated privately to Urban, I will ask for it again...someone please post a link where it was ever mentioned that the Hub in MAPS 3 was going to cost anything other than $10MM? I have been looking and I haven't found it yet.

History tells us that if they said "Any project that veers off-track, coming in late, over-budget or less than advertised, is disaster, the mayors said...." well, we've had one "disaster" after another. These projects will, I can almost guarantee, come in later than originally scheduled and costing more than first anticipated. I'll also gamble that sales taxes will come in higher than first anticipated as well.... if done right, it all evens out.

Steve: I hope you are right, and the key to that is "if done right"... but with long term tax collections, the Mayor basically said they have that down to a science. With MAPS for Kids, it was said to have come within $2 million of projections. However, cost for such projects they haven't quite got a handle on yet. With the original MAPS some projects ended up costing double or more than originally thought, none came in under budget and overall, came in 47.75% over what voters were told pre-vote. I am not going to derail the thread but we have already seen examples of price escalation with MAPS 3. And it looks like there was a substantial increase with the Hub. I am going to ask the powers that be for clarification on it. But that is the way it appears to me right now.

You're insisting that they build a $128 million hub for $10 million? That's out of touch with reality. As I said, we ARE getting a hub for $10 million (or less). It's going to be multi-modal as well. But it won't be adequate for large volume commuter rail and/or high speed rail, which we don't have right now. What would have been foolish would be to extend the MAPS 3 taxation for another year to collect enough money to build a hub that we won't need for 15 to 20 years.
NO! that is not what i am saying. Out of touch with reality is presenting a $120 million project as only costing $10 million, then suddenly revealing the real number. We have been down this road many times before, when are we going to learn? If it is really going to cost $120 million why didn't they say so? Again, everything i have run across up to this point has presented the Hub as costing $10 million.

Stop it Larry. There was NOT a price escalation on the hub and you know it. You are manipulating facts to support your agenda. If you want to argue that any future hub expansion outlined by the hub committee is an unwise expenditure of funds, go right ahead. But you know MAPS 3 monies beyond the $10 million outlined will not be used for the current hub. Expansion plans were given as a result of requests for "future proofing" existing transit plans so that the powers that be are aware of what land might need to be preserved for future use. If the voters, at a later date, choose to support the hub expansion, that's a decision to be made by the voting majority. We don't currently have commuter or high speed rail and while many of us would like to at least have commuter rail, that's still wishful thinking. Which makes the hub expansion wishful thinking as well, and nowhere near reality.

Betts: I know no such thing. Not manipulating anything here. What do you call it when it goes from $10 million to $120 million? Sounds like escalation to me. if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are it just might be a duck?? Please show me ANY media report that stated that the Hub was going to be anything other than $10 million. I have looked myself just in case I missed it and have asked for it repeatedly. Still waiting...

Betts: I know no such thing. Not manipulating anything here. What do you call it when it goes from $10 million to $120 million? Sounds like escalation to me. if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are it just might be a duck?? Please show me ANY media report that stated that the Hub was going to be anything other than $10 million. I have looked myself just in case I missed it and have asked for it repeatedly. Still waiting...

Larry, so far it appears that you were the only one who was deceived or didn't understand what was involved. No one else is agreeing with you.

Larry, so far it appears that you were the only one who was deceived or didn't understand what was involved. No one else is agreeing with you.

I'll "Plus One" this.

+1

Betts: I know no such thing. Not manipulating anything here. What do you call it when it goes from $10 million to $120 million? Sounds like escalation to me. if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are it just might be a duck?? Please show me ANY media report that stated that the Hub was going to be anything other than $10 million. I have looked myself just in case I missed it and have asked for it repeatedly. Still waiting...

please show me where it said that 10mil was going to be for hub that will serve all our needs for the next 50 years ... or the next 20 years or the next 5 years ...

Larry, so far it appears that you were the only one who was deceived or didn't understand what was involved. No one else is agreeing with you.

I'll "Plus One" this.

+1


I'm in - make it a +2

Bandwagon? +3

Define "Hub"

+4