Amateur transit enthusiast here and I thought I'd do a little fantasy map (https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zO2V-ydhSihI.knHSApRGRBJY) of what mass transit could like. While rail is my favorite mode of transit, bus rapid transit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit)is really great for communities that aren't dense or aren't already using transit. It can done much more cheaply and is more flexible; it's also a great first step before light rail.

I made this fantasy map, thinking of the most popular destinations, density, and employment centers. I know it's very far from perfect and the station locations are just approximate. I just wanted to get some feedback and get some conversation going on quick affordable ways to do mass transit, since widespread rail is going to be a ways off. You can look at the interactive Google Map (https://mapsengine.google.com/map/u/0/edit?mid=zO2V-ydhSihI.knHSApRGRBJY) to look at the proposed stops and such.

EDIT: I welcome suggestions and differing opinions, this is my first try at something like this.

6902

6903

The fixed guideways study has some BRT on it. The biggest problem with BRT is cost. It's as expensive as some streetcars, although it is true it's very easy to implement unless you build a dedicated lane. If you haven't seen this, it's an interesting outline.

Fixed Guideway Plan (FGP) | METRO Transit Providing Central Oklahoma Transportation & Bus Service Options (http://www.gometro.org/fgp)

The fixed guideways study has some BRT on it. The biggest problem with BRT is cost. It's as expensive as some streetcars, although it is true it's very easy to implement unless you build a dedicated lane. If you haven't seen this, it's an interesting outline.

Fixed Guideway Plan (FGP) | METRO Transit Providing Central Oklahoma Transportation & Bus Service Options (http://www.gometro.org/fgp)

Right they are pricey to build right, but streetcars aren't the best the comparison since streetcars are for short distance travel. Good BRT is for express long distance travel.

Right they are pricey to build right, but streetcars aren't the best the comparison since streetcars are for short distance travel. Good BRT is for express long distance travel.

A streetcar running in it's own right of way is essentially light rail. BRT usually runs in it's on right of way.

A streetcar running in it's own right of way is essentially light rail. BRT usually runs in it's on right of way.

Agreed, I just meant streetcars as most people are talking about are "mixed-traffic" streetcars. Also you have to be careful about trying to mix commuter traffic and local traffic on the same line.

Legit brt in a dedicated lane is not in any way cheap

Cheaper than light rail and definitely cheaper than heavy rail. The benefit in the short term, is that you can actually have the vehicle very close the the destination. Existing rail lines are awkwardly placed and then you wind up with locations that are not walkable and not ripe for development.

Between 13-25 mil a mile. In a city that doesn't like busses No thanks. Much better off spending 50-70 mil a mile and building light rail .

Between 13-25 mil a mile. In a city that doesn't like buses No thanks. Much better off spending 50-70 mil a mile and building light rail .

I'd agree with you, but I don't see the political will for that anytime soon. Auto-centric cities like Cleveland, Tampa and San Antonio have implemented them. People don't like buses as they are now. I think BRT is good idea in the interim.

Between 13-25 mil a mile. In a city that doesn't like busses No thanks. Much better off spending 50-70 mil a mile and building light rail .

IOW, do it right the first time instead of paying for it twice.

I'd agree with you, but I don't see the political will for that anytime soon. Auto-centric cities like Cleveland, Tampa and San Antonio have implemented them. People don't like buses as they are now. I think BRT is good idea in the interim.

A RTA and dedicated transit tax make it possible.

What do you think is the timeline? I'm thinking middle of the next decade...

Also there are going to be some routes that just don't add up for light rail so I imagine a finished product will include some BRT as permanent routes.

I'd agree with you, but I don't see the political will for that anytime soon. Auto-centric cities like Cleveland, Tampa and San Antonio have implemented them. People don't like buses as they are now. I think BRT is good idea in the interim.

They said the same thing in DFW - but look at DART now. The key is establishing the RTA as soon as possible to start planning and influencing right of way decisions and modifications even if it would have no operations right away.

You may find this interesting: DART.org - DART History (http://www.dart.org/about/history.asp)

They said the same thing in DFW - but look at DART now. The key is establishing the RTA as soon as possible to start planning and influencing right of way decisions and modifications even if it would have no operations right away.

You may find this interesting: DART.org - DART History (http://www.dart.org/about/history.asp)

Probably not the best example. Most DART stations are in a sea of parking or between highways and totally miss TOD opportunities. Also the transit share in Dallas went down in recent years (probably from growth in the metro not declining ridership). The history also puts it 16 years from the formation of the RTA to grand opening... Also while not BRT they expanded bus lines first (BRT is a good way for people to get their feet wet, I think Okies have some acclimating to get used to before we become Denver).

From an urbanism perspective you are mostly correct. But it is informative on how to establish an extensive mass transit system from near zero in an area thought hostile toward transit. Some of the newer development along the DART light rail lines are right out of the new urbanist TOD handbook though. It takes time to alter long held perceptions and every city will have its own spin on how to develop around their transit systems.

Once the streetcar is built and people become familiar with how rail transit works, there will be a sudden move for people to want expanded rail.

In a conservative (both politically and in a sense of "try it before you buy it") city, people need to be exposed to a different method of transport before they will embrace it.

The political will power for enhanced rail service will come soon after the streetcar is running. And so will increased bus funding, as you can build a transit brand with the sexy streetcar pulling up the "dirty" bus.

@captdave Yeah, I see your point, and while not perfect DART is still the envy of a lot if cities (OKC included). Salt Lake City is another great story to look to. Something I hope people think about is what to do in the interim. Taking Dallas as a model we're looking at 2025-2027 for a large mass transit buildout. Sprawl and traffic will be abysmal if OKC does nothing while we wait.

Also I think some people have a warped view that a light rail system will drop them off at the gate of their far off subdivision. There will be a number of routes that will not be sustainable for a $100 mil + rail line, so the aversion to buses will have to fade.

Once the streetcar is built and people become familiar with how rail transit works, there will be a sudden move for people to want expanded rail.

In a conservative (both politically and in a sense of "try it before you buy it") city, people need to be exposed to a different method of transport before they will embrace it.

The political will power for enhanced rail service will come soon after the streetcar is running. And so will increased bus funding, as you can build a transit brand with the sexy streetcar pulling up the "dirty" bus.

Let me preface this by saying I support the streetcar, but in it's current form, not many people who are not living or working downtown will experience it. Certainly not as an actual car replacing or reducing form of transit. The only way (for example) Edmond to Integris commuters will see the joy of driving free commutes or trips to Frontier City without parking hassles is enhanced bus service. Edmond and parts of NW Expressway are prime candidates for rail later on, but softening of hearts will come from riding transit in that area or seeing the positive effect on traffic.

@captdave Yeah, I see your point, and while not perfect DART is still the envy of a lot if cities (OKC included). Salt Lake City is another great story to look to. Something I hope people think about is what to do in the interim. Taking Dallas as a model we're looking at 2025-2027 for a large mass transit buildout. Sprawl and traffic will be abysmal if OKC does nothing while we wait.

Also I think some people have a warped view that a light rail system will drop them off at the gate of their far off subdivision. There will be a number of routes that will not be sustainable for a $100 mil + rail line, so the aversion to buses will have to fade.

That is one reason I think the history of DART is relevant to OKC. They ran buses for years before laying the first piece of rail. The commuter express buses ran from locations that were eventually served by the LRT. In OKC, the streetcar with bus connections will be the first step to getting people to get over their bus phobia.

That is one reason I think the history of DART is relevant to OKC. They ran buses for years before laying the first piece of rail. The commuter express buses ran from locations that were eventually served by the LRT. In OKC, the streetcar with bus connections will be the first step to getting people to get over their bus phobia.

We're on the same page then. And while not full BRT, there are still a number of express buses. And what's more, I believe some of the areas that were linked by the recent expansion DART did were served by express buses until those routes made sense for rail expansion.

Express buses would be far cheaper to implement. Make them modern, colorful, put free wifi on then and have a nice enclosed station to wait for the bus and they might be surprisingly popular. Put a "stewardess" on the bus pouring coffee as well and you've changed the bus into a plane without wings. Then get them to the Santa Fe station where they can ride the streetcar to their final destination and you might have to fight people off.

I've often thought a team of express buses to and from the airport from the Santa Fe station would be a great use instead of everyone having to rely on one shuttle from their hotel that could be out of commission. Once we get the bus system up and running on weekend, holidays and later in the evening, it will make it more comfortable. We also need to recognize where are other areas where there are a lot of hotels people need to go to and head there as well. Obviously the Meridian corridor, NW Expressway and May and Memorial hotels would be another.

Tulsa is doing a BRT line on Peoria, which will be implemented as part of the sales tax extension passed last November. It will be interesting to see if the public embraces it since it is not as "sexy" as a streetcar.
http://tulsatransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/TulsaBRTFactSheet.pdf

Tulsa is doing a BRT line on Peoria, which will be implemented as part of the sales tax extension passed last November. It will be interesting to see if the public embraces it since it is not as "sexy" as a streetcar.
http://tulsatransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/TulsaBRTFactSheet.pdf

I agree that will be an interesting experiment. We also have to be careful to make sure that transit should be a transportation tool first and a development tool second. Gaining choice riders cannot come at the cost of providing rides to people who depend on transit. That being said Cleveland and a lot of other cities of have shown TOD can be built around BRT. Also betts I agree with you. The best way to show people who don't like transit that transit can work for them if they have it in their neighborhood and make it sexy enough for them to ride. Okc is in need of rail badly, so that's why I fully support the streetcar however I know there are many that think of the streetcar is an amusement park ride. Those people will not be convinced of the value of transit unless it is usable for them.

I use the nations "top BRT" every day and it's a disaster. We only did it for the federally funded streetscape, which btw, wasn't cheap.

Full BRT w "rail-like" amenities combines the physical streetscape presence of streetcar and "stations" with the unreliable service of buses, and that's with so-called "signal prioritization"

I can't say enough what a disaster BRT is here in the city with supposedly the most successful model system. Our heavy rail and light rail systems comprising "the Rapid" are so much more efficient and pleasant. Ridership reflects that.

I'd agree with you, but I don't see the political will for that anytime soon. Auto-centric cities like Cleveland, Tampa and San Antonio have implemented them. People don't like buses as they are now. I think BRT is good idea in the interim.

I'm curious how you'd call Cleveland auto-centric in the same breath as Tampa and San Antonio. What exactly is your experience with A, BRT and B, these cities?

I'm curious how you'd call Cleveland auto-centric in the same breath as Tampa and San Antonio. What exactly is your experience with A, BRT and B, these cities?

Cleveland is doing a lot better than those cities (11% versus 4% however it's not San Francisco. Also these numbers are for the city proper not for the entire metro area). I'll be honest I haven't used BRT and I have a preference for rail because I've used rail more often and it's better in many ways. I still think BRT is useful for areas in which rail/ LRT is too expensive or is not feasible for a long time. While I know Cleveland's system has its kinks that need to be worked out I think you'll agree that having the health line is better than having no transit on the corridor at all think of all the car trips it saves.

So you've never been to Cleveland, never ridden on the Hline, or the Red/Blue/Green/Waterfront lines (rail lines that Cleveland's RTA operates) but you've somehow zeroed in on the mega annoying meme that gets repeated as nauseum "that BRT Hline is better than no Hline." We got to be an FTA pilot city because the Euclid Corridor project had ridership numbers but the overall Cleve-Akron metro is a no-growth region, throwing the scores off.

The reality is getting from Public Square to University Circle (four miles to the east) takes 30-40 minutes on the Hline. Service is supposed to be every 15 min but you'll be waiting for 50 minutes and all of a sudden 4 buses in a row arrive. There are specific reasons for that but on surface these are the inherent issues with BRT. It doesn't function in practice the way it does in theory.

Comparatively LRT in Cleveland is 99% on time. The only time I remember encountering service issues was during Hurricane Sandy.

BRT is what people who want to kill mass transit propose.

I think we are going see a RTA much sooner than most people realize. Personally, I think we might be 12 to 18 months away.

BRT is what people who want to kill mass transit propose.

I think we are going see a RTA much sooner than most people realize. Personally, I think we might be 12 to 18 months away.

That's a grossly unfair statement. I'm a huge rail advocate, but many parts of OKC aren't dense enough for it. I would love to see a streetcar/LRT extended to Uptown, along Western and even to Penn. Obviously commuter rail service to Edmond, Norman, WRWA, and Tinker are smart choices, but service to Mustang, far NW? That's not going to feasible for some years (in some cases never by rail). It's not a all or nothing thing. You can support Brt and rail, many smart transit advocates do. We can expand rail in the inner city and build density and demand with BRT in more suburban areas.


Also if an RTA is created tomorrow, 5-7 years for a first line minimum and decades for full buildout unless we really pump money into it.

If parts of OKC aren't dense enough for mass transit then they don't get mass transit. We don't have the money to spread it over 700 sq miles. If people in Mustang want mass transit they should have thought about that BEFORE moving to Mustang. You can't have low density sprawl AND mass transit. They don't go together.

If parts of OKC aren't dense enough for mass transit then they don't get mass transit. We don't have the money to spread it over 700 sq miles. If people in Mustang want mass transit they should have thought about that BEFORE moving to Mustang. You can't have low density sprawl AND mass transit. They don't go together.Exactly, which is why large roads and highways are needed to serve these areas.

Exactly, which is why large roads and highways are needed to serve these areas.

To encourage even more sprawl? Where is the common sense in that? If I move out, for example, to far east Norman by the lake - I would be an idiot to expect the city to build a major highway out to my area. I chose to live out there with the conditions that were present already.

To encourage even more sprawl? Where is the common sense in that? If I move out, for example, to far east Norman by the lake - I would be an idiot to expect the city to build a major highway out to my area. I chose to live out there with the conditions that were present already.To encourage new development in and around the city. There is plenty of common sense by trying to provided to best infrastructure possible to the people and that includes large highways sufficient for future traffic counts as well. Call it horrible sprawl all you want, but OKC does not really have any major sprawl problems at the moment... some people want to live where they actually have a yard and every building isn't pushed right up against up the street allowing for a more open environment.

The people that live far out from the city core deserve nice large highways just like people that live in the city deserve nice mass transit.

To encourage even more sprawl? Where is the common sense in that? If I move out, for example, to far east Norman by the lake - I would be an idiot to expect the city to build a major highway out to my area. I chose to live out there with the conditions that were present already.

I'm also bewildered as to how this relates to Kerry's argument about prioritizing service in certain areas.

To encourage new development in and around the city. There is plenty of common sense by trying to provided to best infrastructure possible to the people and that includes large highways sufficient for future traffic counts as well. Call it horrible sprawl all you want, but OKC does not really have any major sprawl problems at the moment... some people want to live where they actually have a yard and every building isn't pushed right up against up the street allowing for a more open environment.

The people that live far out from the city core deserve nice large highways just like people that live in the city deserve nice mass transit.

What?! It has been well documented that the city is having problems covering costs for the extensive road network it needs to maintain and also police/fire services to areas that should be handled by a more local outfit or the sheriff. There is no reason why tax payers should foot the bill for a large highway out to places like Piedmont, Tuttle, Spencer, or Slaughterville just because of some sense of entitlement. We can't cover the expenses for our road infrastructure as it is now. I'm all for smart building of large highways when it is warranted.

When I was growing up my family moved out of the city to a rural area on 50 acres. We didn't expect or have a sense of entitlement that the government should build a large highway to come out to us. We accepted that a typical two lane road into town is going to be expected. Granted sprawl has started to catch up as more people wanted to move out to the "country"...but then build a typical subdivision with quarter acre lots.

Anyway, BRT is the subject here. Like large highways or whatever, they make sense in some areas and don't in others. If you are going to have BRT mixed in with existing traffic and traffic lights - it's going to fail. Spartan's example from Cleveland is a prime example of that. If we want BRT as an alternative to rail then it needs to be established like rail with separate roadways with its own right of way at intersections. However at that point...it becomes a waste of money. We have existing tracks in most locations now for commuter rail to be deployed, it just comes down to dealing with BNSF and UP.

Plutonic Panda lives in an alternate universe where what's good for suburbs can only be the opposite of what's good for them big cities and there is no middle ground that can make both more livable.

Plutonic Panda lives in an alternate universe where what's good for suburbs can only be the opposite of what's good for them big cities and there is no middle ground that can make both more livable.yeah, that must be it

What?! It has been well documented that the city is having problems covering costs for the extensive road network it needs to maintain and also police/fire services to areas that should be handled by a more local outfit or the sheriff. There is no reason why tax payers should foot the bill for a large highway out to places like Piedmont, Tuttle, Spencer, or Slaughterville just because of some sense of entitlement. We can't cover the expenses for our road infrastructure as it is now. I'm all for smart building of large highways when it is warranted.Have you ever seen Houston? Atlanta? Even Las Vegas? Mexico City? When sprawl starts to get even near what it is in those cities, we can call it bad, right now, having suburbs like Yukon, MWC, Purcell, Piedmont, Edmond, Norman, Jones etc.. even Guthrie, is manageable imo. Now when we start seeing sprawl out to Stillwater, Lawton, Enid, I'll say it is getting bad, and it really shouldn't even reach that point nor is likely to ever happen. Our current state, I don't consider to be bad sprawl.

The problem is that those cities have several times the people that OKC has. You don't realize how small OKC is and thus how small the geographic footprint should be.

Google Charlotte ghost neighborhoods - that's what happens when you just sprawl for fun. Not much discussion here really about brt though.

Have you ever seen Houston? Atlanta? Even Las Vegas? Mexico City? When sprawl starts to get even near what it is in those cities, we can call it bad, right now, having suburbs like Yukon, MWC, Purcell, Piedmont, Edmond, Norman, Jones etc.. even Guthrie, is manageable imo. Now when we start seeing sprawl out to Stillwater, Lawton, Enid, I'll say it is getting bad, and it really shouldn't even reach that point nor is likely to ever happen. Our current state, I don't consider to be bad sprawl.

Atlanta and Las Vegas many times...Houston - no desire. Mexico City - no desire. So how should we measure sprawl? How about by one of the key factors hurting us in getting higher end retail and other businesses here.

OKC - 607 sq miles, Pop density 987 per square.
Houston - 579 sq miles, Pop density 3,729 per square.
Atlanta - 131 sq miles, Pop density 3,368 per square
Las Vegas - 113 sq miles, Pop density 5,264 per square

They may have bad sprawl, but at least they have the population base to back it up. Houston has 4 times as many people living in the same land area when you look at the ratios. I don't think you are comprehending that while every little plot of land may not be developed, the city still has to pay for every paved road, water line, and emergency response coverage to all areas. That's money having to be paid out and its having to be done with a quarter of the population when comparing us to Houston.


The problem is that those cities have several times the people that OKC has. You don't realize how small OKC is and thus how small the geographic footprint should be.

Google Charlotte ghost neighborhoods - that's what happens when you just sprawl for fun. Not much discussion here really about brt though.

Exactly. OKC should be much smaller than it is now.

The reality is that OKC is a small metro in the grand scheme of things. We can't support any more sprawl outside Oklahoma County unless we double our population all of a sudden, which isn't happening. Sorry.

Even the sprawl into Cleveland County is really only just the NW tip of that county. Tulsa's sprawl is almost all pretty well contained by Tulsa County. Their reality is that they are an even smaller metropolitan entity than OKC, hence why their primary freeway is only just now being upgraded.

The upside is that there are major catalytic urban growth opportunities that are unexplored and untapped. But that whole suburban thing is already played out, just accept that. The market is not screaming for new suburban offerings in the way it is screaming for more downtown housing (98% occupancy rates). There is literally no shortage of suburban property and won't be until Greater OKC pushes 1.5 million (probably 15 years out) so hopefully we can hold off another wave of sprawl until then, and when that time comes, we can fill in gaps rather than create new ones.

The question for the realists is whether the phenomenon of urban living is a niche market (and if so how big) or if it is truly a sustainable future growth model, or somewhere in between as I suspect. In closing we should merely just strive to address reality with city planning - nothing more, and especially nothing less.

The reality is that OKC is a small metro in the grand scheme of things. We can't support any more sprawl outside Oklahoma County unless we double our population all of a sudden, which isn't happening. Sorry.

Even the sprawl into Cleveland County is really only just the NW tip of that county. Tulsa's sprawl is almost all pretty well contained by Tulsa County. Their reality is that they are an even smaller metropolitan entity than OKC, hence why their primary freeway is only just now being upgraded.

The upside is that there are major catalytic urban growth opportunities that are unexplored and untapped. But that whole suburban thing is already played out, just accept that. The market is not screaming for new suburban offerings in the way it is screaming for more downtown housing (98% occupancy rates). There is literally no shortage of suburban property and won't be until Greater OKC pushes 1.5 million (probably 15 years out) so hopefully we can hold off another wave of sprawl until then, and when that time comes, we can fill in gaps rather than create new ones.

The question for the realists is whether the phenomenon of urban living is a niche market (and if so how big) or if it is truly a sustainable future growth model, or somewhere in between as I suspect. In closing we should merely just strive to address reality with city planning - nothing more, and especially nothing less.

Plutonic Panda brings up a good point, he is wrong on the solution though. Do people in Mustang and far flung areas of OKC merit the same frequency/mode of transit that inner OKC does, absolutely not! However simply ignoring those areas as far as transit goes encourages sprawl. Also not everyone can choose where they live: from obvious choices like kids and teens trapped in the burbs to recent trends like older adults moving back in with family. And while we're not San Francisco, I don't know of any affordable housing especially for families along phase one of the street car route. Even a 10-15% reduction in car use on NW Expressway or OK-74 or 152 can help out significantly. No one is arguing buses are superior to rail, but a rail or bust attitude isn't productive.

Also let me take this chance to expand the topic to express lanes, that may not take the placer of rail but can at least provide a viable alternative to transit. I think feasibility studies will more routes than you think should be left for later phases or not done by rail at all. These corridors (especially parts of NE OKC or low income areas of the NW side are prime candidates for better bus service, perhaps not expensive BRT but express buses).

And some of those commuter rail stations locations will serve to do only that shuttle commuters and not build vibrant mixed-use communities around transit like good BRT, subway, or appropriately placed LRT can. Planning should be carefully done to balance commuters with creating the density you describe above. Every station can't be surrounded by park and go lots and in illogical place for development.

The problem is that those cities have several times the people that OKC has. You don't realize how small OKC is and thus how small the geographic footprint should be.

Google Charlotte ghost neighborhoods - that's what happens when you just sprawl for fun. Not much discussion here really about brt though.Alright, that's a fair point. When or if OKC grows and explodes though(which I believe will happen at least on a small(ish) scale), whatever highways need to be widened will still be opposed by those who want fair transit for the core(which I want) and complain about more sprawl happening regardless.

Alright, that's a fair point. When or if OKC grows and explodes though(which I believe will happen at least on a small(ish) scale), whatever highways need to be widened will still be opposed by those who want fair transit for the core(which I want) and complain about more sprawl happening regardless.

We can get sprawl under control. Refuse to expand interstates/highways outside of the core. Deannex many of these rural areas and turn them back over to unincorporated areas/townships to be managed by trustees or the county. Also eliminate city services to those areas and let the new local townships take control on handle them. If they want water from OKC, that's fine...they get to pay a rate that OKC agrees to charge the township. If they want police and fire coverage? They can fund it themselves or pay the city / county for the services. Road work and upkeep all gets transferred to the township (or whatever they are called down here).

I have no problem with right sizing the urban core's highway system. Obviously 35/240 needs fixed - that's a given. However, if someone would argue 35 needs to be wider through Moore because of the slight backup it gets during rush hour, then that is where the foolishness needs to stop. I keep pretty good track of my commute every day up 35 and 240. Typically it is 35 minutes. If I hit rush hour traffic, it can take it to 45 minutes. The worst traffic back ups for me are on 35 through Moore and S OKC and then 240 East to 35 South. The second one will be fixed in 39 years and the other is just a case of too many people rushing the system - hence rush hour. 90% of the time though the speeds are constantly 60-70 mph through that area.

I have no beef keep the current system up to handle the traffic demands outside of the abnormal rush hour back ups, but I also don't think the system itself needs to be expanded anymore when we can't pay for what we have now.

Plutonic Panda brings up a good point, he is wrong on the solution though. Do people in Mustang and far flung areas of OKC merit the same frequency/mode of transit that inner OKC does, absolutely not! However simply ignoring those areas as far as transit goes encourages sprawl. Also not everyone can choose where they live: from obvious choices like kids and teens trapped in the burbs to recent trends like older adults moving back in with family. And while we're not San Francisco, I don't know of any affordable housing especially for families along phase one of the street car route. Even a 10-15% reduction in car use on NW Expressway or OK-74 or 152 can help out significantly. No one is arguing buses are superior to rail, but a rail or bust attitude isn't productive.

Also let me take this chance to expand the topic to express lanes, that may not take the placer of rail but can at least provide a viable alternative to transit. I think feasibility studies will more routes than you think should be left for later phases or not done by rail at all. These corridors (especially parts of NE OKC or low income areas of the NW side are prime candidates for better bus service, perhaps not expensive BRT but express buses).

And some of those commuter rail stations locations will serve to do only that shuttle commuters and not build vibrant mixed-use communities around transit like good BRT, subway, or appropriately placed LRT can. Planning should be carefully done to balance commuters with creating the density you describe above. Every station can't be surrounded by park and go lots and in illogical place for development.

No amount of mass transit will reduce traffic. It simply isn't going to happen, it never has happened, and it never will happen. Some people will always choose to sit in traffic vs. taking a bus, train, or walking. Pick any city in the world with a mass transit system and you will find people sitting in traffic. Mass transit only solves traffic congestion for the people who use mass transit. You could build any transit system down NWExp you want and traffic will not improve by a single car. Every study in the world is in agreement with this. The only possible way to alleviate congestion is to out-build latent demand, but as soon as you do that induced demand will take over and you will be right back where you started traffic-wise, but billions more in debt.

As for affordable housing along the streetcar route - you might want to look at that again as all of metro-OKC is considered 'affordable housing' by national standards. Hell, the Chamber of Commerce flies that 'housing affordability flag' at every possible opportunity.

No amount of mass transit will reduce traffic. It simply isn't going to happen, it never has happened, and it never will happen. Some people will always choose to sit in traffic vs. taking a bus, train, or walking. Pick any city in the world with a mass transit system and you will find people sitting in traffic. Mass transit only solves traffic congestion for the people who use mass transit. You could build any transit system down NWExp you want and traffic will not improve by a single car. Every study in the world is in agreement with this. The only possible way to alleviate congestion is to out-build latent demand, but as soon as you do that induced demand will take over and you will be right back where you started traffic-wise, but billions more in debt.

As for affordable housing along the streetcar route - you might want to look at that again as all of metro-OKC is considered 'affordable housing' by national standards. Hell, the Chamber of Commerce flies that 'housing affordability flag' at every possible opportunity.

Do the people at the CoC work minimum wage jobs? Also there are no homes along the streetcar route... only refurbished apartments and new development. Also mass transit can reduce. Go to any major city in the world with transit and imagine those people riding the bus or the train in cars by themselves. People will choose to use cars less, or in some rare cases (money, convenience, or age) get rid of their car if good transit and a corresponding mixed use environment exists.

We can get sprawl under control. Refuse to expand interstates/highways outside of the core. Deannex many of these rural areas and turn them back over to unincorporated areas/townships to be managed by trustees or the county. Also eliminate city services to those areas and let the new local townships take control on handle them. If they want water from OKC, that's fine...they get to pay a rate that OKC agrees to charge the township. If they want police and fire coverage? They can fund it themselves or pay the city / county for the services. Road work and upkeep all gets transferred to the township (or whatever they are called down here).

I have no problem with right sizing the urban core's highway system. Obviously 35/240 needs fixed - that's a given. However, if someone would argue 35 needs to be wider through Moore because of the slight backup it gets during rush hour, then that is where the foolishness needs to stop. I keep pretty good track of my commute every day up 35 and 240. Typically it is 35 minutes. If I hit rush hour traffic, it can take it to 45 minutes. The worst traffic back ups for me are on 35 through Moore and S OKC and then 240 East to 35 South. The second one will be fixed in 39 years and the other is just a case of too many people rushing the system - hence rush hour. 90% of the time though the speeds are constantly 60-70 mph through that area.

I have no beef keep the current system up to handle the traffic demands outside of the abnormal rush hour back ups, but I also don't think the system itself needs to be expanded anymore when we can't pay for what we have now.

I agree, and even in areas not turned over OKC needs to consider a hard or soft urban growth boundary.

Do the people at the CoC work minimum wage jobs? Also there are no homes along the streetcar route... only refurbished apartments and new development. Also mass transit can reduce. Go to any major city in the world with transit and imagine those people riding the bus or the train in cars by themselves. People will choose to use cars less, or in some rare cases (money, convenience, or age) get rid of their car if good transit and a corresponding mixed use environment exists.

Aren't apartments and condos = homes? I guess people don't live in them. :)

I'm in Chicago a lot. When I'm there, I stay out in the west burbs and commute in. Trains are packs but so are the roads. It proves Kerry's point pretty well. You can put in mass transit, it will eventually fill up but then you'll see a back fill of people onto the roads. So you still aren't getting anywhere. BRT also needs to be outside the influence of standard traffic (and lights) in order to work. If the schedule isn't as reliable as a train, then it'll never catch on. There could be some areas where it can work out well, or just express buses. However, the core areas where we have existing rail right of way (down to Norman, MWC, the airport, and Edmond) the priority needs to be rail now and not buses. We already have express bus service from Norman and I'm sure there is something similar from Edmond. The next step is rail. Of course we also need a quality "final mile" network to support the commuter rail. I can take the train to downtown, but what is going to get me to the airport for work?

Do the people at the CoC work minimum wage jobs? Also there are no homes along the streetcar route... only refurbished apartments and new development. Also mass transit can reduce. Go to any major city in the world with transit and imagine those people riding the bus or the train in cars by themselves. People will choose to use cars less, or in some rare cases (money, convenience, or age) get rid of their car if good transit and a corresponding mixed use environment exists.

Define "along the streetcar route". Also, the streetcar isn't even built yet. Once rail starts getting put in the ground you will see housing of all rates pop up both adjacent to the route or within a 1/4 mile. Maybe at this time some definitions are in order.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CE4QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dot.ca.gov%2Fresearchconn%2Fp ast_speakers%2FDrMokhtarian%2Finduced_demand_power point.ppt&ei=3BoeU_vLApTqkAeDxYCQDQ&usg=AFQjCNFPzxpEnA5sMfscHFk0XgtbhHwFVw&sig2=raHmbNJQ1_brmK1cUTuXkw

Latent demand: Pent-up (dormant) demand for travel, travel that is desired but unrealized because of constraints

Induced demand: Realized demand that is generated (induced, “drawn out”) because of improvements to the transportation system


What does this mean in the real world? Let's use OU football traffic as an example. People who leave early or stay late to avoid traffic are part of latent demand. They try to travel outside peak travel times, but what if Lindsey St was widened to 8 lanes? Many of these people who now chose to wait would instead take advantage of the extra capacity and leave during peak travel time. these people would now be part of induced demand. In the end it doesn't matter how many lanes Lindsey has because during peak time all lanes will be congested. The only thing that might change is how long they are congested. However, over time as stadium capacity increased (let' just call that stadium sprawl) time equilibrium would also be restored to previous levels.

For those interested in this phenomena I suggest picking up the book "Traffic - Why We Drive The Way We Do" and read Chapter 6: Why More Roads Lead to More traffic.

These tendencies apply to all types of transportation by the way. For example, today there is no streetcar in OKC but the day it opens people will be riding it. Where do these riders come from since they don't exist today? The answer is "Induced Demand". Physical demand will materialize once the supply is there but there is no way it can exist pre-streetcar.

Also, there are quite a few literal low income housing developments directly on, or a short walk to, the proposed streetcar route.

Plutonic Panda brings up a good point, he is wrong on the solution though. Do people in Mustang and far flung areas of OKC merit the same frequency/mode of transit that inner OKC does, absolutely not! However simply ignoring those areas as far as transit goes encourages sprawl. Also not everyone can choose where they live: from obvious choices like kids and teens trapped in the burbs to recent trends like older adults moving back in with family. And while we're not San Francisco, I don't know of any affordable housing especially for families along phase one of the street car route. Even a 10-15% reduction in car use on NW Expressway or OK-74 or 152 can help out significantly. No one is arguing buses are superior to rail, but a rail or bust attitude isn't productive.

Also let me take this chance to expand the topic to express lanes, that may not take the placer of rail but can at least provide a viable alternative to transit. I think feasibility studies will more routes than you think should be left for later phases or not done by rail at all. These corridors (especially parts of NE OKC or low income areas of the NW side are prime candidates for better bus service, perhaps not expensive BRT but express buses).

And some of those commuter rail stations locations will serve to do only that shuttle commuters and not build vibrant mixed-use communities around transit like good BRT, subway, or appropriately placed LRT can. Planning should be carefully done to balance commuters with creating the density you describe above. Every station can't be surrounded by park and go lots and in illogical place for development.

You make it sound like we have so much rail and just need a few buses. It is actually the complete opposite.