You're correct. Our efforts in OKC to form an RTA are all about creating a comprehensive regional transit system in order to expand service and provide greater mobility options throughout the metro area. Yes, Embark (OKC), CART (Norman) and Citylink (Edmond) have improved their operations and are providing better services in their local areas. However, in comparison to other metro areas of similar size with regional systems, such as Salt Lake City, our combined systems are small by comparison and carry but a fraction of the total ridership. That's because all of our systems are primarily funded out of each city's general fund, whereas most larger regional systems receive a large part of their funding through a dedicated region-wide funding source, such as sales tax. Further, cities with RTA's and regional systems receive much greater consideration by the FTA when applying for federal funding for their transit systems. Without moving to a regional-based governance, funding and operational structure, we will continue to be very limited in our ability to expand transit services, both in mode type and area, to counter the worsening traffic congestion and other quality of life issues as a result of our regions continued accelerated growth.

As you know, the problem with SORTA is not that it's an RTA. The problem is the majority of their funding comes from a small, so-called dedicated portion of the general fund of the City of Cincinnati that is derived from an "earnings tax", which is essentially a city income tax. It's a strange funding mechanism, compared to most RTA's that are funded through regional sales tax. It essentially places the funding of the regional transit authority at the mercy of City officials and their budget. That can and has caused problems for SORTA. In 2011, the City took more than $2.4 million from a supposed dedicated transit funding account to make up for a shortfall in the City's budget.

Similarly, while the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA), which operates Embark, is touted as a regional transit authority, it is actually organized under the statutes of the State of Oklahoma as a city trust. COTPA has no dedicated funding source and receives the majority of its small operating budget on a year-by-year basis out of the general fund of the City of Oklahoma City. Further, it is governed not by a board of representatives from around the region, but mostly by OKC city officials, such as the City Manager, City Finance Director and City Council members. It's really just a city transit agency and not a regional transit authority.

One of the greatest benefits to being one of the "last kids on the block" with an RTA and regional transit system is that we can look to all of the other cities across the country that have developed such systems and hopefully emulate their successes and avoid their failures at governance, funding and operations.

http://www.normantranscript.com/news/oklahoma/coming-down-the-tracks-regional-transit-authority-could-be-up/article_dc031e02-b42c-5de4-9c00-e5025ec7f9bd.html

2025. Almost no reason to even be excited about this. Commuter rail will be so outdated with my cities having much better options by then and self driving cars are definitely going to put a hurt on transit by then.

^^^^^^^^
Not exactly...


No, autonomous cars will not “abolish transit” in dense cities

Is transit headed for a collision with self-driving cars? David Z. Morris in Fortune writes about how anti-transit Republicans are using the prospect of self-driving cars to argue against transit investments.

Alarmingly, he quotes nobody who can actually refute this argument, except in the fuzziest of terms.

Here is the recommended response:

We are currently in that phase of any new techno-thrill where promoters make grandiose claims about the obsolescence of everything that preceded them. Remember how the internet was going to abolish the workplace?

In any case, technology never changes facts of geometry. However successful driverless cars become, transit will remain crucial for dense cities because cities are defined by a shortage of space per person. Mass transit, where densities are high enough to support it, is an immensely efficient use of space.

(Remember, a great deal of bus transit is in places where densites are not high enough to allow it to succeed; this is evidence of anti-ridership “equity” or “coverage” policies, not of transit’s failure. Driverless taxis could certainly replace transit in those areas, assuming the pricing were gotten right, thus allowing transit agencies to focus on their core business.)

In many cases, people talking about driverless cars replacing transit are talking from an outer-suburban point of view, based on the experience of low-density, car-dependent places that are unsuited to high-ridership transit. In those settings, if density is not increasing, they are probably right. Driverless taxis will be more efficient than transit in these areas.

But all over the world, people are moving into dense cities, where even autonomous cars can’t replace a bus full of 60 people or a train full of hundreds. There simply isn’t enough space to put walls between every pair of travellers, as the car model of transportation requires. Nor will driverless taxis ever be there whenever you need them as great transit lines will. Like bikeshare systems, they will experience surges where many of the vehicles are in the wrong place.

A city can of course choose to sprawl and avoid density to the point that driverless cars could dominate. But in so doing it will fail to create a place that the 21st century economy will reward. Real estate prices are already telling us that the market has chosen dense cities as the highest value form of development. There is no dense city in the world that does not rely heavily on transit, for reasons of space-efficiency that none of the new technologies can change. (Yes, autonomous vehicles will use space more efficiently than private cars do, but this is saying very little compared to what a great rapid transit network is achieving.)

Again, technology never changes geometric facts. And the problem of cars in dense cities, and transit’s superiority there, is a geometric fact, a fact about space and its scarcity.

http://humantransit.org/2014/11/no-autonomous-cars-will-not-abolish-transit-in-dense-cities.html

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oG1uZpiAzR8/S7JVjvNOscI/AAAAAAAAK_0/dMxXTfgPosM/s1600/3399179623_ed0d6f4f09_o.jpg

my cities having much better options by then and self driving cars are definitely going to put a hurt on transit by then.


I can tell you that this belief has undoubtedly had a profound political chilling effect on leadership initiatives for the rail line to Tulsa. The new mayor there shares your beliefs.

In Oklahoma City, I-35 down to Norman is a nightmare during rush hour with no additional highway capacity planned. If commuter rail were to be successful, it would almost certainly be that specific stretch. However, Edmond is about to become much more convenient for commuters once the bottleneck is removed at 50th street.

Self-driving cars are a canard. They are coming undoubtedly. However, the same people promoting them as a solution are also inhibiting their ability to be successfully deployed. It is government at its worst.

The president of Lyft completely disagrees that autonomous cars will be the end of mass transit. In fact he is proposing complete street type retrofits - including one propsed here for LA’s Wilshire Boulevard (hi PluPan!)- that actually put more emphasis on public transit and other modes. So much that Jeff Speck just endorsed his comments via Twitter:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/18/technology/future/lyft-streets-autonomous-vehicles/index.html

https://twitter.com/jeffspeckaicp/status/955251000889217024

I'm not sure how public transit would help me. I've on the east side of I-35 and drive all over the metro. Not sure how one would do their shopping. First stop is feed store for 50 lb bags of feed, then Sam's club for the large bulk stuff, then stopping at a few places in OKC for a few items, doctor's appointments then back in Edmond for a few groceries.

^^^^^^^
Public transit helps you by taking other drivers off of the road.

Self-driving cars are a canard. They are coming undoubtedly. However, the same people promoting them as a solution are also inhibiting their ability to be successfully deployed. It is government at its worst.

Totally agree. There is a certainly a place for autonomous vehicles in our transportation future. But the idea that traffic congestion and the need for rail transit in dense, highly populated metropolitan areas will be eliminated by autonomous cars is magical thinking. Further, much of the current autonomous vehicle propaganda opposing rail transit is being created and circulated by historically anti-transit organizations, such as the Cato Institute, which believe they can use the argument to create a wedge issue among transit supporters and undermine future transit system investment by the federal governemtnt.

Some say self-driving cars will make transit obsolete. That’s wrong. (https://ggwash.org/view/65239/catos-vision-for-autonomous-vehicles-will-ensure-they-fail-heres-how-cities-should-incorporate-them)

Driverless Cars Won’t Make Transit Obsolete (https://seattletransitblog.com/2016/07/13/driverless-cars-wont-make-transit-obsolete/)

^^^^^^^^
Not exactly...



http://humantransit.org/2014/11/no-autonomous-cars-will-not-abolish-transit-in-dense-cities.html

We’ll see. Whether they solve traffic or not i don’t know. They will increase road capacity without even widening roads m. That’s one thing for sure.

I meant to imply people wil opt for them. Cars are superior to transit in almost every way except for the fact they are less environmentally friendly and you can’t multitask(legally) while driving unless someone else drives. Plus there are people with suspendedor revoked licenses or simply can’t drive.

Uber and Lyft seemed to have caused ridership to go down as nearly every transit agency in The US have reported a drop in ridership. So I can only imagine that autonomous cars will increase MPG or extend the fuel life of whatever fuel the car is using and will also give people the added benefit of being able to sit back and use the computer or go to sleep which they can’t currently do if they’re riding solo. Literally the only benefits of transit will be the social aspect and it will be more eco friendly. I’m guessing the other 10+ benefits the car has over transit now will be enough to put a big hurt on transit agencies but they raid funds drivers anyways so maybe it won’t be an issue.

^^^^^^^
Public transit helps you by taking other drivers off of the road.

Are you sure about that? Public transit will increase density particularly around stations but most people will still drive regardless so traffic will increase.

Ideally shared autonomous vehicles and streetcar/busses/light rail etc. will communicate and be happily married. Imagine being able to take the train to Norman for an OU game and having an autonomous vehicle arrive for you at the perfect time allowing you to hop on and go to your destination. If all vehicles were synced up to the same network, I'd imagine travel of the future could be very efficient and speedy. Shared autonomous vehicles could be the the answer to the last mile problem we've been hoping for and a wonderful compliment to public transit.

The president of Lyft completely disagrees that autonomous cars will be the end of mass transit. In fact he is proposing complete street type retrofits - including one propsed here for LA’s Wilshire Boulevard (hi PluPan!)- that actually put more emphasis on public transit and other modes. So much that Jeff Speck just endorsed his comments via Twitter:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/18/technology/future/lyft-streets-autonomous-vehicles/index.html

https://twitter.com/jeffspeckaicp/status/955251000889217024
I saw those proposals and the chances of them seeing the light of day on a large scale are slim to none. Time will tell, but I’m not saying self driving cars will end transit, but will put a big hurt on it. I’m sure you know almost every transit agency in the US has reported a drop in ridership. Even in LA as the system is being expanded.

Ideally shared autonomous vehicles and streetcar/busses/light rail etc. will communicate and be happily married. Imagine being able to take the train to Norman for an OU game and having an autonomous vehicle arrive for you at the perfect time allowing you to hop on and go to your destination. If all vehicles were synced up to the same network, I'd imagine travel of the future could be very efficient and speedy. Shared autonomous vehicles could be the the answer to the last mile problem we've been hoping for and a wonderful compliment to public transit.

I wouldn’t get your hopes up for shared transit. While Uber Pool and the like have been pretty successful, it’s been because of cost savings. I suspect most people will opt to ride solo in shared cars.

Does OKC or the State own the rail to the Adventure District?

I know the Chamber wants to expand the Streetcar to the OUHSC, and it's not that much further to hit the old rail line that goes to the Adventure District. Using the Chamber's political power to get the line to OUHSC, could we theoretically march east another mile or so, tie in to that rail already in the ground (obviously needs some improvements as well as overhead power)? Would we be able to get a good distance for our dollar compared to other systems since the right of way and rail already exist? Once to NE50th, the line could go west about 3/4 of a mile and terminate at the front door of the Omniplex and the Zoo, and within walking distance to Remington Park and the Softball Hall of Fame Stadium.

1. This would be great for the NE side. It would address concerns that OKC does not care about lower income areas and that the streetcar is only for the rich living and playing downtown.
1a. This would link the NE side directly to medical facilities as well as jobs, recreation, and entertainment areas.
2. This would link downtown directly to Remington Park, The Zoo, and the Omniplex, as well as OUHSC.
3. The opportunity would exist for a Park-And-Ride along I-35 near the Zoo, potentially easing commuter congestion from the North.
4. A major stop at NE 23rd street would connect with the city's most heavily used bus route.

https://i.gyazo.com/c96d079fe4fbbb60a59b658476fc4496.jpg

Just some late evening thoughts...

Are you sure about that? Public transit will increase density particularly around stations but most people will still drive regardless so traffic will increase.

I think there ise validity to this statement. Look at the huge, dense uban centers being built around rail stops in Dallas. Denver is a ways behind but traffic is far worse in Denver than it was 1p years ago but with significant light rail AND a good bus system.

City populations will continue to increase. At least, they will if your city doesn't suck. The question is, how do you deal with the increased population and the traffic that it generates?

As long as roads are clear and traffic is fast, people will choose to drive. Why wouldn't you? It's fun to drive when you can get where you're going quickly, without a bunch of morons getting in your way. People will only want to use mass transit when traffic is bad and they spend their whole trip cussing the idiot in front of them. Then mass transit sounds good.

Even if you don't have really bad traffic today, as long as your city is growing, it will be a problem that you're going to have to face at some point. You can prepare for future traffic problems in two ways: you can widen your streets and build more freeways, or you can build a mass transit system. Generally mass transit is a lot cheaper in the long run. It's more effective in more dense areas, but it also leads to the development of more dense areas, so that's okay. Now, people are still only going to use it when traffic is bad. Mass transit won't make all your traffic problems go away -- you'll still be irritated at all the morons on the road. Because as soon as the driving experience is pleasant again, those morons will jump in their cars and screw it up for you. They only use the train when the traffic gets too frustrating for them. So it won't make your driving experience better, it just may prevent it from getting worse.

Self-driving cars aren't going to fix anything as far as the need for mass transit goes. You'll still have the same number of cars on the road when you're trying to get to work. You're still going to be mad even if "someone else" is driving. You might be able to play on your phone during the trip, but it won't solve congestion at all. Now it might detract from ridership during off-peak times. If your reason for using mass transit is because you had too much to drink and you need a ride home, a self-driving car might work just fine for you. But if it does anything, it's only going to make your Monday morning drive worse.

Does OKC or the State own the rail to the Adventure District?

[...]

Just some late evening thoughts...

The former Katy line, from just NE of the intersection of NE 10th and Eastern, to the end of the line in the Adventure District, is owned by the City through COTPA, so this could be a possibility; however, it's important to note that the Oklahoma Railway Museum, just south of NE 36th and Grand, leases the line for museum operations. If the line were converted to streetcar use, ORM would be forced to relocate operations as their equipment would no longer be able to use those rails. Additionally, the former Katy line is further away from rooftops that could ensure sufficient, regular ridership. I'd argue that the former Katy line would be better used as access to the Turner Turnpike corridor for an eventual passenger line to Tulsa (without the twists and turns of the current Sooner Sub line, so trains can go much faster).

Personally, for a NE side streetcar line to the Adventure District, I think the area would be better served by the following routing:

Begin NW 4th and Broadway; continue east under the BNSF viaduct to Harrison Ave. Follow Harrison across I-235, as it turns into NE 8th, to the intersection of NE 8th and Phillips Ave. Continue north on Phillips Ave to NE 13th St, then follow NE 13th St east to Lottie Ave. Continue north on Lottie Ave to NE 23rd St, then follow NE 23rd St east to Eastern/MLK Ave; from there, continue North to NE Grand/Remington Pl. The line would end in this area.

Such a line would serve the following destinations:

Research Park/GE Global Research/OSSM
OU Med Center/Children's Hospital/VA/OUHSC
Jeltz/McGuire Senior Centers
23rd Street Retail Corridor
Ralph Ellison Library/Kings Crossing Retail Development
State Offices (Dept of Corrections, OK Turnpike Authority, Dept of Public Safety, Dept of Wildlife Conservation)
MetroTech Springlake Campus
Adventure District (Science Museum Oklahoma, OKC Zoo, Zoo Ampitheatre, Remington Park, ASA Hall of Fame Stadium Complex (depending on exact location of terminus))

This route would also come closer to the neighborhoods such a line would be intended to serve, resulting in higher potential ridership, and would serve multiple significant destinations along the line.

Do street cars use the same gauge as regular rail?

I'm really glad there are knowledgeable folks on this board in regards to transit and all things rail. Fascinating to me. Thank you all.

Do street cars use the same gauge as regular rail?

Most rail-based transportation systems in the US follow US Standard Gauge, which spaces the rails 4' 8½" apart; a few notable exceptions are the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) system at 5' 6" spacing, and both the New Orleans Streetcar system and SEPTA's (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) trolley and subway lines at 5' 2½" spacing.

Although our streetcar system shares the same standard gauge spacing with freight rails like the Adventure District line, we would not be able to run both freight operations and streetcar operations over the same line due to Federal Railroad Administration rules. Streetcars are considered light rail vehicles, and as such they are not FRA-compliant for crashworthiness when mixed with freight traffic. The only way the FRA allows shared use is when there's a significant time separation between operations; for instance, NJ Transit's River Line uses light rail vehicles over freight tracks, but freight operations are only allowed at night when light rail operations are stopped, and vice versa. Such an arrangement would very likely not be an option for ORM.

I knew about the “no mixing” rule, but I wasn’t sure if a standard street car could physically drive on standard gauge.

So for the street car to use the city owned lines, that stretch of rail would have to be physically separated from any freight traffic?

It'd be nice even if they had it running for just special events from downtown (ie WCWS). That probably isn't cost effective though.

I knew about the “no mixing” rule, but I wasn’t sure if a standard street car could physically drive on standard gauge.

So for the street car to use the city owned lines, that stretch of rail would have to be physically separated from any freight traffic?

Basically, yes - either a physical separation or time separation would be required; the FRA seems to greatly prefer physical separation.

Why not work with the museum to run historic interurban cars with cantenary, from Bricktown to the musuem?

Why not work with the museum to run historic interurban cars with cantenary, from Bricktown to the musuem?

I worked on this with others pretty extensively a few years ago. In fact, we (MAPS 3 Subcommittee) paid for a formal study of the alignment. Our idea was to connect the "Adventure Line" into the main streetcar system and have Rapid Streetcar service to Remmington Park, the Zoo, etc.

It is remotely possible to mix uses with the rail museum but that exception would really only become possible by adding Positive Train Control. The alternative would be to double track this city-owned alignment.

Assuming that the City could not get Union Pacific to abandon the segment of track in Bricktown that they control and the right to bypass UP railyard, the only way to bypass their infrastructure is to connect via 4th street. Harrison or 8th might be better but it definitely would cost more.

The fact that there is a city-owned Right-of-Way makes the Adventure Line very attractive from a cost perspective. But as was noted earlier, the impacts along the way are also minimal because it traverses through areas without a great deal of density and activity.

Other issues include the fact that the Adventure Line would really need to be extended from the Katy alignment across the dam on 50th street to directly connect with the end destinations.

I thought we would have the Rial Museum folks pretty enthusiastic about spending money on the corridor but they never took up the cause even with the study. Their silence really surprised me as this is something that a MAPS surplus could easily accommodate and easily extend the reach of the streetcar. John Pettis somewhat dropped the cause in lieu of advocating for the line going through Health Sciences up to 23rd proper. A noble cause but one that would require a significantly bigger amount of money.

Hope that helps. I should state the Mineral Oil Company would have to be bypassed or accommodated to reuse the southern portion of this alignment. They still ship in and out of that track section down to the railyard.

Overview of the Adventure Line (AV) and how it can be connected to Santa Fe Station by way of the Union Pacific (UP) Bricktown Spur (BS)

14428

Detail of the AV-BS intersection and how the two lines can be separated

14429

Detail of BS and connection to Santa Fe

14430

Property and right-of-way overview of AV and BS

14431

Property and right-of-way detail showing how AV and BS can be separated from Harter Yard, allowing for acquisition of BS from UP

14432

There is another very viable option for the Adventure Line, as well as the line to Will Rogers, MWC/Tinker and even the lines to Edmond and Norman. The Stadler Rail "Flirt" DMU (Diesel-Electric Multi-Unit) is being put into service in a number of cities as a replacement for older, more traditional commuter rail trains. These vehicles provide many of the design and operational benefits of a light rail vehicle, such as lighter weight, faster acceleration, low floor and lower emissions, but are FRA certified to operate on existing track in mixed traffic, resulting in much lower development and operational costs.

Here are a few of those:

Metrorail - Austin

14433

BART - San Francisco

14434

TexRail - Ft. Worth

14435

Here's a link to information on the Flirt:

Stadler Flirt DMU (https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7.s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/filer_public/5e/47/5e479fe8-a50c-4f39-a17e-529f85f4cb94/f3tr0415en.pdf)

Can they also run on city streets, or would they require a transfer station?

Can they also run on city streets, or would they require a transfer station?

You bet.

14436

On-the-right-track: Regional transit group outlines governance/ (http://journalrecord.com/2018/09/05/on-the-right-track-regional-transit-group-outlines-governance/)

Excellent article, thanks for posting! The RTA committee wants to hit the ground running and that is super exciting to me, even if the timeline is getting stretched out a bit further than I originally thought it would be. Still, I'm excited - and the sooner the better, I say!

i'm just really hoping it is call the Metro of Oklahoma Rapid (or Regional) Transit... so it's the MORT!!!

Still plugging my idea for the Greater Oklahoma County/City Area Regional/Rapid Transit.

Gotta ride the GOCART.

yes, GOCART goes way back. ..

and it's Oklahoma City area not county, regional not rapid. ..

My original idea was city, but I figured some of the other cities involved might be more receptive to county.

Excellent article, thanks for posting! The RTA committee wants to hit the ground running and that is super exciting to me, even if the timeline is getting stretched out a bit further than I originally thought it would be. Still, I'm excited - and the sooner the better, I say!

Having worked on this issue for more than a decade, it was both remarkable and historic to witness the mayors, council members, city managers, city attorneys and city staff from the OKC, Norman, Edmond, Moore, Midwest City and Del City all seated at last month's RTA Task Force meeting and cooperatively working together to finalize the draft trust indenture that will officially create a regional transit authority for the OKC metro area.

14896

This is the real deal. If everything goes as planned, in the next few months the trust indenture will be approved by the city councils of the initial participating cities and the OKC metro area will have its own regional transit authority. At that time, those cities will appoint qualified individuals to serve as the initial board of directors for the RTA, which will be funded for the next few years from monies already committed and budgeted from the various cities for RTA development. The initial work of the RTA will involve development of a comprehensive transit system plan, as well as feasibility studies and cost determinations for implementing that system. In addition, the RTA will coordinate planning and marketing efforts with the participating cities and chambers of commerce when the time comes to seek a public vote on funding for development of the regional transit system. Until such time as that vote is held and approved, the RTA will not manage or operate any transit systems or services within the OKC metro area.

For everyone who supports development of a regional transit system for OKC, this is the next critical step in getting there. In the coming months, it's important that you watch for news and information concerning the date that your city council will meet to consider approval of the trust indenture, and if at all possible, that you contact your city council members and attend your city's council meeting to voice your support for approval of the RTA.

Hutch, do you know if cities that have their own bus services will continue to operate those sevices separate from any new bus service started by the new RTA?

Why more studies? The work acog has already had done seems quite good

Hutch, do you know if cities that have their own bus services will continue to operate those sevices separate from any new bus service started by the new RTA?

While the RTA trust indenture allows for the RTA to operate all transit modes, the final decisions on integrating existing transit services into the new regional transit system will be made at a later date. Our consultant has provided us with numerous options in that regard, and it's clear from looking at the various other systems around the country that there are varying operational models.

One option is that the RTA will directly operate all transit services and that existing bus services will be fully-absorbed into the new system, which would be similar to the way DART, Denver-RTD and UTA operate. The primary benefit for the all-in-one option is operational efficiency. The ultimate measure of the success of any transit system is ridership. And the number one way to ensure ridership is system efficiency. In a multi-modal system, one of the keys to system efficiency is ensuring reliable connection times between modes. That means bus system operations must be integrated with rail system operations to ensure that buses consistently arrive on time at rail stops to provide efficient transfer times for transit system passengers. It would seem advantageous to have the RTA directly manage all modes in the regional transit system to ensure optimal efficiency.

Another alternative that is seen in some cites is based on the RTA directly operating certain new transit modes, such as rail and BRT, while existing bus services continue to be operated by their original operating agency in coordination with the RTA. In situations like ours, where a new RTA is being formed and there are multiple existing bus systems, it may be advantageous in the beginning for those systems to continue to be operated by their existing providers, but under the management umbrella of the RTA.

Why more studies? The work acog has already had done seems quite good

I agree. ACOG has done a great job over the last ten years undertaking numerous relevant studies...Fixed Guideway Study...Intermodal Hub Study...Commuter Corridors Study...to lay the groundwork for where we are today. In addition, Embark has undertaken various transit studies, including the Downtown Circulator Analysis, Transit Service Analysis and NW Corridor Multimodal Plan.

However, some of the information in those studies is either out-of date, too general or lacking. Before the RTA can approach the cities with a proposal to seek a vote for a permanent dedicated funding source for developing and operating a regional transit system, it needs to determine more precisely what that system will look like and the costs involved in creating it.

The previous studies provided us with general guidance, but not much in the way of detailed engineering feasibility analysis or infrastructure costs or operational funding needs. As one example, there has previously been no detailed engineering analysis to determine the feasibility and costs of implementing commuter rail service in the BNSF right-of-way between Edmond, Norman and OKC. Past studies have provided some general estimates, but now we need real hard numbers.

More importantly, the RTA needs to develop an up-to-date comprehensive transit system plan that includes all transit modes. That doesn't mean we need to start back at square one and reinvent the wheel. But we do need to update, revise, expand and assimilate all of the data from the previous studies into a single system plan and then undertake the necessary detailed engineering and cost analysis. The RTA and participating cities won't be willing to ask the voters to fund a regional transit system until we have a very good understanding of what that system will look like and how much it will cost to build and operate.

I'm as tired of undertaking new studies as everyone else. But it's especially critical at this point that we have all of the necessary detailed information.

Makes sense. I just worry about the votes as it is with the municipalities. Voting for tax dollars to go to transit is going to take time to be palatable for most. I think it may well fail in some areas. Spending the initial seed money on studies seems like it might add fuel to the complaint fire and further adversely impact votes. Personally I do get that we need that engineering level detail. Just saying it all feels like a very fragile thing at the moment.

The RTA will utilize recent state statute revisions to create a special regional transit district for taxing and voting purposes. There will be a single vote within the entirety of the RTD to determine approval of the RTA funding proposal. It will not be a vote on a city-by-city basis.

Even so, successful timing and passage of the referendum will not be easy. State law only allows RTD funding by local sales tax. And based on a preliminary detailed analysis done by URS a few years ago, it will require a minimum of 1/2-cent to develop and operate the currently planned transit system. That means another local sales tax on top of the various temporary and permanent sales taxes that are already been in place in each city. That alone will require significant analysis and coordination between the cities to determine optimum timing for a regional vote, and then for the RTA and those cities to develop a successful education and marketing campaign to ensure passage.

Having been involved in a number of municipal sales tax propositions, we've got a much greater chance of success if the voters have the necessary information to understand the specifics of the services and benefits they will receive, as well as the costs involved and how their tax dollars are to be spent. It's critical that we use the remaining seed money that the RTA will have to work with over the next few years to get those answers before we move forward with a campaign and a vote.

As for the fragility of things, it's something that we've all gotten used to over the years. It seems that all of the various transit-related projects and efforts that have taken place until now have felt like fragile processes. I don't see that changing as we try to get the various city councils to approve the trust indenture, and then ultimately to get the voters to approve a funding measure. It's just the nature of the beast. Dallas, Denver and Salt Lake City all had similar challenges and they successfully navigated those. I'm confident we'll succeed too.

Oh good. I thought it was going to be city by city. Whew! Thanks as always for your insight.

Ouch on the half cent. Maybe MAPS 4, which would need to start collecting in 2020, can be .5 cent instead of 1 cent and just collect longer, and the remaining .5 cent can go to RTA. Same ballot even maybe, in 2019.

Since city services will be overlapped by the RTA, (transit) could the city lower its tax as it would not need to fund buses on its own. (I.e. lower the city sales tax by half a cent)

Actually, that brings up a very important question: All of the various entities involved in the planning process up to this point have been working on the RTA for quite some time, as Hutch mentioned. Let's assume for a second that when it comes time to ask voters to fund the system, the vote fails. Are there contingency plans in place - something like a funding source to carry operations long enough to revise the RTA's game plan and make a new pitch to voters? My fear is similar to shawnw's - I don't want to see the decade plus of work be lost if voters don't approve the funding on the first go 'round.

One of the things I am really excited about - aside from commuter rail, that is - that if the new RTA absorbs the existing bus systems or begins coordinating the systems, that this will have a very real chance of improving our bus network in very short order. Hopefully we can add some new routes to fill in the gaps, which I also hope would allow existing routes to be more direct and less convoluted (shortening trip times) - as well as routes that would make it easier to cross to different routes without having to connect through the downtown transit center.

Since city services will be overlapped by the RTA, (transit) could the city lower its tax as it would not need to fund buses on its own. (I.e. lower the city sales tax by half a cent)
My personal opinion, but I think having the cities still operate their own bus service is better for transit users. It gives them more options and more services. Having each city operate their bus services creates a better service for that specific city and RTA can better focus on the metro as a whole.

Maybe this has been pointed out... but the consolidation of agencies and assets dramatically improves the ability to pursue federal matching dollars historically. Not having an RTA has affected our ability to pursue significant funds in years past.

I’m speaking from my experience using Metro which isLos Angeles. They operate their own bus service but also you have cities that have Metro buses have their own service as well which sometimes runs more frequently than Metro in some situations.

Urban is correct. Our consultant has explained to us how OKC's lack of an RTA severely limits our ability to get federal funds. The FTA has a longstanding policy of directing most of its dollars to cities with comprehensive regional transit systems.

Further, disregarding its name, the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority is not a regional authority. Its actually chartered under state statutes as a city trust. It's essentially the transportation and parking department for OKC. As such, it receives minimal federal funding. In addition, as OKC has no permanent dedicated funding source for COTPA, it must fund COTPA's operating budget out of OKC's general fund. If you want to know the bottom-line as to why it's been such a struggle to even minimally improve OKC's bus system, it's the fact OKC can't afford to spend the tens of millions of dollars necessary out of their general fund to build a more comprehensive system. My hat's off to Jason Ferbrache and Embark for accomplishing as much as they have with the bus system on a limited budget.

As a contrast, UTA's 2018 budget for the Salt Lake City regional bus system was $97,522,000 out of its total budget of $227,669,000 to provide service for 120 routes using 400 buses, on 15 and 30 minute frequencies. COTPA's budget for its 2018 bus service was $7,493,141 out of its total budget of $36,887,863 to provide service for 19 routes using 60 buses, on 30 and 60 minute frequencies. UTA funds its transit system with a 0.6875-cent dedicated transit sales tax. COTPA is at the mercy of the annual general fund budgetary process of OKC. Further, with the commencement of streetcar service at the end of this year, COTPA has added an additional $4,000,000 to its operating budget for 2019, resulting in OKC struggling to cover that increase out of its general fund. Similar general fund budgetary challenges are found in Norman's and Edmond's efforts to provide local bus service.

If one of the goals is to expand and improve local bus service, as well as to extend the streetcar system, that's likely not going to happen without creating an RTA to operate all transit services and passing a dedicated transit sales tax to fund all transit operations, as it will be difficult for OKC to continue to substantially increase their annual commitments to transit operations out of their general fund.

Oh good. I thought it was going to be city by city. Whew! Thanks as always for your insight.

Ouch on the half cent. Maybe MAPS 4, which would need to start collecting in 2020, can be .5 cent instead of 1 cent and just collect longer, and the remaining .5 cent can go to RTA. Same ballot even maybe, in 2019.

Bingo.

I've been suggesting this solution for quite some time. It's likely the only way we'll ever be able to pass a successful RTA funding initiative. As long as the full one-cent continues to be renewed for MAPS, it will be extremely difficult to get the voters to approve an additional permanent 1/2-cent transit sales tax. If MAPS 4 gets approved at the full one-cent, an RTA funding initiative and regional transit system will likely not happen for another decade or more. Most everyone agrees that we simply can't wait until 2030 to get going.

OKC, Norman, Edmond, Moore, Midwest City and Del City all have existing and anticipated temporary and permanent sales tax burdens and initiatives. Deciding on an RTA referendum date that integrates with the plans of all of the participating municipalities will be challenging. As OKC is the largest participating member of the RTA and the central core city of the regional transit system, the decision as to when we move forward clearly rests in their hands and we can't move forward without them.

Representatives of the other participating cities have expressed their strong interest in moving forward as soon as possible. The economy is booming. Public support for transit is high. And the city councils and chambers of commerce of those cities are behind the effort. On the other hand, OKC leaders remain much more hesitant to commit. The thought of relinquishing city control of their transit department to a regional authority bothers some. The idea of splitting the MAPS tax to fund a transit system causes heartburn for others. Some are worried about political risk and uncertainties. And a few still think that there's no congestion and that we don't need a regional transit system. Whatever the concerns, the fact remains that we don't get going until OKC leadership decides its time to get going. Let's hope that's sooner rather than later.

There will never be a perfect time to hold a vote and there will always be a risk of failure. Every other city that has developed a regional transit system has had to deal with the same risks, concerns and uncertainties, and they succeeded. I'm confident we can too.

One last thought on timing for a vote. There will likely never be a greater opportunity to take full advantage of public excitement and support for transit to pass an RTA funding referendum then in the first year or so after the streetcar begins operations and Santa Fe Station is up and running.

Should each city retain control of it's bus system, would a rider have to purchase tickets/passes for each different system rather than having on pass that works on all buses/trains? I would think it would be easier for riders/tourists if they only had to pay into one system or buy one pass and it would allow them access to any transit within the region.

Would a state wide transit authority ever happen or would we only see two large RTAs between the OKC region and the Tulsa region? What is the timeline, should things be successful, of including cities to the west and east of this first phase?

I usually favor local independence, but a single city messing with bus service that leave RTA passengers stranded somewhere could be enough to really hurt the success of the entire system.

Would a state wide transit authority ever happen or would we only see two large RTAs between the OKC region and the Tulsa region? What is the timeline, should things be successful, of including cities to the west and east of this first phase?

Separate metro-area authorities are best. I don't think it's a good idea getting our State government involved in transit decision-making. That would likely be a train wreck...pun intended.

INCOG and the City of Tulsa have already been discussing and studying an RTA. They're not nearly as far along as OKC. I get the feeling they are watching and learning from our efforts.

Yukon and Mustang are already being factored into joining the RTA soon after its formation. That will be a decision for those cities to make.

Hutch, or others, would you care to speculate as to whether or not the planned commuter rail system might expand to the west if Yukon or Mustang join the RTA? Also, will this RTA be independent of ACOG, insofar as having the ability to accept member cities from outside of the ACOG planning district? For instance, Shawnee is in the Central Oklahoma Economic Development District (COEDD); if they wanted to join the RTA to get access to the commuter rail system, would they be able to do so? Such an extension would also open up access for Nicoma Park, Choctaw, Harrah, and McLoud, if those communities desired it, though the rail linking OKC to Shawnee would need some serious upgrades to allow for commuter service. I'm just kind of thinking out loud here :)

i dont think the metro cities will be upset with calling the RTD "Oklahoma City Regional Transit District" or the like as long as it says metro area or greater OKC metro area. Those cities are suburbs of OKC and they know their success lies with being tied to and support of OKC. Same here in Seattle where everything says Seattle or Seattle-Tacoma this or that.

Big difference between Oklahoma City city transit and Oklahoma City Area Regional Transit District.

as to the funding, I think a combination of funds should be applied: property tax, gas tax, vehicle registration tax, and sales tax. That way nothing is too over-taxed yet having multiple sources allows the funding to be much more reliable/steady. Each of those sources would be very minor increase over today; where I'd put the most impact to the very low gas tax and probably property tax.

If cities can't get to property tax, seems like it'd be problematic for RTAs as well without a constitutional change?

Quick answers:

Commuter rail is a definite possibility to west OKC/Yukon/Mustang...the Union Pacific line goes there...would include a station at the Fairgrounds. Shawnee could be a future extension to the east on UP's line as well. And service to Will Rogers on the Stillwater Central line is very doable.

The RTA will will be an independent, stand-alone entity outside of ACOG and the individual participating cities...it will be governed by a Board of Directors of persons appointed by the city council's of those cities.

OKC would be the core metro city for the system...just like Dallas Area Rapid Transit and Denver RTD...it's common to have the name of the RTA/RTD reflect the primary city.

It would make things much easier if we could use a combination of funding sources...unfortunately the state statute allowing for the creation of regional transit districts only allows for funding by local sales tax...we'd have to go back to the legislature to get that changed...scary.

So Greater Oklahoma City Area Rapid Transit is a go then!