Public Transit tops list for MAPS 3!!!!!

[jbrown84]

We did a huge study on it. I don't think it's being rushed into at all.

[Easy180]

This is what I call living the lie. It is one thing to disagree with something when your argurment has a relationship to reality - but this comment just doesn't make sense on any level. Every rail system, except Amtrak, in America has exceeded ridership expectations.

ok you're right...There isn't any way at all light rail would be less successful than estimates...Massive amounts of people will ditch their cars and switch over...It's an undeniable fact that OKC's own estimates of ridership will also exceed expectations just lke other cities...This thing is 100% foolproof

Can't believe I was spewing such crazy notions

[jbrown84]

I think what he's saying is that it's a little ridiculous to say that only 10 people will ride.

Everybody doesn't have to switch over from cars for it to be successful. There's 1.2 million people in the metro.

[Easy180]

So they will all have 10 or more riding in them at all times?....He didn't say that would be the norm just pointing out the possibility of it costing the taxpayers more after Maps if it didn't work out as well as we hoped

[BDP]

So I guess there are no potential downsides to spending millions on light rail?

Of course there are, but my point is that the downside to not doing it is quickly beginning to dwarf those concerns. That’s almost evident by the fact that Oklahoma City is actually considering it.

And no I don't think OKC will suddenly start to see significant growth in population...Will likely continue to be slow and steady...Just not a lot of people waiting on the sidelines to relocate here

Which is what such projects are meant to reverse. Oklahoma City is a blank slate that has to be proactive in creating its marketable assets through public investment. To realistically compete and to create a market to which people are wanting to move, we have to spend money to establish a quality of life that is attractive to prospective residents, both corporate and residential.

Right now, our main marketing position is cheapness. Sure, we don't have the services, jobs, infrastructure, or attractions of many cities bigger and smaller, but, hey, it's cheap, right? Well, I think some people, with the success of MAPS, have begun to think that maybe Oklahoma City can position itself as a city that can compete on the quality of life scale without always having to pitch itself as the base model, no frills city. If this trend holds up and Oklahoma City continues to reposition itself as a good place to live, mass transit will eventually play a part in that movement.

Again, we're talking about the 30 year plan here. Assume a modest growth rate of 2.5% a year, Oklahoma City metro area will be about 2.5 million people in 30 years. It's hard to imagine that the city will be able to position itself as even a base model no frills, city in 2037 if it has 2.5 million people and no mass transit. Given the direction of most cities today and the types of investment in public transportation across the country, not to mention growing interest in alternatives to daily automobile use, Oklahoma City will be at a serious disadvantage without a comprehensive mass transit system.

Let's face it, many of Oklahoma City's handicaps are the direct result of the Ogle mentality governing our city and state. "We don't need planning", they say. "We can't support that today", they reason. "It just won't work here", they always conclude. And so, nothing gets done and the city gets left behind, forgotten about, and constantly looked over. Well, it seems to be that only when we've departed from that mentality have we experienced real progress, growth, and increased quality of life. Even if more people didn't move here, it still made it nicer to live here.

It seems like we're at another such juncture when it comes to public transit. Are we going to once again wait until every other market has it until we decide, "hey maybe we could use that", at which point there really would be no competitive advantage to doing so. It would simply be a survival strategy, serving only to play catch up. Instead of elevating the city above some other markets, it would once again be a move that only elevates us to just below other cities in terms of services. And then we'd be left scratching our heads and once again crying “why aren't people and companies lining up to move here even when its so cheap??”

The truth is that light rail downtown would be first in 5-10 years and would probably sustain itself off tourism and convention business alone, especially if you put some novelty to it (just think about how many people ride those boats to nowhere on the canal). Then we try bus rapid transit to see if some of the outer loop communities want fast convenient transit to downtown. Then if the surrounding communities warm up to the idea and want to cooperate with the city, then we get commuter rail, which may make more sense to the Ogles in 2020 than it does now.

That's a pretty safe plan and I haven't heard any that differ from that, but if we can see a 2020 where commuter rail may make sense to Oklahoma City, then now is the time to plan it and start building it, starting where the demand already exists. MAPS III is a good place to get the money to build the core infrastructure and then see if Edmond, MWC, Norman, etc. want to float some joint bonds to connect Oklahoma City's system to theirs. In the meantime, you should see faster development along the rail routes as the trains funnel people down those corridors and provide guaranteed exposure for businesses.

All in all, there is little doubt that Oklahoma City’s future is more promising with public transit than without it. I am sure that underneath some of the Ogle philosophy, there lies a desire for Oklahoma City never to grow or attract more people or service, but until someone actually says that, I’ll just assume that we all want Oklahoma City to progress into the future with increased growth and quality of life.

[BDP]

We are saying and Ogle is saying we have to take everything into consideration rather than rushing into a multi-hundred million dollar project.

Well, if that was Ogles contention, then it's based on a flawed premise. Nothing that has been proposed or discussed remotely resembles any kind of rushing. In fact, there isn't even an official plan to vote on at this point. So, he assumed we'd rush into it and build a multi-hundred million doillar project funded by MAPS III. That's just wrong. There is no indication that it would be built that way or even funded that way or that hundreds of millions of dollars would be spent at any one time.

These things are hardly ever built that way and if he was at all educated on even this city's own research, he would have known that it is a long term plan funded from several sources. No one is saying that we build a maglev train tomorrow and sales tax ourselves to death to do it. So, basically, he was just commenting on his own imagination.

[Easy180]

I don't think he is actually against it was just stating some concerns since it is so overwhelmingly popular and unlike the other MAPS projects it could cost taxpayers after completion

[Patrick]

Patrick is right. We put up a barrier for ourselves after allowing the Union Station's rail access to be demolished, and that means that city leaders will now need to get creative with light rail. It will no doubt involve a different planning process and problably more expense.

Nonetheless, it is very exciting to see MAPS 3 is actually going to happen, and with popularity, as well. All 50 states and 57 countries? Welcome to the real Sim City of America.

That rail yard was worth millions. Our city was pretty stupid allowing I-40 to plow through it. We'll have to pay millions of dollars to replace it if we build a decent commuter rail system.

[BDP]

Every MAPS project would cost us more tax money to sustain if they failed to generate enough revenue to cover operating costs.

[Patrick]

Ogle said he was against it on his "My Two Cents" last night...Concerns were who pays for the light rail later on when the trains are running with about 10 people on it

Agree with him on that and also how easy it is to get around OKC in our cars...Will be a tough switch for us car lovers

Good idea, but it has the real possibility of crashing and burning and costing OKC citizen's more money down the road

Public transportation is subsidized in almost every major city

[Patrick]

Don't forget finding and paying for parking. Especially downtown.

Yeah, you're looking at $7 a day for parking plus the same amount for gas. That's $14 a day. Vs. 2 bucks for commuter rail. As gas prices continue to rise, the demand for commuter rail will only increase.

[Easy180]

In theory yes, but people are still driving just as much as they were when it was a buck a gallon and what happens when/if we come up with alternative fuel vehicles in 10 to 20 years ...Would light rail still be popular enough if transportation costs actually went down in the future?

[Patrick]

ok you're right...There isn't any way at all light rail would be less successful than estimates...Massive amounts of people will ditch their cars and switch over...It's an undeniable fact that OKC's own estimates of ridership will also exceed expectations just lke other cities...This thing is 100% foolproof

Can't believe I was spewing such crazy notions

Thanks for admitting your ignorance.

[Easy180]

That would hurt if I actually cared Patrick

[Patrick]

In theory yes, but people are still driving just as much as they were when it was a buck a gallon and what happens when/if we come up with alternative fuel vehicles in 10 to 20 years ...Would light rail still be popular enough if transportation costs actually went down in the future?

Depends on the cost. Ideally, our state needs to quit putting money into highway expansion projects in order for something like this to work. Investing in commuter rail would be more cost efficient than investing in a new I-40 Crosstown.

[Patrick]

That would hurt if I actually cared Patrick

[soonerliberal]

Yeah, you're looking at $7 a day for parking plus the same amount for gas. That's $14 a day. Vs. 2 bucks for commuter rail. As gas prices continue to rise, the demand for commuter rail will only increase.

However, how many employees pay for parking downtown? How many people would save time and money with light rail? If it only takes me 30 minutes to go 20 miles from Norman to Downtown during rushhour, I don't think I am going to drive to a rail station, then wait, then ride in, then walk to work.

I really see this working in the Downtown/Midtown/Capitol/Meridian area largely for tourism and business, especially if the current growth continues, but for the rest of the city's commuters? Our residential base is extremely spread out and our business base is spread out as well. Large employers including Chesapeake, Hertz, Dell, FAA, Tinker, the misc universities, and countless others are not in one centralized location.

[Patrick]

However, how many employees pay for parking downtown? How many people would save time and money with light rail? If it only takes me 30 minutes to go 20 miles from Norman to Downtown during rushhour, I don't think I am going to drive to a rail station, then wait, then ride in, then walk to work.

It depends on how expensive gasoline gets. A few years ago, we never would've thought we'd have $3 per gallon of gas. I'd say $5 a gallon for gas isn't out of the question, especially if a Republican gets elected in 2008.

As for time to get places, that may change as the city grows.

[CuatrodeMayo]

Yes, light rail doesn't work to well for people who do not live close to the station. However, station locations would promote density in the area. It's called Transit Oriented Development.

I would choose to live close to the station, as would many other people. That is what TOD is for.

For existing residents it's not always close, but for those new, younger people moving into their own places, proximity to rail would be of high importance.

[jbrown84]

It's like when you're going to visit NYC, you look at lodging that is close to the subway stations.

[SpectralMourning]

In theory yes, but people are still driving just as much as they were when it was a buck a gallon and what happens when/if we come up with alternative fuel vehicles in 10 to 20 years ...Would light rail still be popular enough if transportation costs actually went down in the future?

We're driving just as much because we don't have a choice, and I highly doubt most people would want to be shafted in the gas prices they're paying now because they don't have a choice when getting to work. Personally, I'd love to bike to a rail station if possible, so long as the MWC network would be refitted. Besides, it's not like this would be a complete network all at once. It would more than likely conform to the phased guidelines of the OKFGS, so that if something isn't working, we could go back and reform the plan, trimming the fat.

[BG918]

This is great news, now make it happen!!! Living in Denver for the summer I've been riding their light rail system everyday to and from work. It's clean and efficient and I don't have to worry about parking and getting stuck in traffic. I read the free newspaper they have at the station or the Denver version of the Gazette (the Westword) while I'm riding the train. It's great and I think it would be a success in OKC, just because how things are setup. These are the diagrams I sent on the MAPS III website, I think they show how heavy commuter rail linking Edmond-downtown OKC-Norman can connect with a light rail "starter" line that goes from OUHSC down 10th and Broadway to E.K. Gaylord (Shields) by the conv. center, Ford Center, and Bricktown and then down our new grand blvd. that will be complete once I-40 is torn down. The commuter rail uses the existing rail tracks while the LRT would have new ones built into the street on its own right of way like they do in downtown Denver.

Light Rail to be funded by MAPS III and state/federal funds


Commuter rail to be funded by MAPS III (for OKC portion), the suburban communities it services (Edmond, Moore, Norman), and state/federal funds

[brianinok]

BDP

[drumsncode]

I heard Kelly last night too, and I like to weigh his opinions, but I don't think Kelly "feels" the pain of living in Edmond and wanting to work downtown every day from 8 to 5pm. He has a quick jaunt to 7401 N. Kelly by the back roads, and that's why he thinks it's easy to get around this town.

I actually hate driving downtown at 7:15am so much that I stopped applying for jobs down there years ago.

If I could park somewhere around Mitch Park in Edmond and catch something to the heart of downtown, it would have the potential to change my world, especially when gas hits $4 a gallon as we know it will someday.

[soonerguru]

Ogle [shocker] misses the point: the density will be spurred by the development, as it did in Dallas. People will build and develop on rail lines, increasing development in the inner city. This is a good thing.

All the idiots like Ogle can continue driving their large SUVs to drab shopping centers and subdivisions, and those of us who prefer a different lifestyle will at least have an alternative to the bleak loneliness.

By the way, the system is not being built for the Channel 9 uberdork. It's being built for people who don't want to spend $240 a month on gasoline.

Also, the system we build will not come online for years. Therefore, we are planning ahead. There are no guarantees that everything will come up roses, but there are plenty of cities who have added rail transportation to success.

For all we know, rail may do better here than it does in the Denvers and Memphises of the world.