OKC Regional Transit System

[BoulderSooner]

Its an opinion board right? Or is there a test I missed?

If not mistaken your opinions are based on using existing rail line which is a pipe dream “in my opinion”.

We are decades away from a real rail solution and up and running. Where will funding come from?

we are not very far away from having a vote to fund the Regional transit Authority that was formed recently

if that vote passes we WILL get regional commuter rail

[OKC Guy]

we are not very far away from having a vote to fund the Regional transit Authority that was formed recently

if that vote passes we WILL get regional commuter rail

My opinion still stands that it will take a few decades at best to get this to all outer 4 corners.

[shawnw]

If you've read the fixed guideway study the four corners aren't even planned (for commuter rail). Yes it will probably take a decade or more to get Norman/Edmond done, but I don't think anybody thought it would be five years or less.

[OKC Guy]

If you've read the fixed guideway study the four corners aren't even planned (for commuter rail). Yes it will probably take a decade or more to get Norman/Edmond done, but I don't think anybody thought it would be five years or less.

Which was my original post/point. Thanks

[shawnw]

I'm not sure anyone here was arguing to the contrary. Those paying attention have long known this was a long game.

[fightlessllama]

Some very perceptive comments.

At the last RTA meeting, our consultants briefed us on their detailed analysis of the BNSF corridor between Edmond and Norman. Based on the significant amount of freight service through the corridor, their recommendation is to acquire a portion of the BNSF right-of-way and install a separate dedicated commuter rail line. Throughout most of the corridor, the ROW has enough extra space to allow for it. And while there are several expected pinch points that would need to be resolved (mostly additional bridges), overall it appears very workable. Surprisingly, they were able to layout a preliminary alignment with only a single flyover to switch sides of the ROW that avoids all BNSF sidings and yards, does not interfere with freight service to companies along the line, and most importantly does not require switching across a single BNSF freight track. While additional technical reviews and discussions with BNSF are still required, the initial work is very positive.

Station spacing was also briefly discussed, and the consultants noted that the number of proposed commuter rail stations along the corridor from earlier studies likely needs to be reduced to some degree for optimal travel times and similar to other successful systems.

Does it feel like all this talk about too many stations is overblown? The current amount doesn't seem too crazy and nobody is advocating for more stations besides maybe two additional ones that people mentioned North of Edmond and in Guthrie. Also, there was the talk about taking away the station from OU-Norman earlier in the thread. All those stations would either be at the end or second to the end of the line and they don't affect the commute of all the existing stations. Yeah if you're commuting from Purcell all the way to Guthrie it's not going to be the fastest route but then again it was never going to be that.

It just seems crazy that some people are advocating for dropping the 23rd st station so there wouldn't be a single stop between the Chesapeake Energy/63rd station and downtown. That's a full 5-6 mile gap in coverage. People are expecting a hyperloop from their North Edmond living room to downtown. Elsewhere in this forum it was mentioned that the 23rd st corridor has the highest bus ridership and it's a natural connection point for future light rail or bus rapid transit. I guess you could make an argument for only one Moore station and maybe even cutting the Capital Hill station but I truly hope these "consultants" don't convince people that central and south okc should miss out on a completely reasonable and fair number of commuter stops. Otherwise we're looking at a bunch of park-and-rides and nowhere to park and ride to.

[Teo9969]

Does it feel like all this talk about too many stations is overblown? The current amount doesn't seem too crazy and nobody is advocating for more stations besides maybe two additional ones that people mentioned North of Edmond and in Guthrie. Also, there was the talk about taking away the station from OU-Norman earlier in the thread. All those stations would either be at the end or second to the end of the line and they don't affect the commute of all the existing stations. Yeah if you're commuting from Purcell all the way to Guthrie it's not going to be the fastest route but then again it was never going to be that.

It just seems crazy that some people are advocating for dropping the 23rd st station so there wouldn't be a single stop between the Chesapeake Energy/63rd station and downtown. That's a full 5-6 mile gap in coverage. People are expecting a hyperloop from their North Edmond living room to downtown. Elsewhere in this forum it was mentioned that the 23rd st corridor has the highest bus ridership and it's a natural connection point for future light rail or bus rapid transit. I guess you could make an argument for only one Moore station and maybe even cutting the Capital Hill station but I truly hope these "consultants" don't convince people that central and south okc should miss out on a completely reasonable and fair number of commuter stops. Otherwise we're looking at a bunch of park-and-rides and nowhere to park and ride to.

I think the question is how many people are going to go from Edmond/Norman to 23rd Street directly? If Broadway to the Capitol and the Capitol complex in general were more walkable, I could maybe see it, but at present, I think it can be left off for now. If in the future the density and demand can be proven, then the stop can always be added later.

[shawnw]

Also if HSC/Capitol has a streetcar line by the time commuter rail comes online (not that that's any kind of certainty), a commuter rail stop might be unnecessary...

(to be clear I'd prefer a 23rd street stop initially because neighborhoods)

[d-usa]

Rapid Rail should be the feeder line from communities to communities, and then you should be able to transit to more local destinations from each station. Adding to many stops will slow the rapid in rapid transitz

[dankrutka]

If you want to see what not to do, come check out the A-Train to DART green line until it gets downtown. It’s all Park and Ride. It’s so poorly designed.

[fightlessllama]

Rapid Rail should be the feeder line from communities to communities, and then you should be able to transit to more local destinations from each station. Adding to many stops will slow the rapid in rapid transitz

Then I'm confused. Why would OKC even join and help pay for the regional transit system if they only get two OKC stops - downtown and the south OKC one (The 63rd St stop basically being Nichols Hills and assuming we're cutting the 23rd St and Capital Hill stops) ? It sounds like your vision for the system is to quickly transport Norman and Edmond residents to their job in downtown OKC and then quickly transport them back home. How does OKC benefit?

New businesses? Edmond and Norman residents are already content to sit in traffic for an hour to get to their jobs in OKC so I don't see it inducing too much job creation that wouldn't already naturally be created. New sales tax? Again, they already drive to OKC to spend money. New transit oriented development? OKC wouldn't get to create any besides at crossroads mall as the downtown station is already pretty transit oriented. And then finally you've already established that it's not picking up OKC commuters. It's like the boulevard all over again where we prioritized the quick commute of suburbanites over those who actually live in the city. Basically this transit line subsidizes the inefficient and unsustainable suburbs (which I would be okay with) but people want to also cut out access to OKC residents so Edmond/Norman residents can save 5 minutes on their commute. Again, why would OKC residents help pay for this when people are trying to cut out the benefits to OKC citizens?

[shawnw]

According to ACOG 50% of the Cleveland County workforce commutes to Oklahoma County each day, there are a multitude of benefits to getting as much of that traffic off the road as possible. Also, if the "regional" transit authority favored OKC that could make the tax vote in those areas a harder sell.

(that said I am in favor of a 23rd stop)

[d-usa]

Then I'm confused. Why would OKC even join and help pay for the regional transit system if they only get two OKC stops - downtown and the south OKC one (The 63rd St stop basically being Nichols Hills and assuming we're cutting the 23rd St and Capital Hill stops) ? It sounds like your vision for the system is to quickly transport Norman and Edmond residents to their job in downtown OKC and then quickly transport them back home. How does OKC benefit?

New businesses? Edmond and Norman residents are already content to sit in traffic for an hour to get to their jobs in OKC so I don't see it inducing too much job creation that wouldn't already naturally be created. New sales tax? Again, they already drive to OKC to spend money. New transit oriented development? OKC wouldn't get to create any besides at crossroads mall as the downtown station is already pretty transit oriented. And then finally you've already established that it's not picking up OKC commuters. It's like the boulevard all over again where we prioritized the quick commute of suburbanites over those who actually live in the city. Basically this transit line subsidizes the inefficient and unsustainable suburbs (which I would be okay with) but people want to also cut out access to OKC residents so Edmond/Norman residents can save 5 minutes on their commute. Again, why would OKC residents help pay for this when people are trying to cut out the benefits to OKC citizens?

It’s almost like I answered that in the quoted post...

But they

[fightlessllama]

It’s almost like I answered that in the quoted post...

But they

But you didn't... You basically said "Big train must go fast. Too many stops in OKC make big train go not fast." And I'm saying that in that case it primarily benefits Norman and Edmond. OKC has an obligation to look out for its citizens, not those of the suburbs. Now we could have a win-win for both OKC and the suburbs but it isn't going to happen by cutting service to OKC citizens.

According to ACOG 50% of the Cleveland County workforce commutes to Oklahoma County each day, there are a multitude of benefits to getting as much of that traffic off the road as possible. Also, if the "regional" transit authority favored OKC that could make the tax vote in those areas a harder sell.

(that said I am in favor of a 23rd stop)

I feel like this furthers my point. 50% of OKC isn't commuting to Cleveland County or Edmond. This primarily benefits the suburbs and not OKC. So it kinda sounds like the "regional" transit authority favors the suburbs and that will make the tax vote in OKC a harder sell. But don't get me wrong, there are still benefits to OKC like less parking garages needed downtown, being able to take the train to OU football games, etc but when the suburbs are getting so many stations and benefits while people want OKC to get so few, it starts to make the whole transit system feel a little lopsided.

[d-usa]

Rapid Rail should be the feeder line from communities to communities, and then you should be able to transit to more local destinations from each station. Adding to many stops will slow the rapid in rapid transitz

I guess I can try to explain it a different way then:

Rapid Rail is for transit from a big central place (Edmond/Village/Downtown/Moore/Norman) to another big central place.

Once you get to big central place, you switch to local transit to get to many smaller places.

If you want public transit you need a system that can move large amounts of people from one big area to another, and a system that can then break up those big groups of people and deliver them to their individual destinations or pick them up from small areas and take them to the big central area to get on the fast train.

This involves having to change modes of transit, from a bus in Edmond, to Rapid Rail, to a streetcar in Downtown as an example. I think the frequent talk about Park & Ride are expecting something different than a feeder line. If we had enough Right of Way we could run both: an express train that stops at the big spots, and another train that stops at every stop.

[d-usa]

The benefit for OKC, aside from being able to transit to the suburbs where stuff happens as well, can include:

- reduced traffic
- increases business from folks leaving the suburbs to spend money in OKC proper.
- increased marketability if the city as a destination for new businesses and new employees by making it easy to work inside the city while living outside the city

[HOT ROD]

Does it feel like all this talk about too many stations is overblown? The current amount doesn't seem too crazy and nobody is advocating for more stations besides maybe two additional ones that people mentioned North of Edmond and in Guthrie. Also, there was the talk about taking away the station from OU-Norman earlier in the thread. All those stations would either be at the end or second to the end of the line and they don't affect the commute of all the existing stations. Yeah if you're commuting from Purcell all the way to Guthrie it's not going to be the fastest route but then again it was never going to be that.

It just seems crazy that some people are advocating for dropping the 23rd st station so there wouldn't be a single stop between the Chesapeake Energy/63rd station and downtown. That's a full 5-6 mile gap in coverage. People are expecting a hyperloop from their North Edmond living room to downtown. Elsewhere in this forum it was mentioned that the 23rd st corridor has the highest bus ridership and it's a natural connection point for future light rail or bus rapid transit. I guess you could make an argument for only one Moore station and maybe even cutting the Capital Hill station but I truly hope these "consultants" don't convince people that central and south okc should miss out on a completely reasonable and fair number of commuter stops. Otherwise we're looking at a bunch of park-and-rides and nowhere to park and ride to.

its because this will be a commuter rail line. If it were a light rail line then most would definitely agree that 23rd is a must. But commuter rail has fewer stops at major destinations - this is what we're building.

Let me give you an example of where I live: here in Seattle there is only ONE commuter rail stop and it is in downtown Seattle. This despite Seattle being about 25 miles end-to-end N-S, which is the direction CR goes. North of Seattle there are stops at the suburbs Edmonds (yes, we use an S at the end), Mukilteo before getting to the terminus in downtown Everett. South of Seattle there are stops at suburbs Renton, Kent, Auburn before terminating in downtown Tacoma or Lakewood (Tacoma suburb further south). Could we have an additional stop inside the city of Seattle? Sure. But it would make the system inefficient - that's the key with CR, lots of folks at the major destinations.

We're advocating OKC to have 3-4 stops in its city limits (not just one like Seattle). Downtown-63rd-Memorial or 122nd going North and Crossroads going south - these are natural 'destinations' of how OKC is laid out and despite also being 25 miles N-S, OKC isn't set up with a line of suburbs the same way Seattle is, OKC's suburbs are radial.

Anyway, Seattle does have and is building light rail as well which has/will have 5 stops in Seattle city limits north of downtown and has about 4 stops in southern Seattle limits.

I hope this illustrates the difference in rail technology and expectations of stops.

[HOT ROD]

OKC residents also benefit from being able to possibly use the system at OKC stops to go to the suburbs. And it isn't just OKC residents paying but the suburbs. Also consider OKC will have the most track mileage AND the biggest station/destination.

OKC would have 4 stops in city limits (122nd or Memorial, 63rd, Downtown, and Crossroads). These are totally appropriate for Commuter Rail in terms of spacing and the current rail alignment N-S. Also these are major destinations (63rd, Crossroads) or obvious connections points where additional transit modes could intersect.

If OKC were a bit more dense, one could argue a stop for Britton, 23rd, and Capital Hill (also major destinations or intersection) but this would negate the efficiency of being a Commuter Rail in the same way that Sounder doesn't have a signal stop in the city of Seattle other than one downtown. These destinations are better served with other transit mode(s), again like what is done in Seattle. ..

[Plutonic Panda]

Rail doesn’t reduce traffic though. That said, I support this rail line and the logic that it won’t directly support OKC if it doesn’t have a grocery list of stops is ridiculous. Light rail should serve that purpose. Commuter rail, not so much. Your tax dollars go to building roads in Alaska you’ll likely never drive on. On top of that this is regional tax if not mistaken, so it isn’t only OKC’s money going into this.

[GoGators]

The benefit for OKC, aside from being able to transit to the suburbs where stuff happens as well, can include:

- reduced traffic
- increases business from folks leaving the suburbs to spend money in OKC proper.
- increased marketability if the city as a destination for new businesses and new employees by making it easy to work inside the city while living outside the city

Why would a city want to make it easier for someone to live outside of it? What does a city benefit by doing that? During the interstate boom cities raised or segregated tons of inner city neighborhoods and destroyed incredibly valuable real estate in the attempt to make it easier for people to live somewhere else. Needless to say, It didn’t work out well for cities.

[d-usa]

They gain:

- people spending money inside the city and contributing to the tax base, without needing as many resources in the budget as people living inside the city.
- increase in tourism income
- increase in income from businesses moving to the city and hiring more people.
- some people will move to the city knowing they can easily reach the suburbs if they want to work there or go there for recreation

[fightlessllama]

its because this will be a commuter rail line. If it were a light rail line then most would definitely agree that 23rd is a must. But commuter rail has fewer stops at major destinations - this is what we're building.

Let me give you an example of where I live: here in Seattle there is only ONE commuter rail stop and it is in downtown Seattle. This despite Seattle being about 25 miles end-to-end N-S, which is the direction CR goes. North of Seattle there are stops at the suburbs Edmonds (yes, we use an S at the end), Mukilteo before getting to the terminus in downtown Everett. South of Seattle there are stops at suburbs Renton, Kent, Auburn before terminating in downtown Tacoma or Lakewood (Tacoma suburb further south). Could we have an additional stop inside the city of Seattle? Sure. But it would make the system inefficient - that's the key with CR, lots of folks at the major destinations.

We're advocating OKC to have 3-4 stops in its city limits (not just one like Seattle). Downtown-63rd-Memorial or 122nd going North and Crossroads going south - these are natural 'destinations' of how OKC is laid out and despite also being 25 miles N-S, OKC isn't set up with a line of suburbs the same way Seattle is, OKC's suburbs are radial.

Anyway, Seattle does have and is building light rail as well which has/will have 5 stops in Seattle city limits north of downtown and has about 4 stops in southern Seattle limits.

I hope this illustrates the difference in rail technology and expectations of stops.

I'm actually glad you brought up Seattle. It got me reading about how their system works and was funded. It's only solidified my opinion. From wiki:
"The predecessor to Sound Transit was a 1995 ballot measure that was rejected by voters because of its $6.7 billion cost.[7] The first Sound Transit ballot measure passed in 1996 as the current mix of buses, commuter rail and light rail, at a cost of $3.9 billion. By proposing a much smaller light rail system, the remaining funds could be used for the two other services, ensuring that the entire Seattle area received services from the measure.“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Transit

Seattle got light rail as part of the deal for the suburbs’ commuter rail. It sounds like their regional transit plan acknowledged that the commuter rail was of primary benefit to the suburbs so they threw it in to balance out the light rail which was of primary benefit to Seattle city proper. (you could even argue that this deal favored the city but maybe Seattle paid a higher percentage, I don't know) But all this talk acting like the commuter rail will bring people into the city where they can transfer over to local transit like light rail. I sincerely doubt we get light rail in even the next 40 years unless its packaged with this transit system. So unless that happens, its utility is decreased and its benefit to OKC taxpayers is negligible if not downright wasteful.

Also, Seattle’s commuter rail schedule: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/d...er-service.pdf
Doesn’t really seem like it has much service for Seattle citizens going to the suburbs. Looks like 90% of the schedule is designed to get commuters downtown during rush hour and then get them back home before the last train leaves at 6:30 pm. So not designed to increase sales tax as nobody can even stay in the city past 6:30.

[fightlessllama]

Rail doesn’t reduce traffic though. That said, I support this rail line and the logic that it won’t directly support OKC if it doesn’t have a grocery list of stops is ridiculous. Light rail should serve that purpose. Commuter rail, not so much. Your tax dollars go to building roads in Alaska you’ll likely never drive on. On top of that this is regional tax if not mistaken, so it isn’t only OKC’s money going into this.

Yeah I hope my state and city money don’t go to building roads in Alaska… If this was state or federal money building the commuter rail I would be fine. But it sounds like OKC money (in addition to suburb money) building “COMMUTER” rail for suburban “COMMUTERS”

[fightlessllama]

The benefit for OKC, aside from being able to transit to the suburbs where stuff happens as well, can include:

- reduced traffic
- increases business from folks leaving the suburbs to spend money in OKC proper.
- increased marketability if the city as a destination for new businesses and new employees by making it easy to work inside the city while living outside the city

They gain:

- people spending money inside the city and contributing to the tax base, without needing as many resources in the budget as people living inside the city.
- increase in tourism income
- increase in income from businesses moving to the city and hiring more people.
- some people will move to the city knowing they can easily reach the suburbs if they want to work there or go there for recreation

These are for the most part good points. But I’m still saying that the benefits to OKC that you’ve outlined aren’t necessarily worth the money spent and pale in comparison to the benefits the suburbs get out of the deal. And also lets see:

- plutonic panda touched on it but train’s don’t necessarily reduce freeway traffic. The induced demand of freeways for the most part ensures they’re going to eventually reach capacity but the commuter rail gives suburban commuters the ability to not have to sit in that traffic.
- the trains operate on a commuter schedule and aren’t conducive to people riding downtown to spend money not to mention what I can only assume is an abysmal weekend schedule
- Yes this could help our city in attracting businesses and I’m excited by the possibility of it making us more like a “big league city” but try selling that unmeasurable concept to taxpayers
- “increase in tourism income” - I would be amazed
- more unmeasurable concepts, etc

Seriously not trying to be a troll. Just a concerned OKC taxpayer, who even grew up in the suburbs, that recognizes a raw deal when he see’s one. (all this being years away but I would rather the discussion start now before we're too far gone)

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah I hope my state and city money don’t go to building roads in Alaska… If this was state or federal money building the commuter rail I would be fine. But it sounds like OKC money (in addition to suburb money) building “COMMUTER” rail for suburban “COMMUTERS”

The point I’m making with that comment is infrastructure is for the greater good. This is a regional effort to connect the metro. People need to understand that, especially those like GoGators. Like it or not these suburbs are part of the city and idealistic views are just that. Favor sprawl or not, it’s important to connect the suburbs and offer them an alternative. This type of rail is common in many major cities in the US.

PS, this comment isn’t necessarily directed entirely at you. Just some general points.