OKC Regional Transit System

[shawnw]

They've since been tweeting the info so I rescind my befuddlement

[LocoAko]

Just a reminder that this is tonight at 6:30PM.

Zoom link: https://bit.ly/3rxm8DP

[warreng88]

Just a reminder that this is tonight at 6:30PM.

Zoom link: https://bit.ly/3rxm8DP

Just started.

[bombermwc]

I'm a little surprised that they're starting to talk about the commuter stuff now. MWC/DC just ripped out yet another crossing of the line they would use. I mean i guess they would have had to re-do it anyway and the right of way is really the "win" on that line. But it just seems odd to be bringing up these conversations at the same time the burbs that will be served are pulling up the lines.

[shawnw]

I was disappointed that they were saying it would likely be 3-5 years before a funding vote. But I'm willing to be patient and let this early process play out.

[Plutonic Panda]

Wow 3-4 years before we even see a funding vote? I mean I guess at this point it seems reasonable given they haven’t had one yet but that seems to mean we won’t see any large projects merely break ground before the end of this decade at best. Back in the early part of the last decade I thought they had planned to basically have commuter rail up and running by now or in a couple years.

[Hutch]

I'm a little surprised that they're starting to talk about the commuter stuff now. MWC/DC just ripped out yet another crossing of the line they would use. I mean i guess they would have had to re-do it anyway and the right of way is really the "win" on that line. But it just seems odd to be bringing up these conversations at the same time the burbs that will be served are pulling up the lines.

I wasn't aware of that issue. Can you provide some more detail on where the tracks have been removed. I'm assuming you're referring to them being taken out where they cross certain city streets.

[shawnw]

Wow 3-4 years before we even see a funding vote? I mean I guess at this point it seems reasonable given they haven’t had one yet but that seems to mean we won’t see any large projects merely break ground before the end of this decade at best. Back in the early part of the last decade I thought they had planned to basically have commuter rail up and running by now or in a couple years.

Just because the funding vote is that far out doesn't mean there won't be funding before then. They talked about getting federal funds and grants and such first. I suspect they're just putting space between tax votes to make it more palatable.

[shawnw]

I'm a little surprised that they're starting to talk about the commuter stuff now. MWC/DC just ripped out yet another crossing of the line they would use. I mean i guess they would have had to re-do it anyway and the right of way is really the "win" on that line. But it just seems odd to be bringing up these conversations at the same time the burbs that will be served are pulling up the lines.

I thought they just paved over it?

But also, it's possible the existing line was not 100% good to go, there may have needed to be some degree of refurbishment or replacement on portions of the line regardless. Those points being where tons of vehicles have traveled on top of over the years seems like a reasonable possibilty.

But I'm no expert and I don't play one on TV.

[Hutch]

Wow 3-4 years before we even see a funding vote? I mean I guess at this point it seems reasonable given they havenÂ’t had one yet but that seems to mean we wonÂ’t see any large projects merely break ground before the end of this decade at best. Back in the early part of the last decade I thought they had planned to basically have commuter rail up and running by now or in a couple years.

When the RTA completes the current system plan and commuter corridors study update by the end of this year, we'll be technically prepared from a planning perspective to apply for federal funding and enter the development pipeline. However, beyond the planning documents, the FTA needs to see that the RTA has a dedicated funding source. That requires a regional vote on a dedicated sales tax, and the decision of when to move forward with a vote is up to the leadership of the six member cities. More than anything else, that decision will determine when development begins and the system becomes operational.

Getting all six cities to agree to create the RTA and fund its preliminary governance and planning work was the easy part. Getting all six cities to agree on when to hold a regional sales tax vote to fund the RTA will be more challenging. The one thing that will help get us there sooner rather than later will be a strong show of support from the citizens in each of the member cities for funding and building a regional transit system.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ Just curious, but can a single city hold everything up? Let’s say all cities except one agree on the tax, what happens?

[Hutch]

^^^ Just curious, but can a single city hold everything up? LetÂ’s say all cities except one agree on the tax, what happens?

When the referendum discussions seriously begin, if a particular city decides it does not support a tax vote, they would leave the RTA and the remaining cities would move forward without them. If the referendum passed and system development began, that city would not receive stations or service. Hopefully, that won't happen.

[Plutonic Panda]

Do you anticipate any serious talks starting this year?

[Plutonic Panda]

Just because the funding vote is that far out doesn't mean there won't be funding before then. They talked about getting federal funds and grants and such first. I suspect they're just putting space between tax votes to make it more palatable.

Unless I’m misinterpreting Hutch’s post, the RTA can’t get federal funding until stable dedicated revenue source is present. Maybe I misunderstood.

Even if this is the case, I wonder if they can at least apply and get provisional funding earmarked for when the time comes they can use it.

[Hutch]

Unless I’m misinterpreting Hutch’s post, the RTA can’t get federal funding until stable dedicated revenue source is present. Maybe I misunderstood.

Even if this is the case, I wonder if they can at least apply and get provisional funding earmarked for when the time comes they can use it.

The FTA grant process requires submission of detailed, long-term financial plans, including documentation of revenue streams.

Transit system grant funding is often scarce and the demand is high. We won't get a placeholder. We'll have to prove we're ready to go.

[Plutonic Panda]

The FTA grant process requires submission of detailed, long-term financial plans, including documentation of revenue streams.

Transit system grant funding is often scarce and the demand is high. We won't get a placeholder. We'll have to prove we're ready to go.

Historically speaking though. You don’t think that will change under Biden’s leadership? Personally, as someone who loves his cars and freeways, I am worried about the future of large, multi billion dollar freeways projects getting much federal funding. But for trains and mass transit, I see funding for it going way up with new leadership.

[Hutch]

Historically speaking though. You donÂ’t think that will change under BidenÂ’s leadership? Personally, as someone who loves his cars and freeways, I am worried about the future of large, multi billion dollar freeways projects getting much federal funding. But for trains and mass transit, I see funding for it going way up with new leadership.

I agree that federal funding for local transit systems and inter-city passenger rail, including high-speed rail, will likely see a significant increase under the new administration. However, existing systems are facing serious shortfalls and there are numerous existing unfunded projects that are ready to go. Even with a large increase in federal funding, those dollars will still be in high demand, and we'll have to be very competitive if we hope to get our share.

[HOT ROD]

Hutch, qq about funding source(s). So far you've only mentioned sales tax increase in the member cities; are they open to other/additional options?

I personally think Sales Tax should not be the only component and IMO shouldn't even be used for operations at all but instead for capital expenditures (like a separate 'MAPS for Transit') to rapidly accelerate the system.

We should have a variety of sources including property tax, gas tax, vehicle tax, and perhaps funds from the county(ies) and state. When you consider ALL of these sources are historically low, a very small increase for regional (and local) transit shouldn't be that big of a bite when compared to the higher sales tax (that is used for city operations ..).

Imagine a 1/8% property tax assessment for Oklahoma and Cleveland counties (in member city boundaries), a $0.25 cent per gallon, $20 RTA vehicle license, and some level of county/state contribution - should bring in a lot of $$M annually for the system while only costing the average person $100 a year or less. I'd also do similarly for Embark in general, making it for the city (and inner suburbs) only.

We need to get on the ball with transit as a city/metro area; having a variety of funds reduces the burden overall while providing steady streams that are much more reliable than sales tax. I'd keep the sales tax for one-time transit capital funding but implement the other sources for sustaining maintenance and operations...

[Plutonic Panda]

Taking revenue from cars to fund mass transit will quickly result in me and I’m sure many others opposing this entirely.

[Plutonic Panda]

Now I do agree there should be other ways of funding the system than just a sales tax.

[AnguisHerba]

Taking revenue from cars to fund mass transit will quickly result in me and I’m sure many others opposing this entirely.

Why? Taking people off the road through mass transit delays the need for road maintenance and improves traffic flow. All good things for cars. Think of it as a demand side management tool rather than a supply side (building new roads) tool.

[Plutonic Panda]

Why? Taking people off the road through mass transit delays the need for road maintenance and improves traffic flow. All good things for cars. Think of it as a demand side management tool rather than a supply side (building new roads) tool.

Because roads need all the funding they can get. They are underfunded as is. We have a serious issue in this country about people not wanting to spend the amount of money it takes to have good infrastructure as well as other things.

I’m all for the RTA getting a wide variety of taxes(I believe that’s how measure M in LA is funded) but I don’t support taking it from cars. All taxes paid from car drivers as a result of driving should go directly to roads and roads only.

[HangryHippo]

We have a serious issue in this country about people not wanting to spend the amount of money it takes to have good infrastructure as well as other things.

100% this.

[GoGators]

Because roads need all the funding they can get. They are underfunded as is. We have a serious issue in this country about people not wanting to spend the amount of money it takes to have good infrastructure as well as other things.

I’m all for the RTA getting a wide variety of taxes(I believe that’s how measure M in LA is funded) but I don’t support taking it from cars. All taxes paid from car drivers as a result of driving should go directly to roads and roads only.

All taxes going to roads should be funded by taxes paid from car drivers and car drivers only.

Take the billions of dollars that are currently funding roads that aren't paid for by vehicle users and give some to transit. Everybody wins.

[Plutonic Panda]

All taxes going to roads should be funded by taxes paid from car drivers and car drivers only.

Take the billions of dollars that are currently funding roads that aren't paid for by vehicle users and give some to transit. Everybody wins.

Okay and apply that same logic to subways and Amtrak and watch how high the price of a ticket gets. That’s ridiculous.