Just back from DC...

[Superhyper]

As the title suggests, I just returned from a week's trip in DC. I was very struck by how little people rely on cars there. I know this is fairly common in most east-coast cities, but it was definitely a new approach for me to walk and take the Metro everywhere. It's the most exercise I've gotten in years . Does anyone think we'll ever be able to reach that level of development/density here in the midwest/southwest? It sure would be nice, I think that'd tackle obesity, part of carbon emissions, and fuel prices all in one go.

[soonerfever]

Well Chicago and St. Louis already have mass transit system in place. I am sure that it is just a matter of time before Kansas City, Tulsa, or of course OKC start to build their own. The problem is that you have to convince people to use the systems. Most people don't want to leave their vehicles behind. I have used both New York's and Chicago's systems and they were both so easy to use. I went all over Manhattan and never even worried about having a car. Granted that was Manhattan and everything you could ever need is just around the corner.

[PennyQuilts]

Don't mean to rain on your parade but ...

If you look at the obesity rates in DC, they are really, really high. If you look at the air quality rates, they are really, really bad. When I visit my kids in NYC, I swear the air is tons cleaner than in DC. DC's air is gross. They are constantly having bad air alerts.

If you are near the Metro, it makes it nice to get around. The auto traffic, however, makes the DC area one of the most congested in the nation. Forbes recently posted that DC has the third worst commute in the nation - 69 hours a year on average.

Here is the deal - most people living "outside the beltway" have to drive, for the most part. I95, which is the main interstate along the East Coast, goes right through DC so in addition to local traffic, you get travelers.

Most people can't afford to live inside the beltway so commuting is a fact of life in this area. Typically, they drive to the furthest outlying metro stations that have a parking lot, then transfer to the Metro for the rest of their commute. The point being that many of people using the Metro aren't walking to the station. If they aren't tourists, they are likely to have driven to the station before commuting on in.

The fastest growing "suburb" of DC is Winchester, which is about an hour and 20 minutes with good traffic due west of the nearest Metro stations. People coming from Winchester drive cars before switching to the Metro. If they come in on I66, the commute is murder. At rush hour, plan on a couple of hours to drive the last 10 miles into DC. That is on top of the drive in from Winchester.

We live south of DC and my husband drives to the train station, then takes the commuter train to work. He has a three hour commute (total) per work day. He doesn't even get to a metro station until he has ridden on the train about 45 minutes. Many people commute from even further away because housing is so expensive. Fredericksburg is the end of the southern commuter train line, about 60 miles straight south. Many, many people make that commute, daily. About three years ago, Fredericksburg was the fastest growing city in the USA by some reports. Some people drive from Culpeper (another 25 miles) to catch the commuter train in Fredericksburg. Frequently in the winter, the trains are down so people have to drive in, anyway. The trains are NOT reliable.

In touristy areas you have no idea how awful the auto traffic is because the Metro is just so convenient. It is just that relatively few people actually LIVE near a station. Moreover, the local taxes are so terrible in DC that many people look for homes outside of the District.

I pray devoutly that Oklahoma never gets this congested. If things ever got as dense as they are in DC, you really wouldn't save anything because the number of cars on the road just to GET to the stations would be more than you can imagine.

As for other east coast cities commonly having a metro-like system, some do but the vast majority don't. Also, if you looked at the busses in DC - just like in OKC, most are 3/4 empty. They need the busses, for sure, because frequently, the Metro is malfunctioning and they need to bus people to different stations.

If all I saw was the touristy areas, I can see why you'd have this impression. Seriously, the traffic is so bad here that to drop my dog off at the vet at 7:00, I have to leave my house by 5:30 a.m. Much of that commute is sitting in traffic creeping along, wasting gas.

[mecarr]

If OKC ever gets to the point of mass transportation similar to ones in DC or NYC, it'll be decades. The leadership for such a project just doesn't exist. This state just won't fund the programs necessary to achieve a true mass transportation society. Instead, the state gov whines about tax cuts.

[Luke]

I have a question...

Is there any sort of privatized mass transit system anywhere?

If not, what is the closest to that? Just curious...

[swilki]

you all should check out this post. i think he is really on to something here. the city needs to get a taste of how effective mass transit can be. metrotransit, in my opinion, doesn't leave many with a good taste. with all of the growth going on downtown (devon, nba, etc.) the time is perfect. lets start small and dream big.

[jstanthrnme]

I have a question...

Is there any sort of privatized mass transit system anywhere?

If not, what is the closest to that? Just curious...

Would it not be the monorail on the Vegas strip?

Back to topic, after visiting DC many many times, it seems the entire metro area is accessible by subway or bus. And lets not forget Amtraks web of service in the area. Many suburban commuters there only drive as far as a Kiss & Ride, if they don't use the busses. And yet many others still drive, but circumstances probably prohibit mass transit.

[Thunder]

It sure would be nice, I think that'd tackle obesity, part of carbon emissions, and fuel prices all in one go.

Pffft! The oil companies will still keep the prices HIGH no matter what. When so many people buy gas, they use the high demand excuse. When there is a drastic reduction of gas usage, they'll scream and raise up the price to retain their precious salary.

[PennyQuilts]

Back to topic, after visiting DC many many times, it seems the entire metro area is accessible by subway or bus.

To compare the DC "Metro area" to Oklahoma City, you'd have to try to imagine an area FILLED with people that stretches from El Reno to Shawnee, Blanchard to Guthrie. D.C., proper, is less than 8 miles square (Think S 29th to Wilshire/ Rockwell to Kelly). The population density in DC, proper, is around 9,500 per square mile. To compare, Oklahoma City is about 600 square miles with about 850 people per square mile. But the actual Metro area, as you are aware, is not defined by city limits.

The Metro does cover most of the DC area but that is not where most people actually live. I’d definitely disagree that it covers most of the “Metro area.” By far the largest number of people who work in DC (the federal workers and contractors) live outside of DC. There are some areas where young people live in apartments but they are small and pricey and not geared for families – you mainly see interns living there. You can go to DuPont Circle or Georgetown but tourists may not realize that the price tags on those places place them out of range for most people. A house that would sell for $100,000 in OKC is going to draw over a million in DC, proper. Location, location, location. I don't know a single person who lives in DC, proper and I have lived and worked here 8 years. I used to work for the Commerce Department right by the White House and my husband still works for the same federal agency at L'enfant Circle where he has worked for ten years. Nobody we know lives in DC. Nobody. Couldn't name one. Even our bosses who have more money don't live there. Anything they could afford is not in a safe area. My daughter used to live in a tiny apartment in a shady area but she moved to NYC a couple of years ago.

DC, proper, had nearly 600,000 residents in 2006. However, most people working in DC live in surrounding counties. Fairfax County (a huge abutting county to the south) has over 1 million people. Montgomery County (one of the large abutting counties to the north) has nearly 950,000 people. Prince George’s county, directly to the east, has 850,000 people. There are several other jurisdictions abutting DC that have anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 residents, each.

Remember, the entire state of Oklahoma has just over 3,500,000 people.

A big drawback of the DC Metro that is constantly discussed around here is that is built like a spoke with the center hub downtown but no real way to go from suburb to suburb. The Metro lines (there are 9 “spokes”) extend out beyond the DC borders for about 3 miles (most less). Only a few have parking lots so you can't just drive to them and expect to park your car.

When I lived closer to town and worked in DC, I drove to the Metro station and then had a 30 minute Metro Ride to the center of town to work, which was very nice (we sold that house and I couldn’t afford to buy it back, today). However, when I wanted to transfer to a work location that was actually about 10 miles closer to home (as a crow flies), it would have added an additional 45 minute commute, both ways. That is because the only way to get to the new site was to take the Metro downtown and make a transfer to a different line. Imagine living in Norman and having to take the rail to OKC so that you could catch a rail to work in Newcastle.

The Metro works wonderfully for tourists or if you are living and working along one of the spokes. A lot of people also use it to get to cultural events in town after work if they are already there. However, as I previously posted, it can only go so far. The spoke design, prohibitive price of living within the district and lack of funds to extend it to where most of the workers live are real drawbacks. Much better, to my way of thinking, to stop having central work locations that people have to commute to. DC (the feds) are starting to decentralize to the extent they can because the commute and prohibitive costs of living nearby make the quality of life dismal. Raising a family is next to impossible if you are commuting 3 hours a day. If they put offices in outlying areas, the workers can afford homes and aren't spending hours in traffic. This is direction they've been going.

[OKCMallen]

It sure would be nice, I think that'd tackle obesity, part of carbon emissions, and fuel prices all in one go.

Actually, with our car culture in OKC, we would need high gas prices to force people onto mass transit

[PennyQuilts]

I tend to agree that the only thing that is going to change the car culture - anywhere - is if it gets too expensive to drive. In congested cities, the cost of parking is a huge factor that leads to going carless.

[NativeOkie]

OKC like many cities long ago had street cars. They were removed not by big oil.
GM and Ford Motor had a lot to do with that nationwide. There are many areas in the city where you can see the wide now grassy medians where the cable cars once traveled.

[Platemaker]

New Orleans style streetcars are the best option for OKC... even though everyone on OKCTalk loves to talk about commuter rail from Norman to Edmond. Streetcars traveling along much of thier original route would increase density as well as spur development and most importantly actually take people to where they live. And we should start Bricktown down Sheridan up through Midtown and along Shartel to 36th.... then span out fromt there.

[solitude]

To understand what happened to streetcars and mass transit in city after city, (including Oklahoma City) you have to (surprise) follow the money.


From James Howard Kunstler's "The Geography of Nowhere" (p.90):

By contrast to [public funding of highway construction], streetcar companies received little government support, and the organized auto interests conspired actively to kill them off. By the eve of the First World War, lines were already hard-pressed to make a profit-- and as private companies, with stockholders, they had to make a profit to justify their existence. Many companies were stuck with guaranteed nickle fares under franchises that granted them the right to operate on city streets. These cheap fares were a political gimmick that required private streetcar companies to subsidize transportation for the poor. City governments wouldn't allow them to cease operating unprofitable routes, but neither would they help defray the expense of operation ... The streetcar companies were far from blameless in their own demise. Some watered their stock shamelessly. Others rose and fell with the success of their associated real estate ventures.

In 1925, with the acquisition of the Yellow Coach company, the General Motors Corporation undertook a systematic campaign to put streetcar lines out of business all over America. General Motors erected a byzantine network of subsidiaries and holding companies to carry out its mission, using its financial muscle to buy up streetcar lines, scrap the tracks, and convert the routes for buses. ... In 1932, General Motors formed the United Cities Mobile Transit (UCMT) corporation to create a market for its products by taking over streetcar lines in small cities, and converting the lines to buses. UCMT was dissolved in 1935 after the American Transit Association censured it for trying to dismantle Portland, Oregon's electric trolley lines. But this didn't stop General Motors.

In 1936, a combination of General Motors parts suppliers, Standard Oil of California, and Firestone Tire and Rubber formed a company called National City Lines ... In 1943, [an] NCL affiliate, American City Lines, converted trolleys to buses in nineteen more cities, including Pacific Electric's "Big Red" trolley line in Los Angeles. A federal grand jury indicted GM for criminal conspiracy in the Los Angeles case in 1949, but the eventual fine of $5000 was about equal to the company's net profit on the sale of five Chevrolets. By 1950, General Motors had converted more than 100 electric streetcars to gasoline-powered buses.

This sordid tale of greed was finally aired in a 1974 investigation by the Senate's Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly chaired by Senator Philip A. Hart. But by that time it was ancient history and the damage could not be undone. General Motors defended its actions, saying that all the buses they had sold and their aggressive deployment of capital had given mass transportation a "new lease on life" at a time when "times where hard and transportation systems were collapsing." Anyway, the question of exchanging buses for streetcars tends to obscure the greater issue. General Motors' ultimate goal was to replace public transportation with private transportation, meaning the car, and in this they triumphed. The bus was only an excuse to rip up the trolley tracks, which cluttered up the street and represented a difficult and competing technology. By the time the Hart subcommittee held its hearings, only the lowest orders of society rode city buses. Everybody else was out on the freeway.

--------------------

There is even some evidence that GM along with Firestone and Standard Oil engaged in illegal business practices by putting streetcars out of business.

GM: Provides the buses.
Firestone: Provides the tires
Standard Oil: Provides the gasoline
Streetcars: Prevents the profits from all of the above. Must dismantle. And they did. The three companies and their subsidiaries bought up most of the streetcar lines for one purpose - to shut them down.

[NativeOkie]

That is true Solitude.
If memory is correct Belle Isle lake and power plant was created to generate power for the street cars in OKC.
Doug can you help?

[angel27]

Mass transit sounds to be needed and good and I'm all for it. By trolley, bus or rail, it seems like we should go to that. And I said I would use it. But its 100 degrees outside lately, and I can't think of walking anywhere but to my car... It would be much easier if we had more moderate weather.

[HOT ROD]

I think OKC has a great shot at Mass Transit - that being Commuter Rail from Guthrie to Norman via Downtown. OKC also has a great shot at getting a downtown light rail tram.

Aside from that, we'll need to increase density in OKC. In all honesty, this could easily be accomplished by deannexing much of the water reserve area that encompasses NE and SE Oklahoma County. If we trimmed that area off and still kept the 1 mile radial area of Stanley Draper; OKC would be 400 square miles - the size of Los Angeles; and the density would INSTANTLY become a much more respectable 1375 people per square mile.

We all know in the inner city, OKC exceeds 2000 people per square mile already - so just by trimming the areas that aren't even rural (as in watershed protected area) giving them to ACOG or Oklahoma County for management, OKC almost doubles in area density.

Of course, hopefully the inner Inner City can really densify and exceed 4000 people per square mile (downtown already does by the way) - then I think we can seriously begin talking about an integrated Mass Transit network.

but for now, I could easily see Commuter Rail from the N and S into downtown. This would be the easiest, cheapest, and fastest thing to develop. I also see the city implementing the downtown streetcar to further densify the most dense section of the city - downtown OKC.

[HOT ROD]

As for the DC comments, I just want to be clear to visitors - I used to live in DC area and my mom still does in Manassas; and the whole metro area is not the same as the downtown area of DC.

The same holds true for most big cities actually, although New York and Chicago BY FAR have the best mass/rapid transit networks. Even still, traffic in the two cities is still consistently the worse in the nation, just due to the size of the cities.

DC's is NICE, especially for the inner city and immediate suburbs - but go out from there and TRAFFIC is horrible. As was stated. But this needs to be realized, because DC only contains 580,000 people - but the Metro area contains 5M; and it's heavily underserved.

That's not to knock on DC, it developed its suburbs radially out - but it's only to offer prospective. Metro OKC is 1.4M in pretty close to the same land area.

[metro]

Mass transit sounds to be needed and good and I'm all for it. By trolley, bus or rail, it seems like we should go to that. And I said I would use it. But its 100 degrees outside lately, and I can't think of walking anywhere but to my car... It would be much easier if we had more moderate weather.

Well we have to work with what we've got. We can't change the weather, we have a decaying highway and street infrastructure, and virtually no mass transit in this city. We need to start with some commuter street lines downtown and expand to Midtown and after that succeeds build out towards the suburbs and into the suburbs if they kick in. Most modern mass transit is ac/heat controlled so that shouldn't be a factor. Miami has a good mass transit system.

[Superhyper]

Just curious, but does anyone know how old DC's metro system is? I know New York's is fairly old, and that might have something to do with how well it serves the city. It's had time to be gradually expanded over the years. I was under the impression that DC's is newer, but i'm really not sure about that. Obviously DC also suffers from having very built-up suburbs that are underserved, since most people commute into the city for work. OKC would have that issue as well considering it's fairly large suburbs (Norman, Edmond, Moore, etc...) so it should be considered seriously.

As for the DC comments, I just want to be clear to visitors - I used to live in DC area and my mom still does in Manassas; and the whole metro area is not the same as the downtown area of DC.

The same holds true for most big cities actually, although New York and Chicago BY FAR have the best mass/rapid transit networks. Even still, traffic in the two cities is still consistently the worse in the nation, just due to the size of the cities.

DC's is NICE, especially for the inner city and immediate suburbs - but go out from there and TRAFFIC is horrible. As was stated. But this needs to be realized, because DC only contains 580,000 people - but the Metro area contains 5M; and it's heavily underserved.

That's not to knock on DC, it developed its suburbs radially out - but it's only to offer prospective. Metro OKC is 1.4M in pretty close to the same land area.

[Platemaker]

Planning for the DC Metro began in the 50's... construction started in 1969... and the first segment opened in 1976.
So, yes, it is newer. Boston had the first subway... it opened in 1897.

[PennyQuilts]

Metro opened in 1976 so, you're right, it isn't as old as some. They keep talking about putting in a silver line to connect it with Dulles Airport out west (the lines are designated colors - green/yellow/red/blue/orange). The spoke design makes it less useable for workers living and working on the outskirts of the Metro system so they regularly kick around the notion of a purple line (sort of a loop or partial loop) to make it usable for working people. Dulles is quite a long way from DC and I personally have my doubts it will be done anytime, soon, if ever. A purple line to put a loop on the spokes would really be helpful but I wonder if it could handle the volume of people who could take advantage of it. At rush hour, the trains are pretty packed. More difficult would probably be getting the expensive land needed to lay tracks.

[OKCMallen]

Solitude: aside from anything illegal, what you're saying is the competition beat out street cars through acquisition. Got it. Nothing to see here.

[HOT ROD]

I was just going to say, DC's metro is roughly 30 years old. So considering the company of subway operators - DC is fairly young.

New York, Boston, and Chicago are the oldest subway systems - going far back into the 1800's.

[metro]

Philly's got a pretty good mass transit system as well. Let's not forget about San Fran as well.