MAPS 3 approaching...

[Midtowner]

I don't have clients. My employer does. I misspoke. Let me be more clear just so I don't mislead. I do have my intern's license, so I can do some things in court, but not all things and I report to a supervisor who is responsible for my work. This is sort of an extracurricular thing. I'm what you call a licensed legal intern.

The school being downtown wouldn't be much value to me because my office is in midtown, so I still need a car.

*and by "my" office, I mean my employer's office where I have a room/desk/chair/computer.

[BDP]

I don't want to end up with something that operates constantly in the red

You mean like roads?

Would a train even run over by St. Anthony's?

I think MidTown/St. Anthony's would be one of the best candidates to get a trolley stop if we put one in.

have to be able to take clients and myself to and from the courthouse, go file, etc. My time is too valuable to rely on public transit.

Would light rail trolleys downtown help you out in that respect?

Since light rail will be the most beneficial to the burbs, is there a way to get cities such as Edmond (my town), yukon, moore, norman, ect in with the vote?

Not sure why they would be interested as we keep spending hundreds of millions of dollars on roads so they can come and go from the city.

Honestly, I think we need to first build a trolley and bus system that serves the city and stop spending our money on building roads for the suburban and rural commuter and then if they want to join forces to build a mass transit commuter system one day, then I'd be all for that. But right now I think we need to focus on how we can use public transit to make the city itself a more attractive place in which to live.

That's why I think instead of trying to propose this as a metro wide billion dollar project, we scale it back and start with the core. Start with a downtown rail loop and use a restructured bus service to feed into it. After people here are introduced to public transit (most in OKC have never even ridden public transit anywhere), if they like it, then you could expand the rail service outwards. If that works, and the suburbs are interested in tying into the system, then look at commuter trains.

[SouthsideSooner]

Not an option for me. I have to be able to take clients and myself to and from the courthouse, go file, etc. My time is too valuable to rely on public transit.

Most people feel that their time is too valuable to rely on public transit.

Just because people mention in a survey that they want improved mass transit doesn't mean that they are willing to spend unlimited tax dollars to have it and unless it is convenient and no more time consuming than driving, it won't be used by the vast majority of our citizens. It will be an expensive amenity that will have very little impact on the use of personal vehicles or traffic congestion in OKC.

The ideas that have the best chance of succeeding are streetcar in the downtown area and improvement to our current bus system. The cost of light rail probably makes it too expensive a proposition.

Several city's are currently planning downtown streetcars. Albuquerque is about to begin construction of theirs at a cost of 28 million dollars a mile. Using those numbers a circular incompassing Lincoln, Walker, Reno and 10th would cost about 100 million dollars not including any land acquisition costs.

The cost to construct a Streetcar is approximately $28 million / mile. That cost includes all aspects, including steel rail, concrete, pedestrian friendly stops, traffic signals, maintenance facility, power source, utility reconstruction, roadway reconstruction, and vehicles.

Albuquerque's Modern Streetcar - City of Albuquerque

The current Metro Transit budget is 20 million dollars a year and there are numerous posts about how bad it is. How much more do we need to spend on it for it to be decent? The metro area spends $10.58 per service area resident for public transit versus an average of $59.14 with cities including Austin, Texas; Denver; Kansas City, Mo.; and Tucson, Ariz. If we spent that much, every penny of the MAPS tax wouldn't be enough to pay for it since the MAPS tax only generates about a 100 million dollars a year.

Officials unveil OKC metro mass transit plan | Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City) | Find Articles at BNET

Portland is continuing to expand their light rail system and the latest cost figures for construction are 69 million dollars per mile. Using their numbers, a light rail line from Edmond through downtown OKC and on to Norman would cost over 2.2 billion dollars and would take 22 years of MAPS tax to pay for it.

Portland: Light Rail's New Ridership Record, and Green Line Project Advances - Light Rail Now

5 more years of MAPS tax will generate about 500 million dollars. How much of that should be spent on mass transit?

[BDP]

Good points, Southside.

As a comparison, the new I-40 cross town is costing $133 million per mile and the widening of I-235/Hwy 77 from 36th to Memorial cost about $130 million per mile.

[OKCMallen]

You mean like roads?

Yeah, roads. That we pay for and CLEARLY use and CLEARLY need. Those operate heavily in the red because we don't charge people to get on them. We would presumably charge people to ride a TRAIN. Which we're not certain we CLEARLY need and we have no idea that we'd CLEARLY use. Because roads operate in the red, we should turn a blind eye to how much it would cost to ADD ADDITIONAL transit and keep it running?!

What's your point?

[BDP]

Using those numbers a circular incompassing Lincoln, Walker, Reno and 10th would cost about 100 million dollars not including any land acquisition costs.

I think that sounds good, especially if they do it in such a way that it's useful and effectively ties all of downtown together. I like the idea of spending the money to help strengthen to core's appeal, improve access to visitors, and give further boost to the assets previously created by MAPS. It could really push some of the outer districts over the top, just by the extra exposure they would get from a fixed traffic route moving people in and out of those districts all the time. And, as I mentioned before, it could actually be an attraction in and of itself, kind of like the street cars in New Orleans that pass through the garden district.

[Kerry]

I vote for a streetcar system that operates around a 3 mile radius of downtown for now followed by a commuter rail line to Norman and Edmond some time in the future. I still maintain that riding the street car should be free. The return on fares is so low as to not be worth it. Make the money to fund the system by advertising. You can cover the rail cars in advertising skins, on-board ads, and ads at transit stations. The ads could even be geared to the trolleys location on the tracks and time of day using led boards and on-demand printers for coupons using a touch screen.

Imagine - you board the trolley at 11:30AM at the State Capitol and as you approach Bricktown an ad for the Bricktown Burgers appears. You walk over to the touch screen and get a coupon for $1.00 off a burger. After work you get on the trolley and as you approach Bricktown an ad for Bricktown Brewery appears and you walk over to the touch screen and get a 2 for 1 beer coupon.

[sgray]

southsidesooner,

Look hard enough and you'll find a system somewhere that was mis-managed from the get-go and not designed right and/or they blew thru cash thinking that was the answer to their problems. And sure enough, if you take those bad numbers and try to price a system like that, it would cost all the money that could possibly be printed. Similar thing could happen if you priced highway expansion on the cost of our crosstown. Personally, I'd like to believe that we would have leadership on this project similar to other cities who have kept their costs to a decent level and that we might end up with one of the best, if not the best, success stories. Of course, we'll never end up with anything at all if we force it to fail.

Yeah, roads. That we pay for and CLEARLY use and CLEARLY need. Those operate heavily in the red because we don't charge people to get on them. We would presumably charge people to ride a TRAIN. Which we're not certain we CLEARLY need and we have no idea that we'd CLEARLY use. Because roads operate in the red, we should turn a blind eye to how much it would cost to ADD ADDITIONAL transit and keep it running?!

What's your point?

CLEARLY, we have no other CHOICE, DO WE???

I think the point is that some people seem to think that just because we've been doing things one way, that that is the one and only correct way to do it and that because we've been doing it that one way so long that makes it the ONLY correct way to do it and therefore we CLEARLY must only continue to do it that way.

Kerry,

Those are ideas well worth considering. I can see how the free ride downtown could help it gain popularity even quicker. I also believe that no matter what route we take in terms of fares--as long as the system is designed and implemented correctly--folks that have opposed it will start to 'see' the money savings and may very well re-work their schedules to take advantage of that. I know we can do a better job here if we listen to people's ideas and implement the best of them.

[BDP]

What's your point?

That they are the same thing trying to accomplish the same goal. It's all transportation. We CLEARLY use and CLEARLY need roads, because that is what we have chosen to build our infrastructure around. By the same token we didn't clearly NEED to widen I-235, as the money CLEARLY could have just as easily been spent on a train to alleviate the "traffic problem" and handle future demand for about the same cost. That's not a qualitative judgment. It's just the truth. We didn't NEED the roads per se, we just CHOSE them over rail. As Southside's numbers show, it is not a question of cost as much as it simply a question of lifestyle.

Soooooooo, if one is going to write off public transportation because of cost, then 1 billion to just widen 7.5 miles of a freeway that has a little congestion during (gasp!) rush hour should be written off for the same reason. If anything, all I am saying is that the cost of public transit is moot when held up against what the tax payer spends on roads. It's ALL expensive, NONE of it generates a profit, and it all addresses the same "need".

A more interesting question would be if it costs a billion dollars to widen 7.5 miles of I-235 to carry an increase of X amount more people, how much would it cost to increase the load of an already built rail line by X amount of people.

BTW, I do NOT think MAPS 3 should spend the money on commuter rail.

[OKCMallen]

Trying to argue with you guys is like trying to play poker with my brother's kids. Mallen out.

[BDP]

What are we arguing about? We're just comparing transportation options.

And you play poker with kids?

[hoya]

I don't think any mass transit system pays for itself with rider fares. I know the DC Metro doesn't. The benefits, however, are pretty substantial.

I work downtown, and I would use mass transit. Not everyday, but often enough. One problem is that it's difficult to go out for a few drinks after work if you have to drive home. If I could hop on a train, I could indulge a bit and not worry about any unfortunate consequences.

I like the idea of making a downtown trolley free. It would encourage people to travel around the downtown area at lunch or after work if they didn't have to worry about parking.

[SouthsideSooner]

I think that sounds good, especially if they do it in such a way that it's useful and effectively ties all of downtown together. I like the idea of spending the money to help strengthen to core's appeal, improve access to visitors, and give further boost to the assets previously created by MAPS. It could really push some of the outer districts over the top, just by the extra exposure they would get from a fixed traffic route moving people in and out of those districts all the time. And, as I mentioned before, it could actually be an attraction in and of itself, kind of like the street cars in New Orleans that pass through the garden district.

I love life in the 'burbs and will rarely if ever use any form of mass transit in OKC but I agree with what you've written. I also agree with what Kerry wrote about the streetcars being free.

I would vote for about 150 million or a third of MAPS 3 money going to a downtown streetcar system and improving the metro bus system but if the money for mass transit goes much north of that, there won't be much left for other projects and I start leaning more to voting no.

I am also for the the new convention center for the same reason that BDP mentioned about continuing to strengthen the inter-core, as I think it, the streetcars and the previous MAPS projects all work together to create a synergy downtown.

[Midtowner]

Just because people mention in a survey that they want improved mass transit doesn't mean that they are willing to spend unlimited tax dollars to have it and unless it is convenient and no more time consuming than driving, it won't be used by the vast majority of our citizens. It will be an expensive amenity that will have very little impact on the use of personal vehicles or traffic congestion in OKC.

No one is advocating "unlimited" moneys be spent on this issue. No one is advocating a subway system.

What I'd like to see happen is for the County to kick this to some sort of body with no political/financial ties to COTPA or ODOT or the Chamber or anyone who has their hand in the transit cookie jar. I'd like to see said group preside over a feasibility study to develop a long term strategy for the development of OKC's transit both in terms of roads and trains and whatever else.

I know it's asking too much to have someone outside COTPA and outside the spoils system that is our transportation industry take a good, hard, well-funded look at this issue.

I do feel that OKC needs to start planning now for an alternative form of transportation. We could be doing things NOW to prepare for an inevitable rail system. For example, buying up right of ways at bargain prices rather than condemning them and facing expensive litigation (for starters).

Unfortunately, transit is too much of a political football. It seems like if certain interests in OKC aren't 'getting theirs,' then on a city/county level, we simply aren't interested in doing anything.

Could rail potentially be more convenient than a car? Certainly. Think 20 years from now when the metro area is at 1.5 million or 2 million. Think of energy being much more expensive. Think of a much more urbanized existence. Alternative and less portable forms of energy (like solar and wind) will be a real part of the mix and will make things like rail much more feasible and cars more expensive.

We can either be planning and preparing for this or we can be caught with our pants down.

[sgray]

Well, consider this angle. Right now we are expanding our interstates and roads like crazy. Today, in 2009. We're going to have to start going vertical with our interchanges to keep up with the load and the wide highways. What if we could offload/balance enough traffic to save even a measly $50-100million/mile +/- and not have to make so many huge expansions to our roads??? That would also be a benefit. And those of you that refuse to or cannot participate can at least enjoy the benefit of less congestion, especially during rush hours, you know?

Midtowner,

The huge problem I see is that the city/metro keep wanting to 'study' and 'prepare to plan for a plan' that will eventually lead to a 'plan of action' which might lead to some kind of action 10-20 years later. In other words, keeping the issue from coming to the table by simply delaying work on the project. We should have had this planned 20 years ago and should already be 5-10 years into a system by now. Consider this: if our highways keep doubling in size every ten years, where will we be in 20 years when we get to the 'plan to act' stage? We need to move on this. NOW.

[SouthsideSooner]

I do feel that OKC needs to start planning now for an alternative form of transportation. We could be doing things NOW to prepare for an inevitable rail system. For example, buying up right of ways at bargain prices rather than condemning them and facing expensive litigation (for starters).

Could rail potentially be more convenient than a car? Certainly. Think 20 years from now when the metro area is at 1.5 million or 2 million. Think of energy being much more expensive. Think of a much more urbanized existence. Alternative and less portable forms of energy (like solar and wind) will be a real part of the mix and will make things like rail much more feasible and cars more expensive.

We can either be planning and preparing for this or we can be caught with our pants down.

No, we don't need to "plan for an inevitable rail system" because that would be operating on a false premise. Cars and trucks are not going to become obsolete. Gas went to $4.00 a gallon and it had virtually no effect on the publics driving habits. If gas prices get too high and stay there, which they inevitably will, it will make the use of alternative fuels the more attractive choice and the shift will be to them. Cars aren't going away in 20 years or 50 years, they will just be built and powered differently. Advances in technology and producing those vehicles in mass will bring the price in line.

Rail is not a new idea. There is a reason that Union Station sits empty today. Commuter rail used to exist in Oklahoma and it went belly up from lack of demand. The automobile made it obsolete. Our bus system didn't just become what it is recently. It's current state is the level it has shrunk to over the decades because of decreasing demand.

We have spent almost 3/4 of a century building one of the most drivable city's in America. We have planned and built well based on expected demand and consequently have very few problems with congestion or parking.

I hope that the rebirth of our urban core continues to be a huge success and that we can provide an excellent urban existence for those that choose that lifestyle but to assert that the suburban lifestyle is going to somehow become obsolete in 20 years is just silly.

. Consider this: if our highways keep doubling in size every ten years, where will we be in 20 years when we get to the 'plan to act' stage?

Our highways haven't doubled in size every 10 years so your question has no merit.

[Midtowner]

There is a reason that Union Station sits empty today.

True. General Motors and Standard Oil formed various shell corporations which purchased local rail systems at a generous price, then shut them down.

OKC was one of the markets affected by that scheme.

[BPD]

True. General Motors and Standard Oil formed various shell corporations which purchased local rail systems at a generous price, then shut them down.

OKC was one of the markets affected by that scheme.

Where on earth did you come up with that remarkable assertion?

[sgray]

We have spent almost 3/4 of a century building one of the most drivable city's in America.

You're right. We're a unique city in that things are so spread out that we have to get a car just to go anywhere.

We have planned and built well based on expected demand and consequently have very few problems with congestion or parking.

Which is why our existing cross-town I-40 should not be replaced. It's so well-built!

Our highways haven't doubled in size every 10 years so your question has no merit.

So I suppose all of this expansion and planned interchange upgrades is just for looks.

[southernskye]

What I'd like to see happen is for the County to kick this to some sort of body with no political/financial ties to COTPA or ODOT or the Chamber or anyone who has their hand in the transit cookie jar. I'd like to see said group preside over a feasibility study to develop a long term strategy for the development of OKC's transit both in terms of roads and trains and whatever else.

I know it's asking too much to have someone outside COTPA and outside the spoils system that is our transportation industry take a good, hard, well-funded look at this issue.

I do feel that OKC needs to start planning now for an alternative form of transportation. We could be doing things NOW to prepare for an inevitable rail system. For example, buying up right of ways at bargain prices rather than condemning them and facing expensive litigation (for starters).

Could rail potentially be more convenient than a car? Certainly. Think 20 years from now when the metro area is at 1.5 million or 2 million. Think of energy being much more expensive. Think of a much more urbanized existence. Alternative and less portable forms of energy (like solar and wind) will be a real part of the mix and will make things like rail much more feasible and cars more expensive.

We can either be planning and preparing for this or we can be caught with our pants down.

WOW, I actually agree with Midtowner on something, think I'm gonna faint.

[oneforone]

I think I have found an excellent way of funding mass transit and roads in Oklahoma.

Bring back the state inspection program.

I do not know if any of you have noticed but, we have hundreds of vehicles on the roads here in OKC that are not safe for the road. These vehicles are cratered, compressed and many are missing the proper lighting that is required by DOT regulations. I have even seen some cars with clear stop, tail and turn signals where the lights are white with not even a hint red, yellow or orange. Some jokesters have even changed their back lights to non standard colors like pink, green and blue.

The state could charge $50 a vehicle per year, $25 for seniors and the disabled who are on fixed incomes. The program would remove the death traps from the road and put money towards transit and road repairs. Money could be divided up between roads and bridges and mass transit.

[kevinpate]

>Money could be divided up between roads and bridges and mass transit.

'New' money back in the trough would be unlikely to make it somewhere sensible, not when we have other more pressing needs. Which more pressing needs depends on which group of politicos are in the majority at the time.

Moot point though, as getting it back would require sending it to a vote of the populace. The elected ones lack the will to accept responsibility to vote it in. I don't see Joe six pack, or Joe the plumber's helper for that matter, voting to reinstate one of the more despised fees from our past.

[Midtowner]

Where on earth did you come up with that remarkable assertion?

I thought it was common knowledge.

Great American streetcar scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Midtowner]

WOW, I actually agree with Midtowner on something, think I'm gonna faint.

Thanks.

I think?

[SouthsideSooner]

Originally Posted by SouthsideSooner
There is a reason that Union Station sits empty today.

True. General Motors and Standard Oil formed various shell corporations which purchased local rail systems at a generous price, then shut them down.

OKC was one of the markets affected by that scheme.

Sorry but I'm afraid that you have your facts mixed up. What your referring to is the streetcar system in OKC being bought out and shut down by the City Bus Co. in 1947. The conspiracy was to replace streetcars with buses and had nothing to do with automobiles or commuter rail going belly up at Union Station.

The advent of the automobile did have a substantial effect on the demise of streetcar systems across the state and nation however.

Go back and actually read the link you posted.