MAPS III Redux

[oudirtypop]

Sounds pretty good to me. I think Dallas is a good place to start planning. What about Denver. Both systems are really great.

[metro]

gmwise, are you an expert in public transportation? and oudirtypop, actually these topics have been discussed for many years now by Tom Elmore, he was the head of north american transportation and other transportation groups and highly respected in the mass transit community. He along with others warned ODOT and others and actually filed a lawsuit against them (although somehow anyone that goes against them, the case mysteriously vanishes or you don't hear anything more about it). The group was against the route ODOT (and good old boy Istook) chose, Route D, that basically destroyed our best chance at light rail by destroying the rail lines at Union Station intentionally, even though Denver and Dallas warned us that this was a mistake that they learned from the hard way, and that instead of being really inexpensive using our existing lines, it will probably project our cost to over a billion now that we destroyed them. Good idea in theory oudirtypop, but look at what's already happened in reality. I've even talked with Mick Cornett and others at this in length. The best they vision is a bus rapid transit (BRT), which won't cut it if we're going to be the "Capitol of the 21st Century"

You all may want to do a search on this site on the numerous lengthy discussions on this topic or do a google. You'll be surprised on what has already happened and is planned.

[jbrown84]

I don't think anyone was talking about just a tourist-oriented light rail system. The goal is definitely quality of life for our citizens.

[oudirtypop]

gmwise, are you an expert in public transportation? and oudirtypop, actually these topics have been discussed for many years now by Tom Elmore, he was the head of north american transportation and other transportation groups and highly respected in the mass transit community. He along with others warned ODOT and others and actually filed a lawsuit against them (although somehow anyone that goes against them, the case mysteriously vanishes or you don't hear anything more about it). The group was against the route ODOT (and good old boy Istook) chose, Route D, that basically destroyed our best chance at light rail by destroying the rail lines at Union Station intentionally, even though Denver and Dallas warned us that this was a mistake that they learned from the hard way, and that instead of being really inexpensive using our existing lines, it will probably project our cost to over a billion now that we destroyed them. Good idea in theory oudirtypop, but look at what's already happened in reality. I've even talked with Mick Cornett and others at this in length. The best they vision is a bus rapid transit (BRT), which won't cut it if we're going to be the "Capitol of the 21st Century"

You all may want to do a search on this site on the numerous lengthy discussions on this topic or do a google. You'll be surprised on what has already happened and is planned.

Metro, i am quite aware of what all is going on and has gone on. I was just agreeing with the guy.

I agree with one point you said...the bus system wont cut it. I wont ride a bus, and never will. I would hop on a light rail at a moments notice to save time or money. Not a bus though. I might as well just drive. i will not vote for maps 3 if thats what they want, thats retarded.

i say get maps three for light rail, get it started. Even if we can only get a couple lines open, at least thats what we get for now. We can pay for our mistakes with it taking longer, not losing it all together. Also, i hate to say, but starting fresh will result in a better routing system anyway. then, in the future, as money is made with it, re-invest the earnings into future expansion.

just a thought.

[metro]

but starting fresh will result in a better routing system anyway. then, in the future, as money is made with it, re-invest the earnings into future expansion.

I hate to break it to you, but the majority of the time public transporation loses money.

[oudirtypop]

I hate to break it to you, but the majority of the time public transporation loses money.

depends if you look at it from an economist or an accounting standpoint. If you figure in the value of the service is provides, it probably is incredibly profitable.

[metro]

doesn't matter, yes, I value it as a service and would love to have it. In reality most people, legislators, etc. won't look at it in a car oriented city like OKC if it doesn't make actual financial sense unfortunately.

[jdsplaypin]

Yes, it does not make much financial sense to implement light rail through OKC. BUT it does bring in developments around the transit stations that would otherwise have never been built...(i.e. office, retail, residential) Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in cities with light rail around their transit stations. The economic impact is phonomenal, definately outweighs the startup cost in the long run to build it. For example google orenco station in Portland. These mixed use urban villages in the SUBURBS are popping up like wildfire all over the u.s. Light rail is a catalyst for cities & must be thought of as a SERVICE.

[ETL]

I never thought of that! Good point!

[okcitian]

I am for light-rail and surely hope that it will be built. Dallas is a very good example of a light rail system. I was in Madrid last month and hopped on thier light-rail system, they already have a commuter rail and subway system but added a light-rail to become even more multimodal. Thier trains looked pretty flimsy, I hope ours look like thiers. If there's the money there could even a subway station somewhere in downtown. That would be a major first.

[oudirtypop]

I am for light-rail and surely hope that it will be built. Dallas is a very good example of a light rail system. I was in Madrid last month and hopped on thier light-rail system, they already have a commuter rail and subway system but added a light-rail to become even more multimodal. Thier trains looked pretty flimsy, I hope ours look like thiers. If there's the money there could even a subway station somewhere in downtown. That would be a major first.

Light rail, sure...sooner than later....subway...now your dreaming!

[SpectralMourning]

Yeah, I'm all for subway in 50-100 years...

[mranderson]

Yeah, I'm all for subway in 50-100 years...

Just imagine how much light rail or a subway will cost when you sarcastically say YOU are ready for it. THAT is why we need to plan it now and start it now. It is called investing for the future. Do it now and save the millions, if not billions it would cost 50 to 100 years from now.

[SpectralMourning]

I just set aside 10 dollars.

Seriously though, while that's true, I'm more concerned with other infrastructure improvements and developments. We definitely need to invest in transportation at this minute, though.

[traxx]

Just how light is this rail supposed to be? Because if it's over say... 100 pounds, I don't think we can really refer to it as light rail anymore.

[mranderson]

I am for light-rail and surely hope that it will be built. Dallas is a very good example of a light rail system. I was in Madrid last month and hopped on thier light-rail system, they already have a commuter rail and subway system but added a light-rail to become even more multimodal. Thier trains looked pretty flimsy, I hope ours look like thiers. If there's the money there could even a subway station somewhere in downtown. That would be a major first.

Why do we have to compare everything to Dallas, or anywhere in Texas for that matter? There are other places who have equal or maybe even better systems. Plus, while on the subject of comparisions (a bit off topic, however) no state income tax. A lot of people say we need to pattern ours after Texas. Why? Wyoming, for example, has no state income tax, and the entire population is smaller than Oklahoma.

We need to compare the rail systems in Washington DC, the San Francisco Bay area (which has two), Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, et al. Not just Dallas.

[Centerback]

I'd pursue the Toyota Dome, Ford needs to conserve their cash.

I'm not sure the term Heartland in any form is incredibly unique.

But it's a nice idea...don't take everything so personal.

[okcitian]

i'm not talking about an entire subway line through okc, what I am mentioning about light-rail running into undergrownd for 250 ft then going above ground. One station undergrown would be a subway station, the rest of it will be above ground. Some light-rail systems also use elevated rail. I'm making the comparison to Dallas for its relatively low density it currently has outside of downtown and edge cities. Portland is a good model as well for OKC. I've been through the DC metro before and I only been through a small portion that was above ground while the rest I used was underground, but you are talking about a more dense city, not as dense as other cities but more a European density as opposed to New York or Chicago skyscraper density.

[writerranger]

Why do we have to compare everything to Dallas, or anywhere in Texas for that matter? There are other places who have equal or maybe even better systems. Plus, while on the subject of comparisions (a bit off topic, however) no state income tax. A lot of people say we need to pattern ours after Texas. Why? Wyoming, for example, has no state income tax, and the entire population is smaller than Oklahoma.

We need to compare the rail systems in Washington DC, the San Francisco Bay area (which has two), Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, et al. Not just Dallas.

MrAnderson, I think why so many refer to Dallas is because the "car culture" is identical to ours. Public transit in DC, San Francisco, Boston, etc. doesn't reflect our needs at all. What they've done in Dallas is very much a reflection on how it can work in a city comparible to our own city of the automobile.

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

[mranderson]

MrAnderson, I think why so many refer to Dallas is because the "car culture" is identical to ours. Public transit in DC, San Francisco, Boston, etc. doesn't reflect our needs at all. What they've done in Dallas is very much a reflection on how it can work in a city comparible to our own city of the automobile.

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

These Okies think they need to compare EVERYTHING to Dallas. Not just rapid transit. Plus, if you have ever riden the mass transit in the cities I named, and in others, you will find there is not a great deal of difference between our needs and theirs. In addition, Boston, New York metro and some others have feeder rails such as Long Island Railroad or New Jersey Rail to the outlining areas. We need a system similar to that. Dallas does not offer that service.

BTW. My point was not just rail. It was general as cited in my example of state income tax.

[SpectralMourning]

It's the closest major hub. Dallas comparisons are unavoidable.

I really think Portland would be a good model to follow. Generally Oklahoma City can learn a lot from Portland...

[venture]

In order for a light rail system to work, the commuting habits of local citizens would need to change. Unfortunately, too many people like their cars and traffic in OKC is really not that bad at all. The highway system is one of the better laid out networks for a city this size. About the only thing that really needs to be improved is a east side loop, and improvements made to certain sections (I-35/240 intersection changed - coming, I-44/240 improved, etc).

So the best recipe for success is to make it a viable secondary option, but also one that caters to tourism. Some may want a typical light rail setup...I personally would rather see a monorail system - much like Las Vegas - setup. The monorail system would be easier to integrate in densely developed areas as their footprints are really minimal except for stations. It is also easier to wrap and integrate these with existing structures you want to connect.

It may be more expensive...but no worries of rail lines and having to make massive changes to existing infrastructure (rail crossings, overpasses, etc). You can run the monorail lines virtually anywhere and over any existing roads, buildings, etc. Of course it all depends. Some figures have light rail at 1/3rd the cost of a monorail system...but it all comes down to what is best for the city, what will actually work, etc.

The Monorail Society homepage some info...yes it is an interest group

The other side of the coin... Light Rail Now!

[metro]

These Okies think they need to compare EVERYTHING to Dallas. Not just rapid transit. Plus, if you have ever riden the mass transit in the cities I named, and in others, you will find there is not a great deal of difference between our needs and theirs. In addition, Boston, New York metro and some others have feeder rails such as Long Island Railroad or New Jersey Rail to the outlining areas. We need a system similar to that. Dallas does not offer that service.

BTW. My point was not just rail. It was general as cited in my example of state income tax.

Well when you get "elected" to OKC City Council perhaps you can change this. I hate it as much as the next guy but venture79 says it best. You have to be realistic, and the realistic fact is Dallas is the regional hub, AND it has a very similar culture, including transportation habits, etc. The city was designed around the automobile and still is although that is changing slowly. I definitely don't want us to be a mini-Dallas, but we're never going to be an NYC either. Portland is definitely a good model to not just follow but think two steps ahead of what they are doing and do that.

[mranderson]

Well when you get "elected" to OKC City Council perhaps you can change this. I hate it as much as the next guy but venture79 says it best. You have to be realistic, and the realistic fact is Dallas is the regional hub, AND it has a very similar culture, including transportation habits, etc. The city was designed around the automobile and still is although that is changing slowly. I definitely don't want us to be a mini-Dallas, but we're never going to be an NYC either. Portland is definitely a good model to not just follow but think two steps ahead of what they are doing and do that.

What qualifications does this venture79 guy have that makes you think he is ligit anyway?

Also. What makes you think we will "never" be a New York? You mean you can actually predict the future until the end of time? Think about my posts, and just maybe you will get my point.

Dallas is not all these people think it is. It is just one of dozens of cities that have rail systems. We should not judge our needs on just one city.

[writerranger]

What qualifications does this venture79 guy have that makes you think he is ligit anyway?

Also. What makes you think we will "never" be a New York? You mean you can actually predict the future until the end of time? Think about my posts, and just maybe you will get my point.

Dallas is not all these people think it is. It is just one of dozens of cities that have rail systems. We should not judge our needs on just one city.

1. What do you mean by ligit? Do you mean "legit" as in legitimate? If so, what makes anyone on a forum "legitimate?"

2. With your logic about NYC, it would be unreasonable to say that Purcell will never be a New York City. After all, we can't predict the future until the end of time. Realistic is a word I know you hate to hear, but that's what metro meant.

3. About Dallas, everyone has said why it is a good city to compare to (car culture, regional hub, etc.). Your absolute hatred for anything from Texas is almost irrational. After all, they are invisible lines we draw and they are a part of the country that I know you love.

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