Public Transit tops list for MAPS 3!!!!!

[BG918]

I would imagine the OU stop, which would probably be located where the tracks run by the Duck Pond at Brooks a short walk from campus, would have additional service for OU football games as the stadium is basically right next to such a stop. And if OU ever decides to build a new basketball arena *crosses fingers* the massive Duck Pond parking lot east of the stadium would make a fantastic location also next to the rail station. There would still be enough room on that eastside that abutts the park for some surface parking and additional parking for students/faculty, transit riders, and Sooner football/basketball fans could be created in a new multi-level garage to the north along Jenkins or Trout south of Sarkeys.

This area could also have new academic buildings (the only real area for expansion on campus) along and east of Jenkins to Trout and urban-style student apartments/townhomes where the Bishops Landing apartments and some rent homes are currently along the tracks north of the park. All of a sudden you have the OU campus extended all the way to the commuter rail stop with student housing and football/basketball all within a short walk of the stop. Campus Corner is not far down a well-lit and landscaped Brooks where it turns into a pedestrian-only street at Jenkins and then connects to Asp in between Price Hall and the new Wagner center under construction.

This would be an excellent example of "transit-oriented development" or TOD which makes a rail stop something much more and increases density around it. The same could happen with retail, restaurants, and especially high density residential around the other proposed commuter rail stops such as in downtown Norman, Moore, Crossroads (could redevelop the mall into something more mixed-use), in downtown, near the state capitol (could tie in with the redevelopment of 23rd Street into a mixed-use district west of the capitol building along I-235), in north OKC, and in downtown Edmond. I'm amazed at the TOD's here in Denver, just google Englewood or Littleton-Downtown and you'll see some great examples of what could also be successful in OKC and surrounding communities.

[Easy180]

It certainly would be good for those events, but what are we talking about 6 home games for football all year

Light rail is certainly intriguing, but do we get our $500 million worth if only 3 to 5% of Okies use it?

I don't know...Why I am still up in the air about it

[CuatrodeMayo]

TOD in Edmond could finally give the city a dynamic core.

[jbrown84]

It certainly would be good for those events, but what are we talking about 6 home games for football all year

Light rail is certainly intriguing, but do we get our $500 million worth if only 3 to 5% of Okies use it?

I think a lot of it is intangible. You have to think about the effect having rail will have on people--and businesses--relocating here, and the effect it will have on our image. Light rail combined with the NBA will go a long ways towards our national image improving.

[Easy180]

I think a lot of it is intangible. You have to think about the effect having rail will have on people--and businesses--relocating here, and the effect it will have on our image. Light rail combined with the NBA will go a long ways towards our national image improving.

Can't disagree with that jbrown...Those dam* intangibles!!

[CuatrodeMayo]

TOD in Edmond could finally give the city a dynamic core.

I couldn't stop thinking until a did a sketch.

Central Station Concept 1:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...abd1&om=1&z=15

[Karried]

I can see both sides of the argument.

I remember in San Jose when light rail was first introduced.... there were so many empty trains.. yet the freeways were still packed with motorists.

It just seems some people are so attached to their cars, the convenience of getting to and from locations on their own terms and time.

It's been awhile so I'm sure it is successful now, the traffic has just gotten worse and worse, but it took a lot of time for it to become commonplace for people to commute. But, we did go to events downtown to avoid traffic jams and parking fees.

I do recall taking Bart quite frequently to San Francisco for different events. If we didn't have to stop so often at the stations, it would have been better. It seemed to take forever to get there and back compared to driving.

The one thing I would appreciate is getting to and from Bricktown from Edmond and enjoying the evening without worrying about a designated driver.

The money that will be spent bothers me a bit. We have such a need for other things such as educational needs, improved schools, better teacher pay, etc etc.

Still, like I said, I can see both sides.

[jbrown84]

I couldn't stop thinking until a did a sketch.

Central Station Concept 1:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...abd1&om=1&z=15

Nice concept. You should be an architect.

[JWil]

One city that has been overlooked in mentioning (I think, anyway) has been St. Louis. I'm a big Cardinals fan and love using their MetroLink service when I'm in town. They have a simple system, with a two-line system. Right now, the main line runs from Lambert International in NW St. Louis to Scott AFB in suburban Illinois (SE St. Louis metro area). They have just added a second line that branches off at Forest Park (their mid-town, basically) and runs WSW toward SLU, then SW to Shrewsbury.

Here's their map. If you know St. Louis at all, you'll see that the MetroLink connects all the big hotspots for that area:



I think copying what St. Louis did would likely work, with the second line being an E-W route and/or a NW Expressway route. Here's more info on the MetroLink: St. Louis MetroLink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jbrown84]

my light rail phase 1 ideas

[CuatrodeMayo]

my light rail phase 1 ideas

I like. Easily expandable. I like the location of the terminus--a good, central location with exisiting infrastructure.

Could the line in the vicinity of the Capitol go underground? There is already way too much crap cluttering the capitol grounds as it is. It could just join 23rd when it is below grade. EDIT: Is there enough right-of-way for the rail on 23rd? Maybe it could stay underground.

EDIT: Capitol Station were commuter rail meets light rail could be fantasic.

A continous loop might flow a little better.

[jbrown84]

Well, I didn't clarify. Basically it would travel north from the Ford Center, turn east towards Lincoln, circle back around, and turn back south on Broadway, back to the Ford Center. So in the higher traffic areas downtown, you would have trains going in both directions.

I don't know about underground. Isn't light rail just usually in the street?

[CuatrodeMayo]

I see...it is an essentially a terminus A to terminus B with A & B being the same.

DART (red line) goes underground for quite a ways in DT Dallas. There are 3 or 4 stations underground, including Mockingbird Station.

[JWil]

The MetroLink in St. Louis goes underground between the River and Busch Stadium.

Okay, you guys might think I'm crazy, but this would be my plan for Phases I-III of the OKC light rail (or monorail) system. The lines are approximate of course, but this is the general idea I've always been warm to. Here's my breakdown:

Phase I: The Main Line. Connects Will Rogers World Airport to Downtown, Ford Center, Bricktown, Medical Complex, State Capitol/state offices to the Remington Park/Omniplex/Zoo/Softball HOF area.

Phase II: NW Passage. Creates a downtown loop that snakes up Classen to Belle Isle, then shoots NW toward Morgan Rd.

Phase III: Edmond Express. That would shoot off just north of the Capitol and head to Edmond, stopping at UCO.

Anyway, that might be over-complexing things, but that's how I'd do it if I had unlimited funds, no right-of-way issues and 100 percent support. I'd like to add a Phase IV could connect Norman with stops on the south side and Crossroads. Then, a final Phase V could connect Yukon with Midwest City/Choctaw.

Here it is... bash me at will. Haha.

Google Maps

[CuatrodeMayo]

Looks OK to me. It would be great to have a rail connection to DTOKC from the airport.

You're going to have a great time getting tracks down NW expressway.

Why not use more exisiting rail right-of-way?

[JWil]

Looks OK to me. It would be great to have a rail connection to DTOKC from the airport.

You're going to have a great time getting tracks down NW expressway.

Why not use more exisiting rail right-of-way?

Because I was doing my ultimate dream scenario connecting as much of the northside population together as possible. I realize some of what I went with could never work, but after I made my original line (WRW to Remington), I kinda just started playing connect-the-dots.

Like I said, a lot of this is approximate. As for the NWX leg? Well, I just think that's vital to commuter-to-downtown work travel. Just look at the map to see what is the most-populated area of OKC. Guess you could snake it around the NW side generally following NWX, but I just went straight up the highway since I just threw it together.

[Kerry]

Karried,

When I worked in San Jose about 2.5 years ago the San Jose system was still not be used to its potential. The problem i saw with it is that it seemed to be designed to focus heavily on CISCO employees, many of whom now work from home. Other than CISCO the train really didn't go anywhere. There were no centers of commerce, shopping or residential development along the routes. It didn't even connect to other transit options like CalTrain.

Now that the train goes further south maybe ridership will improve. Another problem was it was way to slow. That is the problem I have with light rail covering long distances. They have to share the roadway with traffic and even though the train has the right of way, it still can't go very fast. Add in all of the stops and in most cases, you can ride your bike faster than taking the train.

VTA might be the best example of bad planning. Of course, this is the San Fran bay area whcih has a history of bad planning.

[chuckdiesel]

Would it be possible for trains to have free wi-fi to all passengers? I don't know much about light rail but I think that would be one more selling point to the public and promote ridership.

[jpeaceokc]

You know the naysayers said the Heartland Flyer wouldn't work. And it seems to be doing okay. Sure, we have to subsidize it, but most Amtrak lines are subsidized. Really, that's part of the price tag that comes along with public transportation. Even Metro Transit is subsidized. So, we add commuter rail subsidization to the city budget,a nd we're on our way. That's what every other city does. Hopefully it will save us from having to pay EPA fines.

Cars and trucks are subsidized by the general taxpayer too. Oklahoma City is about to take out a 500 million dollar 30 year mortgage to repair its streets, and this is on top of all the other bond issues that included street repair over the last decade or so. If cars paid their own way, this wouldn't be necessary. The argument that "mass transit is bad because it is taxpayer subsidized" is propaganda. All forms of transit are subsidized to one extent or another by the taxpayers.

[Karried]

When I worked in San Jose about 2.5 years ago the San Jose system was still not be used to its potential.

I feared as much.. it was pretty sad to see the empty trains.

I think that is what many people are afraid of happening here.

[Kerry]

I hear you Karried but it is kind of like deciding not to have kids because you see someone that can't control theirs. The things is to not base your entire transit plan on one business like San Jose did. Learning from other's mistakes is better than learning from your own. I took a look at VTAs web site and they have added several new line recently so maybe they leaned their lesson.

As for the WiFi - they are looking to put that in here in Atlanta on MARTA. The problem is that when the train goes underground it can't recieve a signal and the technology isn't there yet. MARTA is just putting out an RFP for somone to try and put it in. They also want the wining bid to pay $1,000,000 per year to put the system in and it has to be free to the user.

[BG918]

Remember we want the most bang for our buck with this system, and the public won't support it if it's too expensive. That makes plans with extensive new track systems on existing city streets VERY expensive and probably not feasible, at least for our starter line. That is why I advocated using as few city streets as possible at first and using key streets with high densities and ROW (like a center turn lane) for the trains. I believe 10th from OUHSC to Broadway to E.K. Gaylord to the new blvd. would be feasible because these are already wide streets and they connect most of the important (and growing) areas of downtown.

Then you connect it to the commuter system between Edmond and Norman that uses the existing BNSF tracks, which saves a lot of money. Even if they have to build a new track the fact that it's in the BNSF ROW is a huge savings over tearing up roads, plus that slows the speed of the train down. We need commuters from Edmond and Norman to get to downtown FASTER than they do in their cars, even with a few stops. And then have light rail waiting for them when they get downtown, or they can walk/bike.

Any starter line cannot be too ambitious or the public won't support it. We need the commuter line and an accompanying light rail line connecting OUHSC to the CBD and Bricktown and going down our new fancy blvd. lined with shops and hotels (hopefully). After that we plan the next phases i.e. light rail up Walker and Classen, E-W commuter rail to the airport and Midwest City/Tinker AFB, etc.