$465 million in aid to Oklahoma includes lightrail!!!

[SoonerDave]

SoonerDave,

Using Seattle as a cost comparison is irresponsible. We all know that Seattle has a very unique topography and the engineering feats needed for that system to work are unlike anything we would encounter here (i.e. floating bridges, tunnels, etc). A better estimate of LRT cost is $15 to $60 million per mile. Oklahoma City would be toward the bottom of that range.

That is why I clearly stated it was the worst case among the extremes, and why I offered the best-case ($15M per mile) in the original post.

[sgray]

What biases? I will admit to a bias against government throwing money at something merely for the sake of throwing money at it. I was trying to offer the opinion that there are substantially more efficient alternatives than light rail, and tried to offer some base of data on which to support that opinion.

Your post could be considered biased for rubber and asphalt based on the fact that the scope of your post was highways versus mass transit and included no figures other than those for mass transit.

A lot of cities make use of rail rapid transit because it's pretty darn fast. We need a fast solution because of our land stretch alone.

SoonerDave, do keep in mind that the government, at the federal level, approached the states for a list of projects that could be shovel ready, their cost, purpose, etc... In 2008, the only mass transit solution the state (or cities for that matter) could provide were that one in MWC. In 2008, that is the best Oklahoma or the metro could have on paper? Sure, I agree with you that we need a through design that is lean and doesn't waste money. But the federal government did not and has not thrown money at us. They may see our one plan as a quick waste of money and not award it to us. They may ask why that is all we have. How do you think that makes us look here in the metro on a national level? We have nothing else to present when our neighboring states have systems already up and running??? I think your argument is solid and belongs on the doorsteps of the local government, of which has no active plans for any type of mass transit, not even the makeshift bus thing we have now. You know?

In an effort to meet your request, the closest I could find to a similar piece of information for highway construction was here, wherein the approximate cost for the addition of a single lanes to an existing highway ranged from $2.4 million to $6.9 million per lane-mile. The same document indicates that new highway construction through urban areas ranges from $4.9 milion per lane-mile to $19.5 million. The worst-case figure of $19.5 million is still something on the order of 1/8 the cost of the Seattle $197 million/mile light rail fiasco, with the low-end something on the order of 1/3 the low-end of the light rail new construction range.

Your numbers are close enough to the ones that I see, so I will not challenge those. What you have to understand is that is cost per lane-mile. Now multiply that by the size of the highway and length. Your quote about the $19.5 million being 1/8th the cost of the Seattle "fiasco". Those are two worst-case scenarios--only one problem--that 19.5 million is for one, single lane-mile. See what I'm getting at? We're building a ten-lane 4.5mi crosstown right now that is just under $500million for less than 5 miles! Now granted, the costs have gone up from what, $300million originally? But still, that "fiasco" you mentioned in Seattle is happening right here in OKC with the crosstown highway. And we haven't even built any rail yet.

I think it's safe to assume that if we keep only highways as our mode of transit, in ten years or so, the size will need to at least double to handle the capacity. Try figuring the cost of that I-35 stretch, just from OKC to norman (then you can figure okc to edmond, okc to yukon, etc..) with +/- 6 lanes now, but double that just ten years from now. And figure average highway cost and average rail cost. That should paint a pretty good picture of the situation. Not to mention that we are at the threshold of losing a lot, if not all, of our federal funding due to the excessive emissions from automobiles on the roads here today. Not ten years from now, but today's emissions.[/QUOTE]

Understand, too, that the original discussion centered around a $465 earmark for light rail. I was trying to add some informed analysis on the relative cost of a light rail system versus another, cheaper alternative, in the midst of this frenzy about light rail. I was trying to point out that for a fraction more than 2% of that $465 million "light rail subsidy" package, you could lay a theoretical groundwork for a mass transit alternative that would serve a much greater subset of OKC population leveraging existing infrastructure and tapping a natural resource that is abundant in Oklahoma. And I also specifically stated that I made no pretense that it was a be-all, end-all solution.

Dave... No it DID NOT. Notice the title of the thread. $465 million includes light rail! No, the whole state may get $465 million for everything it wants, total. And the bulk of that is for roads and highways per ODOT. Only $4 million was alotted to the rail line between MWC and bricktown, from what I understand. There has never been a $465 million dollar "light rail subsidy" for Oklahoma.

The point is we need coherent, cogent research into alternatives for mass transit, not merely to throw money at it because a foolhardy government wants to spend its way out of a fiscal disaster largely of its own creation.

I completely agree. Oklahoma and the metro area have nobody to blame but themselves for not researching and planning this out before 2008! And right now, the federal government isn't looking too foolhardy in the face of a state and metro area that have ZERO plans for mass transit--at all--no bus plans, nothing. Just some overpriced 'studies' that were nothing more than colored lines on printed Google maps. In fact, the leaders here look pretty foolhardy for offering a quick-spend 'demo system' as our mass transit plan of choice to the feds. And they may see that and disqualify it.

[southernskye]

SoonerDave,

Using Seattle as a cost comparison is irresponsible. We all know that Seattle has a very unique topography and the engineering feats needed for that system to work are unlike anything we would encounter here (i.e. floating bridges, tunnels, etc). A better estimate of LRT cost is $15 to $60 million per mile. Oklahoma City would be toward the bottom of that range.

Seattle's new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the U.S. at $179 million per mile, since it includes extensive tunneling in poor soil conditions, elevated sections, and stations as deep as 180 feet below ground level

[sgray]

That is why I clearly stated it was the worst case among the extremes, and why I offered the best-case ($15M per mile) in the original post.

See my above post. You are comparing an overpriced rail system to a SINGLE-LANE, 1-MILE piece of highway. That is cost per LANE-MILE.

[sgray]

Seattle's new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the U.S. at $179 million per mile, since it includes extensive tunneling in poor soil conditions, elevated sections, and stations as deep as 180 feet below ground level

And that wasn't very smart of them, was it? Kind of like saying we can build a highway for $15 million/mile and when it is only that price per LANE-MILE. Not for the whole highway per mile.

Looking at the pics, I would compare that to building a "highway in the sky".

Who else in the U.S. has built their rail system way up in the air like those pics show? Of course that's expensive. I mean, LOOK at that thing! So is our more than $100 million/mile crosstown here in OKC which isn't even elevated.

[southernskye]

Looking North with downtown in the distance. Thats I-5 there on the right.

OKC is flat, wide open and not nearly as densely built, which will be an advantage when it comes to costs.

[sgray]

Looking North with downtown in the distance. Thats I-5 there on the right.

OKC is flat, wide open and not nearly as densely built, which will be an advantage when it comes to costs.

True. And we can (and should) be smart and learn from others' mistakes and build a better, cheaper system. You know, Seattle would have been much cheaper to go with a dual-track mono-rail config for this set-up (since it had to be elevated) so that you wouldn't have to elevate such a wide chunk of concrete (not to mention the insane costs of that large amount of concrete and huge support pillars). Notice how much wasted space there is on that elevated "road"? And just for two small tracks. It's a bad idea. Just because it had to be light rail or nothing. Seattle's problem is that they, like the Las Vegas casinos, like to get one bid (from the most expensive contractor) and jump to the project, as opposed to getting some more bids and being more agressive about saving money. You see, all these great alternatives to choose from...and sadly, folks get a bad taste in their mouth because the organizations spearheading the projects screw up and drive the cost through the roof! People wouldn't vote for the monorail after the first vote passed because they now thought it was a "bad solution" simply because some organization pushed the price thru the roof. Have they learned their lesson EVEN NOW, seeing as though the "golden ticket" light rail ended up going thru the roof and costing way more than anybody else's light rail system?.?.?.

Notice the pic below:

Now don't you think this would have been much cheaper to elevate, if it had to be elevated--assuming they bid it out correctly and didn't pay four times list price!!!

[PLANSIT]

That is why I clearly stated it was the worst case among the extremes, and why I offered the best-case ($15M per mile) in the original post.

But why even mention it? It's an outlier. Should we bring in exorbitant highway projects like the Big Dig, Hawaii's H3, or I-70 through Glenwood Canyon, CO? No. Apples to Apples please.

[SoonerDave]

But why even mention it? It's an outlier.

Because it was one of the two extremes (low/high) mentioned in that document. I can't help how they compiled the data. It was an honest effort to get the data someone else in this thread had requested. I wasn't trying to gild the lily, just trying to relay what I was able to find.

sgray - I absolutely stand corrected on my misunderstanding of the funding issue. I mistakenly thought there was some omnibus provision for a half-billion-dollar light rail project in the OKC area, which made no sense to me at all, and is part of why I was so stunned. I was clearly mistaken.

I'd love to see OKC pursue a CNG-based bus service plan. I think its very doable, in all honesty...obviously there are myriad details to work out, but it surely seems the basic pieces are out there.

-SoonerDave

[PLANSIT]

Because it was one of the two extremes (low/high) mentioned in that document. I can't help how they compiled the data. It was an honest effort to get the data someone else in this thread had requested. I wasn't trying to gild the lily, just trying to relay what I was able to find.

sgray - I absolutely stand corrected on my misunderstanding of the funding issue. I mistakenly thought there was some omnibus provision for a half-billion-dollar light rail project in the OKC area, which made no sense to me at all, and is part of why I was so stunned. I was clearly mistaken.

I'd love to see OKC pursue a CNG-based bus service plan. I think its very doable, in all honesty...obviously there are myriad details to work out, but it surely seems the basic pieces are out there.

-SoonerDave

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure people were aware that Seattle's case is unusual at best. OKC's topography and built environment lends itself to the lower end of the cost spectrum.

[sgray]

I'd love to see OKC pursue a CNG-based bus service plan. I think its very doable, in all honesty...obviously there are myriad details to work out, but it surely seems the basic pieces are out there.

An alternative to straight up diesel fuel would be a benefit no matter which direction we head, because we're always going to have to have a bus network. CNG should save $ and pollute less, and that is something we could get going right now.

[blangtang]

back on topic/ on comparative topic. this pbs show called 'NOW' has a look into the stimulus package, with a detailed picture of charlotte, NC and their transit situation. its about 25 minutes. charlotte is about 1-5 years ahead of OKC, IMO.

Stimulus Roadblock? . NOW on PBS

[CCOKC]

I watched that show last night and was going to post the same thing. I think everyone here who has an interest in light rail should watch this show. I am not saying we should copy what Charlotte has done or will do but it gives a great perspective on what could happen here in OKC. The more educated we can get as citizens the better. There are definitely a lot of similarities between us and Charlotte.

[OKCisOK4me]

That was very interesting. I see why Oklahoma citizens are not informed. Our state is so high on building more roads to receive more federal money because there are not enough citizens to tax. We get our neighbors interested in this information and bring about more awareness on the subject and the state will be hating us. Probably not, but something has to be figured out.

[angel27]

Great information. We need to get "on board." forget that we need density to bring on mass transit.. sensible, well-planned transit will bring on the density we want. What some have been saying all along. I think with new awareness about how transit needs to be funded, changes there will happen too.

I liked the part where he fought hard for light rail and he was so afraid only 3 homeless persons and two criminals would show up to ride. What guts he had. What vision.

[sgray]

back on topic/ on comparative topic. this pbs show called 'NOW' has a look into the stimulus package, with a detailed picture of charlotte, NC and their transit situation. its about 25 minutes. charlotte is about 1-5 years ahead of OKC, IMO.

Stimulus Roadblock? . NOW on PBS

Thanks for posting this. Very informative for all of us, but especially so for folks that dont really know what the buzz is really about. I burned this video onto DVD and have passed out some copies to help get the word around.

[CCOKC]

Great information. We need to get "on board." forget that we need density to bring on mass transit.. sensible, well-planned transit will bring on the density we want. What some have been saying all along. I think with new awareness about how transit needs to be funded, changes there will happen too.

I liked the part where he fought hard for light rail and he was so afraid only 3 homeless persons and two criminals would show up to ride. What guts he had. What vision.

And that said by a self-professed conservative republican.

[Superhyper]

That was a great piece by PBS, thanks for posting blangtang. I think there are probably more parallels between the problems North Carolina is having with transit and our own State's than we would like to admit. The fact that states have a fiscal incentive to build more highways at the expense of everything is something I didn't realize, and probably something that needs to be changed now rather than later.

[Architect2010]

The density argument is crap. Utter crap. We may not have density on the level of northern cities, but very similiar to other southern cities. And I'm pretty sure that a few of them similiar to OKC have light rail.

The only people that think we have low density are the people that look on wikipedia. Our density stats are scewed by our large land area. I'd say the developed area of OKC is roughly a little over 1/3. That urbanized area definitely has over 2,000 people a square mile. Use another argument.

Actually, look at it yourself. CLICK.HERE.

Besides, building this will help bring more density that is oh so wanted.

[PLANSIT]

The density argument is crap. Utter crap. We may not have density on the level of northern cities, but very similiar to other southern cities. And I'm pretty sure that a few of them similiar to OKC have light rail.

The only people that think we have low density are the people that look on wikipedia. Our density stats are scewed by our large land area. I'd say the developed area of OKC is roughly a little over 1/3. That urbanized area definitely has over 2,000 people a square mile. Use another argument.

Actually, look at it yourself. CLICK.HERE.

Besides, building this will help bring more density that is oh so wanted.

I agree with you 100% that the density issue is overstated, but let's be honest, 2600 ppsm is very low - something you wouldn't go around flaunting. Just as an example, Phoenix, the poster child of urban sprawl, has a city density of close to 3000 ppsm.

Inline with the topic, increased densities is something that will be addressed with a well thought out transit system.

[soonerguru]

Message to danielf,

You seem particularly hostile to the use of any rail in our transportation, but you seem to have no problem with them continuing to spend BILLIONS on highways.

Look, we may not have the density of some cities, but building the rail will CREATE DENSITY, just as it has in Dallas and every other city.

Many of the citizens of these cities, such as Portland, Dallas, even Houston, said the same things you are saying. Now, years after their completion, these projects have all been successful.

Your commentary on the bus ridership is also misleading. WE don't have a bus schedule /system that actually works for riders -- or even routes that make sense. If we did, more people would ride the bus.

You need to back off a little bit, consider the world beyond your Brookhaven, suburban realm, and realize that there may be more to this than you know right now.

[betts]

I think good mass transit, if anything, is more essential for cities with less density. You can walk a lot of places in Manhattan, and many times I don't even bother to use the bus or subway when I'm there. Here, since very little of the city is walkable, a good mass transit system is necessary to get us out of our cars. As far as what kind of system we have, I'm rather indifferent. I spent years riding the bus in Denver and was perfectly happy with that option, as the routes were great and the buses ran frequently and reliably. So, bus, trolley, train doesn't really matter to me. But, for me to consider us a real city, we need real mass transit options.

[venture]

You need to back off a little bit, consider the world beyond your Brookhaven, suburban realm, and realize that there may be more to this than you know right now.

Remember, they don't even live in Oklahoma anymore. They are in Florida, and would tend to explain their lack of understand on mass transit needs in the Metro.

I've always liked the clean look of a monorail system, but I think it would be too prohibitive in Oklahoma with the wind. I remember many days at Disney World where they had (have?) to shut the system down due to winds being too high. Remember, go up just a bit above the surface and the winds pick up a bit. However, a monorail system would be easier to deploy with the smaller foot print needed. Not sure I would say have it go down the median of highways or anything, because I can just see a vehicle go left of center into a support and shut the system down for awhile.

[danielf1935]

Message to danielf,

You seem particularly hostile to the use of any rail in our transportation, but you seem to have no problem with them continuing to spend BILLIONS on highways.

Look, we may not have the density of some cities, but building the rail will CREATE DENSITY, just as it has in Dallas and every other city.

Many of the citizens of these cities, such as Portland, Dallas, even Houston, said the same things you are saying. Now, years after their completion, these projects have all been successful.

Your commentary on the bus ridership is also misleading. WE don't have a bus schedule /system that actually works for riders -- or even routes that make sense. If we did, more people would ride the bus.

You need to back off a little bit, consider the world beyond your Brookhaven, suburban realm, and realize that there may be more to this than you know right now.

Not hostile, I just prefer to live n the real world. Light rail will never work in this area, we build highways because they are used. I don't see how anyone can justify spending millons/billons on light rail transit "Hoping people use it".

[danielf1935]

Remember, they don't even live in Oklahoma anymore. They are in Florida, and would tend to explain their lack of understand on mass transit needs in the Metro.

I've always liked the clean look of a monorail system, but I think it would be too prohibitive in Oklahoma with the wind. I remember many days at Disney World where they had (have?) to shut the system down due to winds being too high. Remember, go up just a bit above the surface and the winds pick up a bit. However, a monorail system would be easier to deploy with the smaller foot print needed. Not sure I would say have it go down the median of highways or anything, because I can just see a vehicle go left of center into a support and shut the system down for awhile.

Venture, I think this is the second time you've said that I live in Florida, the last time I checked, Norman was still in Oklahoma, it's about 20 miles S. of OKC, if you go to mapquest, you'll find it.