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

[mcgrawsdad]

That's been my experience as well. I found it kind of amusing that one of the OKC news stations did a piece that was basically them being amazed that middle and upper class people were riding the bus during the high gas prices of the summer. I guess they expected to get on and see a slum...I wish I could find the video

Let me clarify...if light rail occurs and it is a failure (i.e. not more advantageous/convenient than driving your auto), then the only ridership you will have are those without auto (for the most part)...elderly and underpriveleged are those without autos in OKC.

[sgray]

Let me clarify...if light rail occurs and it is a failure (i.e. not more advantageous/convenient than driving your auto), then the only ridership you will have are those without auto (for the most part)...elderly and underpriveleged are those without autos in OKC.

Mcgrawsdad,

I think we understood the main part of your post. What I take issue with is what you said at the end of your post.

Nobody wants to ride a train that is being frequented by the underpriveleged.

While I respect your position on the issue, I do not place myself into a social bubble where I cannot be around or talk to others just because they are "underprivileged". I think we could use some clarification on why you think that nobody would want to ride a train just because it was being frequented by folks who can't afford or who choose not to buy a car.

[securityinfo]

Aw, come on!! Way too easy!!



YouTube - Another One Rides The Bus! -Weird Al, (Bites The Dust) G-mod

(substituting bus for train referenced below)

Mcgrawsdad,
I think we could use some clarification on why you think that nobody would want to ride a train just because it was being frequented by folks who can't afford or who choose not to buy a car.

[sgray]

Aw, come on!! Way too easy!!

YouTube - Another One Rides The Bus! -Weird Al, (Bites The Dust) G-mod

This is friggin retarded!!! But funny as hell nonetheless!

[mcgrawsdad]

and another one rides...and another one rides...

SGRAY...if light rail is implemented and it is less than a success at first, the majority of the ridership WILL be from those individuals that mass transit is the only transit choice they have. Sure some people choose to not own a car, but most do not choose, but rather can not afford or are (for one reason or another) unable to legally or physically drive. Assuming light rail is not a success, then the ridership will be those individuals described above. Half the battle with light rail is the perception of the general public, if the public perceives light rail to be those individuals described above, then public perception alone will be enough to doom light rail. In essence, if light rail has any chance to succeed, then it must do so from the outset. It must have so much greater marginal utility than driving your own automobile that it is frequented by both those who have alternative forms of transportation and those that do not. I hope that clarifies my position and statement.

[andy157]

This is the way liberals operate. If you don't agree with them they resort to name calling. I can't count how many times I was called a racist from people just because I didn't vote for THE ONE. That's the way they operate. Disagree with them, you're a racist, hater, bigot and so on. Remember, these are the people who preach tolerance. I've got a name for them too--hypocrites.

You really are a moron. There I've confirmed your theory on Liberals. Happy now?

[GWB]

You really are a moron. There I've confirmed your theory on Liberals. Happy now?

Confirmed it? No. Reinforced it? Yes. You're good at it too.

[LakeEffect]

Fun fact to take note of - Phoenix recently released ridership numbers for its brand new light rail system. Ridership has exceeded estimates by 5,000/day. That's a good number, and the Arizona Republic reported that weekends are even better.

Now for the comparison, OKC has a population density around 2200/sq mile (when you factor in the actual urban area, not the City as a whole), and Phoenix has a density around 2800/sq mile. If you include Midwest City/Del City/Moore/Edmond, etc., into our urban density, we might actually creep up higher. Therefore, from this (very) basic comparison, one could conclude that light rail could be an option here. I think Phoenix is a good comparison because it too has historically been an extremely auto-centric City.

[soonerguru]

GWB,

Do you honestly believe that conservatives DON"T also use name calling in arguments?

Ever heard of the "Muslim, Anti-Christ, Socialist, Terrorist Sympathizer" we have for Prez?

Seriously, you are delusional if you think name calling is an argumentative device only deployed by liberals.

[andy157]

Confirmed it? No. Reinforced it? Yes. You're good at it too.

Glad I could help. Lord knows you've whined about it, and rambled on about it enough times, guess it had to be true.

[GWB]

Glad I could help. Lord knows you've whined about it, and rambled on about it enough times, guess it had to be true.

I'm glad that's settled then. Anything else we can argue about?

[sgray]

Anything else we can argue about?

I dunno, we've covered about everything in existence here...BUT, while we're on a roll, let's not stop! Wonder if we can get the mods to rename this thread to something more generic. Maybe "Miscellaneous"??? No no. No good. How about something more creative, like: "The Blasting Room"!?!?

Getting back to the topic of the MWC project...now that the stimulus is one step closer to reality--wonder how soon we'll know about those specific funds. I read that the state is already preparing to receive a great deal of the funds.

[Rover]

Most people in Oklahoma who are critical of light rail or any rail travel have never used it anywhere. In much of the world it is a highly efficient and responsible way to travel, not to mention easy. It is usually reliable and cost effective and draws a loyal and steady ridership. But, people tend to be suspicious or critical of things they are ignorant about, so we get so much resistance to new ideas.

I for one support light rail, as well as high-speed long haul rail such as used in Europe. It is a great way to travel and I usually prefer it to airline travel and its hassles.

[benman]

We shouldnt even accept these stimulus funds. The stimulus package is a bunch of bs. We dont need light rail, or anything else that may come from the stimulus. Sure its exciting to get a boatload of money dumped on you, but we dont need it. We as a state are kicking along just fine and are in way better shape than 90% of other states. We should figure out our own way to fund new projects that we would like to see. It makes me sick that we are going to accept these stimulus funds and bite the hook that the government wants us to. Its going to screw us in the long run. A boat load of money isnt going to come our way with no strings attached. If you beleive it is, you are crazy.

[BDP]

I guess I can understand some people protesting all forms of subsidized transportation, but do the people who don't think we should invest in rail protest all the government money spent on building, maintaining, and expanding roads just so that we can cater to people who want to live farther and farther apart, yet insist the government build an infrastructure that allows them to drive by themselves in their own SUV without ever having to brake on the freeway?

I mean, really, we don't need roads any more than we need rail. In fact, we probably need them less, if the objective is simply to get from A to B in the most efficient manner possible. Basically, those demanding roads over rail are simply demanding state subsidized personal luxury, while those supporting mass transit are simply asking for a more efficient allocation of government resources to transportation infrastructure.

We obviously need transportation, but there is nothing that says we need to build more roads or bigger roads instead of public transit, yet we keep doing that with what seems to me like little thought to the initial expense or the long term cost of doing so. You don't need to drive your own car everywhere you go and it certainly is not a constitutional obligation for the government to provide you with the roads to do so.

It's possible that if we spent all the money on rail that we spend on widening our freeways, paving the sticks, fixing potholes, and putting up stop lights 150 blocks from the city center just so people can drive their own cars, maybe in 50 years we wouldn't feel like we need more roads. We'd maybe just need more rails, making every dollar spent by the government to expand transportation infrastructure more efficient in terms of the cost per user, which in any real evaluation should include the money spent on roads.

Basically, I understand why some don't want to spend public funds on mass transit, if for nothing else because they think they won't use it. But then, for the same reasons, we need to stop spending it on roads as well. I certainly pay a lot of taxes for roads that I'll never use.

[betts]

Interesting argument BDP. Right now, at least, I think we need both infrastructure for automobile travel and mass transit. It's clear that we don't have limitless supplies of oil, and so, if nothing else, we need to be thinking about what kind of transit options people will need/want in the future. Knowing how long it takes to get anything done, beginning to think about it/plan for it now seems quite reasonable. As far as who will use mass transit, it's all about perception. If people perceive mass transit as a viable option, and less hassle or less expensive than driving a car, they will use it. But again, I'm going to argue that rail is rarely the mainstay of mass transit, and a great bus and/or trolley system is the place to start, while we are beginning our plans for rail transit.

[andy157]

We shouldnt even accept these stimulus funds. The stimulus package is a bunch of bs. We dont need light rail, or anything else that may come from the stimulus. Sure its exciting to get a boatload of money dumped on you, but we dont need it. We as a state are kicking along just fine and are in way better shape than 90% of other states. We should figure out our own way to fund new projects that we would like to see. It makes me sick that we are going to accept these stimulus funds and bite the hook that the government wants us to. Its going to screw us in the long run. A boat load of money isnt going to come our way with no strings attached. If you beleive it is, you are crazy.

Could you provide us with a couple of examples that explain what the strings are to receiving this money?

[sgray]

Well written argument, BDP!

And Betts is right. Even if we got all of the individual traffic off the roads, we'd still need a skeleton infrastructure for commercial traffic, mainly just local though as commercial shipments by rail are looking very appealing even at today's oil prices.. That's just the point. If we can keep the loads on the highways and roads to reasonable levels by providing an alternative means to get around, we can keep from expanding to 20-lane (or more) highways with super-mega interchanges that cost a fortune and only last so long before having to be replaced again and again, mainly due to rapidly increasing loads. I mean, look at the fact that our new crosstown being built today is what, 10-lane? And that's now.

One thing should be clear to anyone and everyone. The cost of expanding our highways around the metro okc area alone to even a 10-lane config would be insane! Let's assume a good-case scenario. Take the original cost of the 4.5mi crosstown which was what, $300million? Now figure the cost (just for the metro loads) to expand I-35 from Edmond to Norman; I-40 from Yukon to MWC; I-44 from I-35 to south OKC; and I-240. Might we be able to buy a small country for that chunk of change? Now keep in mind, this insane price tag would not even address city/county road expansion, intersections, larger traffic lights, etc...

By putting in some basic transit infrastructure, we can keep our highways and roads to a more reasonable level. Even in some of the most difficult areas, especially ones where lots of folks said the same thing "it CANT work", it HAS worked and IS working. Oklahoma City (and OK in general) has a nice advantage in that we can learn from others' mistakes and successes and maximize the return on our tax dollars as we design and build our system.

I just want to add (in response to benman's post) one minor detail. Look at the incredible amount of spending in the Oklahoma stimulus for roads and highways. Almost all of Oklahoma's own proposed stimulus is for roads and highways. Less than one percent of the funds requested were for mass transit. So, I can certainly understand (and respect) your more conservative position. For opponents of Oklahoma's portion of the stimulus, they could certainly make a case for a lot of spending in one area. Problem is, nearly none of it is for mass transit, but rather roads and highways.

[soonerguru]

The biggest logical fallacy in the arguments against rail transit are that it has to be subsidized. As if highways aren't? Highways are ridiculously expensive, require constant upkeep, etc. They are subsidized to the hilt.

[BPD]

Of course the major cost of building and maintaining roads comes from taxes that drivers of autos themselves pay: gasoline taxes. In that sense they are not subsidies at all but rather a mechanism for cars to pay their own way.

[CuatrodeMayo]

Only a very small portion of gas taxes actually go to roadways.

[BDP]

Of course the major cost of building and maintaining roads comes from taxes that drivers of autos themselves pay: gasoline taxes.

Some of it does, but not a "major" portion of it. Besides, some of the cost of public transit is paid by fares, which really equates to a conservative friendly "use tax". Yes, we'll all subsidize it in other ways and people who don't use it will pay taxes that go to public transit, but, again, most of my taxes that are spent on roads right now goes to building and maintaining roads I never use, as well.

What I find interesting from a political standpoint is that, ideologically speaking, public transit often should be the conservative position. Spending on roads represents a lot of wasteful government spending that is very inefficient in terms of cost per mile per user. Public transit is a way to actually maximize the per user expense, while minimizing the wear and tear impact that leads to so much spending in maintenance and repairs, not to mention the direct savings to tax payers who don't have to buy their own mode of transportation or at least save thousands in maintenance and depreciation costs because they are driving the vehicle they do have less.

Now, I'm not saying we need to drop a billion on rail for Oklahoma City or that we're in some sort of transportation crises here, but to dismiss public transit or rail with prejudice for Oklahoma City is simply being short sighted and illogical when compared to the way we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on roads to address the same need. Not to mention that the building of these roads actually creates the need to spend even more money to maintain them. Then when you consider that these roads are favored over rail, or other public transit, in large part just so we don't have to sit next to someone else on the way to work and you begin to realize how wasteful and impractical we have been with our long term allocation of public resources towards transportation.

So, really, if we can agree on a growth projection for Oklahoma that would result in increased need for transportation infrastructure, including roads, and we agree that the government is charged with overseeing meeting this increased demand, then maybe it is time to begin thinking about different solutions that would not only be more efficient per user, but also decrease the costs associated with maintaining the infrastructure in which we've already invested.

Basically, building a comprehensive public transportation system, including new rail service, would in no way be less logical than all the money we have spent and will spend on widening our freeways and reconstructing our interchanges and bridges, just so we can maintain our personal isolation and get there a couple of minutes faster.

All that being said, I personally don't get the MWC rail line and I think any lines that aren't build as part of a comprehensive metro wide plan would be just as irresponsible.

[CuatrodeMayo]

I think you will find a surprising number of Oklahoma "conservatives" support public transit. Many in my family are hard-core conservative Republicans and they are thrilled with the possibility of rail transit in OKC.

[BDP]

I don't doubt it. I am pretty sure Mick supports it... as long as it helps get MAPS 3 passed.