Humphreys gets on board for mass transit

[metro]

Everyone else is starting more mass transit threads, why not one more:



A starting point for public transit

High gasoline prices have Kirk Humphreys more bullish than ever when it comes to development in the inner city.
As mayor, Humphreys was the skeptic who had a hard time visualizing a time when Oklahomans might give up their cars. As reported previously, he asked one acquaintance when he might consider depending on light rail or public transportation. The answer? When gas hits $4 a gallon.

Well, that's happened. But Humphreys, back in the development game, is still skeptical as to whether people are any closer to giving up their cars. He sees another dynamic at work — one that he thinks will boost downtown development.
By locating downtown, Humphreys argues, one has access to all government services, the city's finest entertainment and dining options and one area of town where sidewalks can be found along every street.

And of course downtown and the adjoining Oklahoma Health Center are home to a work force of at least 52,400. Yet if one counts every apartment and condominium built the past few years, and those announced but not built, downtown is seeing about 1,000 new residences. I've met at least a couple dozen of the people buying and renting these new homes, and many of them are either empty nesters or young professionals who decided to live downtown for just the urban experience, and not in connection with where they work.

Consider yet another Humphreys acquaintance who until recently was commuting to his job in Oklahoma City from Ada. This individual has now switched to a job in Ada. That's proof to Humphreys that the higher gas prices are forcing people to make different choices.

‘Get used to walking'
Humphreys, who is teaming up with his son Grant on a mixed-use development for the former Downtown Airpark, is now an advocate for either a light rail system or bus rapid transit system. His advice: start out small with a system that will draw the heaviest use serving the inner city.
"I'm not convinced it should be a downtown circulator (as has been discussed in various planning circles),” Humphreys said.

"You can't have something that goes to every door. Make it a set of straight lines — one going along Broadway, maybe another going along Robinson. People are going to need to get used to walking a few blocks.”

From there, Humphreys explains, the city ends up with a win-win: a booming urban core and a good starting point for establishing modern public transit for all of Oklahoma City.

[Tom Elmore]

It's said that, in this world, we're all "either part of the solution or part of the problem."

Kirk Humphreys was Mayor of OKC for how long?

He had every opportunity, and every reason to look at what was going on in America's "new transit cities" and to recognize the advantage intelligent reuse of our remarkable existing rail assets would have given us.

He was not interested.

Nor, as is clear from his comments above, is he interested now.

This is what I'm talking about when I say Oklahoma has everything it needs for greatness -- except "leadership."

TOM ELMORE

[betts]

I think downtown population stimulates retail, hotel and restaurant development, which in turns brings more people. As more people are interested in living downtown, more business may look to relocate there because the population may wish to have ease of transportation to their jobs. As downtown becomes more viable as a work and entertainment site, close in neighborhoods become more attractive. We have beautiful neighborhoods close to downtown that would benefit greatly from refurbishment. We have beautiful schools that would benefit from an influx of educated, involved parents. All of that can have as great an impact on energy consumption as transportation choices. Transportation does not by itself change habits. It's where we live and work that changes our energy consumption.

[sooner52]

Isn't it possible that both Kirk and other city leaders simply had different priorities when Humphrey's was in office such as giving the city a base to stand on with the first MAPS initiative and reinvestment in education with MAPS for kids? Isn't is possible for someone to overlook a need at one point and then see it as obvious at another point in time?

To me, it seems that OKC is doing better than it has in a very long time when it comes to leadership. OKC has recently garned many awards as most recession proof, best place to start a career, quality of life, etc as we all know - and it wasn't the buildings downtown or trees that helped the city receive those lofty titles - it's all about people! Its people who attract and grow businesses, and city leaders have a big hand in that, especially when it comes to large investments.

[CuatrodeMayo]

It's said that, in this world, we're all "either part of the solution or part of the problem."

Kirk Humphreys was Mayor of OKC for how long?

He had every opportunity, and every reason to look at what was going on in America's "new transit cities" and to recognize the advantage intelligent reuse of our remarkable existing rail assets would have given us.

He was not interested.

Nor, as is clear from his comments above, is he interested now.

This is what I'm talking about when I say Oklahoma has everything it needs for greatness -- except "leadership."

TOM ELMORE

Thanks for actually making a relevant post.

[plmccordj]

This is clear that he just does not get it. The reason people do not ride the bus is because we do not have a bus system that covers ALL the major arteries. It is not that difficult but for some reason, our leaders cannot see this obvious problem.

No one will commit to riding a bus until they can get a system that goes where they want (need) to go. Why would I buy a bus pass when I have to drive miles to the closes bus stop and I live in the city and not on the fringe. You cannot even get a bus to Tinker AFB, the largest single site employer in the state.

[lpecan]

Could not agree more. I can't tell you how many times I've lamented that there is only one way service to the Airport from downtown. I'm all about light rail, but I can't stand it when people cite the lack of ridership on the buses as evidence for a lack of desire for public transportation.

[Tom Elmore]

A further comment:

Kirk Humphreys' time as mayor stategically positioned him to take decisive -- and entirely obvious -- action on transit development that would have made all the difference in the way OKC has met today's fuel price situation.

In Salt Lake, Dallas, Denver and the other New Transit Cities across the nation, all of whom had to fight the same ugly battles that have so far stalemated transit development here -- the leaders who prevailed in their determination to create real transportation alternatives are, today, unequivocally considered to be visionary statesmen.

Kirk Humphreys had his opportunity to be one of these -- and, considering the magnificent assets he had to work with, might have engineered the greatest alternative transportation triumph of them all.

That's the great sadness of so many of our recent leaders, from Frank Keating down. All have had tremendous opportunities to do great things for Oklahoma. Nearly all, in nearly every case, however, have done otherwise.

Our children and grandchildren deserve better.

TOM ELMORE

[oneforone]

I have never understood how Metrotransit stays afloat. No bus route ever runs on schedule. The service shuts down at 6pm. It takes you twice, sometimes three times the amount of time you could get to your destination by car.

I am sure there are plenty of people out there that would love to give up thier morning drive for a few extra minutes to read the paper, drink a cup of coffee, etc. etc.

Jacquline Sit from News 9 took the bus from a stop near her home at Memorial and Western to the News 9 at Wilshire and Kelly. It takes her 15 minutes to drive thier. It took her an hour and a half by bus.

Why is there only one transfer station? Why is there not a transfer station in every area of the city? (NE, SE, NW, SW)

Metrotransit should at least make some of the routes share the same bus stops. If nothing else you could have a bus running east and west that people could hop over to the next route.

I think it is time for the city to privatize the bus system. A private company wanting to retain a city contract would focus all efforts on being user friendly, establishing better routes and increasing ridership.

[Tom Elmore]

Dallas is an example of the pattern with "all bus" transit systems. Making rail transit the center of the system is the only thing that has ever created permanent increases in bus ridership. The buses fill out the system from rail stops. The middle class eagerly uses the trains, and will also use connecting buses.

The trains are the key.

Many of the ingrained "resisters" of transit development here have often used that old shibboleth, "no trains until bus ridership increases." In other words, "the beatings will continue until morale improves." But, "only here." Not in "Salt Lake" or "Phoenix."

OKC once boasted one of the most complete electric rail transit systems for a city its size in the world. When the streetcars and interurbans were replaced with buses, transit use trended down. Many have said cheap automobiles and fuel actually caused that -- but since 1996, the "New Transit cities" have led the clear resurgence of transit use. For some years now, national growth in transit use has exceeded growth in automobile use.

A good example of "the difference" is comparing the "old line" McKinney Avenue trolleys to OKC's "Istook trolleys." The old Dallas trolleys are roomy and perfectlly quiet -- except for the low rumble of the wheels on the old steel rails and the occasional characteristic "squeal" of wheel flanges on the tracks through curves. The "Istook trolleys --" hard riding truck bodies transmitting every jarring expansion joint through the hard wooden seats into the riders' backbones. Hard to be to concerned about that during the ride, however, as the roar of the infernal diesel engine, moved into the passenger compartment to make the steel body "look a little more like a real trolley"overwhelms most other sounds.

No comparison to even the oldest rail transit.

But Salt Lake got fast, glassy-smooth light rail, with thyristor controlled motors humming like some science-fiction technology and huge, fast commuter trains, 60-per-day, linking Utah's airbase to the state's population centers.

Oklahoma City got "Istook's motor trolleys" -- more akin to the mattress-laden Model A hoopies depression-era Okie refugees used to flee to California -- and a "one-a-day passenger train to Texas."

This is what Oklahoma leaders made of our enviable wealth of existing rail assets -- even as they planned in back rooms to permanently cripple those assets forever through the deliberate destruction of the Union Station yard.

Thankfully, however, folks -- we can still turn this thing around.

We've got to demand better, and we need to do so urgently.

TOM ELMORE

[BoulderSooner]

gas at .90 cents a gallon .. didn't require "mass transit"

[betts]

Sorry, but my demands are different. We need light rail where it will work and where people will use it. Rail for the sake of rail will run empty. This needs to be studied urgently, but not done without careful planning. I, for one, don't want billions of my tax dollars spent on something that is poorly planned and underutilized. And Union Station is a very poor location for what I want.

[edcrunk]

tom, i would reckon you might have a better chance in getting folks in league with you if you answered people's question, engaged in dialogue with them and not label them as part of a profane people because they support core 2 shore.

[HOT ROD]

Tom, in principal I agree with you, but I think you're a little off base with regard to your criticism of Grant.

For one, back when he was mayor - OKC was in a WAY different position than it is today. Ill give you proof, back then NOBODY would have EVER given OKC the chance to have a major league team and most people outside of OKC and even many inside OKC would have said that OKC couldn't support a team long term. Now look at OKC today, people nationwide agree that OKC deserves a team (some just think it shouldn't be the Sonics, though). ..

Also consider, Salt Lake has transit NOW - but back when they first got the Jazz, Salt Lake was WAY smaller than OKC and was WAY further behind. Today they are ahead in many areas, but OKC is not that far away.

What Im trying to say, is you have to work with what you got. Back then, OKC didn't really have the URBAN population densit that it does now and will have even moreso in the next few years. It also didn't have as much interest in downtown and the inner city like it does today. Also, consider gas prices back then - it didn't make sense back then to introduce a rail system here (im not saying they shouldn't have planned for one tho - but I bet it would have been more suburban in design than it will be today, which would have defeated the purpose)....

Again, I dont disagree with you in principle - yes, Grant had a chance to forever change OKC back when he was mayor; but he did what he had to do and work with - which was complete MAPS and set the stage for the development in downtown we see today.

Norick created the start, Grant followed through and made it possible for, Cornett to carry OKC into the next dimension (Tier II status big city with a major league team).

We need Cornett, now, to set the stage for urban density and transit - he may not see it completed but like Humpreys - he can set the stage with what he has. And certainly, now is the time to start seriously planning and building transit.

Not to be nit-picky but Tom, I think instead of criticizing and complaining (not that I completely disagree with you), I think ADDING and moving forward now is the best call!

[HOT ROD]

on my previous note. I think we could easily implement a system and for not too much cost.

We should start with the low floor streetcar trolley in downtown as a circular. We should shoot for construction to begin BY 2010. This should be $50M to start.

I think even sooner, we could get commuter heavy rail by buying another train and letting AMTRAK run it as a commuter 'demonstrator' line. This train would start out as dedicated to Metro OKC during rush hours and could double as an Express Train between Ftw and OKC (stops ONLY at Norman, Ardmore, and Grapevine).

That same train would double as the Commuter demonstrator line during rush hours and would run from Guthrie to downtown to Norman and would only have stops at S. Edmond PnR, N. Wilshire or 63rd PnR, and Crossroads Mall PnR. Busses and vans could spit off from the PnR platforms to those local areas and the whole thing would be a success (in the form of ridership, not necessarily cost).

Then later, we could buy another train to run Heartland Flyer and Express into KS, and dedicate the aformentioned 2nd train as a full time CR instead of a rush hour demonstrator.

Im not sure how much this would cost, but I imagine it would be quite minimal - since we'd ONLY need a train station refurb in Guthrie and PnR lots with platforms elsewhere. Downtown is already set, but we need the station staffed fulltime with Amtrak and OCART personnel.

Then, as we add these new lines - publicize the heck out of them, and definitely have them available for special events downtown.

Im excited about this. Should the state make a special sales or property tax for the OKC metro area (ONLY, so the rest of the state doesn't complain) for this effort? I'd honestly say, property tax or maybe a car tab fee (which is what we do up here in Seattle).

[soonerguru]

Although he may seem strident, Tom is correct on this one. I remember quite well when Humphries was mayor and he referred to anyone questioning the I-40 relocation as if they were some kind of dirty hippie psycho nitwit.

I was at the mayor's luncheon when he deflected all questions about rail.

After reading the Gazette story today, it's clear the fix was in from our leaders, including the disgraceful crook Istook.

Even now, they good ol' boys are not seriously considering rail. Despite Steve's pollyanna column, nothing happens without the insiders (Gaylords) getting behind it. They are not behind rail, and I don't believe Mick or the Chamber will fight for it.

It's going to be up to the citizens.

[betts]

Even now, they good ol' boys are not seriously considering rail. Despite Steve's pollyanna column, nothing happens without the insiders (Gaylords) getting behind it. They are not behind rail, and I don't believe Mick or the Chamber will fight for it.

It's going to be up to the citizens.

I was at a meeting where the mayor was questioned about rail, and my impression was that he wanted financial input from the suburbs and Norman if they wanted rail to extend there. If I remember correctly, and will paraphrase, he said, "We don't want to make it easy for people to live in the suburbs" I never got the feeling he was anti-rail, and I thought he'd always mentioned it as one of the primary focuses of MAPS 3. But, although I hate to sound like a broken record, this is not something that should be undertaken lightly. This will be a massive outlay of capital, and we don't want to spend that kind of money for a poorly designed system, just to say we have light rail.

I think we need very detailed studies of population density, routes of travel of people in the workforce, estimates of where the new office buildings and business density areas will be. Even if we do all that, it is possible that gasoline prices will do our work for us, and people will start living closer to work, or we may see production of incredibly fuel efficient automobiles. There is a possibility that there are alternatives to light rail that might be cheaper and more energy efficient, or more practical for Oklahoma City, even if light rail is more "sexy". I agree that it would be cool to have a rail system, but not if it's not going where I want to go, it's insanely expensive relative to the energy saved, or it's not efficient.

[soonerguru]

Betts,

No offense, but keep in mind that what Mick says at a public meeting may not represent his actual views. His suburbs comment may be a trial balloon to begin to create a narrative against rail.

What I'm hearing is that commuter rail is not completely off the table, but inner-city rail is not seriously being considered. For that, they're looking at rubber tire trolleys and such.

Again, the public need not be left out of this conversation. We're going to have to force it on them, because they may weasel out. They're really gung ho about a new convention center but they talk about transit as an afterthought. Personally, I would forego a new convention center a few years if it meant a meaningful transit solution for this city.

They talk about being "Big League" but that is laughable if we don't even have a transit system.

WE cannot and will not be a major league city until we have a mass transit system. Period. I couldn't care less about hosting square dance conventions. We need transit, and we need it now.

[betts]

I agree that we need mass transit. But, and I'm not an expert by any means, I really, really think it needs to be well studied. I agree that the public needs to get involved, but I also think we could temporarily use a bus or trolley system while we figure out what will be the most cost effective and used means of transportation. People use buses in London and NYC, and if they work there, they'll work here. It's kind of chicken and egg thing, but if people demand transportation, then they need to be willing to use it. We probably need buses or trolleys to run somewhat empty first, because people need to be aware that there is transportation available, and it's running on time and to a variety of different places that they're going. We need bus stops that are attractive and shelter people from the weather.

Again, light rail is sexy, but we're not talking about something that is fun to use once in a while. We need transportation that is cost effective and used. That takes careful planning. I don't want to watch a multi-billion dollar rail system running empty past lines of cars waiting for it to cross.

[soonerguru]

Betts,

I don't disagree with you. I just don't trust these people to "study" the problem. They're idiots. Why don't we go ask people in Portland -- now booming -- if we should keep studying the problem, while they continue to add shiny new routes to their bustling rail system.

Many of these "studies" undertaken in the past were designed to prove that rail was costly. No ****! So is spending billions on a highway that only goes five miles, which is what we're doing now. Think about that for a minute. How is that efficient? How is that not expensive?

Meanwhile, no alternatives are presented.

In order to create a meaningful transit system, we have to rebrand it in the public's mind as something that's there for reasons other than moving poor people around.

We also need to seriously look at the management of COTPA, what their long-term plans are, and who's who there. After trying to use our bus system for months, I gave up, and my opinion of these people is not good.

Don't forget, federal funding is available for us to apply to rail, and we don't have Istook in office siphoning it off to his buddies in Salt Lake. The next person we'll have to get around is Tom Coburn -- and probably Inhofe as well (although he'll support it if he can get something out of it).

[blangtang]

COTPA is awful. It seems the city's newest idea of what public transportation should be is the river cruises to nowhere. From what i've gathered, the boats were bought by chk or devon and now the COTPA is in charge of operating and maintaining them. and they are spending 1/2 million on an advertising campaign to get people to ride them. they don't go anywhere people would want to go.

as a tourist thing, sure its 'neat'.

for the 1/2 million ad campaign they could purchase new buses or increase the frequency of current lines.

I don't think COTPA came up with the idea for the river cruises, but they've been saddled with operating and maintaining them by the big boys.

oh and humphreys is um, a little behind the curve!

[HOT ROD]

guru, I have to agree with you. As I read your above post - it got me thinkin'....

OKC has/will have soon an NBA team and a city pop well over 550K and metro well over 1.3M; so it is a major city and a big league city.

However, OKC will be the ONLY city in the NBA without a transit system, that despite OKC NOT BEING THE SMALLEST CITY, since Salt Lake and New Orleans are smaller; and soon OKC will pass Memphis in Metro Pop.

Yet all of those cities have transit systems, including rail and/or Streetcar transit.

We do need to get on the ball with this, like I said - start with the downtown trolley to encourage growth in all sectors downtown! This will create a critical mass in the centre city that "SHOULD" create demand from the suburbs - which we should then

institute a commuter rail N-S line (at least a demonstrator line). See if it works, promote it, get people into and out of downtown efficiently. Not light rail yet, commuter rail (less stops, more capacity). Then once this demonstrator line proves itself (and it will), make it permanent and perhaps add lines going E-W.

Then, now that commuter rail is working and downtown has a great critical mass with its trolley and CR feeding it - NOW do light rail (lower capacity but more stops) in the inner city radiating out from downtown.

That is how you do it, it would be hugely successful in OKC and would create critical mass.

I forgot to mention, while you're 'waiting' on CR; implement regional transit centers and have busses feed neighborhoods off of them. Have Commuter Bus run from the regional transit centers to downtown and perhaps other major employment draws. Residents would catch a local bus to the transit center then transfer to a regional or commuter express bus to downtown OR the other major destinations. It is sort of a hub and spoke system but way more efficient than the SINGLE hub system that OKC currently has.

This would establish commuter routes, and those who are successful could easily be converted to commuter or light rail.

Like Betts said, the study would only be needed to determine where the major destinations should place regional transit centers. But I'll take a stab at it - Crossroads Mall*, Qual Springs Mall, Shepard Mall, Tinker AFB/downtown MWC*, Yukon*, Edmond*, Guthrie*, Norman*, Mustang*, NW Business District, Choctaw*, Shawnee, Chickasha, Capital Hill, Nichols Hills (Chesapeake area)*, and perhaps the State Capitol campus -

those would be my best bet for BUS Transit Centers or major PnR. Local neighbourhood busses would feed off of them and express busses would connect them to each other and/or downtown. The stops with stars* are those I think should easily by CR also.

Unlike other major cities, Oklahoma City isn't that difficult to figure out commuter patterns, since most stuff is either downtown or in pockets where major draws already exist (like malls, or hospitals, or suburb downtowns).

I agree though, let's get to it. MY PLAN above would be easy to implement - and with lots of help we should be able to get funding for it (maybe not the downtown trolley - that would have to be MAPS 3, but I definitely think OKC can get funds for the CR idea I propose, esp the demonstrator - the ONLY cost would be the train and a few platforms...).

[metro]

HOT ROD, FYI....Grant was never mayor, his father Kirk was.