View Full Version : Public Transit tops list for MAPS 3!!!!!



Pages : [1] 2

metro
05-24-2007, 12:59 PM
Public transit tops Maps 3
survey By Bryan Dean
Staff Writer

People want MAPS 3, and they want it to include public transit programs like light rail, city leaders said this morning.
Mayor Mick Cornett unveiled early results of an online survey asking people if the city should pursue a third MAPS initiative and for their ideas.

More than 85 percent of the 2,367 people who responded said the city should consider MAPS 3. Many of the 2,026 people who wanted MAPS 3 also submitted ideas, and some gave multiple ideas.

A total of 2,747 ideas were submitted, city officials said. The Web site drew visitors from all 50 states and 57 countries.

The most popular idea by far was public transportation improvements such as a light rail system, downtown streetcars or enhanced bus service. Transit ideas were submitted 668 times. The next most popular idea was improving infrastructure, including streets, which was mentioned 188 times.

Cornett said he was overwhelmed by the support for public transit.

"I knew it would be very popular, but the fact that it exceeded the other ideas by such a large margin is probably a surprise,” Cornett said. "It probably shouldn't have been. We need to do a better job of providing that.”

Cornett said city officials will spend the next several months discussing the ideas but will focus mainly on school and city bond issues scheduled for a vote later this year.

"In 2008, we will kind of reopen the discussion and try to push for a decision on do we want to have a MAPS 3 and what should it look like,” Cornett said.

diesel
05-24-2007, 01:04 PM
Where is the rest of the results?!!? :)

Misty
05-24-2007, 01:09 PM
This is great, I have to say I'm surprised but very excited! This city is really headed in the right direction.

jbrown84
05-24-2007, 01:20 PM
I'm actually a little bit surprised how popular it was too.

Guess the people of OKC got bit by the Big League bug. :D

Tim
05-24-2007, 01:27 PM
I'm actually a little bit surprised how popular it was too.

Guess the people of OKC got bit by the Big League bug. :D

I am soooooo diggin this!

metro
05-24-2007, 01:27 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with the Hornets, big league, etc. I think most people knew we needed public transportation for a long time and city leaders never cared enough in the past to do a QUALITY survey of public opinion. I know good old boy Earnest Istook (whom by the way was Transportation Committee chair at the national level) did his own biased survey and proved OKC didn't need it while somehow he approved Salt Lake City's mass transit system. But I think most citizens of OKC have been wanting it for some time now and this was the first real chance they could voice their opinions.

BaconCheeseburgerDeluxe
05-24-2007, 02:37 PM
I am for it a better public transportation system we just as long as we eliminate COTPA. They are the reason are current system is so crappy.

BDP
05-24-2007, 03:11 PM
Public tansit is also becoming one of those things that a city needs to compete. It's harder to say if a comprehensive public transit system will generate its own development and growth as the competitive advantage of having such a system decreases. More and more it is becoming an issue of whether not having it stunts a city's growth. It's kind of getting to the point where people might say "such-and-such city is a nice town, but, you know, it doesn't even have mass transit". The reality is that, the longer we wait, the more upside we lose and the more the downside of inaction grows, imo.

CuatrodeMayo
05-24-2007, 03:46 PM
Case in Point:

I am looking at diferent firms around the country where I can serve my internship when I graduate. I was looking at Seattle, but upon further research, I learned that public transport there, namly light-rail, is seriously lacking. This was a definite negative and will play a part in my eventual decision.

soonerguru
05-24-2007, 03:51 PM
Great point, BDP. This city has to position itself for the future. It needs differentiators. We should be beyond the Little Rocks and Omahas of the world. We need to build the infrastructure for a major city as we grow, not when it's too late.

So many of OKC's problems could have been avoided by simple planning. The word "planning" itself was a fighting word in this town as recently as ten years. Remember what happened to Garner Stoll?

We have a rare window of opportunity to remake this city in a way that will position itself among the nation's best. The MAPS brand is a winner with the public, and every penny that's gone into it has multiplied.

We need to build a vibrant city people want to move to and live in. A great public transit system is a vital piece of the picture.

Remember: transit systems by themselves encourage new development. Look what happened to Dallas when DART went online! Now, every community in Dallas wants a DART line. But when DART was proposed the usual chorus of naysayers said it would never work. It has been an astonishing success.

But WE CAN DO BETTER than DART. Not everything this city does needs to follow big brother Dallas's model.

Oklahoma City is in the midst of reinventing itself. Transit is a major piece of that image makeover. It needs to happen!

Patrick
05-24-2007, 09:22 PM
The first thing we should've done was preserve the rail yard at Union Station. But, that's not going to happen.

Easy180
05-25-2007, 08:32 AM
Ogle said he was against it on his "My Two Cents" last night...Concerns were who pays for the light rail later on when the trains are running with about 10 people on it

Agree with him on that and also how easy it is to get around OKC in our cars...Will be a tough switch for us car lovers

Good idea, but it has the real possibility of crashing and burning and costing OKC citizen's more money down the road

Luke
05-25-2007, 09:20 AM
I imagine if light rail lines were located with stops at the right places it will be successful here. I would love to be able to get around on rail rather than a car everywhere. Even if I have to drive somewhere to park and then get around from there. That would be great.

soonerguru
05-25-2007, 09:34 AM
Ogle said he was against it on his "My Two Cents" last night

Wow! Like, who cares? Kelly Ogle is a dundering idiot. His synapses fire s-l-o-w-l-y.

okcpulse
05-25-2007, 09:36 AM
Patrick is right. We put up a barrier for ourselves after allowing the Union Station's rail access to be demolished, and that means that city leaders will now need to get creative with light rail. It will no doubt involve a different planning process and problably more expense.

Nonetheless, it is very exciting to see MAPS 3 is actually going to happen, and with popularity, as well. All 50 states and 57 countries? Welcome to the real Sim City of America.

SpectralMourning
05-25-2007, 09:42 AM
Ogle said he was against it on his "My Two Cents" last night...Concerns were who pays for the light rail later on when the trains are running with about 10 people on it

Agree with him on that and also how easy it is to get around OKC in our cars...Will be a tough switch for us car lovers

Good idea, but it has the real possibility of crashing and burning and costing OKC citizen's more money down the road

'Glad to see Kelly Ogle's concerned with the preservation of infrastructure. Besides, I bet we'll sustain more than 10 people per train will be aboard, and if it does by the time it should ever really hit that point, shouldn't we be further along as a city that we can still support it?

I love it how people thought it would be a great idea to throw in the opinions of news anchors. MTV Syndrome I guess. They're a music television network that no longer plays music...

jbrown84
05-25-2007, 09:50 AM
Kelly's opinion is fine and certainly not "idiotic", but I disagree with him.

soonerliberal
05-25-2007, 09:58 AM
While I think the creation of a light-rail system in OKC has some great potential, Ogle makes a good point. Our downtown isn't a centralized business district like many cities. I-35 is crowded going southbound in Moore during the morning rushhour. FAA and Tinker are major employers, not to mention the NW expressway and Memorial districts. It is easy to drive from Norman to Downtown OKC or Edmond to Downtown OKC in less than 30 minutes, even during rushhour. Is the demand there for lightrail? Would people first drive to a station, then wait, then ride into work? Is OKC too spread out to have a reasonable number of stops? I definitely see the purpose of having a system, but would the rest of the city utilize a half-a-billion dollar investment?

jbrown84
05-25-2007, 10:14 AM
It's not just about drive time. Right now I live in Edmond but go downtown or to the Paseo or Western a lot. If I could do it on light rail for 2 bucks instead of paying for the gas I would.

BDP
05-25-2007, 10:21 AM
Sounds like Ogle's comments are of the stock "can't work in Oklahoma City" variety. Thankfully, those people are decreasing in number. We'll have to see if Okies will ride the train or not and if we don't support it, it will be a money loser. But I also think think that not having mass transit will be a money loser in the long run for Oklahoma City.

Basically, we can make the choice. Do we want to live in Ogle's Oklahoma City forever or do we want to plan and build for a more vibrant and economically diversified Oklahoma City in the future? Any investment has risks, but the worst thing that happens with this one is that we improve our infrastructure and quality of life.

And if it is phased in over the next 30 years as I believe it has been proposed, then Ogle's view may be largely irrelevant. The truth of the matter is that if we don't NEED public transit in 30 years, then Oklahoma City will have proven to be a bust. I think those that believe that beginning to implement better public transit today is prudent hold the belief that Oklahoma City can and will grow into a vibrant city with a healthy economy and a strong core. The Ogle position is largely justified only if you believe Oklahoma City's growth will be stagnant for the next 30 years, not to mention one also has to assume that the cost of owning and driving a car will remain affordable for everyone over that time as well.

CCOKC
05-25-2007, 10:24 AM
Don't forget finding and paying for parking. Especially downtown.

jbrown84
05-25-2007, 11:18 AM
Very good points, BDP and CCOKC.

Easy180
05-25-2007, 11:30 AM
So I guess there are no potential downsides to spending millions on light rail?

Didn't say I was against it, but there is a chance it won't take off here since OKC is so easy to get around in...Unlike Dallas

And no I don't think OKC will suddenly start to see significant growth in population...Will likely continue to be slow and steady...Just not a lot of people waiting on the sidelines to relocate here

Kerry
05-25-2007, 12:13 PM
Ogle said he was against it on his "My Two Cents" last night...Concerns were who pays for the light rail later on when the trains are running with about 10 people on it


This is what I call living the lie. It is one thing to disagree with something when your argument has a relationship to reality - but this comment just doesn't make sense on any level. Every rail system, except Amtrak, in America has exceeded ridership expectations.

I have been working in Atlanta for the last 4 months and ride MARTA from the Perimeter Station to the Airport ever week. The trip cost me $1.75 each way plus $12 to park for the weekend. The trip takes about 50 minutes. I can drive the same distance in less time but it really isn't about time for me. In fact, it isn't even about saving money on gas or keeping miles off of the car. If by taking the train every time I can avoid being in just one accident then it is worth to me. Even a minor accident can cause thousand in damages plus higher insurance rates. For me the train is just one way of reducing risk. In the past 4 months I have yet to experience a single case of rail rage but there is story after story on the news about people killed in road rage incidents.


I know some of you are thinking the Atlanta is much bigger than OKC. You are right. But the MARTA system is 30 years old. When it was started ATL was about the same size OKC is now. Unfortunately MARTA didn't keep pace with the cities growth. However a recent news story said that Lindburg Station between Buckhead and downtown averages over 30,000 rider boardings a day. Not bad for a town that is also accused of being in-love with their cars.

soonerliberal
05-25-2007, 12:27 PM
This is what I call living the lie. It is one thing to disagree with something when your argurment has a relationship to reality - but this comment just doesn't make sense on any level. Every rail system, except Amtrak, in America has exceeded ridership expectations.

However, in pretty much every place it has done, there has been the demand. OKC is much less dense and is very simple and quick to get around by car and parking is more easy to find than in most urban areas.

We aren't saying light rail is a bad idea. We are saying and Ogle is saying we have to take everything into consideration rather than rushing into a multi-hundred million dollar project. I personally love the thought of having a light rail system, especially in the inner city areas, but do wonder if it would be largely used to commute on.

jbrown84
05-25-2007, 12:29 PM
We did a huge study on it. I don't think it's being rushed into at all.

Easy180
05-25-2007, 12:33 PM
This is what I call living the lie. It is one thing to disagree with something when your argurment has a relationship to reality - but this comment just doesn't make sense on any level. Every rail system, except Amtrak, in America has exceeded ridership expectations.

ok you're right...There isn't any way at all light rail would be less successful than estimates...Massive amounts of people will ditch their cars and switch over...It's an undeniable fact that OKC's own estimates of ridership will also exceed expectations just lke other cities...This thing is 100% foolproof

Can't believe I was spewing such crazy notions

jbrown84
05-25-2007, 12:36 PM
I think what he's saying is that it's a little ridiculous to say that only 10 people will ride.

Everybody doesn't have to switch over from cars for it to be successful. There's 1.2 million people in the metro.

Easy180
05-25-2007, 01:02 PM
So they will all have 10 or more riding in them at all times?....He didn't say that would be the norm just pointing out the possibility of it costing the taxpayers more after Maps if it didn't work out as well as we hoped

BDP
05-25-2007, 01:02 PM
So I guess there are no potential downsides to spending millions on light rail?

Of course there are, but my point is that the downside to not doing it is quickly beginning to dwarf those concerns. That’s almost evident by the fact that Oklahoma City is actually considering it.


And no I don't think OKC will suddenly start to see significant growth in population...Will likely continue to be slow and steady...Just not a lot of people waiting on the sidelines to relocate here

Which is what such projects are meant to reverse. Oklahoma City is a blank slate that has to be proactive in creating its marketable assets through public investment. To realistically compete and to create a market to which people are wanting to move, we have to spend money to establish a quality of life that is attractive to prospective residents, both corporate and residential.

Right now, our main marketing position is cheapness. Sure, we don't have the services, jobs, infrastructure, or attractions of many cities bigger and smaller, but, hey, it's cheap, right? Well, I think some people, with the success of MAPS, have begun to think that maybe Oklahoma City can position itself as a city that can compete on the quality of life scale without always having to pitch itself as the base model, no frills city. If this trend holds up and Oklahoma City continues to reposition itself as a good place to live, mass transit will eventually play a part in that movement.

Again, we're talking about the 30 year plan here. Assume a modest growth rate of 2.5% a year, Oklahoma City metro area will be about 2.5 million people in 30 years. It's hard to imagine that the city will be able to position itself as even a base model no frills, city in 2037 if it has 2.5 million people and no mass transit. Given the direction of most cities today and the types of investment in public transportation across the country, not to mention growing interest in alternatives to daily automobile use, Oklahoma City will be at a serious disadvantage without a comprehensive mass transit system.

Let's face it, many of Oklahoma City's handicaps are the direct result of the Ogle mentality governing our city and state. "We don't need planning", they say. "We can't support that today", they reason. "It just won't work here", they always conclude. And so, nothing gets done and the city gets left behind, forgotten about, and constantly looked over. Well, it seems to be that only when we've departed from that mentality have we experienced real progress, growth, and increased quality of life. Even if more people didn't move here, it still made it nicer to live here.

It seems like we're at another such juncture when it comes to public transit. Are we going to once again wait until every other market has it until we decide, "hey maybe we could use that", at which point there really would be no competitive advantage to doing so. It would simply be a survival strategy, serving only to play catch up. Instead of elevating the city above some other markets, it would once again be a move that only elevates us to just below other cities in terms of services. And then we'd be left scratching our heads and once again crying “why aren't people and companies lining up to move here even when its so cheap??”

The truth is that light rail downtown would be first in 5-10 years and would probably sustain itself off tourism and convention business alone, especially if you put some novelty to it (just think about how many people ride those boats to nowhere on the canal). Then we try bus rapid transit to see if some of the outer loop communities want fast convenient transit to downtown. Then if the surrounding communities warm up to the idea and want to cooperate with the city, then we get commuter rail, which may make more sense to the Ogles in 2020 than it does now.

That's a pretty safe plan and I haven't heard any that differ from that, but if we can see a 2020 where commuter rail may make sense to Oklahoma City, then now is the time to plan it and start building it, starting where the demand already exists. MAPS III is a good place to get the money to build the core infrastructure and then see if Edmond, MWC, Norman, etc. want to float some joint bonds to connect Oklahoma City's system to theirs. In the meantime, you should see faster development along the rail routes as the trains funnel people down those corridors and provide guaranteed exposure for businesses.

All in all, there is little doubt that Oklahoma City’s future is more promising with public transit than without it. I am sure that underneath some of the Ogle philosophy, there lies a desire for Oklahoma City never to grow or attract more people or service, but until someone actually says that, I’ll just assume that we all want Oklahoma City to progress into the future with increased growth and quality of life.

BDP
05-25-2007, 01:09 PM
We are saying and Ogle is saying we have to take everything into consideration rather than rushing into a multi-hundred million dollar project.

Well, if that was Ogles contention, then it's based on a flawed premise. Nothing that has been proposed or discussed remotely resembles any kind of rushing. In fact, there isn't even an official plan to vote on at this point. So, he assumed we'd rush into it and build a multi-hundred million doillar project funded by MAPS III. That's just wrong. There is no indication that it would be built that way or even funded that way or that hundreds of millions of dollars would be spent at any one time.

These things are hardly ever built that way and if he was at all educated on even this city's own research, he would have known that it is a long term plan funded from several sources. No one is saying that we build a maglev train tomorrow and sales tax ourselves to death to do it. So, basically, he was just commenting on his own imagination.

Easy180
05-25-2007, 01:14 PM
I don't think he is actually against it was just stating some concerns since it is so overwhelmingly popular and unlike the other MAPS projects it could cost taxpayers after completion

Patrick
05-25-2007, 01:18 PM
Patrick is right. We put up a barrier for ourselves after allowing the Union Station's rail access to be demolished, and that means that city leaders will now need to get creative with light rail. It will no doubt involve a different planning process and problably more expense.

Nonetheless, it is very exciting to see MAPS 3 is actually going to happen, and with popularity, as well. All 50 states and 57 countries? Welcome to the real Sim City of America.

That rail yard was worth millions. Our city was pretty stupid allowing I-40 to plow through it. We'll have to pay millions of dollars to replace it if we build a decent commuter rail system.

BDP
05-25-2007, 01:19 PM
Every MAPS project would cost us more tax money to sustain if they failed to generate enough revenue to cover operating costs.

Patrick
05-25-2007, 01:19 PM
Ogle said he was against it on his "My Two Cents" last night...Concerns were who pays for the light rail later on when the trains are running with about 10 people on it

Agree with him on that and also how easy it is to get around OKC in our cars...Will be a tough switch for us car lovers

Good idea, but it has the real possibility of crashing and burning and costing OKC citizen's more money down the road

Public transportation is subsidized in almost every major city

Patrick
05-25-2007, 01:21 PM
Don't forget finding and paying for parking. Especially downtown.

Yeah, you're looking at $7 a day for parking plus the same amount for gas. That's $14 a day. Vs. 2 bucks for commuter rail. As gas prices continue to rise, the demand for commuter rail will only increase.

Easy180
05-25-2007, 01:28 PM
In theory yes, but people are still driving just as much as they were when it was a buck a gallon and what happens when/if we come up with alternative fuel vehicles in 10 to 20 years ...Would light rail still be popular enough if transportation costs actually went down in the future?

Patrick
05-25-2007, 01:30 PM
ok you're right...There isn't any way at all light rail would be less successful than estimates...Massive amounts of people will ditch their cars and switch over...It's an undeniable fact that OKC's own estimates of ridership will also exceed expectations just lke other cities...This thing is 100% foolproof

Can't believe I was spewing such crazy notions

Thanks for admitting your ignorance.

Easy180
05-25-2007, 01:31 PM
That would hurt if I actually cared Patrick

Patrick
05-25-2007, 01:31 PM
In theory yes, but people are still driving just as much as they were when it was a buck a gallon and what happens when/if we come up with alternative fuel vehicles in 10 to 20 years ...Would light rail still be popular enough if transportation costs actually went down in the future?

Depends on the cost. Ideally, our state needs to quit putting money into highway expansion projects in order for something like this to work. Investing in commuter rail would be more cost efficient than investing in a new I-40 Crosstown.

Patrick
05-25-2007, 01:32 PM
That would hurt if I actually cared Patrick

:fighting3

soonerliberal
05-25-2007, 01:45 PM
Yeah, you're looking at $7 a day for parking plus the same amount for gas. That's $14 a day. Vs. 2 bucks for commuter rail. As gas prices continue to rise, the demand for commuter rail will only increase.

However, how many employees pay for parking downtown? How many people would save time and money with light rail? If it only takes me 30 minutes to go 20 miles from Norman to Downtown during rushhour, I don't think I am going to drive to a rail station, then wait, then ride in, then walk to work.

I really see this working in the Downtown/Midtown/Capitol/Meridian area largely for tourism and business, especially if the current growth continues, but for the rest of the city's commuters? Our residential base is extremely spread out and our business base is spread out as well. Large employers including Chesapeake, Hertz, Dell, FAA, Tinker, the misc universities, and countless others are not in one centralized location.

Patrick
05-25-2007, 01:49 PM
However, how many employees pay for parking downtown? How many people would save time and money with light rail? If it only takes me 30 minutes to go 20 miles from Norman to Downtown during rushhour, I don't think I am going to drive to a rail station, then wait, then ride in, then walk to work.

It depends on how expensive gasoline gets. A few years ago, we never would've thought we'd have $3 per gallon of gas. I'd say $5 a gallon for gas isn't out of the question, especially if a Republican gets elected in 2008.

As for time to get places, that may change as the city grows.

CuatrodeMayo
05-25-2007, 01:56 PM
Yes, light rail doesn't work to well for people who do not live close to the station. However, station locations would promote density in the area. It's called Transit Oriented Development.

I would choose to live close to the station, as would many other people. That is what TOD is for.

For existing residents it's not always close, but for those new, younger people moving into their own places, proximity to rail would be of high importance.

jbrown84
05-25-2007, 02:01 PM
It's like when you're going to visit NYC, you look at lodging that is close to the subway stations.

SpectralMourning
05-25-2007, 02:32 PM
In theory yes, but people are still driving just as much as they were when it was a buck a gallon and what happens when/if we come up with alternative fuel vehicles in 10 to 20 years ...Would light rail still be popular enough if transportation costs actually went down in the future?

We're driving just as much because we don't have a choice, and I highly doubt most people would want to be shafted in the gas prices they're paying now because they don't have a choice when getting to work. Personally, I'd love to bike to a rail station if possible, so long as the MWC network would be refitted. Besides, it's not like this would be a complete network all at once. It would more than likely conform to the phased guidelines of the OKFGS, so that if something isn't working, we could go back and reform the plan, trimming the fat.

BG918
05-25-2007, 04:43 PM
This is great news, now make it happen!!! Living in Denver for the summer I've been riding their light rail system everyday to and from work. It's clean and efficient and I don't have to worry about parking and getting stuck in traffic. I read the free newspaper they have at the station or the Denver version of the Gazette (the Westword) while I'm riding the train. It's great and I think it would be a success in OKC, just because how things are setup. These are the diagrams I sent on the MAPS III website, I think they show how heavy commuter rail linking Edmond-downtown OKC-Norman can connect with a light rail "starter" line that goes from OUHSC down 10th and Broadway to E.K. Gaylord (Shields) by the conv. center, Ford Center, and Bricktown and then down our new grand blvd. that will be complete once I-40 is torn down. The commuter rail uses the existing rail tracks while the LRT would have new ones built into the street on its own right of way like they do in downtown Denver.

Light Rail to be funded by MAPS III and state/federal funds
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/okclightrail.jpg

Commuter rail to be funded by MAPS III (for OKC portion), the suburban communities it services (Edmond, Moore, Norman), and state/federal funds
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/okccommuterrail.jpg

brianinok
05-25-2007, 04:49 PM
BDP :congrats:

drumsncode
05-25-2007, 06:09 PM
I heard Kelly last night too, and I like to weigh his opinions, but I don't think Kelly "feels" the pain of living in Edmond and wanting to work downtown every day from 8 to 5pm. He has a quick jaunt to 7401 N. Kelly by the back roads, and that's why he thinks it's easy to get around this town.

I actually hate driving downtown at 7:15am so much that I stopped applying for jobs down there years ago.

If I could park somewhere around Mitch Park in Edmond and catch something to the heart of downtown, it would have the potential to change my world, especially when gas hits $4 a gallon as we know it will someday.

soonerguru
05-25-2007, 08:30 PM
Ogle [shocker] misses the point: the density will be spurred by the development, as it did in Dallas. People will build and develop on rail lines, increasing development in the inner city. This is a good thing.

All the idiots like Ogle can continue driving their large SUVs to drab shopping centers and subdivisions, and those of us who prefer a different lifestyle will at least have an alternative to the bleak loneliness.

By the way, the system is not being built for the Channel 9 uberdork. It's being built for people who don't want to spend $240 a month on gasoline.

Also, the system we build will not come online for years. Therefore, we are planning ahead. There are no guarantees that everything will come up roses, but there are plenty of cities who have added rail transportation to success.

For all we know, rail may do better here than it does in the Denvers and Memphises of the world.

Cid
05-25-2007, 09:34 PM
Man, where to start...


In theory yes, but people are still driving just as much as they were when it was a buck a gallon and what happens when/if we come up with alternative fuel vehicles in 10 to 20 years ...Would light rail still be popular enough if transportation costs actually went down in the future?
Exactly what alternatives are you talking about when in it comes to transportation to down town? I think any moron would choose driving from Edmond or Norman over, say, walking or riding a bicycle. Can you tell me the alternatives we commuters have to driving? With regard to fuel costs going down in the future... I can name one way this could happen. How about less demand via less driving hence less fuel consumption? That would drive prices down. Can you think of one way to drive less? I'll give you a hint. It has something to do with the title of this thread.

BG918:
I love your plan. One thing I would like to add to it. The Santa Fe station needs to connect to the underground concourse downtown. For commuters getting off that light rail, it would be a serious downer to have to walk through freezing wind and snow in winter or storming downpours in spring. Connecting to the underground right from the station would give incredible incentive to those commuters that are just begging for a reason to drive instead of rid the light rail.

I'd like to see your light rail plan expanded just a touch too. It should go west along the Kilpatrick Turnpike to around Council or so. It should also go west on I-40 to Yukon.

However, how many employees pay for parking downtown? How many people would save time and money with light rail? If it only takes me 30 minutes to go 20 miles from Norman to Downtown during rushhour, I don't think I am going to drive to a rail station, then wait, then ride in, then walk to work.

soonerliberal said:

However, how many employees pay for parking downtown? How many people would save time and money with light rail? If it only takes me 30 minutes to go 20 miles from Norman to Downtown during rushhour, I don't think I am going to drive to a rail station, then wait, then ride in, then walk to work.

I really see this working in the Downtown/Midtown/Capitol/Meridian area largely for tourism and business, especially if the current growth continues, but for the rest of the city's commuters? Our residential base is extremely spread out and our business base is spread out as well. Large employers including Chesapeake, Hertz, Dell, FAA, Tinker, the misc universities, and countless others are not in one centralized location.
I think focusing on tourism would be a critical mistake. You can't focus on what might or might not come to fruition. It has be on what we know is taking place. Right now it's business. Also, I and everyone I know that works downtown pays for parking. Mine is partially subsidized, however, I do pay half.

Easy180 said:

ok you're right...There isn't any way at all light rail would be less successful than estimates...Massive amounts of people will ditch their cars and switch over...It's an undeniable fact that OKC's own estimates of ridership will also exceed expectations just lke other cities...This thing is 100% foolproof

Can't believe I was spewing such crazy notions
This is the model of a strawman argument folks. Nobody said people would ditch their cars. You made that up. All that most of these people are saying is that people would use it for commuting. Are you being difficult on purpose?

Again, nobody said it was foolproof. You made that up. However, why would we focus only on the "now" as opposed to the "future"? What kind of city would OKC be with 2.5 million people and only a whiff of what might have been an incredible public transportation system? It's called planning folks. Laying the groundwork for the future is what will make this city great.

We have an unprecedented opportunity in front of us people. We have to sieze this opportunity. You don't want your grandchildren to look at what we have done and wonder why we spent billions of dollars on a road/highway/interstate system when half the money could've bought a clean, efficient light rail system that COMPLEMENTS the existing infrastructure and reduces future expenses of that infrastructure.

Cid

Patrick
05-26-2007, 09:39 AM
However, why would we focus only on the "now" as opposed to the "future"? What kind of city would OKC be with 2.5 million people and only a whiff of what might have been an incredible public transportation system? It's called planning folks. Laying the groundwork for the future is what will make this city great.

We have an unprecedented opportunity in front of us people. We have to sieze this opportunity. You don't want your grandchildren to look at what we have done and wonder why we spent billions of dollars on a road/highway/interstate system when half the money could've bought a clean, efficient light rail system that COMPLEMENTS the existing infrastructure and reduces future expenses of that infrastructure.

Cid

I agree completely. This is very well said. The sooner we get started on this, the cheaper it will be too.

Some folks that are opposed to commuter rail, are only looking at OKC now. They're not looking at OKC in 20 years, when population will be much more than today.

As I said before, building a commuter rail line would actually be cheaper than continuing to expand highways, maintain those highways, etc.

I only see fuel continuing to increase.

mranderson
05-26-2007, 09:51 AM
I agree completely. This is very well said. The sooner we get started on this, the cheaper it will be too.

Some folks that are opposed to commuter rail, are only looking at OKC now. They're not looking at OKC in 20 years, when population will be much more than today.

As I said before, building a commuter rail line would actually be cheaper than continuing to expand highways, maintain those highways, etc.

I only see fuel continuing to increase.

In addition, those same people are not stopping to think about how much the rail system will cost in 20 years. At least double what it will cost to start it now. Plus, I doubt many of them, if any, know it takes around ten years to build even the first line. We need to build the first two now, and have the other two to four planned.

Patrick
05-26-2007, 09:55 AM
I agree. We can always build the Edmond to downtown and Norman to downtown routes now and see howe they do. If they're a success, complete the entire project, If not, sit on the existing infrastructure you've created, and wait out the storm.

Marketing commuter rail is much easier than marketing bus service. Most people consider bus service to be trashy. Not so with commuter rail.

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.

soonerguru
05-26-2007, 01:53 PM
People who argue about subsidization are idiots. WE SUBSIDIZE HIGHWAYS, and not very well, I might add.

We spend billions on roads and highways. Surely we can bite off a chunk of that money pit for some smartly placed rail lines.

JOHNINSOKC
05-26-2007, 02:50 PM
I totally agree with the thought process of thinking 20 years ahead. It seems that the estimates for population growth in the metro are always conservative. Case in point: 2000 census. The estimates had OKC Metro having 1.030 million by then. Well, guess what? We had 1.085 million, 55,000 short on the estimates. I think that planning for commuter rail is a MUST, right now. Even though the estimates have OKC at 1.25 million right now, I think it's probably at least 1.3 million. The point I'm trying to make is that if we don't change things now, we will have gridlock around here within 10 years. Who knows what kind of major corporations we will land in the next decade. We could very well have Austin or Nashville-like growth around here in the very near future. Just my 2 cents!!:)

Patrick
05-26-2007, 03:20 PM
People who argue about subsidization are idiots. WE SUBSIDIZE HIGHWAYS, and not very well, I might add.

We spend billions on roads and highways. Surely we can bite off a chunk of that money pit for some smartly placed rail lines.

I agree completely. How would subsidizing commuter rail be any different than subsidizing highways and bridges?

Patrick
05-26-2007, 03:21 PM
I totally agree with the thought process of thinking 20 years ahead. It seems that the estimates for population growth in the metro are always conservative. Case in point: 2000 census. The estimates had OKC Metro having 1.030 million by then. Well, guess what? We had 1.085 million, 55,000 short on the estimates. I think that planning for commuter rail is a MUST, right now. Even though the estimates have OKC at 1.25 million right now, I think it's probably at least 1.3 million. The point I'm trying to make is that if we don't change things now, we will have gridlock around here within 10 years. Who knows what kind of major corporations we will land in the next decade. We could very well have Austin or Nashville-like growth around here in the very near future. Just my 2 cents!!:)

Look what happened to Charlotte after they got an NBA team....the place exploded.

SpectralMourning
05-26-2007, 03:21 PM
Just my 2 cents!!:)

Hehe, very classy!

I agree with you and mranderson (which surprisingly I have been a bit lately :).) we definitely need to be considering the future, even 5-10 years from now. I mean, look at the I-40 relocation mess. If they legitimately had a materials acquisition problem due to rising costs of said materials in that extremely short amount of time, how much will the steel required to re-lay the tracks around town cost now and in 5-10 years?

Kerry
05-26-2007, 08:24 PM
Just for fun I was going to make a list of all cities that either have rail operating, have rail under construction, or are in the planning process but once I started researching it, the list would simply be too long to make. In all of the searching there are two cities that never show up on any list, OKC and Tulsa. Even Ft Smith is planing a downtown rail system. If they extend their system across the state line they could be the only city in Oklahoma with a rail system.