View Full Version : MAPS 3 approaching...



Pages : [1] 2

metro
04-02-2009, 07:26 AM
Read the comments on newsok...

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-nears-decision-time-on-possible-maps-3/article/3358267?custom_click=headlines_widget

Oklahoma City nears decision time on possible MAPS 3
BY RANDY KREHBIEL - Tulsa World
Published: April 2, 2009Buzz up!

TULSA — Oklahoma City civic leaders are considering whether to put a MAPS 3 proposal before voters or let lapse the 1 percent sales tax credited with boosting the city’s image, Mayor Mick Cornett said Wednesday at a Rotary Club of Tulsa luncheon.

"We’re trying to determine whether the citizens would like that penny to lapse or maintain the momentum we’ve built up over the past few years,” Cornett said.

The first MAPS — Metropolitan Area Projects — involved $363 million in capital projects, including the Bricktown Ballpark, the Ford Center and a new downtown library.

The second MAPS featured renovation or replacement of more than 100 area schools at a cost of $470 million.

The tax is set to expire on March 31, 2010, which means a vote on extending it would have to occur before the end of this year, Cornett said.

If a third MAPS proposal is put forward, it is most likely to include a new convention center, a large park in space created by the relocation of Interstate 40 through downtown Oklahoma City, and possibly a public transportation initiative.

Cornett favors such a component, but said, "it’s hard to pass public transit when you don’t have traffic congestion.”

Cornett said Oklahoma City’s economy has slowed considerably since last fall and appears to be "pretty flat” now. Nevertheless, he said, Devon Energy still plans to break ground later this year on a 950-foot skyscraper that will be the fifth-tallest building west of the Mississippi River.

Midtowner
04-02-2009, 08:22 AM
MAPS projects need to follow the formula of something for downtown and something for the rest of the city to continue to be successful. It's log rolling on a much grander scale. The folks in the inner city, NW, (nice) SW and downtown will vote for it because of the convention center and park. The rest of the city will vote for it because of public transportation because although there's really no problem with traffic here, cars have become less affordable and less attainable for many people -- not to mention the fact that many of us would prefer to let someone else do the driving so long as the method of transportation was quick and reliable.

Jesseda
04-02-2009, 08:27 AM
i wish they would builda park like the park in santee california, its called santee lakes, very pretty, great family day outing, it has everything for a family park outing.

kevinpate
04-02-2009, 09:07 AM
> when you don’t have traffic congestion

OKC's mayor and I apparently travel very different routes or travel the same routes at very different times of the day. I sit in way too many 4 lane divided 'parking lots' to concur with the above.

Jesseda
04-02-2009, 09:13 AM
agree with kevinpate, try driving more than 25 miles a hour for 5 miles on interstate I-44 from s.w 134th to the airport road exit, 4 out of 5 days around 7:30 in the morning its bumper to bumper sometimes at stand stills, a lot of times at a crawl.

Nawfside OKC
04-02-2009, 09:32 AM
yes parks,the beginning of river development(C2S) and a convention center should be the focus of MAPS III if my taxes have any say so..

wsucougz
04-02-2009, 09:41 AM
After reading the research on Blair's blog and thinking about it all a bit, I'm not so warm on the convention center idea anymore. $400 million?

If we really want to set ourselves apart, we need to get a little more creative. Take the $400 million and completely rebuild the OKC streetcar system. That will raise some eyebrows.

Link to blog: imagiNATIVEamerica A Convention Center IS NOT About Quality of Life (http://imaginativeamerica.com/2009/03/a-convention-center-is-not-about-quality-of-life/)

Other than a convention center, what would you have the city do with $400 million?

LIL_WAYNE_4_PREZIDENT08
04-02-2009, 09:51 AM
Other than a convention center, what would you have the city do with $400 million?

give it to the citizens

betts
04-02-2009, 09:54 AM
I'm neutral on the convention center, but am definitely wanted us to do all of the downtown park work. I too would like to see a great downtown trolley system, especially since I think the park will bring futher development to downtown and the C2S area, which will require better transportation in that area. With C2S, the downtown and surrounds will be too big to traverse entirely by foot. I'm worried, however, with the economy the way it is, that the people who like to exaggerate the financial impact of the penny tax on all of us will delude the voting public into turning it down. Maybe it would be better to wait a year and let people realize that the tax has lapsed and they don't really have a significant amount of extra money in their pocket. Not sure. Hopefully the city will gauge support for MAPS3 before promoting it, because I think it would be far better in the long run to wait a year than to lose an election.

OKCMallen
04-02-2009, 09:57 AM
C2S, downtown park, transit are my big things. I'm iffy on the convention center, too. If it's an important core of C2S, then whatever, but I'm not all that sold on the idea that it's going to be cost-effective.

SouthsideSooner
04-02-2009, 09:58 AM
agree with kevinpate, try driving more than 25 miles a hour for 5 miles on interstate I-44 from s.w 134th to the airport road exit, 4 out of 5 days around 7:30 in the morning its bumper to bumper sometimes at stand stills, a lot of times at a crawl.

There is no mass transit solution that is going to change that or get you there quicker, that is within the realm of what MAPS 3 can accomplish.

Any mass transit proposal is going to have to be very well thought out and make sense to a majority of voters who know that they will rarely if ever use it and who also know that it will have very little effect on any traffic congestion that currently exists.

Here's an interesting quote that was posted in another thread from a story about Kansas City that hits pretty close to home...


Even worse, city and regional issues seem to result in plenty of money for new expressions of wannabe grandiosity. One notable example: plans to build a $700 million-plus light-rail line, the kind of thing that has become the sine qua non for the "monkey see, monkey do" school of urban policymakers across the country.

This project makes little sense in a region with a well-below-average percentage of jobs in its downtown core - roughly around 7% – with one of the lowest shares of transit-riding residents in the nation. The relative lack of traffic makes a rail system less sensible than could be argued for higher-density urban corridors, where it at least can be imagined that many would give up their cars.

Kansas City and the Great Plains is a Zone of Sanity | Newgeography.com (http://www.newgeography.com/content/00706-kansas-city-and-great-plains-a-zone-sanity?ref=patrick.net)

Trying to do too much with mass transit can be a black hole for MAPS dollars that could leave very little money for anything else.

Luke
04-02-2009, 10:00 AM
give it to the citizens

How novel.

$400 million divided by 600,000 OKC folks... what's that $700 or so? Of course if you're gonna give it right back, why take it in the first place?

kevinpate
04-02-2009, 10:01 AM
> Maybe it would be better to wait a year and let people realize that
> the tax has lapsed and they don't really have a significant amount
> of extra money in their pocket.

I doubt there are many politicians in our state who would advance such a gamble.
The concept of the temporary sales tax was brillant and will likely remain. John Q gets to continue to believe he can make it go away after X years, and the politicos keep coming up with new items to tie it to.

Objects in motion stay in motion, so does the 'temporary' extra penny sales tax.

metro
04-02-2009, 10:09 AM
I'm neutral on the convention center, but am definitely wanted us to do all of the downtown park work. I too would like to see a great downtown trolley system, especially since I think the park will bring futher development to downtown and the C2S area, which will require better transportation in that area. With C2S, the downtown and surrounds will be too big to traverse entirely by foot. I'm worried, however, with the economy the way it is, that the people who like to exaggerate the financial impact of the penny tax on all of us will delude the voting public into turning it down. Maybe it would be better to wait a year and let people realize that the tax has lapsed and they don't really have a significant amount of extra money in their pocket. Not sure. Hopefully the city will gauge support for MAPS3 before promoting it, because I think it would be far better in the long run to wait a year than to lose an election.

I'm pretty sure the "guaging" has been done and is constantly reviewed. I do disagree with you on timing. I think it would be ideal to not let it expire. Letting something continue is easier than having to go back and correct. Continuation would lead to continuous tax collection and not delaying the project at least another year, etc. Plus if we vote on it this year and it doesn't pass, then the plan can always be modified to fit "voter demands" and go back up for vote the following year. I'm pretty confident despite the economy that it will pass, but if the market tanks to 3,000 in the 2nd half of the year (which is also when vote is expected), then that might change everything. Me? I'm still optimistic and think it will pass this year.

sgray
04-02-2009, 12:40 PM
I think it's quite interesting how, now that the package is coming up for vote soon, his tone on the public transit issue is shifting into that "gray space". Who would've expected any different though? Wonder how much kickback he is getting from the 'energy' industry for this move? I notice the same old talking points.

Interestingly as well, is the fact that no one seems to be asking him, in plain view of the public, about the additional lanes in the cross-town. So, Mr Cornett, if we don't have a growing traffic problem, then what's up with the ten-lanes of crosstown highway and constant highway work? Not to mention, in-town street widening and adding of intersections all over.

What a hoot. Predictable, as always.

bornhere
04-02-2009, 01:00 PM
I think the hoteliers are going to be pretty insistent that there be a convention center in MAPS 3. I have also been told by someone I consider reliable that several of the key people who endorsed MAPS and M4K expect some 'payback' in MAPS 3, ie, something that might benefit them whether it benefits the city as a whole or not.

metro
04-02-2009, 01:05 PM
Not surprised by Mick if he pulls a move for political gain, he's gearing up for District 5 seat again, but sgray, you forget, the Crosstown is already carrying much more than it was designed to handle, the new I-40 will be catching up with what traffic we already do have, and only allow a little bit of growth. That coupled with the new boulevard should hopefully hold us for decades to come, if not indefinitely if we get a good mass transit system.

OKCMallen
04-02-2009, 01:09 PM
I think it's quite interesting how, now that the package is coming up for vote soon, his tone on the public transit issue is shifting into that "gray space". Who would've expected any different though? Wonder how much kickback he is getting from the 'energy' industry for this move? I notice the same old talking points.

Interestingly as well, is the fact that no one seems to be asking him, in plain view of the public, about the additional lanes in the cross-town. So, Mr Cornett, if we don't have a growing traffic problem, then what's up with the ten-lanes of crosstown highway and constant highway work? Not to mention, in-town street widening and adding of intersections all over.

What a hoot. Predictable, as always.

Seriously though, there is a salient point here. I would like public transit in OKC. I would use it sometimes. I wouldn't give up my car, and I don't experience traffic problems that would compel me to give up my car for my commute.

warreng88
04-02-2009, 01:12 PM
...the new I-40 will be catching up with what traffic we already do have, and only allow a little bit of growth. That coupled with the new boulevard should hopefully hold us for decades to come, if not indefinitely if we get a good mass transit system.

I was just going to post the same thing. The original I-40 was built to hold 48,000 vehicles a day and currently holds 120,000 a day. The new one will be designed to carry 170,000 a day.

bretthexum
04-02-2009, 01:35 PM
I am for the convention center, then a light rail from the airport to convention center to get all of those conventioneers to their meetings.

SoonerLakers
04-02-2009, 01:54 PM
I am for the convention center, then a light rail from the airport to convention center to get all of those conventioneers to their meetings.

I agree with you Brett. The convention center is a great idea but getting people to/from it, the airport, Meridian hotels is something to consider as well. The easier it is to get to/from the convention center the more likely we are to attract more conventions (not to mention the excess space that a new convention center will create).

Or, better yet, why not use MAPS3 for the convention center and park. And have a new hotel tax for the transit to/from the convention center.

kevinpate
04-02-2009, 01:59 PM
lay it out, let the eligible folks vote and the rest can live with the results, whatever those results may be.

LordGerald
04-02-2009, 03:34 PM
I can tell you that the city will forward a MAPS III initiative for a December 2009 election by October at the latest. It will be designed to pick up (if passed) in May 2010 when the Ford Center tax lapses, so it will be continual.

Here's what I understand is the potential list of projects:

Extension of Bricktown Canal
Core to Shore Park
First phase of new Convention Center
Downtown Streetcar
More riverfront development
Multi-purpose outdoor facility (small football, MLS, stage et al).

plmccordj
04-02-2009, 03:47 PM
Is Cornett smoking crack?

Cornett favors such a component, but said, "it’s hard to pass public transit when you don’t have traffic congestion.”

How would he know if public transportation would be hard to pass when it has never been tried? Our city has repeatedly put together a bus system that is undependable so that no one will ride them and then uses the lack of ridership as an excuse not to have a decent bus system. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Why don't he just admit that he opposes it? I'll tell you why... The people spoke in his MAPS3 ideas website saying they want it so he cannot just admit that he would rather eat glass than do it. I for one am not buying this for a minute.

BDP
04-02-2009, 04:12 PM
If we do any rail, I would like to first see a trolley system that goes from the CBD to bricktown, to Deep Deuce, to AA, to Midtown, to the arts district, and back. Not only would it actually be a nice way to experience all the great districts downtown, but it would actually serve as a tour of the core for tourists, expose the districts to more residents and visitors, and maybe, possibly, even ease the pressure created by the "Myth of the Parking Problem" to commit more real estate to parking as you would be able to park anywhere in the core and take a short trolley to your intended destination (and meanwhile you are exposed to much more of downtown as you relax on your way to the game or your restaurant).

In my opinion, this would have a real impact on downtown as it would reinforce the synergy of all of these districts and make each one more viable as the traffic from one spills into the traffic of the other. And it's not like driving through, as you get to actually pay attention to what you're passing and you can hop off at any time.

As a bonus, it would serve as a true litmus test to the acceptance of public transit in the city. It would show many people who have never even used public transit anywhere just how convenient it is. It would also help justify the high rents and asking prices of the new developments, because, suddenly, their properties are connected to the rest of downtown in a comfortable, novel, and stress free manner.

Honestly, if there is one public transit component that would probably actually work immediately, that would be it, imo. No more of these confusing and unreliable buses masquerading as trolleys. In fact, something like this would not only be a useful tool for visitors, it could actually be an attraction itself, if done right.

sgray
04-02-2009, 04:17 PM
Is Cornett smoking crack?

Cornett favors such a component, but said, "it’s hard to pass public transit when you don’t have traffic congestion.”

How would he know if public transportation would be hard to pass when it has never been tried? Our city has repeatedly put together a bus system that is undependable so that no one will ride them and then uses the lack of ridership as an excuse not to have a decent bus system. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Why don't he just admit that he opposes it? I'll tell you why... The people spoke in his MAPS3 ideas website saying they want it so he cannot just admit that he would rather eat glass than do it. I for one am not buying this for a minute.

Yup. He's a player. He's gonna wait to show his real position until the very last moment so the damage wont be drug out and publicized as much. You are right that "the people spoke" in the MAPS3 survey and this is clear evidence that our leaders make the decisions, not the people, and those decisions are bought by the highest bidder.

It is interesting what you mentioned about the bus system and how they craft solutions that are designed to fail and then preach a sob story to the community about how the solution couldn't work here, but won't answer questions related to how they manipulated the design.

Midtowner
04-02-2009, 04:24 PM
I don't think you can get the city excited enough to tax themselves for a really big hotel and a nice park they'll never use/visit. Something for the rest of OKC has to go in the bill. An improved bus system or a commuter rail system might fit the bill.

Make it a package deal and folks will vote for it.

progressiveboy
04-02-2009, 04:35 PM
I don't think you can get the city excited enough to tax themselves for a really big hotel and a nice park they'll never use/visit. Something for the rest of OKC has to go in the bill. An improved bus system or a commuter rail system might fit the bill.

Make it a package deal and folks will vote for it. Why do you think that residents would not use or visit a nice park? That does not make sense to me?? OKC must continue to progress and advance because other cities in the region are adding extra attractions and making their cities more desirable. IMHO if OKC does not "choose" to tax themselves for MAPS 3 then it will probably be the beginning of OKC lapsing into decline, because the city has done great things but it is still far from being a city that can stand on it's own merits. Continue the Renaissance so we people in Dallas or Tulsa for that matter,will not have to bash OKC as being just a plain backwater town. Prove us wrong!

Midtowner
04-02-2009, 04:41 PM
Why do you think that residents would not use or visit a nice park? That does not make sense to me?? OKC must continue to progress and advance because other cities in the region are adding extra attractions and making their cities more desirable. IMHO if OKC does not "choose" to tax themselves for MAPS 3 then it will probably be the beginning of OKC lapsing into decline, because the city has done great things but it is still far from being a city that can stand on it's own merits. Continue the Renaissance so we people in Dallas or Tulsa for that matter,will not have to bash OKC as being just a plain backwater town. Prove us wrong!

We already have a couple of nice parks which are scantly used. What makes you think a new park which is inconvenient for folks who don't live/work downtown to visit is going to get a lot of use? I'm sure I'll use it as I live/work down here. I'm just thinking it's going to be a hard sell to southsiders and folks in NE OKC.

Include public transportation and promote it as a 'package deal' and you have a winner even though I believe the items are going to have to be separate ballot issues.

Political realities have to be considered as OKC fanboyism isn't going to do anyone any good whatsoever. At any rate, I'm not going to be part of the effort, except maybe showing up to vote.

Popsy
04-02-2009, 05:05 PM
Does anyone have access to the survey numbers. The last numbers I saw showed six people voting for public transportation, which I assumed probably came from members of this forum. Then a day or two after that Steve wrote an article which referenced there being a big demand for public transportation. I would really like to know what the final numbers are if they can be found.

BDP
04-02-2009, 05:14 PM
Is this it?:

MAPS 3 | Oklahoma City (http://www.maps3.org/factsheet.html)

Midtowner
04-02-2009, 06:34 PM
Here are rough breakdowns of some of the recurring ideas that were submitted, and how many times each was submitted (for space purposes, only ideas submitted at least 10 times are noted):
Suggestion Number
Outdoor Amphitheater 27
Aquarium 13
Youth Athletic Facility 23
Amusement Parks 20
Arts Funding 13
Beautification (includes trees, streetscapes) 117
Community Centers 20
New Convention Center 40
Lengthen Bricktown Canal 29
Cox Center Improvements 11
Downtown Retail 69
Downtown General Improvements 20
Downtown Housing 10
Education 77
Economic Development 20
Fairgrounds 22
Fire Department 11
Ford Center Improvements 41
Football or Soccer Stadium 65
Gateways to City 12
Homeless 27
Health Care 15
Old Neighborhood Restoration 17
Visual Icon 28
Infrastructure, Including Streets 188
More Outdoor Lighting 10
Major League Sports/NBA Practice Facility 40
More Museums 12
Opportunity Fund 16
Omniplex 11
Free Downtown Parking 33
Police 29
Downtown "Central Park" 36
Public Art 11
General Parks Improvement/Expansion 123
More Retail in General 13
Sidewalks 100
New Skyscraper 16
Senior Citizen Centers 36
Senior Citizen Housing 25
Trails 140
Transit (light rail, streetcars, etc.) 668
Citywide Wireless Internet 23
Ensure Future Water Supply 10


-- if that's not an indication that public transit needs to be in the package, I don't know what is.

I realize it's a ridiculously unscientific survey, but c'mon. The two things we know are going to be part of Maps II aren't even that far up on the list... and Public transit is far and away #1.

kevinpate
04-03-2009, 05:31 AM
If you looked only at those areas garning at least 50 responses, the CC falls well short, but transit, infrastructure and park improvements FAR AND AWAY top the list.

If the deck was stacked, at least it was stacked somewhat sensibly. Something tells me these results were not what was expected

Midtowner
04-03-2009, 06:13 AM
If you looked only at those areas garning at least 50 responses, the CC falls well short, but transit, infrastructure and park improvements FAR AND AWAY top the list.

If the deck was stacked, at least it was stacked somewhat sensibly. Something tells me these results were not what was expected

Well, transit and infrastructure were pretty well taken care of in the last big bond election to the tune of $640 million, I believe. I don't think that'll be part of the deal since these projects will likely still be under construction when Maps III goes to the polls.

okcpulse
04-03-2009, 06:15 AM
We already have a couple of nice parks which are scantly used. What makes you think a new park which is inconvenient for folks who don't live/work downtown to visit is going to get a lot of use? I'm sure I'll use it as I live/work down here. I'm just thinking it's going to be a hard sell to southsiders and folks in NE OKC.

Include public transportation and promote it as a 'package deal' and you have a winner even though I believe the items are going to have to be separate ballot issues.

Political realities have to be considered as OKC fanboyism isn't going to do anyone any good whatsoever. At any rate, I'm not going to be part of the effort, except maybe showing up to vote.

You're talking about simple parks that are scantly used, and they're scantly used for one reason... they are just a park. Imagine a park that is just as recreational as Lake Hefner, which isn't really a park but is Oklahoma City's must heavily used recreational area. Besides, the concept is otuside the traditional realm of parks and is supposed to serve as the centerpiece for Core To Shore.

That being said, city-wide beautification, a new convention center and better public transit are higher priorities.

metro
04-03-2009, 07:22 AM
Why do you think that residents would not use or visit a nice park? That does not make sense to me?? OKC must continue to progress and advance because other cities in the region are adding extra attractions and making their cities more desirable. IMHO if OKC does not "choose" to tax themselves for MAPS 3 then it will probably be the beginning of OKC lapsing into decline, because the city has done great things but it is still far from being a city that can stand on it's own merits. Continue the Renaissance so we people in Dallas or Tulsa for that matter,will not have to bash OKC as being just a plain backwater town. Prove us wrong!

Even if MAPS 3 fails, Tulsa has no room to bash OKC. OKC is still a decade ahead in development of Tulsa.

metro
04-03-2009, 07:27 AM
Transit (light rail, streetcars, etc.) 668[/B]

-- if that's not an indication that public transit needs to be in the package, I don't know what is.

I realize it's a ridiculously unscientific survey, but c'mon. The two things we know are going to be part of Maps II aren't even that far up on the list... and Public transit is far and away #1.

Keep in mind, while this survey is unscientific, it was NOT the only poll taken on issues facing citizens. The city does an annual survey of a broad spectrum of citizens (about 2,000-3,000) from all different backgrounds and parts of the city, and Mass Transit was at the top of this list for the past 2 years as well. This is where the more scientific data comes in. There is an old thread on this and I belive links to the survey data, etc. Which is also what I believe Lackmeyer based his article on if I'm not mistaken.

OKCMallen
04-03-2009, 08:34 AM
WHo in this thread would honestly give up driving more than half the time to utilize light rail? Now think about where you live and where you work, and whether a train would even be close to you. Would you take a bike to the rail if it's not walking distance to your abode?

metro
04-03-2009, 09:14 AM
I for one would OKCMallen.

CuatrodeMayo
04-03-2009, 09:21 AM
Me, as well.

Joe Kimball
04-03-2009, 09:23 AM
Third. Wouldn't there be a transfer available, too, from the bus?

OKCMallen
04-03-2009, 09:24 AM
Metro, I don't know where you work, but I know you live close to downtown. Would a train even run over by St. Anthony's? Just wondering....hard to hash it all out since it's all hypothetical

I live around 50th and Shartel. Assuming a rail would run up I-235, I would take the train downtown for leisure, but probably not for work. It would be very easy to walk to the railline for me. But let's say I lived at 36th and May. Doubtful a railline would be within a few miles from me. At that point, what do I do? Do I vote for the train?


For reasons of clarity, if you don't mind, state approx where you live and where you think the rail might be closest to your house/work.

Richard at Remax
04-03-2009, 09:37 AM
Since light rail will be the most beneficial to the burbs, is there a way to get cities such as Edmond (my town), yukon, moore, norman, ect in with the vote? I don't know how that would work but I think if you made it a metro wide vote it would be better recieved. And I would vote and use the rail if it came up here.

OKCMallen
04-03-2009, 10:05 AM
I'd vote for it regardless...just not sure how much I would use it. I don't want to end up with something that operates constantly in the red that we have to fund because no one uses it...

sgray
04-03-2009, 10:57 AM
I would totally use it...goal would be 100%, but everywhere possible. It seems there is still a great deal of confusion because I hear people talking about "getting to the rail". Obviously, buses and other modes make up the arteries of the system and the rail is the backbone that moves a larger bulk of the pax between major areas. Having already used systems in other cities, so long as OKC designed/built the system correctly, it should work just fine as other cities do. If they purposely design it wrong (like Metro Transit), then that will likely force people not to use it.

Joe Kimball
04-03-2009, 10:59 AM
If they purposely design it wrong (like Metro Transit), then that will likely force people not to use it.

I certainly don't disbelieve you, as a sometime passenger. But could I ask from where you cite this, be it your experience or something more documented? I'd like to read into this further---thanks!

sgray
04-03-2009, 11:28 AM
I certainly don't disbelieve you, as a sometime passenger. But could I ask from where you cite this, be it your experience or something more documented? I'd like to read into this further---thanks!


From a 'documented' perpective, one could start with the route map...that alone reveals a lot. Or the lack of connectivity to the rail/commercial bus lines downtown, the airport, or many other places that a would-be passenger might want to use the system for. Pretty much just enough was kept out or removed from the system to keep a majority of the folks off of it. And the fact that such a spread out city is bus-only...well, that leaves you with the longest transit times from point A to B if you are going a ways across town. Finally, a lot can be done (as evidenced in Metro Transit) to choke a system by cutting off operating funds to below minimums.

I mean seriously, let's say you announce to everyone that you are gonna buy some person a car to get around efficiently (no relation to this topic). Behind the scenes, you hand said individual $200 and say "Ok, now go pick out your car." Shortly thereafter, you make another public announcement that cars are a bad idea because they are unreliable and so no one should buy them. (using the junker you just paid $200 for as proof) Is that really the car, in general, or the manufacturer's fault? That your motive was to purposely buy a junker to alter the outcome? Well, similar situation here. Is it the fault of the buses themselves, or Metro Transit for that matter, that funding is cut so low that it can't even operate the routes it needs? Sure, choke something before it has a chance to succeed and it's gonna die. Period.

From the 'experience' perspective, all you can see is the result: less frequency (slower service), missing routes, and a generally dysfunctional operation.

metro
04-03-2009, 11:59 AM
Since light rail will be the most beneficial to the burbs, is there a way to get cities such as Edmond (my town), yukon, moore, norman, ect in with the vote? I don't know how that would work but I think if you made it a metro wide vote it would be better recieved. And I would vote and use the rail if it came up here.

What's to say they aren't working on that, to get burb cities in on the transporation portion of the projects.

Midtowner
04-03-2009, 12:08 PM
WHo in this thread would honestly give up driving more than half the time to utilize light rail? Now think about where you live and where you work, and whether a train would even be close to you. Would you take a bike to the rail if it's not walking distance to your abode?

Not an option for me. I have to be able to take clients and myself to and from the courthouse, go file, etc. My time is too valuable to rely on public transit.

metro
04-03-2009, 12:17 PM
You have clients and get paid for your time in lawschool? What if you the OCU lawschool moves downtown as intended, while you're still in school? Would you then take a reliable mass transit downtown?

Midtowner
04-03-2009, 12:34 PM
I don't have clients. My employer does. I misspoke. Let me be more clear just so I don't mislead. I do have my intern's license, so I can do some things in court, but not all things and I report to a supervisor who is responsible for my work. This is sort of an extracurricular thing. I'm what you call a licensed legal intern.

The school being downtown wouldn't be much value to me because my office is in midtown, so I still need a car.

*and by "my" office, I mean my employer's office where I have a room/desk/chair/computer.

BDP
04-03-2009, 12:46 PM
I don't want to end up with something that operates constantly in the red

You mean like roads?


Would a train even run over by St. Anthony's?

I think MidTown/St. Anthony's would be one of the best candidates to get a trolley stop if we put one in.


have to be able to take clients and myself to and from the courthouse, go file, etc. My time is too valuable to rely on public transit.

Would light rail trolleys downtown help you out in that respect?


Since light rail will be the most beneficial to the burbs, is there a way to get cities such as Edmond (my town), yukon, moore, norman, ect in with the vote?

Not sure why they would be interested as we keep spending hundreds of millions of dollars on roads so they can come and go from the city.

Honestly, I think we need to first build a trolley and bus system that serves the city and stop spending our money on building roads for the suburban and rural commuter and then if they want to join forces to build a mass transit commuter system one day, then I'd be all for that. But right now I think we need to focus on how we can use public transit to make the city itself a more attractive place in which to live.

That's why I think instead of trying to propose this as a metro wide billion dollar project, we scale it back and start with the core. Start with a downtown rail loop and use a restructured bus service to feed into it. After people here are introduced to public transit (most in OKC have never even ridden public transit anywhere), if they like it, then you could expand the rail service outwards. If that works, and the suburbs are interested in tying into the system, then look at commuter trains.

SouthsideSooner
04-03-2009, 02:00 PM
Not an option for me. I have to be able to take clients and myself to and from the courthouse, go file, etc. My time is too valuable to rely on public transit.

Most people feel that their time is too valuable to rely on public transit.

Just because people mention in a survey that they want improved mass transit doesn't mean that they are willing to spend unlimited tax dollars to have it and unless it is convenient and no more time consuming than driving, it won't be used by the vast majority of our citizens. It will be an expensive amenity that will have very little impact on the use of personal vehicles or traffic congestion in OKC.

The ideas that have the best chance of succeeding are streetcar in the downtown area and improvement to our current bus system. The cost of light rail probably makes it too expensive a proposition.

Several city's are currently planning downtown streetcars. Albuquerque is about to begin construction of theirs at a cost of 28 million dollars a mile. Using those numbers a circular incompassing Lincoln, Walker, Reno and 10th would cost about 100 million dollars not including any land acquisition costs.


The cost to construct a Streetcar is approximately $28 million / mile. That cost includes all aspects, including steel rail, concrete, pedestrian friendly stops, traffic signals, maintenance facility, power source, utility reconstruction, roadway reconstruction, and vehicles.

Albuquerque's Modern Streetcar - City of Albuquerque (http://www.cabq.gov/transit/about-us/projects-and-planning/modern-streetcar-project/modern-streetcar#Cost)

The current Metro Transit budget is 20 million dollars a year and there are numerous posts about how bad it is. How much more do we need to spend on it for it to be decent? The metro area spends $10.58 per service area resident for public transit versus an average of $59.14 with cities including Austin, Texas; Denver; Kansas City, Mo.; and Tucson, Ariz. If we spent that much, every penny of the MAPS tax wouldn't be enough to pay for it since the MAPS tax only generates about a 100 million dollars a year.

Officials unveil OKC metro mass transit plan | Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City) | Find Articles at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20070924/ai_n20517928/)

Portland is continuing to expand their light rail system and the latest cost figures for construction are 69 million dollars per mile. Using their numbers, a light rail line from Edmond through downtown OKC and on to Norman would cost over 2.2 billion dollars and would take 22 years of MAPS tax to pay for it.

Portland: Light Rail's New Ridership Record, and Green Line Project Advances - Light Rail Now (http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_por_2007-07a.htm)

5 more years of MAPS tax will generate about 500 million dollars. How much of that should be spent on mass transit?

BDP
04-03-2009, 02:19 PM
Good points, Southside.

As a comparison, the new I-40 cross town is costing $133 million per mile and the widening of I-235/Hwy 77 from 36th to Memorial cost about $130 million per mile.

OKCMallen
04-03-2009, 02:21 PM
You mean like roads?





Yeah, roads. That we pay for and CLEARLY use and CLEARLY need. Those operate heavily in the red because we don't charge people to get on them. We would presumably charge people to ride a TRAIN. Which we're not certain we CLEARLY need and we have no idea that we'd CLEARLY use. Because roads operate in the red, we should turn a blind eye to how much it would cost to ADD ADDITIONAL transit and keep it running?!

What's your point?

BDP
04-03-2009, 02:28 PM
Using those numbers a circular incompassing Lincoln, Walker, Reno and 10th would cost about 100 million dollars not including any land acquisition costs.

I think that sounds good, especially if they do it in such a way that it's useful and effectively ties all of downtown together. I like the idea of spending the money to help strengthen to core's appeal, improve access to visitors, and give further boost to the assets previously created by MAPS. It could really push some of the outer districts over the top, just by the extra exposure they would get from a fixed traffic route moving people in and out of those districts all the time. And, as I mentioned before, it could actually be an attraction in and of itself, kind of like the street cars in New Orleans that pass through the garden district.

Kerry
04-03-2009, 02:45 PM
I vote for a streetcar system that operates around a 3 mile radius of downtown for now followed by a commuter rail line to Norman and Edmond some time in the future. I still maintain that riding the street car should be free. The return on fares is so low as to not be worth it. Make the money to fund the system by advertising. You can cover the rail cars in advertising skins, on-board ads, and ads at transit stations. The ads could even be geared to the trolleys location on the tracks and time of day using led boards and on-demand printers for coupons using a touch screen.

Imagine - you board the trolley at 11:30AM at the State Capitol and as you approach Bricktown an ad for the Bricktown Burgers appears. You walk over to the touch screen and get a coupon for $1.00 off a burger. After work you get on the trolley and as you approach Bricktown an ad for Bricktown Brewery appears and you walk over to the touch screen and get a 2 for 1 beer coupon.

sgray
04-03-2009, 02:45 PM
southsidesooner,

Look hard enough and you'll find a system somewhere that was mis-managed from the get-go and not designed right and/or they blew thru cash thinking that was the answer to their problems. And sure enough, if you take those bad numbers and try to price a system like that, it would cost all the money that could possibly be printed. Similar thing could happen if you priced highway expansion on the cost of our crosstown. Personally, I'd like to believe that we would have leadership on this project similar to other cities who have kept their costs to a decent level and that we might end up with one of the best, if not the best, success stories. Of course, we'll never end up with anything at all if we force it to fail.


Yeah, roads. That we pay for and CLEARLY use and CLEARLY need. Those operate heavily in the red because we don't charge people to get on them. We would presumably charge people to ride a TRAIN. Which we're not certain we CLEARLY need and we have no idea that we'd CLEARLY use. Because roads operate in the red, we should turn a blind eye to how much it would cost to ADD ADDITIONAL transit and keep it running?!

What's your point?

CLEARLY, we have no other CHOICE, DO WE???

I think the point is that some people seem to think that just because we've been doing things one way, that that is the one and only correct way to do it and that because we've been doing it that one way so long that makes it the ONLY correct way to do it and therefore we CLEARLY must only continue to do it that way.

Kerry,

Those are ideas well worth considering. I can see how the free ride downtown could help it gain popularity even quicker. I also believe that no matter what route we take in terms of fares--as long as the system is designed and implemented correctly--folks that have opposed it will start to 'see' the money savings and may very well re-work their schedules to take advantage of that. I know we can do a better job here if we listen to people's ideas and implement the best of them.

BDP
04-03-2009, 02:47 PM
What's your point?

That they are the same thing trying to accomplish the same goal. It's all transportation. We CLEARLY use and CLEARLY need roads, because that is what we have chosen to build our infrastructure around. By the same token we didn't clearly NEED to widen I-235, as the money CLEARLY could have just as easily been spent on a train to alleviate the "traffic problem" and handle future demand for about the same cost. That's not a qualitative judgment. It's just the truth. We didn't NEED the roads per se, we just CHOSE them over rail. As Southside's numbers show, it is not a question of cost as much as it simply a question of lifestyle.

Soooooooo, if one is going to write off public transportation because of cost, then 1 billion to just widen 7.5 miles of a freeway that has a little congestion during (gasp!) rush hour should be written off for the same reason. If anything, all I am saying is that the cost of public transit is moot when held up against what the tax payer spends on roads. It's ALL expensive, NONE of it generates a profit, and it all addresses the same "need".

A more interesting question would be if it costs a billion dollars to widen 7.5 miles of I-235 to carry an increase of X amount more people, how much would it cost to increase the load of an already built rail line by X amount of people.

BTW, I do NOT think MAPS 3 should spend the money on commuter rail.

OKCMallen
04-03-2009, 02:53 PM
Trying to argue with you guys is like trying to play poker with my brother's kids. Mallen out.