View Full Version : Light Rail/Bond/Ideas



Karried
12-11-2006, 06:37 AM
From the Oklahoman:

City to track your ideas on projects
Survey to gauge interest in light rail system and other items considered in bond election


A light rail system to Norman, new police headquarters and municipal court building are on the wish list some Oklahoma City residents are being asked to choose from on a survey mailed last week.


It’s the latest tool used by city officials to gauge taxpayer interest in a scheduled December 2007 multimillion-dollar bond election — maybe the most expensive ever in Oklahoma City.
Road improvements are the priority, city officials said. But there are several other ideas in the 16-question survey mailed to 3,600 residents.
The survey asks recipients to rate projects such as road resurfacing and widening, traffic signal installation, emergency vehicle replacement and capital improvements to parks and other public buildings.
It also asks how much of a monthly tax increase citizens would be willing to pay for a downtown light rail or street car system.
"We want to give citizens every opportunity to be able to provide input for us,” budget director Craig Freeman said.
Kansas-based ETC Institute is being paid $30,000 for the survey and is expected to have results in January, Freeman said.

The company also was hired last year to survey citizens for the city’s budgeting process.
Police want new home

The aging police headquarters and municipal court complex are falling apart and driving up maintenance costs, while the buildings have security concerns, officials said.


The oldest part of police headquarters, the city jail, was built in 1934 at 701 Colcord Drive and the main building was built in 1954.
The municipal court complex was added a decade later at 700 Couch Drive.

There have been various remodeling projects over the years but no new construction since 1964. The last major renovation was to the municipal court buildings in 1980, Oklahoma City police Capt. Tom Jester said.
"We’re hurting for space over here,” Jester said.
Ward 4 Councilman Pete White said replacing the buildings is inevitable.
"I think that’s going to be a pretty high priority,” White said.
"It’s not a good situation and it needs to be remedied.”

A local architecture firm, Frankfurt Short Bruza, has been hired by the city to assess the headquarters and municipal court buildings.

"They will go through our building, find out how our infrastructure is, find out how our mechanicals are holding up,” Jester said. "Then they will make recommendations as to the best way for us to go forward with our buildings.”
Transit solutions sought

Mass transit never has been popular in Oklahoma City despite having a sprawling metro area.


Automobile transit dominates, but replacing city buses with more technologically advanced buses to cut down on commute time is mentioned in the survey.
It asks whether citizens would support a tax increase to improve the bus fleet.

White has been thinking further down the line. He’s convinced light rail is the answer.
"The fact is you’re looking at a different rider for light rail than you are for the bus system,” White said. "The bus is essentially an inner-city shuttle.
Light rail would be a commuter system.”

Though the survey only mentions light rail and shuttle options in the downtown area, White said it’s time to start thinking about extending commuter transit lines to the edges of the metro area.
"I think it would even work today,” he said.

A report made public last week shows a phased plan for implementing a light rail line stretching from Edmond to Norman by 2030, as well as modern street cars and enhanced bus routes in the inner city.
It was prepared by a consultant hired by the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority to study mass transit possibilities.
"At some point in time, this romance with the automobile that we have will go,” White said. "When that happens, we’re going to have to be smarter about how we move ourselves around.”

Freeman said city officials have been discussing light rail for quite some time and hope the survey shows them if citizens support it.

But for now, White and other officials remain realistic. They know next year’s bond issue is all about roads, roads and roads. "That’s what bond issues are really for,” White said. "The meat and potatoes kind of stuff.”

BailJumper
12-11-2006, 10:23 AM
I know many people here are in favor of light rail, heavy rail or any other type of rail that is introduced, but not me. Too often I see empty city busses, near empty trollies and a passenger train that I hear has yet to ever break even.

I doubt Oklahoma voters would ever support spending millions, let alone a tax increase for such a huge mistake.

If they want to upgrade the busses to make them more efficient in the long run then I don't have a problem with that - but a light rail system in OKC - no way.

jbrown84
12-11-2006, 11:24 AM
and a passenger train that I hear has yet to ever break even.

Not that Amtrak has anything to do with in-city mass transit, but actually the Heartland Flyer is making money, and is one of Amtrak's more profitable lines. I rode it once last summer and it was sold out.

John
12-11-2006, 11:38 AM
...but actually the Heartland Flyer is making money, and is one of Amtrak's more profitable lines.

Not entirely true. The government subsidy per passenger is an astronomical figure. What you pay per ticket comes nowhere close to matching what it costs to choo-choo down the tracks.

That being said, I'm a big fan of Amtrak and support the governments assistance given to them. :congrats:

BailJumper
12-11-2006, 01:16 PM
If you took gov't monies out of the equation the Heartland Flyer would be a huge money consuming beast.

I like the idea of Amtrak I just don't see the benefit, it costs more and takes longer than if I drove. Sure, sure for some it is great. You can work while on the train and old people don't have to drive, but I think a project should best serve the majority if its gonna take so much of our tax dollars. But, I'm sure Amrak has been beat to death on both sides in other threads.

Popsy
12-11-2006, 01:48 PM
Light rail is a huge sink hole and I hope that it gets to be voted on instead of the politicians shoving it down our throats.

floater
12-11-2006, 03:32 PM
Light rail is a huge sink hole and I hope that it gets to be voted on instead of the politicians shoving it down our throats.

And I suppose we never have to maintain roads?

Only in Oklahoma is it fashionable to be behind the times.

Spartan
12-11-2006, 06:32 PM
I know many people here are in favor of light rail, heavy rail or any other type of rail that is introduced, but not me. Too often I see empty city busses, near empty trollies and a passenger train that I hear has yet to ever break even.

I doubt Oklahoma voters would ever support spending millions, let alone a tax increase for such a huge mistake.

If they want to upgrade the busses to make them more efficient in the long run then I don't have a problem with that - but a light rail system in OKC - no way.

BailJumper for President.

Of Pushmataha County, that is. I hear the folks down in "Push County" are very nice this time of year.

soonerguru
12-11-2006, 07:29 PM
We are getting ready to spend $1 billion on eight miles of highway and you're suggesting rail travel is a sinkhole?

Look at what DART has done for the city of Dallas -- spawning billions in private sector development -- and then get back to me on what a waste rail is.

We need commuter rail in this city -- and we used to have it! How is it that if you're suggesting it is prohibitively expensive to have rail we could somehow support it shortly after arriving here on covered wagons?

Rail went away because it was "out of fashion" in the middle 20th Century. It still works very well in virtually every big city on the planet. Have you traveled outside the country much? Heck, there are cities in Europe with smaller populations than OKC that have extensive subway systems.

All light rail is commuter rail. It's really not the big money waster it's being portrayed as by the luddites in the room.

Kerry
12-11-2006, 07:35 PM
It appears that too many people are living in the past. There was time not very long ago that rail transit was very expensive. Those days are past and rail systems ar much more affordable now. Plasma TV use to cost over $50,000 just 5 or 6 years ago and today Target has one for $349. I'm just trying to make the point that as more cities build rail sytems the price goes down.

I hear old timers always talking about how they use to ride the Interurban all over central Oklahoma in the "good old days". They complain daily about the trains being shutdown in the 50's. But try to revive the rail systems and all I hear is "it can't be done". Instead some people want to throw more money at a proven loser - buses.

Dont' build a canal - it will be a waste of money. Don't build a new baseball stadium - the old one is fine. Don't expand the airport - it won't spur new service. Don't build a new arena - no one will use it. Don't expand the Myriad - we don't get that many conventions. Don't spend money on the Skirvin - no one wants to stay downtown anyhow. You would think after a while some people would get tired of being wrong.

If OKC is going to continue to compete in the 21st century, they have to do what other cities are doing to improve the quality of life. I am not saying that a rail system is the be all to end all but it is just one of the many transportation options that a city needs. I can't think of a single city in recent history that has built a transit system then said - screw this, it isn't working and pull up the tracks.

writerranger
12-11-2006, 07:46 PM
We are getting ready to spend $1 billion on eight miles of highway and you're suggesting rail travel is a sinkhole?

Look at what DART has done for the city of Dallas -- spawning billions in private sector development -- and then get back to me on what a waste rail is.

We need commuter rail in this city -- and we used to have it! How is it that if you're suggesting it is prohibitively expensive to have rail we could somehow support it shortly after arriving here on covered wagons?

Rail went away because it was "out of fashion" in the middle 20th Century. It still works very well in virtually every big city on the planet. Have you traveled outside the country much? Heck, there are cities in Europe with smaller populations than OKC that have extensive subway systems.

All light rail is commuter rail. It's really not the big money waster it's being portrayed as by the luddites in the room.

Actually, the street cars that went out all over the country went out because a company ( National City Lines) owned by General Motors, Standard Oil, Phillips Petroleum and Goodyear bought dozens of city rail lines and shut them down. They wanted to sell buses, automobiles, gasoline and tires - and it worked. In 1949 a congressional committee actually investigated these claims and found them to be true!

Good posts in this thread, especially from SoonerGuru and Kerry.

------------------

BG918
12-11-2006, 08:17 PM
See my thread titled "OKC Commuter Rail" to see how a commuter rail system would not only be an alternative option to driving downtown for work/entertainment from outlying areas but it could also enhance the areas around the stations. The public pays for the cost of building the new track, trains, and stations but then the private development that goes up around stops make the public investment more than worth it. This commuter system would not only really help densify downtown OKC (which is on its way even without rail) it would help other areas of the Metro including Edmond, Moore, and Norman whose residents would also be paying for the cost of the rail line. A line could also revitalize under-utilized parts of OKC like the area around the State Capitol, the Capitol Hill neighborhood, and Crossroads Mall (see the thread if you want to know how).

Light rail transit, on the other hand, should be on the ballot ASAP. Downtown OKC's districts are growing but the pace is slow and LRT would really improve that growth rate. Connecting the existing (and emerging) districts of downtown would improve inner city OKC like no other public investment. Here's a map of potential lines I put in another thread:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/oklahomacityaerialcopy.jpg

It shows a yellow line streetcar going from the OUHSC down 10th Street to the Asian District at Western Ave. Future yellow line expansion could take this line up Western into Crown Heights and Nichols Hills. The green line connects to the yellow line at 10th and Oklahoma and goes down Oklahoma Ave. through The Triangle into Bricktown and then heads down Reno to Walker. The red line runs down Walker from 10th and Classen (where it connects to the yellow line) through the Arts District connecting to the green line at Reno. Future expansion could take it into the Riverside district and provide a catalyst for growth.

okcitian
12-12-2006, 12:44 AM
How could light-rail be a sinkhole if there was a transit study that asked for a lightrail system in okc. The study said that it would be needed.

With the growth that downtown okc is getting already and if it continues as it is downtown and the inner city will be more crowded. If light-rail were to be built at the right time it would easy, there will be many of the issues that may encompass buildilng one if it is built "too late".

The innercity population density could possibly stregthen around the city core in the next 20 years. That is if the city takes an aggresive approach for sustained growth in this area. (Such as implemeting OKC urban infrustructure and so on). And if there is a good economic forcast during this period, it could happen. A realistic assuption is that the area would have about 4,000 to 7,000 units in downtown by then. With a global perspective, cities like Madrid which has 6 million in the metro area has a metro system that is way too big city a city that size. Dart has been pretty successful in Dallas. Another thing is that light-rail attracts the middle-class so there is a higher target than a metro bus system. Also many people using the light-rail would obviously use buses to connect to stations.

With the current trends in high gas prices, many people would use light-rail as an alternative to get to point A and point B. It would also help the enviornment in okc (ok, well we dont' really have a smog issue) and also would make property values increase.

BailJumper
12-12-2006, 04:10 AM
PooPoo me all you want and then get back to me when the voters never let it get off the ground. I imagine I am speaking for the silent majority that won't be so silent when they see the possability of millions going out the window.

Our city is not Dallas and rail will never see the light of day. Okies love their cars and are not about to leave them at some parking lot so they can ride in to work on a train.

Most people's commute (unless they live way out of the city) is only 10-40 minutes to work. Voters will never justify the hassle when there is no immediate problem perceived.

But, I know - everyone here is right and the voters will be wrong. At least you're not spending my money.

Kerry
12-12-2006, 05:48 AM
Voters will never justify the hassle when there is no immediate problem perceived.

How many people has the Oklahoman quoted complaining about the lack of parking in Bricktown? A train reduces the need for parking.

BailJumper
12-12-2006, 06:00 AM
Yep - and all they need to do is park in the Santa Fe garage - BUT THEY DON'T. That is only two blocks from Bricktown. I think you just made my point.

OUman
12-12-2006, 11:52 AM
If people aren't going to use light rail, there's no point in building a system and letting it bleed money. Light rail is infrastructure, just like an airport terminal. If a terminal is underused, it bleeds money, same goes for light rail.

Some of you make points about European cities having light rail, and yes, in fact some cities with populations smaller than ours have light rail/commuter systems. But the fact of the matter is, most people in those cities can't afford to drive daily anywhere and everywhere; gas is quite expensive, and as it is, many European cities have a space crunch and finding parking is a daily job in and of itself. We don't have any of those problems here, and traffic density is quite low for a city with 500,000+ people. People who come here from California and other high-pop states always express surprise at how easy it is to move around here.

Another thing: Dallas is Dallas after all, can't compare Oklahoma City to Dallas in terms of light rail, again, for many of the same reasons. It's a known fact by now that Dallas' traffic drives would-be drivers to the commuter train system every once in a while at least, and Dallas also has a much bigger population. Perhaps we could learn something from the neighbor to the east, Little Rock, which has a streetcar system called River Rail. The system has been quite successful and they're now going to build Phase II.

CAT: River Rail (http://www.cat.org/rrail/streetcar.html)

IMO, here's what Oklahoma City could try: A streetcar/rail system that covers the Bricktown area, downtown (could allow passengers to just get off the train/streetcar and head off to the Underground-for faster linkage between various Bricktown areas and downtown areas), points like the OKC Museum of Arts etc. And then Phase II could be developed based on the success of Phase I where it would be linked to the Oklahoma River/North Canadian etc. Tourists visiting the city would find it much easier to ride the streetcars or trains than drive around finding the sights themselves. And it would be a good option for people working downtown as well. Anyway, just my two cents. After all is said and done, the cities that have the major light rail systems now have them only because people finally gave up their cars due to traffic, it's human nature.

okcguy
12-12-2006, 12:18 PM
This city is so backwards, if the people vote on light rail, we'll never get it in a million years. People love their gas-guzzling SUV's and big hillbilly trucks too much.

CuatrodeMayo
12-12-2006, 12:27 PM
This city is so backwards, if the people vote on light rail, we'll never get it in a million years. People love their gas-guzzling SUV's and big hillbilly trucks too much.

So the citizens of OKC should NOT be allowed to vote on where their tax dollars are going?

okcguy
12-12-2006, 12:34 PM
Not necessarily saying that, just stating that I know it would never pass because we are so behind and non-progressive as a city...er, large town.

jbrown84
12-12-2006, 01:23 PM
But, I know - everyone here is right and the voters will be wrong. At least you're not spending my money.

At least we have multiple scientific studies to back us up.

BG918
12-12-2006, 03:10 PM
I think OKC voters WOULD vote on a light rail "starter" line as part of a transit-focused MAPS III initiative. I think most voters realize the inner city needs something like this. Commuter rail would be a little more difficult because you have to get Edmond, Moore, and Norman on board, but having a successful LRT/ streetcar line would help those efforts. Just knowing that a line would go down a certain street could spur enough private "transit-oriented" development to justify the public expense.

BailJumper
12-12-2006, 03:11 PM
Ahhh, the 'science' of light rail. I must have missed that one on the Discovery Channel.

I think we should vote on it, then maybe it will be done and over with.

mranderson
12-12-2006, 03:16 PM
This city is so backwards, if the people vote on light rail, we'll never get it in a million years. People love their gas-guzzling SUV's and big hillbilly trucks too much.

Five years ago, that is what many people said about major league sports in Oklahoma City... Guess what? I guess a million years have passed. Think about that before you get so negative.

Kerry
12-12-2006, 04:19 PM
So the citizens of OKC should NOT be allowed to vote on where their tax dollars are going?

What the hell are you people talking about! The citizens did vote for light rail and it passed. It was called MAPS. Remember the transporation link from Meridian to downtown. Do you also remember the outrage when it was switched to a bus system because there was not support from elected leaders (Istook)? The people of OKC do want a rail system - they already voted yes.

Federal Transit Administration - Planning & Environment (http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer_friendly/planning_environment_2705.html)
Oklahoma Railway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Railway)

writerranger
12-12-2006, 05:56 PM
What the hell are you people talking about! The citizens did vote for light rail and it passed. It was called MAPS. Remember the transporation link from Meridian to downtown. Do you also remember the outrage when it was switched to a bus system because there was not support from elected leaders (Istook)? The people of OKC do want a rail system - they already voted yes.

Federal Transit Administration - Planning & Environment (http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer_friendly/planning_environment_2705.html)
Oklahoma Railway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Railway)

Thank you, Kerry. You are absolutely right!

-------------

brianinok
12-12-2006, 07:21 PM
Kerry for MAPS-III Commissioner!!! :congrats:

If you want to know my point of view, go re-read Kerry's posts.

BailJumper
12-13-2006, 05:40 AM
Trust me, I supported maps but I'd never support light rail.

TStheThird
12-13-2006, 07:17 AM
Well, we know where BailJumper stands on the issue.

BailJumper
12-13-2006, 10:41 AM
Yep, next to my gas eating SUV that I plan to drive everywhere I go!

BG918
12-13-2006, 03:01 PM
Enjoy those gas prices where they're at right now, as we saw last summer there's no telling how high they could go in the near future. I'm sure there are many voters who think like you but my guess is the overall voting population in OKC sees other regional cities building rail and will realize OKC needs it as well.

BailJumper
12-13-2006, 03:47 PM
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Yeah, yeah... I heard all those 'experts' last year saying how gas was gonna hit $5 a gallon during the summer. Guess they missed that one.

Lets mark this post in our memories and I'll get back at ya with a big "i told you so" after the failed bond election.

Gas could hit $5 for all I care and I'm still gonna be in my SUV. I find they are just the right size to squish any tree hugger who gets in my way.

TStheThird
12-13-2006, 03:50 PM
You are gosh darn right... squash those hippies. :fighting2

Kerry
12-13-2006, 07:42 PM
While I am all for squashing hippies myself (wife has a Nissan Armada), I also see the value in the city expanding its transporation options. Here is a little history lesson for you though. For the most part, OKC does not have a traffic congestion problem. In fact, OKC has one of the best freeways systems in the country. It is better than every city I have been to - bar none. Why is this? It is becasue the leaders of OKC planned a long time ago for our current road network.

Why stop that kind of future planning now? Building a rail network is the next logical step in securing OKCs future. When I-240 was built on the Southside it was in farmland. Look at it today. My mom remembers when Grand Ave was in the country. I am sure there were people back then just like Bailjumper saying it was a waste of money and refused to get off their horses.

It will be 20+ years before OKC could build a city wide rail system and in the year 2026 I am sure someone will say - "Wow, what a great rail system. Thank goodness the leaders of OKC in 2006 panned ahead." Of couse, by then we will have Bailjumper Jr saying what a waste of money the new transporter tubes are.

Kerry
12-13-2006, 07:45 PM
Trust me, I supported maps but I'd never support light rail.

How is that possible? MAPS had a light rail component. Are you telling me you voted for it before you voted against it?

brianinok
12-13-2006, 08:19 PM
MAPS had a light rail component.This is exactly right. We got people to vote for it when gas was $0.95 a gallon and very few cities were thinking in these terms. Now, you have Dallas, Denver, Little Rock, etc. with either commuter rail or light rail in the works or actually working. You also have $2.25 gas. The people voted for it then, they will vote for it now. And now that Istook doesn't hold any political office, he can't kill it.

Let's be honest here. The people of OKC may support it without the MAPS-III name or other projects attached to it, but if properly marketed as MAPS-III with a few other projects (I like expanding the Myriad Gardens to the south in a kind of Central Park-type thing myself), it is an easier sell to the general population.

Spartan
12-14-2006, 06:42 AM
We are getting ready to spend $1 billion on eight miles of highway and you're suggesting rail travel is a sinkhole?


Your numbers are wrong.

BailJumper
12-14-2006, 08:46 AM
Kerry - I never voted against MAPS. I liked the concept overall, but that doesn't mean I agree with every component.

I supported the lottery but not the fact they had to link it to schools to get it passed.

You want to expand metrotransit - fine. You want to lay tracks - no thank you.