OKC mass transit announcement!!

[soonerguru]

I'll be short and I will not apologize for it. Oklahoma City right now has the perfect opportunity to be proactive about mass transit and not reactive. If people are going to start taking things personally and worry about the inconsequential, then they need to get out of the way and allow someone else that can get the job done without getting into politics.

In the meantime let Steve do his job as a reporter. Let's discuss mass transit constructively. End of story.

In many ways I agree with your comments. However, manufacturing controversy and suggesting that the proponent of this project lacks transparency is untrue, and damaging to this effort. And, fair or not, lumping Bezdek with Elmore does not help matters. Mr. Elmore's combative style has not been particularly effective in advancing transit. To put Bezdek in the same category undermines his efforts.

I understand Steve's profession. It is an important one. Steve usually does a very good job, but his work in this case is vexing.

I do hope he offers a legitimate interview on the project in a setting outside a public blog.

[wsucougz]

The essential point is that Steve uses innuendo on his blog and tries to smear Jeff as an associate of Tom Elmore. Then, he assiduously avoids answering to my commentary.

Steve's quote was:

"Jeff Bezdek and Mark Gibbs, active members of Urban Neighbors, have formed a transit advocacy group and join Tom Elmore’s North American Transportation Institute and others in pushing for streetcars/rail line transit, etc."

The way I read it was that Jeff's group, Tom's group, and other groups are all pushing for rail transit. No affiliation necessarily implied.

This is what you're making a big deal about?

[kevinpate]

soonerguru, if you missed it, Urban Pioneer flatly stated "Everyone needs to just calm down and let this thing go."

Jumping on board the let's move along train isn't a terrible, horrible, no good very bad idea. I think I'll buy a ticket myself. Why not come and enjoy the ride.

[soonerguru]

I'm along for the ride, too! Back on topic.

[Urban Pioneer]

Thanks all. I will meet with Steve and these issues will be resolved in a cordial manner.

[Urban Pioneer]

Now I have to ask. The committee is putting together a list of improvements to the web site. Several people have asked me to actually outline conceptual routes for discussion and estimate the costs of these various "legs" or sections. We will also be bumping up information on transit oriented development.

What do you think of these ideas and are there any areas that you think weren't covered enough in this initial website and public campaign? Thanks.

[CCOKC]

THe question that I don't think has been explained enough is how the ongoing operation and maintenance be funded. I can understand using maps money for the initial funding for the building of a transit system whether that be bus of trolleys. But do you envision the funding from an additional sales tax or from another source?

[GreenSooner]

(snip) But we first must agree if this is the type of project that makes the most sense. Remember, we have a maximum of about 140 million to make the most impact.

My position is that we need the downtown route, plus the beginning of a commuter system, but I'll get to that later.

Why is $140 million the maximum? My impression is that we get about $100 million for each year of a penny sales tax increment. The first two MAPS initiatives lasted 5.5 and 7 years if I read the site correctly. I know the city fathers want their convention center. Do you have an idea how much will be requested for that? Or what the overall request will be?

I see transit as something that is primarily useful for people, and also good for economic development. The convention center is good for some sectors of the city's economy, but I fail to see any direct benefit for the population, other than some sub-$10 jobs at the CC and the hotels it will generate.

In contrast, the original MAPS and MAPS for Kids projects primarily benefitted the people of the city - not in their workaday lives but in providing a wide variety of things to do. I know MAPS 1 also generated a lot of economic development. From the point of view of the likely voters, will they tax themselves for economic development if there is no direct benefit to themselves? For this reason I strongly believe the overall MAPS 3 initiative should have more dollars allocated to transit (and other direct-to-the-people projects) than to the convention center. The sales job will be much easier.

Relatedly, how much interface do you and MTP have with the Chamber of Commerce as they provide guidance to the city on MAPS 3?

My apologies if any of this was covered from your quoted post to now.

[GreenSooner]

Jeff, this will depend on the overall budget for a MAPS 3 initiative.

I strongly believe that in addition to the downtown circulator, one leg of a commuter system must be built at the same time. Other posters have talked about the need to win votes from people who don't and won't live downtown. We know we can't afford the entire system at this time, but a true demonstration would include a commuter component and a downtown streetcar to get the commuters to the major employement centers in and around downtown. The FGS proposes BRT along NW Expressway as the second leg, but BRT will not generate the transit oriented development which I see that most posters here realize is one of the big payoffs for transit.

I propose that the commuter segment of this "Phase 1" be a commuter rail operation between downtown OKC and just east of the OU campus in Norman.

Commuter rail is the cheapest form of rail transit, in part because it uses existing track and doesn't require building an electrical distribution system. The Norman leg would run over the existing BNSF Red Rock subdivision. That line is saturated with freight rail. Utah has solved this problem by building an additional dedicated track for commuter rail along the UP right of way between Salt Lake City and the Hill AFB area.

I haven't surveyed the whole route but there is room for an additional track along most of the Red Rock subdivision from SE 23rd to Crossroads Mall. Additional bridges may have to be built over the Oklahoma River and I-240. There is room for the additional track along much of the route from I-240 into Norman also.

I propose two stations be built in Oklahoma City. The track crosses under I-35 just north of SE 59th street, and there is underutilized land there that presents opportunities for TOD. Crossroads Mall has acres of underutilized parking lot for a park and ride (plus unused land if agreement can't be reached with the mall owners). The mall is also on a downward spiral and may within a few years be a prime TOD site. These two spots are inside Oklahoma City and so rebut the mayor's arguments that commuter rail doesn't bring people into the city.

We should also build a station where BNSF crosses Brooks Street in Norman. Terminating there rather than downtown Norman has two important benefits: the line will be useful for commuters from Oklahoma City to OU, and it will attract some number of votes from OU fans looking to avoid the highway congestion on football game days. The track is about two long blocks east of the stadium.

The mayor has downplayed commuter rail from the suburbs by saying that the suburbs need to help pay for it. This is true, and Norman is very likely to approve participating in a regional rail transit system. Norman and Edmond have the two largest congestion problems in the metro area, but Norman already has an active pro-transit mindset, and groups promoting regional transit. Norman may very well vote to tax themselves for their part of the construction and operation before Oklahoma City does.

The road distance between the two points is 22 miles, so the rail distance may be some 21 miles. I have seen cost estimates between $3 million and $20 million per mile for commuter rail, so I will go out on a limb and say $10 million, or $210 million for the entire line. Norman's participation may be based on percent of ridership or percent of mileage, but for the sake of the argument say they should pay one-third of the construction cost. That leaves Oklahoma City with $140 million. If Moore votes to participate, they get a station too, and that would further reduce Oklahoma City's share.

You estimate the MTP bus re-powering and streetcar at $140 million. If both components were proposed as the first phase, we would be asking for $280 million of the potential MAPS 3. I believe that passage is more likely if the transit component is greater than the convention center. As I said in my previous post, many voters would see transit as a direct benefit to themselves, and the convention center as another MAPS for Millionaires.

I would not change a thing in the MTP proposal, other than to include as a co-equal priority one leg of the eventual commuter system.

[Urban Pioneer]

I think that there are many different things going on at once. From my dialogue with city leadership, if the pie were split up between a convention center, river projects, core to shore- its doubtful that there would be more than 140 million available for transit. These are all great projects and I hesitate to take particular positions on specifics- primarily because there are so many unknowns. We really don't know how much a convention center appropriately sized for this city will cost. Right now we just have a range.

Regarding commuter rail- time wise I think the most viable start or installation of a leg is the Midwest City/Tinker line. It's short, not all that expensive to repair comparatively, and ODoT has spoken publicly positively about it. It would end up in Bricktown and could easily interface with the streetcar. I think that the biggest thing that it has going for it is accessibility to Federal Stimulus Funds. From an operational standpoint it would not have to "share" tracks at this time with freight trains.

Regarding Norman, Mayor Cindy Rosenthal is on the RDT committee (Regional Transit Dialogue). That group is convening leaders from most metro cities. I think that you will start to see progress towards "splitting costs" and commuter infrastructure but the time line for this process would not be completed before a MAPS vote is finalizes and occurs. MAPS funding for the streetcar and bus improvements could help leverage major federal funding for the the high cost items you describe. Regarding costs- depends if it is installation of new track on right-of-way or sharing tracks with freight trains.

Regarding BRT- BRT can foster TOD in the form of transit hubs or urban centers in suburbia. It is not quite as elegant as rail or as "fixed" but done correctly it could address some real sprawl related costs such as the NW Expressway corridor.

Dialogue with the Chamber- I have had very positive and constructive dialogue with the Chamber. I think that the Convention Center very comfortably fits into their "scope" of economic development and that is why they support it so strongly. With regard to transit, they are just looking for an actual plan that they can support proffered by the city.

If any of you feel conflicted about where emphasis on spending should occur, talk to your city council person. Ultimately, the council will decide on the plan and the ballot language. Regarding transit, I think the most constructive thing that MTP can do is host some transit workshops and perhaps a conference where people from our regional area are brought in to discuss what has worked and what has not.

COTPA does as much as they can with what they have. Unfortunately, they are consumed by the day to day operational issues and budget concerns. These "development" concepts and new technologies should be discussed on a professional platform in workshop and conference format to help educate those who ultimately will make the decision.

Regarding ongoing funding, I think that the Mayor and staff are trying to figure that out. Basically, what would people be willing to permanently tax themselves on, what is reasonable to create a sustained budget? Fortunate, a streetcar of the size that we are discussing would need about 1.5 to 2 million pr year for electricity, operational, and maintenance costs. Roads and bridges are paid for through hidden mechanisms, thus people people have aversion to transit funding because it is more obvious.

GREAT START OF A BLOG DIALOGUE-

What type of permanent tax would you be willing to subject yourself to- to create a sustained operational and maintenance budget?

[okclee]

I would suggest a hotel tax for additional funding.

[GreenSooner]

What type of permanent tax would you be willing to subject yourself to- to create a sustained operational and maintenance budget?

I would probably vote for a higher tax than would a majority of voters region-wide.

Has MTP surveyed how other regional transit agencies have funded their operating costs? Has ACOG? I have heard that some use sales tax and others use property tax.

Does the state set a limit to how much each city can assess in sales tax? If so, how much room is there between the "permanent" tax plus the MAPS penny, and the limit?

[GreenSooner]

I think that there are many different things going on at once. From my dialogue with city leadership, if the pie were split up between a convention center, river projects, core to shore- its doubtful that there would be more than 140 million available for transit. These are all great projects and I hesitate to take particular positions on specifics- primarily because there are so many unknowns. We really don't know how much a convention center appropriately sized for this city will cost. Right now we just have a range.

So, have they expressed any clues on the total amount they are considering for a MAPS 3 initiative?

[GreenSooner]

Regarding commuter rail- time wise I think the most viable start or installation of a leg is the Midwest City/Tinker line. It's short, not all that expensive to repair comparatively, and ODoT has spoken publicly positively about it. It would end up in Bricktown and could easily interface with the streetcar. I think that the biggest thing that it has going for it is accessibility to Federal Stimulus Funds. From an operational standpoint it would not have to "share" tracks at this time with freight trains.

Is there a large market of downtowners who work at Tinker, or MWC residents who work in the area reached by your streetcar? If there were a station and park and ride near the track's crossing of 15th street, you might also pick up a few commuters from points east who wanted to avoid the last six-seven miles of congestion, but I don't think that commuter market is anywhere near as large as the one from Norman to the streetcar service area

The biggest selling point for the average voter will be a line that gives them a choice in commuting. The biggest selling point for the developer community will be a demonstration of the money to be made building transit oriented development. Norman-greater downtown would accomplish both of these much more visibly than MWC-greater downtown.

That being said, if the MWC line were designed to have a reasonable chance of attracting commuters, I would support it. I still think it's very important to include a commuter element in the initial vote, and that a larger overall project that includes even one segment of commuter rail would have a better chance of passing than a smaller one that is more than half for the convention center.

[Urban Pioneer]

I do agree with you that some degree of viable commuter rail would be a great addition to a public initiative. Again, the problem is time and politics. No politician will support such a major effort without some detailed drawings and cost analysis. Plus, Cindy Rosenthal would need to be prepared with a complimentary public initiative to help finance such a project. Don't forget that such a line would go through Moore as well. All of those people are sitting on the RTD committee. They are great people and one of the primary goals of the committee is to develop consensus and help each other out.

However, there is not enough time and consensus to design and cost analyze such a route by the time this ballot language is formalized. I do think that it should be part of a future initiative though. Tinker and Midwest City might surprise you (with regard to commuters). This line would become operation not through MAPS funding but through Federal Stimulus. The two could be a coincidental in their implementation time line- but the coincidence would be a huge advancement to to a start of a viable system demonstrating and leveraging the kind of other routes you describe.

[OKCRT]

If you want the votes in OKC then I would say to push for the NW Expressway line. That area has the largest population in OKC and the Expressway is total gridlock most of the day. I doubt a rail line in this area would be lacking in ridership.


RT

[urbanity]

Ward 2 Councilman Sam Bowman's recent comments on transportation:
Oklahoma City leaders discuss wish-list for MAPS 3 | OKG Scene.com

[Urban Pioneer]

NW Expressway would be a great BRT start. Sam Bowman comments are totally relevant. I think the council needs to pow-wow together.

Also, he mentions sidewalks. That came up quite prominently at the APT meeting. If you can't walk or wheel to a transit stop, that is a bit of a problem. Obviously, we can't afford to build sidewalks everywhere at once, but the city might consider a policy change providing sidewalks in a one block radius in all directions around any transit stop. It would be a great and reasonable start.

[soonerguru]

NW Expressway would be a great BRT start. Sam Bowman comments are totally relevant. I think the council needs to pow-wow together.

Also, he mentions sidewalks. That came up quite prominently at the APT meeting. If you can't walk or wheel to a transit stop, that is a bit of a problem. Obviously, we can't afford to build sidewalks everywhere at once, but the city might consider a policy change providing sidewalks in a one block radius in all directions around any transit stop. It would be a great and reasonable start.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't the recent bond issue passed by the citizens contain a lot of funding for sidewalks?

[Urban Pioneer]

It did. I think it was specific to "historic neighborhoods". Somebody correct me if I am wrong about this. I don't think anything has been pushed specific to getting to transit stops though.

[Architect2010]

No. They are doing sidewalk construction and neighborhood street repaving on the Southwest side as well. In the neighborhood bordered by Western and 59th and farther in the south side as well.

[Urban Pioneer]

Interesting. I will try to find out exactly what the criteria was. I do know that the ADA compliance issue forced them to install all of the new curb cuts and ramps. Some of the ramps "ramp-up" into abandoned lots and odd obstacles.

[LakeEffect]

Interesting. I will try to find out exactly what the criteria was. I do know that the ADA compliance issue forced them to install all of the new curb cuts and ramps. Some of the ramps "ramp-up" into abandoned lots and odd obstacles.

Sidewalks were to be built on all of Proposition 1 projects (Streets). Any resurfacing project in a neighborhood will get an accessible path on at least one side of the street. If it's an historic neighborhood with existing sidewalk, it'll be on both sides if the budget allows, and only to meet ADA. The Reconstruction projects (Part C of Prop. 1), were mainly streetscape-type projects, which include sidewalks for ADA accessible paths. Widening projects were to include sidewalk on one side of the street, but are being designed for both sides should funding and space allow.

Click on each Section for a description of what is to be included: www.okc.gov/bonds2007

[GreenSooner]

Sam Bowman comments are totally relevant. I think the council needs to pow-wow together.

Also, he mentions sidewalks. That came up quite prominently at the APT meeting. If you can't walk or wheel to a transit stop, that is a bit of a problem. Obviously, we can't afford to build sidewalks everywhere at once, but the city might consider a policy change providing sidewalks in a one block radius in all directions around any transit stop. It would be a great and reasonable start.

Kudos to Sam Bowman. He has long worked for more sidewalks in neighborhoods all over Oklahoma City. And his comments about the City Council needing to be more involved in MAPS 3 are spot on.

[GreenSooner]

NW Expressway would be a great BRT start.

It’s true that a BRT route on NW Expressway is early on the Fixed Guideway Study (FGS) list. Where, besides the FGS, can you point me to a BRT success story? Wikipedia has a whole list of BRT systems, but many of them are under study, under construction, abandoned, or have minimal routes.

NW Expressway accesses a great commuter market for our system. But BRT is not the answer, and building light rail from scratch would be very expensive. Either Norman or Midwest City would be a much better starter segment for our transit system.