Comments on: Downtown OKC 2020: Jim Stafford

By: Gene

Gene — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:45:46 +0000

Ok, I ride to work every day on Route 24, and I don’t think it’s crazy to say people will take whatever transit is most convenient and affordable. Mass transit in OKC has a bad reputation because we’ve never made the investment to make it work. And this has real costs in lost development, traffic congestion, air pollution, and people moving to other states with viable transit. Supporters of transit do so for those reasons. Most of us have no monetary or other stake in it besides wanting Oklahoma to be a better place to live.

The real “prideful endeavor for a few select folks” in MAPS is the Convention Center, the motivation for which comes from a few business leaders who would directly profit. That’s not necessarily bad; business is an important stakeholder in the community too, and that wealth does spread around to some extent. But it would be a farce to propose what is in effect a giant subsidy for a few while leaving out transit improvements that would help the entire community.

By: Ricky

Ricky — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:26:48 +0000

Here’s the deal on using mass transit: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? I would love to take the bus downtown to work, but it doesn’t leave often enough and connect smoothly enough for me to use it. Then, if I have to ensure I leave work soon enough to catch the last train for Clarksville, so to speak. So, I’m not a user. My argument is that when gas prices hit $5 a gallon and stay there in the not-too-distant future, there needs to be an alternative to driving. We don’t have that in this city.

By: ThePlainsman

ThePlainsman — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:02:26 +0000

While, in general, I agree that public transit is great and would be awesome if more was done here, I can’t help but think that it’s not going to be something that *most* people use. I mean sure, who is against it, right? It’s a great CONCEPTUAL idea, but the realities of pulling it off (costs, political turf, etc) are in all likelihood going to derail most public transit proposals. My fear is that including it, especially when the MTA has such questionable reputation, in the next go ’round of MAPS could very possibly be a deal-killer for enough folks. After reading and following this blog, among others and other sources of info, I’m becoming convinced that the push more a new type of public transit isn’t so much about advancing OKC as it is a prideful endeavor for a few select folks. How many use the existing public transit? Do we really believe that until we reach some critical mass, that we’ll be able to offer quicker, more expanded service? I’m not against it in principle, it just appears to be unrealistic. Fire away. But, please, let me know which route you rode into work on today first.

By: Jenni

Jenni — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:05:06 +0000

Steven: Coming from Austin, which I hear is a great city, what would you recommend OKC spending funds on first to build up the downtown?

By: Nick Roberts

Nick Roberts — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 08:56:03 +0000

MTPOKC is the streetcar system. The reason we can’t just say “well we need a rubber-tire trolley and a bus system downtown” is because we already have both of those. The Oklahoma Spirit Trolleys were just a joke. They used to have route info posted downtown, but now they don’t even have that. Nobody rides them, they’re very unreliable, and they don’t provide any kind of real transport. As for the buses, they are slightly more reliable, but they aren’t as environmentally friendly as streetcar, they require more operating expense, they don’t attract nearly as many riders, and they don’t spur development. City buses have a tendency to go by ignored, especially in downtowns of cities like OKC.

By: John R. "Radar" Doyle

John R. "Radar" Doyle — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:42:25 +0000

Nick, I agree that using and widening the BNSF corridor makes sense for longer-distance commuter rail at a lesser-expensive overhead. I wonder if that is planned for the I-44/Broadway Extension rework, specifically the railroad bridges over both highways. But the BNSF line must connect to a light rail system downtown, and hopefully include a rubber-tire trolley or bus system at the same point.

Logically, I believe all modes of transport should inter-connect, to allow a smooth commute between any two points in the Metro Area. BNSF’s infrastructure is a good starting point.

And to Mr. Bezdek, I am not always in the loop, but what is this $120-million streetcar system you speak of? Is it similar to what you had on MTDOKC.org?

By: Doug Loudenback

Doug Loudenback — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:50:55 +0000

David, Shartel & Classen didn’t make money off of the trolley system … they either lost money or went into the hole on it … they DID make buckets of money selling tracts of land that they somehow managed to lay tracks through/to. I’m not complaining about that, but it would be a mistake to think that the trolley system was profitable, in and of itself.

By: Jeff M. Bezdek

Jeff M. Bezdek — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:03:41 +0000

Posters- the proposed streetcar rail system in MAPS 3 is $120 million. That is the smallest of the three core projects promoted by the mayor. Incidentaly, he will be speaking on behalf of the streetcar project at our first fundraiser, Sept 17th 5:00 pm – 7:00 pm at the Skirvin.

To implement the metro-wide commuter system is $850 million in 2009 dollars. It is a ten year long range plan.

Finally, Austin cannot be compared to OKC with regards to rail and financing. Our system starts with the streetcar, paid for entirely with local funds to acclimate our citizens to rail service and serve the core area and connect/interface the metro-wide system.

The investment of the $120 million will enable us to pursue federal funding for a expanded system.

By: david ball

david ball — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:48:31 +0000

we abandoned a privately owned inter-urban system and now expect one to magically appear on the cheap?

by all means, take the political garbage out of the discussion. maps didn’t come for free, and neither will the rebuilding of oklahoma city as a world class city, which it HAS BEEN. i believe it will be one again, and soon.

this partisan garbage is absolutely amazing. does jake think that anton classen, doc nichols, and i.m. putnam were head-in-the-sky philosophers? THEY WERE CAPITALISTS. they made money with the oklahoma city railway (with NO SUBSIDY, in a very different economic climate), and developed a metropolitan area. they did so in cooperation with the public sector, i might add. i’m quite certain that the private sector would be delighted to profit once again from the re-development of the city, so long as public policy allows them to make a decent profit.

for what it’s worth, i think that a metro streetcar system combined with heavy rail upgrades just might work. everyone gets what they want, and the public benefits. the problem with light rail is that in addition to the expense, you don’t get the profitable freight traffic.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:16:59 +0000

I guess people have been glossing over what I’ve been saying for years now.

A rail system is a multi-billion dollar project.

Why is this all of the sudden a shock to people?