OKC gets serious about transit, sustainability, and SPRAWL

[shane453]

I'm wowed by our Mayor's state of the city speech yesterday, so much so that I thought it deserved two threads. Mick Cornett hasn't always been gung ho on sustainability, mass transit, etc, but lately he's been saying a ton of things that are almost... hostile... toward the car culture.

"We are a city in which life revolves around getting into your car and going somewhere," he said. "That dependence on the automobile is not all bad. ... But we are kidding ourselves if we think this is sustainable. ... our reliance on the car has created a sedentary culture."

Last year Oklahoma City completed a regional transit study that showed needs for modern streetcar, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit. The mayor revealed his support of that plan. "We have every incentive to begin to get serious about public transportation. ... In the coming years, we will need to accelerate the conversation and move into action. We cannot ignore our public transformation problems forever."

And, the mayor listed the problems of sprawl:

"Affordable gas and our great network of roads has allowed people to live great distances from where they work, creating a sprawling metropolis that creates a host of inefficiencies for City Hall. City government is about providing services and it is costly to provide police and fire protection in a community that spreads out and lacks population density. In a community where people are so friendly, it is puzzling to me why we like to live so far apart from each other."

I'm glad that someone in a high position is finally putting those kinds of statements out there.

[M1EK]

Bus rapid transit is a joke; and commuter rail without urban rail is useless.

"Getting serious" requires reserved guideway transit which goes directly to major destinations without bus transfers. Unless you're very lucky, commuter rail rarely goes where you need to go without such transfers; and bus rapid transit never ends up with reserved-guideway in this country.

[arbeiter]

BRT is most certainly not a joke. But it is true that the real change comes from zoning upward; you need some element of density to start things off.

[M1EK]

BRT is most certainly not a joke. But it is true that the real change comes from zoning upward; you need some element of density to start things off.

BRT is a joke, since in practically every implementation in this country, it lacks reserved guideway. Which means it's really just limited stop bus service with fancier vehicles; and thus doesn't nibble away enough of the speed and reliability gap to provide non-trivial additional attraction for choice commuters (those who own cars).

The reason we're getting so much of it in this country now is because the last 6 years of Republican oversight has led to an institutional bias in favor of it at the FTA (due to funding constraints at the Congressional level) - those Republicans didn't support BRT because it works; they supported it because it's an investment which they think can be reused for automobiles when the BRT service fails.

[Diddle E Squat]

Edit: screw it, not worth arguing over the same BS spam.

[shane453]

If BRT does have dedicated lanes, I think it does have merit- because later those lanes can be used as right-of-way for rail, if the system is updated.

[M1EK]

If BRT does have dedicated lanes, I think it does have merit- because later those lanes can be used as right-of-way for rail, if the system is updated.

The only BRT systems like this have been:

Curitiba (the example everybody uses): runs in the median, has median stations, completely separated from other traffic

Pittsburgh/Miami: runs on dedicated right-of-way (more like commuter rail than light rail); i.e. they had a completely unused corridor available; dropped some asphalt on it, and ran a bus on top of that.

Houston: theoretically (and I'm betting against it), they're going to build rails, then pave them over, then run BRT on top, in the middle of the road. No, I'm not kidding; that's actually what Tom DeLay and his allies forced them into after the voters overwhelmingly favored light rail.

Every other "Rapid Bus" or other BRT-codename system proposed in this country since, including Austin, Honolulu, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc. is basically right-lane-running non-exclusive-guideway service. Want to bet which one OKC ends up with?

Here's a good set of articles on BRT and Rapid Bus systems in the US (http://lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt.htm)

[shane453]

In any case, BRT is certainly not the priority transit type in OKC's case- The City heavily favors rail-based transit- particularly commuter rail from Edmond to Downtown to Norman, and modern streetcar from Midtown, through downtown, and to Riverside in the inner city.

[M1EK]

Then you're making the same mistake Austin's making - assuming people will ride a streetcar when they wouldn't ride the bus on the same route before, even though the streetcar doesn't go any faster; doesn't have any more of its own lane; etc.

There's really no substitute for reserved guideway transit (light rail, in almost all cases given financial constraints) straight through the urban core. That, not streetcar/commuter rail, is how the success stories of the last 20 years got started.

Commuter rail on the cheap with streetcar as a distributor SOUNDS good until you get down to the perspective of the choice commuter and ask the hard questions. Problem is that very few people ever do that, which is why so few understand why this is such a bad solution compared to just doing light rail right.

[BG918]

^ I would hope when they plan the rail lines through downtown they take into account a reserved lane. It wouldn't be worth it not to, and the public would not support that. LRT has to be faster than busses and cars for people to regularly use it. Downtown OKC has the density it just needs more people living there, which is why planning for the system now makes sense as more residential projects go up.

Also a unique situation exists in downtown OKC in that a huge amount of under-utilized industrial land in between the CBD and the Oklahoma River is about to be opened for development when I-40 is relocated and buried further to the south. This creates a new blvd. in its place that will serve as the "gateway" to downtown and huge areas for potential offices, retail, and residences. Planning for rail for this area is a necessity as it will be urban and walkable, at least that is what the city wants.

[Hot Rod]

All sounds good to me, very urban and progressive.

I can't wait to see the new OKC in 10 years, heck even 5. Look how far it has already come. OKC (especially downtown) has so much potential - its about time people are realizing it.

Continue the Renaissance.