Light Rail Boom

[202_Cyclist]

Would light rail and/or commuter rail be successful in the Oklahoma City metropolitan region? The region is about the same size as Salt Lake City and Salt Lake has both commuter rail and light rail.

Plans advancing for a proposed passenger rail to link OKC with surrounding towns and cities

Steve Lackmeyer
The Oklahoman
Aug. 9, 2021


Image courtesy of the Oklahoman.

"As an attorney who often appears in court, Matthew Allen sometimes leaves his Norman home an hour early just to ensure rush hour traffic along Interstate 35 doesn’t delay his appearance at hearings in downtown Oklahoma City.

“I can’t be late,” Allen explains. “I’ve never figured out a consistent time to leave Norman and get downtown between 8 and 8:15. Traffic is just too inconsistent; I leave my house at 6:30 just to avoid it.”

First year law student Max Federman spent this summer making the daily trek between his home in north Oklahoma City and the University of Oklahoma. He is not looking forward to continuing the commute over the next three years..."

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news...es/8035633002/

[Doady]

OKC needs to build a successful bus system first. If they can get people on the bus, then they might have a chance to build successful light rail. They are not going to fill 60m long or 90m long light rail trains and station platforms just with park-and-ride lots. They will need lots and lots of buses, hundred of buses feeding into those light rail stations. Without enough buses and people using them, any rail system is doomed to failure.

You can see the most successful modern light rail systems in US and Canada - Muni Metro in SF, CTrain in Calgary, MAX in Portland - they are all served by equally successful bus systems. But right now, OKC's Embark system only gets around 3 million boardings annually with a fleet of 49 buses. 3 million boardings with 49 buses for a metropolitan area of over 1 million people. Compare that to similar sized metropolitan areas with bus-only networks, like 32 million annual boardings and 500+ buses of Capital Metro in Austin, 66 million annual boardings and 900+ buses of the RTC in Las Vegas, or 142 million annual boardings and 1000+ buses of the OC Transpo in Ottawa.

3 million bus boardings and 49 buses is just not enough to support any sort of frequent, high capacity rail transit service. Even if Oklahoma City seriously commits to buses immediately right now, it still will take decades to build a strong bus system that can support rail and fill those trains. They still have a long way to go.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Doady

OKC needs to build a successful bus system first. If they can get people on the bus, then they might have a chance to build successful light rail. They are not going to fill 60m long or 90m long light rail trains and station platforms just with park-and-ride lots. They will need lots and lots of buses, hundred of buses feeding into those light rail stations. Without enough buses and people using them, any rail system is doomed to failure.

You can see the most successful modern light rail systems in US and Canada - Muni Metro in SF, CTrain in Calgary, MAX in Portland - they are all served by equally successful bus systems. But right now, OKC's Embark system only gets around 3 million boardings annually with a fleet of 49 buses. 3 million boardings with 49 buses for a metropolitan area of over 1 million people. Compare that to similar sized metropolitan areas with bus-only networks, like 32 million annual boardings and 500+ buses of Capital Metro in Austin, 66 million annual boardings and 900+ buses of the RTC in Las Vegas, or 142 million annual boardings and 1000+ buses of the OC Transpo in Ottawa.

3 million bus boardings and 49 buses is just not enough to support any sort of frequent, high capacity rail transit service. Even if Oklahoma City seriously commits to buses immediately right now, it still will take decades to build a strong bus system that can support rail and fill those trains. They still have a long way to go.

Why are you holding up Austin as an example of a success story now? Have you not in the past poo pooed all over Austin’s bus numbers as being pathetic and not enough to play a healthy supporting role for light rail?

Furthermore, Vegas and Austin are substantially larger metropolitan areas than OKC. Almost double the size, actually, so your comparison points are probably inappropriate anyway.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Why are you holding up Austin as an example of a success story now? Have you not in the past poo pooed all over Austin’s bus numbers as being pathetic and not enough to play a healthy supporting role for light rail?

Where did I say Austin's bus system is a success story? Tell me.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Furthermore, Vegas and Austin are substantially larger metropolitan areas than OKC. Almost double the size, actually, so your comparison points are probably inappropriate anyway.

So OKC doesn't have a worse performing bus system than Austin or Las Vegas even after population is taken into account. If you say so.

...

I only call for improved bus networks and more efforts to get people onto buses because I want to see more and more light rail constructed, and more people using the existing light rail trains. Is this so wrong? Why does this make people so upset? It's not just Austin and OKC, but every place in US and Canada can do more to improve their bus networks, even Toronto and New York. More people riding buses to connecting to these LRT and subway stations can only help us build more rail lines. Buses are the first step. How can we get to the second or third steps if we cannot even take that first step?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Doady

Where did I say Austin's bus system is a success story? Tell me.

Your post reads like this:

OKC’s bus system sucks.
Lets compare that to other bus systems to show how it sucks.

Are you not heavily implying via context that Austin’s bus system doesn’t suck by offering it as the comparison point?

[Doady]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Your post reads like this:

OKC’s bus system sucks.
Lets compare that to other bus systems to show how it sucks.

Are you not heavily implying via context that Austin’s bus system doesn’t suck by offering it as the comparison point?

Yes, I compared to other bus systems. Systems. Not just Austin's, but also the systems of Las Vegas and Ottawa, in the same sentence. That's the context. In no way did my post imply that Austin's bus system is good as a bus system can be. My point was the steps that OKC still needs to take toward building light rail: it has to match Austin, then Las Vegas, then Ottawa, which is now finally constructing a grade-separated light rail system.

OKC's bus network is so far behind even Austin's, which in turn is behind Las Vegas and Ottawa. LRT is just thinking way too far ahead for a lot of places, and too many LRT systems in the US are underutilized for this reason. Places like OKC and even Austin don't need to make the same mistake. If you can fill 12m and 18m long buses then you will have a much better chance to fill 30m long LRVs, especially if those LRVs are combined into 60m or 90m long trains.

Too often, light rail and rapid transit are built to solve the problem of too low ridership instead of the problem of too high ridership. As the buses get more crowded, they have to stop more often to let passengers on/off, they have to spend more and more time at each stop to let passengers on/off, they get slower and slower, they fall further and further behind schedule. That is the problem that rapid transit measures like longer vehicles, limited stops, all-door boarding, grade separation, exclusive ROWs should be implemented to solve. Transit in Oklahoma City just doesn't have that problem, and my post was just trying to show how incredibly far away OKC's system is from getting to that point. The buses there are empty so they are going to be fast no matter what, so adding any rapid transit features to its system is not going to make any difference. Even BRT there would be pointless.

Don't get me wrong, it is great to read about the OKC region coming together and thinking about BRT, LRT, and commuter rail. It is a very good sign of things to come, but they need to build a foundation for all that BRT, LRT and commuter rail first for it to be successful, and whether of not they can be successful was what 202_Cyclist was asking about.

[wwmiv]

You literally said “compare that to similar size metropolitan areas.”

These are not similarly sized metropolitan areas as OKC. I made no point, implied or otherwise, that transit ridership isn’t better on a per capita or absolute basis in any of the cities you mentioned. I just don’t think the examples you provide are appropriate to your argument or antecedent statement. Similarly sized metropolitan areas in the United States (anywhere in Canada is just really horrible a comparison, in my view, because of fundamentally different built environments and a significantly more transit amenable culture) would be places like Milwaukee, Memphis, and Richmond.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Doady

Yes, I compared to other bus systems. Systems. Not just Austin's, but also the systems of Las Vegas and Ottawa, in the same sentence. That's the context. In no way did my post imply that Austin's bus system is good as a bus system can be. My point was the steps that OKC still needs to take toward building light rail: it has to match Austin, then Las Vegas, then Ottawa, which is now finally constructing a grade-separated light rail system.

OKC's bus network is so far behind even Austin's, which in turn is behind Las Vegas and Ottawa. LRT is just thinking way too far ahead for a lot of places, and too many LRT systems in the US are underutilized for this reason. Places like OKC and even Austin don't need to make the same mistake. If you can fill 12m and 18m long buses then you will have a much better chance to fill 30m long LRVs, especially if those LRVs are combined into 60m or 90m long trains.

Too often, light rail and rapid transit are built to solve the problem of too low ridership instead of the problem of too high ridership. As the buses get more crowded, they have to stop more often to let passengers on/off, they have to spend more and more time at each stop to let passengers on/off, they get slower and slower, they fall further and further behind schedule. That is the problem that rapid transit measures like longer vehicles, limited stops, all-door boarding, grade separation, exclusive ROWs should be implemented to solve. Transit in Oklahoma City just doesn't have that problem, and my post was just trying to show how incredibly far away OKC's system is from getting to that point. The buses there are empty so they are going to be fast no matter what, so adding any rapid transit features to its system is not going to make any difference. Even BRT there would be pointless.

Don't get me wrong, it is great to read about the OKC region coming together and thinking about BRT, LRT, and commuter rail. It is a very good sign of things to come, but they need to build a foundation for all that BRT, LRT and commuter rail first for it to be successful, and whether of not they can be successful was what 202_Cyclist was asking about.

This argument only works if you think initial-build transit systems in the United States are, or ever were, solely about ridership.

Fun fact: they aren’t. They are primarily about property development.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

This argument only works if you think initial-build transit systems in the United States are, or ever were, solely about ridership.

Fun fact: they aren’t. They are primarily about property development.

All rapid transit systems are to some degree about property development, but after reading the article, it is really about increasing traffic congestion and providing an alternative to long and inconsistent commutes that will only get worse in the future. Ultimately, if the system is effective, it will increase ridership. Because individual taxpayers have to vote to fund the project, it is not directly about property development.

[ardecila]

The proposed system in OKC is likely a commuter rail system, except for the east corridor to Tinker AFB. And even that may end up as a new-build commuter line ala Denver's A-Line, if officials want to take advantage of synergies between the various lines.

I do think a system like Denver's FasTracks with EMUs branching out across OKC would be great, but if Denver has struggled to finance that with 2x the metro population of OKC then the cost will be a barrier especially in a state that is vastly more conservative than Colorado. Probably it will start as a commuter line like FrontRunner, ideally with at least hourly service in both directions, and the opportunity to add double or quad track in the future to provide light-rail quality of service.

[202_Cyclist]

On the other hand, Albuquerque has commuter rail and it is a smaller metropolitan area than Oklahoma City.

I really don't know anything about Oklahoma City, so it will be interesting to see if this is feasible. Oklahoma City has a streetcar and if intercity rail is ever built to Dallas, commuter rail could be a good compliment to that service.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Doady

OKC needs to build a successful bus system first.

The bus argument always insinuates that because some (actually, quite a few) bad light rail lines have been built, that all bus services are good.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You literally said “compare that to similar size metropolitan areas.”

These are not similarly sized metropolitan areas as OKC. I made no point, implied or otherwise, that transit ridership isn’t better on a per capita or absolute basis in any of the cities you mentioned. I just don’t think the examples you provide are appropriate to your argument or antecedent statement. Similarly sized metropolitan areas in the United States (anywhere in Canada is just really horrible a comparison, in my view, because of fundamentally different built environments and a significantly more transit amenable culture) would be places like Milwaukee, Memphis, and Richmond.

You are just nitpicking with the population numbers. So I compared an MSA of 1.4 million to one that has 2.3 million people? I compared the 41th largest MSA to the 29th largest MSA, this is what gets you so worked up? Austin is close by too, in the same region, in a neighbouring state, I don't understand what is so wrong about comparing them.

OKC has one of the worst transit ridership numbers of any MSA over 1 million, maybe even THE worst. My original point about OKC needing to start building a system that can feed lots of bus riders into rail stations still stands. You can see this model for success in places like Portland and Seattle as well. You need to have a comprehensive and complete system, and you need to build it one step at time.

And USA is not different than Canada in this respect. I have made many photothreads for the horrible car-oriented sprawl in Canada too, like Heartland Town Centre. Go to Google Maps or Earth and look at the faceless post-war sprawl of Calgary or Ottawa, also 1.4 million people each - are they really THAT different from OKC? Canadian cities are sprawling, but transit still works in Canada, I see no reason why it can't work in the USA as well.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

This argument only works if you think initial-build transit systems in the United States are, or ever were, solely about ridership.

Fun fact: they aren’t. They are primarily about property development.

So when 202_Cyclist asked if we thought transit in OKC could be successful, I was supposed to assume he was talking about property development rather than about ridership? We should think about transit as a way to serve developers instead of as a way to serve riders? Sigh. Sorry, I did not realize. I feel so stupid, honestly.

Okay, I will never bring up the subject of transit ridership or the idea of serving riders with transit in this thread or any other US-related thread here again. I am serious, I am done. No more. I promise from now on I will only talk about transit in terms of property development. Thanks for informing me on the correct way to think about transit and discuss transit, especially transit in the US, and preventing me from making a further fool of myself. Maybe I will still mention transit ridership when discussing Canadian transit systems in the Canada subforum, but outside of the Canada subforum I will try to remember to never bring up the subject of transit ridership or the idea of increasing transit ridership ever again.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The bus argument always insinuates that because some (actually, quite a few) bad light rail lines have been built, that all bus services are good.

Huh?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The bus argument always insinuates that because some (actually, quite a few) bad light rail lines have been built, that all bus services are good.

I thought the argument is that there's no point building light rail until you have a good bus service with corridors of high ridership that can take advantage of the higher capacity of rail.

Especially in recent years as the cost of light rail construction has ballooned to levels that will cripple the finances of most cities if they don't get good ridership right away.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by accord1999

I thought the argument is that there's no point building light rail until you have a good bus service with corridors of high ridership that can take advantage of the higher capacity of rail.

Especially in recent years as the cost of light rail construction has ballooned to levels that will cripple the finances of most cities if they don't get good ridership right away.

Excellent points.

I just wanted to add a few more when it comes to ranking city sizes. The US governments totals population three ways; (1) City, (2) MSA, and (3) CSA.

The CSA is best used for economic ranking, MSA is best used for ranking commuting traffic, and city best used for determining transit usage.

Why do I believe we should just use city population numbers for transit usage? Because few transit lines extend beyond the city' limits, if they do they do not extend far beyond, and that is also where the vast majority of the users of public transit reside.

Having stated that, there will always be a few exceptions to that rule of thumb. Some cities annex frequently, some cities are surrounded by suburbs and can't annex anymore. Not every city grows in the same way.

So, as far as public transit is concerned, we should be comparing OKC with other cities with populations between 650K and 700K. Here's such a list:
21 Boston 695,506 (443.6K)
22 El Paso 685,434 (30K)
23 Nashville 678,448 (27K)
24 Oklahoma City 669,347 (10K)
25 Las Vegas 667,501 (185K)
26 Detroit 664,139 (99K*)
27 Portland 662,549 (277K)
28 Memphis 651,011 (40K)
I have also added the latest daily ridership data to the list. Note* Detroit was averaged from a yearly total.
OKC does not fair well in comparison with its sisters.

[202_Cyclist]

Why would you include Boston, Detroit, and Portland on this list? These are all metropolitan areas that are significantly larger.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Why would you include Boston, Detroit, and Portland on this list? These are all metropolitan areas that are significantly larger.

As I explained before, their city population data was used, not their MSA or CSA population data. And as also explained before, few of their transit lines extend beyond the city limits. And as explained before, almost all the transit riders reside within the city limits.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by electricron

As I explained before, their city population data was used, not their MSA or CSA population data. And as also explained before, few of their transit lines extend beyond the city limits. And as explained before, almost all the transit riders reside within the city limits.

Indeed but the headline of the article is about a plan to connect Oklahoma City with surrounding towns and cities. It explicitly says the plan is to reach beyond the boundaries of Oklahoma City.

Thus, Boston, Portland, and Detroit are significantly bigger metropolitan areas and should not be used as a comparison.