i will say that i believe the the type of blockage has improved

a tire 1 inch on the white line (which should be red lines but that is a different topic) counts as a "blockage" and the streetcar stops but all it requires is an inspection that the streetcar can pass safetly and it lots of cases happens very very fast

Good to know the criteria of "blockage", thanks.

Do other cities that run streetcars have a lead vehicle in front of them that drives the entire route during all service hours (as I believe ours does, but correct me if I'm wrong)?

The weekday numbers seem terrible. If people that work downtown won't take them to get lunch, will people at the convention center? I've never down that way at lunch time, but I wonder if it would help if they increased the number of cars on the Bricktown loop at lunch time so you knew you'd only have a ~7 min wait worst case.

To Anonymous, I support free mass transit for elderly, disabled, students, and anyone under 18. Those that can pay for it should do so. Transit needs as much funding sources as it can get and fares should absolutely be a part of that.

To Anonymous, I support free mass transit for elderly, disabled, students, and anyone under 18. Those that can pay for it should do so. Transit needs as much funding sources as it can get and fares should absolutely be a part of that.

If only people felt the same about roads and parking.

I really don't mind paying, but it just adds a barrier and the ticket machines in OKC are slow and there is only one per stop. And a lot of people will burn $5 in gas to save $1, whether it's for PT or milk.

The real funding for PT is by reducing infrastructure costs elsewhere. To get to that point though, you have to offer a decent PT system, while charging closer to a real cost for automobiles.

The weekday numbers seem terrible. If people that work downtown won't take them to get lunch, will people at the convention center? I've never down that way at lunch time, but I wonder if it would help if they increased the number of cars on the Bricktown loop at lunch time so you knew you'd only have a ~7 min wait worst case.

The people I know that DO work downtown have relayed to me fairly uniformly that they HATE the streetcar, that it goes nowhere that's of any use to them, and as a result they don't use it. It is, at least from their perspective as someone who has worked downtown for *years* and has taken advantage of what's left of the ConnCourse, alternate routes, you name it. There was interest bordering on excitement for a time, but the result once it was put in operation was "it's a streetcar to nowhere. Its useless." - again, I'm not *vouching* for the veracity of the statement, I'm merely relaying what I was told by someone with long-term, first-hand knowledge of the area. FWIW.

If only people felt the same about roads and parking.

I really don't mind paying, but it just adds a barrier and the ticket machines in OKC are slow and there is only one per stop. And a lot of people will burn $5 in gas to save $1, whether it's for PT or milk.

The real funding for PT is by reducing infrastructure costs elsewhere. To get to that point though, you have to offer a decent PT system, while charging closer to a real cost for automobiles.

Are you saying driving is free? Cars are free? No taxes paid from buying a car? Fuel? Fuel tax? License fees? Registration fees? Toll roads?

The people I know that DO work downtown have relayed to me fairly uniformly that they HATE the streetcar, that it goes nowhere that's of any use to them, and as a result they don't use it. It is, at least from their perspective as someone who has worked downtown for *years* and has taken advantage of what's left of the ConnCourse, alternate routes, you name it. There was interest bordering on excitement for a time, but the result once it was put in operation was "it's a streetcar to nowhere. Its useless." - again, I'm not *vouching* for the veracity of the statement, I'm merely relaying what I was told by someone with long-term, first-hand knowledge of the area. FWIW.

Having to pay for parking (and transit) is a normal every day thing for every significant city in the world. While you do hear about cities taking a serious look at 100% free public transit (most recently Kansas City is considering it, but also I've read just in the last week a couple European cities considering it), but has anyone heard of a city of significance pursuing 100% free public parking? Serious question, would be interesting to know.

They really need to get the wait times down to closer to 5-7 minutes. I live in Midtown and work in the CBD and it takes me longer to wait and ride the SC than it does to simply walk to work. If it was a 5 minute wait, I would ride the SC.

Kansas City has 100% free public transit right now. They adopted it a month or so ago.

Kansas City has 100% free public transit right now. They adopted it a month or so ago.

Oops I missed that, thanks!

They really need to get the wait times down to closer to 5-7 minutes. I live in Midtown and work in the CBD and it takes me longer to wait and ride the SC than it does to simply walk to work. If it was a 5 minute wait, I would ride the SC.

No objections to that, I think we have enough cars to make it happen. But they wouldn't even have to do it all hours, just put all the cars in service for morning/afternoon rush and lunch. They could even do a "lunch express" route that doesn't stop at all stops.

They really need to get the wait times down to closer to 5-7 minutes. I live in Midtown and work in the CBD and it takes me longer to wait and ride the SC than it does to simply walk to work. If it was a 5 minute wait, I would ride the SC.

this is very much a large part of the problem... i've stopped my arguments that we are building it on the wrong streets with the wrong stops, because it's now built, and we have to deal with it... we have to work to make the dumb routes they chose work... and the best way to do that is get the wait times down to around 5 minutes.

To Anonymous, I support free mass transit for elderly, disabled, students, and anyone under 18. Those that can pay for it should do so. Transit needs as much funding sources as it can get and fares should absolutely be a part of that.

Fares aren't as important revenue-wise as you think they are. For an OKC bus boarding a couple of years ago, the total cost is $6.73 and the average fare is $0.84 - page 11 of https://embarkok.com/assets/files/planning/Fare%20Study/EMBARK%20Fare%20Study%20-%20Conceptual%20Options%20Workshop%20Presentations _April%202017.pdf

Fares aren't as important revenue-wise as you think they are. For an OKC bus boarding a couple of years ago, the total cost is $6.73 and the average fare is $0.84 - page 11 of https://embarkok.com/assets/files/planning/Fare%20Study/EMBARK%20Fare%20Study%20-%20Conceptual%20Options%20Workshop%20Presentations _April%202017.pdfThe fare structure in OKC should be raised a bit to provide more funding and structure changed. Annual pass holders see most benefits. Distance based fares should be the way.

Distance based won't work until we're going some distance, which doesn't happen except on the 24 really. Possibly the 5 up to Mercy. Otherwise all routes are 30 minutes out, 30 minutes back.

This is a failed system. Lets face it we will never make it work no matter what we throw at it. It looks pretty and shows well in city advertisements. But like years ago this will eventually be shut down. Its just a matter of how long that takes and how many more millions we throw at it.

I guess when one looks at MAPS 1/2/3, this is to me the only failure. Thats pretty good although it is a lot of wasted money. Omni/CC will help but we’ll need to see. MAPS overall has been a massive success story this will just happen to be the one that failed. We will subsidize it for years with wasted dollars.

I wish we had bought micro buses and run free of charge. Also can change routes as needed plus not stopped for things SC is.

Speaking of buses. I think the city bus system (all cities) is based on big bulky buses. This was likely due to not having other good vehicle options back in the day. But over time transportation companies have evolved and make so many great and smaller people mover vehicles.

I would love to see the whole city get rid of those bulky big buses and go to micro buses. More trips, more drivers and more efficiency. The cost of a micro bus is fractions of their big brother. Fuel economy is better (electric is future option). If you can get more efficiency and more trips run you will increase riders. Smaller is also more rider friendly. If the cost is 1/4th that of big buses (likely 1/5th or better) you can keep them up to date easier, less outlay per bus. Less maintenance, less costly parts, less traffic congestion (works better with traffic) and overall cheaper. If you increase riders you get more revenue to keep standards high and allows you to hire more drivers for the extra trips. It just seems so logical to me but my guess is big bus companies lobby a lot? Technology in auto manufacturing offers so many better options yet we keep the antiquated old big bus method.

Anyways, my 2 cents. I’ve had the opportunity to visit over 30 countries and quite a few use micro buses in cities.

Yup, just can't see this ever being actually worth the investment. Some businesses might pop up along the route due to the novelty but I don't think it will ever be a functional piece of transportation.

The route it takes is just not very fluid. This is largely based on our city design. All of our interesting districts are just so spread out. If we had better city planning the street car could have made a straight line or square route & it would flow well & be easy to understand, but it just won't ever be the case.

Hope I'm wrong but this just seems like a colossal waste. It just seems like we tried to solve a transportation problem with an outdated model and with the future of ride sharing/robo taxis/scooter & bike rentals it just never seems like it will never be a preferred method of transportation.

Not servicing 23rd or HSC seems like a colossal mistake IMO.

Not to pile on here, but I remember back when this was proposed, probably the beginnings of this thread or another I remember saying a lot of the streetcar stuff didn't make sense, and I just got torched. People were downright crappy and I wasn't going near the lengths to say it's wrong or dumb or whatever. Just didn't make sense.

After several conversations I decided, maybe I didn't know 100% of what the people who work or live downtown want/need, so I became fairly optimistic about it's implementation. Even after the new wore off and it had horrible ridership and continues to lag even the conservative estimates I've seen, I try to be optimistic about it, but I always come back to my original gut feeling when I first saw it proposed, this seems mostly worthless.

I'm going to reserve final opinion till maybe 6 months or so after the convention center and hotel are fully open and operating, but I have real doubts. As a taxpayer I hope my gut is 100% wrong and the CC/Hotel are just the catalyst that's needed to put real value for the streetcar.

But it's looking more and more that the ultra urban, anti-car people really over-sold the need for this thing.

Not to pile on here, but I remember back when this was proposed, probably the beginnings of this thread or another I remember saying a lot of the streetcar stuff didn't make sense, and I just got torched. People were downright crappy and I wasn't going near the lengths to say it's wrong or dumb or whatever. Just didn't make sense.

After several conversations I decided, maybe I didn't know 100% of what the people who work or live downtown want/need, so I became fairly optimistic about it's implementation. Even after the new wore off and it had horrible ridership and continues to lag even the conservative estimates I've seen, I try to be optimistic about it, but I always come back to my original gut feeling when I first saw it proposed, this seems mostly worthless.

I'm going to reserve final opinion till maybe 6 months or so after the convention center and hotel are fully open and operating, but I have real doubts. As a taxpayer I hope my gut is 100% wrong and the CC/Hotel are just the catalyst that's needed to put real value for the streetcar.

But it's looking more and more that the ultra urban, anti-car people really over-sold the need for this thing.

I don't think the idea of a streetcar per se was bad, but the execution was flat-out awful.

The "streetcar" notion had appeal to older folks who remembered the original streetcar system fondly, and many probably thought that's what they were getting (or at least some facsimile of it). And the "mass transit" notion appealed to the..."mass transit" crowd. The problem is that, somehow, we lost our way in planning and implementing it in a way that was meaningful and practical. It has become largely symbolic, and unfortunately, not in a good way.

I think there are some here perceive OKC as sort of a Dallas one-off, and when they think of "mass transit," they have notions of (something like) Dallas' DART trains, but don't realize OKC is a geographic and demographic baby compared to DFW. Mass transit on that scale applied to OKC is the very essence of square-peg into a round-hole.

With nothing else into which the streetcar could be linked, and no real, comprehensive plan for how the streetcar would serve the most people, it ended up in a bit of a well-intentioned abyss. Maybe, someday, something good can come out of it. Maybe it can be linked up to some broader transit plan down the road - dunno - just trying to be optimistic. We bought it, we installed it, and we are now kinda realizing it wasn't what, well, anyone really hoped. And just *what* we all hoped is left to interpretation.

i don't think the idea of a streetcar per se was bad, but the execution was flat-out awful.


this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you talk about micro-buses are you speaking of the Pesero found in Mexico City? I really haven't seen any other bus smaller than what our normal buses are in other cities, often times I find our buses to be on the small side considering other systems.

I don't think the idea of a streetcar per se was bad, but the execution was flat-out awful.

The "streetcar" notion had appeal to older folks who remembered the original streetcar system fondly, and many probably thought that's what they were getting (or at least some facsimile of it). And the "mass transit" notion appealed to the..."mass transit" crowd. The problem is that, somehow, we lost our way in planning and implementing it in a way that was meaningful and practical. It has become largely symbolic, and unfortunately, not in a good way.

I think there are some here perceive OKC as sort of a Dallas one-off, and when they think of "mass transit," they have notions of (something like) Dallas' DART trains, but don't realize OKC is a geographic and demographic baby compared to DFW. Mass transit on that scale applied to OKC is the very essence of square-peg into a round-hole.

With nothing else into which the streetcar could be linked, and no real, comprehensive plan for how the streetcar would serve the most people, it ended up in a bit of a well-intentioned abyss. Maybe, someday, something good can come out of it. Maybe it can be linked up to some broader transit plan down the road - dunno - just trying to be optimistic. We bought it, we installed it, and we are now kinda realizing it wasn't what, well, anyone really hoped. And just *what* we all hoped is left to interpretation.

I never said the idea of the streetcar was bad, I was directly talking about the implementation. If you thought by my comments I was against the idea, I apologize.

I say this because again I don't want to be ripped. This board is particularly harsh on word interpretation (part of the reason I post way less on here than I did) so I want to re-iterate when I say streetcar stuff, I'm talking about the the route, fares, everything that has to do with our existing streetcar, but not the idea of having one in general.

I thought one of the main features of a tracked system (versus wheeled) is that the routes are permanent, and will result in development & businesses locating along the route.

It is, and it arguably is.

I thought one of the main features of a tracked system (versus wheeled) is that the routes are permanent, and will result in development & businesses locating along the route.

Yeah, I think in a sense its kind of like the canal. It really just serves a gimmick transportation purpose that hopefully attracts development.

Streetcar IMO will not be as big a drag on the city's budget as the Whitewater Rapids project. The SC is nice public transportation serving Midtown, Downtown & Bricktown; also we just passed a MAP 4 initiative that will throw some funds toward public bus transit.

MAPS will not be able to cover everything; our city can continue to renew MAPS and address areas where OKC can improve our city.

Pretty much everyone on here agreed that the windy streetcar route that was chosen was a very bad choice. It's just not intuitive at all. That reality has played out. It's just another example of City planners and decision-makers ignoring urban planning experts who offered evidence-based advice on what route would succeed. I mean, those in the city even waited to coordinate lights to "see how it would play out," and they only halfway made the change after tons of riders had bad experiences. It's really just a lot of poor decisions from the top over and over again (except for the color schemes/design of streetcars and stops, which are great).

Decreasing wait time and removing on-street parking might help. I've taken the streetcar about 10-15 times and I just tend to ignore the estimated times based on prior experiences. Those need to be accurate. But a lot of harm has been done in the minds of riders.

Maybe, just maybe it’s as simple as the market for riders just isn’t there yet.

Do the street cars have formal names? My kids call the link one pinky.

Maybe, just maybe it’s as simple as the market for riders just isn’t there yet.

Problem is the public perception is tainted and you will never get some back. Other is its a rigid square. Our city will morph into more than just Bricktown. Most of the east is built out up to 235 so I speculate the newer growth will go north and west. But SC isn’t there. And I argued that MAPS 4 being 8-10 years long was too long - it means no chance of expanding SC to adapt to growth and entertainment patterns. I felt MAPS 4 shoulda been scaled down to allow us to adapt projects to growth patterns more easily. Had we made each line straight back and forth you could interconnect and more easily expand.

For instance, if you had one line running back and forth on 10th st and it ends at Broadway on the east now - but you realize it should be expanded into Health/Science district - then you could easily expand the line east yet not disrupt the overall lines. If you had a Broadway N/S line then they still connect and you transfer at Broadway/10th. So Medical/Science area can take it to Broadway and go south or take it to the western end and go south. If running only 2 directions back and forth on these straight lines no turns are needed to mess up lights and would be much faster repeating trips. If one line breaks down or has problem the other 3 still run. With a connected square its impossible to expand outwards and any SC stoppage shuts the whole system down not just one car. And thats why it will never have time consistency.

Are you saying driving is free? Cars are free? No taxes paid from buying a car? Fuel? Fuel tax? License fees? Registration fees? Toll roads?

Taxes on cars come no where close to paying for their true cost burden on society. They don't even pay for direct infrastructure costs, much less indirect costs from pollution, loss productivity, loss of life/ability to work from accidents, military adventures used to keep oil prices low, etc.

Since roads are a massive cost on cities/states, mass transient pays for itself by reducing the need to expand/add/repair roads. The street car would be more likely to indirectly pay for itself if it were free, as opposed trying to cover 10% of its costs with fees.

Do the street cars have formal names? My kids call the link one pinky.

801- Ms. Molly
802- Ms. Piggy
803- Dory
804- Papa Smurf
805- Kermi
806- Yoda
807- Pink Panther

I use it all the time for Thunder Games. I'll street park at 5pm. Catch it to go eat in Midtown or Automobile Alley and ride it back to the arena by 6:30.

I don't think the idea of a streetcar per se was bad, but the execution was flat-out awful.

The "streetcar" notion had appeal to older folks who remembered the original streetcar system fondly, and many probably thought that's what they were getting (or at least some facsimile of it). And the "mass transit" notion appealed to the..."mass transit" crowd. The problem is that, somehow, we lost our way in planning and implementing it in a way that was meaningful and practical. It has become largely symbolic, and unfortunately, not in a good way.
I agree the execution was not good. The wait times are too high, the route isn't great.

The way it is setup now is a tourist attraction. I think if they made it free and decreased wait times at peak times, it would drive development and spending along the route. I don't see it ever really being used for mass transit, though, in part because there is no good way of getting to it if you don't already live in the area. It is useful for getting around, like parking by the Gardens then riding over to Bricktown for dinner.

The money probably would have been much better spent elsewhere.

Taxes on cars come no where close to paying for their true cost burden on society. They don't even pay for direct infrastructure costs, much less indirect costs from pollution, loss productivity, loss of life/ability to work from accidents, military adventures used to keep oil prices low, etc.

Since roads are a massive cost on cities/states, mass transient pays for itself by reducing the need to expand/add/repair roads. The street car would be more likely to indirectly pay for itself if it were free, as opposed trying to cover 10% of its costs with fees.
This is not remotely true. Cars are the least subsidized form of transportation that exists.

https://opportunityurbanism.org/2019/09/transport-costs-and-subsidies-by-mode/

This is not remotely true. Cars are the least subsidized form of transportation that exists.

https://opportunityurbanism.org/2019/09/transport-costs-and-subsidies-by-mode/

Interesting.

I never said the idea of the streetcar was bad, I was directly talking about the implementation. If you thought by my comments I was against the idea, I apologize.

I say this because again I don't want to be ripped. This board is particularly harsh on word interpretation (part of the reason I post way less on here than I did) so I want to re-iterate when I say streetcar stuff, I'm talking about the the route, fares, everything that has to do with our existing streetcar, but not the idea of having one in general.

No worries here :) :) . Completely understood what you said. FWIW, I also concur with your other sentiments about "word interpretation" and it being a reason I don't post here as much as I once did. Same here.

Taxes on cars come no where close to paying for their true cost burden on society. They don't even pay for direct infrastructure costs, much less indirect costs from pollution, loss productivity, loss of life/ability to work from accidents, military adventures used to keep oil prices low, etc.

Since roads are a massive cost on cities/states, mass transient pays for itself by reducing the need to expand/add/repair roads. The street car would be more likely to indirectly pay for itself if it were free, as opposed trying to cover 10% of its costs with fees.

This is so laughably untrue it defies explanation. Private vehicles enable each and every individual the freedom to go nearly anywhere they want at anytime they want, facilitate broad delivery of goods and services throughout cities, states, and the nation. They give people the ability to live and work where they choose. They offer the ability to provide emergency services such as fire, police, and medical attention. "Cost burden?" "Loss of life/ability to work?" Shall we go back to covered wagons and horse-drawn carriages? C'mon.

Please. Cars have their place. Streetcars have their place. Airplanes have their place. And each has its drawbacks. Let's not go down the road of unilaterally vilifying one of the tremendous and vastly underappreciated benefits of living in a free society.

This is not remotely true. Cars are the least subsidized form of transportation that exists.

https://opportunityurbanism.org/2019/09/transport-costs-and-subsidies-by-mode/

This should be taken with a grain of salt. Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute is one of the biggest anti-transit advocates out there. That blog exists to advocate against traditional cities and city planning. That article first appeared on a website called The Antiplanner: Dedicated to the sunset of government planning. Very unbiased work here.

This should be taken with a grain of salt. Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute is one of the biggest anti-transit advocates out there. That blog exists to advocate against traditional cities and city planning. That article first appeared on a website called The Antiplanner: Dedicated to the sunset of government planning. Very unbiased work here.Yeah I am aware and the same is said for transportation blogs like streetsblog, Vox, and citylab which constantly posts every anti car news, recycled articles like “wasteful freeway projects” and constantly spreading the induced demand argument which is plagued with flaws, lack of variables, and is an outright irrational theory against road construction. Other than news relating to a specific project it’s hard to find articles pushing for data supporting transportation initiatives that aren’t biased in some way.

That said the article I posted makes valid points and provides a different perspective on the constant myth pushed around that roads don’t pay for themselves or that cars aren’t paying their fare share. It can easily cost someone north of 30k to own a new car and at least 5k for a used car which comes with more maintenance and likely lower fuel economy.

For this small rail project it costs north of 150 million. For those that will complain about the massive cost of road projects let’s compare not just ADT but each individual person since that’s how ridership on this route is shown. Those results also don’t include freight little if any of which is moved on this streetcar.

This is not remotely true. Cars are the least subsidized form of transportation that exists.

https://opportunityurbanism.org/2019/09/transport-costs-and-subsidies-by-mode/

"But wait — highways produced more than just passenger travel. According to table 1-50 of National Transportation Statistics, they also produced 2.0 trillion ton-miles of freight shipments. For the purpose of allocating highway subsidies to passengers and freight, I decided to use the value of passenger miles and freight ton-miles. We know passenger miles are worth 23.8 cents to users, while freight revenues per ton-mile are shown in National Transportation Statistics table 3-21.

Unfortunately, table 3-21 only has data through 2007, when shippers were spending an average of 16.54 cents per ton-mile. Between 1990 and 2007, shipping costs grew at 88 percent of the rate of inflation. Assuming that rate continued, I calculate that shipping cost 17.1 cents per ton-mile in 2017. That means 1.39 ton-miles is equal to 1 passenger mile, so highway subsidies average 0.8 cents a passenger mile and 0.6 cents a ton-mile.

In short, Americans personally spend about 23.8 cents per passenger mile on driving and receive subsidies of 0.8 cents a passenger mile, mostly from local governments. "

Why does he decide to use 23.8 cents per mile (IRS allowance)? And does that *really* mean people spend 23.8 cents per mile when driving?

And I think AP meant to say "biased" instead of "unbiased", because after reading it, things don't really add up to a completely logical picture with real math being used.

And I think AP meant to say "biased" instead of "unbiased", because after reading it, things don't really add up to a completely logical picture with real math being used.

I think that was sarcasm on AP's point...

Why don't we cover the streetcars in advertisements, inside and out. Since so many of them are driving around with hardly anyone inside, it might as well earn ad revenue whilst doing so. Look at the ridership numbers for every weekend in December for evidence.

I have a lot of friends who have never tried it because when you have a group of 4-6 people, an Uber/Lyft split between them is less than the cost of everyone to buy a ticket. Plus the vehicle is coming to and dropping off at an exact location and you can track its arrival on a map.

Make the streetcar free by whatever means possible and you remove a huge entry barrier.

I would like to point out a few things-

1. Advertising has been added to the exterior of the streetcars on occasion and the interior of the vehicles now have multiple flat panels that display advertising sponsorships that subsequently generate revenue.

2. Delivery times have improved from as high as 22 minutes down to 8 - 11 minutes (the target of the original design). I completely agree with everything that has been said about first impressions. You can directly blame some specific city staff members and some specific MAPS implementers for the "wait and see approach" which was disastrous to those citizens who had bad experiences. FWIW, EMBARK is not to blame for this.)

3. The streetcar was meant to be an a circulator for not just tourists, but commuters arriving on trains and express bus to downtown as part of a Regional Transit System. Some of the reason that the route was designed as it was (only in part) was due to the location of Santa Fe Station and the EMBARK bus transfer center. Eleven years ago, nearly everyone originally involved in the project honestly believed that in the ten year period there would be at least one major commuter line of some mode connected to the streetcar. That didn't happen. Combined with the direct impact of UBER, Lyft, scooters, and lack of dense housing projects on the line, its pretty amazing that it is doing as well as it is on its own. It would be interesting to determine if there is a way to factor those new modes of local micro-transport against the streetcar's ridership.

The best way to significantly boost streetcar ridership numbers is to-

1. Resolve the parking blockage problem through the elimination of parking in trouble spots or through aggressive towing. (Numbers have been added to every parking spot to collect data on each location where blockages are occurring to determine if there are specific problematic locations. That data started being collected a month or so ago and is now being aggregated.)

2. Make the streetcar free to ride and treat it as a economic development tool to generate sales tax revenue.

3. Implement the RTA legs to feed the system riders.

4. Build more high-density housing near streetcar stops.


There are plenty of things to be critical about but the service has tremendously improved with the implementation of automated signals. Right now a real-time map of locations available to the public is wrapping up beta testing. The should help people better plan when to start walking to the stop. As a beta tester myself, I have found it completely reliable so far.

Hope this information is helpful.

I still prefer the streetcar and buses over Lyft/Uber personal vehicles. But I am a sucker for public transit and always enjoy getting to walk between my destination and the transit stops. This goes for just about any place I am in, I only hope for better connections to downtown from my residence and workplace in the near future rather than waiting 10+ years for this RTA thing to happen.

It is and has taken far too long. Fortunately, they just ripped it away from ACOG and it is now truly independent.

3. The streetcar was meant to be an a circulator for not just tourists, but commuters arriving on trains and express bus to downtown as part of a Regional Transit System. Some of the reason that the route was designed as it was (only in part) was due to the location of Santa Fe Station and the EMBARK bus transfer center. Eleven years ago, nearly everyone originally involved in the project honestly believed that in the ten year period there would be at least one major commuter line of some mode connected to the streetcar. That didn't happen. Combined with the direct impact of UBER, Lyft, scooters, and lack of dense housing projects on the line, its pretty amazing that it is doing as well as it is on its own. It would be interesting to determine if there is a way to factor those new modes of local micro-transport against the streetcar's ridership.
This is insane to me. With all due respect to you and your efforts, this seems like a colossal failure. How did OKC proceed with this route when it was and has been clear that the RTA is still little more than a pipe dream? I'm actually shocked that we have this mostly useless route based on the dreams of other transit coming downtown.

This is insane to me. With all due respect to you and your efforts, this seems like a colossal failure. How did OKC proceed with this route when it was and has been clear that the RTA is still little more than a pipe dream? I'm actually shocked that we have this mostly useless route based on the dreams of other transit coming downtown.

The RTA isn't a pipe dream. In fact all of the cities have committed to the RTA and it actually exists with a budget of several million dollars a year that each city council collectively budgets towards it. Legislation was passed to make it possible from a governance standpoint.

OKC took it on itself to fund the most expensive part of the RTA Master Plan which was the streetcar and Santa Fe Station improvements.

I think I am being completely honest when I state that most of the people eleven years ago thought we would be adding a rapid transit line to the system right now. What is coming is BRT which isn't even technically part of the RTA but funded through MAPS 4.

The RTA itself needs to get it in gear.

I think that was sarcasm on AP's point...

Yes. sorry. That was sarcasm on my part.

This is insane to me. With all due respect to you and your efforts, this seems like a colossal failure. How did OKC proceed with this route when it was and has been clear that the RTA is still little more than a pipe dream? I'm actually shocked that we have this mostly useless route based on the dreams of other transit coming downtown.

I think you need to take yourself a decade in the past and remember the energy and momentum the city had. I think 2010-2014 was a peak time for civic engagement, public attentiveness, and a cohesive unified push towards a more livable city. It seemed as if OKC was on a trajectory for explosive growth where the sky was the limit. Civic pride was high due to the success of the Thunder and the attention of the national and global spotlight, the Devon Tower was a symbol of what was to come for OKC, and no idea seemed too large for OKC. Every month we were getting announcement of new corporate relocation or offices. Chesapeake was hiring people faster than their campus could be built. It really did seem like some of these "next steps" were seriously within reach. It seemed as if OKC was inches away from the tipping point of being the next Dallas, Charlotte, or Austin. Perhaps some of it was overzealous, but the 2010-2014 time frame was the first time OKC had really been in the national spotlight since 1995 - and for once it was for something positive. It really was an exciting time.

I think this has largely waned over the past few years. People still care, but I think many have realized OKC will not be "going viral" anytime soon. That's not a bad thing, but the times certainly change just as we see here. I think this lessening of interest has caused things to slow down such as the RTD, rail to Tulsa, etc. I think people's interest have changed somewhat where maybe the overall level of excitement is there, it is just too spread out and not focused on one individual thing. I think Holt has something to do with that with how spread out MAPS4 is. There just doesn't seem to be a cohesive vision of what OKC wants to be now. I would say in 2010-2014 OKC wanted to be the next Dallas. Now I don't really see the direction OKC wants to go.

I think you need to take yourself a decade in the past and remember the energy and momentum the city had. I think 2010-2014 was a peak time for civic engagement, public attentiveness, and a cohesive unified push towards a more livable city. It seemed as if OKC was on a trajectory for explosive growth where the sky was the limit. Civic pride was high due to the success of the Thunder and the attention of the national and global spotlight, the Devon Tower was a symbol of what was to come for OKC, and no idea seemed too large for OKC. Every month we were getting announcement of new corporate relocation or offices. Chesapeake was hiring people faster than their campus could be built. It really did seem like some of these "next steps" were seriously within reach. It seemed as if OKC was inches away from the tipping point of being the next Dallas, Charlotte, or Austin. Perhaps some of it was overzealous, but the 2010-2014 time frame was the first time OKC had really been in the national spotlight since 1995 - and for once it was for something positive. It really was an exciting time.

I think this has largely waned over the past few years. People still care, but I think many have realized OKC will not be "going viral" anytime soon. That's not a bad thing, but the times certainly change just as we see here. I think this lessening of interest has caused things to slow down such as the RTD, rail to Tulsa, etc. I think people's interest have changed somewhat where maybe the overall level of excitement is there, it is just too spread out and not focused on one individual thing. I think Holt has something to do with that with how spread out MAPS4 is. There just doesn't seem to be a cohesive vision of what OKC wants to be now. I would say in 2010-2014 OKC wanted to be the next Dallas. Now I don't really see the direction OKC wants to go.

This is spot-on. The streetcar was planned during peak euphoria. But it can still be used in the grand scheme. An extension to 23rd, perhaps Wheeler, the research park across 235, and along Classen. The SC's current route isn't the final product by any means.

This is spot-on. The streetcar was planned during peak euphoria. But it can still be used in the grand scheme. An extension to 23rd, perhaps Wheeler, the research park across 235, and along Classen. The SC's current route isn't the final product by any means.

the RTA calls for street car up classen all the way to 63rd which would be great

I didn't know the RTA called for SC up Classen, that would be great!

While this is not set in stone and locations and routes are absolutely subject to change, here's the corridors that were studied in the 2014 CentralOK!go Commuter Corridors Study; this was done in the lead-up to the launch of the RTA organization. The blue line is commuter rail (like Metra in Chicago or TRE in DFW), and the purple line is streetcar. Read more (with full size pictures!) here: http://www.acogok.org/commuter-corridors-regional-transit-rail-mpo/

North Corridor:
https://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15803&d=1582144437

East Corridor:
https://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15801&d=1582144437

South Corridor:
https://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15802&d=1582144437

Is SC up Classen still on the table given the federal funding for BRT up Classen?

This is not remotely true. Cars are the least subsidized form of transportation that exists.

https://opportunityurbanism.org/2019/09/transport-costs-and-subsidies-by-mode/

I didn't know much about this site, but it doesn't take much searching to figure out it's sketchy... an "urbanist" organization based out of Houston... where there just so happens to be the largest oil and gas pro-car advocates? Moreover, the way the guy who runs this site uses the web it seems like he's planting his stuff across sites to get web traffic and gain credibility. Glad someone else pointed out that it's straight ideology. And, don't worry, this guy also posts tons of partisan political articles just like this... he's running his own web of ideological information and it seems you got caught in it.


Yeah I am aware and the same is said for transportation blogs like streetsblog, Vox, and citylab which constantly posts every anti car news, recycled articles like “wasteful freeway projects” and constantly spreading the induced demand argument which is plagued with flaws, lack of variables, and is an outright irrational theory against road construction. Other than news relating to a specific project it’s hard to find articles pushing for data supporting transportation initiatives that aren’t biased in some way.

Your reasoning is classic whataboutism. All websites and organizations are not equal just because they come to different conclusion. If you want to disagree with a point in a CityLab article that's fine, but it doesn't justify using sketchy sites with different opinions (which are way less credible). This is comparable to saying, "I don't agree with the cigarettes-cause-cancer articles in Time magazine so I'm going to read this blog post written by Marlboro Man on CigarettesAreHealthy.com."

While this is not set in stone and locations and routes are absolutely subject to change, here's the corridors that were studied in the 2014 CentralOK!go Commuter Corridors Study; this was done in the lead-up to the launch of the RTA organization. The blue line is commuter rail (like Metra in Chicago or TRE in DFW), and the purple line is streetcar. Read more (with full size pictures!) here: http://www.acogok.org/commuter-corridors-regional-transit-rail-mpo/



I wonder why there's not a West route on that study, esp. something along the old streetcar route to Linwood (and further out to the airport?)

I wonder why there's not a West route on that study, esp. something along the old streetcar route to Linwood (and further out to the airport?)

They've done multiple studies on commuter corridors and apparently they don't think the ridership potential is as great going west towards Yukon, despite Union Pacific's relatively low-traffic OKC Sub rail line going right through some dense areas of the west Metro. I also seem to recall that Mustang and Yukon were both originally invited to the RTA table but they declined to join - but I'm not certain on that.

"But wait — highways produced more than just passenger travel. According to table 1-50 of National Transportation Statistics, they also produced 2.0 trillion ton-miles of freight shipments. For the purpose of allocating highway subsidies to passengers and freight, I decided to use the value of passenger miles and freight ton-miles. We know passenger miles are worth 23.8 cents to users, while freight revenues per ton-mile are shown in National Transportation Statistics table 3-21.

Unfortunately, table 3-21 only has data through 2007, when shippers were spending an average of 16.54 cents per ton-mile. Between 1990 and 2007, shipping costs grew at 88 percent of the rate of inflation. Assuming that rate continued, I calculate that shipping cost 17.1 cents per ton-mile in 2017. That means 1.39 ton-miles is equal to 1 passenger mile, so highway subsidies average 0.8 cents a passenger mile and 0.6 cents a ton-mile.

In short, Americans personally spend about 23.8 cents per passenger mile on driving and receive subsidies of 0.8 cents a passenger mile, mostly from local governments. "

Why does he decide to use 23.8 cents per mile (IRS allowance)? And does that *really* mean people spend 23.8 cents per mile when driving?

And I think AP meant to say "biased" instead of "unbiased", because after reading it, things don't really add up to a completely logical picture with real math being used.
I'd like to see your metrics. I understood what AP meant and I responded to that. I pretty much said all I can say about that article and its perceived bias. I guess we should just stick to citylab, curbed, and streetsblog idk.