that wouldn't be the trolley line .. that would be a seprate rail line

This is correct.

Wait, I thought we were flushing the trollies? Or did you mean streetcar?

I am not in favor of multiple rail systems. To keep operating cost lower I would prefer the same kind rail infrastructure system wide. The Adventure District needs to be rolled into the existing fabric of transportation. We can't have a trolley around downtown, lightrail going to the airport, diesel trains going to the Adventure District, and Heavy Commuter Rail going to Norman and Edmond. There is no economy of scale there. I see two system - trolley circulators in town and commuter rail connecting towns.

I agree that we should try to keep things "simple." But, there is a built in advantage on the Adventure Line right now in that the OKC Railway Museum currently operates a train each weekend via dedicated volunteers. If the rail were in better shape closer to downtown, they would already be bring to bring that excursion train to Santa Fe if they could. Right now, I believe that they are going from Remington to 16th street several times each weekend.

As you know (lol), I'm a big advocate for streetcars wherever we can put them. Lincoln is a great idea. It's very much something we want to reach out to in this phase one. With future Federal Funds derived from a successful the AA process and appropriations, it's possible that we could make it up to the history museum/capitol. However, my gut tells me that we won't make it to the "Adventure District" on a streetcar for at least 12 years due to the sheer cost and lack of identified funding.

Keep in mind that the Adventure Line is a dedicated right-of-way with minimal utility relocation requirements which usually constitute at least half of a standard modern streetcar budget. That's why it is so appealing. Plus it goes to the area "as the crow flies" thus also reducing cost.

Also, Adventure Line corridor is the primary proposed high speed rail alignment. The "standardized" track requirements for most trains mean that we can convert over to a standardized commuter train to serve that corridor that might be identical to the trains serving Tinker, Norman, Edmond in the future.

These same sort of arguments apply to the rail right-of-way going to the airport. It would be better to go up Merdian, through the stockyard, and/or across the new boulevard. But its going to take allot more time and money. More like quadruple at a minimum.

Just "food for thought." I love the ambition and forward thinking OKC Talk has on it.

Spend $100 to get a tourist to the zoo, or spend $200 to get OKC residents to work every day, restaurants at night, Bricktown on the weekends, Thunder games 2 nights a week, AND tourist to the zoo. Hmm, which one should we pick? If this is a tourist line it will fail big time.

If this is a tourist line it will fail big time.

Agreed.

The single greatest benefit from rail development is transit oriented development. That is where the payoff is. Anything that doesn't contribute to the payoff is a waste of resources. A tourist train from Bricktown to the Adventure District will result in exactly 0 (ZERO) transit oriented development. If it isn't a tourist train then is it going to run from downtown to the Zoo at Midnight or at 6:15 AM Monday thru Friday? NO, I didn't think so.

Just as a side note, one of the listed "supplemental" projects on the original MAPS ballot included a line to the Adventure District (if excess funds existed).

(C)(2) All or part of a transportation system and/or related facilities to provide access between downtown oklahoma City and the vicinity of Remington Park, provided said system and/or facilities shall be funded only if a Federal grant covering not less than 50% of applicable costs is obtained.

Obviously it didn't happen because MAPS was so far over budget but the idea was there even back then. Also, under the original MAPS, a line was to go to the Meridian corridor (don't think it was going to go all the way to the airport, but maybe that was further expansion).

(B)(8) All or part of a transportation system and/or related facilities to provide access between Interstate Highway 40 and Meridian Avenue and downtown Oklahoma City; provided, said system and/or facilities shall be funded only if a Federal grant covering not less than 50% of applicable costs is obtained.

I wanted to chime in hear, since I have been trying to follow the newer developments in this and had a few questions. 1, during the election and earlier this year we were talking in terms of 6-7 miles. Now we're talking 5-6 miles, so is there a reason we've come down? 2, is any of the Adventure Line going to come out of the $120M dedicated to the streetcar lines? Or does that come out of the $10M for flex funds? 3, what is the likelihood that after we have spent money building the hub facility at Union Station, there is anything left in the flex fund? And lastly, 4, is the Midwest City commuter line still going to come before the Adventure Line? To me that would be the greater opportunity, although the tracks may need some restoration..

I wanted to chime in hear, since I have been trying to follow the newer developments in this and had a few questions. 1, during the election and earlier this year we were talking in terms of 6-7 miles. Now we're talking 5-6 miles, so is there a reason we've come down? 2, is any of the Adventure Line going to come out of the $120M dedicated to the streetcar lines? Or does that come out of the $10M for flex funds? 3, what is the likelihood that after we have spent money building the hub facility at Union Station, there is anything left in the flex fund? And lastly, 4, is the Midwest City commuter line still going to come before the Adventure Line? To me that would be the greater opportunity, although the tracks may need some restoration..

No, the proposal was always for 5-6 miles. No, any optional Adventire Line improvement as part of Maps wplould be from "Flex Funds." Midwest City would take a minimum of $65 million to upgrade and require interjurisdictional arrangements with Midwest City and Del City.

We don't know what the costs are associated with Phase 1 of the hub yet as no site has been chosen.

OK, great. I didn't know Midwest City was going to cost the same as an airport line or anything like that (in which case not the opportunity I thought it was). Thanks for the info, Jeff. Check you inbox, by the way, when you get a chance.

I have been wanting to ask a question of the forum's urbanist for some time now. As I understand it, you want infill to occur and you want deanexation of the city or a ban on any sprawl until the infill is completed, yet you seem to be all for the rail from Norman, Edmond, Midwest City and even west to El Reno. Since the rail only makes it easier to get to a job in downtown OKC, is it not more of a reason to live in the suburbs than to build in the city on land that no one has seemed motivated to build on in the past. Is your fascination with trains more compelling than your urbanistic convictions? It is somewhat confusing.

I have been wanting to ask a question of the forum's urbanist for some time now. As I understand it, you want infill to occur and you want deanexation of the city or a ban on any sprawl until the infill is completed, yet you seem to be all for the rail from Norman, Edmond, Midwest City and even west to El Reno. Since the rail only makes it easier to get to a job in downtown OKC, is it not more of a reason to live in the suburbs than to build in the city on land that no one has seemed motivated to build on in the past. Is your fascination with trains more compelling than your urbanistic convictions? It is somewhat confusing.

No, we want Norman, Edmond, Midwest City and El Reno to be urban also. Train stations in those towns will encourage people in those communities to live closer to them. It is a win-win. It can stop the urban sprawl from spawing its own sprawl. Yo only need to look at California's Inland Empire to see what happens when sprawl generates its own sprawl. It took California a while to realize what they considered 'progress' to just be repeating the same mistakes, only faster.

Kerry,

Are you saying it is more important to try to make the suburbs urban that it is to address the city's infill problem?

I didn't get that all from him. We have a streetcar that will eventually expand and traverse the inner-city to help infill take place. A commuter train is another convenient form of transportation other than a highway, street, and a car. It relieves congestion in more urban cities and I think here in OKC a commuter would really just promote the inner-city as it will be the point of intersect, the "hub" if you will. It is the cultural nest of the city, is urban, has the highest concentration of entertainment options in the metro, and will be home to the street-car as well. I just don't think a commuter train will result in sprawl the way that the highway and personal automobile does.

Kerry,

Are you saying it is more important to try to make the suburbs urban that it is to address the city's infill problem?

Let me re-address this a different way. If someone wants to go from Norman to OKC to watch a basketball game what options do they have to get there. Right now there is only one and that is a car. That car has to drive on congested downtown street and be parked somewhere. If commuter rail was in place they could leave the car in Norman and not drive it all. That frees up space downtown that would be used for parking and reduces congestion. While those are good benefits, transit oriented development is still the big payoff. A train from OKC to Norman would result in urban in-fill development at both ends (and at stations along the way like in Moore). One of the big mistakes made with rail is large park and ride lots. That does nothing to discourage sprawl. Atlanta is a prime example of this failure. Park and ride lots actually encourage more sprawl.

If you look at how England has developed, they are still tightly packed towns regardless of population. Everyone wants to be as close to trains station as they can. This has not changed much with the introduction of the automobile. When rural Englanders go to London they take a train, they don't drive their car to London.

Popsy, I just support good development, good infrastructure, and good growth. If the growth happens in Norman or downtown OKC, I'm happy either way. I think it is going to be paramount to get suburban buy-in if Central Oklahoma is to become more urban, sustainable, and better-planned.

Popsy, I just support good development, good infrastructure, and good growth. If the growth happens in Norman or downtown OKC, I'm happy either way. I think it is going to be paramount to get suburban buy-in if Central Oklahoma is to become more urban, sustainable, and better-planned.

Be careful using that "sustainable" word. The Edmond crazy wingnut faction will start lecturing you on the UN takeover of America's sovereign rights.

http://npaper-wehaa.com/oklahoma-gazette/2010/12/15/#?article=1112682

Wow, yeah, I saw that. I just don't know what to say to that.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-agency-gains-control-of-santa-fe-train-depot-with-new-lease/article/3525505#ixzz18lEa7sBg

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-agency-gains-control-of-santa-fe-train-depot-with-new-lease/article/3525505#ixzz18lEa7sBg

I saw this and didn't know what to think of it. Is this a good deal?

This morning on the radio I heard a sound bite played from what I assumed was yesterdays council meeting. It was of Pete White saying that he ne longer supports the trolley project because he did not see an advantage of spending 120 million dollars that will only cover about 5 miles of track. He does not see this being an advantage to regular citizens.

I have looked everywhre for a story on this but can't find it anywhere. Anyone know where I can find his quote so I can read it in context or a link to the audio?

Good thing it isn't up to Pete White.

I follow Steve Lackmeyer on Twitter and he said he was "watching the city council meeting replay; streetcar won't go into or near Bricktown. What's up with that?" I would think the streetcar would at least go down Reno between the OKC Arena and CCC and possible down EK Gaylord.

I think Steve may have been focusing on Rick Cain's first slide showing what is evolving into one of the top alternatives for the north-south axis. I simply can't believe that the streetcar won't serve Bricktown and on Rick's second slide there are options on how that east-west axis would work. The Sheridan BNSF bridge could present some problems with height and foundations but I would think high priority would be given to a solution that does get the streetcar into the core of Bricktown.

A person working in the core of downtown (Park and Robinson) wants to eat in Bricktown for lunch he can walk the distance no problem... OR... maybe he waits 5-10 minutes for the next streetcar to take him to Santa Fe Depot then he walks the rest of the two maybe three blocks.... the streetcar needs to be about EXPANDING the area that is already walkable.

If the streetcar serves Santa Fe Depot... then it serves Bricktown. Bricktown is entirely walkable for current residents, downtown workers, and hotel visitors already. If we stop concentrating on having a stop at the front door of every current attraction then 5 miles of track can go a lot farther than some think.

The presentation showed a suggested core route that does not go into Bricktown. However, there is an "add on" route that does go to and through Bricktown. This is all prelminary work, with more definitive decisions to come over the next few months.

betts, can you give a more detailed description of the presentation streetcar route?

I do understand this is all in the preliminary stages.

The "core" route depicted did not reflect the other sections and extremities of the proposed starter system. Let's discuss this more in February/March when better information is created.

You also have to keep in mind that what Rick depicted is where the AA committee "might be headed". It is not a reflection of the MAPS Transit subcommittee as we have not started our own discussions yet.

I saw this and didn't know what to think of it. Is this a good deal?

I think it might be fine.

I've just picked up in this thread with the discussion surrounding the trolley route and whether it will or won't or may or may not go into Bricktown, and the comments made about what Pete White may have said. I haven't heard the council meeting's video but now I think that I will, assuming I can find it.

IF (and that's a big IF) Pete and/or other council members think that it's OK to change the projects we were told we were voting on in MAPS 3 ... which is certainly doable since the projects are not set in stone since only a council resolution identified them, not the specific ballot, and so a subsequent council resolution could change that ... which is a concern/criticism which many had of the MAPS 3 procedure ... but IF city council should opt to cut a project (e.g., the transit element) after what we went through in the MAPS 3 campaign, one can rest assured that MAPS 3 will be the end of the MAPS line because of the enormously huge breach of trust that would be generated by such a move.

All that said, I'll be surprised to hear Pete say that during the council meeting replay. But, I've been surprised before. We shall see. After I've located the council meeting replay and heard it, I'll report what I heard here unless someone else does so before then.

I don't understand how somebody who cares about the future of OKC could be against the streetcar. Out of all the MAPS projects, it will have the biggest impact by far, and if I remember correctly it will be roughly a third of the cost of the convention center, which seems to be farther down the priority list to everybody but city leaders. I strongly believe that it will get the ball rolling in developing the inner city. The streetcar is an investment that will take years to see FULL results, and I'm sure there will be plenty of naysayers when people don't see the inner city transform after a month. I doubt it will happen, but if the streetcar gets scrapped it would prove to me that OKC still doesn't "get it". There are plenty of other cities across the country begging for funding for a streetcar. We have the dedicated funding, I can't imagine why we wouldn't take advantage of that. Like Doug said, we can forget about any future MAPS projects if leaders don't follow through.

I've now listened and watched the 12/21 City Council meeting and have recorded the audio of the same. If you want to see the meeting, go here: http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1028&doctype=AGENDA. The discussion about the present topic begins at about hour 1:13 of the council meeting.

I'm taking a few minutes to digest what I've just heard before I reach any final conclusions. Preliminary conclusions are that Council Member White did, in fact, imply that the streetcar component of Maps 3 be dumped even though he never explicitly said so. I'm still rehearing what I heard and thinking through it, so I might change my mind on what I've just said.

I'll have the full audio available shortly. But, until then, kudos to Betts (Betts here but Jill Adler before the City Council) for her brilliant citizen comments defending the general transit element contained in Maps 3 before council on December 21.

It is perhaps worth adding that Pete White and Jill Adler are both friends of mine. I'll have the full audio available shortly, probably in another thread.

I'll add that you can start watching at the 1:13 mark which is when the rail discussion begins.

Pete White is pro-rail. He's not against the streetcar. I actually agree with him, too (just not to the extent that the funding should be pulled if the route stinks). He says it's just going to be a damn tourist trolley and I think we can all agree that would be a waste of money. Let Pete pull his weight and try and knock some heads together. What AA has come up with sucks, quite simply.

AA has done a lot of good work, but most of their ideas have had me quite disappointed actually. I'm confident the right ideas will gain the most traction.

Nick, though I'm quite fond of Pete, I think that you may be ignoring the words that he actually spoke. As I said, I'll finish my review, and likely verbatim report, shortly, if not in this post in a related post. It may be tomorrow morning before that is done.

Well, I just wonder what it would take for him to change his tune. I don't think he's steadfastly against the concept of the streetcar itself. As I understand it, he's just skeptical of anything he thinks will be a junket.

I have to finish watching but I understand the point Pete is trying to make. I think he is way off on some of his comments about the tracks being fixed like that is a bad thing but he does make some good points as well. Someone should educate him on the history of the conversion from rail to bus and what happened.

Well Pete is one of the most fixated people I've ever seen. I've argued with him before at city hall. After you make your public comment the councilors generally get to react and respond, and one time he was a huge defender of what I had to say about the convention center and another time he just took huge issue with what I had to say and made no bones about it! He almost seems like a trial lawyer, I've seen him give people hell. He isn't going to "be educated" on something.

Well, I just wonder what it would take for him to change his tune. I don't think he's steadfastly against the concept of the streetcar itself. As I understand it, he's just skeptical of anything he thinks will be a junket.
At its core, Nick, is that that implicit in Pete's remarks is that it might be OK to change (perhaps eliminate) project elements which were contained in the MAPS 3 vote.

That potential has nothing to do with whether Pete likes/dislikes the transit element ... it has to do with the notion that ANY element contained in the council's resolution, e.g. transit, could be discarded by council without ANY angst in conscience.

I worried about this possibility before the vote but I cast the worry aside in favor of trusting the city to do what it promised that it would. This sort of a problem is a hugely much more important development because it strikes down to the roots of the public trusting the city, which we were asked to do before we cast our ballots.

Get it?

At its core, Nick, is that that implicit in Pete's remarks is that it might be OK to change (perhaps eliminate) project elements which were contained in the MAPS 3 vote.

That potential has nothing to do with whether Pete likes/dislikes the transit element ... it has to do with the notion that ANY element contained in the council's resolution, e.g. transit, could be discarded by council without ANY angst in conscience.

I worried about this possibility before the vote but I cast the worry aside in favor of trusting the city to do what it promised that it would. This sort of a problem is a hugely much more important development because it strikes down to the roots of the public trusting the city, which we were asked to do before we cast our ballots.

Get it?

I understand what you're saying. I'm just not..emotionally ready to admit that's a possibility, in addition to the other current battles, you know. I'm trying to keep that whole nightmare off my radar from now.

On a side not, which councilor was it that said before the election that it would be political suicide to change what the voters approved? Wasn't that a Pete White quote?

I was just checking out website that listed all active and planned rail transit system in the US and I came across an intersting discovery. Did anyone know El Reno has the only operating trolley in the state? Does it still run? I also found it interesting that it is powered by propane which leads me to wonder if an OKC system could be powered by natural gas.

http://www.railwaypreservation.com/

When I rode it, it was powered by a 454 Chevrolet engine. Lol.

We will be evaluating natural gas. There are some real costly technological and maintenance issues involved that are being assessed.

When I rode it, it was powered by a 454 Chevrolet engine. Lol.

We will be evaluating natural gas. There are some real costly technological and maintenance issues involved that are being assessed.

When I rode it, it was powered by a 454 Chevrolet engine. Lol.

We will be evaluating natural gas. There are some real costly technological and maintenance issues involved that are being assessed.

Well, I am all for keeping it simple. If over-head lines are the most efficient, reliable, and economic alternative then that is route I would like to take. OKC doesn't need to spend a lot of money on expiremental propulsion systems. Let San Francisco pick up that tab.

So how does the system work in terms of electricity? The overhead wires provide the electricity to the streetcars? And that power can just come from any source we might choose? ex. Natural Gas, Wind Power, etc.

So how does the system work in terms of electricity? The overhead wires provide the electricity to the streetcars? And that power can just come from any source we might choose? ex. Natural Gas, Wind Power, etc.

Yep - I am sure you can have a dedicated power facility that would cut out the middle man (OG&E) and then have it also connect to the grid in case your primary sources goes down. What would be cool is to power it with some wind generators and then sell extra power back to OG&E when the system is not in use but power is still be generated (midnight to 6AM).

I'm still pursuing the many links on www.railwaypreservation.com and they have a lot really good info and pictures.

Here is a picture of the new streetcar system in Marseille, FR.

http://www.trams-in-france.net/dram/mar02.jpg

http://www.trams-in-france.net/dram/mar03.jpg

http://www.trams-in-france.net/dram/mar04.jpg

I am not sure that Bricktown needs a streetcar running through it.

Bricktown right now is the most walkable area in Okc, why ruin that by adding a streetcar?

I am not sure that Bricktown needs a streetcar running through it. Bricktown right now is the most walkable area in Okc, why ruin that by adding a streetcar?

I don't think a streetcar would ruin Bricktown, if anything it would encourage those long-vacant lots to finally infill perhaps. The real thing is, like you said, Bricktown is already the most walkable urban neighborhood we have. Meaning it doesn't need a dedicated line running through it, but rather maybe a nearby streetcar stop. Urban Pioneer has also stated that Bricktown could be a probable location for the "hub", resulting in some much needed development down there.

I am not sure that Bricktown needs a streetcar running through it.

Bricktown right now is the most walkable area in Okc, why ruin that by adding a streetcar?

Adding a street car isn't to make Bricktown more walkable - it is to bring people into Bricktown. Once the street car is put in any area that is not on or near the path is going to become deadsville.

Streetcar in shopping district of Grenoble, FR

http://www.trams-in-france.net/derg/gre04.jpg

..and in Orleans, FR

http://www.trams-in-france.net/dlro/orl04.jpg

Bricktown right now is the most walkable area in Okc, why ruin that by adding a streetcar?

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you are. If not, this is about the dumbest thing I've read on this site in a couple of days...

Kerry, just curious. Why would the system be planned as being down midnight to 6 am?
Wouldn't it need to run for a period past closing of pubs, any late night food haus along the route, etc.?

I'm still pursuing the many links on www.railwaypreservation.com and they have a lot really good info and pictures.

Here is a picture of the new streetcar system in Marseille, FR.

http://www.trams-in-france.net/dram/mar02.jpg

http://www.trams-in-france.net/dram/mar03.jpg

http://www.trams-in-france.net/dram/mar04.jpg

I've been eyeing this system for several months. They are gorgeous trams,
(IMO). There are some cool you tube videos of these. If you could find a picture of the interior, it is just as impressive.

Every system the committee assesses has a new elements we hope to learn from to "perfect ours". For example, while this one is simply beautiful, a practical take away is the use of the large LED headlight at the top. It can change colors. That enables all the trams to project "what color they are", depicting the route they serve. This is particularly beneficial at night, where painted cab colors or digital signage might require waiting for it to be a block away before knowing if it was the "right line" to reach your destination. These LEDS expand the "perceptual experience" enabling the pedestrian to make a decision to go or wait from 6 blocks away.

It is the small stuff that we learn from each system that combined, makes a big difference. Lines on the map are important, but how a system is interpereted by a first time user is just as important to it's ultimate success and people's confidence in it.

Every system the committee assesses has a new elements we hope to learn from to "perfect ours". For example, while this one is simply beautiful, a practical take away is the use of the large LED headlight at the top. It can change colors. That enables all the trams to project "what color they are", depicting the route they serve. This is particularly beneficial at night, where painted cab colors or digital signage might require waiting for it to be a block away before knowing if it was the "right line" to reach your destination. These LEDS expand the "perceptual experience" enabling the pedestrian to make a decision to go or wait from 6 blocks away.

It is the small stuff that we learn from each system that combined, makes a big difference. Lines on the map are important, but how a system is interpereted by a first time user is just as important to it's ultimate success and people's confidence in it.

One of the coolest things I have seen in my recent investigation are the induction tracks used in some places in France. They pick up power from a buried magnetic field so no third rail and no over-head power lines or poles.

Kerry, just curious. Why would the system be planned as being down midnight to 6 am?
Wouldn't it need to run for a period past closing of pubs, any late night food haus along the route, etc.?

I was just basing that time on when other system were shut down. For all I know the OKC system could shut down at 11PM Sunday thru Thursday and 2AM Friday and Saturday.

I wouldn't expect the rail system here to be comparable to Grenoble, Marseille, or much of anywhere else in Europe for that matter. The cities are very different, and the price of gas alone is about 4 times what it is here. Plus, they have grown up with the idea of getting on a train or trolley. It will have to be a cultivated activity here.

One of the coolest things I have seen in my recent investigation are the induction tracks used in some places in France. They pick up power from a buried magnetic field so no third rail and no over-head power lines or poles.

I'm pretty sure Urban Pioneer is aware of this technology.

I wouldn't expect the rail system here to be comparable to Grenoble, Marseille, or much of anywhere else in Europe for that matter. The cities are very different, and the price of gas alone is about 4 times what it is here. Plus, they have grown up with the idea of getting on a train or trolley. It will have to be a cultivated activity here.

Some of what I have been reading about in France is how all the local rail systems were dismantled during WWII. The only thing they have had since then is high-speed rail. For the last 25 years they have been rebuilding all local street car system from scratch. Local rail is as new to the people of France as it is to the people of Oklahoma.

http://www.trams-in-france.net/reload.htm?startseite.htm


After World War II, nearly all of the urban tramway systems in France disappeared completely, leaving only three network torsos in Lille, Marseille and Saint-Étienne. But then, the tramway came back, beginning with Nantes in 1985, followed by Grenoble in 1987, Paris in 1992, Strasbourg and Rouen in 1994, Montpellier, Orléans and Lyon in 2000, Bordeaux in 2003, Mulhouse and Valenciennes in 2006 and finally Le Mans and Nice in 2007. More systems will open in the next few years. In this way, France boasts about a quarter of all new tramway systems built worldwide since the eighties. Nearly every French agglomeration will have a guided mass-transit system in a few years.

If you get the chance, take a look at Orleans, France on Google Earth and follow their streetcar tracks through the city. Very impressive setup.