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

Yep. Were actively discussing induction technology and trying to determine of it can be done and achieve the 5-6 mile objective set forth in MAPS. The same goes for assessing CNG and the other potential technologies for powering.

Local rail is as new to the people of France as it is to the people of Oklahoma.

Well, I've been traveling extensively in Europe for about 25 years and in most cities the size of OKC they have been rail-centric...inter-city for sure, but also intra-city. To compare the acceptance of rail in Europe to rail travel in OKC is just not realistic. The travel culture is totally different as is the makeup and geography of the cities, not to mention the use of cars here vs. there.

Well, I've been traveling extensively in Europe for about 25 years and in most cities the size of OKC they have been rail-centric...inter-city for sure, but also intra-city. To compare the acceptance of rail in Europe to rail travel in OKC is just not realistic. The travel culture is totally different as is the makeup and geography of the cities, not to mention the use of cars here vs. there.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. A lot of the folks here have traveled in Europe extensively, including me and in all likelihood, Kerry as well. Why would you have to be Debbie Downer about simply admiring the photos of some of the French cities' use of modern street car?

We had one Einstein suggesting that the street car would diminish our pedestrian culture in Bricktown. Strange argument I know, but the photos of the French cities showed vibrant pedestrian activity alongside the street cars.

So are we to avoid:

1. Admiring pretty pics of French trains?
2. Suggesting that pedestrians and trains can coexist?
3. Examining successful installations of modern street car systems?

Perhaps we should just throw up our hands and admit defeat.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. A lot of the folks here have traveled in Europe extensively, including me and in all likelihood, Kerry as well. Why would you have to be Debbie Downer about simply admiring the photos of some of the French cities' use of modern street car?


Sorry, didn't mean to be a downer. I thought the previous argument was that OKC can do what the French cities are doing with rail because it was all new there too, at least since WW2. My only point was that in most Euro cities of around our size they have had rail for 60 years or so (if you are counting since WW2) and they have a culture of traveling short and long distances on rail. I don't think OKC's applications are going to be the same. I would argue we will be much more like Salt Lake City than Grenoble. That isn't bad, and I think more realistic. The French cities will be much more subsidized and will generally have to serve a smaller geography of the city. Our challenges are closer to San Jose or SL City.

BTW, I am a huge fan of rail travel of all types. That is how I usually move around Europe and know most of the underground and light rail systems pretty well. I am super excited about us finally getting a chance to create one here.

Council debates transit hub
By Brian Brus
Journal Record
Oklahoma City reporter - Contact 405-278-2837
Posted: 07:13 PM Tuesday, December 28, 2010

OKLAHOMA CITY – Several sites are on the table for consideration for Oklahoma City’s new multimodal transit hub, officials said recently.

But some council members aren’t certain that it makes sense to secure federal funds to create a system larger than the city can sustain without subsidizing it.

City officials have been re-evaluating the hub since 2005 when a fixed guideway plan study was ordered. Rick Cain, director of the city’s public transportation and parking department, said his staff and others involved in the study focused on where the greatest amount of growth was expected through 2035 – housing, retail and employment centers.

Officials had to consider overall economic development alongside existing mobility shortages and environmental impact. The study area spread across the metro area, including north to Edmond and south to Norman. Eleven main corridors were identified, as were modes of transportation appropriate to each – bus lines, for example, and fixed rail systems.

Among the suggestions at the time were a streetcar for downtown and an intermodal hub to link the multiple corridors.

Currently the city’s buses are operated out of the center at N.W. Fifth and Hudson, an unlikely site to develop additional transportation modes such as rail. About $10 million was earmarked in the MAPS 3 tax issue passed last December to develop an intermodal hub.

The most likely sites that were first considered included parking lots in the nearby Bricktown district, the Santa Fe railroad station, Union Station, the Cox Convention Center, and the east side of the soon-to-be-developed Central Park.

After criteria were weighed, the list has been shortened to three: the north Bricktown parking lot near the intersection of Main Street and E.K. Gaylord; the Santa Fe station combined with two nearby parking lots; and the so-called lumberyard site, near Gaylord and south of the existing Interstate 40 crosstown.

Cain said city officials are looking to secure federal funds, primarily with an eye toward developing a “downtown circulator” limited to central Oklahoma City to avoid multi-jurisdictional issues with other cities and counties.

An alternatives analysis is expected to be completed by March, he said. Public meetings will be held for additional input from residents, Cain said. The hub advisory committee conclusion is expected by April.

Ward 4 Councilman Pete White said he’s grown less supportive of the concept as it’s been developed.

“The cost of it, and the fixed nature of it, is one of those ideas that I think we’re going to regret,” he said. “I don’t think we’re going to regret a hub study; I don’t think we’re going to regret putting in a transportation system downtown that would work.

But I think we’re going to regret spending $120 million on something that’s fixed that only serves five or six miles of downtown.”

One of the most attractive aspects of a fixed rail system is economic development, White said, and downtown is already developed. He also said the city is already investing in enhancing foot travel in the area, which would also seem to be wasted effort weighed against a limited rail circulator.

City Manager Jim Couch said it’s common for cities to subsidize operating mass transit systems to some extent. And Mayor Mick Cornett said that although the federal government hasn’t historically stepped up after helping to pay the capital expenses to install routes, President Barack Obama’s administration has made overtures in that direction.

The French cities will be much more subsidized and will generally have to serve a smaller geography of the city. Our challenges are closer to San Jose or SL City.

The OKC system is being put in with 100% tax dollars so I don't know how much more subsidized it can get. As for geographic service area, I think the OKC system should be limited to the urban core. If you want to live out on Northwest Expressway or Memorial Road get a car. If you want access to quality public transportation live in the core. An OKC system can't service 640 sq miles and it shouldn't even try, Reduce the serivce area to the inner 50 sq miles or so and provide a very high level of service.

In related news;


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, says Americans could be paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline by 2012.

In an interview with Platt's Energy Week television, Hofmeister predicted gasoline prices will spike as the global demand for oil increases.

"I'm predicting actually the worst outcome over the next two years which takes us to 2012 with higher gasoline prices," he said.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/27/markets/oil_commodities/

If we could get a simple, reliable, frequently running bus service, it could easily supplement the streetcar. But first we have to get people accustomed to using mass transit and liking the convenience it offers. We have to have everything they take the bus to get to be walkable or serviced by the streetcar. If you took an express bus down Northwest Highway that dropped you off at the hub, where you could walk to your destination or catch a streetcar, people might consider doing it for the convenience of not having to worry about parking. But, a circulator between areas people want to go that runs frequently is the key to public acceptance of other forms of mass transit, IMO.

The sooner we can drop the concept of 'buses' the better off we will be. After 60 years of service in every city in American they have only proven succesful in 4 or 5 of them - and those 4 or 5 have them tied to the rail system. If any form of mass transit has failed, it is buses and their flexable routes (take that Pete White).

The OKC system is being put in with 100% tax dollars so I don't know how much more subsidized it can get. As for geographic service area, I think the OKC system should be limited to the urban core. If you want to live out on Northwest Expressway or Memorial Road get a car. If you want access to quality public transportation live in the core. An OKC system can't service 640 sq miles and it shouldn't even try, Reduce the serivce area to the inner 50 sq miles or so and provide a very high level of service.

I agree with this completely, but I must say I'm very dismayed by Pete White's comments above. They are a bit frightening and harken to many heated discussions during the MAPS III campaign. Hopefully some of our transit advocates can remind him that the initial route for the street car will serve a vital purpose but is only the first step in what will hopefully be an expanded system. Someone also needs to remind him that fixed routes are the only things that serve development and we have a lot of infill development for residential and retail that needs to happen downtown. Does Pete White simply not notice the blocks upon blocks of empty land in the north part of Downtown/Midtown? I can't imagine what he's talking about when he says OKC's downtown is already "developed."

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...


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.


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.

Actually I am not kidding, and I don't think it is "dumbest thing" to have a different opinion.

I do agree that Bricktown needs a stop, never said it didn't, but it does not need a streetcar running down Reno, Sheridan or Main St.

I feel like Bricktown property owners have already been given multiple "Gifts" from the City (the Canal and Ballpark).

Think about it, the same developers that have been sitting and speculating on canal front property or money making parking lots will be the same that will want unreasonable amounts of money for streetcar route property. Give Bricktown a dedicated stop at Gaylord and Reno or Sheridan and let the people walk into the Bricktown district just as they currently do. Bricktown will not become deadsville and it will continue on it's slow growing current pace. Nothing is wrong with that, the streetcar would bring people to a stop and Sheridan and Gaylord and people would walk into the Bricktown area if desired.

Let's spread the Gifts around and run a streetcar route (5 or 6 miles) through other parts of the downtown area that are more neglected, just like Bricktown was before the Canal.

Again I don't see why Bricktown needs a streetcar running through it. Would it ruin it, of course not, but it is only a few blocks wide in either direction, people walk it every day and it has already received city improvements to capitalize on. Give other parts of the downtown areas (Midtown, Auto Alley, Film Row, Arts District, Classen area, etc.) the streetcar route to further their development.

Something to think about that is all, I would like to see the most "bang for the buck".

Someone also needs to remind him that fixed routes are the only things that serve development and we have a lot of infill development for residential and retail that needs to happen downtown. Does Pete White simply not notice the blocks upon blocks of empty land in the north part of Downtown/Midtown?... or the 25% vacancy rate in the area.

Imagine if it was possible that roads and highways were not fixed routes. How many businesses would locate along Memorial Road if the city could close it at random and make all the traffic go a mile south, then in two years closed that route and make traffic go two miles north, then later closed that route and have it follow the current Memorial Road again. Needless to say, a flexable Memorial Road would not draw any businesses, apartment, or homes and people sure would not plan their lives around it becasue Memorial Road would be too unpredictable. Now substitute 'bus route' for 'Memorial Road'.

Someone also needs to remind him that fixed routes are the only things that serve development and we have a lot of infill development for residential and retail that needs to happen downtown. Does Pete White simply not notice the blocks upon blocks of empty land in the north part of Downtown/Midtown? I can't imagine what he's talking about when he says OKC's downtown is already "developed."

Why do you think that he believes downtown "is already developed?" Even Automobile Alley, which many consider successful 2nd only to Bricktown, has plenty of vacant space 2nd floor and up. Not to mention blank spaces where building were bulldozed for parking lots.

That kind of rhetoric makes me think the only "development" that he is conscious of is where swaths of vacant land have a Urban Renewal "mega project."

And regarding our downtown "being small and completely walkable", how many people walk from Deep Deuce to St. Anthony's? We have really large blocks.

The sooner we can drop the concept of 'buses' the better off we will be. After 60 years of service in every city in American they have only proven succesful in 4 or 5 of them - and those 4 or 5 have them tied to the rail system. If any form of mass transit has failed, it is buses and their flexable routes (take that Pete White).

If buses have failed, it's because we have failed to utilize/market them properly. In London, I preferentially take the bus over the tube for shorter distances. In Chicago I ride the bus regularly. When I lived in Denver I rode the bus. I don't think Pete White is completely wrong. We cannot afford to have mass transit throughout Oklahoma City via rail. Buses are logical connectors to rail transit, but they have to stop being invisible. Routes have to be simple, buses have to arrive frequently and reliably. People need to have shelter, the more attractive the better, not some particle board bench with an ad on the back sitting out in the weather.

But, they are unwieldy downtown, they're not attractive to riders at this point in time and they do not promote development, they stink and pollute. I would love to see a fleet of natural gas buses in OKC to compliment our streetcar and eventually, our commuter rail. I would do everything I could to make them attractive to riders: I'd have artists paint the outsides, I'd have t.v. and wifi on the buses and I might even have "stewardesses" serving coffee on express buses. I'd have attractive covered bus stops with touch screens showing routes, enabling you to find which buses to ride and where to transfer by entering your destination. Their flexibility is both their greatest flaw and their greatest advantage: people have to know where they can get a bus, where it goes and know they can get out of the weather while they're waiting.

Again I don't see why Bricktown needs a streetcar running through it. Would it ruin it, of course not, but it is only a few blocks wide in either direction, people walk it every day and it has already received city improvements to capitalize on. Give other parts of the downtown areas (Midtown, Auto Alley, Film Row, Arts District, Classen area, etc.) the streetcar route to further their development.

Something to think about that is all, I would like to see the most "bang for the buck".

There's a fine line to be walked. On the one hand, you want the streetcar to go past places that are empty, unrenovated or open lots to stimulate development. On the other hand, if the streetcar only goes places one has no reason to go, then you have no ridership, which would completely hamstring any plans for future expansion. So, you need it to go past places that need to be developed while simultaneously bringing people places that are a current destination. In addition, you have to think about future expansion and plan for lines that can logically be extended elsewhere. Perhaps we'd ultimately like the streetcar to go to the river and the boathouses. If so, it would be logical to run the streetcar down Sheridan or Reno. Perhaps we'd like to encourage development of the land to the east of Bricktown and so the streetcar would help with that. There's no simple answer and everything has to be weighed carefully, considering not only the future, but also the present.

betts - you can make all the fancy bus stops you want - they don't create transit oriented development. Only a fix guideway can do that.

If buses have failed, it's because we have failed to utilize/market them properly. In London, I preferentially take the bus over the tube for shorter distances. In Chicago I ride the bus regularly. When I lived in Denver I rode the bus. I don't think Pete White is completely wrong. We cannot afford to have mass transit throughout Oklahoma City via rail. Buses are logical connectors to rail transit, but they have to stop being invisible. Routes have to be simple, buses have to arrive frequently and reliably. People need to have shelter, the more attractive the better, not some particle board bench with an ad on the back sitting out in the weather.

But, they are unwieldy downtown, they're not attractive to riders at this point in time and they do not promote development, they stink and pollute. I would love to see a fleet of natural gas buses in OKC to compliment our streetcar and eventually, our commuter rail. I would do everything I could to make them attractive to riders: I'd have artists paint the outsides, I'd have t.v. and wifi on the buses and I might even have "stewardesses" serving coffee on express buses. I'd have attractive covered bus stops with touch screens showing routes, enabling you to find which buses to ride and where to transfer by entering your destination. Their flexibility is both their greatest flaw and their greatest advantage: people have to know where they can get a bus, where it goes and know they can get out of the weather while they're waiting.

Outstanding post. I would love to hear you make a statement like this in public to our city leaders.

We cannot afford to have mass transit throughout Oklahoma City via rail. Buses are logical connectors to rail transit, but they have to stop being invisible. Routes have to be simple, buses have to arrive frequently and reliably. People need to have shelter, the more attractive the better, not some particle board bench with an ad on the back sitting out in the weather.


The City should not be trying to deliver mass transit to the entire city - period. It spreads the resources to thin. Mass transit of all forms should be concentrated in the 50 sq mile urban core.

Just to show all how easy it would be to use our 5-6 miles in a better way than the dreadful options presented to the city council... it's no wonder Pete White was unconvinced.

Here are two separate lines... Santa Fe to the Plaza and Santa Fe to the Paseo.... both would be 6 miles of two-way track that open downtown to actual residents and two cool districts to downtown visitors... the shaded area shows what is within three blocks of the tracks... it makes sense...connects all of downtown (including Bricktown)... and would make sense to expand upon.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/OKC%20Development/streetcar.png

Not bad. How many people think Paseo and Plaza are the logical places to try to get to? If anything, in a phase 2 (being conservative here).

One of the things I have noticed with the systems in Europe is that they are double tracked. This allows service in two directions at the same time and allows the system to continue to operate in case of accident or equipment malfuntion. Tampa has a single track system and it limits how many street cars they can operate at one time. No matter what the demand is they can't use more than 6 trains at the same time because they have a limited number of places for trains to pass each other.

Not bad. How many people think Paseo and Plaza are the logical places to try to get to? If anything, in a phase 2 (being conservative here).

While not likely, I think a Paseo connector makes a lot of sense. It's a big-name urban spot and the line would also get people to 23rd.

One of the things I have noticed with the systems in Europe is that they are double tracked. This allows service in two directions at the same time and allows the system to continue to operate in case of accident or equipment malfuntion. Tampa has a single track system and it limits how many street cars they can operate at one time. No matter what the demand is they can't use more than 6 trains at the same time because they have a limited number of places for trains to pass each other.

Couplets can work fine if the system is designed with the proper amount of sidings and switches. It has to have the proper amount of redundancy built in.

Couplets spread development, encourage walkability, and provide a broader area reachable by streetcar. I wouldn't recommend main corridoors to be more than a block apart though. We have "wide" blocks.

Doesn't the streetcar need to be in a dedicated right of way if it is going to travel in both directions on the same track? If so, would the cost of dedicated right a way cost more than just putting in two set of tracks in the existing road?

The OKC system is being put in with 100% tax dollars so I don't know how much more subsidized it can get. ...

i thought he meant operational cost, but maybe not

If buses have failed, it's because we have failed to utilize/market them properly. In London, I preferentially take the bus over the tube for shorter distances. In Chicago I ride the bus regularly. When I lived in Denver I rode the bus. I don't think Pete White is completely wrong. We cannot afford to have mass transit throughout Oklahoma City via rail. Buses are logical connectors to rail transit, but they have to stop being invisible. Routes have to be simple, buses have to arrive frequently and reliably. People need to have shelter, the more attractive the better, not some particle board bench with an ad on the back sitting out in the weather. ...

Agree completely, and this is one of the failings of the rubber tired Trolleys. The one thing I hope they can overcome with the MAPS 3 Streetcars is this very issue since the same people that are in charge of the horrific bus/trolleys are going to be in charge of this too. If the schedule shows a streetcar every 10 minutes between the hours of 11 am and 2 pm etc, then that absolutely needs to happen. Can't let it slide to 15 min that slides to 30 that slides to whenever it decides to show up sort of thing.

i thought he meant operational cost, but maybe not

I thought that also but the systems in France are not free to ride (outside a free zone around their central city). They cost 2 to 3 euros to ride each way.

I thought that also but the systems in France are not free to ride (outside a free zone around their central city). They cost 2 to 3 euros to ride each way.

Amount of subsidization can vary from near nothing to 100% (free). While still costing 2 or 3 euros each way, is the true cost 6 euros and the rest is subsidized?

I think the streecar should be free to ride. Fare recovery is so low anyhow it probably cost just as much to collect the money as they actually collect, so it is all a wash. Make it free, sell advertising everywhere, and pack the riders in. I would be willing to listen to ads playing over a close circuit tv system if it means I could ride for free. Ads could even be targeted to businesses located at the next stop. They could even wrap the entire train in ads.

http://ccit300-f06.wikispaces.com/file/view/Wrap_advertising_light_rail.jpg/30200293/Wrap_advertising_light_rail.jpg

There's a fine line to be walked. On the one hand, you want the streetcar to go past places that are empty, unrenovated or open lots to stimulate development. On the other hand, if the streetcar only goes places one has no reason to go, then you have no ridership, which would completely hamstring any plans for future expansion. So, you need it to go past places that need to be developed while simultaneously bringing people places that are a current destination. In addition, you have to think about future expansion and plan for lines that can logically be extended elsewhere. Perhaps we'd ultimately like the streetcar to go to the river and the boathouses. If so, it would be logical to run the streetcar down Sheridan or Reno. Perhaps we'd like to encourage development of the land to the east of Bricktown and so the streetcar would help with that. There's no simple answer and everything has to be weighed carefully, considering not only the future, but also the present.

I understand all of that.

That is why I am saying that Bricktown should definitely have a stop on the west side of the bridge, either Gaylord and Reno or Sheridan, probably both. Again people walk Bricktown from Reno to Main and Gaylord to Lincoln every day with no problem.

Let the people walk.

Bricktown will be Bricktown with or without a streetcar route, the canal and ballpark will always be there, this will attract the tourists as it should. For local people that live and work in Okc we do not need to be dropped off in front of Bass Pro or the IHOP.

Also the sea of parking lots that make up much of Lower Bricktown are there because of the developers that wanted them there. How much more does Bricktown need to spur development? Remember there are vacant spaces along the canal and have been vacant since day one. Not to mention the grassy knoll across from the ballpark and the JDM building.

If we are talking a phase 2 for streetcar I would listen to having a route running down east Reno to the river and boathouses.

Just to show all how easy it would be to use our 5-6 miles in a better way than the dreadful options presented to the city council... it's no wonder Pete White was unconvinced.

Here are two separate lines... Santa Fe to the Plaza and Santa Fe to the Paseo.... both would be 6 miles of two-way track that open downtown to actual residents and two cool districts to downtown visitors... the shaded area shows what is within three blocks of the tracks... it makes sense...connects all of downtown (including Bricktown)... and would make sense to expand upon.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/OKC%20Development/streetcar.png

Something like this is what I am referring to.

We don't need to run a streetcar route through Bricktown, connecting to it is good, running through it is not necessary. Connect the most people and the most areas we can with the 5 to 6 miles. Look at how many districts that this route connects.

Imagine ALL the possibilities if I were to ride this route.

I must say, it's a selfish fantasy to have a rail connection between downtown and Paseo. How cool would that be? Also, connecting the Plaza District would be very cool if for no other reason that it would sanctify the district's urban ambitions.

Platemaker, could I suggest three changes to your layout. First, don't go all the way to Robinson, just go straight up Broadway. Second, drop the line into Mesta Park. Third don't take Classen Drive, take 10th street by St Anthony, turn right at Classen, and proceed north until you run out of available track. While this is a starter line it needs to form the foundation of a larger system. By my calculations you could get all the way from Santa Fe Station to a north terminal station at NW 52st Street (between Belle Isle and NWExpwy) with enough track left over to create a spur down 23rd to OCU or along NE10th into OU Medical. Total distance - exactly 6 miles.

You could then run a dedicated connector bus serive to Chesaspeak, Classen Curve, Penn Sq Mall, 50 Penn Place, Belle Isle, Valencia Tower, and Mid First Bank.

The couplet system allows development to spread over three blocks rather than two, with a very attractive central block for development. It makes it a bit more accessible for people in that it is spread out over more area. But if you use a couplet system, IMO, it needs to be very simple, no zigs or zags, or people have trouble figuring out where to pick up the line. I think the line should be simple regardless, though. You should be able to tell someone: the streetcar runs on Robinson. Not: If you're on fourth street, pick the streetcar up on Broadway. If you're on eighth street, pick it up on Robinson, etc. The couplet system would allow you to say: You can pick up the line on either _________ or _________.

http://npaper-wehaa.com/oklahoma-gazette/2010/12/29/?article=1124889

After weighing all the evidence I have concluded Pete White is a moron.

Yeah, I generally like to give people a chance to become educated on a subject, however it seems apparent that he was swept into the decision on emotion and not having seriously thought about the core reasons that the street car is of vital importance to the future of mass transit in OKC, nor will there ever be a time that it is less expensive to implement. There is a huge opportunity cost that is lost if there are further delays or an attempt at re-directing the monies that the public has already approved.

White is presenting himself as an individual that is not always rational in how he weilds his votes on the council. I am not saying he is not a good person or a good councilman, however it should give one pause with what he has said in his own words how he made his decision...

I am left wondering if his fear and trepidation come from the worry that so much is riding on the layout of this starter line, that if he is part of the council that approved its layout it could be political suicide for any future ambitions that he might privately harbor. This is all conjecture on my part but I was raised to have a healthy dose of cynicism and this has my alarms all ringing that there is more involved than is being aired publicly and he is feeling the weight of the decision and is wishing he could make it all go away. Now I ask you this...is this the kind of leadership that we want? When critical issues come our way we reject the issue altogether and wait for only the safe bets to move on? That is certainly one philosphy...or do we embrace our pioneering spirit and move forward based on the advice and information of the experts and then make an informed decision that can propel this city forward and provide opportunities for redevelopent and infil that we have only dreamed of. That will truly begin to make the city sustainable and allow those in the inner core to begin functioning as most of the great cities do without the need or expense of an automobile? This does not take away anyones right to have one, simply the need. No limits rather more options. There are honestly too many issues to address in this one article to spend adequate time on them all here. It is evident that someone who is credentialed, who has the experience and the true understanding of urban planning needs to spend a significant amount of time helping our dear council understand what is at stake and why this streetcar is absolutely critical to our future.

I for the life of me cannot even fathom how uneducated his statement regarding the streetcar being somehow at odds with the desire for walkability and pedestrian friendly. It tells me that he, has no idea what walkability really means in the first place, much less how a street car enhances and makes it even more pedestrian friendly, and adds to walkability.

Sheesh where to begin with this guy???

I for the life of me cannot even fathom how uneducated his statement regarding the streetcar being somehow at odds with the desire for walkability and pedestrian friendly. It tells me that he, has no idea what walkability really means in the first place, much less how a street car enhances and makes it even more pedestrian friendly, and adds to walkability.

Sheesh where to begin with this guy???

Anyone who starts out with the premise that rubber wheeled trolleys are the key to growth and success has already lost the debate. I submit to evidence, Exhibit A - Oklahoma Spirit Trolley. Where is all the Oklahoma Spirit Trolley transit oriented development?

Platemaker, could I suggest three changes to your layout. First, don't go all the way to Robinson, just go straight up Broadway. Second, drop the line into Mesta Park. Third don't take Classen Drive, take 10th street by St Anthony, turn right at Classen, and proceed north until you run out of available track. While this is a starter line it needs to form the foundation of a larger system. By my calculations you could get all the way from Santa Fe Station to a north terminal station at NW 52st Street (between Belle Isle and NWExpwy) with enough track left over to create a spur down 23rd to OCU or along NE10th into OU Medical. Total distance - exactly 6 miles.

You could then run a dedicated connector bus serive to Chesaspeak, Classen Curve, Penn Sq Mall, 50 Penn Place, Belle Isle, Valencia Tower, and Mid First Bank.

I agree with all but going straight up Broadway. If the track goes up Broadway between Sheridan and 4th the only people walking to the streetcar are coming from the west because the Santa Fe garage and EK Gaylord act essentially as a wall. By moving over at least one street you have more develop-able(word?) area on both sides of the track... it also connects the Myriad Gardens and Memorial directly... plus I have to admit I love the idea of Park and Robinson stop.

Yeah, I generally like to give people a chance to become educated on a subject, however it seems apparent that he was swept into the decision on emotion and not having seriously thought about the core reasons that the street car is of vital importance to the future of mass transit in OKC, nor will there ever be a time that it is less expensive to implement. There is a huge opportunity cost that is lost if there are further delays or an attempt at re-directing the monies that the public has already approved.

White is presenting himself as an individual that is not always rational in how he weilds his votes on the council. I am not saying he is not a good person or a good councilman, however it should give one pause with what he has said in his own words how he made his decision...

I am left wondering if his fear and trepidation come from the worry that so much is riding on the layout of this starter line, that if he is part of the council that approved its layout it could be political suicide for any future ambitions that he might privately harbor. This is all conjecture on my part but I was raised to have a healthy dose of cynicism and this has my alarms all ringing that there is more involved than is being aired publicly and he is feeling the weight of the decision and is wishing he could make it all go away. Now I ask you this...is this the kind of leadership that we want? When critical issues come our way we reject the issue altogether and wait for only the safe bets to move on? That is certainly one philosphy...or do we embrace our pioneering spirit and move forward based on the advice and information of the experts and then make an informed decision that can propel this city forward and provide opportunities for redevelopent and infil that we have only dreamed of. That will truly begin to make the city sustainable and allow those in the inner core to begin functioning as most of the great cities do without the need or expense of an automobile? This does not take away anyones right to have one, simply the need. No limits rather more options. There are honestly too many issues to address in this one article to spend adequate time on them all here. It is evident that someone who is credentialed, who has the experience and the true understanding of urban planning needs to spend a significant amount of time helping our dear council understand what is at stake and why this streetcar is absolutely critical to our future.

I for the life of me cannot even fathom how uneducated his statement regarding the streetcar being somehow at odds with the desire for walkability and pedestrian friendly. It tells me that he, has no idea what walkability really means in the first place, much less how a street car enhances and makes it even more pedestrian friendly, and adds to walkability.

Sheesh where to begin with this guy???

On a positive note, I would rather any hesitation or opposition come out now so that education can occur. It would be much more unfortunate if this had happened during a critical vote.

However, there is an ongoing process.

Pete and all of council need to understand that they are always welcome to come to any committee meeting and air any concerns or preferences that they might have. Certainly, the dozens of people who volunteer on these committees and boards would prefer to make their final recommendations in a favorable atmosphere. While unanimous support might not be possible, a solid majority would be preferable.

That means that transit planning and design education has to follow all the way through the process so that there is no excuse for failure.

Council also has to understand that what they say from bench can possibly, directly affect the voter approved ongoing public process that we are enmeshed in. It would be much more respectful to the MAPS voters and the volunteers for concerns, ideas, or mere speculation to be a part of the ongoing input process, rather than speaking "off the cuff" from the bench.

Finally, I am sure that there are some people who voted for MAPS because of Pete's endorsement. He had months to assess the information that was presented and ultimately made his choice to endorse. No new fundamental information has arisen other than the possible timing conflict with P180, of which is seemingly being resolved. If he really felt that it is a bad project, he should have said no. Since he didn't, to insinuate that we should change a core piece of the MAPS resolution language to build something else, would completely be perceived as a "bait and switch" if he was successful in such a pursuit. Not only would it permanently damage the "MAPS brand", but it would significantly disrupt the trust that many citizens expect of our city leaders in honoring future MAPS.

Not that I have any indication that other council members feel as Pete does. Many of them have been deeply involved in the public process and have ardently tried to be some of the most educated volunteers and committee members.

I agree with all but going straight up Broadway. If the track goes up Broadway between Sheridan and 4th the only people walking to the streetcar are coming from the west because the Santa Fe garage and EK Gaylord act essentially as a wall. By moving over at least one street you have more develop-able(word?) area on both sides of the track... it also connects the Myriad Gardens and Memorial directly... plus I have to admit I love the idea of Park and Robinson stop.

No, you have a very good idea and direction with regards to Robinson. And I say that also factoring several engineering constraints with regard to turns at Sheridan from Broadway and such. Your points about EK Gaylord and the idea of being "sandwiched" between two concrete walls are also true and on point.

On a positive note, I would rather any hesitation or opposition come out now so that education can occur.

Speaking of education... Fort Worth brought a Portland streetcar to town so that residents could tour the vehicle.

http://www.fortworthgov.org/citynews/default.aspx?id=80358

Speaking of education... Fort Worth brought a Portland streetcar to town so that residents could tour the vehicle.

http://www.fortworthgov.org/citynews/default.aspx?id=80358

Yes. Lol. And it was unsuccessful in swaying the majority of their council to find funds to match the $25 million they were offered by the federal government. They received an offer of $25 million if they could find a local match. The council was unwilling to use their TIF funds to fund the streetcar system. In fact, the people opposed it on council had Mr. White's perspective. The initial cost of the system and the fact that it is fixed and difficult to move was their chief opposition.

But then again, Fort Worth did not have a public vote that gained a majority support to completely finance a system in its entirety without the use of federal funds.

There are some really, really interesting (and outside the box) ideas in this thread from a lot of really good minds. Keep it up.

As if we're lacking in alternative suggestions lately, here's mine: Toronto, anyone?

Yup... Toronto's example (rather than Portland's) is more along the lines of what I'd like to see here.

Well I don't think the idea behind Portland's route has been entirely incorporated either. They used a sprawling system that zig-zags at every street to connect dots all over downtown. They might have had the same problem of us in determining a preliminary route, in that there are so many dots spread all over downtown.

I like Toronto's system with straight streetcar routes all running one direction and then subway criss-crossing the paths giving people a way to connect to other lines. Of course subway is not an option here, but maybe just ONE perpendicular streetcar route could serve the purpose of transfers.

I also like some of the routes I've seen illustrated by Jeff and his group. They've done some excellent work, and have some excellent ideas. Theirs is a system that focuses for now on downtown, with expansion opportunities later. Theirs is more of a loop system. COTPA has focused on loop systems as well, albeit some much crappier and less imaginative loop routes.

And then there's also what Platemaker came up with that would be an incredible city-wide system from the get-go.

So there is certainly no shortage of ways that this could go.

These are some illustrations to show the examples I was alluding to.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQcdIeujMcCuzDGb3mVoXHvBnlJ0UZ9c gSrLQagbEknpHWG_6Mz6Q

http://www.railwaypreservation.com/vintagetrolley/Portland_map_2010.gif

NB: Notice the E/W nature of Toronto's system, juxtaposed with the zig-zagging nature of Portland's. Also notice how both extremely successful streetcar systems are just one component that interface with several OTHER transit components.

Portland's is OK until you get down to the Portland State (orange) district. Then it does precisely what I think is a bad idea: follows no discernable route so that you almost have to be a local to know where to pick it up if you're not getting right back on the same spot. Prior to that, it's a similar layout to that of Toronto, and I do like the fact that it's a couplet system there.

The big take away from Portland is indeed that the couplet system works. The mayor and management their swears by it.

The big take away from Portland is indeed that the couplet system works. The mayor and management their swears by it.

I must not know what 'couplet' means because 95% of their systems runs on tracks that only serve trains going in one direction and their tracks are seperated by about 1 block because of one-way streets. After Project 180 OKC won't have any one-way streets which means a train running on a two-track will be going the wrong way in traffic half the time.

BTW - I did notice Portland has made use of back in angled parking. Also, check out the urban Safeway at Southwest 10th Ave and Southwest Jefferson St. I wonder why the have back in angled parking across the steet from the Safeway but not right in front of it.

My guess would be that it runs one direction on one street and the goes back the other way a block over instead of double track. Pretty much a really tight loop, like the northern part of the Portland track.

My guess would be that it runs one direction on one street and the goes back the other way a block over instead of double track. Pretty much a really tight loop, like the northern part of the Portland track.

But it only does that in downtown Portland because of the one-way streets. In the areas where the streets are two-way it is double tracked in the same street. I guess it could also refer to the integration to their light-rail that runs at a 90 degree orientation to it.

Urban Pioneer - what does 'couplet' mean?

I'll give my definition and Urban Pioneer can correct me if I'm wrong. A couplet simply means that your two lines of streetcar are separated by at least a block and run parallel to each other. One line runs one direction and the other runs the opposite direction. It does not really relate to the presence or absence of one-way streets. I'm not sure if there's a maximum distance apart a couplet can be, because at some point, if your lines are far enough apart block-wise, it in essence becomes a loop instead.

The good thing about a couplet is that it spreads development out farther. In addition, it makes access to a line easier for people who've left the immediate streets on which the streetcar runs. If the lines run perfectly parallel to each other, there's really not much more confusion about where to pick up the streetcar than if a street is double-tracked, and the single lines create less congestion on each street than a double line would. Or, at least those are reasons I think couplets are good.

No, you have a very good idea and direction with regards to Robinson. And I say that also factoring several engineering constraints with regard to turns at Sheridan from Broadway and such. Your points about EK Gaylord and the idea of being "sandwiched" between two concrete walls are also true and on point.

The problem I would see with going up and down Robinson is it is only four lanes. Now, assuming Project 180 will convert Robinson to a two way street, either the curbside parking would have to be removed or the streetcar would block traffic at stops along the street. If it were on Broadway, up until fourth street, it would be six lanes, then five lanes with curbside parking (essentially seven lanes.) Taking one lane out on Broadway would not be as big of a deal as on Robinson.

In that case Betts - the only reason Portland went that route was because of the one-way streets. They didn't do it becasue they wanted to, they did it because they had to. Otherwise, they would have the street car running head first into traffic. After Project 180 OKC won't have one-way streets. It also works well in Portland because they have very small blocks (less than half the size of an OKC block). I checked the Toronto system and all of the system I saw was double track. In fact, every system I have seen so far (other than Tampa) has used double track when they can.

But Kerry, let's pick Broadway as an example. You could double track Broadway. Because of the width of our blocks, as you said, people over on Harvey or Hudson downtown would have to walk two to three long blocks just to get to the streetcar, whereas if Robinson were the couplet to Broadway, they'd only have to walk one or two blocks. Couplets open up a much broader piece of the city to development AND make it easier to be within a reasonable distance from a line. In my imagination, the perpendicular streets between the couplets, because developers will also know with certainty that people will be walking on them, are also more attractive for development. It creates a type of pedestrian mall concept, without moving access for cars.

I'll let Urban Pioneer comment, but I believe he's said that Portland really likes the couplet system, now that it's had a chance to try it.

Project 180 is being undertaken to undo the damage caused by one-way street. Now you want to apply the one-street model to the street car. That seems counter productive. Toronto has larger blocks than us and they use double track. The solution is not divide up the tracks, it is to make more lines. Double track Broadway in phase 1 and double track Walker in phase 2.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you Kerry, for precisely the reasons I've outlined. One way streets are an unrelated issue, IMO, and spreading out development and ease of access to the streetcar are more important, to my way of thinking.

I'm not sure if I can address all of this on my phone screen. Lol. Both Kerry and Betts are both right. Portland did do a "couplet" because of one way street flows. However, the unintended positive result was the creation of a "transit mall". The development impact was spread out directly by an additional block. It also helped encourage "walkability" as people have to walk a block to pick up the line going in the opposite direction. So if anything, it is a perception issue to a pedestrian encountering the line. Portland now does couplets in their expansions irregardless of one way streets. The locals have it trained in their minds to simply walk a block over to catch it. That is why stops are on parallel corners on opposite blocks.

In a practical design here, seemingly everybody agrees that Broadway needs to be served. But north bound on Broadway is difficult. A right hand turn off of Sheridan to go north is extremely difficult because the Renassiance hotel abuts the corner and the streets, sidewalk, and median areas are tight. There is a large Trigon vault in the way. Then you get the the infamous 3rd/EK Gaylord intersection where there would obviously be a forceable "kink" in the line to make that turn. All these things can be overcome. But it will cost more and be a "twisty / turny" ride. Every turn you make slows down the system. The tighter the turn, the slower it gets. And I can nearly guarantee you that the wheels will squeel trying to make that tighty in front of the hotel. So our committee considers all of these things including how many extra drivers and trams are needed to overcome "slow downs" in the system to maintain the 10 minute demand time. More "kinks" means more operational cost which means shorter track to meet both the MAPS budget and the operational budget.

Southbound Broadway, no problem!!! At least none that we know of yet. A nice quick and gentle left hand turn off of Broadway onto Sheridan without squeeling wheels. No crazy 3rd street intersection as your skirting past it in front of TAP architecture. No necessary shift on 4th street.

Now a northbound Robinson... Robinson is beautiful in that it is uniterupted by "super blocks". You can easily expand to Capitol Hill or end up to the Paseo through Jefferson Park. The southbound Broadway line can merge into a "double track" configuration at N. 16th/17th streets. Essentially you end up with what Portland has discovered unitentionally ideal, a "transit spine or transit mall". Regarding the narrowing of Robinson via P180, we are going to assess that. Warren, you may be right and it may neccessitate a area in front of the streetcar to "pull over" in front of each stop. But it can be done.

There are some things to think about. If Broadway was the spine would future commuters want to dropped of from the hub in front of the Skirvin? I would argue that Park/Robinson is so centralized to the CBD, that getting people directly to this point they can walk to their office from, is a essential consideration as it relates to the future commuter system. It will be the "Pioneer Square" stop of the future as more things come online.

Also, if you look at intuitiveness, as it relates to the pedestrian grade, Robinson is at the crest of the hill. It is definitively so from the Memorial to 10th street. It is somewhat so at 4th. It is at the bottom at 3rd. And level at RS Kerr, Park, Sheridan, Reno. Harvey is actually the best street at 3rd / 4th. But Robinson is a great compromise over the entire N/S length.

The whole "mall" idea has other purposes. First National has a pedestrian mall from Broadway to Park. A stop at either end facillitates a covered and protected connection between blocks. Those buildings that Sand Ridge is tearing down will uncover direct connection at both Robinson and Broadway to the Conncourse Underground system. It they felt inclined, they could put NY style escalator bays directly down to the Conncourse with covered stops for the streetcar for their employees as part of their plaza plan.

Finally, for this "mall" type concept to fully and easily work, it means new sidewalk connections between stops between N. 6th and 13th streets. Decorative, intutive inlays or pavers further identifying the connection.

There are certain streets that make sense for double tracking. Sheridan may, the new Boulevard, 13th. But Broadway all the way through is not one of them. If anything, simply because of the kinks.

Also, I think it is extremely important that these be straight lines on a map to start with. No twists or turns on main "spines". It has to be intuitive to the 1st time user. It has to be easily explained verbally when giving directions. It has to be perfect.

One other debate item about Robinson. It is my gut feeling that it will be easier to get support from people on Heritage Hill East to go up Robinson to get to 23rd and head for the Paseo, than it would be to go straight up Walker. It's wider, it used to have a streetcar, and quite frankly I think the people over there won't mind such change as much. The same might be said about Shartel through Mesta Park. My gut feeling though is that Walker would be tough.

Now maybe after a Phase one and they actually saw it and heard that it makes very little noise, it might be different.