Well basically, "receiving" is almost as good as "approved" as it provides direction to city staff, Project 180, and allows us to move forward and hire an engineer to start designing a system.



I disagree. It means the report was received. Unless it was followed by a specific Council action to tell staff to follow the report's guidance, it is just a secondary document.

If the report were not received, we could not hire an engineer. Without the ability to hire an engineer, we could not go forward. But, once the route has been studied and recommendations made by the engineers, changing the route would require a new set of engineering studies. So, if engineering reports are acceptable, it's unlikely the route will be changed.

If the report were not received, we could not hire an engineer. Without the ability to hire an engineer, we could not go forward. But, once the route has been studied and recommendations made by the engineers, changing the route would require a new set of engineering studies. So, if engineering reports are acceptable, it's unlikely the route will be changed.

Exactly. This is how things are done at the city. Cafe is technically right, but Phase 1A is unlikely to be changed at this point.

If you're not hiring an engineer until this summer, how could you possibly make it before Sept. 31?

Cafe, you are bringing facts into a discussion. You are now condemned to be part of "the conspiracy."
BTW: Cafe is right. It was received. That's it. It doesn't imply an endorsement or approval of the routes by the city council.
#30#

Well ideally than can now hire an engineer sooner than this summer and get the ball rolling even further. Just imagine all the questions you can ask the engineer, Steve. Keep in mind before that this is still a process that is unofficial and without an engineer working on the project, just a committee narrowing things down.

P.S. Jeff, Betts, Hutch, et al.: Please make "being responsible to Steve Lackmeyer" part of the job description! I kid, I kid...

Spartan, if you're asking about Sept. 31, I think you're referring to the possibility of obtaining federal monies to support extending the streetcar route. Members of the AA committee can correct me if need be, but I believe what's required to be eligible is an environmental impact study, not an engineering study. I'm not privy to the details of how we are approaching obtaining federal funding, but at City Council this week it was noted that we are moving forward on that application and would likely be able to apply for funding this fiscal year.

As far as what it means for the City Council to receive the plans for the streetcar route, I can only say there was no criticism of the route by Council. Several people expressed interest in/concern for the possibility of the route being extended and the importance of positioning ourselves to obtain federal funding. Councilman White expressed his concerns that we improve mass transit in more than the core of the city. But no one suggested we have the engineers study anything but the proposed route or suggested there were problems with it, which I believe is tacit approval of it as it stands, barring findings by the engineers that would preclude using part of the route.

Spartan, if you're asking about Sept. 31, I think you're referring to the possibility of obtaining federal monies to support extending the streetcar route. Members of the AA committee can correct me if need be, but I believe what's required to be eligible is an environmental impact study, not an engineering study. I'm not privy to the details of how we are approaching obtaining federal funding, but at City Council this week it was noted that we are moving forward on that application and would likely be able to apply for funding this fiscal year.

That's exactly what I was asking about. Thanks for the info. Didn't realize you didn't need an engineering study to apply for money from Uncle Sam...interesting.

Cafe, you are bringing facts into a discussion. You are now condemned to be part of "the conspiracy."
BTW: Cafe is right. It was received. That's it. It doesn't imply an endorsement or approval of the routes by the city council.
#30#

Being as I work for "The Man", I am always part of the conspiracy. :)

As far as what it means for the City Council to receive the plans for the streetcar route, I can only say there was no criticism of the route by Council. Several people expressed interest in/concern for the possibility of the route being extended and the importance of positioning ourselves to obtain federal funding. Councilman White expressed his concerns that we improve mass transit in more than the core of the city. But no one suggested we have the engineers study anything but the proposed route or suggested there were problems with it, which I believe is tacit approval of it as it stands, barring findings by the engineers that would preclude using part of the route.

these are my thought as well from watching the council meeting

Being as I work for "The Man", I am always part of the conspiracy. :)
I couldn't resist.

ZG-VB5xb6KM

Cafe, you are bringing facts into a discussion. You are now condemned to be part of "the conspiracy."
BTW: Cafe is right. It was received. That's it. It doesn't imply an endorsement or approval of the routes by the city council.
#30#

So there is hope this route will still be changed.

So there is hope this route will still be changed.

I know you are against couplets, but what alternative ROUTE would you want as opposed to something that includes Robinson, Broadway, and the Midtown loop?

If the route is changed, it will most likely be because we find a Viking amphitheatre buried under one of the streets and cannot proceed. Or something like that. It will be for engineering reasons. That's actually most likely to happen with the entrance into Bricktown, because of railroad bridges. It's hard to think of other potential impediments, but I suppose there could be something.

I know you are against couplets, but what alternative ROUTE would you want as opposed to something that includes Robinson, Broadway, and the Midtown loop?

This system uses 6 miles of total track but I have made some improvments to it that shaves some distance off. I could probably get it to 5 miles if I had to.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/GOCARTPhase2.jpg

Here is video for my Red Line

jd2a1v9X8bQ

My plan serves more people with better service than the couplets, which is why every city in the world uses double track except Portland which has one way streets.



Double Track: Dark green is areas within one block of two way service. Light green is area within 2 block of two-way service

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Double-track.jpg



Couplet: Dark green is area within one block of two-way service. Light green is area with two blocks of two-way service.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Couplet-track.jpg

You have to base the distance people are willing to walk on two-way service because people make round trips. Imagine if you bought a roundtrip airfare from OKC to Chicago but the return trip dropped you off in Tulsa.

a couple of things .. st anthony doesn't want street car on 10th ... you need center of the street right of way the entire distance .. where are there passing tracks for the multi cars ..

Cafe, you are bringing facts into a discussion. You are now condemned to be part of "the conspiracy."

Oh come on. The "conspiracy" has worked very well for us. lol

So there is hope this route will still be changed.

By who and to what? Our committee is pretty unified on what we recommend. A change is extremely doubtful.

a couple of things .. st anthony doesn't want street car on 10th ... you need center of the street right of way the entire distance .. where are there passing tracks for the multi cars ..

When did St Anthony's say they didn't want the streetcar? However, if they are opposed to it and the city is willing to acquiesce, then that spur just doesn't get built and we save $12 million or we add the 1/4 mile somewhere else. As for passing track - all my routes are double track (travel in both directions simultaneously). There is no need for passing tracks.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Strasbourg_-_Stra%C3%9Fenbahn_-_Fahrzeugtypen.jpg/300px-Strasbourg_-_Stra%C3%9Fenbahn_-_Fahrzeugtypen.jpg

If I take out the Black Line (Spartan will like that) and the St. Anthony's spur I can put a line down Walker connecting the Plaza District to Bricktown and it only adds about 1,000 net feet to the eqation. That gives us north/south on Walker and Robinson/Broadway and I still have track left over.

When did St Anthony's say they didn't want the streetcar? However, if they are opposed to it and the city is willing to acquiesce, then that spur just doesn't get built and we save $12 million or we add the 1/4 mile somewhere else.

They never said they didn't want it. They said that they prefer for it to be on 11th. The stop location would be at 11th and Dewey. I spoke to Joe Hodges myself several times about what they prefer. And no one from St. Anthony's or the Midtown Association has expressed that they wanted it to go through the circles or traverse 10th.

831

I know you have done a lot of work UP but have they (St Anthony's and Mistown Associates) seen how many places have streetcars going through traffic circles and how easy it is? Did they say why they prefered 11th and not 10th?

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Orleans20.jpg

I know you have done a lot of work UP but have they (St Anthony's and Mistown Associates) seen how many places have streetcars going through traffic circles and how easy it is? Did they say why they prefered 11th and not 10th?

It's real simple, they don't want circles like that. They like the landscaping. They don't want 10th street under construction again and their businesses shuttered. They don't want added congestion to those intersections. They don't want traffic signals added to stop traffic as a train approaches the circle. St. Anthony's/city just installed a sculpture in the middle of the 10th and Shartel circle.

They like the idea of the streetcar directly interfacing with the restaurants on Walker. Many of them like the idea of the streetcar skirting Heritage Hills and think 10th street is too far away for the collector/distributor.

12th street was deemed too narrow by many of them.

This was derived from conversations and discussions with dozens of people in the Midtown area, particularly the folks at St. Anthony's. Even key people in the planning department think that 11th is better than 10th.

So there is hope this route will still be changed.

Viva la Jane Jenkins!!!

Kerry, your basement transportation planning from a thousand miles away is starting to sound like an irrelevant broken record... Just saying, it's hard to argue with a committee of people who are on the ground, talking to real people, businesses, institutions, and officials in actual real-life OKC.

Kerry, your basement transportation planning from a thousand miles away is starting to sound like an irrelevant broken record... Just saying, it's hard to argue with a committee of people who are on the ground, talking to real people, businesses, institutions, and officials in actual real-life OKC.

Maybe being removed from the 'day to day' allows me to see things more clearly, or not. I'm just offereing my opinion based on how I see it working in cities around the world from 100 years old systems to brand new system. The City is building the foundation for City wide transit system, if they are happy letting one or two landscaped traffic circles dictate the route then that is up to them. Personally, I think it should go where it needs to go based on traffic patterns and employment centers. If that means some guy that might not even be working for St. Anthony's in 5 years doesn't like it, then so be it. We are laying the foundation for a system that will drive transit in OKC for the next 100 years. When this system eventually stops at the front door of a hospital in the medical district, St Anthony's will be kicking themselves. Construction on the section in front of St. Anthony would take about 45 days and the road would stay open the whole time.

I read articles regularly about how people want to spend millions of dollars to build some joke of a rail system in down town all the while you cannot get a dependable bus from ANYWHERE to ANYWHERE in this town. I’ve seen cities that were half the size of Oklahoma City that have twice the bus system that we do. Our Mayor did this year long poll online to find out what people wanted to spend money on with MAPS3 and overwhelmingly people voted for public transportation. What did he do? He gave this long speech about how they heard us loud and clear and have decided to honor the wishes of the people and build this ridiculous train downtown at a ridiculous price of millions of dollars. Others will say “This lovely rail system will cover five miles!” Five miles? Five curved miles that covers about two square miles in a city of more than 600 square miles not counting suburbs. That is a complete waste of money. I like the idea of having a rail system “also” but this too will be an overpriced joke just like the bus system. How many people will be able to dependably rely on this train to get them around other than just for the uniqueness of appearance? Very few… Less than one percent of the population of our city.

These are the same people that claim we cannot afford a decent bus system. This train will only benefit a few people downtown and will neglect the rest of the city. Oklahoma City leadership has deliberately ignored our need for a real bus system in a calculated way. They have a system called Metro Transit that use to be called a half dozen other names that has minimum routes with minimum coverage. They do not run very often and leave miles of the city with no routes at all. We have Tinker AFB with 23,000 employees with zero bus service. This embarrassing train downtown will cost more money that a decent bus system that would cover the entire city.

It just pisses me off that I have to take off work in the morning and in the afternoon to take my son to work every day when you cannot depend on this joke of a bus system. I’m sorry if some of you love this stupid train but we have more important things that a train that covers two square miles of territory. I always hear people say why spend the money on a bus system that no one rides? That is a completely ignorant statement. The reason no one rides the bus is because they cannot be depended upon. If you happened to be one of the lucky two people that actually live on one of these fictitious routes you only get four or five pickups a day. If you miss the bus you could be waiting for hours for the next one. This does not even account for the miles of territory with no service at all. Here in Midwest City there is one bus route in the whole city and it is route 15. This route gets on the freeway and goes downtown. What the…? What if someone wants to get off the bus somewhere between Midwest City and downtown? I guess you could jump off the bus at 60 MPH and hope that you survive.

Those in charge purposefully designed an inadequate joke of a bus system that people cannot depend on and then they point out that no one rides them. Of course they are not going to ride it when they must be at work and they cannot depend on this bus system. This is not an innocent misunderstanding but rather a calculated decision to fabricate a lack of ridership so they can quote this as evidence not to invest in a bus system. You may be asking why have a bus system at all if they are not going to do it right? This is obviously an attempt to appease environmentalists. They do not want to be seen as not doing anything to prevent air pollution so they put together this skeleton bus system just to shut people up. As a very conservative person I am surprised at the lack of an outcry by the liberals that occupy OKCTalk.com. I normally do not advocate government spending on things so this is big for me.

I really do not understand the lack of pressure put on the city leaders. I do like Mick Cornett but I think he just like his predecessors has missed the mark AGAIN.

I’ve seen cities that were half the size of Oklahoma City that have twice the bus system that we do.

There in lies the problem plmccordj. OKC is too big to try to provide bus service to all of it. That is why myself and others are advocated an urban transit zone. If you want access to mass transit you have to live within the zone. If you want to live in a subdivision 8 or 9 miles from downtown - you have to own a car. I would rather serve fewer people really well than a lot people poorly. My urban transit zone is everything between I-35/I-44/I-240.

There in lies the problem plmccordj. OKC is too big to try to provide bus service to all of it. That is why myself and others are advocated an urban transit zone. If you want access to mass transit you have to live within the zone. If you want to live in a subdivision 8 or 9 miles from downtown - you have to own a car. I would rather serve fewer people really well than a lot people poorly. My urban transit zone is everything between I-35/I-44/I-240.

This.

Here in Midwest City there is one bus route in the whole city and it is route 15.

Pardon my ignorance, but what does MWC have to do with the street car? Are MWC residents paying for it?

There in lies the problem plmccordj. OKC is too big to try to provide bus service to all of it. That is why myself and others are advocated an urban transit zone. If you want access to mass transit you have to live within the zone. If you want to live in a subdivision 8 or 9 miles from downtown - you have to own a car. I would rather serve fewer people really well than a lot people poorly. My urban transit zone is everything between I-35/I-44/I-240.

Completely agree. We need to focus the money there is for mass transit on a certain area that can be equipped with mass transit to the point that using a car on a day to day basis would be completely irrelevant. If we tried to cover the entire city with a bus system the money would just be spread too thin and then we would end up with a system only slightly better than what is there now.

Completely agree. We need to focus the money there is for mass transit on a certain area that can be equipped with mass transit to the point that using a car on a day to day basis would be completely irrelevant. If we tried to cover the entire city with a bus system the money would just be spread too thin and then we would end up with a system only slightly better than what is there now.

If you only have a spoonful of peanut butter you can't put it on a whole loaf of bread. All you end up with is flavored bread that is slight discolored and then no one is happy about their peanut butter sandwich.

By who and to what?

By the City Council to remove the couplets.

http://www.newsok.com/article/3556688




Regarding “Council accepts streetcar route” (news story, April 6): Kudos to the hard work the MAPS 3 committees are doing on the streetcar plan. I recognize the difficulty in choosing the route with so many different interests to serve. However, the plan that was recommended April 5 baffles an interested outsider such as myself. Why would the north-south routes be one block apart? Sure, if you work between Broadway and Robinson you only have to walk a half block to catch the line and that's great! But what about servicing Hudson or Walker so that downtown mainstays such as the library, Civic Center or the Museum of Art can be easily accessed?


Read more: http://newsok.com/favored-streetcar-route-baffling-to-an-outsider/article/3556688#ixzz1JEyypwsd


Now clearly this guy doen't know that each half of the couplet is one-way but knowing so is going to cause him to question it even more. If only he could see my black line.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/GOCARTPhase2.jpg

The distance from Robinson to Broadway is about 1.5 minutes of walking at an average pace. It is an easily acceptable distance to walk to catch a streetcar headed the direction you want, and allows streetcar-adjacent property to be doubled. The slight extra walking distance due to the couplet is also only "one way"- ie, you may have to walk an extra 500 feet in the morning, but in the evening you'd be dropped off 500 feet closer. Besides all that, someone who is concerned about a 1.5 minute walk is probably not the transit/urban life demographic.

By the City Council to remove the couplets.

http://www.newsok.com/article/3556688



Now clearly this guy doen't know that each half of the couplet is one-way but knowing so is going to cause him to question it even more. If only he could see my black line.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/GOCARTPhase2.jpg

Kerry........Have you emailed your map to any council members?

The distance from Robinson to Broadway is about 1.5 minutes of walking at an average pace. It is an easily acceptable distance to walk to catch a streetcar headed the direction you want, and allows streetcar-adjacent property to be doubled. The slight extra walking distance due to the couplet is also only "one way"- ie, you may have to walk an extra 500 feet in the morning, but in the evening you'd be dropped off 500 feet closer. Besides all that, someone who is concerned about a 1.5 minute walk is probably not the transit/urban life demographic.

The transit group did a study and found that a vast majority of the people will not walk more than 2 blocks to catch a streetcar. This is consistant with transit studies done by multiple other reserachers all over the world. If you have to waste one block just making part of a round trip then that only leaves you one block on either side.

Europe is probably the most rail adjusted population on the planet and their isn't a single couplet based system on the continent. Even the US only has a few system that use couplets; Portland, Phoenix, and 4 blocks in Seattle. On top of that, Portland and Phoenix used couplets because of one-way streets.

The transit group did a study and found that a vast majority of the people will not walk more than 2 blocks to catch a streetcar. This is consistant with transit studies done by multiple other reserachers all over the world. If you have to waste one block just making part of a round trip then that only leaves you one block on either side.

Europe is probably the most rail adjusted population on the planet and their isn't a single couplet based system on the continent. Even the US only has a few system that use couplets; Portland, Phoenix, and 4 blocks in Seattle. On top of that, Portland and Phoenix used couplets because of one-way streets.

Kerry. Your issue over the couplets is getting annoying, to be blunt. You are the only person who is raising this issue. Everyone else is either overwhelmingly for the idea, or opposed to streetcar altogether. Pick a side, man..

By the way, Europe actually did not build most of their cities around trams. They already existed for the most part, in fact, in terms of the urban planning, large European cities practically ALL prefer subway systems because the built environment above ground is already a masterpiece, and too sensitive to cover in track. Apples and oranges. Furthermore, European cities have limitless budgets for public transit. OKC has $120 million.

Are you opposed to both Robinson and Broadway having streetcar frontage? I think it could be a positive for both and I'm glad we don't have to be torn between arguing for either Robinson OR Broadway, although I know which one I would unequivocally prefer if I had to chose (Broadway).

Kerry, I think at this point, we would all like to invite you to join the mainstream of the discussion...

Kerry. Your issue over the couplets is getting annoying, to be blunt. You are the only person who is raising this issue. Everyone else is either overwhelmingly for the idea, or opposed to streetcar altogether. Pick a side, man..

By the way, Europe actually did not build most of their cities around trams. They already existed for the most part, in fact, in terms of the urban planning, large European cities practically ALL prefer subway systems because the built environment above ground is already a masterpiece, and too sensitive to cover in track. Apples and oranges. Furthermore, European cities have limitless budgets for public transit. OKC has $120 million.

Are you opposed to both Robinson and Broadway having streetcar frontage? I think it could be a positive for both and I'm glad we don't have to be torn between arguing for either Robinson OR Broadway, although I know which one I would unequivocally prefer if I had to chose (Broadway).

Kerry, I think at this point, we would all like to invite you to join the mainstream of the discussion...

Spartan - your entire post was non-sense. Every city in Europe was built around streetcars, most of which were dismantled because of the needs of WWII. I can post a 1000 pictures of streetcars going through the materpieces of Europe - many of them put back in place in the last 15 years. Places like France are finally putting them all back in. Building couplets cost more than building double track and disrupts twice as many businesses. As proposed, Broadway and Robinson would be under construction at the same time.

These tracks were put in about 5 years ago in Bordeaux, FR.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Bordeaux1.jpg


http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Bordeaux2.jpg

"Building couplets cost more than building double track and disrupts twice as many businesses. As proposed, Broadway and Robinson would be under construction at the same time," Kerry

This isn't correct Kerry. Couplets traditionally have cost less in American cities as the utilities can be shifted from one side of the street to the other. Only the Automobile Alley section of Broadway is large enough to mover everything because of street widths and it would be extremely invasive to the district. Because Project 180 is narrowing streets to make the street widths more "crossable" and pedestrian friendly, manhole covers and other obstructions have fewer places to go. Therefore, the couplet will actually work well for us in terms of cost savings.

Also, both streets will probably not be under construction at the same time. We are probably going to follow an innovative construction technique pioneered in Portland that involves a "streaming" process." Individual block sections would be under construction for only 3 week segments rather than the entire length at one time.

Spartan - your entire post was non-sense. Every city in Europe was built around streetcars, most of which were dismantled because of the needs of WWII. I can post a 1000 pictures of streetcars going through the materpieces of Europe - many of them put back in place in the last 15 years. Places like France are finally putting them all back in. Building couplets cost more than building double track and disrupts twice as many businesses. As proposed, Broadway and Robinson would be under construction at the same time.

These tracks were put in about 5 years ago in Bordeaux, FR.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Bordeaux1.jpg


http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Bordeaux2.jpg

Kerry, this is just frustrating me, so I'm going to try and explain this calmly without putting everything in all caps. I was in Bordeaux recently. In case you aren't aware, I'm living in Sweden at the moment. Trust me, I know Europe very well. In the last 2 months alone I've been to 14 countries, none of which were the U.S. or Canada. This is not my first time on the ground in Europe either, and trust me, I've studied the hell out of Europe before I got here, too.

You are using Google streetview screenshots to tell me what Europe is like. Do you see where that could be frustrating?

Furthermore, I am on the ground here studying urban design in countless cities. I have a weekly seminar on spacial relations of cities here. Most European cities, especially the parts with trams, are often 300-600 years old. I assure you that tram technology did not exist back then, no matter what you come across on Google, even if you come across something that says LOUIS the 16th put the trams in Bdx, it is false, don't believe it. Please. The simple truth is that European cities were designed with walking distance in mind, and they masterplanned cities to create a sense of the monumental. They played on the same sensory presence that modern urban planning is trying to "return to" today.

Actually, to clarify the point I made up earlier, most European cities prefer SUBWAYS for many reasons. First of all, it involves tearing up less on the surface. Second of all, it can serve larger numbers of people that way. These cities with endless transit budgets (for example, many have a yearly budget of $1 Billion with a 'B' just for the express purpose of building new metro stops) are going for the highest ridership numbers in the world, obviously American cities aren't there yet. For all the cities you show screenshots of trams, there are many much larger ones that mainly prefer the subway as the main mode of transportation. Off the top of my head, cities that mostly rely on subways (or metros): London, Paris, Moscow, Berlin, Warsaw, Madrid, Barcelona, Stockholm, Helsinki, St. Petersburg, Milan, Rome, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Prague, Vienna, Munich, Brussels, and countless more.

I can think of very few cities where the tram is the preferred mode of public transit. Amsterdam definitely, first and foremost. Here in Scandinavia, they're popular in Copenhagen, Oslo, and especially in Gothenburg. And yes, smaller French cities are also turning to the tram. But please realize that except in the case of Scandinavia which has "newer" cities for the most part, that these tram systems are much newer than their surroundings. It's not even close.

And lastly, many European cities actually have really bizarre spacial relationships with the trams. It's hard to explain, but in many cases, the trams really feel like they detract from the intended environment of a street, as it was designed hundreds of years ago. Often they have chosen broader thoroughfares for trams and created awkward islands in the middle of roads, or sometimes they weave through awkward-spaced gaps in the city.

So in Europe, the tram serves as a very functional mode of transportation, and cars are always full of people. But there are few opportunities for "TOD" because the cities are already built. Most neighborhoods in the centers are already gentrified. And so on. They didn't have urban renewal in Europe. They didn't have the white flight. Suburbs are actually really bad places, here. There is new construction, but for the most part, the historic city centers have been religiously preserved. It's an entirely different ballgame, Kerry.

So do you really want to play this game of, "For OKC, let's ignore Portland and Seattle, and focus more on Bordeaux" ?? You just sound so incredulous, and there are countless more important things for us to be talking about in this thread than your obsession against couplets. I remember when I first told you "oh, and the system will be couplets, that's already a done deal." Your reaction was at that time, again, incredulous. You insisted that there was no way they would go with couplets because it wasn't possible to do. Well, guess what, they chose couplets. And furthermore, I hope you'll come around when the system is built so you can watch it work its magic. It's going to be great.

"Building couplets cost more than building double track and disrupts twice as many businesses. As proposed, Broadway and Robinson would be under construction at the same time," Kerry

This isn't correct Kerry. Couplets traditionally have cost less in American cities as the utilities can be shifted from one side of the street to the other. Only the Automobile Alley section of Broadway is large enough to mover everything because of street widths and it would be extremely invasive to the district. Because Project 180 is narrowing streets to make the street widths more "crossable" and pedestrian friendly, manhole covers and other obstructions have fewer places to go. Therefore, the couplet will actually work well for us in terms of cost savings.

Also, both streets will probably not be under construction at the same time. We are probably going to follow an innovative construction technique pioneered in Portland that involves a "streaming" process." Individual block sections would be under construction for only 3 week segments rather than the entire length at one time.

Jeff, this is absolutely incredible. Words can not express how impressed I always am by the work of your committee, not to mention how forthcoming you always are with information. You guys really have thought through everything.

If I haven't said it enough, thanks for everything you're doing for the city. This project is going to be the most progressive thing that has hit this city in decades.

Kerry, this is just frustrating me, so I'm going to try and explain this calmly without putting everything in all caps. I was in Bordeaux recently. In case you aren't aware, I'm living in Sweden at the moment. Trust me, I know Europe very well. In the last 2 months alone I've been to 14 countries, none of which were the U.S. or Canada. This is not my first time on the ground in Europe either, and trust me, I've studied the hell out of Europe before I got here, too.

You are using Google streetview screenshots to tell me what Europe is like. Do you see where that could be frustrating?

Furthermore, I am on the ground here studying urban design in countless cities. I have a weekly seminar on spacial relations of cities here. Most European cities, especially the parts with trams, are often 300-600 years old. I assure you that tram technology did not exist back then, no matter what you come across on Google, even if you come across something that says LOUIS the 16th put the trams in Bdx, it is false, don't believe it. Please. The simple truth is that European cities were designed with walking distance in mind, and they masterplanned cities to create a sense of the monumental. They played on the same sensory presence that modern urban planning is trying to "return to" today.

Actually, to clarify the point I made up earlier, most European cities prefer SUBWAYS for many reasons. First of all, it involves tearing up less on the surface. Second of all, it can serve larger numbers of people that way. These cities with endless transit budgets (for example, many have a yearly budget of $1 Billion with a 'B' just for the express purpose of building new metro stops) are going for the highest ridership numbers in the world, obviously American cities aren't there yet. For all the cities you show screenshots of trams, there are many much larger ones that mainly prefer the subway as the main mode of transportation. Off the top of my head, cities that mostly rely on subways (or metros): London, Paris, Moscow, Berlin, Warsaw, Madrid, Barcelona, Stockholm, Helsinki, St. Petersburg, Milan, Rome, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Prague, Vienna, Munich, Brussels, and countless more.

I can think of very few cities where the tram is the preferred mode of public transit. Amsterdam definitely, first and foremost. Here in Scandinavia, they're popular in Copenhagen, Oslo, and especially in Gothenburg. And yes, smaller French cities are also turning to the tram. But please realize that except in the case of Scandinavia which has "newer" cities for the most part, that these tram systems are much newer than their surroundings. It's not even close.

And lastly, many European cities actually have really bizarre spacial relationships with the trams. It's hard to explain, but in many cases, the trams really feel like they detract from the intended environment of a street, as it was designed hundreds of years ago. Often they have chosen broader thoroughfares for trams and created awkward islands in the middle of roads, or sometimes they weave through awkward-spaced gaps in the city.

So in Europe, the tram serves as a very functional mode of transportation, and cars are always full of people. But there are few opportunities for "TOD" because the cities are already built. Most neighborhoods in the centers are already gentrified. And so on. They didn't have urban renewal in Europe. They didn't have the white flight. Suburbs are actually really bad places, here. There is new construction, but for the most part, the historic city centers have been religiously preserved. It's an entirely different ballgame, Kerry.

So do you really want to play this game of, "For OKC, let's ignore Portland and Seattle, and focus more on Bordeaux" ?? You just sound so incredulous, and there are countless more important things for us to be talking about in this thread than your obsession against couplets. I remember when I first told you "oh, and the system will be couplets, that's already a done deal." Your reaction was at that time, again, incredulous. You insisted that there was no way they would go with couplets because it wasn't possible to do. Well, guess what, they chose couplets. And furthermore, I hope you'll come around when the system is built so you can watch it work its magic. It's going to be great.

that is a very very good post i could not agree more .. i think vienna is a great example of the street car feeling awkward it just doesn't fit in well with the wonder buildings and city


Jeff, this is absolutely incredible. Words can not express how impressed I always am by the work of your committee, not to mention how forthcoming you always are with information. You guys really have thought through everything.

If I haven't said it enough, thanks for everything you're doing for the city. This project is going to be the most progressive thing that has hit this city in decades.

again i agree .. the sub committee has done a wonderful job thus far ..

Every city in Europe was built around streetcar! Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Every city in Europe was built around streetcar! Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

While streetcar might have been a poor choice of words - many of them were built around rail. In cities where density was already significant by the mid 1800's they obviously went with subways. However, there are far more cities in Europe with streetcars than there are with subways. In fact, it isn’t even close. Here is a list someone compiled on Skyscraper City.

According to this there are 54 subways in Europe - the rest are all lightrail or streetcar (tram).

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=65822


Metro (Subway)/ Lightrail networks


LR=Light Rail
M= Metro(Subway)
M+LR = either Metro/light Rail combination, or seperate metro and Light Rail lines

Armenia
Yerevan (1981) 13.4km M

Austria
Gmunden-Vorchdorf (1912) 14.7km LR
Vorchdorf-Lambach (1903) 15.5km LR
Lambach-Haag (1901) 26.3km LR
Linz-Postlingberg (1898) 2.9km LR
Linz-Waizenkirchen (1912) 58.9km LR
Salzburg (1886) 34km LR
Serfaus (1985) 1.28km M
Vocklamarkt-Attersee (1913) 13.4km LR
Vienna (1865) 67km M+LR
Wien-Baden (1873) 30.4km LR

Azerbaijan
Baku (1967) 30.5km M

Belarus
Minsk (1984) 16.4km M

Belgium
Bruxelles (1976) 40.5km M
De Panne-Knokke (1885) 55km LR

Bulgaria
Sofia (1998) 5km M

Czech Republic
Prague (1974) 59.3km M

Denmark
Copenhagen (2002) 21km M

Finland
Helsinki (1982) 21.1kmM

France
Lille (1983) 45km M
Lyon (1862-1978) 30km M
Marseille (1977) 19km M
Paris (1900) 243km M+LR
Toulouse (1993) 12.5km LR
Rennes (1997) 9.4km

Georgia
Tbilisi (1966) 26.3km M

Germany
Berlin (1902) 143km M
Bochum-Gelsenkirchen (1989) 14.9km LR
Bonn (1911) 26km LR
Brannenburg (1912) 8km LR
Essen (1977) 35.2km LR
Frankfurt/Main (1968) 58km M+LR
Garmisch-Partenkirchen (1929) 20km LR
Hamburg (1912) 100km M
Hannover (1872) 116.6km M+LR
Königswinter (1883) 1.5km LR
Lichtenhain-Cursdorf (1923) 2.5km LR
Mannheim-Bad Dürkheim (1913) 16.3km LR
Mannheim-Heidelberg (1868) 61km LR
Munich (1971) 98.4km M
Nürnberg (1972) 26.4kmM
Strausberg (1893) 6.2km LR
Stuttgart (1975) 84.2km M+LR
Trossingen (1898) 4km LR
Wuppertal (1903) 13.3km LR

Greece
Athens (1904) 25.8km M

Hungary
Budapest (1896) 206.8km M+LR

Ireland
Dublin (200?) ??km M+LR

Italy
Catania (1999) 3.8km M
Genova (1929-2000) 5.5km M
Milano (1964) 84.2km M
Napoli (1993) 28km M
Roma (1916-1955) 33.5km M
Torino (2005) 9.6km M

Netherlands
Amsterdam (1977-1990) 60.5km M+LR
Rotterdam (1968) 75.9km M
Utrecht-Nieuwegein (1983) 21.5km LR

Norway
Oslo (1909-1966) 123 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (1909-1966) 123 end_of_the_skype_highlighting.4km M+LR

Poland
Warszawa (1929-1995) 49.5kmM+LR

Portugal
Lisboa (1959) 30km M
Oporto (200?) ??km LR

Romania
Bucuresti (1959) 59.2km M

Russia
Kazan (2005) 7.7km M
Moscow (1935) 282.52 M+LR
Nizhni Novgorod (1985) 13km M
Novosibirsk (1986) 13km M
Sankt Peterburg (1955) 107km M
Samara (1987) 12.5km M
Ust-Ilimsk (1988) 14.6km LR
Volgograd (1972) 12.8km LR
Yekaterinburg (1991) 12km LR

Slovakia
Poprad-Strbské Pleso (1912) 35.0km LR
Strba-Strbské Pleso (1970) 5km LR

Spain
Alicante (2003) 95km M+LR
Barcelona (1892/1924) 106.4km M
Bilbao (1995-2002) 60km M+LR
Donostia (San Sebastian) (1882) 156km LR
Gijón-Pravia (1909) 64km LR
Madrid (1919) 281.58km M
Palma-Sóller (1912) 23km LR
Santander (1892) 153km LR
Valencia (1988) 127km LR

Sweden
Lidingö (1907) 9.2km LR
Nockebybanan (??) 5.6km LR
Saltsjöbanan (??) 18.6km LR
Stockholm (1877-1950) 113 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (1877-1950) 113 end_of_the_skype_highlighting.3km M+LR
Tvärbanan (??) 11.5km LR

Switzerland
Aarau (WSB) (1901) 32.3km LR
Bern (1898-1912) 53.7km LR
Bremgarten-Dietikon (1902) 18.8km LR
Genève (1994) 15km LR
Lausanne (1873) 22.6km LR
Lugano-Ponte Tresa (1912) 12.2km LR
Zürich (1875) 26.9km LR

Turkey
Adana (??) 14km LR
Bursa (??) 17km LR
Istanbul (1989) 16.7km LR
Izmir (??) 13km LR

Ukraine
Dnipropetrovsk (1996) 11.2km M
Kharkiv (1975) 26km M
Kyiv (1969) 55.03km M+LR
Kriviy Rih (1986) 11.6km LR

United Kingdom
Birmingham (1999) 20km M+LR
Glasgow (1896) 10.4km M
London (1863) 408km M
Newcastle/Tyne (1980) 59.3km M+LR

Tram (Street Car) networks (city proper, not metropolitan area)

Austria (AT)
Gmunden: (1894) 2.5km
Graz (1878) 30.3km
Innsbruck (1891) 36km
Linz (1880) 19.2km
Wien (Vienna) (1865) 240km

Belarus (BY)
Minsk (1892) 32km
Masyr (1988) 22km
Navapolatsk (1974) 11.3km
Vitsyebsk (1898) 34.5km

Belgium (BE)
Antwerpen (1873) 57km
Bruxelles (1869) 205km
Charleroi (1887) 20km
Gent (1875) 30km

Bosnia Herzegovina (BA)
Sarajevo (1895) 16km

Bulgaria (BG)
Sofia (1901) 222km

Croatia (HR)
Osijek (1884) 12km
Zagreb (1891) 54.4km

Czech Republic (CZ)
Brno (1884) 75.6km
Liberec (1887) 21km
Most (1957) 19km
Olomouc (1889) 14.2km
Ostrava(1894) 58.2km
Plzen (1899) 26km
Praha (Prague) (1875) 133km

Estonia (EE)
Tallin (1888) 39km

Finland (FI)
Helsinki (1891) 75km

France (FR)
Bordeaux (2003) 27.4km
Grenoble (1987) 32km
Lille (1874) 22km
Lyon (2001) 25km
Marseille (1876) 3km
Montpelier (2000) 15.2km
Nantes (1985) 39km
Orleans (2000) 18km
Paris (1992) 20.4km
Rouen (1994) 15.8km
St Etienne (1881) 9.3km
Strasbourg (1994) 24.6km

Under Construction:
Bordeaux (2007) 20km under construction
Grenoble (20/05/2006) 11.5km under construction
Le Mans (2007) 15.4km under construction
Lyon (200) 14.6km under construction
Marseille (2007) 11km under construction
Montpellier (03/01/2007) 19.6km under construction
Mulhouse (13/05/2006) 12km under construction
Nantes (2006) 2.2km under construction
Nice (2007) 8.8km under construction
Orleans (2007) 21km under construction
Paris (2006-2008) 10.2km (7.9 + 2.3) under construction
St Etienne (2006) 2km under construction
Strasbourg (2008) 13.5km under construction
Valenciennes (06/2006) 9.5km under construction
Valenciennes (2007) 8.5km under construction

Germany (DE)
Augsburg (1881) 31.6km
Bad Schandau (1898) 8.1km
Berlin (1865) 189.4km
Bielefeld (1900) 26.1km
Bochum-Gelsenkirchen (1894) 87.8km
Bonn (1891) 28.7km
Brandenburg (1897) 19.6km
Braunschweig (1879) 34.3km
Bremen (1876) 58.6km
Chemnitz (1880) 22.3km
Cottbus (1903) 23.7km
Darmstadt (1886) 41.8km
Dessau (1894) 13.1km
Dortmund (1881) 75.5km
Dresden (1872) 131km
Duisburg (1881) 58.6km
Düsseldorf (1876) 146.3km
Erfurt (1883) 29.3km
Essen (1893) 94.2km
Frankfurt/Main (1872) 63.4km
Frankfurt (Rhein Main metro region) 125km
Frankfurt/Oder (1898) 25.1km
Freiburg/Breisgau (1902) 27.5km
Gera (1892) 14km
Görlitz (1882) 13.4km
Gotha (1894) 26.3km
Hagen (19??) ??km
Halberstadt (1887) 8.3km
Halle (1882) 84.5km
Heidelberg (1885) 19.7km
Herne (19??) ??km
Jena (1901) 21.4km
Karlsruhe (1877) 149.9km
Kassel (1877) 47.4km
Kohlfurth (1995) 1.2km
Köln (Cologne) (1877) 191.2km
Krefeld (1883) 46km
Leipzig (1872) 152.6km
Ludwigshafen (1878) 30.2km
Magdeburg (1877) 60.9km
Mainz (1883) 21.9km
Mannheim (1878) 58km
Mülheim/Ruhr (1897) 32.4km
München (Munich) (1876) 78.5km
Nordhausen (1900) 8.7km
Nürnberg (1891) 42.1km
Oberhausen (1996) 9.6km
Plauen (1894) 17.3km
Potsdam (1880) 27.5km
Rostock (1881) 33km
Saarbrücken (1997) 17.5km
Schönberger Strand (1996) 0.3km
Schöneiche (1910) 15.2km
Schwerin (1881) 22.2km
Strausberg (???) 6.2km
Stuttgart (1864) 10.9km
Ulm (1897) 5.8km
Woltersdorf (1913) 5.6km
Wuppertal (1901) 13.3km
Würzburg (1892) 19.4km
Zwickau (1894) 9.1km

Greece
Athens (2004) 26km

Hungary (HU)
Budapest (1866) 156km
Debrecen (1911) 6km
Miskolc (1897) 9km
Szeged (1884) 15km

Italy (IT)
Messina (2003) 7.7km
Milano (1876) 287km
Napoli (1875) 23km
Roma (1882) 65.9km
Sassari (Sardinia) (2006) 2.5km
Torino (1872) 150km
Trieste (1883) 5.2km

Latvia (LV)
Daugavpils (1946) 25.2km
Liepaya (1899) 14km
Riga (1882) 123km

The Netherlands
Amsterdam (1875) 138km
Den Haag (1864) 128.1km
Rotterdam (1879) 67km

Norway (NO)
Bergen (1997) 0.4km
Oslo (1875) 152.5km
Trondheim (1901) 8.8km

Poland (PL)
Bydgoszcz (1880) 32km
Czestochowa (1959) 10.5km
Elblag (1894) 14km
Gdansk (1873) 50km
Gorzów WLKP (1899) 14km
Grudziadz (1896) 9.5km
Katowice (1894) 245km
Krakow (1882) 79.5km
Lodz (1898) 113km
Poznan (1880) 85km
Szczecin (1879) 40km
Torun (1891) 11km
Warszawa (1865) 119km
Wroclaw (1877) 85km

Portugal (PT)
Lisboa (1873) 72km
Porto (1872) 13.9km
Sintra-Atlantico (1903) 3km

Romania (RO)
Arad (1896) 45.5km
Botosani (1991) 11km
Braila (1900) 15km
Brasov (1987) 6.7km
Bucuresti (1874) 155km
Cluj-Napoca (1987) 11.5km
Constanta (1984) 42km
Craiova (1987) 19km
Galati (1899) 35km
Iasi (1900) 64km
Oradea (1905) 20km
Ploeisti (1987) 18.5km
Resita (1988) 9.5km
Sibiu (1905) 10km
Timisoara (1899) 42km

Russia (RU)
Achinsk (1967) 19.5km
Angarsk (1953) 48.4km
Arkhangelsk (1916) 37.3km
Astrakhan (1900) 41.3km
Barnaul (1948) 61.5km
Biysk (1960) 35.7km
Chelyabinsk (1932) 79.4km
Cherepovets (1956) 13.9km
Cheryomushki (1991) 5.9km
Dzerzhinsk (1933) 43.2km
Irkutsk (1947) 20.7km
Ivanovo (1934) 20.7km
Izhevsk (1935) 37.8km
Kaliningrad (1881) 51.5km
Kazan (1875) 75.3km
Kemerovo (1940) 44.4km
Khabarovsk (1956) 37.3km
Kolomna (1948) 20.2km
Komsomolsk-na-Amure (1957) 20.9km
Krasnoarmeisk (1959) 10.2km
Krasnodar (1900) 56.6km
Krasnoturinsk (1954) 10.2km
Krasnoyarsk (1958) 38.8km
Kursk (1898) 46.1km
Lipetsk (1947) 54.5km
Magnitogorsk (1935) 71km
Moskva (Moscow) (1872) 418.8km
Naberezhnye (1973) 43.9km
Nizhnikamsk (1967) 29km
Nizhni Novgorod (1896) 100km
Nizhni Tagil (1937) 54.5km
Noginsk (1924) 13.7km
Novocherkassk (1954) 21.3km
Novokuznetsk (1933) 70km
Novosibirsk (1934) 90.3km
Novotroisk (1956) 15.1km
Omsk (1936) 65km
Orel (1898) 17.4km
Orsk (1948) 34.9km
Osinniki (1960) 11.6km
Perm (1929) 64.5km
Prokopyevsk (1936) 41.3km
Pyatigorsk (1904) 20.7km
Rostov-na-Donu (1887) 60.1km
Ryazan (1963) 12.4km
Sankt Peterburg (1863) 692km ??? Possibly Track length
Salavat (1957) 18.3km
Samara (1895) 91km
Saratov (1887) 18.4km
Shakhty (1932) 16,2km
Smolensk (1901) 28.1km
Stary Oskol (1981) 30km
Taganrog (1932) 22.7km
Tomsk (1949) 22.2km
Tula (188) 46.1km
Tver (1901) 45.5km
Ufa (1937) 78.2km
Ulan-Ude (1958) 28.4km
Ulyanovsk (1954) 59.9km
Usolye Sibirskoye (1967) 16.2km
Ust-Katav (1973) 4.1km
Vladikavkaz (1904) 26.4km
Vladivostok (1912) 22.1km
Volchansk (1951) 15.4km
Volgograd (1913) 41.2km
Volzhskiy (1963) 23.9km
Voronezh (1891) 87.4km
Yaroslavl (1900) 33.4km
Yekaterinburg (1929) 89.3km
Zlatoust (1924) 29.8km

Serbia (YU)
Beograd (1885) 127.3km

Slovakia (SK)
Bratislava (1895) 35.3km
Kosice (1891) 33.6km
Trencianská Teplá (1909) 5.4km

Spain (ES)
Barcelona (1872/1997) 30km
Bilbao (2002) 4.4km
La Corunna (1997) 6.2km
Murcia (2007) 2km
Seville (2007) 1,3km
Sóller (1913) 5km
Tenerife (2007) 12,5km
Valencia (1994) 9.8km
Vitoria- Gasteiz (2004) 7.9km
Madrid (????) 27.78

Sweden (SE)
Göteborg (Gothenburg) (1879) 144km
Malmö (1987) 1.4km
Norrköping (1904) 13km
Stockholm (1991) 2.6km

Switzerland (CH)
Basel (1895) 139km
Bern (1890) 17.6km
Genève (1862) 10.2km
Zürich (1882) 111.6km

Turkey (TR)
Antalya (??) 4.8km
Eskisehir (??) 15km
Istanbul (1990) 11km
Konya (??) 18km

Ukraine (UA)
Avdiyivka (1965) 18km
Dniprodzerzhinsk (1935) 43km
Dnipropetrovsk (1897) 79km
Donetsk (1928) 60.2km
Druzhkivka (1945) 17.4km
Horlivka (1932) 31.2km
Kharkiv (1882) 132.2km
Kyiv (1892) 139.9km
Konotop (1949) 23.8km
Kostyatinivka (1931) 25.7km
Kramatorsk (1937) 19.2km
Kriviy Rih (1935) 36.8km
Luhansk (1934) 46km
Lviv (1880) 38.2km
Makiyivka (1935) 32.7km
Mariupol (1933) 56.8km
Molochne (1989) 1.5km
Nikolayiv (1887) 37.1km
Odesa (1910) 108.9km
Stakhanov (1937) 18km
Vinnitsya (1913) 21.2km
Yenakiyeve (1932) 16.4km
Yevpatoriya (1914) 17km
Zaporizhzhya (1932) 54.8km
Zhitomir (1899) 8.8km

United Kingdom (GB)
Birkenhead (1995)0.8km
Birmingham - Wolverhampton (1998) 20.4km
Blackpool (1885) 18km
London Croydon (2000) 28km
Douglas (IOM) (1876) 2.8km
Douglas-Ramsey (1893) 28.4km
Llandudno (1902) 1.6km
Leeds (????) ??km
Manchester (1992) 32km
Nottingham (????) ??km
Seaton (1970) 5.2km
Sheffield (1994) 3ß.5km
South Hampshire (????) ??km

Commuter & Suburban Rail Networks:

Austria
Vienna - 1579km

Belgium
Brussels - 210km (Not full metro area)

Czech Republic
Prague - 639.7km

Estonia
Tallinn - 131.6km

Finland
Helsinki - 60km

France
Paris - 1401km (Ile de France, 5xRER lines and 5xSuburban lines)
(571km for RER, 246 stations, Commuter 833km, 226 stations)

Germany
Berlin - 3107 (Combined S-bahn and Heavy Rail commuter)
Frankfurt - 1500km (complete Rhein Main commuter Rail)
Stuttgard - 117km (Does not yet include R-bahn coverage)

Italy
Milan - 250km (Only in official metro area, not including full commuter region)
Rome - 470km
Torino - 117km
Napoli-Sorrento (1891) 144km LR (not including other Napoli commuter rail)

Netherlands
Amsterdam, Rotterdam & Den Haag, amonsgt otehrs, forms a metropolitan area that should have a combined commuter network. Figures below are only within the direct urban area.
Amsterdam - 128km
Den Haag - 118km

Portugal
Lisbon - 240km.

Russia
Moscow - 3458km

Spain
Barcelona - 566km
Bilbao - 89.43km ( ET only )
Madrid - 335.7km
Seville - 30.1km (not full metro area)
Valencia - 101.1km

Sweden
Stockholm - 200km

Switzerland
Geneva - 30.8km (Not full metro area)
Zurich - 660km

United Kingdom
Birmingham - 186km
Glasgow - 109.3km
London 4642km (Network South East commuter system (788km in city proper)
Manchester - 292km

New
Top Tram networks in Europe by city proper network over 100km (Route km)
This list doesn't include the total trams within a metropolitan area. e.g. Frankfurt's metro area has three networks that are linked by S-bahn with a total of 125km. The Rhein Ruhr would also be enormous in total.

Sankt Peterburg: 692km (possibly track length, not route length)
Moskva: 418.8km
Milano: 287km
Katowice: 245km
Vienna: 240km
Sofia: 222km
Bruxelles: 205km
Köln: 188.5km
Berlin: 187.7km
Budapest: 156km
Bucuresti: 155km
Leipzig: 152.6km
Oslo: 152.5km
Karlsruhe: 149.9km
Düsseldorf: 146.3km
Göteborg: 144km
Kyiv: 139.9km
Basel: 139km
Amsterdam: 138km
Kharkiv: 132.2km
Dresden: 129.6km
Den Haag: 128.1km
Beograd: 127.3km
Prague: 125km
Torino: 123km
Riga: 123km
Warszawa: 119km
Lodz: 113km
Zürich: 111.6km
Odesa: 108.9km
Nizhni Novgorod: 100km

Let's chill about this. While there are a lot of different opinions, there was remarkable consensus on the committee with regards to the route, given the financial constraints that exist. It is unlikely to change, barring unforseen engineering issues, but it will hopefully only be a part of a wider network ultimately, that will increase the length of the route, the amenities and people it serves.

You misinterpret my jarring. I am not going to argue the mass quantities of rail transit in Europe.

I am laughing at the statement because the density in almost all of the cities you listed was well established before rail transit.

You misinterpret my jarring. I am not going to argue the mass quantities of rail transit in Europe.

I am laughing at the statement because the density in almost all of the cities you listed was well established before rail transit.

I got you - no problem.

While streetcar might have been a poor choice of words - many of them were built around rail. In cities where density was already significant by the mid 1800's they obviously went with subways. However, there are far more cities in Europe with streetcars than there are with subways. In fact, it isn’t even close. Here is a list someone compiled on Skyscraper City.

According to this there are 54 subways in Europe - the rest are all lightrail or streetcar (tram).

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=65822




Turkey is not Europe. Haha..I had to. :P

Turkey is not Europe. Haha..I had to. :P

Not entirely correct, Spartan.

http://geography.about.com/od/lists/a/whichcontinent.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_continent_is_Turkey_on&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=In_wich_continent_is_Turkey

Haha..I had to.

Great hub meeting! It is officially Santa Fe! (by the Hub Committee and consultants)

Steve Lackmeyer was there and I am sure he will be writing about it.

Great hub meeting! It is officially Santa Fe! (by the Hub Committee and consultants)

Steve Lackmeyer was there and I am sure he will be writing about it.

Will it include the parking lots by Zio's and the U-Haul building?

Zios probably. U-Haul to be determined in the next phase of analysis.

Thanks ljbab, I lived in Istanbul over the summer and was about to unleash some hate :D I crossed between Europe and Asia over the Bosphorus on a daily basis for three months.


Not entirely correct, Spartan.

http://geography.about.com/od/lists/a/whichcontinent.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_continent_is_Turkey_on&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=In_wich_continent_is_Turkey

Haha..I had to.

A group of us from the Modern Transit Project are going to Dallas to see what their city officials are doing down there and to ride the demonstration streetcar. It should be fun although leaving at 4 am is going to be a bear.

849

A group of us from the Modern Transit Project are going to Dallas to see what their city officials are doing down there and to ride the demonstration streetcar. It should be fun although leaving at 4 am is going to be a bear.

849

And I'm assume you'll be taking Amtrak?

Thanks ljbab, I lived in Istanbul over the summer and was about to unleash some hate :D I crossed between Europe and Asia over the Bosphorus on a daily basis for three months.

Well, what do you think the European reaction might be of a country that is 99% Muslim (and doesn't have oil) trying to join the EU? Kind of hard not to scoff there, sorry. Europeans won't even embrace Russia, so why should they accept Turkey? Think about that.. and feel free to "unleash some hate" haha.

And I'm assume you'll be taking Amtrak?

Amtrak goes to Fort Worth. I'd have to leave a day early. Lol. So no. Driving unfortunately. Leaving at 4am at that.

Amtrak goes to Fort Worth. I'd have to leave a day early. Lol. So no. Driving unfortunately. Leaving at 4am at that.

You guys should have taken an Oklahoma Spirit Trolley. Could you imagine rolling up in one of those. That would be funny.

You guys should have taken an Oklahoma Spirit Trolley. Could you imagine rolling up in one of those. That would be funny.

BUT it would be missed by all of the riders who depend on it every day, downtown!

Well, what do you think the European reaction might be of a country that is 99% Muslim (and doesn't have oil) trying to join the EU? Kind of hard not to scoff there, sorry. Europeans won't even embrace Russia, so why should they accept Turkey? Think about that.. and feel free to "unleash some hate" haha.

I'm not sure what you're scoffing at Spartan. Your statement was that Turkey is not in Europe which is not true. You were making fun of someone who suggested otherwise. You didn't say anything about the EU when you mentioned that. The EU is more of a political organization than geographical.

BUT it would be missed by all of the riders who depend on it every day, downtown!

Nah, those three could of just shared a taxi.