but OKC only has 1 taxi company (according to earlier Council meetings). Latest one said we have 3(?). And there aren't enough taxi stands for those so they have to park in a metered space!

The trip to Dallas went great on Friday. The Kinkisharyo modern streetcar is pretty amazing. The prototype we "ran around on" just went 8 miles on batteries while being demonstrated to the delegation in Charlotte. It is essentially made of spare parts left over from the Seattle Light Rail System just completed paired with Lithium Ion Batteries such as the Telsa sports car runs on.

Notice in the pic that the pantograph is not raised. We were in the Dallas Light Rail System maintenance yard.

It's already Thunder colors!

851

Streetcar Interior shots

852

853

854

I would honestly go with a tram model that has more seating, especially if we're wanting people to take further rides. The standing capacity is practical for short rides and for peak times, but we want to offer as much comfort as possible, I think.

Just guessing here but I would imagine the "open" floor plan is intended not only for multi-purpose (standing/sitting) maimum capacity but also for ease of use for those in wheelchairs and the like???

Looks very similar to the Vegas Monorail or even the Vegas Airport trams. Granted those are generally short rides...

Well one very common tram car arrangement is to have rows of two seats on one side, and then to leave it open on the other side.

edit: Nevermind, did more searching on the Kinkisharyo and evidently is has different layouts on each attached car.

Yes, seating configurations are kinda a minor thing right now. It's the propulsion system of bigger concern. Nearly any manufacturer will layout the cars any way that we want with as many seats or doors we want to fit in.

I like the idea of smaller trams. The initial system is not going to be very long so no ride should be over 15 minutes. As demand increases larger cars can be purchased and the small cars moved to either running a more frequent downtown service or used to expand the service into new areas. One of the problems with the bus service is over capacity in exchange for frequent serive. I would rather see 3 small trams vs 2 large trams.

I like the idea of smaller trams. The initial system is not going to be very long so no ride should be over 15 minutes. As demand increases larger cars can be purchased and the small cars moved to either running a more frequent downtown service or used to expand the service into new areas. One of the problems with the bus service is over capacity in exchange for frequent serive. I would rather see 3 small trams vs 2 large trams.

More than likely, we will be purchasing 4-6 smaller units. Most of the units by companies can be expanded to be longer as well although the stop design platform length would be a factor.

I really don't want to get into a discussion of semantics regarding numbers of units. It depends on the over all length of the system, maintaining 8-12 minute interval's, and if all/some of the traffic signals are prioritized for the streetcar. But based on other systems and cars in reserve for maintenance trade-out, special events, my guess is right now were looking at 4-6 units.

So the point about this manufacturer is that the cars can run on batteries and not be reliant on the overhead electricity source, which some people may be politically hostile to (don't want those darn wires in front of their property).

I would be curious to see what the public expense would be so that some people don't have wires in the street in front of their property.

I don't think you will see a system where the cables come and go all over town. The goal of the batteries is to get the streetcar past areas where cable cannot be placed. They can't run all day on batteries and those batteries have to be recharged. I am not sure there is enough current in the wire to power the train AND recharge the batteries. Plus 5 minutes of charging followed by a minute of battery power back to charging will make for a short lifespan.

So the point about this manufacturer is that the cars can run on batteries and not be reliant on the overhead electricity source, which some people may be politically hostile to (don't want those darn wires in front of their property).

I would be curious to see what the public expense would be so that some people don't have wires in the street in front of their property.

Yes and no. I would agree with those who would prefer not to have a wire of any kind in front of the Memorial Gates. But we also have the bridge clearance issue which may be eliminated on Sheridan and Reno by a "wireless" technology if those streets are selected for streetcar. A complete reconstruction which might be necessary would require possibly up to $12 million per bridge.

The rest is purely a matter of political and aesthetic opinion. Devon doesn't want the wire near their complex and there are people who do not want to see it along Auto Alley.

Regarding costs, the Kinkisharyo people claim that your spending more on the car unit itself but saving significantly more by not having to put in power infrastructure of any ind with the exception of the catenary in the "charging" zones. I have a book from them on estimated cost savings that I have not had a chance to sit down and read yet.

1. I don't think you will see a system where the cables come and go all over town.

We don't know yet.


2. The goal of the batteries is to get the streetcar past areas where cable cannot be placed.

Yes and no. The overhead wire "visual political issue" comes up in nearly every city that does not already have a streetcar. We are not an exception and since there is market demand to have an answer to it, this the Kinkisharyo. I talked to the VP specifically about it.

There is a case in Washington DC however where wires are specifically prohibited on the Washington Mall in which there is a direct demand for the technology that they are pursuing.

But yes, you comment is right on that the batteries could theoretically help "stretch" streetcar mileage into a further areas at a lower cost by not having the powering infrastructure.


3. They can't run all day on batteries and those batteries have to be recharged.

Yes, that is correct. Enough of the system will still have to operate on overhead to recharge the batteries. So in our scenario for example, perhaps 2 miles without wire, 4 miles on assuming 6 miles of track? Just a estimate.


4. I am not sure there is enough current in the wire to power the train AND recharge the batteries.

There is. 750v power supply seemed to be fine for doing it. Just sitting there, we powered back up in about 10 minutes. They claim that being "online" for 10 - 12 minutes fully recharges the battery.


5. Plus 5 minutes of charging followed by a minute of battery power back to charging will make for a short lifespan.

Maybe, I have fears about this too but apparently hybrid cars such as the Prius and other such cars have overcome such "memory" related problems intrinsic with earlier batteries. These are lithium ION. Kinkisharyo claims that they come with a 12 year life expectancy and then are sent back to the manufacturer for recycling.

I like the idea of a wire on Automobile Alley, from a visual standpoint. I think it gives it more of an urban look, personally. Obviously aesthetics are only one consideration, but it wouldn't bother me in the least to use a wire on most of the route except for the southern east-west portion. I can understand not wanting catenary in front of the Memorial best.

I like the idea of a wire on Automobile Alley, from a visual standpoint. I think it gives it more of an urban look, personally.

Another thing that people also fail to realize or acknowledge, is because we are going to be engineering a "couplet" type design, the wire is only on side of the street secured by guide arms off of the light poles on that side of the street. A "double-track" configuration would in theory have more "visual pollution" as there would probably be guidelines running across the entire width of the street to help secure both wires.

Personally, I think a single wire with single guide arms is innocuous. But, there has been enough concerns raised by enough people that we are trying to do our job as a committee and represent the citizens as best we can by vetting all of the available technologies that appear to fit within the $120 million budget.

Thanks for the update UP. Fully charging the batteries in 10 to 12 minutes is pretty good. It takes a couple of hours to charge my cell phone.

Another thing that people also fail to realize or acknowledge, is because we are going to be engineering a "couplet" type design, the wire is only on side of the street secured by guide arms off of the light poles on that side of the street. A "double-track" configuration would in theory have more "visual pollution" as there would probably be guidelines running across the entire width of the street to help secure both wires.

Personally, I think a single wire with single guide arms is innocuous. But, there has been enough concerns raised by enough people that we are trying to do our job as a committee and represent the citizens as best we can by vetting all of the available technologies that appear to fit within the $120 million budget.

That's what I was getting to, is the idea by a few certain downtown property owners that want to reap the benefits of being downtown and being on the route, but don't want the wires in front of their property. They want to be catered to at potentially enormous expense. I however can totally understand preserving wire clutter around the Memorial. But that is, so far, the only exception that I think we should make. Until there is an actual cost figure for what it will cost so that (not to name name's) doesn't have catenary "visually cluttering" their street-frontage, I would be highly un-inclined to want to see such favors done. There is a route, there are buildings everywhere along the route, and that is that. The streetcar will be a huge positive that it is absolutely insane to think of opposing it because of WIRES. These kinds of people can not be reasoned with.

Maybe we could win them over with cute little smiley face graphics covering all of the cars? Or martini glass depictions?

It also seems like if the only wire-free zones should be the Memorial and under the bridges, that the Kinkisharyo isn't needed. A cheaper model could be explored. It would seem like most tram car models would be capable of using batteries to run for one block already.

Spartan - you are right on - no favors. Besides, it is one tiny little wire and unless you are looking for it, it is hard to find. Also, downtown could use a little visual clutter. We don't need to go Mumbai but it shouldn't be a steril operating room either.

I like the idea of the streetcar being wireless if we use Sheridan. In some ways, with the exception of the Memorial, I think we should have a single street either be all wired or all wireless. The Myriad Gardens and Devon are new and new looking. Although they're clearly urban, it's a different feel than Robinson and Broadway and I think it might be cool to be wireless there. If we use Reno, I'd be more pro-wire and I definitely think the Boulevard would probably benefit from a little visual clutter. Also, although I didn't ask the engineer about this, it might be that the battery would be great to have in the event of a power outage or interruption. It's a simple technology very similar to hybrid cars, and I think there might be unforseen benefits. In addition, the cars are metal as opposed to fiberglass, which is a simpler repair in the event of a "fender bender". There would be some savings from being catenary free in areas too, although I don't know how it would compare with the cost of the cars.

They want to be catered to at potentially enormous expense.

I understand your sentiment, however there is not a definitive indication that such technology will be an enormous expense. It looks like electromagnetic will have a modest premium on it, but the battery based cars seemingly cost less.

While the individual hybrid cars apparently cost more, the removal of the powering infrastructure eliminates or might actually save a premium. It all depends on the final design and so forth.

Also, although I didn't ask the engineer about this, it might be that the battery would be great to have in the event of a power outage or interruption. It's a simple technology very similar to hybrid cars, and I think there might be unforeseen benefits.

This is true. Redundancy may be of benefited via a "back-up" power supply for the occasional power outage.

This is just somewhere that it is important to see a cost comparison before making a proper decision. I would put a 30% premium on the wireless technology...any more, it would be difficult to justify.

The biggest problem that I can see is that none of these cars are precisely alike. Regardless, we'll be comparing apples to oranges. How much is totally low floor worth? How much are metal vs. fiberglass cars worth? How much will it really cost to add catenary vs. battery costs and will those costs change from street to street? It's going to be a little like comparing a VW with a Buick Skylark with a Prius. Although the prices won't be identical, neither will the cars. There may be benefits to some and disadvantages to others, and those benefits and disadvantages may be present within the same car. None of us will be making the ultimate decision, regardless, but it's interesting to speculate.

But at some point there must be figures that illustrate that the fiberglass is this much more expensive, or that catenary-free is this much more expensive, and so on..

Here are some photograph's from my impromptu "walk through" of Santa Fe Station today with Jill Alder of MAPS Transit and Marion Hutchison of the Hub Committee.

857

Glass Entrance Area facing West

858

Decorative Art Deco ceiling restored in 1999

856

Sealed pedestrian tunnel originally going to other platform stairwells that could theoretically be enlarged to penetrate into Bricktown above the canal.

That's what I was getting to, is the idea by a few certain downtown property owners that want to reap the benefits of being downtown and being on the route, but don't want the wires in front of their property. They want to be catered to at potentially enormous expense. I however can totally understand preserving wire clutter around the Memorial. But that is, so far, the only exception that I think we should make. Until there is an actual cost figure for what it will cost so that (not to name name's) doesn't have catenary "visually cluttering" their street-frontage, I would be highly un-inclined to want to see such favors done. There is a route, there are buildings everywhere along the route, and that is that. The streetcar will be a huge positive that it is absolutely insane to think of opposing it because of WIRES. These kinds of people can not be reasoned with.

Maybe we could win them over with cute little smiley face graphics covering all of the cars? Or martini glass depictions?

It also seems like if the only wire-free zones should be the Memorial and under the bridges, that the Kinkisharyo isn't needed. A cheaper model could be explored. It would seem like most tram car models would be capable of using batteries to run for one block already.

Oh that is absolutely the case, and they have a couple of well-known architects helping them fight the battle. Which is -- to me -- ironic, because OKC used to have overhead wires on its original streetcar.

Take away the wires and tracks and then you have <gasp> the Spirit Trolleys...LOL

Take away the wires and tracks and then you have <gasp> the Spirit Trolleys...LOL

Correct, if you take away the permanence then all you have is a bus. There will not be any TOD with a bus because we already see how quick and easy a bus station can be moved (i.e. Union Bus station is closing and reopening at a truck stop).

Take away the wires and tracks and then you have <gasp> the Spirit Trolleys...LOL

Yeah that does seem to be the direction this is going in. I'm just really glad of the streetcar committee that we have in place that has been able to resist all of these outside special interests that have leaped on all the other MAPS3 projects, and tried to control this one as well. Standing firm means delivering the streetcar project, as much as possible, as efficient as possible, as soon as possible, and NOTHING ELSE.

Take away the wires and tracks and then you have <gasp> the Spirit Trolleys...LOL

And you know, the Spirit Trolleys wouldn't be such a joke if they had a regular, easily understandable unchanging route, were reliable, and had stops with covered signage so you knew when the trolley would come by. That's the problem with mass transit in Oklahoma City in general. It's not logical, it's not regular or reliable and we have no signage and few covered stops. With the streetcar, we're trying to be logical, we will have tracks in the ground so the route can only grow, not change significantly and I will feel we have failed if we don't have great signage and stops.

And you know, the Spirit Trolleys wouldn't be such a joke if they had a regular, easily understandable unchanging route, were reliable, and had stops with covered signage so you knew when the trolley would come by. That's the problem with mass transit in Oklahoma City in general. It's not logical, it's not regular or reliable and we have no signage and few covered stops. With the streetcar, we're trying to be logical, we will have tracks in the ground so the route can only grow, not change significantly and I will feel we have failed if we don't have great signage and stops.

No argument there at all... which brings up the question, are the same people that are in charge of the busses, trolleys & river cruises going to be in charge of the Streetcars too... seems destined for failure if that happens??

And you know, the Spirit Trolleys wouldn't be such a joke if they had a regular, easily understandable unchanging route, were reliable, and had stops with covered signage so you knew when the trolley would come by. That's the problem with mass transit in Oklahoma City in general. It's not logical, it's not regular or reliable and we have no signage and few covered stops. With the streetcar, we're trying to be logical, we will have tracks in the ground so the route can only grow, not change significantly and I will feel we have failed if we don't have great signage and stops.

I'm just so afraid to go out of my way to invent some minor positives about the crappy trolleys because then the next thing we know is that the CC committee or someone else will propose that we do that instead of streetcar.

You can't build a city around Oklahoma Spirit Trolleys. That's a joke if I've ever seen one. We need true rail transport. Why even pretend that the trolleys "aren't that bad if only they worked."

Thank you Spartan - I cringed when I started reading that post by betts.

Oklahoma City public transit ranks low in new national study (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-public-transit-ranks-low-in-new-national-study/article/3567139)

A nationwide analysis of public transportation by the Brookings Institute shows Oklahoma City ranks 84th of 100 metropolitan areas in serving the transit needs of its work force.

Oklahoma City public transit ranks low in new national study (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-public-transit-ranks-low-in-new-national-study/article/3567139)

A nationwide analysis of public transportation by the Brookings Institute shows Oklahoma City ranks 84th of 100 metropolitan areas in serving the transit needs of its work force.

How do we rank on convention centers?

U.S. Convention Center Directory (http://www.cvent.com/en/destination-guide/us-convention-centers-3m.shtml)

U.S. Convention Center Directory (http://www.cvent.com/en/destination-guide/us-convention-centers-3m.shtml)

Those stats are wrothless. Half the time they use actual venue space and the other half they use total building space.

For instance. The link says Tampa has 700,000 sq feet but the Tampa Convention Center website says 320,000 sq feet (84,000 of which is actually public space).

http://www.tampagov.net/dept_convention_center/

Thank you Spartan - I cringed when I started reading that post by betts.

Still waiting on a response. I think streetcar supporters could use some assurances at this point. All you ever hear about in the news lately is basically getting rid of this project (or sorry, "moving it to the end of the list").

Still waiting on a response. I think streetcar supporters could use some assurances at this point. All you ever hear about in the news lately is basically getting rid of this project (or sorry, "moving it to the end of the list").

...and after the CC cost, it will probably require a "finish MAPS III right" campaign. The fact of the matter is the 'CC First' crowd doesn't want to go last because they don't want to be on a ballot by themselves when MAPS III is out of money and only the CC is left.

Think there is a lot to what you are saying there...the "finish MAPS right" campaign for "extending" the tax for 6 months was so the Arena didn't get scrapped. It was the most expensive project and like the C.C., was at the towards the end of the timeline. Since the C.C. required all of the other projects to carry the vote, it might be doubtful that voters would approve it by itself. but it also would give the Chamber plenty of time to try to shift public/voter opinion. They are still going to have to go to the voters for Phase 2 (in MAPS 4) and some sort of vote is probably going to be needed for the C.C. hotel cost. If the C.C. is up and running, should make those other votes easier to pass (unless it fails to deliver as promised). But then they will probably try to spin it that it is failing because it isnt big enough and if we want it to be successful, it has to be expanded.

Alternatives Analysis meeting today at 2:30 at OKC Community Foundation (10th/Broadway)

The AA is to enable the pursuit of Federal matching funds for the MAPS Streetcar.

Hey Jeff, thanks for your response on the other thread when I had some questions as to why your committee wasn't promoting its own timeline. I was intrigued when I watched the oversight committee just now that I finally had an hour and a half to sit down and see what they had to say, I was surprised that it was generally supported by the 5 subcommittee members who spoke throughout the meeting.

You mentioned that staggering the streetcar projects gives increased flexibility in pursuing federal funding. How is this the case? It seems to me as if federal funding is something that if we don't get it in this current go-around, we're not going to get it for a long time, with the way Washington is tightening its belt. Then you mentioned that we currently have an official contact person in Washington at the DOT for our streetcar ambitions. Well alrighty then, doesn't it seem like we should strike while the iron is hot?

It seems to me that if the two streetcar subcommittee members had joined Michael Dover in voting against those timelines, that there would have been a good number of votes interested in prioritizing walkability and quality of life over the beating drum of economic development.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11819-mass-transit-abcs.html

Oklahoma City leaders unsure how to improve outdated Metro Transit system

The Oklahoma City Council on Tuesday agreed the city's public transit is not properly serving its residents and is based on outdated assumptions.

BY STEVE LACKMEYER AND MICHAEL KIMBALL
Published: June 8, 2011

For four years, Tiffaney Johnson, 26, has relied on Metro Transit as her sole means of transportation to her job, home, friends, family and shopping.

Surrounded by fellow passengers seeking refuge from the sun Tuesday in shaded areas at the Metro Transit transfer station downtown, Johnson said she is thankful the rides exist — but added it's not easy relying on public transportation in Oklahoma City.

“Most of the time, the buses stop running at 7 (p.m.),” Johnson, of Midwest City, said as she listened to music and awaited her eastbound bus. “What if you've got to be somewhere after that?”

Read the rest of Steve's article at: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-leaders-unsure-how-to-improve-outdated-metro-transit-system/article/3575188#ixzz1OgXTqXSv

I'm headed to Portland this week. I am staying right next to their street cars and I am going to take them all over. Can't wait! Their streetcars are free for a large portion of their downtown. They have corporate sponsors that pay the ride fees.

Urban Pioneer, I was reading the revised MAPS 3 Timetable for May 2011 and I'd like to ask a few things, if you'd happen to know the answer.

In both May 2011 Timetable options, the Transit portion of MAPS 3 is being divided into two "phases". What does this mean? Is Phase 1 the portion we've paid for with the tax dollars and Phase 2, the possible Federal Funding?

Also, on both options there has been added an "Investigation" phase. What does that mean? I don't want to jump the gun, but I don't like how this looks. I think they're prioritizing the wrong projects...

We'll know more this coming Wed at the subcommittee meeting but basically the schedule incorporates both MAPS over the entire period and is capable of incorporating federal matching infusions within the broad time-frame scope.

"Investigations phase" has been added to provide time for the "Environmental Analysis" which has not commenced yet. While P180 provides a clear identification for utilities in the core, less is known in the Midtown zones.

Also, the CC area will be under construction for some time. There is also a desire to add "a little breathing room" for multiple manufactures to provide solid proposals for "wireless" technology to deal with Devon's aesthetic concerns and the bridge clearance issues going into Bricktown.

All in all, it could probably be compressed by about two years but I think city staff is taking a conservative approach as they have never developed light rail streetcar before.

The real question is, would "turn-key" allow for more accountability and a more efficient schedule. It is something we are just now about to "hash out."

Thanks a lot Urban, very informative response as always. Worries relieved.

The real question is, would "turn-key" allow for more accountability and a more efficient schedule. It is something we are just now about to "hash out."

UP, please clarify what you mean by turn-key.

The city normally does things-

Plan, Design, Bid, Build using a separate planning firm, separate engineering firm, and takes bids from construction firms and essentially acts as "program manager."

There are larger firms that do all of this "turn-key" that would potentially mean that they would assume complete liability and may be more time efficient. Plus, ongoing maintenance could be isolated to one company rather than trying to train a city workforce to maintain a system independently.

There are pros and cons of each approach, but the way Maps city staff does projects by choice, "turn-key" is never really offered to council as an option. Other cities do it all the time.

I guess the reason I want it debated is that this is our first system and COTPA staff is untrained on how to run ongoing maintenance on rail. There's even more to it than this, but this is the simple premise.

Gotta love the city's posting of these meeting schedules. Not seeing the transit meeting posted. What time on Wednesday?

I can confirm that the Transit Subcommittee is Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 3:30 PM, 10th Floor Conference Room at 420 West Main Street.

This is what they were proposing on May 25 - as you can see on OKC.gov, Tuesday's have been firmed up, others not yet:

The committee meetings for June are tentatively scheduled on the following dates:

Tuesday, June 14

Oklahoma River Subcommittee – 1:30 pm

Oklahoma State Fairgrounds Subcommittee – 2:30 pm

Trails and Sidewalks Subcommittee – 3:30 pm

Wednesday, June 15

Senior Health and Wellness Centers Subcommittee – 1:30 pm

Parks Subcommittee – 2:30 pm

Transit/Modern Streetcar Subcommittee – 3:30 pm

Friday, June 17

Convention Center Subcommittee – 10:30 am

Today (Wednesday) A MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee Meeting at 420 Main (10th Floor) at 3:30 PM. Today's agenda is a serious overview of all the transit projects, studies, assessment with deliberation on timing issues.

Tomorrow (Thursday) A Public Hub Committee Meeting at Santa Fe Station in Bricktown at 5:30 PM unveiling the completed hub study with some conceptual architectural renderings of the Santa Fe site redeveloped at various stages.

Today (Wednesday) A MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee Meeting at 420 Main (10th Floor) at 3:30 PM. Today's agenda is a serious overview of all the transit projects, studies, assessment with deliberation on timing issues.

Tomorrow (Thursday) A Public Hub Committee Meeting at Santa Fe Station in Bricktown at 5:30 PM unveiling the completed hub study with some conceptual architectural renderings of the Santa Fe site redeveloped at various stages.

You're wrong about the time. The final public meeting on the Hub is scheduled to start at 5:00 p.m. The presentation starts promptly at 5:00 p.m.

Looking forward to tomorrow!

Today (Wednesday) A MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee Meeting at 420 Main (10th Floor) at 3:30 PM. Today's agenda is a serious overview of all the transit projects, studies, assessment with deliberation on timing issues.

Tomorrow (Thursday) A Public Hub Committee Meeting at Santa Fe Station in Bricktown at 5:30 PM unveiling the completed hub study with some conceptual architectural renderings of the Santa Fe site redeveloped at various stages.

You're wrong. It's at 5:00pm. http://www.acogok.org/Newsroom/View_News.asp?article=411

The presentation starts promptly at 5:00 p.m.

Today (Wednesday) A MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee Meeting at 420 Main (10th Floor) at 3:30 PM. Today's agenda is a serious overview of all the transit projects, studies, assessment with deliberation on timing issues.

Tomorrow (Thursday) A Public Hub Committee Meeting at Santa Fe Station in Bricktown at 5:30 PM unveiling the completed hub study with some conceptual architectural renderings of the Santa Fe site redeveloped at various stages.

The Hub Study meeting starts at 5, not 5:30. A presentation is set to begin promptly at 5, so anyone coming may want to arrive a few minutes early.

The (north) doors of the Santa Fe Station will be opened at 4 pm today.

Got there late at 5:30....err :/ Didn't have access to OKCtalk today.

From what I saw, looked pretty good. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Apologies on the 30 minute disparity. Doubtful that anyone missed anything that wasn't reiterated though.

It was a good meeting and fairly well attended. Councilwoman Salyer and Councilman Shadid were present.