One of the problems in OKC is that our local business community is dominated by an industry that sees mass transit as a threat to their very existance.

Yeah, right.

I'm with Oil Capital on this one. We have had pretty much nothing but support for transit from the energy sector.

If your talking about cars versus transit, that battle was lost during the Eisenhower Administration.

The reality at this point is that irregardless of more cars or not in tge US, energy consumption will continue onward.

Transit offers people alternative transport to the car, but is unlikely to meaningfully, negatively affect the energy industry.

They have supported the campaign from a "Quality of Life" perspective.

Thanks for presenting the real story, Urban Pioneer.

My knowledge on this is pretty limited. But it seems there is a lot of paranoia about this not even getting built, and I'm afraid that these fears, some legit but others unfounded, will cause people to accept something far inferior just "to get it done." Bravo to you and others who are making sure everything is followed through as promised.

Thanks! We appreciate the support!

I'm with Oil Capital on this one. We have had pretty much nothing but support for transit from the energy sector.

If your talking about cars versus transit, that battle was lost during the Eisenhower Administration.

The reality at this point is that irregardless of more cars or not in tge US, energy consumption will continue onward.

Transit offers people alternative transport to the car, but is unlikely to meaningfully, negatively affect the energy industry.

They have supported the campaign from a "Quality of Life" perspective.

I hope you are right but I can't help but remember that basis for the creation of the automobile, gasoline, and tire industries in the US.

I hope you are right but I can't help but remember that basis for the creation of the automobile, gasoline, and tire industries in the US.

You must be referring to JD Rockefeller's invention of the automobile, followed by his forcing poor widows and children to drive them hither and yon, all in an evil conspiracy to get people to buy his gasoline...

I have been thinking this is the obvious answer for quite a while now. For that reason I threw out the idea of having natural gas powered turbines generate the power for the streetcar and future light rail. etc. Excess power could be sold back to the grid. That is as close as I can get to not "offending" our otherwise very supportive energy companies AND getting the rail based transit I think OKC needs.

After engaging my brain and re-reading this I still like the idea of using NG powered turbine to generate power for transit, but it is less "obvious" that any of the energy companies would see transit in OKC as a threat. After all, even if transit ridership is at maximum capacity, it is probably less than 3-5% of commuters in cities like OKC. The vast majority will still drive to work. So DUH to my last post. (Although I would certainly be one of that 3-5% if it were possible.)

You must be referring to JD Rockefeller's invention of the automobile, followed by his forcing poor widows and children to drive them hither and yon, all in an evil conspiracy to get people to buy his gasoline...

You are getting warmer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines

You are getting warmer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines

Yes, I was certain that is what you were referencing. No doubt you are among the conspiracy theorists wo believe that National City Lines was created for the purpose of buying all of the streetcars and putting them out of business in order to protect the auto, gasoline and tire industries. And I imagine you think there is evidence of such conspiracy and intent and even that such was proved in court.

Sadly for your conspiracy theory, the charge was merely "conspiring To acquire control and monopolize certain transportation companies (street car lines)" and "conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and related products" to the acquired transit companies.

They were convicted on the first charge, acquitted on the second. Note what is missin: any charge or evidence of conspiracy to buy the companies for the purpose of eliminating them.

Maybe you should change your name to "Just Comspiracy Theories". ;-)

Irregardless of who is right, wrong, or convicted historically, what is an atrocity today is how difficult it is to obtain funding for building transit infrastructure. By orienting nearly all of our focus on car infrastructure, we have forgotten a great many people in the process who need a dependable alternative to rubber tire. The disabled, the elderly, and the challenged are completely held hostage to the uncertainty of their living situation based on bus lines and para-transit. Not to mention that car culture has left an indelible imprint sociologically by physically separating people from one another.

Transit does not work everywhere. In today's pervasive suburban city development, that is undeniable. But to make it so hard for a city to develop it in areas where it can work to give these people an stable alternative is criminal. The rest of us who relish interacting with people, living by choice without a car/parking issues, or easing our commute are fortunate when transit is available to us in the urban environments/corridors where it can work. It is the sustained, ever complicating government bureaucracy surrounding design/funding that I find most frustrating and atrocious. And those deep roots do indeed go back to that era and have never been adequately resolved.

It isn't a conspiracy theory - it is historical fact. As UP pointed out, we have been living with the consequences every since. Of course, I undestand your reluctance to except that give your name is Oil Capital and all. My guess is you have a vested interest in oil.

It isn't a conspiracy theory - it is historical fact. As UP pointed out, we have been living with the consequences every since. Of course, I undestand your reluctance to except that give your name is Oil Capital and all. My guess is you have a vested interest in oil.

What, exactly, is historical fact? (BTW, I have zero vested interest in oil; why am I not surprised that you turn promptly to personal attack?)

Historical fact is that GM, Standard Oil, Phillips, and Firestone used companies called National City Lines and Pacific City Lines to buy and close streetcar systems around the country. Of couse, the historical record also tell us that the new bus systems were rarely used after the conversion which means the millions of people who rode the streetcars started using something else - maybe even the automobile.

as for personal attacks...


Maybe you should change your name to "Just Comspiracy Theories". ;-)


and...


You must be referring to JD Rockefeller's invention of the automobile

What exactly were you implying with that last comment?

Historical fact is that GM, Standard Oil, Phillips, and Firestone used companies called National City Lines and Pacific City Lines to buy and close streetcar systems around the country. Of couse, the historical record also tell us that the new bus systems were rarely used after the conversion which means the millions of people who rode the streetcars started using something else - maybe even the automobile.


The problem with the theory (as with most conspiracy theories) is that the story ends up consuming itself. Most tellings of the story tell us that the grand conspiracy was all for the sake of selling GM buses (a theory which I find actually might make some sense, since GM apparently had a struggling bus subsidiary at about that time). But that story doesn't fit in with the desire to blame GM for killing mass transit, so we move on to the grand theory is that they substituted buses knowing that people would hate buses and run out and buy automobiles instead. (Never mind about that struggling bus subsidiary GM was trying to turn profitable.)

Oh no... I smell a derail.
Pun intended? (Given the thread) LOL

Oklahoma City seeks federal money for E.K. Gaylord Boulevard improvements
Oklahoma City has applied for a federal grant to improve E.K. Gaylord Boulevard as part of plans for the MAPS 3 transit hub at the Santa Fe Train Depot.
Published by MICHAEL KIMBALL | March 9, 2012
Oklahoma City is taking another crack at getting federal dollars to help fund improvements to E.K. Gaylord Boulevard.

The city council Tuesday ratified the city's application for $2.5 million in federal grant money that would help fund improvements to the street, which runs along the train tracks between downtown and Bricktown.

This is the second attempt by the city to secure federal money for the project after an application last fall for a larger grant was turned down. The city council is expected to approve another run at the bigger grant next week, which would help pay for the hub itself and free up more money for the MAPS 3 transit projects.

Jane Abraham, the city's community and government affairs manager, said the city was disappointed but undeterred when the first grant was turned down.

“We knew it was going to be competitive and difficult,” Abraham said.

Pedestrian-friendly plans

The improvements to E.K. Gaylord Boulevard would narrow the roadway and construct a new street surface, along with adding curbside parking and better lighting. The changes are designed to make it easier for pedestrians and bicyclists to use, while maintaining smooth traffic flow.

The federal money the city is asking for in the application approved Tuesday comes from the Federal Highway Administration and ties into the MAPS 3 intermodal transit hub project. The city has targeted the historic Santa Fe Train Depot as the centerpiece of the hub, and the council cleared city staff to begin negotiations with Bricktown Real Estate, which owns the building.

The grant requires matching funds, which in this case include a $1 million in-kind donation from the state Transportation Department in the form of a donated parking lot, $2 million from the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments and about $9.8 million in MAPS 3 money earmarked for the transit hub.

City finds out this spring

The city should find out this spring if the grant application is successful.

“We're trying to make it (the application) as competitive as we can,” Abraham said. “It's tough to get funding.”

Improvements to E.K. Gaylord were initially included in Project 180, the streets improvement project paid for by the Devon Energy Center's tax increment finance district. But cost overruns for portions of Project 180 prompted the city to drop some projects from the list, including E.K. Gaylord's improvements.

Abraham said the city is confident that the improvements to E.K. Gaylord will eventually get done even if the grant application is turned down again.

“There will be another opportunity somewhere else to apply for additional funding,” she said. “It's an ongoing process to secure additional money to do these things.”

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-seeks-federal-money-for-e.k.-gaylord-boulevard-improvements/article/3655823#ixzz1oaRdQtmA

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-seeks-federal-money-for-e.k.-gaylord-boulevard-improvements/article/3655823#ixzz1oaRdQtmA

Warren, you posted the entire article and then gave a link to read more. No offense but the newspaper reporters have in the past requested that we just give a link here with maybe a few excerpts posted instead of the whole article.

Warren, you posted the entire article and then gave a link to read more. No offense but the newspaper reporters have in the past requested that we just give a link here with maybe a few excerpts posted instead of the whole article.

... and the read more plus link gets auto added to anything copied from the page

... and the read more plus link gets auto added to anything copied from the page

I have been able to post many links that didn't have "read more".

I have been able to post many links that didn't have "read more".

It seems the default behavior of their site, it can be removed or it may be if you have javascript or something else disabled.

It seems the default behavior of their site, it can be removed or it may be if you have javascript or something else disabled.

A case in point is my first post when I started this thread. I just did a copy and paste of the URL.

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=28961

Please find that the February, MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee Meeting audio is now available for the public.

http://soundcloud.com/moderntransitproject-okc/feb-22-2012-maps-3-transit

Probably the most important item (IMOP) other than formally responding to the Core to Shore "Study", is that the Reno/Sheridan bridges have now been determined to not be physical barrier going into Bricktown. We can indeed cross over on either of those streets.

Please find that the February, MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee Meeting audio is now available for the public.

http://soundcloud.com/moderntransitproject-okc/feb-22-2012-maps-3-transit

Probably the most important item (IMOP) other than formally responding to the Core to Shore "Study", is that the Reno/Sheridan bridges have now been determined to not be physical barrier going into Bricktown. We can indeed cross over on either of those streets.

Awesome.

Jeff, Is there anyway you could post the southern option "A" and "B" that were talked about in the meeting? It sounded like you had them on a flash drive...

Thanks.

We are updating them with the minor changes discussed in the meeting and I expect they will probably be posted on OKC Central shortly.

I hate to put it out there and have the wrong thing circulate prematurely if that's ok with you.

We are also still continuing to give tours to the advisers as well. One was had today.

That's okay. Keep up the good work!

We are also still continuing to give tours to the advisers as well. One was had today.

When you say advisors are you talking about the potential consultants? When will one be chosen?

I mean appointed MAPS Advisory Board/Committee members. The consultant has not been chosen yet although that will happening shortly.

The MAPS 3 Transit/Modern Streetcar Subcommittee will be meeting this coming Wednesday, March 21, 2012 at 3:30 PM.

The meeting will be held in the 10th Floor conference room at 420 W Main Street.

The agenda packet is now available at http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1868&doctype=AGENDA.

From the Convention Center thread under "Urban Core" forum.



Also look at the streetcar recommendations. It's becoming abundantly clear that they are trying to stall the streetcar project. I understand that the transit committee folks have been saying we're not in dire straits yet, but I can see where this is going, and I don't doubt that the chamber junta is interested in taking this fight all the way to the exclusion of the only big item project that voters actually supported. It won't be a fight though, as City Hall is simply going to engage in its long-held strategy of "daze and confuse" and shrouding a project they don't like in study after study after study.

ADG here is recommending further study for essentially concerns that have already been studied to death. The project that has not been properly studied despite being studied multiple times and coming up with different conclusions each time--the CONVENTION CENTER that nobody wanted. Normally whether one wants a flexible MAPS or whether one wants the streetcar or the convention center would be independent variables, but the convention junta has tied their boat to a position of engagement against the streetcar project. This is the way it was from the beginning when committees were formed, and it's probably about time that the streetcar supporters fight back.


Approved today, headed to the Oversight Board in April. For reference, here is a link to the packet containing the original "study." http://okc.gov/AgendaPub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1868&doctype=AGENDA





RESPONSE TO FINDINGS



of the



Limited Study Core to Shore Plan



MAPS 3 Transit/Modern Streetcar Subcommittee



March 21, 2012



Responses to specific statements made in the body of the study which refer directly to the MAPS 3 streetcar follow:


Page 11 (New Boulevard)

A median should be considered, both to accommodate a possible streetcar alignment and to create a tree-shaded urban plaza that breaks down the scale and the speed of the street.

Response by Subcommittee: The location of a strategically located stop (or stops) is essential to serving the new MAPS 3 Convention Center, Chesapeake Arena main entrance, and MAPS 3 Park. It is entirely possible that multiple stops may be necessary in this area to accommodate large numbers of people during major events/conventions. The relationship of the new OKC Boulevard and the design of its pedestrian accessibility is essential to allowing easy access to a singular well placed stop in this area or multiple stops such as on the Boulevard and also on South Robinson.

We agree that boulevard designers should provide a spatial consideration option for a median stop/alignment in the early stage of the streetcar design, and that this should be further verified as pedestrian connectivity is designed between the multiple major elements at the Robinson/Boulevard intersection.

Understanding the programming of the MAPS Park, Convention Center, and the Chesapeake Arena should further inform stop design and alignment as all projects further develop.


Page 16 (Modern Streetcar)

There was a general concern among stakeholders interviewed that the transit component of the MAPS 3 Program needs additional study and planning. Questions that were raised include:

-What is the market for transit?


Response by Subcommittee: In 2005, COTPA (Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority) embarked on a Regional Fixed Guideway Study. The results of that study reflected that enhanced transit was indeed viable for much of the metro region. The study specifically recommended that a Modern Streetcar be considered to serve downtown Oklahoma City, and that said technology should directly interface with other modes of transit via an Intermodal Transit Hub. The 2005 study established the potential for sustainable ridership slated to grow with system maturity.

Subsequently, ACOG (Association of Central Oklahoma Governments), embarked on a Regional Transit Dialogue process to assess regional and local enthusiasm for pursuing a comprehensive regional transit system. Area leaders responded that large majorities of public citizens in their prospective cities were supportive of enhanced transit.

The City of Oklahoma City took its own steps to begin the process by specifically including in MAPS 3 $120 million for the modern streetcar and $10 million for a Phase 1 Intermodal Transit Hub with flexibility to use those funds to make rail transit connections. The vote passed with strong citizen support for the transit initiative. In fact, the MAPS 3 Transit Initiative was verified by several scientific polls to have specifically positively influenced voter’s decisions in support for MAPS 3 overall.

Subsequent to this citizen confirmation of the market for transit in Oklahoma City, ACOG embarked on an Intermodal Transportation Hub Study to inform the MAPS 3 process by determining the hub location downtown. ACOG is now in the process of embarking on a follow-up to the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study in the form of an Alternatives Analysis to determine the exact routes of the larger proposed regional rail system that will connect directly to the MAPS 3 streetcar, further expanding its demand over time.

COTPA has also embarked on an Alternatives Analysis specifically for the streetcar system identified in the Fixed Guideway Study and is making applications to the Federal Government for supplemental funding opportunities to further expand the MAPS streetcar system in the future. The Streetcar AA Steering Committee was chaired by the Mayor and its 23 members represented all major downtown stakeholders.

Over the last year the COTPA Streetcar AA process has generated numerous reports. The Purpose and Need Statement for the Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Alternatives Analysis (April 2011) report specifically addresses the need for a downtown circulator to solve four problems:

(1) Limited Transit Connectivity among Downtown Activity Centers
(2) Limited Multimodal Accessibility
(3) Lack of Mobility for Downtown Workers, Residents, and Visitors
(4) Desire for More Transit Oriented Development (TOD), Sustainable Growth and Livability


-What is the demand?

Response by Subcommittee: The demand is slated to be strong. The planning and engineering firm Jacobs has established, through the ongoing Alternatives Analysis process by COTPA, that the ridership demand for the streetcar system is slated to exceed 1,200 riders per day in the opening month of the opening year (Greater Downtown Oklahoma City Alternatives Analysis – Ridership Forecasting Methods and Results; July 2011).

This projected ridership number is established through traditional, quantitative trip forecasting using the regional travel model as required by the Federal Transit Administration. However, even this method often underestimates the potential demand for a streetcar system since it must rely on current trip patterns and does not account well for new trip opportunities created by the new, modern transit system.


-How will it connect employment centers and housing?

Response by Subcommittee: Through steel rails embedded in the ground and a light-rail type vehicle capable of carrying over 120 people at a time circulating by every 8 minutes during peak operating periods and running up to 18 hours per day.


-What is the rider profile? Who is this transit serving?

Response by Subcommittee: The rider profile is diverse and would be a cross section of all citizenry. The MAPS 3 Modern Streetcar system will provide a quality of life improvement for all citizens.

TYPICAL RIDER DEMOGRAPHICS

Downtown Residents using the system for easy access to employment centers, groceries, other retail, entertainment, events, and downtown public infrastructure without the need for a car.

Downtown Workers using the system to park in remote garages to employment centers, access public amenities, retail, and restaurants.

Healthcare Users would be able to access St. Anthony’s and other downtown rehabilitation hospitals and medical offices.

Disabled Individuals using the system with ease of use due to low floor designed enabling quick and noble access for wheelchairs and walkers. Wide doors and audible signals enabling friendly transit access for the blind.

School Children using the system for field trips and outings from local schools.

Visitors/Conventioneers using the system to gain access to the Convention Center, Chesapeake Arena, Downtown Park and Myriad Gardens, OKC National Memorial, Bricktown, Midtown Restaurants, and Automobile Alley retail.

Thunder Game/Chesapeake Arena Attendees using the system to gain easy access to parking and restaurants.

Festival Goers using the system for easy access to Myriad Gardens for the Arts Festival, Shakespeare in the Park, and other events from remote parking and to reach remote restaurants.

Amtrak Passengers using the system to easily connect to Hotels from the intermodal Santa Fe Station Hub.

Future Regional Transit System Passengers using the system to gain easy access to employment centers, entertainment and events.


-How can transit in Oklahoma City be leveraged to spur high quality development?

Response by Subcommittee:

Promotes Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
Previous experience with other cities shows that a modern streetcar system will promote dense, pedestrian friendly, mixed-use developments with high Floor to Area Ratios (FAR).

Responds to demand for reduced reliance on car

Per the Planning Department’s 2011 Downtown Housing Study:
“Improving the ability of downtown residents to connect to employment and entertainment centers without the use of a car should be a significant amenity that may drive demand for downtown housing ,let alone housing with proximity to the actual streetcar line. Although several years out, the streetcar could serve to generate a surge in housing demand and development similar to that seen in Portland, Oregon.”
It is significant that such new housing in Portland is focused on the 18-34 year old market, for which the 2011 Downtown Housing Study indicates will grow the fastest through 2020.

Focuses Development in Key Areas and Create a Sense of “Place”

Per the Planning Department’s 2011 Downtown Housing Study:
“Creating a sense of “place” is essential to drawing urban residents. Concentrated development in targeted areas will create active districts faster than dispersing housing throughout Downtown.”

Strengthens corridors that link districts

Per the Planning Department’s 2011 Downtown Housing Study, “Strong districts need strong corridors connecting them.” The planned streetcar line will be a crucial linkage between districts and these key Downtown corridors will concentrate investments to connect critical nodes of development.

Mitigates and diversifies parking options / requirements

The streetcar system will drastically affect the need for parking garages directly next to employment center and afford more opportunities for meaningful development in the CBD that would otherwise be utilized for parking. Future parking garages should be located in close proximity to the route to offer “Park N’ Ride” opportunities. Also, a location on the streetcar route would allow developments to build less than two parking places per apartment, offsetting the other, often higher, costs of building residential properties downtown.

Creates areas of significantly concentrated pedestrian activity

The streetcar in essence is a “moving sidewalk” for pedestrians- a pedestrian accelerator and extension for walking. What is an inconceivable walk from Midtown to the CBD or Bricktown, is now reduced and consequently a walkable range without the use of a car.

This phenomenon results in corridors with high concentrations of potential customers for businesses and enables convenient connectivity for mixed-use developments enabling greater “livability” in the affected area.


-There was concern among interviewed stakeholders about possible streetscape clutter created by an overhead wire system.

The MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee has heard that concern directly from stakeholders and is completely in agreement that wireless technology should be considered. Such considerations will require unique, progressive, specifications as the technology has evolved rapidly. Because of the newness of such technologies, many of these alternatives are proprietary technologies and will require a technology selection ahead of system design. Alternative technology may require a unique procurement process.


Page 17 (Modern Streetcar)

Issues/Further Study Recommended:

Response by Subcommittee: The subcommittee believes that the MAPS 3 Streetcar Program has undergone a stringent public process with over 30 public meetings over a three-year period.

A professional planning and engineering firm, Jacobs, was engaged to help assess all potential routes and their viability. Through this intensive public planning process, we believe that the MAPS 3 streetcar project already has a firm foundation to initiate large aspects of the project.

The transit system needs to be sized properly to give it the best chance of success in the near term and to maintain viability in the long term.

Response by Subcommittee: The subcommittee agrees with this sentiment. The initial line should be a viable “stand alone” system that is legitimately successful in both actual ridership numbers and perception.

A consultant should be hired to study and verify the most viable route based on all relevant factors including potential economic development impact.

Response by Subcommittee: A professional planning consultant, Jacobs, was hired and has verified the most viable route based on all of these factors:

Tier I evaluation criteria included:
· Serving Key Destinations (major employers, residential development, parking garages, community & cultural facilities, hotels)
· Connectivity (connects mixed-use areas, other transit facilities)
· Economic Development Impact (serves areas of high population and high employment density)
· Implementation (physical constraints encountered, potential for future expansion)
· Operations and Service (system accessibility & ease of use)

Tier II evaluation criteria included:
· Transit Supportive Land Use (existing land use patterns, transit supportive plans and policies, recent and proposed projects, and potential available land for redevelopment)
· Operational Feasibility (perceived passenger utility, construction issues and conflicts, modifications to traffic patterns)
· Ridership Forecasts (see above)
· Capital Costs (including length of alignment, number of stops and vehicles, propulsion technology and infrastructure improvements)
· Public/Stakeholder Acceptance (input by multiple downtown stakeholders, committees and the general public)

Their study has resulted in a route design that has been submitted in multiple reports to the Federal Transit Administration including Tier One Alternatives Evaluation (April 2011), Tier Two Alternatives Evaluation (June 2011), Transit Supportive Land Use and Economic Development Assessment (August 2011) plus Supplement (October 2011), and Supplemental Report for Other Factors (February 2012).

The Subcommittee has been informed that minor route modifications can be made without negatively affecting the FTA process. The Subcommittee therefore intends to further adjust the route to enhance the connectivity to the Core 2 Shore and new OKC Boulevard areas.


Options for powering the streetcar without wires should also be investigated.

Response by Subcommittee: We agree.


Page 18 (Additional Observations)

(Development Linkages)

There was a general consensus that the Core to Shore plan did not look carefully enough at the linkages beyond the new Boulevard to the City core, Bricktown, the Arts District, Midtown and Automobile Alley.

Response by Subcommittee: The first phase of the MAPS 3 Streetcar is specifically intended to provide a strong linkage between the Core to Shore area and all of these other downtown districts.


It was suggested that Broadway has already begun to emerge as a potential “great street” or boulevard. Assuming the Cox Convention Center is demolished, Broadway could be extended to the Chesapeake Energy Arena, making the connection from Midtown through downtown to Core to Shore

The same could be said of Robinson, which passes by the new Downtown Park, the new Convention Center, the Chesapeake Energy Arena, the Devon Tower, the SandRidge campus, and the Oklahoma City National Memorial

Response by Subcommittee: The presence of so many destinations, employment centers, existing economic investments and extensive number of underutilized buildings, parking lots, and vacant properties available for further development and infill along both these streets is why they where identified as a strong north-south corridor from Core to Shore through the CBD to Midtown for the streetcar route.


Page 21 (Additional Observations)

(Pedestrian/Bicycle/Transportation Connections)

There should be pedestrian and/or transit connectivity between all of the major elements of Midtown, Downtown, Bricktown, and the Core to Shore area

Response by Subcommittee: We believe that after adjustments are made to the proposed streetcar route in the Core to Shore and Bricktown areas to account for the finalized locations of the Convention Center and the Santa Fe Intermodal Hub, the proposed system will resolve connectivity among all these major elements and areas.

So, question. What kind of official action IF ANY did the transit subcommittee actually take on Mize's report AS he originally gave it? (Was it "passed" or even just "received" with the understanding that you could attach your say independently?)

Received- not modified or changed. We responded to it.

Is there a way you guys could have not received it and possibly held it from moving on, or was this force fed to the subcommittee?

Is there a way you guys could have not received it and possibly held it from moving on, or was this force fed to the subcommittee?

Basically, because it simply exists, we have to "receive" it. Besides, there was actually good information in it as it pertains to the other projects and other general "findings."

We're not out to be obstructionists. Overall, imagine the positive elements of all these projects that are moving forward with care.

But you do still have to correct bad, confusing, misinformation as it occurs.

What are the possibilities that the street car extends to 23rd street? We talked about this some in the Uptown 23rd thread (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=24994&page=12&p=520469#post520469), but I wanted to bring it here.

Why is the question always extending the streetcar from downtown to 23rd street and never the other way around?

(BTW I know that the MAPS streetcar is a downtown streetcar and not an uptown streetcar voter tax funded.)

Why is the question always extending the streetcar from downtown to 23rd street and never the other way around?

Wait, what is the other way around?

I was asking a question and the answer isn't possible due to the wording of Maps3 tax funding.

Start the first phase of streetcar along 23rd street and work the way to downtown with additional phases. The ridership would start off in the area with the highest numbers of transit ridership in the metro.

I was asking a question and the answer isn't possible due to the wording of Maps3 tax funding.

Start the first phase of streetcar along 23rd street and work the way to downtown with additional phases. The ridership would start off in the area with the highest numbers of transit ridership in the metro.

I could see that, and I think would be a great way to go about it. You could have park and rides at the NE corner of 23rd and Broadway, and the SW corner of 23rd and Western. You could also work out a deal with some of the businesses for pay to park if the park and ride lots are really full. Heck, even some of the vacant lots on 23rd (though I would prefer those be future retail/entertainment/restaurant/bar development.

They way I see it, 23rd St is serviced by one of the few legible city bus routes. I would like to see the streetcar go up to 23rd when we've got the money, but there's nothing wrong with continuing bus service until we've got a lot more money.

But people can't clearly get from 23rd Street to downtown, or anywhere else for that matter. So I don't see the value in retaining that bus route if it is part of a broken system, because areas that prove ridership even when they're served by badly broken systems, definitely deserve better transit service.

I just don't see many other slam-dunk ways to incorporate ridership and socioeconomic diversity into the streetcar system without 23rd being a major part of that, and I would not undervalue putting socioeconomic diversity into this--keep in mind that you will have to work against the notion that this streetcar only serves "the rich."

Now, I know that you guys are looking at Lincoln as your tie-in for the non-downtown condo folks. But I'm also in virtual complete agreement with others in thinking that Lincoln is a busy route 2-3 times a day, and dead the rest of the time, particularly in the evenings. 23rd..wow, and to think that 23rd still has so MANY infill possibilities and revitalizing neighborhoods around it, that those ridership figures could really go up immensely with significant transit upgrades.

But people can't clearly get from 23rd Street to downtown, or anywhere else for that matter. So I don't see the value in retaining that bus route if it is part of a broken system, because areas that prove ridership even when they're served by badly broken systems, definitely deserve better transit service.

I just don't see many other slam-dunk ways to incorporate ridership and socioeconomic diversity into the streetcar system without 23rd being a major part of that, and I would not undervalue putting socioeconomic diversity into this--keep in mind that you will have to work against the notion that this streetcar only serves "the rich."

In a perfect world, with twice the MAPS money we have, I would agree with you. But we have to deal with the reality of limited funds for streetcar lines and an existing bus system. 23rd St bus has more ridership than any other route, so it's hard to argue that it doesn't serve people. The streetcar cannot be the mass transit solution, it can only be part of the solution. Better to argue for a more logical bus system, with simple connections to other forms of transit. The transit system as a whole needs to serve all socioeconomic groups. When we see different forms of mass transit as distinct and unrelated, we create transit issues rather than solving them.

At this point, Lincoln is only one option. When the money is available, all route extension options will be on the table.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you, Sid. Bus is a terribly important part of mass transit, especially when it interacts with other types of transit. People look down their noses at bus transit, but the problem with the beauty of rail is that we can't wish it into existence. There were some very dedicated people, like Jeff, who worked very hard to get the 4 to 6 miles we will have on the ballot. People are working extremely hard to try and find federal funds to add another couple of miles. There is no way the streetcar can be all things to all people, and a great deal of time and effort has gone into determining what we can do best with the limited funds we have. Putting rail where we already have our best bus usage, in my opinion, is redundant. That doesn't mean, if funds were unlimited, that 23rd would be out of consideration. But, for the foreseeable near future, streetcar can only be a subset of our mass transit system. Every major city I've visited has had a bus system as, or almost as, important as its rail system. My point is that we need a transit system that treats all transit as parts of a whole, and recognizes the usefulness and availability of each subset. Our problem isn't where our streetcar system isn't going, but rather where else our bus system isn't going and why.

During the campaign we talked about 6-7 miles and I thought this was a low number for us to be spending $120 million on.

Now I'm seeing 4-6 miles. Not going to lie, this is horrifying in my opinion. I know you know how badly we need those miles.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you, Sid. Bus is a terribly important part of mass transit, especially when it interacts with other types of transit. People look down their noses at bus transit, but the problem with the beauty of rail is that we can't wish it into existence. There were some very dedicated people, like Jeff, who worked very hard to get the 4 to 6 miles we will have on the ballot. People are working extremely hard to try and find federal funds to add another couple of miles. There is no way the streetcar can be all things to all people, and a great deal of time and effort has gone into determining what we can do best with the limited funds we have. Putting rail where we already have our best bus usage, in my opinion, is redundant. That doesn't mean, if funds were unlimited, that 23rd would be out of consideration. But, for the foreseeable near future, streetcar can only be a subset of our mass transit system. Every major city I've visited has had a bus system as, or almost as, important as its rail system. My point is that we need a transit system that treats all transit as parts of a whole, and recognizes the usefulness and availability of each subset. Our problem isn't where our streetcar system isn't going, but rather where else our bus system isn't going and why.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but business logic would lead me to assert that the existence of a rail on a route that the bus system currently uses will alter the route of the bus system. No longer would the buses need to service the 23rd street corridor and instead can be extensions of the 23rd border to other parts of the city: Penn Square/Belle Isle or Chesapeake/Classen Curve.

If there are nominal routes in the core part of the city that need serviced, a bus or two can be ran downtown. It would seem to me that the rail, being the most efficient mode for the ridership, mostly needs to function as a way to get to important places (within reason) that are entirely unreasonable to walk. Nobody is going to walk from Deep Deuce to Cheever's, but they'll walk from Deep Deuce to Bricktown, or Midtown to Auto Alley.

EDIT: Sid is more gracious than I, but I do echo his sentiment that my comments are not meant to convey cynical criticism. I'll be happy with whatever ends up being the first direction taken to establish a rail in OKC.

How many people who are counted as riders along 23rd St start and end their bus trip on 23rd? It seems most start somewhere else within the City and end up on 23rd, and the people who originate their trip on 23rd end up somewhere else within the City.

How many people who are counted as riders along 23rd St start and end their bus trip on 23rd? It seems most start somewhere else within the City and end up on 23rd, and the people who originate their trip on 23rd end up somewhere else within the City.

No, the bus route we are talking about is one of the few bus routes that remain on a single ROW. It's literally just "Bus Route 23." http://www.gometro.org/system-map

The 23 route is 11 miles long and connects to 11 other routes; it better have the most riders. I am sure connecting to Shephard Mall, a Univeristy, the State Capitol, and OU Medical plays a large part in that ridership. However, the goal of the streetcar isn't to connect suburbanites with employment centers, it is to facilitate the creation of high density mixed-use urban development where the streetcar replaces the automobile as the primary mover of people. Downtown OKC is the highest concentrate of jobs in the State of Oklahoma and also offers the best opportunity to support high density residential development.

Should 23rd be on a streetcar route at some point? Yes it should, but not phase 1. The backbone of the system has to be estalished first and that backbone connects to the multimodal transit hub at Santa Fe Station.

The 23 route is 11 miles long and connects to 11 other routes; it better have the most riders. I am sure connecting to Shephard Mall, a Univeristy, the State Capitol, and OU Medical plays a large part in that ridership. However, the goal of the streetcar isn't to connect suburbanites with employment centers, it is to facilitate the creation of high density mixed-use urban development where the streetcar replaces the automobile as the primary mover of people. Downtown OKC is the highest concentrate of jobs in the State of Oklahoma and also offers the best opportunity to support high density residential development.

Should 23rd be on a streetcar route at some point? Yes it should, but not phase 1. The backbone of the system has to be estalished first and that backbone connects to the multimodal transit hub at Santa Fe Station.

You're absolutely correct, Kerry. This is one time that we totally agree.

You're absolutely correct, Kerry. This is one time that we totally agree.

That's a clue that I have stayed up too late.

The 23 route is 11 miles long and connects to 11 other routes; it better have the most riders. I am sure connecting to Shephard Mall, a Univeristy, the State Capitol, and OU Medical plays a large part in that ridership. However, the goal of the streetcar isn't to connect suburbanites with employment centers, it is to facilitate the creation of high density mixed-use urban development where the streetcar replaces the automobile as the primary mover of people. Downtown OKC is the highest concentrate of jobs in the State of Oklahoma and also offers the best opportunity to support high density residential development.

Should 23rd be on a streetcar route at some point? Yes it should, but not phase 1. The backbone of the system has to be estalished first and that backbone connects to the multimodal transit hub at Santa Fe Station.

To be sure, I don't think anyone is advocating the streetcar span anywhere near an 11 mile long stretch on 23rd...rather simply the mile stretch between Broadway and Classen. The main purpose, IMO, is to frame the core and to put the corners of the frame strategically at high traffic areas.

The reason, to me, that 23rd would be a huge hit and success is because it is already one of the most urban mile long stretches that OKC has to offer. Almost everything is right against the street and there are already a variety of businesses on this stretch. Having the street car here would encourage more investment into the area.

That being said, the reality of only having 6 miles pretty much rules out the practicality of framing the core.

I am in agreement as well with Kerry, ljbab, possibly Betts, and whomever else that the streetcar Phase 1 might not be the best time to link in 23rd. That said, it is an obvious Phase 2 extension IMO. This system must "go somewhere," to reference Pete White's remarks a while ago. I think that something that serves as viable transportation across a decent swath of OKC is more meaningful and valuable in the long-run than a mere downtown circulator.

Yes, that means that Core2Shore should be waaay below 23rd in the list of priorities.

I am for 23rd being phase 2... I actually suggested that some time back. The initial point and current concern then is, if we expect/plan on tying into 23 in the future, how should we bui.ld that route today? Should the phase 1 route be focused on that cooperation with the current and future transit system, or TOD?

The phase 1 route takes future connections and extensions, TOD, linkage with other MAPS projects, linkage between Bricktown,and Midtown, the CBD and Core to Shore, as well as housing and ridership into consideration. A Classen to 23rd to Broadway or Robinson extension would be simple, but linkage to the Health Sciences Center, the Paseo, Capitol Hill or the Plaza District could be added just as simply. Once the complete route is approved, I would encourage people to drive it and think about its' relationship to all of the above. I think people will be surprised to see what kind of TOD potential exists, as well as the number of people and facilities which will be served, given the short mileage. But, Rome was not built in a day, nor will adequate mass transit be. It will take years of interest and effort by a great many people. This kind of dialogue is great, though, as opinions can ultimately give rise to reality.

The phase 1 route takes future connections and extensions, TOD, linkage with other MAPS projects, linkage between Bricktown,and Midtown, the CBD and Core to Shore, as well as housing and ridership into consideration. A Classen to 23rd to Broadway or Robinson extension would be simple, but linkage to the Health Sciences Center, the Paseo, Capitol Hill or the Plaza District could be added just as simply. Once the complete route is approved, I would encourage people to drive it and think about its' relationship to all of the above. I think people will be surprised to see what kind of TOD potential exists, as well as the number of people and facilities which will be served, given the short mileage. But, Rome was not built in a day, nor will adequate mass transit be. It will take years of interest and effort by a great many people. This kind of dialogue is great, though, as opinions can ultimately give rise to reality.

I would personally recommend the streetcar route chauffeuring services of subcommittee members themselves, as they can divulge all kinds of interesting tidbits like, here we may turn this obscure street into a St. Anthony transit plaza, here is a potential switchover to battery-powered service, etc etc. Lots of incredible, innovative ideas await people at every turn on the route, and there just aren't enough kudos to hand out for the hard work of the subcommittee and MTP members. Talk about the most under-appreciated group in town.

I also think that we may be onto something. I think MTP could also put up a "streetcar route driving tour" with little tidbits and photos relating to here and there, and people could print it off of the MTP website and take it with them and do the tour themselves.

I guess if you assume a successful system needs a hub... then sure. I don't. I think "hubs" are fairly organic and are really just high-volume transfer centers. Hubs of transportation are not created, they are serviced and accommodated for successfully and unsuccessfully. You are making the case that a streetcar will change the multimodal behavior enough that a new hub will be needed. Again, just a different way to approaching it. We both want to see streetcars! =)

a central mulitmodel hub can't be organic it has to be planned .... if we are going to have a regional system (AA is just starting) the streetcar need to interact with that HUB and that is the sante fe facility .. when someone gets off the train from MWC/Norman/yukon ect... it will be at the hub

a central mulitmodel hub can't be organic it has to be planned .... if we are going to have a regional system (AA is just starting) the streetcar need to interact with that HUB and that is the sante fe facility .. when someone gets off the train from MWC/Norman/yukon ect... it will be at the hub

Exactly. Effective rail transit systems require strategic, long-term planning. And that means initially taking a 30,000' view of the future and working backwards to today. We have existing rail corridors that will provide effective commuter rail service for the metropolitan area. Those lines require a hub connection for successful transfer operations. While initially the streetcar system functions as localized rail transit, in the future it also must serve as a critical component of the regional rail transit system to distribute riders of the system to and from the downtown area. As a result, it must connect to the hub. It's one thing to think about how to design the streetcar system to effectively service the downtown area in the near-term. It's a whole other thing to think about how to make that system also effectively connect to the hub in order to service the future regional rail system in the long-term. As rail line installation is very costly and permanent, the initial core streetcar system must be planned and designed for both current and future rail transit needs.

During the campaign we talked about 6-7 miles and I thought this was a low number for us to be spending $120 million on.

Now I'm seeing 4-6 miles. Not going to lie, this is horrifying in my opinion. I know you know how badly we need those miles.
I dont recall 6 to 7, a quick Google from pre-vote (Nov '09) article http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-maps-3-proposal-includes-streetcar-system/article/3421122 said "five to six" miles (half of that when double tracked). Not sure what the current number is without looking it up...Urban?

No one really knows how much a mile will cost. Everything being tossed about is an estimate. There's also the potential for federal money, although that is anything but a slam dunk. Regardless, even 4 miles would be longer than the initial streetcar route in Portland or Seattle, I believe. Remember too, the streetcar has 2 phases.

I dont recall 6 to 7, a quick Google from pre-vote (Nov '09) article http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-maps-3-proposal-includes-streetcar-system/article/3421122 said "five to six" miles (half of that when double tracked). Not sure what the current number is without looking it up...Urban?

looking at a system of about 5 miles+ with maps dollars

I believe a route used by the voters has the best chance to create a pro-transit environment. I believe a streetcar admired by the voters has the best chance to create a pro-transit environment. I also think a route that creates riders, rather than simply creating a more attractive environment for existing riders has the best chance of success. What is most important for future transit in OKC is to get voters out of their cars. If the streetcar can make mass transit of all types, including the bus, appealing for current non-riders we will achieve something significant. To me, the best way to do that is to make it simple for current non-riders to get to places with high appeal. If I live in Mesta Park, Heritage Hills or SoSa, I can go to a game at the Ford Center, go to the park or Bricktown without having to drag out my car. If I live in Deep Deuce, I can go out to dinner in Midtown, go to a bar or go to a Dr. At St. Anthony's without getting out my car. If I'm a visitor, I can go out in Automobile Alley or Midtown without a cab or car. Park and ride would wildly expand the applicability of even the first stage route for vast numbers of people.

It's not perfect, but again, we have to work within the constraints of the given budget.

When we can move to a second stage, then making the streetcar available to existing users is an option. But, if we can create legible routes, what's wrong with taking the bus? I don't feel that having the bus as a transit option is somehow treating riders as second class citizens.