If that is what LPA means, does a Reverse LPA mean the opposite...in other words anything but what the locals prefer???



That all depends on how much it really costs per mile doesn't it? IIRC, Urban stated that the numbers used during the campaign were the average cost and would cover the 5 to 6 miles promoted. We would end up with more if it costs less per mile and less if it costs more. Which begs the question, how are those average costs holding up how many years later?

From the City's cite: City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing (http://www.okc.gov/maps3/)
So I am confused is Phase 1 and Phase 2 both covered in MAPS 3? If so, what time frame are we talking for Phase 2? Will it be done by the time the Park is complete (now that it has been broken up into different phases and completion being one of the last projects done)?


The same site mentions:

From what others are commenting, it doesn't seem like they followed their own "top criteria"???



Can't disagree more. it is imperative that the Streetcar connect to as many of the MAPS projects as possible. Many of them are interdependent. The problem is some of the MAPS 3 projects locations haven't been selected yet (like Senior Aquatic Centers), but to dismiss connecting (not within a couple of blocks) with the already known locations (like the intermodal transit hub or the other existing train station) is absurd.

Same with connecting to tourist destinations (i.e., Bricktown, National Memorial) and serving the residents and major employers that already exist. Any route must connect with these too.

If they are talking about a Central Park Loop as Phase II, exactly what time-frame are we talking here? 10, 20, or more years from now (when completed)???

Unfortunately, I think there was a fundamental flaw in getting only the 5 to 6 miles "starter system" included in MAPS. it should have been much more inclusive and given that Mass Transit was the most often suggested MAPS 3 project, it should have been an easy sell to the voters. Just seems that by taking the "starter system" approach (and doing it poorly) is setting true Mass Trans in OKC up for failure. if it is a failure, no one is going to be likely to vote for an expansion. We have to get this right!

It was my expectation all along that MAPS 3 would be roughly a 10 year tax that included the all inclusive Mass transit system the Mayor often spoke about, the Convention Center and it escapes me right now what the 3rd big ticket item was going to be.

Can you more succinctly describe for me why exactly it is imperative that a streetcar phase 1 link a park that doesn't yet exist. And won't in 2017.

Here are the four proposed streetcar routes presented today by the City's consultant:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/route1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/route2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/route3.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/route4.jpg

I am quoting this just so that it can inform/reinforce the discussion that is underway...

If these are the only options being considered by those who did the study and the city is only going to use these four options as contenders, despite everyone on here being a bigger fan of the option proposed by the streetcar subcommittee, I am still a fan of the Reverse LPA, with the exception of the north/south legs being moved to the west along Hudson & Robinson. You have to admit that it's a good thing to incorporate the Downtown Transit Center at 4th & Hudson with the streetcar, right? From my understanding, you can't leave one leg on Broadway and move the west leg to Hudson because that destroys the "couplet". There has to be a win/win in there somewhere.

I don't understand how serving so much of Heritage Hills makes this a legitimate system for regular people but serving Deep Deuce is a politically toxic idea.

Am I just mis/underestimating the density along Walker north of 13th? If you're looking for density.. downtown A, definitely now has it, and B, is a very, very safe bet for more density at the rate it is developing. Sid's argument against making ridership dependent on more development is tenuous because NOBODY is doubting whether downtown will continue to develop and evolve.

This process needs vision. That's the problem. I'm still not commenting on all the new routes proposed until I fully get it all, but I just wanted to address Sid's first because I respect his ideas and his proposal (just one route) was easier for me to research and consider. My thoughts on the newly proposed routes will follow soon...

I don't think his route is so much about serving HH but rather a means to an end, the end being serving 23rd st. If you can think of a way to get around HH and still serve 23rd st, I'm all ears. Correct me if I'm wrong, Sid.

Why not just run it straight down Robinson instead of shifting it over to Broadway?

Because AA is already a transportation corridor with existing destinations. If it goes down Robinson through this area the rail line will become the new transportation corridor and will attract the new development. Just like we don't have enough pedestrian activity to put people on 3 horizontal planes (underground, sidewalk, skywalk) we can't be spreading them across multiple transportation corridors that complete with each other. I hear people suggest that businesses will still locate along AA, but why would they locate a block away from what will be the dominant downtown transportation system when they could just locate right next to it?

I don't think his route is so much about serving HH but rather a means to an end, the end being serving 23rd st. If you can think of a way to get around HH and still serve 23rd st, I'm all ears. Correct me if I'm wrong, Sid.

I think you have to serve 23rd by going along it, not just across it. 23rd is too significant, and all the streetcar subcommittee members understand that 23rd is the major east/west artery of the inner north side.

You pick up ridership by serving corridors, and not just points. The argument for getting off corridors would be to build up (economic development) a new corridor of TOD, which you simply can't do in HH. There is no good argument for serving HH at this point. That said, there is good density combined with development opportunities along Robinson between 10th and 23rd.

I would do a 23rd Street line all the way from Robinson to OCU. There is also a strong precedent with other cities' fixed guideway upgrades following the busiest bus line. In Houston, Main Street was the busiest bus line; in Cleveland, Euclid Avenue was the busiest bus line. Both became very successful fixed-guideway lines in the 2000s (Houston LRT, Cleveland BRT) that spurred millions in TOD while harnessing the existing ridership of the bus line it was replacing. 23rd Street is OKC's busiest bus line.

All that said, with the money we have available to us it is simply not possible to serve downtown, serve 23rd, and do it right. You have to chose between one or the other, and we're currently building the "first and last" mile of a metro-wide system. Starting off with 23rd would be starting off with an expansion route. We need the success before we can have the expansion.

Also, after just reading a lot of Pete White's comments in the media lately, I don't know where he finds the energy for such cynicism and defeatism. I've been called pessimistic for criticizing bad projects, but I will never fail to support and contribute to a project that has the ability to move us to the next level as a city. I am astonished by Pete's myopia and his refusal to believe that OKC can be great.

You have to admit that it's a good thing to incorporate the Downtown Transit Center at 4th & Hudson with the streetcar, right? From my understanding, you can't leave one leg on Broadway and move the west leg to Hudson because that destroys the "couplet". There has to be a win/win in there somewhere.

Someone explain that to me again... theoretically, it would be fabulous (not just imperative, but fabulous) to connect the bus hub to the rail hub. But on the ground here in OKC, there's a lot of problems with that.

First of all, whenever you say bus hub you are normally talking about the hub of a system with hundreds of thousands of daily riders. Here in OKC, that's 10,000 riders and according to Sid (who would know) about half of them go through the hub. If we don't serve at least that many (5,000) riders with just this streetcar line, this system will be an utter failure, which I'm confident it won't be.

That brings me to a point where I simply don't understand the value of going out of the way to incorporate a bus hub that only serves 5,000 riders. Cleveland's own lacking system serves almost 300,000 daily riders, including 50,000 on the rapid system (1 BRT + 4 LRT lines), and we are MORE than willing to move or redesign our downtown bus hub (Public Square). Denver and NYC have also totally re-configured their transit hubs, among several other cities.

Second of all, there's some history regarding that bus hub, which was built around the same time as MAPS 1 as a means of moving the bus people away from where the hub was located before. At the time 4th and Hudson was considered the edge of downtown, and St. Anthony was considered Heritage Hills/greater northside. It was also built very, very cheaply - transit was not a community value at the time.

Third of all, there's some news regarding the idea of a transit hub. In case anyone hasn't heard, we are in the middle of arbitration to buy a facility for a new transit hub. I'm not sure how or where bus bays will be incorporated, and it may end up just being totally linear along EKG (possibly resulting in slimming the roadway), but however it can be accommodated, I find it far more important to incorporated Santa Fe Depot into the streetcar system than the old METRO bus hub.

Even if we weren't building a new hub, the hub we have now is a joke, and it would still be a bad idea to try and incorporate that facility into this new system that shouldn't be encumbered with such heavy strings. Different modes of transit should have the strongest possible linkages, especially between different public transit modes, but keep in mind it's a lot easier for the bus to come to the streetcar than vice versa.

Because AA is already a transportation corridor with existing destinations. If it goes down Robinson through this area the rail line will become the new transportation corridor and will attract the new development. Just like we don't have enough pedestrian activity to put people on 3 horizontal planes (underground, sidewalk, skywalk) we can't be spreading them across multiple transportation corridors that complete with each other. I hear people suggest that businesses will still locate along AA, but why would they locate a block away from what will be the dominant downtown transportation system when they could just locate right next to it?

Because the way i picture it, the purpose of a rail system is to get you from one area to another, not one specific place to another specific place. There isn't going to be stops for every business along the street, is there? so if people are going to have to walk a block or two north or south along the street car route, why wouldn't they walk a block to the East? Why would people still locate a business along AA, because of that, it is Automobile Alley. and because people will still get there. i have always agreed with you on the underground vs sidewalk vs skywalk argument, because they all detract from the same method of traffic, pedestrian traffic, but now we are talking about two very unrelated (in my opinion) methods of moving traffic. Broadway is and always will me a main automobile artery for this town, and that is what has caused to to develop, and that is fine. the streetcar is a totally different method of moving people, it doesn't go from a parking spot right infront of a location and to another, it moves pedestrian traffic from one area of development to the next. Auto trafic and streetcar should be used similarly, but our society has not used it in that fashion, and the culture will not change overnight. The reason that AA will still be a development area is because it will still see roughly the same street traffic that it currently sees and that will spur the development, So why not use this completely separate mode of transportation that will not add anything to AA, and move it a street over, the pedestrian traffic will still walk the block over to AA if they so choose, and it allows for development in another area.

I hope i explained myself correctly there. but then again, it's late, and i'm typing this right before bed.

I get what you are saying jedicurt but AA will lose the pedestrian component if the streetcar runs along Robinson because the pedestrians are going to be over there. You will see AA go back to what it was before their renaissance - a place where people going to Edmond drive by.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't think we still have a lot to build onto AA.

Spartan, if you look at the Reverse LPA, the southern east/west corridor incorporates the Santa Fe Depot, therefore serving both hubs regardless of how crappy they are.

Actually, it does not serve the hub well because of the circulation pattern. The stops would not be flanking the hub. They would be accross the street on Reno and Sheridan. Something I consider a major issue. Same on the "Hybrid".

Actually, it does not serve the hub well because of the circulation pattern. The stops would not be flanking the hub. They would be accross the street on Reno and Sheridan. Something I consider a major issue. Same on the "Hybrid".

True. We're just gonna have to face the fact that none of the alternatives, including the one by your hard working subcommittee, are going to make a majority happy. I'll just be excited to see construction for installation starting no matter what the final pick is.

True. We're just gonna have to face the fact that none of the alternatives, including the one by your hard working subcommittee, are going to make a majority happy. I'll just be excited to see construction for installation starting no matter what the final pick is.

This is the hard truth. As I said earlier, because of the length of the line, it is almost impossible to make everyone happy. It's not so hard to pick one lot for a building and please people (although even then you sometimes can't please a majority), but this is like picking 40 lots for a project. What are the chances someone will like all 40 of them? Hopefully some portion of the route will appeal to or make sense to a majority, and they can accept that this is a starter route. I remember looking at Portland and Seattle's first routes and wondering how those routes pleased enough people to get them to expand, but they did. I think, regardless of what is built, even people who have objections to the route will find they're pleased with what they have. Imagine stepping out of a store on Broadway or a restaurant in Bricktown and seeing a modern streetcar go by. It's going to make a tremendous change in how we see and use our downtown.

This has become a mess

We'll just see what Harding and the Council have to say. Thats
where the buck stops.

We'll just see what Harding and the Council have to say. Thats
where the buck stops.

That is correct. We've just got too many cooks on this forum, but that's fine. Everybody has a chance to be heard. I can say with perfect honesty that some of the people on the streetcar committee have educated themselves to the point that it wouldn't shock me to see them as streetcar consultants some day. It's an honor to work with that group. I am not speaking of myself, of course. But we have been working hard for over 2 years to learn enough to help pick the best route possible, given our budget, utility and other constraints. And, it changes nothing regarding plans to purchase the Santa Fe station no matter what route is selected.

This has become a mess

Designing permanent transit systems with democratic input is always going to be messy. The process is rolling along.

Part of it probably has to do with order of the steps taken.

Most cities come up with the route, establish a timeline, determine how much it cost, and then find a funding source.

In OKC we started with how much it will cost, then found the funding, then established the timeline, and now we are trying to define a route to meet those constraints.

It does make me think about how Oklahoma City has made it extremely difficult for easy answers on where to install such infrastructure. If you take Sid's approach for example, only Walker and Robinson make it all the way through from Capitol Hill to Paseo. Robinson is a mess with utilities going northbound and Walker has the 10th street roundabout that would probably require signalization to get through.

The same sorts of issues with commuter rail exist between cities.

We took a great deal of heat from raising hell about that Karchmer project. But, if you don't fight for these spaces, they become fatal flaws that prevent anything from happening. (Fatal in the sense that the community may not want a signalized Walker or to pay for an extremely expensive utility mitigation for Robinson for example.)

But rest assured, there are some opportunities. If any one reading this forum ever travels out to Seattle, Portland, Tacoma, or San Francisco and has an interest in this project, I strongly encourage you to take the time and ride their streetcar systems.

My father started as a bus driver and ultimately ran a bus system in Texas. I had a great deal of experience riding around with him both watching him drive one and later supervising others. Traveling to Portland and riding the streetcar there (originally by OKC unrelated business circumstances) completely changed my perspective about what a different mode of travel and experience it is.

In OKC we started with how much it will cost, then found the funding, then established the timeline, and now we are trying to define a route to meet those constraints.

For better or for worse, that sentiment can be applied to nearly all MAPS Projects. If there was any absence of strategy, it is because we do not have a strong Planning Department with the necessary political hutzpa and capital to lay out carefully crafted plans and carry them all the way through.

But also for better or for worse, this much money is going to make a major positive impact on our city in the coming years.

I was just trying to explain why the OKC system seems to be taking longer and is more complicated than a lot of other similar projects.

For better or for worse, that sentiment can be applied to nearly all MAPS Projects. If there was any absence of strategy, it is because we do not have a strong Planning Department with the necessary political hutzpa and capital to lay out carefully crafted plans and carry them all the way through.

But also for better or for worse, this much money is going to make a major positive impact on our city in the coming years.

Yeah, our planning department needs at least double the staffing it now has in order to effectively influence these projects and help us avoid disaster here. Were we to do that, we could perhaps get away without paying so much to consultants at every step of these projects...

If you want a messy process though, look at the CC and especially the senior centers. The senior center process is hilariously bad...

Sid.. I just skimmed this, and I don't feel comfortable responding in full until I fully read through and consider your points (when I'm not at work), but let me just say I really appreciate your involvement on this board and in this process.

My thoughts are to come.. But I think you're right, we're talking about a different set of logistics to end up at the same goal of downtown-to-23rd service. I just don't like Walker...

I also think the only other difference is our perspective on bus v. rail, and not something as specious as whether one is more important than another, but which should be planned around which. Like I said, it's much easier for the bus to come to the rail.

I gather you prefer to see bus service we have preserved as much as possible through these changes, whereas from my perspective the entire system needs an overhaul. Grid system or bust. The meandering, non-discernible routes we have don't really serve anyone efficiently. We need to get away from hub and spoke and envision every intersection with intersecting bus routes as a hub that should have an upgraded bus shelter.

I think you, Sid, should be more involved in this process as an advocate for transit because this is the beginning of a conversation that will include bus service...I say that acknowledging you haven't wanted to get in anyone's way on that. I just submit to you that we have to first build the streetcar system promised to voters, and that gets us to a point where we talk about bus service and operational funding, the overwhelming majority of which will be needed for the bus system versus a little 6-mile electric streetcar...

Yeah, I don't think we disagree at all. Only probably in the order of the steps to get there.

I'd love to see a grid system. It would cost probably 3-4 times what we are currently spending. In order to convince even a transit-friendly council to fund that we need more riders. That's why my hope rests so much in the streetcar. I want to see us get to 20 and 30k daily riders network-wide within a few years of the streetcar opening.

I too am dying to see what kind of ridership projections we anticipate. Hopefully since we aren't going through an FTA process anymore we don't have to use low ball figures...

Here is a concept I thought up this morning (in the shower, if you need to know).

This is a conceptual idea. Please don’t get hung up on the exact streets and order of phases.

The premise is similar to that of the Loop in Chicago. In the first phase, we would start with a one-way loop in the densest part of the city (the “circulator”) and with a double track spur to the north into AA and a single out-and-back track to Bricktown. Phase 1 consists of two “lines”. The red line loops around the circulator and into Bricktown and back. The blue line does the same except it goes to Automobile Alley instead of Bricktown. Both lines share the circulator track and reduce headways within the densest part of the core. Phase 2-4 would continue this progression. Until the single-track circulator became too full and had to have a 2nd track, each new phase of streetcar would only require the track to get from the closest point of the circulator to the terminus.

I'm not an expert, just a problem-solver trying to solve a problem.

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/PHASE1_zpsacbb32db.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/PHASE2_zpsf8e0cce0.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/PHASE3_zps73794a88.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/PHASE4_zpse40fb66e.jpg

Wow, Cuatro.. That is really excellent. We can debate semantics over the expansion but the point is that system, I think, is set up brilliantly for expansion and it's so simple to understand.

Here is a concept I thought up this morning (in the shower, if you need to know).

This is a conceptual idea. Please don’t get hung up on the exact streets and order of phases.

The premise is similar to that of the Loop in Chicago. In the first phase, we would start with a one-way loop in the densest part of the city (the “circulator”) and with a double track spur to the north into AA and a single out-and-back track to Bricktown. Phase 1 consists of two “lines”. The red line loops around the circulator and into Bricktown and back. The blue line does the same except it goes to Automobile Alley instead of Bricktown. Both lines share the circulator track and reduce headways within the densest part of the core. Phase 2-4 would continue this progression. Until the single-track circulator became too full and had to have a 2nd track, each new phase of streetcar would only require the track to get from the closest point of the circulator to the terminus.

I'm not an expert, just a problem-solver trying to solve a problem.

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/PHASE1_zpsacbb32db.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/PHASE2_zpsf8e0cce0.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/PHASE3_zps73794a88.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/PHASE4_zpse40fb66e.jpg


Damn brilliant my friend. This is a terrific idea.

After a great deal of effort by several volunteers and some expense, here is the link to the MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee meeting.

This might help with understanding the dialogue between the Subcommittee Members and the consultants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gz5T5fIHfI

Also, this morning's COTPA meeting was quite interesting regarding the Karchmer Garage.

Here is the master link to our email that went out to some 8,000 people today. Feel free to join the mailing lists if you would like to receive the email directly.

They are quite long. But we only send them when there is an emergency issue, build up of relevant content, or an upcoming public meeting. I would have sent this one out sooner but was awaiting for the video to be mastered.

OKC Proposed Streetcar Routes, Meeting & Rail/Garage Conflit (http://myemail.constantcontact.com/OKC-Proposed-Streetcar-Routes--Meeting---Rail-Garage-Conflit.html?soid=1102681734415&aid=fwBtnVAwspQ)

If we wanted to get scientific about streetcar planning we should have mapped all of the urban core to the transect, define all pedestrian sheds/neighborhoods and establish the centers, identify existing transportation corridors, and then connect all the neighborhood centers using the existing corridors where possible and establish new corridors where necessary.

Your forgetting about economic development. In reality, that has dominated at least half of the discussion.

And also, locations that people want to be served.

There is no science in democratic decision making my friend.

Your forgetting about economic development. In reality, that has dominated at least half of the discussion.

And also, locations that people want to be served.

There is no science in democratic decision making my friend.

That is why I got of planning as fast as I got into it. I got tired of no-nothings having input.:) I am sure you can relate.

I think if people are choosing to tax themselves, it is only natural that they would expect to have a voice in how such a system is planned.

And that is ok with me. Just expect fewer straight lines.

And perhaps that is "ok" in a downtown environment. I do agree though that when you leave that downtown environment and start to branch outward, transit should naturally assume a straighter, more commutter efficient design.

If we wanted to get scientific about streetcar planning we should have mapped all of the urban core to the transect, define all pedestrian sheds/neighborhoods and establish the centers, identify existing transportation corridors, and then connect all the neighborhood centers using the existing corridors where possible and establish new corridors where necessary.

The problem is that this approach is value-blind

I think if people are choosing to tax themselves, it is only natural that they would expect to have a voice in how such a system is planned.

And that is ok with me. Just expect fewer straight lines.

I think people should have a voice, but the question is: Whose voice do you listen to? There are as many ideas as there are people. Then, how many of those people have significant experience riding any form of transit, and what do they understand about turns, utilities, etc? For example, sometimes a particular corner looks great as a place to turn on a map. You go look at the site and find you'd have to chop the corner off an existing building to make that turn. Or, you find out that you basically cannot run the streetcar in a certain lane or street because of utilities underground. The problem is, a lot of people are happy to take the time to criticize a route, but they may not be willing to put in the effort to find out why that route was selected and what factors made another route or part of a route less feasible.

Whatever plan we put in place with the streetcar system; there will be a chance to look at expansion--will we be able to make a determination on expansion when a possible MAPS IV come up in 2017?

Whatever plan we put in place with the streetcar system; there will be a chance to look at expansion--will we be able to make a determination on expansion when a possible MAPS IV come up in 2017?

I suspect people's willingness to support this will be dependent on visible evidence that the first MAPS streetcar money has gone towards actually building a streetcar line and that cars have been ordered and a date has been set for their delivery. Or, better yet, people have had a chance to ride it.

This may also affect their willingness to spend tax money for any form of transit.

I have been told by individuals who have talked directly with council persons; that the majority of the council are supporting the Zeta route. The reason; the chamber and council are concerned about their Downtown Circulator for the convention center, hotel and park.
I am so disheartened and disgusted with the push by the council and chamber to disregard the needs of their constituents.
I hope this is discussed vigorously and openly this evening at the meeting.

No city has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory as much as OKC does. Why is everyone clinging to these dammed couplets?

Personally, and I'm a transit rider from way back, I don't see why there's such an emotional response to couplets. Who posting here has any personal experience with/exposure to either system? I see advantages and disadvantages of both couplets and double-track. As long as the couplets are parallel and not more than one block apart, I fail to see what is so distressing about them. Couplets create pedestrian traffic on side streets that currently get very little, they save money (thereby allowing more track distance) if expensive utility relocation expenses can be avoided by using them and it makes wires far less obtrusive in areas where they're being used. With good signage, people are indeed smart enough to understand that you have to go one street over to go the opposite direction on the streetcar. I don't see the disadvantages as negative enough to justify any drama.

I have been told by individuals who have talked directly with council persons; that the majority of the council are supporting the Zeta route. The reason; the chamber and council are concerned about their Downtown Circulator for the convention center, hotel and park.
I am so disheartened and disgusted with the push by the council and chamber to disregard the needs of their constituents.
I hope this is discussed vigorously and openly this evening at the meeting.

All of the routes have similar coverage to what the transit committee selected as their preferred route, and they're all similar to the Alternatives Analysis' LPA. Some of them are a little wackier in route to destinations, but they all embrace the "Midtown to Bricktown" concept that is in the range of what we can afford, offers fair connection to Heritage Hills and Mesta Park, reasonable access for people living in Deep Deuce, access to most downtown businesses, the hub, attractions, hotels, restaurants etc. I can see Park and Ride options for people driving in to the city for the evening or on weekends, options for tourists and employees as well as downtown residents. There are even multiple economic development opportunities on any of these routes, although I've never thought that should be the primary consideration. "Downtown circulator" doesn't do justice to all the options available for a multiplicity of types of riders. We would all like to see a more extensive system, but truthfully, the first cities to have modern streetcar began with routes far more modest.

So, my point is that for several years the subcommittee has been very upfront about the Midtown to Bricktown concept, and it shouldn't be a surprise to people who've been following this discussion. Personally, I feel very comfortable with that coverage, given our budget, and would rather see people help with their ideas about how we design that coverage than to start looking at completely different concepts.

It is just this simple

Couplet: Area within one block of bi-directional travel.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Couplet-track.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/Couplet-track.jpg.html)

Double Track: Area within one block of bi-directional travel.
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Double-track.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/Double-track.jpg.html)

Double track serves 2X as many people with bi-directional travel. The primary economic development goal of streetcars is to spur development ALONG the route - not between the routes.

I don't get all the wailing about a couplet or a figure 8 either. It is not that difficult to understand. A legible map at each stop with a "You are here" and showing significant points of interest along the route is all that is needed even for a person that did just fall off the turnip truck. Take it another step and develop a smartphone app showing real time GPS positions of each streetcar on a map of the route.

It makes sense to me to use this first phase circulator as the foundation for several point to point routes that will radiate from this initial system. People will ride it to get around CBD, Midtown, Bricktown, and areas immediately adjacent to them. Over time, people will naturally start thinking "It would be nice if we had a lone to....." and then use double tracked longer lines to reach those locations. Zeta is a pretty decent foundation when all considerations such as utilities and other significant projects are incorporated into the decision process.

The most important thing to me with the streetcar is that it is able to be expanded. The routes we're seeing here are fairly modest and I think will only serve as a novelty. But if we build a small system that works as a proof of concept, becomes popular, and is easily expanded to cover more territory, then that gives us something to build on. It will be easier to get funding to lay down another two miles of track than it is to start a new system.

My guess is that as long as the new Boulevard doesn't cut off access, one of the next areas of development (10 years from now or so) will be down on Western near the Farmer's Market building. I could see the streetcar connecting each new area with downtown. Guys at the State Capitol could get on the streetcar and ride all the way down to Stockyards City to eat at Cattleman's. Who knows how big this thing could grow. But it's got to be built with expansion in mind.

People are overreacting. Subways and other train-based transit solutions don't always follow straight lines. The point is to connect destinations throughout the downtown area. It's very different to study something on a map than it is to ride. The hyperventilation about couplets is frankly absurd.

People are overreacting. Subways and other train-based transit solutions don't always follow straight lines. The point is to connect destinations throughout the downtown area. It's very different to study something on a map than it is to ride. The hyperventilation about couplets is frankly absurd.

So getting rid of them shouldn't cause an issue either?

So getting rid of them shouldn't cause an issue either?

Spike and point

It is my observation that there is an impressive "tug o' war" between the need to serve riders, major civic institutions, and the opportunity to spur economic development.

Can't do that. We need them for economic development. In fact, since no route was proposed without them, it is apparently a critical feature.

LOL - hence my hyperventilation. It is like getting boulevard proposals that only contain the bisecting route and a bridge or Henry Ford saying you can get any color you want so long as it is black.

'Tis my observation as well.

Of course, there is profound irony in that we tried so hard to explain how streetcar might be a extraordinary catalyst for economic development during the campaign. This sale point fell mostly on deaf ears. Very few people, anywhere, in a public capacity really pressed that this might indeed be the case.

All of a sudden, in the last year, it has risen to extraordinary importance. I think that has a great deal to do with Cathy O'Connor and "The Alliance".

What a great many of these people do not understand, is that you have to have "base load" to stimulate growth in other areas.

I do think that the consultants understand this, but economic development is definitely affecting the scoring criteria in prefacing route design.

Of course, there is profound irony in that we tried so hard to explain how streetcar might be a extraordinary catalyst for economic development during the campaign. This sale point fell mostly on deaf ears. Very few people, anywhere, in a public capacity really pressed that this might indeed be the case.

All of a sudden, in the last year, it has risen to extraordinary importance. I think that has a great deal to do with Cathy O'Connor and "The Alliance".

What a great many of these people do not understand, is that you have to have "base load" to stimulate growth in other areas.

I do think that the consultants understand this, but economic development is definitely affecting the scoring criteria in prefacing route design.

How do these consultants for out of town score and evaluate the economic development potential between certain key nodes of downtown?

This x 1000. You can have streetcars running by all the vacant property in the world. If you don't have regular riders early on, it is going to be hard to explain to developers why the streetcar makes for a good yard ornament.

I submit as well though, with a huge heap of respect for everything you all have done, that there were probably a couple good ED options out there but were mostly in the AA process and eliminated without enough debate. A junction in this process I vastly regret not being more a part of.

Thanks Sid!

How do these consultants for out of town score and evaluate the economic development potential between certain key nodes of downtown?

I have no idea as to how the "weighting" works. I'm not expert on development predictions. I do know that they have been talking with developers directly, used the Planning Department's "FAR study" (although it has some other name), and have spent hours and hours with Cathy O'Connor at the Alliance.

Not to say that the other scoring hasn't been significant as well. The "nodes" as you call them are connected in most of these proposals.

What you do get into a debate is how important "legibility" is on a two dimensional map and how important "intuitiveness" through good design is for a pedestrian.

I don't disagree with many of the arguments that people are making. The problem is, if you want legibility, then that means you need to cut from somewhere else. Cutting can be painful. I'm willing to do it. But very few other people all the way through the hierarchy of this project are. And the public isn't willing to either.

But my opinion has also changed as I have become more educated on the importance of legibility and where is important.

Getting a coffee and headed over to the meeting. It starts at 6:00 PM at the Downtown Library although I hear that the "open house" part of it begins at 5:30 so people can get there early and study the routes.

I have no idea as to how the "weighting" works. I'm not expert on development predictions. I do know that they have been talking with developers directly, used the Planning Department's "FAR study" (although it has some other name), and have spent hours and hours with Cathy O'Connor at the Alliance.

Not to say that the other scoring hasn't been significant as well. The "nodes" as you call them are connected in most of these proposals.

What you do get into a debate is how important "legibility" is on a two dimensional map and how important "intuitiveness" through good design is for a pedestrian.

I don't disagree with many of the arguments that people are making. The problem is, if you want legibility, then that means you need to cut from somewhere else. Cutting can be painful. I'm willing to do it. But very few other people all the way through the hierarchy of this project are. And the public isn't willing to either.

But my opinion has also changed as I have become more educated on the importance of legibility and where is important.

I echo that. The intangible factors here have the ability to make all the difference. Just as important as legibility IMO is making sure the streetcar route is visually appealing and succinct so as to have an instant physical brand. To specifically state this, I think it's so vitally important to have the streetcar going down Sheridan Avenue in Bricktown and Broadway in AA. Those streets, with iconic streetwalls and the skyline rising above, will reinforce the streetcar route in people's mind with an iconic urban environment. That's how we build a transit mode of choice that everyone will incorporate into their commutes, lunch breaks, Thunder game nights, and especially Fri/Sat nights.

There's a lot more that we can serve with $100M than those two corridors, but I just find incorporating those two corridors into a route to be so vitally important no matter what Pete White says about these areas having already reached their pinnacle. The reality is that Sheridan has tons of surface lots at Oklahoma and Mickey Mantle and even Broadway is spotted with surface lots all throughout AA. Reno and Robinson, the likely couplet partners to Broadway and Sheridan, are really more surface parking than structures (Reno is just one long parking lot basically). So this aversion to established areas in the name of ED is bizarre IMO.

I think you get the most ED by building on areas that have already had success and linking them together - as another trend most of us will acknowledge is that all of these pockets like Bricktown, Broadway/AA, Plaza Court, etc have yet to be truly bridged and built-out in between. The sheer size and diversity and sprawl of nodes within each neighborhood is the main reason Deep Deuce is on the brink of becoming our first truly "complete" downtown district, which has virtually happened overnight because it is a smaller district and completely unified in land use.

So getting rid of them shouldn't cause an issue either?

Correct. I'm not married to couplets at all. I just don't think they're evil incarnate either.

I think the question some people are asking, including me, is who is then? We seem to get nothing but couplets in our options. Even one of the Subcomittee members asked that question during the meeting. Why were there no other options?

Sid, do you want to see something other than a couplet?

Watching The meeting live on Ustream, I guess some people don't understand The concept of a comment card! lol

Yes. I'd come closer to supporting the current proposals if they were collapsed. Not because I think couplets are evil but because they could very possibly hurt ridership in this situation. If the route proposals were far more linear (like Portlands) I'd be more in favor of them. It's much easier to rember for example that Robinson is always northbound and Broadway is southbound. Trying to remember or figure it out on 10 or more seperate segments makes less sense to me.

Right, but how do you feel about the couplets for the LPA?