I left early. That format was embarrassing.

I left early. That format was embarrasing.

Yeah. It's actually kind of uncomfortable.

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

Depends. The point is that preternatural purity either for against is fanatical absurdity.

Rick just went to ask the question why we didn't propose any current residential neighborhoods. He replied with, "I assume you mean Deep Deuce." Not jumping to conclusions but this starts to confirm my fears. The 4 Corners neighborhoods weren't seriously considered by the consultants.

These 4 Corners neighborhoods you speak of must be new to me?

I am deeply dismayed that this meeting was such an unfortunate cluster$#@3. I'm embarrassed on behalf of the streetcar. I can only imagine how Jeff and Marion and Jill and all those guys and gals feel after they put so much time and hard work into being dedicated, professional, intelligent streetcar/transit advocates and these paid consultants screw things up.

That's why I hate consultants and am very distrustful of anyone in the consulting business. Obviously we need an infusion of ideas from places that have been successful, but I'm so incredibly skeptical of these consultants that go from one city to the next doing their thang, whether it's streetcars, downtown parks, or convention centers. More often than not (and there are good exceptions), but these urban planning consultants prove to be worthless hucksters who just take advantage of most city's myopic refusal to just hire on knowledgeable staff at City Hall.

23 & Walker is where the four urban neighborhoods meet. 4 Corners is a branding idea I've got for the transit hub that could be located there. As a major transfer point into downtown.

I doubt we will see much of these consultants around here after this project. I don't sense there is a lot of people impressed with their work.

Ooooh got it. What about 23rd and Robinson or 23rd and Classen?

A bystander said something interesting tonight however: "A lot of the people at the meeting, based on their questions, thought this meeting was about transit, when it was really just about the streetcar." I thought that was simple, but quite insightful.

We are almost 3 years into this process. It's 3 and a half years since we voted and passed MAPS. We long ago decided approximately what areas we want the streetcar to cover. Now we've discussing how best to do that. Couplet, double track, Robinson, Broadway, north on one street, south on another. I think we might be making this more critical and dramatic than it really is - for the majority of people who live in Oklahoma City especially. We over analyze everything, when most people are intelligent enough and can walk a few blocks as well - to make this work regardless. I've traveled in many a city where I had to walk a bit and look at a map to find stops and it didn't stop me from riding.

I don't really know what anyone coming to the meeting tonight expected. I suspect that a lot of them wanted different things. Maybe they were hoping to be dazzled, some clearly wanted to complain. I wanted to answer a bunch of their questions myself, but I'm not really sure anyone wanted answers anyway. If you're anti-streetcar, you don't want logical answers for why a streetcar is reasonable. Every pro-streetcar person has an ideal route in his or her head and the actuality can only disappoint. I think probably the most satisfying thing would have been a virtual streetcar tour through downtown Oklahoma City, with some practical info thrown in. The anti-streetcar people wouldn't like it, but they came to the meeting planning to not like anything anyway. Everyone else could have enjoyed the ride.

A bystander said something interesting tonight however: "A lot of the people at the meeting, based on their questions, thought this meeting was about transit, when it was really just about the streetcar." I thought that was simple, but quite insightful.

We are almost 3 years into this process. It's 3 and a half years since we voted and passed MAPS. We long ago decided approximately what areas we want the streetcar to cover. Now we've discussing how best to do that. Couplet, double track, Robinson, Broadway, north on one street, south on another. I think we might be making this more critical and dramatic than it really is - for the majority of people who live in Oklahoma City especially. We over analyze everything, when most people are intelligent enough and can walk a few blocks as well - to make this work regardless. I've traveled in many a city where I had to walk a bit and look at a map to find stops and it didn't stop me from riding.

I don't really know what anyone coming to the meeting tonight expected. I suspect that a lot of them wanted different things. Maybe they were hoping to be dazzled, some clearly wanted to complain. I wanted to answer a bunch of their questions myself, but I'm not really sure anyone wanted answers anyway. If you're anti-streetcar, you don't want logical answers for why a streetcar is reasonable. Every pro-streetcar person has an ideal route in his or her head and the actuality can only disappoint. I think probably the most satisfying thing would have been a virtual streetcar tour through downtown Oklahoma City, with some practical info thrown in. The anti-streetcar people wouldn't like it, but they came to the meeting planning to not like anything anyway. Everyone else could have enjoyed the ride.

You're spot on about that, and honestly, I wouldn't have another one of these public meetings until that product is ready for mass consumption. Give the people what they want already. Get SkylineInk on it. But stop having these lame, dry, boring, embarrassing meetings. COTPA and the consultants (basically the people on the payroll) need to be as far away as possible from a mic in the future.

Isn't that a shame that the people who are the biggest threat to the streetcar as the worst representatives of the project are the ones actually getting paid by it?

Watching online, I made it into about 30 minutes of "Q&A" then decided to find a better use of my evening. I wasn't really expecting much, and that is exactly what I got.

It was a rather painful meeting to sit through. The organizers did an extremely poor job as did the presenters. Personally the teleconferencing of the "experts" didn't bother me much, but I understand why most people did not like that aspect of this meeting. As betts said, there were those in attendence that were not going to like anything they heard; but as a minimum the meeting should have reinforced streetcar supporters enthusiasm for the project and converted a few on the fence to supporters. I doubt anyone's mind was changed tonight and we should chalk this one up to checking a box on the list of requirements for a project like this.

I still think the Zeta and Reverse LPA routes will work fine. I prefer Zeta because I think it is a better circulator route and is the better foundation for expansion. The main issue with Zeta I see is the relatively high volume of EMSA traffic on 10th inbound to St Anthony. I think moving the Midtown "loop" to 11th and 13th should be considered to alleviate that potential conflict. Phase 2 should be the Central Park/Core to Shore loop - maybe the easiest decision of the entire process. The scoring criteria used to rank the Zeta Plus highest was odd because the only difference was it ran adjacent to the park in Phase 1 - why give higher rank to serving a non-existent park at the expense of reducing service to Midtown?

I don't think anyone should fear the project is in jeopardy even though the meeting left much to be desired in execution and content. OKC will have a streetcar system ready to begin operation sometime in 2017 and I am looking forward to riding it. Get the 2017 foundational circulator route right, and then we can begin expanding the system to other places using more direct routing. (And the same people will still complain about wanting rubber tired trolleys ever forgetful that OKC tried that and it was a miserable failure.)

In all of these route options, where are they going to maintenance and keep the cars overnight?

I attended the meeting and was embarrassed by those wanting to shout and interject their opinions when there was a civil and efficient process in place. In a room of 150+ people you can't exactly "dialogue" in order to solve all of the problems of public transit. With regard to the consultants, they did play a part in another successful project known as Portland. Let's at least hear what they have to say.

"Consultants last month submitted four alternatives for running the proposed $94 million streetcar line through downtown. All four routes — ranging in length from 4 to 4.6 miles — would connect MidTown and the St. Anthony Hospital neighborhood with the Bricktown entertainment and residential district."

WATCH: Oklahoma City streetcar community meeting | News OK (http://newsok.com/watch-oklahoma-city-streetcar-community-meeting/article/3862572)

Why is the number at $94 million now? I thought about $120 million was supposed to go into the streetcar with $10 million for the transit hub? Am I missing something?

Being a glutton for punishment, I guess I need to watch the streetcar presentation.

"Consultants last month submitted four alternatives for running the proposed $94 million streetcar line through downtown. All four routes — ranging in length from 4 to 4.6 miles — would connect MidTown and the St. Anthony Hospital neighborhood with the Bricktown entertainment and residential district."

WATCH: Oklahoma City streetcar community meeting | News OK (http://newsok.com/watch-oklahoma-city-streetcar-community-meeting/article/3862572)

Why is the number at $94 million now? I thought about $120 million was supposed to go into the streetcar with $10 million for the transit hub? Am I missing something?

It is a bit misleading. The $94 million is for MAPS3 Streetcar Phase I, $10 million is still allocated for acquisition and some renovation of Santa Fe station for the transit hub, and $24.7 million for Phase II of the MAPS3 streetcar system.

"Consultants last month submitted four alternatives for running the proposed $94 million streetcar line through downtown. All four routes — ranging in length from 4 to 4.6 miles — would connect MidTown and the St. Anthony Hospital neighborhood with the Bricktown entertainment and residential district."

WATCH: Oklahoma City streetcar community meeting | News OK (http://newsok.com/watch-oklahoma-city-streetcar-community-meeting/article/3862572)

Why is the number at $94 million now? I thought about $120 million was supposed to go into the streetcar with $10 million for the transit hub? Am I missing something?

In Spring 2011 the Convention Center Subcommittee made a move to get their project started much earlier in the timeline. Staff, ADG and an economic development consultancy firm determined that there would be no economic development impact from the streetcar so they split the project into two phases. Phase 1 is $94 Million for the Streetcar (to open in 2017) plus $10 million for the Hub. The remainder is for Phase 2 of the Streetcar, to open in 2021. As depicted on the consultant's conceptual route maps, Phase 2 options are either towards the southwestern end of the Park or along 4th Street to Deep Deuce.

In all of these route options, where are they going to maintenance and keep the cars overnight?

To be determined once the route is selected. IIRC one location mentioned is the large parking lot in north Bricktown. During one or more subcommittee meetings, incorporating a parking garage above the maintenance facility as a potential revenue source has been mentioned. Interesting idea that could work depending on location. Might be an in town park and ride of sorts and could generate significant streetcar ridership.

It is a bit misleading. The $94 million is for MAPS3 Streetcar Phase I, $10 million is still allocated for acquisition and some renovation of Santa Fe station for the transit hub, and $24.7 million for Phase II of the MAPS3 streetcar system.

Got it, thanks for clearing that up. The same thing happened when they were talking about the Central park and said it was something like $80 million park, but didn't mention that was only the north part, not the part south of the highway.

In all of these route options, where are they going to maintenance and keep the cars overnight?

See Slide 16 of the Presentation to the Transit Subcommittee:

http://www.okc.gov/maps3/library/13-0626%20Transit%20Subcommittee_FINAL.pdf

Hopefully there'll be more information provided next week at the next Subcommittee meeting.

Well, sure. But those aren't the 4 adjoining corners of those neighorboods. Paseo and Mesta Park go to Walker, not Robinson. :)

My first love was Robinson. Make no mistake. Robison from 23rd all the way to SW 25th. But the more analysis I did, the less I liked it. I think ridership would be far less on it frankly.

Classen is one of those roads that is great for moving anything of size, but from a pedestrian standpoint, it sucks for transit. The Nelson Nyygard study proposes getting rid of the 5 route on Western and consolidating it with the 4 on Classen all the way. It is an artificial way to speed up that route because, as they mention in their report, the bus can move quicker on Classen. Faster buses do not necessarily mean better transit. It is the only suggestion they made in their report I disagreed with. Transit is funny. You'd think you want to run it down large roads and boulevards but transit is really a pedestrian activity. Roads in America that are wide and fast tend to discourage pedestrian/cycle activity. Intimate roads that see higher pedestrian counts are usually better choices for transit. That being said, sticking with the logical grid really should trump that fact, but not because of speed. Legibility, access to amenities, and ridership capacity should always have high priority and a grid like ours can usually provide that. Of course, Classen isn't a part of the original grid either. With the redevelopment happening on Western, I'd love to see the grid street Western celebrate transit with some really significant stops and let Classen just continue to attract lots of cars, two blocks to the west.

But to bring this back to earth, we are talking about buses which aren't the most desirable yard ornament around. In fact they're noisy, smelly, and drive off leaving a huge ploom of smoke. So I don't know how intimate one wants to be with what I consider to be a necessity, not a luxury. The BRT in Cleveland is also extremely inefficient because the RTA does everything possible to slow the route down, so it takes 30 minutes to go 4 miles after you already waited for a bus that could have come faster if it also didn't have to move so slow.

Consolidating Classen and Western routes is just a no-brainer, I haven't read the Nygaard report but that is something that I would totally understand. I've even wondered in the past if Western-Classen could make a good couplet, though they may be too far apart.

As for Robinson, I think ridership would be significantly better in addition to significantly better ED opportunities. The thing about Walker is that it traverses a single family neighborhood that isn't dense enough to logically need rail transit and doesn't want to be dense enough either. You need multi family and town homes and infill opportunities. Robinson is lined with multi family all the way from 13th up to 36th, and it also passes through less upscale neighborhoods where infill would be possible. As someone who has lived in OKC almost my whole life and always returns home, Walker is just a bad, bad, bad idea for tangible and intangible reasons. I don't even like driving down it anymore because Hudson moves cars faster while Shartel is actually the best corridor by far through Mesta Park.

I still say that 23rd is a streetcar corridor, not a streetcar stop. 23rd absolutely must have a phase 2 or 3 streetcar route all the way from Robinson to OCU, but ultimately I'd like to see something that goes to the State Capitol (and beyond perhaps, as a means of legitimate transit), out to I-44.

Agree 100% about 23rd street being a future streetcar expansion corridor. Maybe Phase III after a MAPS4 expansion of the initial system from the downtown circulator to HSC and the Capitol. Then run from the Capitol complex at least to OCU and maybe May?

Agree 100% about 23rd street being a future streetcar expansion corridor. Maybe Phase III after a MAPS4 expansion of the initial system from the downtown circulator to HSC and the Capitol. Then run from the Capitol complex at least to OCU and maybe May?

We used to have streetcar all the way out to Portland, but May works just as well.

By chance, did you go to the Western Ave. meeting last week? Blair Humphrey's of OUIQC hosted it and did a great job of enganging just as many people. You can in fact have dialogue with that many people. Just got to know how to do it. In that meeting, people came there angry, worried, etc and at the end of the meeting, by show of hands, almost unanimously supported the project proposed.

I was not able to attend that meeting. Glad to hear others have the skillset to facilitate that kind of discussion. In most cases it can get out of hand very quickly.

To be determined once the route is selected. IIRC one location mentioned is the large parking lot in north Bricktown. During one or more subcommittee meetings, incorporating a parking garage above the maintenance facility as a potential revenue source has been mentioned. Interesting idea that could work depending on location. Might be an in town park and ride of sorts and could generate significant streetcar ridership.

I looked at all the locations. Quite a few of those areas are subject to future development, i.e. hotels & residential. The most optimal location to me would be that SW corner of 4th & Hudson, right across from the city bus terminal. It is a good central location to send all the cars out from.

Also, I've seen other O&M facilities, and maybe they're more light rail oriented, but it seems to me, that a facility like this would need more room than what the yellow shaded areas on page 16 of your link shows. Anyway, will be interesting to see, nonetheless, what spot they pick.

For the last couple weeks all I've been told is that HH would oppose, even sue the city if a streetcar was proposed up Walker. I've had several conversations with HH residents, including board members and HH homeowners for 40 years and they love the idea.

Do you think the Heritage Hills Board will be able to make a formal representation to the subcommittee and the MAPS Board? From what I've seen and heard the Heritage Hills protesters at the subcommittee and Board meetings have been uniformly vocal and very negative.

One great thing about Heritage Hills is how much free on-street parking there is. That will really help with people who want to park there for free and then ride the streetcar downtown for events.

I've been out of town on vacation for a couple of weeks and I'm just getting caught up. Glad to see the consultants have completed their technical evaluations and that we finally have some viable route recommendations to allow us to move forward.

A few thoughts from my 30,000 foot view. But first, hats off to the entire transit subcommittee for their diligence and efforts in ensuring we got to this point. Without their dedication and hard work, no telling where this project would be.

As Jeff correctly stated earlier, the streetcar project was intended to be the starter piece of what will hopefully be a comprehensive regional transit system including bus, bus rapid transit, modern streetcar and commuter rail, as originally proposed in the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study. Under the FGS, one of the primary purposes of the streetcar is to serve as the "last mile" component of the entire regional transit system for distributing and collecting riders of the system to and from important employment, housing, retail, entertainment, recreation, health and human services, and other civic destinations throughout the greater downtown area.

Here's the system plan from the FGS:

4136

And here's the streetcar "circulator" route proposed by the FGS:

4137

Much has changed downtown since 2005. And much has changed in how we view effective streetcar system designs. While a large, one-way loop circulator can certainly connect up the dots, we now understand its deficiencies in providing timely and efficient two-way transit service between the dots. So, the large loop concept has been rightly jettisoned in search of a more modern and effective streetcar system design. And now the professionals have proposed several couplet designs that they believe to be the best solution for Oklahoma City for various technical, ridership and economic development reasons.

Like many of you, I've done my own share of "napkin drawing" of potential routes and system plans. And I've been on both sides of the double-track versus couplet debate. In the end, I decided to admit to myself that I'm not a professional transit engineer or planner, and that like it or not, there is no perfect solution. The multitude of technical, economic, geographic and demographic variables involved in designing what must effectively serve as both a local transit mode and economic generator in the short-term, as well as the core distribution component of the entire future regional transit system in the long-term makes it a very challenging and difficult task best left to those who have the technical knowledge and professional background in actually designing, constructing and operating these systems. It’s just not as simple as drawing a line on a map.

One of the most critical aspects of designing the core streetcar system is to ensure that it will indeed effectively serve as the “last mile” transit component of the future regional transit system. That’s because a significant part of the long-term ridership and economic development success of the streetcar system is completely dependent on that system being connected to a successful regional transit system.

To illustrate this point, here’s a list of the 2012 total transit system ridership for cities in which modern streetcar systems are currently in operation or development:

Seattle 147,509,700
Atlanta 131,126,600
Portland 102,740,400
Denver 86,659,700
Minneapolis 81,053,400
Dallas 69,414,200
San Antonio 47,147,100
Milwaukee 44,622,800
Salt Lake City 42,806,000
Austin 35,672,800
Charlotte 26,411,600
Tucson 20,225,300
Kansas City 16,506,500
Cincinnati 16,356,900
Oklahoma City 2,934,700

Simply constructing a single streetcar line in downtown Oklahoma City, whether it be a perfect linear line or not, or whether it connects to certain neighborhoods or not, or whether it traverses certain developable lots or not, or whether it is double-tracked or not, will NOT result in significant long-term ridership and economic development success UNLESS and UNTIL the streetcar system is ultimately connected to a regional transit system with substantial base-load ridership. And much of the ridership success of the regional transit system will depend on the willingness of those who work and visit downtown to forego driving their cars and instead use the commuter rail and bus system. And much of that willingness will depend on those riders being able to utilize the streetcar as the “last mile” transit component to get to within easy walking distance of their final destination.

So, it’s critical that whichever streetcar route is finally selected, that it (1) connects to Santa Fe Station as the future intermodal hub and (2) provides service directly to or within an easy walking distance of most major employment, housing, retail, entertainment, recreation, health and human services, and other civic destinations throughout the greater downtown area. Essentially, the initial core streetcar route must be designed to also serve as an effective downtown “circulator” as originally described in the FGS.

The streetcar system really has a dual purpose. In the short-term, it needs to succeed in enhancing local transit service for downtown area residents, workers and visitors, and in generating additional demand for high-density housing. In the long-term, it needs to effectively support the future regional transit system, which will ultimately provide the greatest ridership, economic development and city-shaping success for the streetcar system. It’s important we don’t lose sight of both of those goals as we move forward in selecting the initial core route.

At this point, I'm leaning toward supporting Zeta as the best option for meeting all of the above-stated objectives.

One great thing about Heritage Hills is how much free on-street parking there is. That will really help with people who want to park there for free and then ride the streetcar downtown for events.


hahaha

Huh? :dontgetit I don’t see why this is funny. Being able to “Park Once” in Heritage Hills would have considerable benefits. Jane Jenkins for one has consistently argued for Park and Ride solutions on the edge of downtown that would allow people to Park Once and then use the streetcar to ride to multiple venues in downtown. This would help with the parking problems downtown (be they real or perceived) of cost and availability as well as reduce traffic congestion in the downtown area. In addition, the amount of free spaces (in a very walkable environment) in a zone just one block to either side of Walker between 13th and 23rd would surely approach the cost of a structured parking deck. As Midtown fills out and easy on-street parking in that area gets used up, just like outside The Level in Deep Deuce now, having this excellent resource in Heritage Hills will be very helpful.

For the last couple weeks all I've been told is that HH would oppose, even sue the city if a streetcar was proposed up Walker.

I've had several conversations with HH residents, including board members and HH homeowners for 40 years and they love the idea. They originally opposed the streetcar on 13th for 2 reasons: They were concerned it would push traffic into their neighborhood if people tried to avoid the streetcar and 2, one route had the streetcar doing a loop around the Edge...not their favorite development in the area. They saw it as simply an amenity for that development. So I'm a little tired of being told by the people who have lived here forever that some things can't be done and that some people are just going to oppose us.

All the neighborhoods I've mentioned along Walker and UpTown 23rd have all just formed a new alliance. They are gearing up to make 23rd a destination corridor for the entire city. They see a streetcar connection as a fantastic way to serve downtown commuter residents as well as evening and weekend traffic into 23rd. I'll let them speak for themselves officially and to the Subcommittee, as I've continued to tell everyone to do.

I have been approached by both supporters and protesters from Heritage Hills. Undoubtedly though, there have been 2 - 4 people from Heritage Hills who have been regular protesters at the last 5 Subcommittee meetings or so. The first couple of times they were fairly vocal in their concern regarding people parking in HH and the additional "congestion" they thought the streetcar would bring. Then they were concerned about "driving on the rails" in the street.

The first few meetings they were very vocal. When their concerns were answered, they have taken up one on one lobby of MAPS 3 Subcommittee and Oversight Board Members... also Council members. I specifically noted Pete White being lobbied at the public meeting this past Monday by some of the same people.

So while there maybe strong support to bring the streetcar through Heritage Hills and Mesta Park, I am not sure that is resonating with decision makers due to this seemingly small group of organized people. I would say, while I appreciate their concerns, feels to me as though it has turned towards simple NIMBYISM. I do think they may have frightened some City Staffers though. And also created an excuse in "Phase 1" not to spend the extra dollars to get up to 13th and settle for 10th, 11th, and 12th instead.

On the other front, several Uptown 23rd people have been to our meetings. While they haven't spoken out publicly from what I can tell, I have been contacted by them and my support to extend streetcar to 23rd has been requested.

Kristen Vails with the Plaza District came to one of our early meetings and expressed her organization's desire for streetcar to the Plaza District.

Not sure as of yet what to make of all of it, but I do think that having a well defined expansion plan with the costs more authoritatively estimated would certainly be a great idea for a MAPS 4 initiative, should there be one.

Hope that helps.

Oh also, several of these people have publicly stated they are lawyers. So that may be where the threat of lawsuits are coming from.

One great thing about Heritage Hills is how much free on-street parking there is. That will really help with people who want to park there for free and then ride the streetcar downtown for events.

Yeah, if there's anything more likely to get HH on board with a streetcar coming up Walker, it's the prospect of drunks coming back to their cars at 1 AM parked in front of their houses. Good luck with that.

Yeah, if there's anything more likely to get HH on board with a streetcar coming up Walker, it's the prospect of drunks coming back to their cars at 1 AM parked in front of their houses. Good luck with that.

So does that mean we shouldn't have any stops in Heritage Hills? Run it as an express from 23rd to 13th?

Let's say we have a MAPS 4 proposed in 2017 that includes money for streetcar expansion. I wonder if phase II of MAPS 3 (scheduled for 2021 completion) could be conjoined with a MAPS 4 phase I to create an extension to 23rd or the Plaza district since we would be buying rails but would not necessarily have to buy cars?

Citizens of HH who oppose the streetcar might also have a change of heart once they see how quiet and non-polluting a streetcar is, not to mention the convenience of having one within easy walking distance.

We would have to buy more cars to handle a longer distance in coverage and maintain frequency. We would however be saving the cost on the maintenance facility and base infrastructure. Also, presumably utility costs could substantially drop the further away from downtown you get.

This is why I think that an organized group such as UpTown, Plaza, or OCU should work to ask for an authoritative study with project costs to inform any future vote in a more scientific way.

I think there will be general support in HH. Why is it when someone agrees with you and talks to an official or committee member they are "supportive" but if they disagree with you they are "lobbying".

I don't think you can fault anyone for wanting to maintain what they think are the good things about their neighborhood and are cautious about disrupting it. Most have pretty stiff investments in their homes in HH. Once their fears are allayed, then they will support. This is no worse of an attitude than the DD people chasing Patel out of his plans. Of course, there are the irrational who don't want ANY change, even if it is good.

If you are asking me since I used those terms, it is because a shift has occurred to NIMBYISM. Those may have been legitimate concerns. They were answered in detail out of respect in these meetings. Some of the concerned citizens seemed to have shifted to lobbying.

I think you could also note that supporters often do "lobby" for infrastructure in their hood. I noted that as well. But we have only seen an organized "lobbying" effort by this group of people as of yet regarding the subjects at hand.

And when I say "we", I mean the Subcommittee.

I think there will be general support in HH. Why is it when someone agrees with you and talks to an official or committee member they are "supportive" but if they disagree with you they are "lobbying".

I don't think you can fault anyone for wanting to maintain what they think are the good things about their neighborhood and are cautious about disrupting it. Most have pretty stiff investments in their homes in HH. Once their fears are allayed, then they will support. This is no worse of an attitude than the DD people chasing Patel out of his plans. Of course, there are the irrational who don't want ANY change, even if it is good.

So far the Heritage Hills protesters have been emphatic about not wanting the streetcar anywhere near their neighborhood. They have said that even 10th is too close. They are very concerned about parking and have pointed to the parking problem that spills over into their neighborhood when McNellie’s has an event. When residential parking permits was suggested to them they respond, “Why should they have to?” Again, can the Heritage Hills Board make a representation to the Transit Subcommittee, MAPS Board and Council that authoritatively refutes the concerns that these individual protesters have bought to these bodies and to staff? That will go a long way to making a convincing case that Heritage Hills is interested in having the streetcar run directly through their streetcar and that they are not concerned about the increased accessibility for non-residents to their neighborhood that this will result in. The next Transit Subcommittee meeting is a week today, Wednesday July 24th at 3:30 pm in 10th Floor Conference Room at 420 West Main.

I don't blame the citizens of HH for having an opinion and advocating (that's a non-pejorative word I think) for their point of view. Reversing the direction of the streetcar could put the line on the north side of 13th St. as opposed to the south side as originally planned. While, as I said, I think they'll be surprised at how quiet it is, it could create some parking issues if the city doesn't plan ahead. Interestingly though, the two most vocal opponents of the streetcar going to 13th St. apparently have their primary residences elsewhere, although they own property in HH. Citizens of HH who don't want them speaking for the neighborhood should speak up.

Whenever Phase III occurs, that's the time to consider going to Plaza/UCO/23rd by extension from Midtown to the northwest.

The double-track Walker concept to 23rd looks nice on a map, but it's too far west to effectively serve as the core circulator for the regional system. Even the double-track Hudson idea didn't make the final cut, and it's one block further east than Walker.

If Heritage Hills wants access to streetcar service, then they quickly need to figure out whose on which side of the fence and decide whether or not to support at least a portion of the route being on 13th.

As for 23rd, it should be serviced at some point in the futue by it's own east-west line.

I say stop the streetcar just out of convenient walking distance of HH (like 10th and Walker) and then in a few years when they are begging for it, hit them with a special tax assessment to extend it.

I say stop the streetcar just out of convenient walking distance of HH (like 10th and Walker) and then in a few years when they are begging for it, hit them with a special tax assessment to extend it.
I think every property along the route should be HIT with a special tax assesment. Why do you think just HH should pay a tax. They are the one who 40 years ago started the renaissance. They should be punished for it?????

Reposted below to delete the unnecessary thumbnail which I'm unable to delete myself. If a moderator will delete this post entirely, that would be good.

I've just been catching up on my reading in this thread (the catching up beginning around the 1st week in July) and I must say that I'm pleased and impressed by the thoughtful discussion, sometimes arguments, and the nicely mannered discussion.

As an interesting (to me, at least) sidebar, the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (http://www.acogok.org/regional-transit-dialogue) (ACOG) also has a broader discussion going on, the "Regional Transit Dialog." That link says that,


The Regional Transit Dialogue (RTD) engages locally elected officials, policy stakeholders, private sector leaders, and the general public to articulate how transit can serve the Oklahoma City Area Regional Transportation Study (OCARTS) area in the years and decades to come.

One of the most interesting (again, to me) pieces of that discussion being worked upon is an interactive map which shows the pre-1947 streetcar routes in Oklahoma City. See this link (http://bit.ly/16yEjr1) for a look at its unfinished status.

James McLane, GIS Technician, Transportation and Planning Services, Association of Central Oklahoma Governments, advised me that this project is in its beginning phases and is a work in progress. Although he is still checking out historic routes for accuracy and other information, he allowed that I was free to share the above link with anyone I wanted. Although I expect to do a blog post focusing on this project after it has developed a bit further, I'm first sharing it with the guys and gals at OkcTalk.

The images below illustrate this project. As I said, the map is interactive and one can click on any route and get a bit of description about it. He eventually plans to add vintage trolley car photos, which will be very cool indeed.

A cropped part of the ACOG map:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trolleys/acog_vintage_streetcar_map_1_zpsb3d152c4.jpg?t=137 4106763

Here's the same area, but with a route being clicked on:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trolleys/acog_vintage_streetcar_map_2_zpsc531e873.jpg?t=137 4106763

Eventually, McLane plans to add actual streetcar images associated with particular routes.

The map is zoomable ... so to include the interurban routes as well, which one would suppose is of greater interest to ACOG than Okc's historic inner-city routes ...
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/acog_vintage_streetcar_map_3_zps1f9fe2ec.jpg?t=137 4108329

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/acog_vintage_streetcar_map_4_zps71340f35.jpg?t=137 4109285

This project may well be eye candy to those interested in Okc's re-invented streetcar development. It is to me.

Proposed streetcar route worries Urban Renewal Authority
by Molly M. Fleming
Published: July 17th, 2013


Urban Renewal Authority Board of Commissioners had the simple task of passing its revised Midtown Urban Renewal Plan on Wednesday, but the organization did so without approving its streetcar route.

“I’m not prepared to say that streetcars in general will promote development in that area,” said Larry Nichols, OCURA board commissioner.

Nichols said he was concerned that the streetcar would be connected on catenary or trolley wire, the latter of which involves a number of high wire lines.

“I don’t feel very good about it at all,” he said. “I think it would be an incredible step backwards,” referencing the work the city has done to improve the look and quality of the streets.

The city of Oklahoma City has not chosen a design for the streetcar; rather it is working on the route first. Work on the route is expected to start by 2015 and the car route is planned to be operating by 2017.

Board member Mark Beffort said he did not want the board to adopt the route because he was afraid it would send a negative message to those who are working to create the route.

He said he has not attended the meetings and he does not want the board to appear as if it has a better idea of the route than those who have studied it.

“It just seems wrong to me that we’re committing ourselves to a specific route,” he said. “We need to have the right type of streetcar. I’m not ready to say I agree with this route.”

OCURA Director Cathy O’Connor said the Midtown route was referenced by Jacobs Engineering when they created the four routes that are being evaluated.

Downtown OKC Inc. Executive Director Jane Jenkins is on the streetcar subcommittee and said three of the four routes are similar to the route in the Midtown Renewal Plan.

“We are not anywhere close to finalizing any of this,” Jenkins said. Jenkins said the Automobile Alley board nearly passed an ordinance that stated they would not support a streetcar with the catenary wires.

Leslie Batchelor, counsel for the board, said she has heard from entities downtown that are excited about the proposed streetcar system.

“There is a population that supports it,” Nichols said. “And there is a population that doesn’t and doesn’t go to those meetings.”

The plan approved by OCURA did include changing Harvey Avenue to a bicycle-friendly lane, with an addition of bike lanes and signage on the street.

Also included in the plan is an addition of more street parking in Midtown.

If memory serves, Nichols, and others, have been consistent in opposition to streetcars that rely on overhead wires. Not saying that view should carry the day, but unless it is a dramatic cost issue, streetcars w/o the overhead wires would seem to be met with less hostility.

A shot across the bow from one subcommittee to another?

Good lord - that clears up a few things. It is laughable to state a modern streetcar powered by an overhead catenary is "an incredible step backwards". That statement is incredible when one considers some of the most beautiful cities on earth have streetcar systems with overhead wires running through them. If anything, modern streetcar catenary systems can be incorporated into the Project 180 streetscape scheme and contribute to a more cosmopolitan atmosphere in downtown OKC. (Not to mention reducing the cost and complexity of the streetcar vehicles significantly.)

Here are a few examples:

Prague - Czech Republic, not the one in OK. And this is the "old" streetcar:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/PragueStreetcar.agr.jpg

Paris - France, not Texas:
http://www.parisbypod.com/images/pod/A7-Tramway-Alesia.jpg

Rome - Italy, not Georgia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Rome.Tram.JPG

Berlin, Germany:
http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/de/b/tram/61-boelschestr1.jpg

Proposed streetcar route worries Urban Renewal Authority
by Molly M. Fleming
Published: July 17th, 2013


“We are not anywhere close to finalizing any of this,” Jenkins said. Jenkins said the Automobile Alley board nearly passed an ordinance that stated they would not support a streetcar with the catenary wires.


Didn't realize that AA possessed statutory authority to pass ordinances. :tongue:

For the love of Pete! Why is it that the entire world seems to be capable of living with a single overhead line but for some reason the 'sophisticates' in OKC just can't grasp the idea? OKC doesn't have the budget to start experimenting with different propulsion systems. Just go with what the whole world knows works and is the most cost effective.

Mr. Nichols and Devon's views about the wires were pretty broadly known throughout the Streetcar Alternative Analysis process. Being our largest employer and possibly our most prominent downtown corporate citizen, we have respected those thoughts and are looking at hybrid technology to alleviate overhead wires in the core.

I find the article a very positive one. Rather than endorsing a route that Cathy O'Connor and company came up with, they chose to respect the hard work that the Subcommittee is doing. I for one, appreciate it.

Plus, Cathy has had profound influence on this process and many economic development factors have obviously played into the four proposed routes already. To her favor at that.

Proposed streetcar route worries Urban Renewal Authority
by Molly M. Fleming
Published: July 17th, 2013


Urban Renewal Authority Board of Commissioners had the simple task of passing its revised Midtown Urban Renewal Plan on Wednesday, but the organization did so without approving its streetcar route.

“I’m not prepared to say that streetcars in general will promote development in that area,” said Larry Nichols, OCURA board commissioner.

Nichols said he was concerned that the streetcar would be connected on catenary or trolley wire, the latter of which involves a number of high wire lines.

“I don’t feel very good about it at all,” he said. “I think it would be an incredible step backwards,” referencing the work the city has done to improve the look and quality of the streets.

The city of Oklahoma City has not chosen a design for the streetcar; rather it is working on the route first. Work on the route is expected to start by 2015 and the car route is planned to be operating by 2017.

Board member Mark Beffort said he did not want the board to adopt the route because he was afraid it would send a negative message to those who are working to create the route.

He said he has not attended the meetings and he does not want the board to appear as if it has a better idea of the route than those who have studied it.

“It just seems wrong to me that we’re committing ourselves to a specific route,” he said. “We need to have the right type of streetcar. I’m not ready to say I agree with this route.”

OCURA Director Cathy O’Connor said the Midtown route was referenced by Jacobs Engineering when they created the four routes that are being evaluated.

Downtown OKC Inc. Executive Director Jane Jenkins is on the streetcar subcommittee and said three of the four routes are similar to the route in the Midtown Renewal Plan.

“We are not anywhere close to finalizing any of this,” Jenkins said. Jenkins said the Automobile Alley board nearly passed an ordinance that stated they would not support a streetcar with the catenary wires.

Leslie Batchelor, counsel for the board, said she has heard from entities downtown that are excited about the proposed streetcar system.

“There is a population that supports it,” Nichols said. “And there is a population that doesn’t and doesn’t go to those meetings.”

The plan approved by OCURA did include changing Harvey Avenue to a bicycle-friendly lane, with an addition of bike lanes and signage on the street.

Also included in the plan is an addition of more street parking in Midtown.

This is ignorant and embarrassing, there's just not much else that can be said. Not just one person. This whole situation of not believing that the streetcar will really upgrade the blocks around the route. This is what happens when people influencing our development from the top have never been to more progressive cities and still idolize Dallas as a role model.

“I’m not prepared to say that streetcars in general will promote development in that area,” said Larry Nichols, OCURA board commissioner.

Very bizarre statement.

How could it NOT promote development??

Especially in Midtown where it's too far to walk back and forth from downtown (for most). I think Midtown will benefit more than anywhere.

If UP is not concerned, then neither am I.

Mr. Nichols and Devon's views about the wires were pretty broadly known throughout the Streetcar Alternative Analysis process. Being our largest employer and possibly our most prominent downtown corporate citizen, we have respected those thoughts and are looking at hybrid technology to alleviate overhead wires in the core.

OK, that is fine. Opinion noted. I understand and appreciate the investment Devon and Mr Nichols has made in Oklahoma City. I also appreciate the investments made in Automobile Alley. But to get to brass tacks - the streetcar and the streets do not belong to that relatively small group of people. (Notwithstanding the way P180/2 was funded.) The property owners on AA are going to benefit regardless of any wires.

Will someone let me in on why the MAPS taxpayers should spend more on the vehicles and get less trackage to satisfy one person's (or maybe a few people's) design aesthetic? It seems the city is resigned to placating the wireless desires of a few influential individuals without fully explaining the tradeoffs. We should maximize our return on investment and that means using proven, less costly propulsion technology.

But that is just my opinion and I do not sit on the subcommittee and have to balance all these influencers.

I understand not wanting something like this all over downtown:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Electric_wires_of_Tram_2,_Arakawa_Line.jpg

But modern streetcar overhead wires are far less intrusive and serve as an easy to spot route indicator.
Here are a couple examples of how the catenary can be incorporated into the streetscape:
http://www.igg.org.uk/gansg/00-app1/trampole.jpg
http://www.mars-reims.fr/images/lac.jpg
http://citytransport.info/PhotoCD/PCD13f_037.jpg

Mr. Nichols and Devon's views about the wires were pretty broadly known throughout the Streetcar Alternative Analysis process. Being our largest employer and possibly our most prominent downtown corporate citizen, we have respected those thoughts and are looking at hybrid technology to alleviate overhead wires in the core.

I find the article a very positive one. Rather than endorsing a route that Cathy O'Connor and company came up with, they chose to respect the hard work that the Subcommittee is doing. I for one, appreciate it.

Plus, Cathy has had profound influence on this process and many economic development factors have obviously played into the four proposed routes already. To her favor at that.

I would not be opposed to Cathy O'Conner running the entire show with MAPS3. Especially the convention center which is going to end up being a huge failure for ED.

If UP is not concerned, then neither am I.

Thanks!

I would not be opposed to Cathy O'Conner running the entire show with MAPS3. Especially the convention center which is going to end up being a huge failure for ED.

I would have stopped at "I would not be opposed to Cathy O'Conner running the entire show."

Why? How many planners does Larry Nichols employ?

I understand and appreciate the investment Devon and Mr Nichols has made in Oklahoma City. I also appreciate the investments made in Automobile Alley. But to get to brass tacks - the streetcar and the streets do not belong to that relatively small group of people. (Notwithstanding the way P180/2 was funded.)

People need to keep in mind that Devon/Nichols did not pay for any part of P180, they merely insisted that the taxes they were required to pay were spent in a specific way.

Devon did loan the City the money upfront, but that is being repaid with interest.

(Nichols did make a private donation to the Bicentennial Park, however.)

Proposed streetcar route worries Urban Renewal Authority
by Molly M. Fleming
Published: July 17th, 2013


Urban Renewal Authority Board of Commissioners had the simple task of passing its revised Midtown Urban Renewal Plan on Wednesday, but the organization did so without approving its streetcar route.

“I’m not prepared to say that streetcars in general will promote development in that area,” said Larry Nichols, OCURA board commissioner.

Nichols said he was concerned that the streetcar would be connected on catenary or trolley wire, the latter of which involves a number of high wire lines.

“I don’t feel very good about it at all,” he said. “I think it would be an incredible step backwards,” referencing the work the city has done to improve the look and quality of the streets.

The city of Oklahoma City has not chosen a design for the streetcar; rather it is working on the route first. Work on the route is expected to start by 2015 and the car route is planned to be operating by 2017.

Board member Mark Beffort said he did not want the board to adopt the route because he was afraid it would send a negative message to those who are working to create the route.

He said he has not attended the meetings and he does not want the board to appear as if it has a better idea of the route than those who have studied it.

“It just seems wrong to me that we’re committing ourselves to a specific route,” he said. “We need to have the right type of streetcar. I’m not ready to say I agree with this route.”

OCURA Director Cathy O’Connor said the Midtown route was referenced by Jacobs Engineering when they created the four routes that are being evaluated.

Downtown OKC Inc. Executive Director Jane Jenkins is on the streetcar subcommittee and said three of the four routes are similar to the route in the Midtown Renewal Plan.

“We are not anywhere close to finalizing any of this,” Jenkins said. Jenkins said the Automobile Alley board nearly passed an ordinance that stated they would not support a streetcar with the catenary wires.

Leslie Batchelor, counsel for the board, said she has heard from entities downtown that are excited about the proposed streetcar system.

“There is a population that supports it,” Nichols said. “And there is a population that doesn’t and doesn’t go to those meetings.”

The plan approved by OCURA did include changing Harvey Avenue to a bicycle-friendly lane, with an addition of bike lanes and signage on the street.

Also included in the plan is an addition of more street parking in Midtown.

Lord have mercy...