Well, I believe that Sheridan and Mickey Mantle is close enough. There just should be stop there. That's my .02.

I think you are right. Most people I know in Deep Deuce don't think walking that distance is a big deal.

Great photo of the New Mexico Rail Runner. This is precisely the type of commuter rail application that we will be considering for Oklahoma City. The MPXpress locomotive is manufactured by Idaho-based MotivePower (http://www.motivepower-wabtec.com/locomotives/commuter/mpxpress.php) and has been the choice for nearly all of the commuter rail systems that have come on line in the last decade. The bi-level coach cars are manufactured by Bombardier (http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/commuter-and-regional-trains/double-deck-coaches.html) and have also been the preferred choice for most new systems.

Here's a couple more more photos showing the Salt Lake City Frontrunner, New Mexico Rail Runner and Minneapolis NorthStar:


Metra in Chicago, Virginia Railway Express in Northern VA/DC, and MARC in DC/Maryland have also begun using the MPXress.

Downtown Denver's bus station is .42 miles from one light rail line, and .37 miles from the nearest leg of their light rail couplet that essentially turns into a streetcar downtown. The opposite direction couplet is .47 miles from the bus station. They do have the 16th street mall shuttle, but we are lucky to be able to have our current and future bus stations and our future intermodal hub so close to the streetcar line.

Are the bus riders' ultimate destinations compatible with streetcar routes? In other words, is the demographic of the bus system user going to be the same as the demographic for the streetcar? Are the bus rider's going to Btown or to shop in Automobile Alley? Are the bus riders working downtown? Where. If it is the last mile scenario, then the demographics of the feeders needs to match up with the destinations enabled by the streetcar. Do the proposed routes do that?

Good questions Rover. I think the answer is the streetcar itself will serve nearly all demographics regardless of the origin of their trip to numerous downtown destinations. The Zeta circulator will get someone from the bus transfer center or Santa Fe hub to places like ACM, offices, numerous restaurants, the YMCA, city offices, numerous hotels, etc. When you combine the streetcar's function as a circulator with the in progress refinement of bus routes, I think it serves just about anyone needing to get around downtown OKC well.

By using a shotgun approach and not focusing on a core market, you run the risk of not working well for anyone. As they say, a point in every direction is no point at all. We need to make sure it works well for a primary audience that will justify its existence and growth. As a byproduct, we will get additional riders using it for other reasons.

Well, I believe that Sheridan and Mickey Mantle is close enough. There just should be stop there. That's my .02.

Don't forget 4th and Broadway. For west Deep Deuce, it's very close as well. Russell M. Perry and Sheridan is another option for Far East Deep Deuce. People who live in Deep Deuce don't mind a little walk. My daughter who lives in Chicago considers herself extremely close to mass transit and she's 3 blocks from the bus and 4 from the Brown Line.

By using a shotgun approach and not focusing on a core market, you run the risk of not working well for anyone. As they say, a point in every direction is no point at all. We need to make sure it works well for a primary audience that will justify its existence and growth. As a byproduct, we will get additional riders using it for other reasons.

I agree with you in principle. It is also why I think it is most proper and beneficial to make the MAPS3 Streetcar function as an effective downtown circulator. Focus this first step on enabling circulation between as many potential origins and destinations as practical. Then once that foundation is established, look at destinations farther away from downtown proper and evaluate how to best serve those locations.

Dallas? With a metro population of 6.6 million people. :) I get the big picture. But we've got to get there first. With all due respect (and a lot is due), you've skipped right past reality here in OKC and went straight for some kind of transit dreamland. One I too hope comes true but today, we've got $130M to build a streetcar to improve transit in Oklahoma City.

I'm still waiting for Last Mile thoughts. And if someone responds to any of my questions with some possible last mile scenarios, will they be the first time they've ever been presented during the streetcar discussion?

The FGS's route was a true circulator. It showed route bus integrations, stops, destinations, etc. With that kind of information, the public can make an informed decision. Transit users can 'run the numbers' as we do to understand how the proposal will impact them.

Where is that information? You've asked us to give you feedback on routes but without information about how they holistically interact with the network, should one even assume that it does?

The study that was just done by COTPA (Nelson Nygaard) mentioned a need for a streetcar integration. A fact that was underlined by Mr. Cain at a Subcommittee meeting. The fact that it wasn't even known and the details of the study weren't considered (much less participated in), is telling is it not?

Just like building a city out of a prarie, you can't start by erecting a skyscraper. You've got to build the parts to attract people and businesses and build density slowly. We need ridership (transit) solutions in this city so very badly and my last plea to everyone on the Subcommittee is that you not accept a solution that doesn't squarely and obviously address today's transit needs. Ask Jacobs or bring someone in to look at how any of these proposals are going to help the average transit rider.

I don't understand what you don't understand about the last mile. You keep looking from Norman to Edmond to find the use of transit, when I think you need to start looking a lot more local. The difference between now and ten years ago is that instead of a thousand or two downtown residents you now have several thousands, including you. Downtown employment and especially entertainment had taken off. We need downtown transit because today we have NOTHING (let's not pretend the trolleys they finally got rid of this year counted), and last mile refers to how it functions once somebody takes a bus or train from the suburbs into downtown. For now the key is that this has to function on its own efficiently.

You are making it sound as if there is nobody downtown that would use this system, which has been the primary argument against doing rail transit for the last 20 years. That argument, that we don't have the density to support downtown rail transit, was probably correct until recently.

What I especially don't understand is how someone who lives in Deep Deuce amidst the biggest concentration of new development doesn't see how OKC is changed. You see just how many people come down for nightlife, sports events, festivals, and to eat out every night. After 5 there are now just as many people coming downtown as there are leaving. A lot of cities, like Chicago and Cleveland, actually now have reverse rush hour with people flocking downtown after 5 for entertainment.

I also have noticed a theme among transit professionals. The people who are very anti-streetcar today are generally the old school transit directors who see their job as providing a government service, and while they feel good and heroic about fighting for under-represented constituencies that rely on transit, they are ultimately shutting out anyone else who would make a choice to use transit. A lot of people want to use transit but don't want to feel like they're going through the welfare system. We just don't provide dignified service. I use busses every day in different cities up here and I'm always shocked at the condition they are in, especially compared to trains maintained by the exact same transit agencies.

Almost all transit planners on the other hand support streetcar because they're leery of bad service with BRT and cost overruns with LRT. I don't think there is any problem w your bus-centric position, Sid, but I think in a few years we will regard streetcars and TOD as a major shift in city planning back to building the great cities we had before urban renewal. This very significant concentration in city planning that you call a "bubble" is the most innovative and successful thing that planning has to offer cities right now, and a lot of people including myself are focusing on obtaining degrees or certificates in TOD. Discrediting the concept of TOD doesn't make you sound cognizant of urban planning concepts or research.

The problem with providing a poverty service and shutting out people who ride by choice is that you can't maintain a solvent program that way. You need ridership from more diverse demographics, which in this case means middle income. Transit needs to be something for everyone and it needs to bridge all demographics. We need to get people out of cars by providing a service that is useful, clean, pleasant, efficient, and modern. That's the huge opportunity we have here.

Something to help people get to downtown and use the amenities.

We simply can't afford both right now. So what do we do? Develop a short light rail line that links a few lucky neighborhoods with downtown? Or link as many of the downtown amenities as possible? Which will get the most riders? Which will be the most effective public transit?

Answer me this...

Is it just because this new TOD is so shiny and new that people who live down here just don't get it? Sure, we tend to make friends with people who agree with use (I suppose) and I'm here to tell you, I'm concerned there isn't a ton of excitement from people who do live down here.

I'm not fishing for feedback tuned to my bias. People who have seen the plans are very willing to come out and say they are flat out confused or worse.

I've got an inbox full of emails from people telling me how grateful they were for publicly asking for a more transit-centric solution. Something to help people get to downtown and use the amenities.

If the "TOD method" is the slam-dunk new way of doing transit, I'd submit that it is going to need better spokespeople and explanation.

With all due respect, the MAPS Streetcar was never designed for people to "get to downtown." I don't know how many more times this needs to be stated. Even when we voted for it it was labeled as a "downtown streetcar." It has been designed to move people throughout downtown from its inception. Why are we even arguing about this now? The decision was made in December of 2009 that we were building a "downtown streetcar." That's what we were told and that's what we voted for and that is the task that was given the streetcar subcommittee.

The streetcar does not address all of our city's transit needs, and it would be absurd to expect it to. We need to do more. But continuing to bash the streetcar for specious reasons -- namely that it doesn't help people "get to downtown" -- is intellectually dishonest and extremely unproductive in the larger transit discussion.

Can we agree that the streetcar will move people throughout downtown as it was sold to the voters? We may not do backflips over the route decisions but the streetcar will do what it was designed to do.

Now, the next, and perhaps more productive, discussion is what we can do to expand upon the streetcar to meet some of the transit needs you mention.

What can we do to get better transit funding? Who will lead this effort? How should we refine the bus system to be better? These are questions to tackle.

Let's hold the streetcar to the standards that were set for it: that it provide a clean, convenient, modern way for people to move throughout downtown.

Do we have any idea what the daily migration pattern for users downtown is now?

Do we have any idea what the daily migration pattern for users downtown is now?

My observation is car to parking garage to car. LOL. Just kidding.

But I think you can follow the spirit of a larger plan by thinking of this as Phase 1 of many.

Take this as an example:4213http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/transportation/4213d1375157265-modern-streetcar-commuter-transit-project-maps-3-progresses-untitled.jpg

Some routes having more merrit today than others, but I think you get what I am saying. Just showing how streetcars can follow logical corridors/routes and act more as a new technology to improve the whole system, rather than try to create a new network, apart.

A couple of those lines look like great extensions to be considered in due time. To do a any of them now, with MAPS3 funds, is putting the cart before the horse. Even understanding and acknowledging different people's thought processes are wired differently, I still cannot fathom what is so illogical about the Zeta route. It is not difficult to understand by any stretch of the imagination and has plenty of flexibility for riders and operations built in.

To me, it is logical to establish the circulator with our initial streetcar budget, then build the lines - some of which you suggested - radiating from the circulator as soon as more funding becomes available. I think it is likely there will be a few districts competing for the first extension. I think it is counterproductive to constantly bemoan the route not being limited to a straight line when there are clear advantages to the type of system trying to be established.

As has been mentioned several times, the next logical step after the streetcar is to push hard to get the RTA established. Once that is done and funding becomes available, the bus system will probably be the initial focus for improvements while planning for the first streetcar extension or getting the Adventure line operating or the Edmond-Norman commuter line running. Fixing the basics and getting the OKC metro caught up to modern transit standards is going to be a lengthy process that will require focus on the end goal and accepting the sequence may not always be like other cities or personal preferences.

This first streetcar will go a long way toward getting people who are not likely to ride a bus regularly to support increasing funding for that bus system. Any transit system needs the support of "choice" riders (and non-riders) in order to have the resources to serve those who have no choice. This streetcar will serve both groups around downtown on the route tentatively selected thereby laying the foundation for additional service in the hopefully relatively near future.

To me the lack of logic is simply in making a route that isn't legible in a city that is incredibly transit unaware. And two, it is a little too complicated. In that, it will demand higher frequencies in order to convince ridership.

Here's a good example of why I think so many people who live downtown are wondering if it is going to provide them with much value:

How Far Can I Travel (http://www.freemaptools.com/how-far-can-i-travel.htm?address=300%20NW%204th%20St.%20Oklahoma %20City,%20Oklahoma&speed=4&time=.25&accuracy=15&u=miles&hw=false&m=true)

That map shows you how far you can walk from the center of the route in 15 minutes. As I've said before, once you start to get out on the ends of the route, it obviously starts to make more sense.

The 16th street mall in Denver was brought up earlier. It is actually a great example of a valuable "ping-pong" people mover. It is super easy to get on, know where you are going, and they come by every 1.5-4.5 minutes. And it is 100% free. That's insane frequency that creates a corridor of "people moving". If we need to build an anchor corridor strictly in downtown, then something more akin to the 16th Street MallRide would probably provide you the results you are looking for. That's what I call "duh" transit. When you are presented with it as an option, you aren't going to choose anything else. I guess for me, you're not accomplishing that level of convincing with the Zeta. It's going to take convincing people to use it and making it super legible with wayfinding throughout all of downtown.

Backing off of my "help connect more residential to downtown amenities" then, has a "Mall" concept been considered? I don't remember seeing one but I wasn't as active during early meetings.

As a frequent transit rider in cities all over the world, I don't think our humble streetcar is going to be that complicated to understand. Perhaps quality signage will ameliorate your concerns about confusion.

OKC residents will be the first to catch on to the routes. Tourists may need to look at a map. But we're not building a complicated maze of routes. I think the "legibility" argument is a sound one, but is being stretched to hyperbolic extremes here.

Can we just get some damn tracks in the ground and move forward?

By the way, if you want to have a good discussion about the lack of legibility, check out our bus routes. Completely insane. And no signage. And when you hit the website on your mobile device there is no easy map to download. "Legibility" in transit has not been a strong suit in our city, and I would argue that the streetcar route will make far more sense to average folks than our current system.

Ready when you are. I'm just asking questions. I've got no say in the matter. Onward! :)

And I have no more say than you do! The point I was trying to make is that this isn't going to be some super-complicated system of routes. Legibility is a legitimate concern, but we are going to have FIXED transit for a change. That is an advantage of rail-based transit. It doesn't move. People will very quickly figure out the route and legibility will not be a problem.

I lived in New York, and I've traveled there dozens of times, and yet I STILL check out the subway map. Not on the 6 Train, or whatever train I normally ride, but when I use another route. New Yorkers will readily admit that they check out the subway maps all the time.

What we're building here will be nowhere near as complex. I think legibility -- while a valid concern -- is something we don't need to worry about with our little OKC streetcar.

As a frequent transit rider in cities all over the world, I don't think our humble streetcar is going to be that complicated to understand. Perhaps quality signage will ameliorate your concerns about confusion.

OKC residents will be the first to catch on to the routes. Tourists may need to look at a map. But we're not building a complicated maze of routes. I think the "legibility" argument is a sound one, but is being stretched to hyperbolic extremes here.

Can we just get some damn tracks in the ground and move forward?

By the way, if you want to have a good discussion about the lack of legibility, check out our bus routes. Completely insane. And no signage. And when you hit the website on your mobile device there is no easy map to download. "Legibility" in transit has not been a strong suit in our city, and I would argue that the streetcar route will make far more sense to average folks than our current system.

My point exactly. There is absolutely nothing illogical or complicated about the proposed streetcar route. Continually repeating that fallacy does not make it suddenly become true. In fact it is somewhat insulting to continually say people in OKC can't figure the Zeta route out. If anything, the near perfect street grid in OKC lends itself very well to exactly the type of route proposed because of the inherent legibility of a simple grid.

A Pedestrian/Transit Mall concept:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ZIDxRVWUFsQ/UfdchaLY9kI/AAAAAAAEpgE/o10gq2vcPTw/w895-h661-no/pedestrianmall.png

One of the really obvious factors of this kind of a proposal is if we could get the frequencies down to 5 minutes or less, we'd have some serious connectivity going on all along Sheridan from the east end of Bricktown all the way through Film Row.

Less obvious though... this actually connects to the rail line just east of 235. So expansion to the Adventure Line might be able to be accomplished on Sheridan? If that is indeed possible, for an 'adventure' line, that might end up being a better connection into Bricktown anyway. Just a thought.

The white polygon is just me putting a maintenance facility in. This is 1.75 miles (3.5 tracked miles). Denver's Mall is about 1.5 miles (3 track miles).

Phase II could be a N/W Walker or Robinson spine.

WTH? Just because a route is not arrow straight does not make it inherently difficult to understand. People around the world figure out how to use transit systems with these crazy things called turns and transfers and crossings every day. I managed to figure out Chicago's L at 10PM the first time I went there, I managed to make a few transfers on DC's Metro to get where I wanted to go, I even deciphered a couple of systems in Korea without much signage in English, and Rome 20 years ago as well. Same in Atlanta, Dallas, CA, and other places. This, from a person who drives around in a car 99.999% of the time and is fairly representative of most OKC citizens. One doesn't need to be dependent on transit to quickly understand how best to use a given system.

Sorry, but arguing Zeta (or any of the routes proposed) is somehow more complicated than an average person can decipher is wrong. If it looked like many of our bus routes then I could see your point. But honestly I cannot figure out why you are being so intransigent on this issue. There are going to be compromises made in any route selected and we cannot posibly reach every desirable destination right now, but people will adapt and figure out how to use it according to their individual needs and later the system will expand to other places thereby making it even more useful. Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree on the sequence of building routes in OKC's streetcar system.

I never said people couldn't figure it out. Please don't put words into my mouth. There is a point at which making a decision to figure out and even risk making an error will cause potential riders to just walk short distances instead.

Anyone can eventually figure out even the most complex system. The #50 route is confusing. I know it is cause I use it all the time and people all the time say it is while on the bus. They look at the little paper pamphlet for a few minutes and then eventually asks the driver "does this go to the Myriad Botanical Gardens?" I watched people stare at the maps on the sidewalk many times and then walk away from the stop. Perhaps they were curious and just reading it. Or perhaps they just didn't get convinced to use it -- for whatever reason. That's all I was addressing. Not suggesting OKC people can't figure it out. I am suggesting however that in a city with such a low number of transit riders, that patience threshold might be lower. Perhaps not?

OK, but when you constantly use words such as "illogical" and "illegible" to describe a simple route like Zeta, what other conclusion as to your intent is expected?

I am fairly certain people will be more than willing to spend a few seconds to determine how to use the new streetcar to their advantage. Frequent riders will be more than willing to help anyone with questions - that's kind of what Oklahomans do.

I do agree with you that getting the highest frequency possible on any route will be very important. The streetcar must be the most convenient option or it will not garner the hoped for ridership. IIRC we will purchase 6 or 7 vehicles for this first 5-6 miles of streetcar. If one vehicle is out of service for maintenance, assume 6 are running. That would put frequency at approximately 5-7 minutes (assuming an average speed of around 15 mph). That is probably about right for the circulator but I would increase it if possible. Try to get service intervals under 5 minutes around the circulator might be a good goal.

As far as the patience threshold, I think it will be pretty high. The streetcar is going to attract a lot of attention and an awful lot of people will want to try it out. By and large people around here are a patient lot and will understand if there is an occasional hiccup in the early operational stage. Going back to the frequency issue, if 5-7 minutes can be maintained by the operators, I think that is within most peoples time they are willing to wait. Once they ride it a time or two, they will start to see shortcuts or tricks within the system they will exploit to their advantage.

Sorry if I sounded harsh earlier - I didn't mean it that way. I am honestly trying to understand your reasoning but simply cannot.

All good points. I agree to disagree. And I don't care if I sound smart or knowledgeable in what's trendy in transit today. You know I don't have the education you do. I'm telling you how I feel and what I think as a daily transit user.

Surprise me with something new. But don't try to ask for "public support" when no discussion is being had really about the holistic solution. The FGS was the first and last time it was done from a downtown perspective. The conversation today for me, only confirmed my concerns. We are banking on a massive amount of transit investment and (I feel) missing out on an opportunity to do something more meaningful now.

It's my armchair perspective.

I'm not saying no one will use it downtown. In fact, about 15 minutes ago I was telling people I think there will be riders. You're making my point though. I'm ready to take current, high capacity or high use corridors (existing or hidden) and make them dignified. We're on the same page there. I'm just asking that it not be an island of dignity. That it celebrate our current system and offer said dignity for as many current and future riders as possible.

Who said I don't see how OKC has changed? Not sure what you mean there. I think I've got a pretty good grasp of how this area has changed. Having a lot of people driving downtown isn't what I'm going for. I'm going for a lot of people able to get to downtown, car free. A park and ride centered in downtown isn't my brand of transit. If that makes me old-school, okay. :)

Sid, what do you think we need to be celebrating and loving about our current bus system? It's all a piece of warped junk. I am shocked that the Nelson Nygaard study, which I'll admit I just haven't had time to read, isn't pushing for a grid system. That said, we know how these consultants work in telling us what we want to hear regardless of the project, and I sense that the bus advocates are hostile to a grid system which I don't understand why. OKC was built on a grid. It's transit needs should be served on the same grid, rather than routes that meander past all the Wal-Marts between the outer fringe and the bus transfer center.

This seems like a very circular notion of being hostile to talk of changes to bus service and then dramatically withholding support for the streetcar because we're not talking about bus solutions. Where I'm coming from is that I am curious how you'd feel about a limited service boundary inside I-240 and the NW Expwy, within which we can offer excellent service, outside which we should offer none. Then we keep building important social service facilities distant from existing bus routes, so I hope that we don't expect to create a new route for all of that, too.

Answer me this...

Is it just because this new TOD is so shiny and new that people who live down here just don't get it? Sure, we tend to make friends with people who agree with use (I suppose) and I'm here to tell you, I'm concerned there isn't a ton of excitement from people who do live down here.

I'm not fishing for feedback tuned to my bias. People who have seen the plans are very willing to come out and say they are flat out confused or worse.

I've got an inbox full of emails from people telling me how grateful they were for publicly asking for a more transit-centric solution. Something to help people get to downtown and use the amenities.

If the "TOD method" is the slam-dunk new way of doing transit, I'd submit that it is going to need better spokespeople and explanation.

Sid, could you post a few emails to explain? The notion that people are confused is a little fuzzy, and frankly, I'm right there with them.

OKC is still sprawling and migrating its population base further and further away from downtown. I don't know how you plan to improve OKC without addressing its sprawl. I think the best way to do that is to provide an agreeable, market-based impetus to get those housing units planned for Moore or Deer Creek to be built in downtown instead.

It sounds like you want transit without TOD, which you only get by doing transit the way it's been done in OKC since the 1950s, and ensuring that the built environment and transit are as separate as possible. When you connect transit to the built environment is when you are creating TOD, which isn't at all a new concept. Cleveland was talking and building TOD back in the 1920s. Chicago was one massive TOD.

So we're not just talking about some shiny new thing we want to see. It's an advanced, proven concept that will work in turning OKC's built environment around. It's nothing to be derisive toward.

A Pedestrian/Transit Mall concept:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ZIDxRVWUFsQ/UfdchaLY9kI/AAAAAAAEpgE/o10gq2vcPTw/w895-h661-no/pedestrianmall.png

One of the really obvious factors of this kind of a proposal is if we could get the frequencies down to 5 minutes or less, we'd have some serious connectivity going on all along Sheridan from the east end of Bricktown all the way through Film Row.

Less obvious though... this actually connects to the rail line just east of 235. So expansion to the Adventure Line might be able to be accomplished on Sheridan? If that is indeed possible, for an 'adventure' line, that might end up being a better connection into Bricktown anyway. Just a thought.

The white polygon is just me putting a maintenance facility in. This is 1.75 miles (3.5 tracked miles). Denver's Mall is about 1.5 miles (3 track miles).

Phase II could be a N/W Walker or Robinson spine.

I like this. If you were talking about a Broadway-Robinson spine, you'd have me completely on board.

I am curious as to how many streetcars will be running at a time. I would guess six to make it effecient, but I am not sure. Also, will there be specific stops or will there be something to alert the driver if someone wants to get off? What will the time between cars at stops be? 5 minutes? 10? Rubber-tire trolley times where you never know when the next one is coming around?

Rail has very advanced ways of staying on sched regardless of traffic and stops. I think in SF you can drive in the trolley lane but if it comes you better get over, if i remember right. I'm excited that soon conservative Ohio will have a streetcar model that will win a LOT of cities over, in the same way that Tulsa will probably magically find funding for its own city after OKC has success w this.

As for a stop request button, that almost always comes standard and easily marked.

I am curious as to how many streetcars will be running at a time. I would guess six to make it effecient, but I am not sure. Also, will there be specific stops or will there be something to alert the driver if someone wants to get off? What will the time between cars at stops be? 5 minutes? 10? Rubber-tire trolley times where you never know when the next one is coming around?

I threw six streetcars out as a guess. It was just a quick estimate of service interval based on a SWAG of average speed, route distance, and not much more. Besides it was very late. It may not be exactly right but seemed to make sense. I think service frequency should be about 5 minutes - less if practical during peak times. I think it is achievable within the budget of the MAPS3 project but there are more qulified people that can answer that better than my guess.

I know discussions about including a system that gives streetcars priority at stoplights have been ongoing. That makes sense and should be rather easy to implement and would be one of the primary methods of keeping service intervals low.

Headway (time between streetcars arriving a stop) would most likely be 10 minutes (you may see 8-12 minutes quoted in places). The number of streetcars is then dictated by what is needed to maintain that headway with an extra streetcar as a spare/in maintenance. So we are probably looking at a five cars for Phase 1.

I dont think 5 min is reasonable to expect, but thats fantastic if so. Id expect 10 min freq.

My observation is car to parking garage to car. LOL. Just kidding.

I know you are kidding, but that is the problem. Those who commute in during the day who are coming in to go to work will still do exactly that unless we make all new parking at the perimeter of the routes and force them to use the transit system to get to their point. Do they expand their lunch area by having transit or do they still go to lunch within a block or two because they have 45 min for lunch anyway? At night, will people from outside the transit routes park and go to multiple places, or will they drive close to their destination anyway. If it ties to the bus system, will the people who go to the restaurants in Btown and Midtown, or who go to the Civic Center or to Thunder games arrive to the system via the buses, or will they still attempt to park close to their ultimate destination?

I don't think the issue of route design is CAN they go multiple places by having the line, but WILL they. Will it be last mile, or will they still attempt to park close? If it is fed by other transit, where are those people going and are they frequenting the services made more available by the location of the line? Do the demographics match up?

Headway (time between streetcars arriving a stop) would most likely be 10 minutes (you may see 8-12 minutes quoted in places). The number of streetcars is then dictated by what is needed to maintain that headway with an extra streetcar as a spare/in maintenance. So we are probably looking at a five cars for Phase 1.

Thanks for clarifying/correcting that. I could not remember the number of cars included in MAPS3 Phase I. 8-12 minute headway is not unreasonable and maybe will eventually get closer to five minutes in time. I suppose that could be accomplished by a couple methods the simplest of which is adding a couple cars to the Phase I & II route.

Another way to decrease headway (my new word for today!) on the circulator might be the additional cars coming into downtown from other locations as the systems expands. For example, if someone needed to get from Midtown to Myriad Garden, and if the system is expanded NW to the Plaza District or OCU, they could catch a car coming in from those more distant locations and need not wait for the cars running only on the circulator loop. There are many possibilities for this system to grow and increase service for OKC residents eventually.

I know you are kidding, but that is the problem. Those who commute in during the day who are coming in to go to work will still do exactly that unless we make all new parking at the perimeter of the routes and force them to use the transit system to get to their point. Do they expand their lunch area by having transit or do they still go to lunch within a block or two because they have 45 min for lunch anyway? At night, will people from outside the transit routes park and go to multiple places, or will they drive close to their destination anyway. If it ties to the bus system, will the people who go to the restaurants in Btown and Midtown, or who go to the Civic Center or to Thunder games arrive to the system via the buses, or will they still attempt to park close to their ultimate destination?

I don't think the issue of route design is CAN they go multiple places by having the line, but WILL they. Will it be last mile, or will they still attempt to park close? If it is fed by other transit, where are those people going and are they frequenting the services made more available by the location of the line? Do the demographics match up?

I think you may have just described how people's usage of the system will evolve Rover. They may start out by trying to park front door until after a while people start to realize there is no need to do so any longer when they see a streetcar go by during their search for that perfect parking spot. That is just one example, but I think once it is operational people will eventually chose it for the purposes you describe once they break their prior habits.

Are there any Streetcars running faster than 10 minute headways in the US?

Good question. I wonder what exactly is considered minimum acceptable or the standard. What headway is considered a "high performance" system? Sounds like I have a little research project for the day. :D

I am still trying to catch up to some of the more knowledgeable members on the technical details. My perspective is usually that of a transit consumer.

While I am far from a transit expert, the problems I see in this thread are similar to marketing issues I see in inventors and new product development. The inventor focuses on the object and how great it can be instead of the actual market for the object. They have great ideas about what people SHOULD do and little information on what people WILL do. We tend to focus on data and look for answers that fit our preconceived notion of what it means. The questions I am asking are relative to setting expectations. Without proper setting of expectations we will argue about whether the results, whatever they are, represent success or failure and whether we should expand the system or keep it as an image enhancer and toy. Without execution to a specific target, and without proper expectations, we will have divisive arguments over design and expenses for decades and it will eventually fail.

Interesting - I see where you are coming from Rover. You certainly cannot gage success by how much money any transportation mode makes generally speaking. Ridership data is definitely part of it but not the only way to evaluate it. TOD is a component but more of a long term data point. I don't think many people disagree the streetcar represents a quality of life improvement, but how is that measured? Transit is something that requires "fuzzy" logic to judge success I suppose even though hard data is available for some aspects of it. It is definitely not as easy as P&L.

Are there any Streetcars running faster than 10 minute headways in the US?

The Red Line in Cleveland runs every 5 min during rush hour but thats LRT. I'd bet Portland ramps up freq for rush periods, maybe even Blazers games, etc. keep in mind OKC and Portland have far more in common than people realize, incl being rabid NBA towns.

Maybe instead of trying to figure out 'last mile' the initial phase should serve 'first mile'. Find the center of the neighborhood with the highest population density, map the daily transit pattern of those people, and then replicate that path with the streetcar. If you want break it down into daytime and nighttime populations then do the same thing with both groups and connect their routes at the transit hub.

Maybe instead of trying to figure out 'last mile' the initial phase should serve 'first mile'. Find the center of the neighborhood with the highest population density, map the daily transit pattern of those people, and then replicate that path with the streetcar. If you want break it down into daytime and nighttime populations then do the same thing with both groups and connect their routes at the transit hub.

Oh Good Lord the semantics are getting thick. It's a downtown streetcar. Call it the first mile, the middle mile, or the last mile, it's still a downtown streetcar, and it's what we voted for. The subcommittee has tried to balance density (for early ridership) with TOD opportunity. The route that seems to be favored does both. Also, we're not just building for the city we are today, we're building for the city we're going to become. Does anyone think Deep Deuce will be the last district to see major residential development in Downtown? Of course not (and by the way, Deep Deuce is going to have stops within fairly easy walking distance). Just the Facts, you made what I thought was a thoughtful critique of MAPS being voted on way too far in advance, so by the time projects come online they don't fit the city we've become. I would argue that the planned streetcar route takes into account this growth, not just what we see today.

Keep in mind the earliest the streetcar will be operational is 2017. The mind boggles how much new housing we will have seen come online downtown by then, not to mention thousands of new hotel rooms, new office towers, new retail, new restaurants, etc. Linking, say, Bricktown to Midtown via Automobile Alley may not seem like a big deal today, but imagine what we're going to be looking at in four years! Literally thousands of new residents, thousands of new hotel visitors, thousands of new office workers, a new public school, and a new university law school. That's what we already know is happening today! Ridership is not going to be a problem.

I know we're all afraid this is going to be screwed up because we have PTSD from past developments in OKC, but of all the concerns, ridership should not be one of them. We're going to have riders, lots and lots and lots of them. All you have to do is look at the numbers. I feel more confident about this now than I ever have, and I've supported this project from Day One.

Since we have to start somewhere why don't we start where the people are? If people might be at location X in 5 years then in 5 years we might put a streetcar there. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Since we have to start somewhere why don't we start where the people are? If people might be at location X in 5 years then in 5 years we might put a streetcar there. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

You keep saying this but the route scoring is based on density. The streetcar won't even be in the ground for almost five years, so why would we limit our scope to where people are today? This is a circular argument.

I am following JTF on this and he is kind of saying what I am saying. (I can't believe I just said that :D) You have to figure out where the people likely to use the system are going ... both from and to. You either build it to serve them or build it to influence development of things that appeal to that demographic segment and enable access to those things through cheap and reliable transit. Transit serves no purpose if it doesn't enable people to go where they want to go, safely, cheaply and reliably on the schedules they want. So, without knowing their transit destinations we know nothing. We should know where people who are likely users originate and what their movement patterns are. OR, build the route and then encourage development of compatible services along that route. Otherwise, it is just an amusement park ride.

I don't understand what specific planning recommendations you guys have for the first vs. last mile problem... If you're not just making noise, be more specific in your outrage over this streetcar process.

I am following JTF on this and he is kind of saying what I am saying. (I can't believe I just said that :D) You have to figure out where the people likely to use the system are going ... both from and to. You either build it to serve them or build it to influence development of things that appeal to that demographic segment and enable access to those things through cheap and reliable transit. Transit serves no purpose if it doesn't enable people to go where they want to go, safely, cheaply and reliably on the schedules they want. So, without knowing their transit destinations we know nothing. We should know where people who are likely users originate and what their movement patterns are. OR, build the route and then encourage development of compatible services along that route. Otherwise, it is just an amusement park ride.

I agree with your premise. They studied it. That's why they developed the route they did. The only argument I've seen that seemingly has merit is that it doesn't truck right through the middle of Deep Deuce. But it does serve Deep Deuce at the edges. And it's going to abut many high-density residential complexes that are under construction, soon to start construction, or recently announced. It also goes through the densest part of the Central Business District, the densest entertainment district in OKC, the only retail district in Downtown to speak of, and the hottest and fastest growing neighborhood in our city. It connects people to places of major employment, the arts district, one of the state's largest and fastest growing medical districts, the center of our municipal government, our city's most renowned tourist attraction, our city's greatest sporting venue, the parks, etc. To say this doesn't go where people are or want to go is just patently absurd. It is a blatant falsehood, a statement that is ridiculous on its face, so why keep repeating it?

The scope of the project was always to connect people to destinations throughout downtown. It does this. Some people wish the scope were different but that's always been the scope of the project.

I suspect this game of playing "catch up" on public transportation is not moving fast enough for many people who dream of a city with at least a functional transit system. We are not that city today. So they're lumping all of their hopes and dreams on the streetcar project when it is only the important beginning of what will hopefully turn into an enthusiastic embrace of better public transportation options for all of OKC.

This is a classic case of rising expectations. When things start to get better they don't get better fast enough to meet rising expectations, so people react. It's totally understandable and it is historically predictable.

The discussions are fine and healthy for the most part but it gets tiring to hear repeated garbage that doesn't square with the facts. The streetcar is not being designed to solely travel through empty sections of OKC in the vain hopes of TOD. It is NOT bypassing dense areas. It is connecting MAJOR downtown destinations. And it will travel near dense areas we know about today and it will inspire further densification. It will serve residents, visitors, office workers, and citizens from throughout the city. It will be used by people of every socioeconomic group. And it's going to have lots of riders.

That is why people fight for fixed-rail transit solutions; they cannot be moved around like a rave. The streetcar is going to be a fabulous asset to our city.

I am following JTF on this and he is kind of saying what I am saying. (I can't believe I just said that :D)

I think Lucifer just felt a chill!! :rolleyes:

I understand exactly where you and JTF are coming from but arrived at a different conclusion. I think it ultimately boils downs to a chicken and egg question.

If the streetcar was a 100% standalone mode of transit I would be more inclined to agree with you. However, in the bigger scheme of how to improve transit in central OK, it is still a critical component but with a different role.

Here the thought process that led me to my position:

First, we must agree it is more likely than not a regional transit authority will eventually be established in central OK. Next, I think it is best to use the Fixed Guideway Study as the basic outline for a comprehensive central OK transit network. It is the primary document outlining how various modes of transit could (should?) be used in the Metro. If we assume the basics of the FGS will be the template for the eventual RTA, the question becomes where do we start?

In all likelihood, the first thing that will happen once an RTA is established and funded is bus service will be dramatically and quickly improved. Increased routes, higher frequency, and modernized buses will show up fairly quickly once the funding mechanism is in place. This will directly impact large numbers of transit dependent people right away and that is the right thing to do. A byproduct of improving the bus service's "reputation" for lack of a better word will be an increase in "choice" riders as long as the routes go where these people are. This is how I foresee transit becoming "acceptable" to middle class north OKC/Edmond people like me. In Edmond, Norman, and other suburbs it will probably include some sort of park and ride facilities also. I know JTF hates that idea, but I am fairly sure they will be part of the equation. When that happens, all these people riding buses to either the bus transfer center or transit hub will still need a way to get to their final destinations.

Then people will start asking for other options to get from Edmond or Norman to downtown. The FGS incorporates Commuter rail running from Edmond to Norman and Yukon/Mustang to MWC/Tinker AFB with the Santa Fe transit hub at the center. In FGS, Bus Rapid Transit is envisioned for the NW Expressway corridor. The Adventure Line seems like it is a priority for the city and it will probably precede commuter rail and BRT. These riders will need the proverbial "last mile" also.

Additionally, we will have the opportunity to serve other locations in OKC with an expanded streetcar system. In some places it may function more like light rail and not run in the streets. I think the Farmer's Market, Stockyards, Plaza District, Capitol Hill, HSC and vicinity, State Capitol, and maybe Will Rogers Airport at possibilities for an extended streetcar system. This will further increase the number of people needing the "last mile".

If the streetcar/downtown circulator is not in place before any of these parts of the FGS are operational, I think the new modes of transit will be seriously hampered and the lack of the "last mile" will probably be a fatal flaw to central OK transit in general. I think cries of "why should I bother with using this new bus/train/BRT when I still have to walk all the way across town when I get there?" would be inevitable and unnecessarily decrease ridership. This is easily avoided when we have the opportunity, and more importantly, the funding to get the streetcar circulator ready before that happens.

This is why I think it is best to build the downtown circulator component of FGS first. Otherwise, people will not use an improved bus system or other RTA component because they would be dumped off downtown with no way to get to the end point of their trip. In turn, that would give ammunition to transit naysayers to assert any investment in transit is wasted.

Finally, I think we will see a dramatic increase in the number of residents in downtown, and specifically along the streetcar route(s). These people will need the "first mile" to get to destinations around town, and may include taking a bus from the hub or transfer center to locations outside downtown. The streetcar will be the preferred transit mode for the majority of those people most of the time. I think these "new" residents will be a mix of the young "hipster", professionals at the various employers downtown, aging/retired people who may not be able to drive any longer, families with younger kids (at least through elementary age - I am not so sure about middle and high school aged right now), and people who simply don't want to live in the suburbs and all that comes with that lifestyle. Some of the new residential development will be directly attributable to the permanence of the streetcar.

For all those reasons and a few others, I think the MAPS3 streetcar makes sense to be the downtown circulator component of a larger future Central OK transit system. Until the RTA and these other modes of transit are established, the streetcar will provide a good balance of a transit option for thousands of people and impetus for economic development along the route. Even if for some reason the RTA and all that it will bring never happens, the streetcar will still serve those functions.

I guess that is a little more than $.02 and maybe more than anyone wanted to read. But it is the basis for my support of the Zeta route and why I think the city is on the right path for the MAPS3 Streetcar / Transit project.

This reminds me of when I cook a large meal with lots of sides for a lot of guests.....I hope it all gets finished together so everything is hot. But, I leave the kitchen in a mess to do it.

I guess my point has been that we look at the demographics and desires of the potential riders and not just population numbers. Plus, like hunting, you have to aim in front of the target to hit it.

The Red Line in Cleveland runs every 5 min during rush hour but thats LRT. I'd bet Portland ramps up freq for rush periods, maybe even Blazers games, etc. keep in mind OKC and Portland have far more in common than people realize, incl being rabid NBA towns.
RTD Light Rail here has about 8 minute intervals, at least on the H Line that I ride occasionally.

OKC's system would not be very complex but then the first subway/train system that I experienced was Tokyo. I don't think there are many that can be as complex as the Tokyo subway system and JRT.

The same route EVERYONE walks from those two districts.


the idea that "everyone" walks between bricktown and midtown is one of the funniest things i have ever read on this forum

I agree with the rising expectations comment. Part of the problem is we are expecting this TINY (with couplets, only covering 2.5 to 3 miles) "starter" streetcar to be all things to all people. It can't. It won't. The subcommittee was tasked with an extremely difficult balancing act of trying to be everything to everyone. But something that seems to get missed, if this starter system is a failure (for whatever reason), the rest of it is unlikely to follow. For it to be what we all want it to become, it HAS to be successful. People have to ride it and want more.

the idea that "everyone" walks between bricktown and midtown is one of the funniest things i have ever read on this forum

Uh yeah that's almost 2 miles. The point i try to come back to over and over is that downtown is so much bigger than people realize.

RTD Light Rail here has about 8 minute intervals, at least on the H Line that I ride occasionally.

OKC's system would not be very complex but then the first subway/train system that I experienced was Tokyo. I don't think there are many that can be as complex as the Tokyo subway system and JRT.

Yeah, i think standard headways are coming way down. I'm noticing a trend with transit seeing benefits in providing increased service.

I agree with the rising expectations comment. Part of the problem is we are expecting this TINY (with couplets, only covering 2.5 to 3 miles) "starter" streetcar to be all things to all people. It can't. It won't. The subcommittee was tasked with an extremely difficult balancing act of trying to be everything to everyone. But something that seems to get missed, if this starter system is a failure (for whatever reason), the rest of it is unlikely to follow. For it to be what we all want it to become, it HAS to be successful. People have to ride it and want more.

This is one of the reasons I came around to thinking the Zeta route makes sense. By including the bus transfer center and Santa Fe hub on the route it serves both our present and future sources of riders coming in from outside downtown. Couple this with serving demographics ranging from Midtown apartment dwellers, OCU Law students, transit dependent riders coming in to the transfer center, tourists staying in Bricktown wanting to get to the Memorial, shopers in AA, and many others. Destinations range from Midtown and Bricktown restaurants/bars, AA shops, Myriad Garden, arena, city offices, courts, etc. The Zeta truly serves anyone from any walk of life pretty well. I think the subcommittee was looking for and found the balance you mentioned with this route and that is the reason they asked Jacobs to analyze it in more detail.

We must always maintain perspective on what this system can - and cannot - do with the funds allocated for its construction. It is just the first in hopefully many future improvements of transit in OKC. I think it is very smart for OKC to start the ball rolling by including this streetcar and hub in MAPS3. It will provide quality of life benefits right away and enable other forms of regional transit to be successful in a few years.

The subcommittee has listened to input from more sources than I probably know about and have modified their initial route preference to reflect input from many sources. I think they have done very well finding that balance. I think this is one of the primary reasons the streetcar will be successful and lead to improving transit in the entire central OK region.

Yeah, i think standard headways are coming way down. I'm noticing a trend with transit seeing benefits in providing increased service.

I wish I could remember exactly where I read this but a commuter rail or light rail system made the decision to buy additional vehicles for the specific reason of decreasing service intervals despite cries of "waste" and "not needed". After the lower headways were implemented, revenues went up dramatically from increased ridership. It made it more convenient enough that it became a better option for a large number of people. This makes sense and IIRC is being adopted at other transit systems. I will try to find the source and citation. I think sub 5 minute headway should be the goal eventually and hopefully we will get there.

There are two lines running at the stop by my office so they have to stagger the interval there and at a few of the common stations on the routes until they split where I-225 ties into I-25. It might be a bit difficult at times to have them closer, especially on some that have three line stops.

It is 1 mile exactly and according to Google Maps, takes 20 minutes to walk. It usually takes me/us just a little less. We've always walked to and from H&8th and there are always a lot of people walking from Deep Deuce as well. Not everyone drives. Granted, I'm sure we (walkers) were the minority. But it isn't some huge distance. A mile is pretty insignificant to walk in an urban area.

H&8th to DD isn't BT to MT which is over 1.5 mi. Walker is a half mi west of BNSF which BT is east of.

I enjoy a nice walk March through June, October and November, but we typically drive to Midtown. The farthest we walk is to Slingers or the 9th St. restaurants. Recently, however, my husband injured his foot and we don't even walk that far. And I walk nowhere July and August. I can't stand the heat. An air conditioned ride anywhere sounds good at that time of year.

One other thing I would like to add is that any educated transit planner is going to look at reasonable pedestrian range, which admittedly, can be a flexible notion. That said it is almost never over a mile (NB). Most streetcar planning processes involve analysis of existing pedestrian and vehicular routes, and look at the streetcar route as a way of either extending pedestrian trips or converting short automobile trips. The phrase "pedestrian extender" is often used, in fact.

I've always wondered though how pedestrian trips are statistically accounted for in transit planning but, to be frank, just as I don't really believe someone stands on Broadway with a notebook making tick marks all day, I didn't do a transportation concentration so I have no idea. Would be interested in learning more about that process, partly out of hope that it is a legitimate, empirical process (one would hope for the amount of $$$ we're paying these consultants).

Just curious and not adept at searching -- Urban Pioneer, Betts, y'all sit on the subcommittee, right? Do you mind posting: What is your preference for any of the four routes? I'd even be interested in two other options: e) none of the above (in fact, this ______ (fill in the blank) is what I would prefer), and f) all of the above (anything will work just to prime the pump).

One other thing I would like to add is that any educated transit planner is going to look at reasonable pedestrian range, which admittedly, can be a flexible notion. That said it is almost never over a mile (NB). Most streetcar planning processes involve analysis of existing pedestrian and vehicular routes, and look at the streetcar route as a way of either extending pedestrian trips or converting short automobile trips. The phrase "pedestrian extender" is often used, in fact.

I've always wondered though how pedestrian trips are statistically accounted for in transit planning but, to be frank, just as I don't really believe someone stands on Broadway with a notebook making tick marks all day, I didn't do a transportation concentration so I have no idea. Would be interested in learning more about that process, partly out of hope that it is a legitimate, empirical process (one would hope for the amount of $$$ we're paying these consultants).

One possible way might be to run surveys at destination points...restaurants, offices, etc.... and ask where the person originated their trip and how they got there. Simple 2 questions survey. A pattern should quickly emerge.

One possible way might be to run surveys at destination points...restaurants, offices, etc.... and ask where the person originated their trip and how they got there. Simple 2 questions survey. A pattern should quickly emerge.

This might work, but it doesn't take into account future pedestrian patterns, which will be influenced by 1) the presence of the Streetcar itself, and 2) Future development of residential, restaurant, and retail corridors.

This all goes back to the basic premise that we're not just building for the city we have today, but for the city we will have in a few years.

For a simple analogy, imagine the pedestrian and vehicular traffic at 10th and Walker prior to the development of the traffic circle, the redevelopment of Plaza Court, and the inclusion of more restaurants and destinations. It was a ghost town ten years ago, quite literally. Now it is a bastion of activity. This is why it would be short-sighted to only view pedestrian activity today as a determinant of streetcar route design. It's going to change, it's going to expand, there's going to be more densification, there will be more office workers and tourists and residents.

Can you imagine how different the pedestrian activity is going to be in pockets of downtown, Midtown, AA, Deep Deuce, Bricktown and West Downtown within the next few years? It's going to be very different. That's why modeling based upon today's activity seems like a red herring if not a complete waste of time.

I've read that you live in a place in Chelsea. I remember the West Side back in the late 80s early 90s and there were entire dead zones (not necessarily in Chelsea). But then Chelsea Market, High Line, the explosion of the restaurant scene in the Meatpacking District, etc. happened and the area exploded. Same principle. One thing the area always had going for it was the presence of West Side subways, a critical piece of infrastructure for development in NYC.

It is 1 mile exactly and according to Google Maps, takes 20 minutes to walk. It usually takes me/us just a little less. We've always walked to and from H&8th and there are always a lot of people walking from Deep Deuce as well. Not everyone drives. Granted, I'm sure we (walkers) were the minority. But it isn't some huge distance. A mile is pretty insignificant to walk in an urban area.

Unless you're disabled or elderly. Is the streetcar for them too?

Unless you're disabled or elderly. Is the streetcar for them too?

Actually, the streetcar is better suited for the disabled than even buses, so, yes.

Just curious and not adept at searching -- Urban Pioneer, Betts, y'all sit on the subcommittee, right? Do you mind posting: What is your preference for any of the four routes? I'd even be interested in two other options: e) none of the above (in fact, this ______ (fill in the blank) is what I would prefer), and f) all of the above (anything will work just to prime the pump).

I preferred what we called our preferred route - the one we came up with as a committee. It's been posted here and basically is the reverse of the route called the "reverse LPA". Unfortunately, unbeknownst to us at the time, there is a massive utilities vault on the east side of Robinson which would either be impossible or prohibitively expensive to remove. I would prefer the streetcar go up to 13th rather than 10th. There is an option to do that which we could consider once we know how much these routes will actually cost. Of the four, I much prefer zeta. While you lose some legibility, you gain flexibility. You have the ability to change direction at 4th St. where the north and south routes cross. Going North on Broadway puts the route closer to Deep Deuce on Broadway and zeta extends an extra block in Bricktown to get it close to the Hill and new developments on East Sheridan. Zeta allows the route to serve the Arts District and City Hall. It will have a stop by the bus transfer center to allow interface with the bus system. The crossover would allow two shorter loops to be created, one of which could have faster localized service for special events. The route is well designed to expand to the Health Sciences Center or to get into the land west of the park that will likely be residential one of these days. So, while it's not as neat a route as the one our committee came up with, zeta actually serves the city better. It is a compromise, but we always knew that pre existing factors and budget might require compromise.

And, as soonerguru noted above, the streetcar serves the elderly, disabled and bicyclists better, because the floor of the streetcar is level with the curb and it has wide doors. A wheelchair can roll directly from the sidewalk into the streetcar. An elderly person or person with a cane doesn't have steps to climb to get into the vehicle. A bicycle can be rolled directly into the vehicle.