Two things puzzle me in your last post betts. How did the city staffers not have utility location information to the subcommittee in the first few weeks of the process, or at least once it was nearing time to contemplate routes. That seems to be a failure in communication, and a pretty big one. The second one is a surprise, at least to me. i don't think it has ever crossed my mind that a bike guy or gal could board the streetcar and try to finagle the bike twix and tween standing passengers. On an uncrowded car, no big. But if there are several folks on board, I envision some people ending up at work or meals or meetings with some dirt swipes on them from the wheels. Not a fan of the idea myself.

We weren't given the utility information in any detail prior to the route presentation. We poked around ourselves while they were tearing the streets up for Project 180, but didn't see the vault. We were informed that the streetcar could go under the Sheridan bridge but since our route was only "preferred", they didn't do the utility investigation earlier. I suspect that very few people have tried to map our utilities as a whole since they were put in piecemeal. Take that as you will.

There will be a place for bikes on the streetcar. I suspect if the streetcar is SRO, a rider would either choose not to ride the streetcar or wait for the next one. I haven't seen precisely what the bike area will look like though.

I want to say it shocks me that the city failed to give over such information early on. But then I think about other things unrelated to the streetcar that have happened in the same time frame and well, I really just con't muster up any meaningful level of shock that your group was short changed on some seemingly important information.

If you ever get a chance kevin, attending a Streetcar Subcommittee meeting is very revealing. That group of people has been very diligent in their planning and questioning consultants on how to get the very best streetcar system possible with the MAPS3 budget. Some of the comments from staff and others can be very interesting too.

Our buried utilities are a nightmare.

hmmmm, maybe one of the reasons they pushed Project 180 through was so staff could figure out where all the utilities were located. Then when it got overwhelming, they dialed it back to Project 90 just to rest their widdle heads.

</uglyrumormode>

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

Yes, I was referring to the comment that walking a mile downtown is not that far.

hmmmm, maybe one of the reasons they pushed Project 180 through was so staff could figure out where all the utilities were located. Then when it got overwhelming, they dialed it back to Project 90 just to rest their widdle heads.

</uglyrumormode>

Well one credible rumor going around at the onset of P180 was that the $120M budget or whatever it was would be just a fraction of what it might have costed to do full utilities relocation. I'm glad that ended up not happening, but there is no doubt that underground utilities were a significant detriment/hurdle.

These Incredible New Buses Are Charged Wirelessly by the Road Itself (http://gizmodo.com/these-incredible-new-buses-are-charged-wirelessly-by-th-1043337254)

Ouch. Remind me to never cross the road on foot there. :wink:

Mmmk so that's close to how mag lev works, but Bourdeaux had major issues with a streetcar variation of this technology...

Anything involving batteries dramatically raises the price. Plus, there are a lot of technical issues to work out.

Overhead wires are cheap and nostalgic. Seems to me, those with opinions others will cherish just want a clean source of energy which will just cost more with start up but will cost less in the long run. I'm partial to the overhead wire because it reminds me of the not seen as much now as it used to be telegraph lines along the railroads.

I'm betting the Streetcar Committee will get the job done no matter what outside influences have to say.

I'm betting the Streetcar Committee will get the job done no matter what outside influences have to say.

:yeahthat: x1000

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) looks much like that of Portland; however, the system itself looks much more modern:

This system is relatively quiet and I remember when I lived in the Metroplex this commuter rail had a track record for being on time.

http://www.dallassouthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/dart.jpg

We don't have to look to Portland when you have one of the great models for commuter rail being developed just south of the Red River.

Dallas has a very good transit system. The city buses run about every 10-15 minutes; they don't have as much land to cover as OKC.
We're try to cover around 300-350 square miles with only about 10-15% of DART's ridership.

We're doing an outstanding job with mass transit considering what we have to work with. Oklahoma County has a high per capita of auto-
mobile ownership per family--you definitely need a vehicle in central Oklahoma if you plan to get from point A to point B.

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).

What I read is the basic standard for the primary catchment area (walking distance) is 1/2 mile from the stop.

Sounds about right, thanks! :)


Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) looks much like that of Portland; however, the system itself looks much more modern:

This system is relatively quiet and I remember when I lived in the Metroplex this commuter rail had a track record for being on time.

http://www.dallassouthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/dart.jpg

We don't have to look to Portland when you have one of the great models for commuter rail being developed just south of the Red River.

Dallas has a very good transit system. The city buses run about every 10-15 minutes; they don't have as much land to cover as OKC.
We're try to cover around 300-350 square miles with only about 10-15% of DART's ridership.

We're doing an outstanding job with mass transit considering what we have to work with. Oklahoma County has a high per capita of auto-
mobile ownership per family--you definitely need a vehicle in central Oklahoma if you plan to get from point A to point B.

What exactly is outstanding about what we do with transit? To underline the folly of relying on buses and NOT proactively building up TOD density w a planning investment like streetcar, our current hub and spoke system will take you over an hour to go anywhere if you have to transfer.

Working to improve public transportation for everyone in Oklahoma City | News OK (http://newsok.com/working-to-improve-public-transportation-for-everyone-in-oklahoma-city/article/3872408)

Working to improve public transportation for everyone in Oklahoma City | News OK (http://newsok.com/working-to-improve-public-transportation-for-everyone-in-oklahoma-city/article/3872408)

Great article.

Transportation secretary hails Utah's rail system | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/transportation-secretary-hails-utahs-rail-system/article/feed/579578)

I still find this annoying. $7 billion in TOD and over $500 million in federal grants. Thanks again Earnest Istook.

Galling beyond belief.

Yes, galling would probably have been a better choice of words than annoying.

The Utah system was initially built for the 2002 Winter Olympics and their system had a key feature that the OKC system didn't even propose - and that was to actually go somewhere the people riding it would want to go. If the MAPS I rail proposal was built we wouldn't have seen another dime in any mass transit funding for 2 more generations because it would have been an utter failure. We dodged a bullet.

Actually, I could think of a better choice of words but I wouldn't post them here. LOL

The Utah system was initially built for the 2002 Winter Olympics and their system had a key feature that the OKC system didn't even propose - and that was to actually go somewhere the people riding it would want to go. If the MAPS I rail proposal was built we wouldn't have seen another dime in any mass transit funding for 2 more generations because it would have been an utter failure. We dodged a bullet.

And just how do you know that, Kerry? I know some events were in the city but did the rail go into the mountains? I have no reason to think that it couldn't have led to better things for OKC even if it wasn't a bonanza.

Perhaps you are right. To be fair, however, their starter line was 15 miles. It's still hard to see a city smaller than OKC have such a successful rail transit system and know that some of their early success was attributable to our loss. We suffered with the downtown trollies, which certainly didn't reliably go anywhere anyone wanted to. Perhaps we should just use SLC as a system to emulate. Still, it's a hard pill to swallow.

And just how do you know that, Kerry? I know some events were in the city but did the rail go into the mountains? I have no reason to think that it couldn't have led to better things for OKC even if it wasn't a bonanza.

A lot of the events where located in the City. The initial lines connect area south of the city to downtown and then downtown to the University of Utah where many of the Olympic venues (and the Olympic village) were located. Downtown SLC also had the highest concentration of hotels for all the visitors. The lines allowed locals and visitors to reach events easily - unlike the Atlanta summer Olympics that didn't invest any money in mass transit. And of course, the SLC planners were smart enough to build a system that would be of use after the Olympics. As Betts said, SLC should be a model for OKC and any yahoo who says rail won't work in OKC - we should just respond with 'SLC' (instead of Portland).

A lot of the events where located in the City. The initial lines connect area south of the city to downtown and then downtown to the University of Utah where many of the Olympic venues (and the Olympic village) were located. Downtown SLC also had the highest concentration of hotels for all the visitors. The lines allowed locals and visitors to reach events easily - unlike the Atlanta summer Olympics that didn't invest any money in mass transit. And of course, the SLC planners were smart enough to build a system that would be of use after the Olympics. As Betts said, SLC should be a model for OKC and any yahoo who says rail won't work in OKC - we should just respond with 'SLC' (instead of Portland).
I agree with that, Kerry. I just disagree with your statement that the previous system in OKC would have been a complete failure.

The Utah system was initially built for the 2002 Winter Olympics and their system had a key feature that the OKC system didn't even propose - and that was to actually go somewhere the people riding it would want to go. If the MAPS I rail proposal was built we wouldn't have seen another dime in any mass transit funding for 2 more generations because it would have been an utter failure. We dodged a bullet.

Posts like this damage credibility

If the MAPS I rail proposal was built we wouldn't have seen another dime in any mass transit funding for 2 more generations.

Funny thing is we didn't anyway. The risk for Oklahoma City is not doing something...it's doing nothing. Time we all get on board and start building our future rail transit system. The longer we study, debate and argue, the more of our federal fuel tax money goes to other transit systems, like Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas and others which continue to grow and expand.

Once upon a time OKC lost out on corporate relocation and investment to other cities because "there isn't anything to do" was more true than not - so we invested in our city via MAPS. To stay ahead (catch up actually) of peer cities and to become a Tier 2 city, we need to be proactive. I hope we will not need a wake up call in the form of losing a company to a Salt Lake City with one of the primary reasons being "you have to drive everywhere" to do anything. We have to realize the standard for quality of life has evolved since 1995 and cities with comprehensive transit systems - bus, rail, streetcar - will be the winners. Sports arenas/stadiums and rivers and other civic amenities gets us into the conversation today, to win we need to be considered forward looking enough to invest in something other than highways for our citizens to move around the city. The sooner we establish an RTA in central OK and get moving on implementing the FGS plan (and improving our bus system) we paid for, the better.

"you have to drive everywhere" to do anything.

I love the City, but I am someone who wants to leave because you have to drive everywhere. I feel like this "young, creative class" that everyone is talking about is of somewhat the same mind. If we want to keep those people in OKC, transit HAS to be a huge focus.

Transportation Secretary Hails Utah's Rail System | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/transportation-secretary-hails-utahs-rail-system/article/feed/579578)


Here's a related story from 2012 about Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker and his comments at Mayor Cornett's Economic Roundtable...

Oklahoma City Mayors Roundtable Draws Lessons from Salt Lake City | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-mayors-roundtable-draws-lessons-from-salt-lake-city/article/3676046)

Salt Lake City is the city to emulate in our efforts to develop a regional rail-based transit system and to further our economic development success.

Funding options are being looked at according to Brian Brus with the Journal Record.


OKLAHOMA CITY – City leaders working out the route for a downtown streetcar have also started looking at how the system will be financially maintained once it’s in place.

Citizens oversight subcommittee member Mark Gibbs said several options have already been identified, including parking revenues, rider fares and a business improvement district, or BID.

A streetcar BID would be a challenge to create, said Cathy O’Connor, president and CEO of the Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, because the streetcar would loop dozens of blocks. Stakeholders in the discussion assume that a streetcar will provide the greatest benefit to properties directly on the line, with a diminishing impact farther away.

City leaders promised residents several years ago that $129 million of a $777 million MAPS 3 sales tax initiative would go toward developing a streetcar system in the heart of the city, ostensibly the first major link in a much larger transit network that will be developed in years to come.

Construction on phase one of the project is expected to begin in 2015. The first phase includes 4 to 4½ miles of the proposed 5-mile to 6-mile system.

Although the city will pay for the streetcar’s creation, questions have been raised about maintaining it and whether those finances will drag on other transit programs such as bus routes. City Manager Jim Couch has said repeatedly that the general fund should be sufficient to handle the task.

“There are people who definitely want to create the image that there is no operational funding for this,” Gibbs said. “Others who were around for the first MAPS projects remember that not every operational cost was immediately resolved when each of the projects were built, but they’ve all been successfully operated since then.”

City Hall asked the Alliance to investigate options to fund the streetcar’s maintenance anyway.

O’Connor said the most likely solution would be a BID. The city has several BIDs already in operation to support magnet districts such as the area around the historic Oklahoma National Stockyards.

A BID allows for the collection of additional tax revenue assessed on a group of properties to be used in developing that area’s infrastructure beyond the city’s base funding. State statutes that allow such a construct require that the roll of affected businesses be approved by the City Council annually, and a large majority of property owners must agree to the tax.

The Alliance is scheduling meetings with stakeholders at the end of this month to determine their support and concerns.

One of the primary obstacles to moving forward on a BID is that the route hasn’t been determined yet, although O’Connor said the subcommittee seems to be moving in one direction. David Todd, City Hall’s MAPS program director, said the subcommittee is expected to identify a final route Wednesday for approval. After that point, high-impact areas can be identified and the BID will be easier to conceptualize.

“It would seem that if your property is right on the streetcar line, it would be more valuable, while properties a block or two away would be placed in a secondary zone,” O’Connor said.

“It’s important to remember that the streetcar system has a broader benefit to the area – to the people who may not live here, people who are visiting from the suburbs who use it as an easy trip from dinner to a Thunder (basketball) game,” O’Connor said. “So there’s a broader community benefit.

“So then the policy question becomes whether some of the costs should be paid from the general fund and not just the property owners,” she said, adding that the Alliance is not involved in setting policy.

Funding options are being looked at according to Brian Brus with the Journal Record.

Good article.

The Subcommittee has always been looking at options and discussing them. This is one reason why I dislike Shadid so much. His disdain for our public process and his desire for political demons to conquer has prompted him to try to fabricate this issue into a controversy.

UP: What is the committee's thoughts on fare vs. free?

One thing I noticed missing from the article is ADVERTISING. I looked into advertising on city buses a few years back and it was pricey. Streetcars may have the potential of both outdoor and indoor advertising, with several going around downtown. This could be a great recurring funding source above and beyond the city budget.

Don't forget advertising at stops. We will have a lot of stops along the route that offer advertising potential as well. I have mixed feelings about fare versus free. It's time to start running numbers and looking at what other cities have done or are planning to do in greater detail. The streetcar should be able to generate a significant percentage of its O&M with careful planning.

I was trying to explain the BID process to a fellow employee without using that term but saying that businesses along the line would be taxed more and he thought that was hogwash. I told him other cities have done it. Now that I have this insightful article...

Personally think it needs to be free, at the very least unbelievably cheap (like 25 cents), to start and for the first maybe 2 to 5 years.

It doesn't really go anywhere such that it can demand a $1+ fare unless there is a really high-demand for the service. Unfortunately that works backward against the other funding sources (i.e. if it has low ridership, it's likely not spurring the BID/advertising dollars)

And the other thing that just makes my head hurt is the idea of PARKING fares? Foolishly assuming we'd never be so foolish as to have parking built specifically for the tram, what are they going to do...make the garages that are already in place (or that will be built in the future) charge more to their parkers who may or may not use the tram?

Parking revenues refer to the possibility of creating parking atop the car barn/ maintenance facility. Since the barn will be in close proximity to the CBD, Bricktown or Midtown, and because parkers would also have accesss to the streetcar, it's intelligent mixed use. Some of the parking revenues could be used to support streetcar O&M.

Car Barn/Maintenance facility?

I have admittedly not followed this thread from day 1 or even all the time, but this is the first I've heard about such a thing? What exactly is it?

Car Barn/Maintenance facility?

I have admittedly not followed this thread from day 1 or even all the time, but this is the first I've heard about such a thing? What exactly is it?

It's where they store and maintenance the streetcars. Search Google Maps for any streetcar in any city and follow the tracks and you're bound to run across one.

Actually, here:

32.778263,-96.774155

Paste those coordinates into the Google Maps search bar and see the O&M facility in Dallas :-)

Advisory panel maps out route for Oklahoma City streetcar | News OK (http://newsok.com/advisory-panel-maps-out-route-for-oklahoma-city-streetcar/article/3874377)

Zeta route and Midtown route option analysis unanimously approved yesterday by the Subcommittee and today at the Oversight Board!

It will go to Council for final approval in September.

Regarding my opinion on fares, it should be fare free if the O&M can be adequately covered. I think that most of the advisory members feel the same way as well. There are some benefits to collecting fares, but it tends to depress ridership.

There are lots of options for fare structure. Personally I think for the streetcar it should be free. With funding from MAPS there shouldn't be a lot of (if any) debt to pay. If you have to collect a fare from every person who gets on it is going to increase the time at each stop, and since these stops are on city streets that will cause a problem. In many cases the associated cost of collecting a fare is close to what you collect in the fares so there is little to no reason to collect one. However, when we get to something like commuter rail other pricing options are available - from free to pay by zone, to a hybrid of the two, to everything in between.

If the Zeta route sticks (And I assume it will) then

1. I hope it comes in under budget to give phase-II more length to cross 235 into the HSC.

2. Midtown Renaissance made a TON of money off this route. Good for them, because they deserve it...However, anything less than an entirely unparalleled development on the Hudson/10th/Harvey/11th block is unacceptable. Personally think that anything under $40M would be a disgrace, and $50M should really be the floor...

UP, what do you mean by Midtown Route option? Is that for future expansion or something Im not noticing on the Zeta option layout (which is my favorite of routes proposed)?

If the Zeta route sticks (And I assume it will) then

1. I hope it comes in under budget to give phase-II more length to cross 235 into the HSC.

2. Midtown Renaissance made a TON of money off this route. Good for them, because they deserve it...However, anything less than an entirely unparalleled development on the Hudson/10th/Harvey/11th block is unacceptable. Personally think that anything under $40M would be a disgrace, and $50M should really be the floor...

better chance that phase II goes on the west side of the park into core to shore ..


UP, what do you mean by Midtown Route option? Is that for future expansion or something Im not noticing on the Zeta option layout (which is my favorite of routes proposed)?

the actual routing in the midtown area is to be determined ... lots of different options in that area and all will be considered ...

a few of the options ...

10th 11th couplet all the way to dewey ..

10th 11th couplet to walker

double track 10th to end just east of walker

and several others ..

Just as a reminder (I didn't really remember what it looked like myself until I looked it up), the Zeta route that has been recommended is:
https://sphotos-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/942618_265569850252600_844880064_n.jpg

that except that robinson north of 4th is a dotted line (along with a south bound dotted line on broadway to depict the 2 options 1. couplet 2. double track broadway)

and several other dotted lines in the midtown area that depict all of the options at that end of the route ..

the options are why it is call a framework and not a final route

UP, what do you mean by Midtown Route option? Is that for future expansion or something Im not noticing on the Zeta option layout (which is my favorite of routes proposed)?

So yeah.. What Boulder said. lol

Just to clarify further, we have to go into preliminary engineering to fully understand the turning radius's available to us at the various corner in "upper Midtown", space for stops, and what changes to the roundabout at 10th/Walker might be applicable. Some route designs are less have less impact than others and it really takes going into greater detail for the Subcommittee to make an appropriate recommendation for our long term needs. This is particularly important if were talking about serving "Uptown" 23rd Street, Plaza District, OCU, or future light rail (rapid streetcar or true light rail) up Classen/NW Expressway. The "upper Midtown" design attributes are absolutely critical to providing for the long term transit needs of Oklahoma City.

The map doesn't do the route justice. The video that was displayed at the subcommittee meeting was excellent. We are getting a lot of bang for our buck (all $100+ million of them) The perspective provided by watching a vehicle travel the route at streetcar speeds should end just about all the bogus "it isn't transit" statements. It is definitely transit and provides trasnportation to/from numerous places. The Zeta route serves nearly everywhere and everyone in downtown very well right now; AND inbound riders on future transit options and intercity rail/bus.


Just as a reminder (I didn't really remember what it looked like myself until I looked it up), the Zeta route that has been recommended is:
https://sphotos-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/942618_265569850252600_844880064_n.jpg

Is that video available online yet?

Not yet - as soon as it is available, either I or someone else will post it or a link.

There are some benefits to collecting fares, but it tends to depress ridership.

If people won't pay for something it is because they believe the value to be $0. If the riders won't pay and the owners along the route won't pay, then what are we to think about the perceived value?

Free for a period of time to get people to understand the value is great....like giving sample cookies at Mrs. Fields. But long term free, not so much.

That said, JTF makes a good point about the way the fares are collected, its impact on schedules and the net value.. It may sway the argument towards the property owners along and near the route to be taxed some way.

If people won't pay for something it is because they believe the value to be $0. If the riders won't pay and the owners along the route won't pay, then what are we to think about the perceived value?

Free for a period of time to get people to understand the value is great....like giving sample cookies at Mrs. Fields. But long term free, not so much.

That said, JTF makes a good point about the way the fares are collected, its impact on schedules and the net value.. It may sway the argument towards the property owners along and near the route to be taxed some way.


All gpod points which is why I also stated "There are some benefits to collecting fares, but it tends to depress ridership."

The value argument has it's merits. It is the confusion that occurs in the collection of fares and the enforcement of tickets that causes many people to resist riding transit. The easier that experience is, the more weight is given to the "value and investment" argument. But arguably, people are paying their fare when they pay their sales tax should this come out of the general fund as originally promoted by Mr. Couch.

Is that video available online yet?

Will be soon through many different sources.

All gpod points which is why I also stated "There are some benefits to collecting fares, but it tends to depress ridership."

The value argument has it's merits. It is the confusion that occurs in the collection of fares and the enforcement of tickets that causes many people to resist riding transit. The easier that experience is, the more weight is given to the "value and investment" argument. But arguably, people are paying their fare when they pay their sales tax should this come out of the general fund as originally promoted by Mr. Couch.

Didn't the ridership in Charlotte quadruple when they quit charging? Seems like an easy answer to me. I think the easiest way to fund O&M is a combination of what has already been mentioned...ie ads, paid parking on top of or close to O&M facility, BID. Make the BID too high and the property owners will be against it. Could they charge on say Sunday? Would it be fair to charge riders one day a week? Cause I guarantee you, someone will pay to ride from Bricktown to Midtown in a heartbeat, even if it's only 25 cents!

The comments already on this newsok article make me question my faith in humanity...

http://newsok.com/citizens-board-approves-streetcar-route-through-oklahoma-city-central-business-district/article/3874873