Even the mayor expects that process to span decades. I believe he said something about it being done when his grandkids are his age. 25 years would be a fast track on the whole process. So we really just have to sit back and wait and see what develops.

I think some of you are going to be surprised how fast this fills in. Once urban living in OKC catches on with a large park right next door people are going to want to live there in droves. It might not be high density for-sale unit right away but mid-rise apartment building are going to be in high demand. Especially if there is retail on the ground floor. But the Mayor is correct, if half the land is single family homes it will take awhile.

Come on folks....I think most of us realize that any masterplan is just that...a plan. And we all know how often masterplans work out when the private sector is involved.

So basically, we'll get the park and the convention center and everything else will be left for development by the private sector.

Yes, exactly.

Let it grow naturally. Synthetic growth is unsustainable.

If single family homes all the way to the river front is the way the market pushes, then so be it. Over time demand will increase for these homes. Someone with deep pockets will buy up the land, demo the houses, and build larger. We are in the conception stage right now....we aren't even at the infancy level....let the market do it's job naturally.

I am not sure to be happy or sad about randomly noticing that it looks like shields could have on/off ramps to SW 15th (with almost no grading work done), it is nice in that it could be used to improve traffic to the river area where their will be new developments in the city but sad that a city street is so interstate like.

Thanks for that... Very interesting.

Also interesting is that the City has acquired adjacent property that is not within the park's boundaries, such as Goodwill.

If by that you mean it is Park adjacent, then that is correct. It is my understanding by various articles in the Oklahoman and Gazette, the City is buying the land surrounding the Park as well as the Park itself. The purchase of some properties were made even before MAPS 3 was put to a vote (much less passed). IIRC, they spent $6M of an authorized $26M from the 2007 GO bond issue. If numbers are off, hope Steve will correct.

Here's a new article by Steve about timing issues:
Core to Shore faces questions about timing, viability of park


Read more: http://newsok.com/core-to-shore-faces-questions-about-timing-viability-of-park/article/3572063#ixzz1NkDbg64B

I really do think it's too early for this massive park. In the Central Park thread I proposed acquiring the remaining properties, cleaning up the area, burying the utilities and making the park area open with playfields. That should only cost about $25 million and the remaining $105 million for the park could be saved until a later date when that sort of investment would make sense. It's just way too early right now IMO.

If we could at least get the park setup in basic form, then private development should begin to happen in the immediate area.

Even with the old I-40 gone that area is still a mess of crappy structures and vacant lots. We don't even have any funding to build the boulevard so it's not like all the sudden that section is going to be a lot nicer. Pull down I-40 and you still don't have much to make that area appealing, even with a park. In every direction, it's more like a battlezone than a district ripe for development.


I'm all for the idea in general but there are about another dozen urban districts that are still quite a ways from full realization. How about letting a few of those mature before we going running off and spending hundreds of millions -- not to mention tying up resources of city agencies like OCURA -- on the most desolate of all these urban frontiers?

But they did not pitch, as the voter enticement to go to the polls, a bare field of grass with a few lines marked off here and there. Though I agree they can do that, to cancel any meaningful resemblance to the pitch is something of a PR (and potentially a fiscal) nightmare.

So there's presently nothing there. Not unlike the pitch. The pitch was, we want a grand exciting park and around it will spring up all sorts of wonderful, thus making the city better for you and your children and their children.

I don't see if working well if today's politicos subsequently come along and say "oh, we really meant for your children's children, maybe your children, but we'll be so much better off today if we focus on this other thing, you know, the sort of thing that would never have gotten you out to the polls, but which was what we really, really wanted all along.

I can't think of many faster ways to trash out the future of the necessary citizen buy-in for more MAPs opportunities than to just say nah, we don't wanna go there after all, but hey, thanks for the moolah.

See, if I lose faith I can pretty much never drop another penny north of 89th and with very limited exception, never even cross into the city at all. It's not like I canna enjoy very nice opportunities in Norman, or elsewhere nearby. OKC for some of us is just a nice additional aspect to our lives.

But if the powers what be break their faith with the general OKC populace, well, I can see where trying to get another MAPs through would be hard, perhaps even if bond issues get tougher, or and that county jail, that could become a problem too.

Past MAPs votes make it fairly clearly that 40% plus of people who will bother to vote don't have any problem with saying no to begin with on just about anything that resembles a tax. That being the case, the city doesn't have to tick off too many people to have some serious issues arise down the line.

I'm sure they are aware of that. I'm not sure they are not in the mood to gamble, but I still hope they aren't.

But they did not pitch, as the voter enticement to go to the polls, a bare field of grass with a few lines marked off here and there. Though I agree they can do that, to cancel any meaningful resemblance to the pitch is something of a PR (and potentially a fiscal) nightmare.

I'm not saying don't do it -- just take this first step then do the final design and construction later.

A lot of the projects in MAPS 3 are still 10 years out. Why not just do the final build-out of Central Park at the end of this time frame?

I think I would agree that the park would be a good thing to push to the very back of the list, if something must be pushed back. If we are looking for a compromise between quality of life and economic development, that might be a good one, actually. As long as the streetcar and convention center both get pushed forward. Do the streetcar at once first-up or whenever is best for a federal match, and then the convention center can be pushed forward 21-36 months, whatever can be freed up by moving the park. I would be okay with that, actually.

I also think that public opinion will shift a little too, and maybe already has. Good scientific surveying to study the acceptance by the public of the ideas may actually make the citizenry feel engaged and wind up making it EASIER to pass the next one.

I really do think it's too early for this massive park. In the Central Park thread I proposed acquiring the remaining properties, cleaning up the area, burying the utilities and making the park area open with playfields. That should only cost about $25 million and the remaining $105 million for the park could be saved until a later date when that sort of investment would make sense. It's just way too early right now IMO.

If we could at least get the park setup in basic form, then private development should begin to happen in the immediate area.

That's exactly what I think. I think it would be a mistake the push the entire park back, but we could make the space parkland without spending a huge amount of money. Younger trees could be planted, which actually have a better chance of surviving, and they would have time to mature. Then, as MAPS gets into the second half of collections, the park could be improved as projected.

That's exactly what I think. I think it would be a mistake the push the entire park back, but we could make the space parkland without spending a huge amount of money. Younger trees could be planted, which actually have a better chance of surviving, and they would have time to mature. Then, as MAPS gets into the second half of collections, the park could be improved as projected.


It might be a good idea to draw up some park plans and determine some things about tree placement patterns, and go ahead and start forestation now. That could give us a 5-10 year head start on tree maturation for the grand opening of the park off in the future.

And I assume we will focus on the park from the new I40 to downtown first and worry less about the lower park to the river.

And I assume we will focus on the park from the new I40 to downtown first and worry less about the lower park to the river.

I believe that's the plan.

A good chunk of the required property has already been obtained and they are in process with the remainder, so it would make sense to keep moving forward. Also, they are already demolishing the old postal facility and the Salvation Army is set to leave soon. Besides those two large facilities, the remaining properties are vacant lots and a handful of small structures.

I have mixed feelings on the Core 2 Shore aspect of MAPS 3. I understand the concept and can see the nice amenities it could bring, but really I have to wonder why we would be looking at expanding the useable sphere of the downtown area when we have SO MUCH that is just going to waste right now. Bricktown has a long way to go before the place is filled in, and that is just the buildings that exist there... completely ignoring the empty space along the canal and along the surrounding city streets. Deep Duce is completely under-developed... yes more housing has been built in recent years but there is very little in the way of restaurants or just common livability retailers in the area. Midtown is up and coming but still there are so many vacant buildings. To me it would seem that the two major problems with our downtown are density and housing, and I don't see how Core 2 Shore helps either of those... if anything it just increases the problem as it expands outward the downtown land mass and creates yet another area for housing... which does nothing for improving density. Meanwhile the one aspect of MAPS 3 that I was really behind, and most of my friends are looking forward to, the downtown rail lines, seems to have taken a back-burner to everything else. I guess I just don't understand the thought process there.

Who is in charge of this version of MAPS? Is there a steering committee like there was in the previous MAPS? I have not heard much about it this time.

Also, one final follow-up thought... this isn't NYC where our downtown is surrounded by cement and a central park would be a novelty. If you want parks and trees you can go to literally any other part of town. Even downtown we have the botanical gardens, which are so awesome I don't know why anyone would want to try and compete with that. So I don't see how there is market demand there for C2S? I guess I just don't get what our city planners are thinking.

I agree with you that we need to focus on filling in our current downtown districts. I also agree that it is frustrating that the downtown streetcar transit has taken the backburner.

However, as for the park, I also agree with your assessment--but keep in mind that this park was planned before Myriad Gardens improvements were ever even considered. We've been really wanting a super-nice park for a long time, and the Myriad Gardens were really lacking. Then the city suddenly had a new funding source and decided to do a Myriad Gardens overhaul, and that has COMPLETELY changed the park situation. The overhaul really did an awesome job.

I think the park can still be put to good use. I wonder though if the location is right. Maybe that's what we need to change more than anything, and perhaps the land we've acquired for the park can be used for the convention center instead. It makes more sense to either use the M3 park funds to expand the Myriad Gardens to the south and west into more of a super-park, or to pursue a park opportunity somewhere further than 2 blocks away from the MG. But the goal with this M3/C2S park is to have a residential living room. The idea is a park surrounded by townhomes and apartments on all sides. It's a living amenity, and something that would draw people in from all over the region to experience a different kind of environment.

But I think some serious changes to the park proposal need to be considered.

Thanks for the well-reasoned reply Spartan. One thing that scares me to death about C2S is the sort of mentality of just hitting the "reboot" button and starting from scratch somewhere new. Isn't that what we did with Urban Renewall that we said we would never do again? Isn't that what ultimately failed with the IM Pei plan when certain realities changed? Maybe I am being too narrow-minded here, I don't know, but I just really fear the wisdom of basically abandoning downtown and the Myriad Gardens and going off and creating something new. I don't understand why our starting point wouldn't be with the gardens we already have which have won numerous awards. I think maybe you are alluding to the same sort of concerns when you wonder about the location of C2S's park being right.

So how locked into this plan is the city right now? I have seen comments from... I think it was Humphreys... that would seem to say that maybe some influential business leaders are starting to ask the council to reconsider the plan.

There are definitely a lot of people suddenly thinking about the TIMELINE of the park, and there is a strong consensus for pushing the park back at this moment, with the exception of the mayor's office who wants this park as his legacy which is understandable. However, I don't know how locked in we are to this site. I have some really interesting ideas I'm working on, some maps and graphic illustrations that I'll finish tomorrow and unveil that might have a good alternative. But as for how locked in we are, well we now own what, 80% of the land for the park?

Definitely don't think you're being narrow-minded though. Welcome to the forum, by the way.

The core to shore area was the elephant in the room that was ignored for a very long time. While we were considering how to make the core livable again we were surrounding it with unsightly, unkempt and neglected areas...first deep deuce then the area south to the river. We addressed deep deuce and still ignored south of downtown. With I-40 being moved we can no longer ignore it. I doubt we want people exiting a great new highway on their way to a great downtown and pass through weed infested junkyards and shabby hubcap shops. Something had to be done. A park is probably the cheapest way we could deal with it. To change a blighted area of this size into something usable by a great number of citizens, $150 million is pretty good.

Rover & Spartan have it right. This all came about because of the relocation of the I-40 crosstown a few blocks south. An area that has long been blighted and an eyesore no one gave any thought because it was "out of sight, out of mind". With people driving though it to get downtown, the need was there to improve it and be more of a Welcome mat rather than a Danger-Keep Out sign. Mayor Cornett was correct with the idea that few cities get the opportunity to completely redefine, without the destruction of a Urban Renewalesque. I agree there are areas (like the Canal) that are still vacant a decade later and more needs to be done to build up what is existing. To those that have the money and the burning desire to do so, hats off to you and keep up the great work. Just as Core to Shore is a 30 to 50 year vision, it may take that long for the rest to fully mature too. I hope it happens much more quickly.

i agree with the points noted, but - the key is, we're moving I-40 down which will render the C2S area as necessary to develop. The aformentioned points are true as long as downtown remains north of I-40. But with I-40 moving, we will have the C2S section still blighted, to greet visitors as they exit the freeway. This can not stand and it is in the city's best interest to do something proactively - and a Central Park is arguably the best and easiest solution.

The problems I have are 1) the price - seems like $130M is too much for blighted land and a rather low programmed park (considering MGB was $30M with a LOT more squeezed in). I think maybe half of that is probably sufficient and the city should use a portion of the C2S Central Park funds to remove the substation, with OG&E splitting the costs (dreaming, but that would be ethical of them). ... 2) purposefully not using the land adjacent for the cc. This remains to be seen, but if the city goes with anything other than the mayor's original idea of the cc E of the Park, then it is a - well, what the hell are we doing/planning moment for OKC, imo. To me, the park and the cc go together - two direct public injections to set the C2S area on its way quickly.

One more point, C2S likely would have different character and feel than the other downtown districts, so I don't really see them competing. We should build the park and cc, and let the surroundings redevelop organically. I believe there is increasing interest in the other downtown districts, with most of them starting to gain synergy (CBD - retail and office looks to be on the increase, B-Town - i hope/look for infill, AAlley - seems to be filling in nicely, Film Row - again, nice organic infill, Midtown - same, Arts District - MGB and the new elementary school will likely spur additiona residential, DD - holding its own as downtown's urban bedroom community, Triangle - look for it to take off). Just because we are building the park (which will take years), it will take even longer for C2S to ever be considered competition for ANY of the other downtown districts, which have had a tremendous head start and even more nourishment with the streetcar. I dont see the streetcar going into c2s for Maps III.

Anyways, those are my points/ideas, and why I think the city should go ahead and move forward. We can't let the land sit empty and we don't really want to open all of it up for private development/squatting either. So having the park (and cc to the east/northeast) to 'regulate' c2s development is a wonderful idea and at the same time will create a nice downtown gateway from I-40 - which is the primary civic reason for doing c2s in the first place imo.

Here is my proposal now:
http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2011/05/core2shore-is-in-need-of-changes.html

Will post more on it later, but for now I have to run out the door and start my day!

Here is my proposal now:
http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2011/05/core2shore-is-in-need-of-changes.html

Will post more on it later, but for now I have to run out the door and start my day!

Spartan, I sort of understand what you're saying but to start thinking about parks as a revenue stream opportunity is really not very realistic or practical when doing planning. I'm not saying it shouldn't be considered, just that it isn't a majory priority. What other parks in OKC or in any city for that matter make profits for the city?

Well you know I would absolutely assert that good public parks are a public necessity, of course a park shouldn't be required to earn money. But it was still a good point brought up already by Dr. Shadid--it is one of many areas in which this park and the MG would be competing and it could still be dysfunctional it seems. We are also planning on funding continued maintenance of this M3 park with a conservatory group similar to the MG. That would be another dysfunctional scenario in my opinion. It is by far the best to combine these efforts here.

In light of not needing the blight as the new front door of the city, and in light of the amount of time the tax has now been collected, and in light of the collection running ahead of schedule, seems getting the park done, or done more than pretty grass and a rock trail, with a big arse more to come sign, would be a good idea for the city.

Just an outsider looking in perspective.

Blight will absolutely scare off developers in the area of influence. A basic park will not, unless it is unsafe and not patrolled. If we can achieve a threshold for developers then the city can afford to do more.

The point though is how BEST to use our resources. We're all in agreement that resources should be used and improvements made. There's just a better strategic way forward than with Core2Shore as originally planned, I believe. And I also believe that is a growing consensus out there.

The thing I want to stress is that Core2Shore was the ONLY masterplan that we had that could even potential tie different projects together. It was the only way we could determine how the park and convention center and shopping mall would interact. Now the park is the only thing that's stayed there. We still have ZERO downtown masterplans that show all of the changes. IF anything, we need to go back to the drawing board and redo Core2Shore, expanding it to include all of downtown. There needs to be ONE planning document that shows the park, streetcar, convention center, new boulevard, anticipated infill areas (who would have predicted Deep Deuce taking off like it has??), the Devon Tower, Project 180, and all the countless other big improvements. We need to see how these things interact. The point is that we are now at this point of questioning the park because we never considered how to separate projects would interact, the Project 180 improvements to the Myriad Gardens, and the new C2S/M3 park.

Now we need to go back and do that proper due diligence before we just get stuck in a pattern of having to perpetually change things.

In business, some time ago long range strategic planning gave way to strategic management. In other words, long range objectives are outlined, but the actual tactics used are determined closer to the time in which the actions are needed. It is a process of constantly being aware of options and of choosing actions based on more current conditions. It is saying, if such and such is the case we will do this, but if this other such and such is the case, we will do this other thing. No one has a crystal ball for 5-10 years out, let alone 20-30. To lock into a fixed plan without the possibilities of adaptation is folly. I also contend that the best cities developed based on unique conditions and their citizens' actions along with business opportunities. OKC will ultimately be influenced by these decisions we are making, but the true character of the city will develop in ways we don't even imagine. Who know 5 years ago what Devon would do and how it would impact downtown. There will be more game changers. It just makes sense the use of the land from downtown to the river should be reviewed and possibly changed. This would be a success of our leaders and not a failure to faithfully complete Maps3.

I am saying to have a plan. We don't have one anymore, C2S was a joke plan to begin with, and now we're seeing that the key pieces won't even be there. The planners of one project don't talk to the planners of another project. There is no way to rationalize that as a positive.

Questor- "Meanwhile the one aspect of MAPS 3 that I was really behind, and most of my friends are looking forward to, the downtown rail lines, seems to have taken a back-burner to everything else."

Spartan- "I also agree that it is frustrating that the downtown streetcar transit has taken the backburner."

I'm not sure why either of you think this. We are literally scrambling to get through the required processes to get to the engineering phase. I guess I realize that this might simply be a perception issue with all of the rhetoric from other committees, oversight board, and recent press. But believe me that the streetcar is going forward in a big way. I can't and won't blog all of the details, but we are doing our part.

xxx

Steve, please elaborate.

Urban Pioneer, How much has the "Core to Shore" plan affected your process?

I don't mind the theory of "Core to Shore", but to use it as a set base map is beyond idiotic.

Urban Pioneer, How much has the "Core to Shore" plan affected your process?

I don't mind the theory of "Core to Shore", but to use it as a set base map is beyond idiotic.

It hasn't really affected it at all with exception of the Park subcommittee. They have specifically asked that we go down and interface with the park. At a minimum, we will be at Robinson, which is a block away. Integrating transit into the new Boulevard may offer expansion possibilities, but because the design process for it has not begun yet, it hasn't been a debated item.

So C2S as it stands by itself as an "idea" has not swayed Phase 1, 2, or 3 streetcar conceptual routes as of yet. Obviously, that could change, but the "drivers" have not been there specifically.

Urban, Not that anyone would care but I could feel a lot better about the streetcars if a route did not go up to 13th St. I thought the streetcars were sold as being just in the core.

Urban, Not that anyone would care but I could feel a lot better about the streetcars if a route did not go up to 13th St. I thought the streetcars were sold as being just in the core.

Well, originally, it was just a "core circulator." What happened is that Councilman White among others basically impressed up on us that the only way we would have Council support is if the streetcar was designed to "get somewhere out of downtown." Thus the advent of the "Bricktown to Midtown" line. Designed for future expansion to the NW being Plaza District, OCU, 23rd/Classen.

Today we learned a few hours ago that the consultants for the hub agree and further exploration of the future transit numbers suggest that a "Light Rail Line" is a possibility all the way up Classen and NW Expressway. Obviously it will take further study. But undeniably, it seems as though the math is backing up the Committee's answer to Councilman White.

It is easy to grasp why they would go for a "Light Rail Line" as there is no existing rail corridor to use for commuter rail to the NW. And that is where much of the suburban growth is.

To reduce costs, "Rapid Streetcar" may be an option for such a corridor in the future up that way. Such vehicles can use the MAPS track and powering system but have priority enabling express service at around 50 MPH back to the Santa Fe Hub.

So I wouldn't feel to concerned yet as we explore all of this in long range planning if we did get up to 13th street.

Was there a MAPS 3 subcommittee meeting today? Nothing is posted at www.okc.gov

ACOG Hub Committee meeting. The next one I believe is on the 15th. We are trying to coordinate the streetcar subcommittee and Hub meetings as they conflict on that day though. A public meeting is planned inside of Santa Fe station on the 16th though about the hub project.

Urban, that sounds like a wonderful idea and I think NWX and Classen thrufares are 'natural' light rail corridors (and possibly the ONLY ones that exist today in OKC) - BUT

I also agree with the critics that we should START that light rail corridor with bus. Begin with Express bus to build ridership. Once critical mass is achieved, then we move to Commuter Bus (which is expanded Express Bus for those who are not aware [express runs during rush hours and has very limited stops, commuter bus runs more frequently and moreso through the day and typically has a few more stops than express]). I wouldn't feel very good (and neither would the feds/state) by OKC planning to JUST build a light rail line without first having critical mass numbers/transit users built up along the corridor first. And no doubt, such a light rail line (even if it is so-called Expanded/Rapid Streetcar - which I think is a horrible idea given the distance/just build LRT) will require monies above what MAPS could/SHOULD contribute.

I honestly think/hope that MAPS IV capitalizes on the MAPS III Streetcar portion, and is more or less a TRANSIT MAPS for the region - with the suburbs chipping in this time (at least where the lines would likely go).

It hasn't really affected it at all with exception of the Park subcommittee. They have specifically asked that we go down and interface with the park. At a minimum, we will be at Robinson, which is a block away. Integrating transit into the new Boulevard may offer expansion possibilities, but because the design process for it has not begun yet, it hasn't been a debated item.

So C2S as it stands by itself as an "idea" has not swayed Phase 1, 2, or 3 streetcar conceptual routes as of yet. Obviously, that could change, but the "drivers" have not been there specifically.

Well I am sure that other developments are a factor, but I imagine the subcommittee would weigh them just the same as other developments (or weigh the ones that actually exist now a little more).

But I do think that a streetcar line through C2S that connects Capitol Hill would be a better way to catalyze development in there than by throwing all of our resources there when the park and convention center might make more sense in different spots.

Actually, one of the most interesting things that came out of the hub meeting yesterday is that bus rapid transit is about as expensive to implement as the streetcar: 10 to 20 million per mile. So, to me, bus rapid transit should be off the table in most discussions.

Actually, one of the most interesting things that came out of the hub meeting yesterday is that bus rapid transit is about as expensive to implement as the streetcar: 10 to 20 million per mile. So, to me, bus rapid transit should be off the table in most discussions.

110% agree. BRT is a sham that plays on people's hesitation to make the plunge into real transit. It is basically about avoiding fixed guideway transit at all costs, even if those costs become higher than rail transit.

I don't think that is saying that LRT needs to be on the table though, but I think we can all hopefully settle on the fast streetcar concept. In some European cities they're called "snell trams" (snell means "fast" in many languages). I've seen them all over the Netherlands.

LRT 100% needs to be on the table ... in a few directions NW for one it is the only real option

And no doubt, such a light rail line (even if it is so-called Expanded/Rapid Streetcar - which I think is a horrible idea given the distance/just build LRT)

This comment puzzled me a bit. Rapid Streetcar is LRT. The difference between a "Dart type" LRT and Rapid streetcar is cost.

There is nothing wrong with Rapid Streetcar from a design standpoint in an existing vehicular lane or a protected lane on corridor such as NW Expressway or Classen. In fact, it would have "less impact." The difference between the two is that the rail for "Dart type" is a heavy gauge because the vehicles are heavier and they tend to be in more of a protected alignment. Because the rail itself is larger, it is more invasive and requires more cost for site preparation.

If we wanted to use the MAPS streetcar line as a "inbound" section, we would have to spend more money on heavier track and such. Even DART is considering Rapid Streetcar as a more cost effective alternative.

Many of the streetcars themselves are designed so that more car units can be sandwiched in between thus creating a Dart type capacity vehicle. But it wouldn't make every local stop in downtown or else it would take forever to get there and the stops would have to over sized.

Anyways, it is something to consider and will take more study. Probably too complicated to get into detail on this C2S thread.

I personally think people are getting too cute with regard to all of this hybrid naming of things. Streetcar is a streetcar, Light Rail is light rail. There is a difference in the two, and as someone who has ridden both and whose city has both - I can attest there are major differences, most of which come from capacity and transit times.

It is rather stupid IMO to build a Streetcar/Tram longer than a 5 mile journey, because of the nature of Streetcar (frequent stops, small capacity). Streetcar is basically one step above a bus, the benefit of which it shares with LRT in that the rails are fixed. But it is what it is, and Streetcar has too many stops and too small of vehicles to be considered for long distance or 'metro' type of operations. Who would want to be on a Streetcar for the duration of NWX into downtown - something that most likely would take over one hour given the stops and likely would be a white elephant given the headways.

this is why I say, just plan for the NWX to be light rail. LRT will be cheaper in OKC anyways, and with LRT you can plan for a 'metro' like system with stops every mile. If you all are afraid that OKC will not fill up a Light Rail train, then just use one car/pair instead of running hour long Streetcar runs.

If you're going to have limited stops along NWX (say, every mile - which makes sense), then you might as well do it as LRT. NWX and Classen are 'classic' LRT corridors with traffic separation you can run trains in the median and be able to have 'shorter' trip durations using 'higher' capacity LRT cars and less frequent stops (say 1 mile along NWX, major destination hubs/streets in the inner city).

Streetcar is a great idea for downtown and the inner city, given the frequent stops and short distances. But over the 3 mile trip threshold, Streetcar starts to lose its appeal. This may all be speculation, but I think it is important for the city to plan for an overall transit network. And we need to capitalize on technology that exists and use the best of whats out there for our needs and not "force" technology to do extended service just because we are scared about usage and/or cost.

In the long run, I think 'Rapid' Streetcar would fail - because its name 'rapid' is a misnomer. Streetcar by definition and design is ALREADY rapid, and what the 'Rapid Streetcar' people are really pitching is "Extended/Long Range Streetcar" - which by nature will fail (small cars/low capacity, long distances, lengthy headways, frequent stops). It would be a waste.

I remember reading about an innovative train tranisit system that used a series of disconnected cars on a fixed rail system. It used a scheduling system much like some of the new elevators where you put in the floor you are going to and it uses an algorythm to aggregate riders on cars to the same or nearby floors. In other words, the stops were secondary loops. When you check in at your departure you punch in a destination station. Then the next car going there stops and picks you up. It essentially fills with riders going to the same places and bypasses making stops at each intermittent stop. The cars are smaller, faster and cheaper to run, and the scheduling makes for rapid transit. Cars are dispatched into the system based on demand and pick/up drop off stations. By doing it this way you can have more cars on the track making pick-up time shorter. It is something we should look at....thinking outside the box.

I personally think people are getting too cute with regard to all of this hybrid naming of things. Streetcar is a streetcar, Light Rail is light rail. There is a difference in the two, and as someone who has ridden both and whose city has both - I can attest there are major differences, most of which come from capacity and transit times.

It is rather stupid IMO to build a Streetcar/Tram longer than a 5 mile journey, because of the nature of Streetcar (frequent stops, small capacity). Streetcar is basically one step above a bus, the benefit of which it shares with LRT in that the rails are fixed. But it is what it is, and Streetcar has too many stops and too small of vehicles to be considered for long distance or 'metro' type of operations. Who would want to be on a Streetcar for the duration of NWX into downtown - something that most likely would take over one hour given the stops and likely would be a white elephant given the headways.

this is why I say, just plan for the NWX to be light rail. LRT will be cheaper in OKC anyways, and with LRT you can plan for a 'metro' like system with stops every mile. If you all are afraid that OKC will not fill up a Light Rail train, then just use one car/pair instead of running hour long Streetcar runs.

If you're going to have limited stops along NWX (say, every mile - which makes sense), then you might as well do it as LRT. NWX and Classen are 'classic' LRT corridors with traffic separation you can run trains in the median and be able to have 'shorter' trip durations using 'higher' capacity LRT cars and less frequent stops (say 1 mile along NWX, major destination hubs/streets in the inner city).

Streetcar is a great idea for downtown and the inner city, given the frequent stops and short distances. But over the 3 mile trip threshold, Streetcar starts to lose its appeal. This may all be speculation, but I think it is important for the city to plan for an overall transit network. And we need to capitalize on technology that exists and use the best of whats out there for our needs and not "force" technology to do extended service just because we are scared about usage and/or cost.

In the long run, I think 'Rapid' Streetcar would fail - because its name 'rapid' is a misnomer. Streetcar by definition and design is ALREADY rapid, and what the 'Rapid Streetcar' people are really pitching is "Extended/Long Range Streetcar" - which by nature will fail (small cars/low capacity, long distances, lengthy headways, frequent stops). It would be a waste.

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree with it. However, the technologies have blended together somewhat over the past 5 years to be more cost effective.

So the question that I was stressing was we might feel that NW Exp deserves "true" Light Rail, but should the MAPS streetcar sections be an early investment allowing for such a future extension? If so, "Dart" type rail prep would cause the streetcar infrastructure to cost more. If you believe that a bigger/slight heavier streetcar could serve those future needs, it would allow you to spend less on heavier rail as part of this Phase 1 project.

Not to get into semantics or a debate, but it is something that we intend to study. Obviously the future passenger load is the question.

If you want to take this up further, go to the transit thread as the C2S thread has been "derailed" enough. lol

Hey UP, what do you think of the opportunity to use streetcar instead (a line linking downtown and the southside) to spur development from core to shore?

Hey UP, what do you think of the opportunity to use streetcar instead (a line linking downtown and the southside) to spur development from core to shore?


First- Connections to Capitol Hill Proper can be made as part of a Commuter Rail stop on the way to More/Norman as depicted in the study.

2nd- the MAPS streetcar route proposed has the inherent ability built in to the system to extend further into C2S or even potentially the river area.

I think that the future looks favorably on C2S. Depending on the MAPS schedule as it relates to the park, that definitely will affect the short term viability of the area. However, the demolition will continue and the Sky Dance Bridge will be erected.

My opinion is that if developers make a pitch in the area and want streetcar, they should consider it as strongly as they would a parking garage or other infrastructure element they often ask for via TIF funds. Use the Portland model. Have the connections there, make the extension part of the project costs itself.

I do not feel at this time that MAPS streetcar monies should be used to try to "spur" development in a "Phase1 or 2." TIF or other funds should be used in the area as part of an actual planned project. We have enough "infill" to do along the rest of the line and should focus on early ridership to ensure that there is a successful start to the streetcar system.

"Making it to the bridge/Union Station" would have its benefits though. Going beyond that would be difficult to justify.

Our local developers are either going to have to broaden their obsession with parking to the streetcar, or I'm sure that out-of-state developers will do it for them as they have done in other cities.

I don't suppose anyone cares to see the old International Harvester building go do they?

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Bricktown/bricktown_collection_044.jpg

Map (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=512+S+Broadway+Ave,+Oklahoma+City,+Oklahoma ,+73109&layer=c&sll=35.460776,-97.514550&cbp=13,24.55,,0,-9.4&cbll=35.459925,-97.514578&hl=en&sspn=0.006295,0.006295&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=512+S+Broadway+Ave,+Oklahoma+City,+Oklahoma, +73109&ll=35.459925,-97.514578&spn=0.000451,0.00079&t=h&z=21&panoid=XF12pE_hfneFTbDTiX0wvw)

http://vimeo.com/6253071

A lot has changed already since that was produced.

Maybe I missed it, but has Robinson (in the Core-to-Shore area) always been referred to (officially) as Hubcap Alley?

I just noticed these signs attached to several light poles in the area.....

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6320/img1137k.jpg

Cool sign.

Cool sign.

I personally thought it was on the verge of being a cool sign, but didn't quite make it.

I don't suppose anyone cares to see the old International Harvester building go do they?

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Bricktown/bricktown_collection_044.jpg

Map (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=512+S+Broadway+Ave,+Oklahoma+City,+Oklahoma ,+73109&layer=c&sll=35.460776,-97.514550&cbp=13,24.55,,0,-9.4&cbll=35.459925,-97.514578&hl=en&sspn=0.006295,0.006295&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=512+S+Broadway+Ave,+Oklahoma+City,+Oklahoma, +73109&ll=35.459925,-97.514578&spn=0.000451,0.00079&t=h&z=21&panoid=XF12pE_hfneFTbDTiX0wvw)

I missed the last Park Subcommittee meeting but ran into Michelle at Coffee Slingers. She said that assessing historic buildings that were slated to be torn down to be potentially incorporated into the park is now being discussed.