The City recently commissioned a feasibility study for an Adventure District Line.

See full report (http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/adventureline.PDF).


Executive Summary
This report examines the feasibility of providing some form of transit service along the existing Adventure District Line (ADL), a railroad line that runs south from the Adventure District in northeast Oklahoma City. Currently the Oklahoma Railway Museum (ORM) runs excursion trains along the alignment using heritage locomotives and passenger cars. There is an interest in connecting this line into downtown Oklahoma City and upgrading the service in the future to a commuter rail or streetcar operation.

This report describes and evaluates conceptual alternatives for expanded use of the ADL for rail transit. The ADL rail corridor is 4.5-mile long and runs from Washington Park east of downtown Oklahoma City (OKC) to NE 50th Street in OKC’s Adventure District. The Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA) owns the portion of the ADL corridor shown as Segments 1 and 2 in Figure ES-1. Union Pacific Railroad (UP) owns the railroad right-of-way shown as Segment 3 in Figure ES-1. The ORM operates weekend and special event excursion train service on Segment 1 of the ADL corridor. The UP leases Segment 2 of the ADL corridor from COTPA to provide freight service to two local businesses on this segment. A western extension of this corridor, from Washington Park to Bricktown or the Intermodal Hub in downtown OKC, labeled Segment 3 on Figure ES-1, could add an additional 0.7 to 1.2 miles to the corridor.

Four conceptual alternatives were developed to provide a basis for comparing operational characteristics, evaluating feasibility, and providing cost estimates. The following conceptual alternatives were studied.

Extended Excursion Alternative: Extend the existing excursion operation to Bricktown
Upgraded Excursion Alternative: Extend the existing excursion operation to Bricktown or the Intermodal Hub and upgrade all track and systems. Includes three terminus options:
- Option A: Direct Connection to Intermodal Hub
- Option B: Reverse Access to Intermodal Hub
- Option C: Bricktown Terminus[/INDENT]
DMU/Commuter Rail Alternative: Upgrade all tracks and systems to accommodate a diesel mobile unit (DMU) vehicle that would provide weekday peak hour commuter rail service and connect directly to the Intermodal Hub
Modern Streetcar Alternative: Upgrade all tracks and systems to accommodate a modern streetcar that would operate as an extension of the Downtown Modern Streetcar.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/adventureline1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/adventureline2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/adventureline3.jpg

I get a 404 error when I clink on the report link...

I get a 404 error when I clink on the report link...

Thanks for letting me know.

Should be corrected now.

Great news.

The results of this study confirm the fact that the best routing option for connecting the Adventure Line, as well as future commuter rail service from Del City/Midwest City/Tinker, to the Intermodal Hub is by way of the North Bricktown Rail Corridor and a new southerly rail spur for directly accessing Santa Fe Station. It is made clear in the study that Extended Excursion Alternative A is far superior to Alternative B, which would require back-in maneuvering on one of BNSF's active mainlines and result in significant delays and additional capital and operating costs. The recommendations echo those of the Intermodal Transportation Hub Study, which also determined the North Bricktown Rail Corridor and southerly rail spur as the best routing alternative for service to and from Santa Fe Station for commuter rail service between Del City/Midwest City/Tinker and Oklahoma City.

The study specifically recommends coordinated planning for any parking garage proposed for the North Bricktown Parking Lot to ensure any new parking garage facility does not prevent the recommended routing and southerly rail spur proposed under Extended Excursion Alternative A.

The fact that rail transit design engineers and planners for URS Corporation have confirmed what intermodal hub design engineers and planners for Jacobs Engineering previously determined should put to rest the question of which is the best routing option to and from Santa Fe Station for both the Adventure Line and the Midwest City Line.

From the study:

Recommendations/Conclusions

Based on this initial review of the existing conditions in the corridor and what would be needed to upgrade the service, there are no major obstacles to implementing any of the alternatives examined in this study. The largest obstacle would be identification of funding both for capital improvements and for ongoing operating costs. The following describes the general findings. These would be the same for all of the alternatives.

• Trains can currently operate in Segments 1 and 2, but would be limited to 10 mph.
• Rail, signaling, and communication systems would all need to be upgraded to provide faster service. Obtaining access to Segment 3 ROW from UP would be required to extend rail service into Segment 3.
• UP’s expired lease with COTPA for Segment 2 could provide an opportunity for COTPA to negotiate access to UP’s ROW in Segment 3.
• Segment 3 needs new rail installed.

There are several important differences among the alternatives as far as their suitability for service into downtown Oklahoma City. Table 19 summarizes the key findings and the important differences among the alternatives studied.

Extended Excursion Alternative

The Extended Excursion alternative would be the most affordable option. The Extended Excursion alternative would only include new track in Segment 3, minimal repairs to track in Segments 1 and 2 to accommodate safe operation at 10 miles per hour, and would not require new vehicles or a new maintenance facility.

With only three stations and service only every 90 minutes on Thursdays through Sundays, the Extended Excursion alternative would be a very limited service. However, it could be considered as a first step in a phased corridor improvement plan leading toward commuter rail or streetcar service in the future.

Upgraded Excursion Alternative

Improving the track, signaling, and communication equipment to a level sufficient to provide higher speed service into downtown would be the next most affordable option. The Upgraded Excursion alternative would not require new vehicles or a new maintenance facility. It could share some track with UP freight operations, if needed. The Upgraded Excursion alternative could be considered as a next step in a phased corridor improvement plan once excursion service is extended to Bricktown.

The connection to the Intermodal Hub included in Options A and B would cost approximately $10 million more than terminating at a new Bricktown station, as in Option C. The connection would include a new overcrossing structure and relocation of the BNSF tracks on the BNSF structure adjacent to the Intermodal Hub. A direct connection to the Intermodal Hub would be an important feature for a transit service like a commuter rail or a streetcar. However, an excursion service is fundamentally different from other transit services, because it does not operate during peak travel times and it is not used by passengers as a means to travel from point A to point B. Therefore, its connecting to other regional transportation services via the Intermodal Hub is not critical to its success.
It is likely not worth spending the extra $10 million dollars to connect directly to the Intermodal Hub at this time. However, if upgrading this service to a commuter rail service in the future is desired, Option A provides the best route for connecting to the Intermodal Hub. It is important that coordination begin early in order to prevent the planned parking structure from prohibiting this routing in the future.

Option B, which would require the train to stop and reverse direction in order to access the Intermodal Hub would require passengers to wait on-board during a ten-minute brake inspection prior to entering the Intermodal Hub. This would also result in higher operating costs due to the longer travel time. This would not be a feasible option for providing service to the Intermodal Hub. With Option C, passengers would get off the train at the new Bricktown station and the Intermodal Hub would be a ten-minute walk away.

Please note that Pete's link above is only to the 25-page Executive Summary for the study. The entire study is 125 pages in length and contains considerable more details and analysis.

Where can one find the full report online?

Here's the full report:

Adventure Line Feasibility Study (http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/cache/2/1e2xhveakeaut5nctcvkv4qn/197284007232013020127167.PDF)

Also, here's a link to the July 12th COTPA Board meeting where rail transit advocates voiced their concerns about a private parking garage proposal that would place the facility directly in the path of the rail spur that the Adventure Line Feasibility Study and Intermodal Transportation Hub Study recommend as the best option for connecting the Adventure Line and Midwest City Line to Santa Fe Station.

July 12, 2013 Potential Conflict with Rail Line - Parking Garage Discussion in OKC - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nutwzcPP8TI&feature=youtu.be)

Here's the full report:

Adventure Line Feasibility Study (http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/cache/2/1e2xhveakeaut5nctcvkv4qn/197284007232013020127167.PDF)

Which meeting is that from? The link goes to a dead end because it's one of the blind-created SIRE links.

Which meeting is that from? The link goes to a dead end because it's one of the blind-created SIRE links.

MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board, Thursday July 25, 2013, 10:10 AM.
SIRE Public Access (http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2135&doctype=AGENDA)
Agenda Item XI.

The collection of visitor assets that OKC now possesses is turning us into a regional destination and the next logical step is to tie those assets together. It doesn’t take much imagination to see for example that youth groups coming to town for the Riversport Adventures might also be interested in riding a restored train and visiting the OK Railway Museum, the OKC Zoo or even take in an Imax film at the Science Museum (Omniplex).

The same could be said of adults who are coming to town to enjoy one of our many downtown amenities for a weekend, they too might be interested in the railway museum or even taking in a horse race. It would be a great way for visitors who are staying at a downtown hotel to experience another part of our city without having to drive.

The Adventure District Line (ADL) would be an excellent way to start tying the Bricktown and the AD together. Hopefully funding can be found to get the extended excursion ADL started

This is great news to see some thought going into this. Connecting the Adventure District would be huge to help tie the main attractions together. The nice thing in all of this is that it is using mostly existing track. I plopped it into my commuter rail network map (https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=216654750154515572193.0004e11f6fca15864a83 f&msa=0&ll=35.497854,-97.425385&spn=0.120889,0.222988) to see how it would fit and it really helps to tie in NE OKC. My only concern would be walking distance from the Omniplex, Zoo, and Remington Park to the train station. I know they are looking at options for maybe making this a street car system, but I think the DMUs would be the best option. Perhaps we could see a street car/tram system put in along 50th/Grand Blvd all the way to the Cowboy Hall of Fame (yes I'm using the old names dagnabit LOL) to help tie it all in.

It would seem logical that another station be put in around 23rd street if this is going to evolve to a commuter rail setup, but we also need to look at reinvesting in that area to help ensure this doesn't turn into the Red Line in Chicago.

but we also need to look at reinvesting in that area to help ensure this doesn't turn into the Red Line in Chicago.

I ride my bike on the bike path that parallels the rail line and holy cow--I previously had no idea that kind of poverty existed in Oklahoma City.

Is this just being built to shuttle tourist between downtown and the Zoo? How many riders a day is that going to generate?

Is this just being built to shuttle tourist between downtown and the Zoo? How many riders a day is that going to generate?

Good point, Kerry. OKC isn't ready for transit that is strictly tourist oriented.

Before jumping aboard the negative choo-choo you should at the minimum read the above posts from Pete and Hutch and maybe even the feasibility report itself.

The extended excursion line was just one of four options outlined in the feasibility study for an Adventure District Line that was commissioned by the city.

This report examines the feasibility of providing some form of transit service along the existing Adventure District Line (ADL), a railroad line that runs south from the Adventure District in northeast Oklahoma City. Currently the Oklahoma Railway Museum (ORM) runs excursion trains along the alignment using heritage locomotives and passenger cars. There is an interest in connecting this line into downtown Oklahoma City and upgrading the service in the future to a commuter rail or streetcar operation.

The feasibility study didn’t get into financing and I can’t speak for the ORM but if they want to upgrade the line to bring the excursion trains into downtown I am certainly not going to knock them.

There's more to this than the zoo; there's also Remington Park and other attractions in the Adventure District. This might be a cool deal.

Excursion train recommended for creation of Adventure Line | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/3865516)

Only tourists go to the Zoo?

No, but how many metro residents are going to drive to downtown OKC so they can catch a train to the zoo area - then transfer to a shuttle bus to actually get to the Zoo, Remington Park, The Cowboy Hall of Fame or other places? They can be at the Zoo with its free parking faster than they can wait for a train. For commuter rail we should focus on getting people to work 5 days a week and let them worry about their Saturday trip to the zoo on their own.

Now if this is just going to be a ride and not an actually transportation system then that is a different story. I have a lot of ideas on how to make it a fun attraction.

I ride my bike on the bike path that parallels the rail line and holy cow--I previously had no idea that kind of poverty existed in Oklahoma City.

And these aren't the most poverty-stricken ares of town... the area right around the stockyards and a few other spots on the south side are even worth.

Before jumping aboard the negative choo-choo you should at the minimum read the above posts from Pete and Hutch and maybe even the feasibility report itself.

The extended excursion line was just one of four options outlined in the feasibility study for an Adventure District Line that was commissioned by the city.

This report examines the feasibility of providing some form of transit service along the existing Adventure District Line (ADL), a railroad line that runs south from the Adventure District in northeast Oklahoma City. Currently the Oklahoma Railway Museum (ORM) runs excursion trains along the alignment using heritage locomotives and passenger cars. There is an interest in connecting this line into downtown Oklahoma City and upgrading the service in the future to a commuter rail or streetcar operation.

The feasibility study didn’t get into financing and I can’t speak for the ORM but if they want to upgrade the line to bring the excursion trains into downtown I am certainly not going to knock them.

I haven't read the full report, but I once drove the entire line with a representative of ORM. They are a great organization, but there's no way they could afford to upgrade the line themselves, and they would need the City's assistance in working with UP and its industrial customers at NE 8th to be able to use the full line.

I see the Adventure Line as a downtown amenity as much as anything. It would connect downtown residents to the Zoo, National Cowboy & Western Museum, Remington Park, National Softball Hall of Fame, 45th Infintry Museum, Oklahoma Military Department, Metro Tech, Oklahoma Railway Museum, Cinemark Tinseltown theater, Lincoln Park Golf Course, and our family's favorite -- the Oklahoma Science Museum.

If you are a tourist in OKC, you are pretty certain going to go downtown. This line would connect you to all of these other destinations without requiring you to use a car. If you live or work downtown, it puts all of those destinations within reach -- car free.

don't forget the sonic and mcdonalds... ;)

No, but how many metro residents are going to drive to downtown OKC so they can catch a train to the zoo area - then transfer to a shuttle bus to actually get to the Zoo, Remington Park, The Cowboy Hall of Fame or other places? They can be at the Zoo with its free parking faster than they can wait for a train. For commuter rail we should focus on getting people to work 5 days a week and let them worry about their Saturday trip to the zoo on their own.

Now if this is just going to be a ride and not an actually transportation system then that is a different story. I have a lot of ideas on how to make it a fun attraction.

read the report .. then comment

This is not a proposal to do something immediately. It is a study commissioned as part of the transit hub acquisition (someone correct me if I am wrong on that) to assess the feasibility of the Adventure Line. It was included as part of MAPS3 because it is transit related. I think it is a great idea and something we could do relatively inexpensively (relatively being the key word).

Yes it will probably start out as a tourist/excusrion line; but it can also function very well as a commuter line for the people who live along it. There are many people in NE OKC that could use this to get to their jobs in downtown. A station at 23rd Street, 10th Street, and 4th Street would provide a mass transit option for an underserved population - many of whom are dependent on transit. (This is also the reason I suggest extending a future 23rd St Streetcar to the rail underpass to provide another linkage to other locations.) This is also why I think the service needs to operate faster than 10 mph - if it is speed limited, then it can only be a tourist excursion.

I think the DMU service using a rebuilt south leg of the wye into Santa Fe station is the way to go eventually. The DMU's can operate on the same track at higher speeds once the right of way is upgraded. To contain costs initially, instead of purchasing new DMU's right away, look into leasing Rail Diesel Cars from TRE like the Denton County Transit Authority did for their A-Train service. IIRC DCTA's new Stadler DMU's were around $7 million each and leasing might be a way to spread the cost out since the infrastructure upgrades are really needed up front to make this a viable operation. Long term, I don't think crawling along at 10-20 mph would garner the ridership to make this succesful and I think it defintely needs to get to a platform at the Santa Fe Depot as soon as possible. It will probably be done in a few phases with Phase I being the track and signal upgrades and a stop in Bricktown - use ORM equipment initially; Phase II building the trestle to extend the line to the Santa Fe depot/transit hub - lease RDC's to increase frequency; Phase III new DMU's.

The only issue I see right now is if conventional rail (excrsion or DMU) vehicles are used, how do patrons get to the various attraction in the Adventure District. On many days one could walk to the Zoo, Softball complex, and probably the 45th Museum and Remington Park; but walking to the Cowboy Museum or Tinseltown isn't within the realm of reasonable expectation. There will need to be some kind of last mile service if the Adventure Line ends at 50th Street Station.

On a side note, the Oklahoma Railway Museum has a very nice master plan for the facility. I am a member of ORM and would love to see this master plan come to fruition.Proposed Plan for ORM | Oklahoma City Railway Museum (http://www.oklahomarailwaymuseum.org/764/)http://www.oklahomarailwaymuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ok-railway-museum-board-1-medium.jpg

Excursion train recommended for creation of Adventure Line | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/3865516)

great job by steve covering this report

2 things

on the issue of last mile service ... i'm sure the casino/horse track would be happy to support/run a shuttle circling along the attractions in the district


second IMHO this is a perfect OKC NE leg of a commuter line which would pair quite nicely with commuter service to the airport as a Maps 4 project

great job by steve covering this report

Indeed, this is the kind of work I am accustomed to from Steve. Nice job.

2 things

on the issue of last mile service ... i'm sure the casino/horse track would be happy to support/run a shuttle circling along the attractions in the district


second IMHO this is a perfect OKC NE leg of a commuter line which would pair quite nicely with commuter service to the airport as a Maps 4 project

My thoughts exactly - I think the shuttle is the easy solution and probably wouldn't cost the city a dime.

Your second statement is the reason I think we should pursue this. Use the existing infrastructure to learn what it takes to get this type of operation started and expand it to the commuter operations the Fixed Guideway Study called for.

Eventually, the modern streetcar is the way to go. This isn't for reasons of technology wars, but because of all of the options it's the only one that provides frequent service all day everyday.

The streetcar option costs about as much as the DMU commuter rail option, but it provides service on 30 minutes headways all day everyday (and frequency is freedom) rather than just during peak commuter times. Offering a commuter option is fine, but it ignores that there are people such as tourists who operate on their own schedule and may seek transit options during the late morning, early afternoon, in evenings, and on Sundays.

The option would also extend the core effectively to the Adventure District. All along the line are empty and low-value plots ready for development, and old neighborhoods suffering from high rates of vacancy and abandonment. The low cost of property would be an asset. It's not hard to forecast that a family might not want to spend as much as $2,000 a month to live in Deep Deuce when they can have access to the greater downtown area, its employment opportunities, and its entertainment amenities for much less than half the cost. The neighborhoods adjacent to the streetcar line would become ripe for reinvestment -- to a much greater degree than if we were to go with the commuter option.

The streetcar option also includes 10 stops rather than 3 or 5. Some of these stops are perfect for mid-sized TODs (specifically NE 4th St and NE 16th St). To the southwest of NE 16th St is a sparsely populated neighborhood of low-value homes along the Miramar Blvd spine. There is abundant land (and low property prices) to build multifamily units and townhouses, in addition to neighborhood scale retail and entertainment options. A streetcar along the Eastside would finally connect the area to the rest of the city, allow the area to gentrify and densify, and would be a catalyst to bringing sorely needed amenities to the area (especially to NE 23rd St).

Finally, there is the matter of operating costs. The study indicates that the DMU commuter option would provide just 4,464 hours of service at a cost $750 per hour, while the modern streetcar would provide 10,724 hours of service at a cost of $213 per hour.

4,464 x $750 = $3,348,000 for operating 5 stops during limited times only
10,724 x $213 = $2,284,212 for operating 10 stops all day everyday in 30 minutes intervals

A fast, frequent, relatively inexpensive transit option that connects to another important transit project the city is undertaking is a better option than a slower, less frequent, relatively more expensive transit option that is better suited for the suburbs than for inner city neighborhoods.

the street car option is most likely a no go because it would/could preclude future commuter rail to MWC/Tinker AFB

I don't see it working but if they want to give it shot - have at it.

the street car option is most likely a no go because it would/could preclude future commuter rail to MWC/Tinker AFB

Not necessarily. If the public transit agency had complete control of Segment 3 then control of both commuter rail to MWC/TAFB and the streetcar to the Adventure District would be by the same central control room/dispatch office. Specifically it would be easier to ensure there would be no conflict at a flat crossing of somekind of the two routes in the vicinty of Perry and NE 1st Street.

the street car option is most likely a no go because it would/could preclude future commuter rail to MWC/Tinker AFB

That's not true. Directly from Jacobs Engineering report: Streetcar track on the ADL line would be the same type and gauge as would be used for excursion trains or for DMUs. Therefore, streetcar vehicles could use the same tracks as DMUs or excursion trains. However, if a
streetcar line is electrified, the overhead wiring needs to be constructed at a sufficient height to allow clearance of other trains that might utilize the corridor, or would need to be deenergized when another type of train is using the tracks.

Eventually, the modern streetcar is the way to go. This isn't for reasons of technology wars, but because of all of the options it's the only one that provides frequent service all day everyday...........

Several excellent points in this post. One reason I think DMU's have a slight edge on the streetcar option is the ability to use them on a more externsive commuter rail system. The Adventure Line is along the same right of way that eventually turns into the Tinker/MWC lead. Additionally, I think DMU's will be the preferred vehicle to run from Will Rogers Airport to the Santa Fe hub.

By the same token, you cannot ignore the lower operating cost and frequency boitoirich pointed out. The streetcar based system also solves the "last mile" issue in the Adventure District. They could seemlessly transtion from the ORM right of way to 50th Street and on to the Zoo, Science Museum, Remington Park, and Cowboy Museum.

Several factors to balance on projects of this magnitude, but it is encouraging we are seriously considering these options.

CaptDave I think you're correct that DMU technology should be used to link to Tinker/MWC. This alignment provides a textbook example of what a commuter corridor looks like, so having commute-time service between the two is appropriate.

The ADL corridor is a different thing. It connects neighborhoods rather than employment centers. It provides tourists and locals car-free transit to the Adventure District and back downtown. Having this run on commuter schedules would make little to no sense, and using DMUs continuously throughout the day as if it were a light rail line would be prohibitively expensive. So because the technology conflicts between running the modern streetcar for ADL and DMU commuter rail for Tinker/MWC are easily surmountable, I just think it makes too much sense to utilize the streetcar option.

As for connecting to WRWA, I'm not sure which technology is going to be used but it should not matter much vis-a-vis the ADL. The ADL streetcar loops in front of the multimodal transit hub, so that would be a transfer station to WRWA in any case.

If the ne line becomes a commuter line dmu it will go to the hub

I like BTR's idea that street car is the way to go for the ADL. I think a DMU us going to be too much for it to handle on a fairly "leisure" route. However, I really feel that this route would end up living or dying depending on the commuter rail option feeding it into the city. We also need to look at travel times up to the attractions. Commuter rail wise, there isn't going to be the population to really justify from that part to downtown. I do think if this gets push through as a street car, it'll really help boost the area economically like BTR mentioned.

The other thing is that it would be relatively inexpensive taking it up to the Cowboy HoF since there is enough shoulder space to put the track and avoid dealing with laying track in the road. I've updated my commuter rail map to reflect this line and also an extension up to the HoF to get an idea of how it would all look.

http://www.weatherspotlight.com/screencap/jul13/neokcrail.png

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=216654750154515572193.0004e11f6fca15864a83 f&msa=0&ll=35.497714,-97.492847&spn=0.098947,0.129604

Purple Line = ADL
Blue Line = N MWC/Shawnee
Aqua Line = MWC/Tinker
Orange Line = Edmond/Guthrie

If the ne line becomes a commuter line dmu it will go to the hub

If the ADL is run on DMU commuter schedule, it might connect to the intermodal hub; Option C does not connect, but terminates at a Bricktown terminus. Also, there is nothing written that says the ADL has to go from the Adventure District all the way to the airport in one continuous line. If DMU is the best way to get to WRWA, then that should be pursued. However modern streetcar is likely far better for the ADL corridor, and it does connect to the transit hub, where passengers can transfer to the downtown streetcar, the bus system, Greyhound (eventually), commuter rail to Edmond/Norman/MWC, the airport line (whatever technology that may be), and the Heartland Flyer.

I have to admit Venture and BTR have just about changed my opinion on this one. I hadn't done the math on the operational costs and the ability to solve the "last mile" issue and provide a trip from Santa Fe all the way to the Zoo or Cowboy Museum with no transfers makes a lot of sense. I had a bit of tunnel vision on the trestle and connection into the transit hub and extending the ORM run. In the process, I missed a couple of big considerations. I think we should serve the people in that area well if we are going to make this kind of investment. I would be concerned about not limiting the ORM excursions if the streetcar is running on that right of way because they have done a lot of work to get the line where it is today. I am going to look at the study again and think about what Venture and BTR have brought to my attention.

(The trestle into the hub is going to be necessary regardless to provide access to the Tinker/MWC line.)

(The trestle into the hub is going to be necessary regardless to provide access to the Tinker/MWC line.)

The streetcar option leaves the trestle open by exiting the existing rail ROW at Russell M. Perry Ave heading south to E. Reno Ave, then arriving at the transit hub along EKG, before heading east along E Sheridan to return to Russell M Perry. That trestle is free for use by the Tinker/MWC commuter rail line.

Streetcar would essentially be a light rail line.

Streetcar would essentially be a light rail line.

In a lot of the French systems they operate as a streetcar in high density areas and either run directly in the street or along mews. Once they get out into the lower density areas that stations get further apart and they run in grassy medians or sholders at higher speeds. If you get a few minutes go to Google Earth and trace the tram paths in Orelans, FR.

In a lot of the French systems they operate as a streetcar in high density areas and either run directly in the street or along mews. Once they get out into the lower density areas that stations get further apart and they run in grassy medians or sholders at higher speeds. If you get a few minutes go to Google Earth and trace the tram paths in Orelans, FR.

You know, I just never understood the value of spending more time on trams in Europe than North America. It doesn't have the same relevance, you know, but we have so many American streetcar cities now. New systems include Portland, Seattle, Tacoma, Tucson, Dallas, LA, Atlanta, KC, Cincinnati, etc. There are many, many more LRT cities.

The difference is that most American systems are built to encourage sprawl with large suburban park and ride lots. Why copy a system that doesn't do what we are trying to accomplish (or atleast what we say that we are trying to accomplish). I'm not sure the Sacramento system is something we want to emulate.

My thoughts on a route that's dedicated to the main attractions and visitors. Notice I grabbed the Meridian hotel corridor.

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=z8UJmJUg9TWg.k9G940T_zVig

I'm glad you added the Meridian piece. I work out there and would LOVE that. It would make public transit the best option to get to work.

My thoughts on a route that's dedicated to the main attractions and visitors. Notice I grabbed the Meridian hotel corridor.

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=z8UJmJUg9TWg.k9G940T_zVig

What is your route made up of? Commuter? Streetcar? Bus? Or light rail (highly doubt this due to cost)?

If streetcar, then why not on Exchange down to The Stockyards, then keep the alignment on SW 15th St? I think that would be more feasible.

Why too long for "street car"? When they refer to it as street car, they mean "rapid streetcar". IE- essentially light rail.

I'd prefer to see this as full-blown lightrail, yes. I wasn't building it using any budget, just what I think we should offer. I think the route is too long for streetcar. I'd rather see a simple express bus instead of lightrail wasn't an option.

Remember that the streetcar network in OKC in the early 19th century was more extensive mileage wise than the starter route we're building or the length of this route. I could see streetcar being feasible. But, yes, for the route you've drawn, if not a commuter route on existing track at various spots, then light rail would have to be used in that ROW.

My thoughts on a route that's dedicated to the main attractions and visitors. Notice I grabbed the Meridian hotel corridor.

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=z8UJmJUg9TWg.k9G940T_zVig

Very nice. One unfortunate part of Meridian is that hotel stock north of the River. The line as imagined wouldn't get those people, but I think this is a great idea overall.

"Rapid streetcar" is streetcars in light rail format going higher speeds and in its own right-of-way. The ADL study call for it in that form except in areas where in needs to go out of the right-of-way to meet FRA compliance in interacting with heavy rail.

So we are essentially proposing light rail as an alternative to "excursion" rail on the NE Line as you suggest. The only difference between standard light rail and standard streetcars are a smaller vehicle with less passenger capacity. Additional units can be added as needed.

Here is a link to the entire completed initial study that is going up for a vote tomorrow before city council. http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=2060457

Interesting proposal. The DMU/Commuter Rail option definitely talked down quite heavily in it. Though you would think if the money is going to be spent, why not get it done now instead of coming back down the road having to shell out the needed money to upgrade the line for commuter rail.

"Rapid streetcar" is streetcars in light rail format going higher speeds and in its own right-of-way. The ADL study call for it in that form except in areas where in needs to go out of the right-of-way to meet FRA compliance in interacting with heavy rail.

So we are essentially proposing light rail as an alternative to "excursion" rail on the NE Line as you suggest. The only difference between standard light rail and standard streetcars are a smaller vehicle with less passenger capacity. Additional units can be added as needed.

Here is a link to the entire completed initial study that is going up for a vote tomorrow before city council. http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=2060457

Light Rail is NOT being proposed for the NE Line? ...and is the DMU the alternative?

Light rail IS (IE: Rapid Streetcar) being proposed and DMU as an alternative. No preference given to either. Just illustrations as to what the options are.

For what it is worth, it now comes down to Councilman Pettis identifying the level of service that he would like to see in Ward 7. So in a sense, some of these decisions are now political. Who are your partners along the line? How many stops do you need to have? Who at the end of the line needs service and what is in their various master plans that has not been incorporated into the current study?

This study "T's" up the the councilman to have a broader discussion with his constituents and ultimately it is the level of service that will determine the mode. Final cost and ongoing O&M, of course, will be the other major factor.

Light rail IS (IE: Rapid Streetcar) being proposed and DMU as an alternative. No preference given to either. Just illustrations as to what the options are.

Big THANKS Mr. Pioneer. No debate here. Just getting some clarity. lol.

No problem. It comes down to whether they want this to be an "excursion train" that connects two distant districts together, or whether they want more frequent stops with more Ward 7 neighborhood oriented service.

Traffic modeling does not provide a significant measurement of flow to and from this area. Therefore, it did not register in the 2005 FGS or other studies. If this is done, it is to act as a neighborhood and / or District stimulus and would be anticipating resulting stimulated growth.

The one element that causes it to have such resonance, is that the right-of-way itself exists. That is the one thing that causes it to be of such interest. The most expensive component of most light rail or commuter rail projects is not an issue. Therefore, not having that huge cost associated with obtaining that right-of-way significantly elevates these proposals into the realm of reason.

No problem. It comes down to whether they want this to be an "excursion train" that connects two distant districts together, or whether they want more frequent stops with more Ward 7 neighborhood oriented service.

Traffic modeling does not provide a significant measurement of flow to and from this area. Therefore, it did not register in the 2005 FGS or other studies. If this is done, it is to act as a neighborhood and / or District stimulus and would be anticipating resulting stimulated growth.

The one element that causes it to have such resonance, is that the right-of-way itself exists. That is the one thing that causes it to be of such interest. The most expensive component of most light rail or commuter rail projects is not an issue. Therefore, not having that huge cost associated with obtaining that right-of-way significantly elevates these proposals into the realm of reason.

I am 100% with you on this ROW element. The RR are just historical headaches & they slow the progress of many (prositive initiatives) way down. Any way we can bypass them, the better. IMO.

Tacoma Link is a rapid streetcar, hence it is often referred to as simply 'light rail'. Sid, I could totally see a Tacoma Link type of setup using your route as it would be cheaper than 'heavy' light rail AND we could have it interact with Meridian north of the river if so desired (me personally, I don't think it is that big of a deal as in the current rendering its less than a mile from the core hotel area - easily walkable).

I think more stops are needed in the inner city Eastside area and perhaps one or two more in the inner city Southside, but those are semantics and overall I totally love sid's route as rapid streetcar.

Remember that the streetcar network in OKC in the early 19th century was more extensive mileage wise than the starter route we're building or the length of this route. I could see streetcar being feasible. But, yes, for the route you've drawn, if not a commuter route on existing track at various spots, then light rail would have to be used in that ROW.

I didn't think we had streetcars in OKC 200 years ago. Learn something new every day.

;)

I love mass transit as much as the nest person and take it every time I have a chance but I still don't see why someone would ride a train from downtown to a station in NE OKC and transfer to a shuttle bus that drops them off in a large free parking lot - with no way to walk to another Adventure District attraction without waiting for the shuttle bus again. In my opinion, attractions in the AD are too far apart once you get there to make mass transit serving the area viable. It would be different if once you got there everything was within walking distance but nothing is except maybe the Zoo and Science Museum. I know from personal experience that after hauling a couple of kids around the OKC zoo in the summer the last thing (and I mean the last thing) I would want to do is wait for a shuttle bus to take me back to a train that I have to wait again for.

If I suggested to my wife that we take this transit option she would tell me to go ahead, she is taking the car and will meet me there.

And sorry, but using a ROW simply because it exist is the worst idea ever. You have to go where the people want to go and where ridership will exist. You can build a train where it is easy but that doesn't mean anyone will ride it. WRWA has way more potential for ridership and should be built 20 years before the adventure line.

Now if it is going to be a line serving neighborhoods along the way - which high density neighborhoods would that be?