http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/maint1.JPG


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/maint2.JPG


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/maint3.JPG


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/maint4.JPG


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/maint5.JPG


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/maint6.JPG


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/maint9.JPG


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/maint7.JPG

I dig the garage. Does anyone else think this facility could end up getting moved to Robinson depending on where the stupid CC goes?

I wish they'd just bulldoze that house down on the corner. You're gonna have this really nice facility sitting next to a POS house that the owner will not spend any money on...

I think this is a winner! I'm not huge on the parking garage - but then again, the garage pictured is merely a preliminary design, showing what could be if that house on the corner is done away with. I do like that the garage partially covers the maintenance yard, though.

MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee specifically asked for and caused that concept to be included.

too bad the garage is not in Maps3 though.

Also, I personally think there wasn't much planning done on this facility for the future - seems very small to me.

Seriously, is this a joke? If so, it's not funny.

Seriously, is this a joke? If so, it's not funny.

You think the streetcars would just stay on a circular loop 24/7/365 with nowhere to go?

You think the streetcars would just stay on a circular loop 24/7/365 with nowhere to go?

Hadley. I shouldn't have to explain everything wrong with this - so I am not going to.

I went through a few pages of the other thread and couldn't find it, but is there an official streetcar route yet? Reason I mention this is because the image I've seen does not include Core 2 Shore in the initial route but has it in a later expansion. I think it would be lunacy for the first phase of the streetcar to provide service in Core to Shore while neglecting areas that already have momentum.

Bchris: 10943 and there is an actually Streetcar Route forum (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Streetcar+Route&highlight=streetcar+route&page=2)
The only thing is the core to shore area is the line that will connect to the maintenance facility.

Hfry, thanks. That is actually the graphic I was familiar with but was confused because it shows nothing in Core to Shore in the first phase.

I personally think a nice commercial building on the site the house currently sits on would hide the facility from the park better then a parking garage.

Hadley. I shouldn't have to explain everything wrong with this - so I am not going to.

Please...indulge us.

too bad the garage is not in Maps3 though.

Also, I personally think there wasn't much planning done on this facility for the future - seems very small to me.

We do not have money in our budget for a parking garage. Plus, there would not be any benefit to the streetcar without a charter change to EMBARK. Parking and transit monies cannot be intermingled.

Size wize, it is more than adequate for our needs.

Hadley. I shouldn't have to explain everything wrong with this - so I am not going to.

No, I think you should explain since what is wrong with it isn't apparent to anyone else so far.

Hadley. I shouldn't have to explain everything wrong with this - so I am not going to.

Oh please enlighten us almighty one. Seriously get over yourself.

Not bad, but what would be even better is if the yard and maintenance facility were sited at the southeast corner of 7th/Walker, leaving the Hudson frontage for a use better-suited for a park front.

Hadley. I shouldn't have to explain everything wrong with this - so I am not going to.

Please explain to us in great detail how this deviates from new urbanist orthodoxy.

I dig the garage. Does anyone else think this facility could end up getting moved to Robinson depending on where the stupid CC goes?

No

Not bad, but what would be even better is if the yard and maintenance facility were sited at the southeast corner of 7th/Walker, leaving the Hudson frontage for a use better-suited for a park front.

I agree.


Please explain to us in great detail how this deviates from new urbanist orthodoxy.

I'll just say that it takes up pretty much the whole block, and that isn't needed. You also don't need an "outdoor patio" when you're directly across the street from what should be the premier park in the city. They've got a "future parking garage" at the corner of 7th and Hudson. Why do those cars need such a great view of the park?

The streetcar maintenance facility will most definitely need the entire block - *especially* as the system grows. Personally, I would have pushed the entire facility so that the edge of the service court was right against Walker, giving more room for storage track - but I understand that there is a berm supporting the ramp that Walker uses to cross I-40 that would be in the way, and the engineering to remove the berm and build a vertical retaining wall might cost too much for this project.

I'm less enthused about the parking garage, but in my eyes it's not a total deal breaker, as long as it's appropriately designed.

The need to accommodate system growth seems to be take care of by the part of the Site Plan that says "Future Storage Tracks."

Move the tracks to a north/south orientation and place them along Walker; divide the block into halves (west and east). place the west half fronting 7th; allow the park-front half to develop in a way complementary to adjacent park.

10952

Having two additional storage tracks would only address short-term growth of the system. If the streetcar is to grow into a city-wide method of transportation, the amount of space allocated will be insufficient. You also have to keep in mind, this facility will not be "park-front"... It will be directly west of Union Station. The park would be caddy-corner across the intersection to the NE.

We WILL need this facility to be this big if we don't want to limit the size and future growth of the streetcar system.

It absolutely would not limit the future growth of the streetcar. Expanded transit networks in several cities use multiple depots as their systems grow. Near the ends of new lines are usual locations.

Having two additional storage tracks would only address short-term growth of the system. If the streetcar is to grow into a city-wide method of transportation, the amount of space allocated will be insufficient. You also have to keep in mind, this facility will not be "park-front"... It will be directly west of Union Station. The park would be caddy-corner across the intersection to the NE.

We WILL need this facility to be this big if we don't want to limit the size and future growth of the streetcar system.

I highly suspect the street car will never become a city-wide method of transportation. The 35-year N/E/S/W borders are likely N. 63rd, Lottie Ave (Ignoring a potential line to Tinker, obviously), S 29th, and Classen Ave. (MAYBE I-44 if a line to Integris becomes feasible via increased density). I think the 35-year lines would have termini at (approximately):

1. NW 63rd/Western
2. NE 13th/Lottie
3. SW 29th/Walker
4. Somewhere to Wheeler
5. Potentially NW Expressway and May or I-44.
6. Potentially to MLK/I-44

Now, certainly coverage within that area could be increased. Awhile back maps were being thrown around to potential larger scale route frameworks within the downtown area. Maybe it was Andrew (CuatrodeMayo) who made this one (sorry if I misappropriated this), but I think it was one of the better looking ideas:

10954

But even something like that would take a very large amount of capital to put together and it would require density levels (or the near-term potential of density levels) that are decades away to merit that level of investment.

UP, I understand the budgets and can appreciate the separate charters (something which should change imo), but I was mainly talking about the relative size of the OMC compared to the system we are building. I know it will meet the needs of a five train starter system but I'm looking to the future and thinking we will have well north of 5 times the initial system and this OMC wont be able to support a full-fledged system and I don't see how it could be expanded (nor plans to do so).

I know you all are doing what you can with the dollars we have but I think there should at least be an expectation of yard expansion as the system grows and I didn't see that in the renderings and the proposed OMC is low-balling it IMO (with my assumption that the Streetcar will be a huge success). :)

I understand and appreciate the concerns regarding the future outlined here. This actually a fairly generous size for a starter facility. While not depicted, if growth was that considerable, the facility could expand to take up the entire ground floor of the proposed garage.

Keep in mind who came up with the design, the folks who run Portland and AECOM who consulted on many other facilities; Portland, Seattle, Atlanta, etc

The committee felt it was important for experience by those who actually operate streetcar systems to be included.

If we expand the system out of downtown, would it not make sense (since OKC is so spread-out) to have several small facilities in a few locations rather than a large central place in a prime real estate area (downtown)? Right now, we're looking at a downtown only line, so obviously it's downtown. But something else we should think about is if we end up with express lines/etc, then it might make sense to put a garage up on the far north side (like all that empty land off Broadway Ext.)...another out west in the industrial areas, South in the "between" land of Moore/Norman, East out somewhere...not sure where.

In some other cities, it's not as practical because the city-proper is MUCH smaller than OKC. So, just throwing it out there, would it make sense to Dallas-proper to have multiple garages for DART within their city-limits or to have fewer larger garages? Since it's DART, the other municipalities have to do their part too, right (I'm asking because I don't know). Where in OKC, right now it's basically all OKC funded because the 'burbs won't be on-board until a much larger plan can be agreed upon, which would include the 'burbs shoulder their expenses/maintenance/etc. I'm just throwing something out there....

^^^

I agree.

UP, fair enough. Thank you for the work you've put in on this!

I understand and appreciate the concerns regarding the future outlined here. This actually a fairly generous size for a starter facility. While not depicted, if growth was that considerable, the facility could expand to take up the entire ground floor of the proposed garage.

Keep in mind who came up with the design, the folks who run Portland and AECOM who consulted on many other facilities; Portland, Seattle, Atlanta, etc

The committee felt it was important for experience by those who actually operate streetcar systems to be included.

Duly noted, thanks for that piece UP. I know you all worked so hard on this and the overall transit network to be developed and was a bit shocked by the renderings; but it is nice to hear there has been thought about this being a starter and there can be expansion if the system is a success.

I am very confident it will be a huge success but I can also understand the more conservative approach when budgets are this tight. Very nice that outside, experienced consultants were relied on as well as Portland being a benchmark system!!

Cheers!

If we expand the system out of downtown, would it not make sense (since OKC is so spread-out) to have several small facilities in a few locations rather than a large central place in a prime real estate area (downtown)? Right now, we're looking at a downtown only line, so obviously it's downtown. But something else we should think about is if we end up with express lines/etc, then it might make sense to put a garage up on the far north side (like all that empty land off Broadway Ext.)...another out west in the industrial areas, South in the "between" land of Moore/Norman, East out somewhere...not sure where.

In some other cities, it's not as practical because the city-proper is MUCH smaller than OKC. So, just throwing it out there, would it make sense to Dallas-proper to have multiple garages for DART within their city-limits or to have fewer larger garages? Since it's DART, the other municipalities have to do their part too, right (I'm asking because I don't know). Where in OKC, right now it's basically all OKC funded because the 'burbs won't be on-board until a much larger plan can be agreed upon, which would include the 'burbs shoulder their expenses/maintenance/etc. I'm just throwing something out there....

A streetcar system won't be expanded into the areas you mention. That will be for another type of mass transit which would need separate maintenance facilities.

Right....so that means there will only be a small, limited area serviced by these downtown cars. So a small facility makes sense to me. It's not like the whole fleet is going to be going in for service at the same time.

The official plans for OKC Streetcar are from downtown to OUHSC, downtown to 63rd up Classen, and downtown to south 25th street (Capitol Hill) on Walker. The end of these various lines would intersect with proposed commuter rail stops to enable transfers between modes.

This facility would not just be for maintenance, but also for storing the cars at night when the system is not running - so that must be taken into account as well. Additionally, there most likely will be further expansion. The site as it sits now will be perfect for the system that will initially be built. My concerns surrounded future expansion. But if the streetcar committee's experienced consultants say that this layout will work and allow for future expansion, then I am on board.

If the renderings are to scale, it looks like the track could hold 10 cars on the available tracks with expansion availability of at least 6 more (possibly 8).

I can't remember exactly how many cars we're buying for the initial system, but a ridiculously conservative estimate (32 minutes for the whole route) for 8 minute route-times means that we would only need 4 cars operating at a time, so I suppose we'd need at least 6 cars. In reality, the route takes closer to half that time.

If a route from 63rd/Classen down to Walker/25th had 12 minute route times and took 84 minutes round trip that = 7 cars.

Route to OUHSSC w/ 12 minute times taking 48 minutes round trip = 4 cars.

All of that together is 15 cars, so we need maybe 18 total. You'd likely want to store 1 at each terminus station on the N/S route for the next day's opening service, that actually works out perfectly: 16 spots at the facility, 2 spots at the termini.

It absolutely would not limit the future growth of the streetcar. Expanded transit networks in several cities use multiple depots as their systems grow. Near the ends of new lines are usual locations.

Agree, that's a good point biotoirich:

You can have multiple depots used as storage as the system grows which shouldn't require your maintenance hub facility to rely on expansion.

From the council meeting notes (http://www.okc.gov/councilnotes/2015/cn070715.html) that just went up:


MAPS 3 Modern Streetcar Storage and Maintenance Facility preliminary report approved
The Council voted Tuesday to approve the preliminary report for the MAPS 3 Modern Streetcar Storage and Maintenance Facility, which paves the way for final plans and construction. The Maintenance Facility will provide easy access for technicians to service the streetcars and provide storage space for spare parts and other equipment. The preliminary report includes plans to make it easier for possible future expansion of the Maintenance Facility.

Download the report (http://www.okc.gov/councilnotes/2015/070715files/streetcarsmfprelimreport.pdf). (PDF)
Download the presentation (http://www.okc.gov/councilnotes/2015/070715files/Streetcar%20-%20M3-S006%20-%20Jacobs.pdf). (PDF)
Watch the presentation (https://youtu.be/YVnLtGVcDcU?t=7m37s).

$5.4 million building permit application filed last week for this facility.

I was wondering about when this would get moving just earlier today! Glad to see this will be getting underway soon. I imagine that rails will begin to be laid in the streets at around the same time?

The building permit for this maintenance facility was issued on 09 September. Construction should start soon.

Construction is underway:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13147&d=1476127938

^

Awesome!

Thanks so much.

construction is underway:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13147&d=1476127938

13148

13148

There are so many threads that I want to post this in that I think it should become one of the board smilies.

There are so many threads that I want to post this in that I think it should become one of the board smilies.

I agree!! More waving Ron Paul!!

From this morning:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/streetcar021117.jpg

Holy smokes, that's coming up quick!

From this morning:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/streetcar021117.jpg

wow that was fast

Just gonna post so this thread doesn't die out yet.

Focus fail but they are really moving on this structure.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/streetcar031917.jpg

Focus fail but they are really moving on this structure.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/streetcar031917.jpg

Artsy!

Focus fail but they are really moving on this structure.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/streetcar031917.jpg

Too much coffee?

From https://twitter.com/OKCStreetcar:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/streetcar033117.jpg

There's also a short tour video posted today by the Chamber: https://twitter.com/okcchamber/status/847883623533563908

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/streetcar041817a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/streetcar041817b.jpg

That'd be a great roof for solar panels.

You can actually see the top of this building from I-40.