Streetcar

[Anonymous.]

The thing was jam packed for St Patty celebrations all weekend.

[cbing04]

Here is something that is never talked about in OKC. This is the fact that there is zero public transportation outside core of the downtown area. How do you expect people that depend on public transportation who live in Yukon, Mustang, Norman, Edmond, and other surrounding areas to get downtown? Let's see, should we drive downtown and pay to park so that we can ride the streetcar? Come on, anyone with a little bit of sense knows this isn't going to work until you put money into mass transit. Instead of wasting the money on this maybe they should have considered putting money into bus service that covers the whole city. The decision makers around here don't think with their brains they think with their bank accounts and who's going to give them a kick back.

[jedicurt]

Here is something that is never talked about in OKC. This is the fact that there is zero public transportation outside core of the downtown area. How do you expect people that depend on public transportation who live in Yukon, Mustang, Norman, Edmond, and other surrounding areas to get downtown? Let's see, should we drive downtown and pay to park so that we can ride the streetcar? Come on, anyone with a little bit of sense knows this isn't going to work until you put money into mass transit. Instead of wasting the money on this maybe they should have considered putting money into bus service that covers the whole city. The decision makers around here don't think with their brains they think with their bank accounts and who's going to give them a kick back.

most of those places aren't in OKC city limits... and so would need to be regional money... MAPS is exclusive to OKC city limits, and thus will only cover projects in OKC city limits. there is work being done on Regional transit to these places as well.

[hoya]

Here is something that is never talked about in OKC. This is the fact that there is zero public transportation outside core of the downtown area. How do you expect people that depend on public transportation who live in Yukon, Mustang, Norman, Edmond, and other surrounding areas to get downtown? Let's see, should we drive downtown and pay to park so that we can ride the streetcar? Come on, anyone with a little bit of sense knows this isn't going to work until you put money into mass transit. Instead of wasting the money on this maybe they should have considered putting money into bus service that covers the whole city. The decision makers around here don't think with their brains they think with their bank accounts and who's going to give them a kick back.

That topic has actually been talked about extensively. You wouldn't believe how much conversation on that exact thing has taken place, even within this thread. There are 330+ pages for you to go through if you're bored this afternoon.

Public transportation has to start somewhere, and right now the bus system has an absolutely horrible reputation in OKC. People here think that buses are basically rolling toilets for the homeless. The streetcar has a "cool" factor that buses do not have. This is proven by the fact that the streetcar was polling as one of the most popular projects when they were preparing to vote for MAPS 3. Streetcars are kinda cool. You can also look at ridership numbers for the first few months and see that lots of people tried it out.

As far as long term solutions, you should take a look at a thread about the Regional Transit System. The plan is to connect Edmond, OKC, Moore, Norman, Del City, and Midwest City with a commuter rail service. Here, I'll include this helpful link to the topic. https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=43068

[David]

Here is something that is never talked about in OKC. This is the fact that there is zero public transportation outside core of the downtown area. How do you expect people that depend on public transportation who live in Yukon, Mustang, Norman, Edmond, and other surrounding areas to get downtown? Let's see, should we drive downtown and pay to park so that we can ride the streetcar? Come on, anyone with a little bit of sense knows this isn't going to work until you put money into mass transit. Instead of wasting the money on this maybe they should have considered putting money into bus service that covers the whole city. The decision makers around here don't think with their brains they think with their bank accounts and who's going to give them a kick back.

Everything you just said was wrong. Allow me to introduce you to the Regional Transportation Authority of Central Oklahoma.

[stile99]

It's not so much that. There's a plan for something, can't remember if it is extended bus line, rail, gyrocopter, whatever (I'm in the Mustang/Yukon area, so as you will see in a moment, I don't care enough to remember the details). The idea is for the whole metro area to chip in for it and everyone's happy. But then they come to Mustang/Yukon and present how much Mustang/Yukon would have to pay for just one or two routes, and of course the answer was no way we're subsidizing the rest of you yahoos. Which isn't really how it would be working out (the higher cost would be due to the higher cost involved), but the fact remains that if someone wanted to live on an OKC bus route and bought a house in Mustang, that's really their own dang problem.

Bottom line, a bus that includes Bethany? Doable. A bus that includes Warr Acres? Doable, it would probably be the same route. A bus that serves Mustang, Yukon, Edmond, and Norman? Get real.

Edit to add: And I see this was quite expertly covered while I was typing.

[dcsooner]

One thing that I am most confused about Oklahoma City transportation is: We seek density in the core to promote WALKABILITY and use of MASS TRANSIT, but we continue to build roads and parking garages! OKC traffic can hardly be confused as congested by any measure (outside of a few windows of time). Why would anyone choose mass transit when driving is relatively congestion free almost anytime of anyday of the week? and there is more than sufficient parking downtown? Oklahoma city has 600 plus square miles of pavement and the city IMO does a inadequate job of maintaining those lane miles especially with maintenance of streetlights and vegetation on the sides and medians. How can the streetcar be successful when the city continues to promote driving and parking? Maybe someone out there can enlighten me.

[OKC Guy]

Having been to over 30 countries there is a basic problem we will be challenged to overcome.

Other countries citizens were never flush with money compared to Americans starting from the Industrial Revolution and forward. Thus when cars were assembly line here and made cheap to buy (compared to other countries) we grew our modern country around cars.

Other countries citizens did not have same spending power nor the open roads (nor space to build like ours) and found/used other transpo methods. They were early on with buses and trams and trains whereas we were car focused.

So they adapted to other methods more easily due to exposure and infrastructure.

This leads to mentality of citizens, our American way of driving is ingrained into the fabric of our society. This is not saying our way is better but indicates what people have used for the last century. So when we assume we can build something that works well overseas it is not going to be easy in comparison due to habits and acceptance.

To further add Oklahoma is very car centric and this is why streetcar has more resistance than what you would see overseas and even in other larger/established US cities.

We are forcing car people to make a change and expecting fast results. Talk of expanding streetcar will be a tough sell. To those who live out of downtown SC will never be used other than occasional bar hopping or large events. Tourists will love it due to not relying on it as a daily commute and not being in a hurry in comparison to a worker needing timely movement.

As for someone saying buses have a bad rep well thats because we never put any real money into it. It can work if given the same support and money as SC got/gets. Imagine if we put the SC $140,000,000 into buses instead. It would cover more citizens and not be looked at as bad once we made it work. I think we did it backwards and had we done buses first you then get people downtown without cars. Then could have done streetcar with more focus and support.

Imagine if we have 7 or 8 mini bus hubs around the city. All interconnected. Then you invest in the complete city where all are part of project vice select few now for SC.

As is the regional transpo model is going to take decades. And by then with all the other projects costs plus upkeep no one will want to pay for it. And if just a few links don’t get approved its not a fully functional system.

If we truly spent money on buses this would be the cheapest way to get transpo to the most people.

But in our car centric state and city its gonna be a hard sell to get all regional support for an expensive rail system.

Another point is our city is so spread out so cost per mile per citizen will be higher than anywhere else (to build regional transpo methods).

Someone said SC use was high thats not true. I think I read 60,000 in 2 months (40 Jan and 20 Feb?). Well how many were tourists and how many were events? Daily worker riders are really small which since rail is decades away means buses are only other method to get workers to SC. But we don’t care about buses its the ugly old sweater here and no one wants to upgrade it. That leaves cars and like said no one is driving to park to SC for work.

Its best use is tourists and barhopping just like St Patricks day use was up. OMNI and Convention center will be good uses for it too. It looks pretty like a poster said but is not functional as a daily people mover for workers unless you live next to it.

[Ross MacLochness]

nm

[jerrywall]

Here is something that is never talked about in OKC. This is the fact that there is zero public transportation outside core of the downtown area.

Um, that's just.. not right.

There's a free bus system in Edmond, with a connection from downtown Edmond to Downtown OKC. I live in Edmond and work in Film Row, and have ridden the bus. I then rode after work from Film Row to Bethany to my wife's work, so we could car pool home. Works just fine. The Metro system, while not having total coverage, has decent coverage over much of the city. There are routes to Spencer and Midwest city, as far south as I-240, west to Council, North to Memorial. I know there are areas with poor or no coverage, and much of this is due to how spread out OKC is. But to say there is zero outside of downtown is just not accurate.

[OKC Guy]

This was written by a Seattle reporter about their system and it is same comments myself and others have raised. Also why when I see $2,500,000 pork approved for extra parts I comment on it. They opened first SC line over 10 years ago in 07 and next line a few years ago in 16. Article is from Jan 2019. And like OKC they too had SCs years ago:

What explains Seattle’s streetcar fixation? Look at who really benefits

Danny Westneat / Columnist
Originally published January 18, 2019 at 7:15 pm
The streetcar lines Seattle is building make little sense as people-movers. To date they have spectacularly failed here as mass transit. But what if that's not the point?

Mayor Jenny Durkan should have gone with her first instinct. She should have scrapped the Seattle streetcar.

This past week the Seattle mayor decided to revive our most dubious transportation network, even though building a 1.2-mile connecting trolley link along First Avenue downtown is now projected to cost $286 million — a 100 percent cost overrun.

The desire to keep going no matter the cost is understandable. The argument is that we’ve already got truncated streetcar lines in South Lake Union and on First Hill. Surely connecting them will bring meaning to it all.

As one business leader put it: “Our children and our grandchildren, years from now, if we don’t make this connection will look back and say, ‘What were they thinking?’ ”

Of course it was our fathers and grandfathers who ripped out the old streetcar tracks that once traversed Seattle, on account of them being obsolete. I imagine they’re looking on from the afterlife at the new tracks being laid, and wondering about our faculties as well.

Because streetcars, no matter how lovable, are slow and inflexible. They’re not mass transit (at least how we run them here). There’s proof of this in studies, as well as from underperforming lines all over the country. But most crucially the proof is right here under our noses.

Since 2007 we’ve been running street cars in Seattle. They have consistently cost more than predicted, and carried far fewer riders than expected. Most importantly, they’re failures as transit by the city’s own data.

Consider the “Semi-annual Streetcar Report,” which the city put out in November, and which unfortunately was widely ignored. It shows in gory detail how rapidly costs have escalated and red ink has hemorrhaged as people choose not to ride.

Example: The South Lake Union line has lost 28 percent of its ridership since 2013. This though it runs through the fastest-growing neighborhood in America.

At the same time, its operating costs have gone up 30 percent. So the city revealed in November it now expects this line to rack up $12 million more in operating deficits in the next five years.

And that’s the superior of the two lines. The First Hill trolley’s fare revenue is coming in less than half what was projected just 18 months ago. The result is the city projects $16 million in red ink on that line in the next five years, despite Sound Transit putting in $25 million to prop it up.

The city also now says the First Hill line won’t carry the 1.3 million annual riders it was supposed to have this year until … well, possibly never.

Fine, you say, these streetcars may be lame. But that’s only because they don’t go anywhere! When they’re linked — South Lake Union through downtown to Pioneer Square — then people will use them.

That’s the hope. But they’ll still be pokier than a bus. For the sections stuck in traffic, they can be even slower than going on foot. A Seattle Weekly reporter road-raced the First Hill trolley on its 2.5-mile route and beat it by eight minutes.

But here’s the clincher: the South Lake Union streetcar is going to be made redundant by the light-rail line through that neighborhood that voters have already approved. That’s slated to be built on the exact same alignment down Westlake.

The South Lake Union streetcar is already being out competed by buses. Imagine when you can hop light rail from Amazon to Pioneer Square — why would we need this north-south streetcar route then?

But then again, it turns out I’m thinking about it all wrong. Recently two professors looked at 12 U.S. streetcar systems, including Seattle’s, and found they aren’t even really transit projects at all.

“We find that new streetcar investments no longer primarily improve transit accessibility,” said the authors, writing in the Journal of Transport Geography. “Rather, modern streetcars are part of strategic amenity packages cities use to achieve real estate and economic development goals.

“The expected benefits from streetcar projects,” they conclude, “accrue mostly to local property interests.”

Read rest of story plus other SC articles here:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ally-benefits/

[hfry]

Okc guy, do you have a number for how much the wheel truing machine cost? You keep blaming this on spare parts when I would bet that was a good chunk of the actual 3 mil. It's fine to be skeptical and want to make sure every dollar is spent to its fullest but the reality is every single one of things projects have massive waste. You have just chosen this one for a vendetta and you're not even asking the right questions in my opinion.

[Zorba]

I am not going to address the line by line commentary on here. However, I would like to point out, while I might be one of the biggest supporters of the streetcar, I am also one of it's fiercest critics.

Red lights, incorrectly parked cars, and fares have been significant problems. We are funding a resolution to the lights and about 1/3rd have been resolved. The parked cars seem to be better resolved after the online criticism over the change in handling to OCPD (both on OKCTALK and Twitter). The fares are for others to decide. I have been and always will be against fares. To me, the streetcar should be essentially a pedestrian enabler. It should be an extension of our built environment to lessen the need for more parking, better land use, less noise, and fewer emissions.

If there are extensions proposed in MAPS 4, they need to be carefully considered and in tandem part of a thoughtful land use plan. Ideally, extensions would be in dual-track alignments and if possible, in isolated right-of-ways.

The streetcar was never meant to be the end solution to the historic 80-year lack of investment in public transit in the OKC metro. It was meant to be the centerpiece of a comprehensive plan involving more city buses, commuter rail, and BRT.

I think we should have a conversation about what using the streetcar in a traditional light-rail format in the context of extensions might look like. And I write this simply because I think that dual-purpose alignments on BNSF (freight rail) are highly questionable. In the next few months, hopefully, we will have some answers from the RTA about this issue.

Regarding overall ridership numbers, a significant drop is to be expected with fares and the confusion surrounding them. There is also a direct correlation between high-ridership days and weather conditions. As weather operations improve, red lights go away, and the city operates the streetcar more efficiently, it will be interesting to see how things level out.

Do you know what percentage of costs they project the fares will cover? I'm wondering if it is even a real source of cost covering if it is was only included because of certain groups of people complaining about freeloaders and public transit "losing" money.

[Urban Pioneer]

The last time I personally looked into this issue, 14% was the average maximum return on operational cost for public transit systems regardless of mode. I may be recalling incorrectly, but 12% was the maximum average return locally regardless of mode.

We collect fares for three primary reasons-

1. To enable us to have a mechanism to boot people off the train if they are causing problems and are not paying

2. Ed Shadid threatened a lawsuit against the city if the streetcar was made free but the bus system was not

3. We have a transit system director who was formerly the system's chief accountant and has an equity philosophy- "that if people are paying for it they will value it more".


Many systems that do "poorly" as described in other posts also charge fares. Kansas City, by contrast, does not and sees significant returns in increased sidewalk level business activity. They regard their systems as an economic revenue generator with return occurring through increased sales-tax collections.

[Urban Pioneer]

As a separate post regarding OKC's transit system overall, I agree that $140 million poured into the bus system over the streetcar system would have been a transformational citywide alternative. The difference is the ongoing Operations and Maintenance costs. The streetcar system's low O&M versus hundreds of buses is staggering. Our city has not invested broadly in public transit for a myriad of reasons. We have also previously had decision makers in our city management that did not value meaningful investment. But any significant metro-wide investment would undoubtedly involve the tough process of putting forth to the voters a permanent .25% - 1.0% sales tax increase to cover the O&M to provide stable, long-term citywide transit service.

Regarding sprawl and comparisons to Europe, Eisenhower decided to opt for a highway system over overhauling our passenger rail system and retrofitting it for higher speeds. Historically it is not simply only about available revenue at the time when comparing our history to post-war Europe. There was a conscious decision to back our automobile industry and build a system reliant on cars. Right or wrong, that's the system that the federal government still disproportionately supports with federal funding and unfettered land condemnation and construction practices. Cities in America that have great coherent transit systems are often because those systems were ingrained into their historical fabric or because of natural restrictions where highways simply won't work. BART in San Francisco is a great example of that. And fwiw, that system barely passed its multi-county vote as well.

Nearly any transit initiative is going to have huge obstacles. That is why our streetcar system here is a huge coup for OKC. And what it is helped to do is elevate the glaring flaws in our overall thinking in a comprehensive transit system. With new city leadership, there is an opportunity over the next few years to implement a more comprehensive bus system, true BRT, select streetcar extensions, and possible commuter rail.

[Plutonic Panda]

Eisenhower modeled the interstate system from Germany’s autobahn network, IIRC.

[Urban Pioneer]

Eisenhower modeled the interstate system from Germany’s autobahn network, IIRC.

So true. It was also conceived to provide straight-aways to land military planes nearly anywhere in the country. It's an amazing system concept with lots of intended and unintended consequences.

[Rover]

So true. It was also conceived to provide straight-aways to land military planes nearly anywhere in the country. It's an amazing system concept with lots of intended and unintended consequences.

That has widely been debunked as untrue. Never was intended for plane landings of any kind. There is no one in five law either. More tin hat stuff.

[stile99]

So true. It was also conceived to provide straight-aways to land military planes nearly anywhere in the country. It's an amazing system concept with lots of intended and unintended consequences.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/la...ope-and-glory/

[Plutonic Panda]

Wasn’t the interstate system partially funded or at least endorsed by the DoD?

[OKC Guy]

As a separate post regarding OKC's transit system overall, I agree that $140 million poured into the bus system over the streetcar system would have been a transformational citywide alternative. The difference is the ongoing Operations and Maintenance costs. The streetcar system's low O&M versus hundreds of buses is staggering. Our city has not invested broadly in public transit for a myriad of reasons. We have also previously had decision makers in our city management that did not value meaningful investment. But any significant metro-wide investment would undoubtedly involve the tough process of putting forth to the voters a permanent .25% - 1.0% sales tax increase to cover the O&M to provide stable, long-term citywide transit service.

Regarding sprawl and comparisons to Europe, Eisenhower decided to opt for a highway system over overhauling our passenger rail system and retrofitting it for higher speeds. Historically it is not simply only about available revenue at the time when comparing our history to post-war Europe. There was a conscious decision to back our automobile industry and build a system reliant on cars. Right or wrong, that's the system that the federal government still disproportionately supports with federal funding and unfettered land condemnation and construction practices. Cities in America that have great coherent transit systems are often because those systems were ingrained into their historical fabric or because of natural restrictions where highways simply won't work. BART in San Francisco is a great example of that. And fwiw, that system barely passed its multi-county vote as well.

Nearly any transit initiative is going to have huge obstacles. That is why our streetcar system here is a huge coup for OKC. And what it is helped to do is elevate the glaring flaws in our overall thinking in a comprehensive transit system. With new city leadership, there is an opportunity over the next few years to implement a more comprehensive bus system, true BRT, select streetcar extensions, and possible commuter rail.

Well written but I have to take some exceptions here.

1. You are comparing SC costs for 5 of the same miles to being cheaper than costs of running buses covering over 600 square miles of city. In fact if you took the cost per mile of SC expense and did it city wide in the same routes buses run you would never spend less than buses. The rails are part of costs and even if you depreciated them over 20 years its a cost major times more than buses. Then if you even had SCs city wide the operating costs would be high. Like I said if you take the $140m and put it at one time into buses we would have a model bus system covering the whole city. Yet that same amount of money only covers 5 route miles for SC. It cost us (so far) $28,000,000 per mile of streetcar! How much does buses cost per mile even if you quadripled them and bought all new ones? A heck of a lot less.

2. You say its a coup we spent $240m to realize we had a transit problem. Jeez, for $1m we coulda paid for a study to say as much without reocurring costs. Or ask any resident for free. Why did it take $140m to realize it? It didn’t. SCs are the new old toy in cities around the country, only serving a select few and helping property values along the stretch while needing all city taxpayers to fund it. We had a streetcar system years back and it eventually failed and was torn up. Lessons learned the hard way are gonna be really hard and way more expensive thie second time around.

I like our city and all the prior MAPS projects except this one. I cannot support any more money for a flawed system. I hope the city does not bundle MAPS 4 so I can vote yes on soccer stadium and other select projects and vote no for SC expansion. If bundled then I vote no for the whole shebang. Lets hope city leaders realize adding more SC to a bundled vote will doom all other projects. Then we will miss oit on some actual good projects as all prior MAPS mometum will be lost. Its time to separate projects and this will truly show what residents are for or not for.

[Urban Pioneer]

1. No. That is not the comparison that I made or am making. I am stating that it is a cost we could absorb through our annual city budget that was part of our comprehensive adopted transit plan. To implement significant adopted bus recommendations would have required a annual O&M that we could not absorb without a dedicated funding source.

2. I’m saying that with arrival of the streetcar far more people in the public are aware ten years later the shortcomings of our overall public transit system. We have an adopted plan and only a small piece of that plan (streetcar) has been implemented.

3. Expect it to be bundled unless a lawsuit battle and a court causes it to be determined otherwise.

[Urban Pioneer]

More tin hat stuff.

Thanks for clearing that up. Considering the Cold War era that the highway system was built, its believable.

[David]

Not a chance the city doesn't bundle MAPS 4. It's a multiple times over winning formula, you don't mess with success because of one or two loud dissenters.

[Rover]

Thanks for clearing that up. Considering the Cold War era that the highway system was built, its believable.

Unless one checks the facts. Being believable and being true are two different things. People can believe anything if they form selective logic strings that fit an existing bias to believe. Check all the wacko extreme right stuff being tweeted and retweeted everyday now .... and left wing too.

Edit: Sorry. Wasn’t directing that at you. Only mean that there is lots of misinformation that keeps getting spread because it sounds plausible and there are many conspiratists who want to believe. Things spread in lore.