Streetcar

[OKC Guy]

This is a failed system. Lets face it we will never make it work no matter what we throw at it. It looks pretty and shows well in city advertisements. But like years ago this will eventually be shut down. Its just a matter of how long that takes and how many more millions we throw at it.

I guess when one looks at MAPS 1/2/3, this is to me the only failure. Thats pretty good although it is a lot of wasted money. Omni/CC will help but we’ll need to see. MAPS overall has been a massive success story this will just happen to be the one that failed. We will subsidize it for years with wasted dollars.

I wish we had bought micro buses and run free of charge. Also can change routes as needed plus not stopped for things SC is.

Speaking of buses. I think the city bus system (all cities) is based on big bulky buses. This was likely due to not having other good vehicle options back in the day. But over time transportation companies have evolved and make so many great and smaller people mover vehicles.

I would love to see the whole city get rid of those bulky big buses and go to micro buses. More trips, more drivers and more efficiency. The cost of a micro bus is fractions of their big brother. Fuel economy is better (electric is future option). If you can get more efficiency and more trips run you will increase riders. Smaller is also more rider friendly. If the cost is 1/4th that of big buses (likely 1/5th or better) you can keep them up to date easier, less outlay per bus. Less maintenance, less costly parts, less traffic congestion (works better with traffic) and overall cheaper. If you increase riders you get more revenue to keep standards high and allows you to hire more drivers for the extra trips. It just seems so logical to me but my guess is big bus companies lobby a lot? Technology in auto manufacturing offers so many better options yet we keep the antiquated old big bus method.

Anyways, my 2 cents. I’ve had the opportunity to visit over 30 countries and quite a few use micro buses in cities.

[jccouger]

Yup, just can't see this ever being actually worth the investment. Some businesses might pop up along the route due to the novelty but I don't think it will ever be a functional piece of transportation.

The route it takes is just not very fluid. This is largely based on our city design. All of our interesting districts are just so spread out. If we had better city planning the street car could have made a straight line or square route & it would flow well & be easy to understand, but it just won't ever be the case.

Hope I'm wrong but this just seems like a colossal waste. It just seems like we tried to solve a transportation problem with an outdated model and with the future of ride sharing/robo taxis/scooter & bike rentals it just never seems like it will never be a preferred method of transportation.

[HangryHippo]

Not servicing 23rd or HSC seems like a colossal mistake IMO.

[Zuplar]

Not to pile on here, but I remember back when this was proposed, probably the beginnings of this thread or another I remember saying a lot of the streetcar stuff didn't make sense, and I just got torched. People were downright crappy and I wasn't going near the lengths to say it's wrong or dumb or whatever. Just didn't make sense.

After several conversations I decided, maybe I didn't know 100% of what the people who work or live downtown want/need, so I became fairly optimistic about it's implementation. Even after the new wore off and it had horrible ridership and continues to lag even the conservative estimates I've seen, I try to be optimistic about it, but I always come back to my original gut feeling when I first saw it proposed, this seems mostly worthless.

I'm going to reserve final opinion till maybe 6 months or so after the convention center and hotel are fully open and operating, but I have real doubts. As a taxpayer I hope my gut is 100% wrong and the CC/Hotel are just the catalyst that's needed to put real value for the streetcar.

But it's looking more and more that the ultra urban, anti-car people really over-sold the need for this thing.

[SoonerDave]

Not to pile on here, but I remember back when this was proposed, probably the beginnings of this thread or another I remember saying a lot of the streetcar stuff didn't make sense, and I just got torched. People were downright crappy and I wasn't going near the lengths to say it's wrong or dumb or whatever. Just didn't make sense.

After several conversations I decided, maybe I didn't know 100% of what the people who work or live downtown want/need, so I became fairly optimistic about it's implementation. Even after the new wore off and it had horrible ridership and continues to lag even the conservative estimates I've seen, I try to be optimistic about it, but I always come back to my original gut feeling when I first saw it proposed, this seems mostly worthless.

I'm going to reserve final opinion till maybe 6 months or so after the convention center and hotel are fully open and operating, but I have real doubts. As a taxpayer I hope my gut is 100% wrong and the CC/Hotel are just the catalyst that's needed to put real value for the streetcar.

But it's looking more and more that the ultra urban, anti-car people really over-sold the need for this thing.

I don't think the idea of a streetcar per se was bad, but the execution was flat-out awful.

The "streetcar" notion had appeal to older folks who remembered the original streetcar system fondly, and many probably thought that's what they were getting (or at least some facsimile of it). And the "mass transit" notion appealed to the..."mass transit" crowd. The problem is that, somehow, we lost our way in planning and implementing it in a way that was meaningful and practical. It has become largely symbolic, and unfortunately, not in a good way.

I think there are some here perceive OKC as sort of a Dallas one-off, and when they think of "mass transit," they have notions of (something like) Dallas' DART trains, but don't realize OKC is a geographic and demographic baby compared to DFW. Mass transit on that scale applied to OKC is the very essence of square-peg into a round-hole.

With nothing else into which the streetcar could be linked, and no real, comprehensive plan for how the streetcar would serve the most people, it ended up in a bit of a well-intentioned abyss. Maybe, someday, something good can come out of it. Maybe it can be linked up to some broader transit plan down the road - dunno - just trying to be optimistic. We bought it, we installed it, and we are now kinda realizing it wasn't what, well, anyone really hoped. And just *what* we all hoped is left to interpretation.

[jedicurt]

i don't think the idea of a streetcar per se was bad, but the execution was flat-out awful.

this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PaddyShack]

When you talk about micro-buses are you speaking of the Pesero found in Mexico City? I really haven't seen any other bus smaller than what our normal buses are in other cities, often times I find our buses to be on the small side considering other systems.

[Zuplar]

I don't think the idea of a streetcar per se was bad, but the execution was flat-out awful.

The "streetcar" notion had appeal to older folks who remembered the original streetcar system fondly, and many probably thought that's what they were getting (or at least some facsimile of it). And the "mass transit" notion appealed to the..."mass transit" crowd. The problem is that, somehow, we lost our way in planning and implementing it in a way that was meaningful and practical. It has become largely symbolic, and unfortunately, not in a good way.

I think there are some here perceive OKC as sort of a Dallas one-off, and when they think of "mass transit," they have notions of (something like) Dallas' DART trains, but don't realize OKC is a geographic and demographic baby compared to DFW. Mass transit on that scale applied to OKC is the very essence of square-peg into a round-hole.

With nothing else into which the streetcar could be linked, and no real, comprehensive plan for how the streetcar would serve the most people, it ended up in a bit of a well-intentioned abyss. Maybe, someday, something good can come out of it. Maybe it can be linked up to some broader transit plan down the road - dunno - just trying to be optimistic. We bought it, we installed it, and we are now kinda realizing it wasn't what, well, anyone really hoped. And just *what* we all hoped is left to interpretation.

I never said the idea of the streetcar was bad, I was directly talking about the implementation. If you thought by my comments I was against the idea, I apologize.

I say this because again I don't want to be ripped. This board is particularly harsh on word interpretation (part of the reason I post way less on here than I did) so I want to re-iterate when I say streetcar stuff, I'm talking about the the route, fares, everything that has to do with our existing streetcar, but not the idea of having one in general.

[CloudDeckMedia]

I thought one of the main features of a tracked system (versus wheeled) is that the routes are permanent, and will result in development & businesses locating along the route.

[David]

It is, and it arguably is.

[jccouger]

I thought one of the main features of a tracked system (versus wheeled) is that the routes are permanent, and will result in development & businesses locating along the route.

Yeah, I think in a sense its kind of like the canal. It really just serves a gimmick transportation purpose that hopefully attracts development.

[Laramie]

Streetcar IMO will not be as big a drag on the city's budget as the Whitewater Rapids project. The SC is nice public transportation serving Midtown, Downtown & Bricktown; also we just passed a MAP 4 initiative that will throw some funds toward public bus transit.

MAPS will not be able to cover everything; our city can continue to renew MAPS and address areas where OKC can improve our city.

[dankrutka]

Pretty much everyone on here agreed that the windy streetcar route that was chosen was a very bad choice. It's just not intuitive at all. That reality has played out. It's just another example of City planners and decision-makers ignoring urban planning experts who offered evidence-based advice on what route would succeed. I mean, those in the city even waited to coordinate lights to "see how it would play out," and they only halfway made the change after tons of riders had bad experiences. It's really just a lot of poor decisions from the top over and over again (except for the color schemes/design of streetcars and stops, which are great).

Decreasing wait time and removing on-street parking might help. I've taken the streetcar about 10-15 times and I just tend to ignore the estimated times based on prior experiences. Those need to be accurate. But a lot of harm has been done in the minds of riders.

[Rover]

Maybe, just maybe it’s as simple as the market for riders just isn’t there yet.

[Canoe]

Do the street cars have formal names? My kids call the link one pinky.

[OKC Guy]

Maybe, just maybe it’s as simple as the market for riders just isn’t there yet.

Problem is the public perception is tainted and you will never get some back. Other is its a rigid square. Our city will morph into more than just Bricktown. Most of the east is built out up to 235 so I speculate the newer growth will go north and west. But SC isn’t there. And I argued that MAPS 4 being 8-10 years long was too long - it means no chance of expanding SC to adapt to growth and entertainment patterns. I felt MAPS 4 shoulda been scaled down to allow us to adapt projects to growth patterns more easily. Had we made each line straight back and forth you could interconnect and more easily expand.

For instance, if you had one line running back and forth on 10th st and it ends at Broadway on the east now - but you realize it should be expanded into Health/Science district - then you could easily expand the line east yet not disrupt the overall lines. If you had a Broadway N/S line then they still connect and you transfer at Broadway/10th. So Medical/Science area can take it to Broadway and go south or take it to the western end and go south. If running only 2 directions back and forth on these straight lines no turns are needed to mess up lights and would be much faster repeating trips. If one line breaks down or has problem the other 3 still run. With a connected square its impossible to expand outwards and any SC stoppage shuts the whole system down not just one car. And thats why it will never have time consistency.

[Zorba]

Are you saying driving is free? Cars are free? No taxes paid from buying a car? Fuel? Fuel tax? License fees? Registration fees? Toll roads?

Taxes on cars come no where close to paying for their true cost burden on society. They don't even pay for direct infrastructure costs, much less indirect costs from pollution, loss productivity, loss of life/ability to work from accidents, military adventures used to keep oil prices low, etc.

Since roads are a massive cost on cities/states, mass transient pays for itself by reducing the need to expand/add/repair roads. The street car would be more likely to indirectly pay for itself if it were free, as opposed trying to cover 10% of its costs with fees.

[shawnw]

Do the street cars have formal names? My kids call the link one pinky.

801- Ms. Molly
802- Ms. Piggy
803- Dory
804- Papa Smurf
805- Kermi
806- Yoda
807- Pink Panther

[kukblue1]

I use it all the time for Thunder Games. I'll street park at 5pm. Catch it to go eat in Midtown or Automobile Alley and ride it back to the arena by 6:30.

[Zorba]

I don't think the idea of a streetcar per se was bad, but the execution was flat-out awful.

The "streetcar" notion had appeal to older folks who remembered the original streetcar system fondly, and many probably thought that's what they were getting (or at least some facsimile of it). And the "mass transit" notion appealed to the..."mass transit" crowd. The problem is that, somehow, we lost our way in planning and implementing it in a way that was meaningful and practical. It has become largely symbolic, and unfortunately, not in a good way.

I agree the execution was not good. The wait times are too high, the route isn't great.

The way it is setup now is a tourist attraction. I think if they made it free and decreased wait times at peak times, it would drive development and spending along the route. I don't see it ever really being used for mass transit, though, in part because there is no good way of getting to it if you don't already live in the area. It is useful for getting around, like parking by the Gardens then riding over to Bricktown for dinner.

The money probably would have been much better spent elsewhere.

[Plutonic Panda]

Taxes on cars come no where close to paying for their true cost burden on society. They don't even pay for direct infrastructure costs, much less indirect costs from pollution, loss productivity, loss of life/ability to work from accidents, military adventures used to keep oil prices low, etc.

Since roads are a massive cost on cities/states, mass transient pays for itself by reducing the need to expand/add/repair roads. The street car would be more likely to indirectly pay for itself if it were free, as opposed trying to cover 10% of its costs with fees.

This is not remotely true. Cars are the least subsidized form of transportation that exists.

https://opportunityurbanism.org/2019...idies-by-mode/

[Zuplar]

This is not remotely true. Cars are the least subsidized form of transportation that exists.

https://opportunityurbanism.org/2019...idies-by-mode/

Interesting.

[SoonerDave]

I never said the idea of the streetcar was bad, I was directly talking about the implementation. If you thought by my comments I was against the idea, I apologize.

I say this because again I don't want to be ripped. This board is particularly harsh on word interpretation (part of the reason I post way less on here than I did) so I want to re-iterate when I say streetcar stuff, I'm talking about the the route, fares, everything that has to do with our existing streetcar, but not the idea of having one in general.

No worries here . Completely understood what you said. FWIW, I also concur with your other sentiments about "word interpretation" and it being a reason I don't post here as much as I once did. Same here.

[SoonerDave]

Taxes on cars come no where close to paying for their true cost burden on society. They don't even pay for direct infrastructure costs, much less indirect costs from pollution, loss productivity, loss of life/ability to work from accidents, military adventures used to keep oil prices low, etc.

Since roads are a massive cost on cities/states, mass transient pays for itself by reducing the need to expand/add/repair roads. The street car would be more likely to indirectly pay for itself if it were free, as opposed trying to cover 10% of its costs with fees.

This is so laughably untrue it defies explanation. Private vehicles enable each and every individual the freedom to go nearly anywhere they want at anytime they want, facilitate broad delivery of goods and services throughout cities, states, and the nation. They give people the ability to live and work where they choose. They offer the ability to provide emergency services such as fire, police, and medical attention. "Cost burden?" "Loss of life/ability to work?" Shall we go back to covered wagons and horse-drawn carriages? C'mon.

Please. Cars have their place. Streetcars have their place. Airplanes have their place. And each has its drawbacks. Let's not go down the road of unilaterally vilifying one of the tremendous and vastly underappreciated benefits of living in a free society.

[AP]

This is not remotely true. Cars are the least subsidized form of transportation that exists.

https://opportunityurbanism.org/2019...idies-by-mode/

This should be taken with a grain of salt. Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute is one of the biggest anti-transit advocates out there. That blog exists to advocate against traditional cities and city planning. That article first appeared on a website called The Antiplanner: Dedicated to the sunset of government planning. Very unbiased work here.