Streetcar

[betts]

I forgot yours had double track, Spartan. That does help, but is it only 6 miles of track? Regardless, it's still possible people will have to walk four blocks.....two to get to the line and potentially a couple to get to a stop. As I've said, we walk a lot farther than that in Chicago to get to a bus stop, and they have more inclement weather than we do, although I think it might be easier to walk six blocks in the cold than four in the heat.

[ljbab728]

BUT... in Portland one block apart is about 250'... in OKC one block is about 550'. Then try to do like some have suggested and space each track two blocks about.... that's 1100 feet... half a block shy of a quarter mile. double track is OKC best option.

If Google Maps is accurate, the blocks in downtown Portland are indeed about half as long as those in downtown OKC. But if you go east and west between Walker and Broadway most of the blocks are significantly less than 550'.

[SkyWestOKC]

I'd be for single track if we got rid of the loops.

We can make this work better if we have single tracks with free-return. In theory, we can have 6 spokes all being 1 mile long. And you could wait on the outbound/inbound depending on where you were going, instead of riding the loop all the way around.

[SkyWestOKC]

6.2 miles of track, could probably cut .2 miles off of the south extension for now, and get it even at 6.



Hits most every district I think.

Doesn't allow for much side to side travel, but connects the dots while avoiding a loop. The black line is "common use" track at the "hub", a .2 mile double track segment (totaling .4 miles) to keep trains organized entering and leaving the "hub". All other track is single width.

I think we should avoid the loop method unless it's double tracked, but using the spoke and hub system with single tracks and free return (same track as inbound and outbound), personally is most desirable.

I'm no planner, I am just tossing ideas of what can be done so people WILL THINK. People with better understanding hopefully might see something from this. I don't know.

[Spartan]

It's actually roughly 28 miles.. (27.961 when I mapped it). I might have accidentally gone over the common line along Sheridan once more than I needed to.

It's 14 with single tracks, but you don't want single tracks for extremely long spokes, which is pretty much all of them except the green line that goes to RSK/Lee,and the purple route, which looks to be closer to .5 or at least .4 miles (7 blocks) than .2 miles.

I can definitely see that you REALLY like EKG, too.

[SkyWestOKC]

Maybe I'm not adding correctly? Remember it's single track.

Here was my notes when I did it.

0.4 CU (common use)
0.5
0.7
1.4
0.8
1.5
0.9

There's nothing special I like about EKG....on a map it just looks desireable to me to have some rail on it. Also, you must remember I really am not in downtown very much, I can't "see" the important items. I'm just guessing, and like I said, just trying to throw out some ideas so others that have a better understanding can maybe have something else to chew on.

I'm a Southsider who stays in the Southside, and every now and then who goes to Bricktown -- which also happens to be the south side of Bricktown, Lower Bricktown.

[Platemaker]

If we go with something like this, we are okay after the revelation that OKC blocks are further apart than blocks in virtually any other city.

This works... its simple... and you can build on it. Although, I'd vote to have Sheridan double tracked instead of using Reno. They in the future we could double track SW 3rd/the Boulevard.

[Urban Pioneer]

One quick tidbit for example- I will say I believe in double tracking Sheridan. However, that is not possible as there is a 20" high pressure gas main that we have to stay 10' away from. So Sheridan can only accommodate one track on the north side.

I am glad that the pipe is on the south side though. Because if Santa Fe station does become the hub, streetcars will be turning (west) or left to get onto Sheridan. It is the preference in most streetcar systems to be making left hand turns thus causing a counter clockwise operation.

Just refreshing this point about Sheridan from earlier.

[Urban Pioneer]

Well, Jeff and others, after attending last evening's final Let's Talk Transit session, as well as speaking with Mike McAnelley after the meeting, I reached a different conclusion than you expected that I might. I am now persuaded that Let's Talk Transit was completely legit when it said that public participation would have an impact on streetcar route locations. The real test, of course, was Walker ... why was Walker left out of the 3 proforma models presented at the meeting ... and I am quite satisfied by what he said following the meeting ... that the omission was a mistake, and he took the blame for that happening, and said that the Walker route preference (by 66% of those involved in this process) would be made known to the MAPS 3 Oversight Committee, the next level in the pecking order.

My complete blog report is here: Doug Dawgz Blog: Blogging Rail At LetsTalkTransit ...

... but the Analysis section is set out verbatim below:
-----------------

ANALYSIS. Since this was the final Let's Talk Transit public meeting, my analysis focuses on two items in terms of recap: (1) Did the Let's Talk Transit people do a good job? (2) Were my concerns about the meaningfulness of these sessions addressed, and, if so, how and why?

1. Let's Talk Transit Gets 5 Stars. Did the Let's Talk Transit people do a good job? Absolutely yes, in my opinion. All those involved in the COTPA organization, including Rick Cain, Larry Hopper, and Michael Scroggins (as well as any other COTPA people that I've not thought to mention), moderator Jennifer Eve, and certainly consultant Mike McAnelly, as well as those in the city's planning staff who were sometimes involved, did a heck of a job in putting these meetings together as well as maintaining a very useful Let's Talk Transit website which is available to anyone who did not attend the meetings. Hundreds of hours, and not just a few bucks, were clearly expended in making this series of meetings happen, and all involved were helpful, courteous, informative, and patient throughout the lengthy process. Those involved in organizing and executing this process get my highest praise and respect.
   
2. Was The Process Meaningful and not just window-dressing? Yes, with no qualification as to Let's Talk Transit, but this opinion wasn't as easily formed as the above. I'll explain:

Review of My Previous Reservations. It is only fair that I begin this section by giving an explanation for my caution in being concerned that the public input which was clearly allowed for, even cajoled and encouraged, by the COTPA and city staffers might not actually matter one way or another. Quite simply, the reason has to do with events leading to the MAPS 3 vote when the public was told similar things — starting with Mayor Cornett's promise in his May 13, 2009, Roundtable meeting that public forums or opportunities would occur before the matters were decided for residents to tell city leaders what they want to see on the ballot — which public forums or opportunities never materialized ... the saying, "trick me once, shame on you; trick me twice, shame on me," comes to mind. I won't even get into the Convention Center's possible location which we were and are told hasn't yet been decided. As for the MAPS 3 campaign itself, although many like myself strongly supported MAPS 3, for some, like me, that support existed notwithstanding the obvious conflict of interest that existed the campaign being headed up by David Thompson, publisher of the Oklahoman and the censuring of his own employees, Oklahoman journalists, during the campaign as to what they could report and how the reporting was to occur. This is the short version of how I came to be cautious, yes, jaded, about believing what I was told by city leadership. The fact is that during 2009 my willingness to accept what I was told by city officials as being necessarily sincere came to be tempered by a mineral that had not been there before — jade.

When top city leaders give cause for distrust, it has a spillover, a trickle-down, effect, at least it did for me. And so it was that, when the Let's Talk Transit process began, I wondered out loud in my columns here whether the promised public input really mattered or whether it was merely window trimming for matters already decided or which would come to be decided regardless of public input. In this context, although I'd experienced excellent meetings during the Let's Talk Transit process, I continued to wonder if all of fine public participation really mattered.

Part of that wonder had to do with the route scenarios presented at this meeting. Notice the omission of Walker in any of the three proforma route scenarios, shown above. If 4 of the 6 working groups indicated such a preference, and if public input really mattered, why was it not included in at least one of the presented possibilities?

To answer that question, let me digress a bit. I arrived at the meeting early and had an opportunity to chat with with Messrs. Mike McAnelly, Rick Cain, and Michael Scroggins. I mentioned to Michael that, if he'd read what I've previously written he might have noticed that an underlying concern I had was whether the public input gathered from the Let's Talk Transit process would really matter when routes were finally determined, and that I was hoping to hear something in this last meeting that would allay my concern. His good-natured reply was, to the effect, "Well, if the meetings don't take public input into account in arriving at routes, we've (he and COTPA's staff) surely have been wasting a lot of time," but, of course, that answer begs the question. Without any doubt, COTPA and its staff, as well as those in the city planning department, have expended lots of time and money putting these excellent sessions together. But, the question remained, "to what end?"

My distrust was soothed a bit during McAnelly's presentation. He made it clear that everything presented during the sessions would be presented to the Oversight Committee, the next step in the process, including the routes submitted by all groups, including that a 2/3 majority of those favored that Walker be included. But, the question lingered, why hadn't Walker included in the proforma scenarios?

After the meeting, a final opportunity to talk with him occurred. After Steve Lackmeyer asked McAnelly several questions, I got my turn. I had written my question on one of those cards that didn't have time to get answered (thanks to those who circumvented the written question approach), and here was my chance, face to face. I've forgotten how the written question was literally worded, but the gist, and my oral question, and the rest of the conversation, came out something like this:

Loudenback: We are told that public input is helping shape the placement of the streetcar routes. Given that, can you give one example of a route that would most probably NOT have been included but which was as a result of the public sessions? I understand that this is sort of a convoluted question, but do you get my drift? I guess that I'm saying, "Prove it."
McAnelly: I understand what you are saying. The example is probably Walker — it would probably not have been included in the routes.
Loudenback: But Walker is not included in any of the three models.
McAnelly: That was a mistake and it was probably my fault. That a majority favor Walker will be shown as a public preference.

Without-a-blink straightforward honesty and integrity will win me over anytime, anyplace. With that, my concerns, above expressed, were dashed, and I am exceptionally pleased to say that I have no lingering doubts about Let's Talk Transit's stated intentions as being true. Trust is an earned thing, and, in Let's Talk Transit, I am satisfied that the trust is deserved.

My final comment and additional hope: Perhaps the good will engendered by Let's Talk Transit will have a trickle-up effect, as well.

Is this what you expected me to say, Jeff?

No, it wasn't. I sincerely appreciate the time and concern that you have put in the project and this process. It also demonstrates how "open minded" you are and that is an unusual trait with many citizen bloggers.

Clarifying the history and route locations of the original streetcar system also shows how impactful the such a system was, even at that time. Those original corridors have survived for century and have continued to serve as legitimate dense urban "bones", even though ravaged by subsequent history in time.

[Urban Pioneer]

Seems to me that McAnalley was saying that the mistake was not including the Walker route even though he doesn't think that it's best for the streetcar. He's not saying that he "forgot" or the "his hand slipped" but that he intentionally left it off and THAT was a mistake. It was a mistake because the goal of these meetings was to gather what the public wanted as to the streetcar route. Meaning if the conclusion had be a straight line down Walker from 23rd to the river, so be it. That's what the public wanted. This was to be a part of the decision making process and his omitting of Walker because of his own personal preference was therefore, a mistake...of commission...not omission. Like Doug, I'm satiated by the fact that he owned up to the "breaking of the spirit of the process" and am hopeful that more of our city leaders will learn to admit their mistakes. There is a new wave running through this city(and this message board) that belies what produces good results. Seemingly overnight, we've become very critical and quick when it comes to dealing out judgment. It's the latest fashion and will surely pass, but it's made this forum almost impossible to read and enjoy. I believe in asking questions and holding people's feet to the fire. However, most of these interrogations seem to be done in the name of what is "right" and good and true. It's always seemingly a moral inquisition, and it creates villains and evil doers where none exists. Very dangerous. There are many ways to err and erring in the name of righteousness is no better that erring in the name of ignorance. Thanks for the hard work Doug!

This is the most likely accurate point-of-view on the matter about Walker. In spending time with these people at each meeting and some time after-wards, it is clear to me that the desire for North/South service on Walker was transferred to proposed service on Hudson. COTPA is the client. They have made it clear to the consultants that there will be a direct connection to the bus transfer center at 4th/5th/Hudson.

I think that the consultants thought that the public would find Hudson (a directly adjacent street) to be a reasonable transition that most people wouldn't react to negatively. Service on Hudson provides the entire frontage of the existing transit center (also the current embarking area for the rubber tired trolleys attempting to serve downtown).

Add the the complication of the rather small traffic circle at 10th/Walker, the fact the Walker was recently completely renovated, and threats of lawsuits from Rick Dowell, I think that they decided to "steer" the public to Hudson as the a solid solution that would provide reasonable (one block) access to all of Walker.

Finally, in the "cuplet" concept, the idea of a Hudson/Broadway North/South loop was promoted several times as and ideal way to serve Midtown.

Their reasoning for abandoning N. Walker over time is completely sound with me. They should have just come out and explained it head-on.

[Urban Pioneer]

This is absolutely true given the current configuration, but the already funded extension of the Classen Drive diagonal SE to Hudson - 2007 GO Bond if I remember correctly - could limit are ability to do this. That said, I say if that is the route we want, we just redo the roundabout or cancel the plans for the extension of the diagonal.

Sometimes it is difficult, but we have to keep costs and benefits in perspective. For instance, while it seemingly makes sense to connect the streetcar to the Downtown Transit Center on 4th and Hudson, the benefits of doing so are minimal. According to demographia, our bus system only carries 100 (or 0.9%) of our CBD commuter trips, so the number of riders that might transfer to the streetcar system is extremely low. And the Downtown Transit center is not a huge loss. It cost has been in use since August 2, 2004 and we have $6.2 million invested in its construction (source - pg5). By the time the MAPS 3 Streetcar is active, the center will have served (a few of) us for well over a decade. At $20 million per mile, we cannot afford to make route decisions based on flawed logic, nor can we afford to change the route based on comparatively inexpensive changes to existing infrastructure.

That may make sense in the planning world, but the political reality will be that 0.9% of people and their supporters can make a great deal of noise. There is an expectation that this system will directly tie into the existing bus system. It is expected to help "grow" the bus system just like the streetcar does for urban density. And it can. It can reintroduce a great many people back to bus transit by luring them onto the sexy streetcar.

From a planning perspective, we have 10 million to start developing a new commuter rail/express bus hub. If Santa Fe turns out to be the solution, it may be that $10 million will provide us an immediate cost effective and functional solution. But there is not adequate parking for city bus service as the area is currently designed. We can't afford to not have designed in that easy connection via Hudson 4th Street.

However, if the consultants come back and say that we need to build a new facility somewhere else, then $10 million may just buy the land. If were starting from scratch with a new hub then it may make sense to combine the two.

Of course, if the bus were on a grid system, there would be no need for a local bus transfer center anyway. But that will take a significant investment in bus infrastructure and permanent annual operating funding of which we have no source for currently.

No, at this time I side with COTPA. Hudson and/or 4th are easy streets to incorporate that accomplish servicing key corridors that the public has already established they feel need to be served. It is too risky not to build in this intrinsic connection to the existing multi-million dollar facility.

I can hear it now if we didn't. All of the opponents of a similar future public initiative will sarcastically point out the lack of integrating into our existing system. Bus riders and their supporters (and that is a fair constituency), will have felt scammed by us not making those promised connections.

Building out this streetcar system means acknowledging and fulfilling the commitments we made during the campaign to retain the confidence of voters, no matter what opinion you might have about COTPA or our existing bus system.

If the MAPS allocation had been more for transit, I would say we could afford to "rethink" these facilities completely. for now, they are in the pot and can be beneficial towards our migration towards further investment/expansion in the future.

[Larry OKC]

Oklahoma City mass transit plans take first step
(Oklahoman, 3/24/10)

The MAPS 3 plan approved by voters in December includes $130 million for public transportation. Part of that money will go toward a modern streetcar system in the downtown area. The rest will pay for the transit hub, which would link the city’s bus system with the streetcar and Amtrak rail line. The hub also will allow for future forms of transportation such as light rail and express rail.

My reading of that is that the inter-modal transit hub would be the common connecting point for all mass transit: Amtrak, Streetcars, light-rail, commuter rail, and any other rail-type transportation (if some of those are the same thing, my apologies) & City buses and even Greyhound. I always thought it was a forgone conclusion that the relatively new bus transfer station would be relocated. Unfortunate that they built it where they did instead of planning for the future (but as someone else mentioned, by the time any of the MAPS 3 projects are finished, we are probably talking a minimum of another 5 years down the road...based on the 5 yr lag between passage and the 1st project to open the Ballpark, 5 years later). That's at least another 5 years use out of the current transfer station. The current station could most likely be repurposed couldn't it?

[Doug Loudenback]

Doug, I asked him how it happened. I asked twice. The only answer he would offer was that it was a mistake. I don't see the lack of "fair play." If you think you can get a better answer, go for it.

I apologize, Steve, for my statement, its assumptions, and my presumption. There is no way that I could ever be better at digging out details than you are.

[Larry OKC]

I apologize Doug...I just got done watching the morning session of the Let's Talk Transit, and I am closer to coming away with your take on it than what I was reading from the comments left by others. Guess I am more in the middle now. Hopeful but with a fair amount of skepticism.

[Rover]

If you look at the subways in NYC or most large cities, it is not unusual to have to walk several blocks to get to stops/stations. In fact, in NYC the blocks along the numbered streets are quite long and it is common to walk two or more blocks to get on. We have an apartment in Chelsea and walk 2 long and 1 short block to the nearest station. It is not a big deal. If people want picked up and dropped off at the doors of their work, play, home then they need to do as in other cities...use taxis.

And, I think you have to look at bus as well as rail and how they work together to maximize coverage. Just make a pass work for both and have them be complimentary. Don't parse one part of a transportation system but look how they work together. Some changes in bus routes and times could make or break the true effectivity of the rail plan.

[Doug Loudenback]

Larry, where did you see the replay ... Channel 20 or on-line somewhere? I've not been able to find it on-line.

[Larry OKC]

I had it taped from the live showing...have you looked over at the Lets Talk Transit site? They may not have it up yet but they mentioned having video of all of the meetings (except 1) posted over there

[Doug Loudenback]

It's not showing up there yet, but thanks.

[Larry OKC]

If you look at the subways in NYC or most large cities, it is not unusual to have to walk several blocks to get to stops/stations. ... If people want picked up and dropped off at the doors of their work, play, home then they need to do as in other cities...use taxis.

Something that seems to be escaping many on these threads is Oklahoma City is NOT NYC, Chicago, Dallas etc etc. What may be accepted and "normal" elsewhere may not be the case here. Betts summed it up when she talked about her walk. There are many that aren't willing to go that far.

As far as taxis go, according to the Council, we only have 1 taxi company in OKC (but a quick check of the yellow pages showed about 14, so I don't know where they got that idea).

Here if someone wants door to door, they are going to take their car which leads us back to the problem. One of the challenges with the "starter" system approach is getting people acclimated to the concept of mass trans, which means they have to use it. The easier you make it for someone to do something, the more likely they are to do it and the harder you make it, the less likely. "Harder" is too many blocks between lines/stations, routes that don't go where people want to go, schedules that aren't convenient, schedules that are outright ignored etc etc.

[Urban Pioneer]

Oklahoma City mass transit plans take first step
(Oklahoman, 3/24/10)


My reading of that is that the inter-modal transit hub would be the common connecting point for all mass transit: Amtrak, Streetcars, light-rail, commuter rail, and any other rail-type transportation (if some of those are the same thing, my apologies) & City buses and even Greyhound. I always thought it was a forgone conclusion that the relatively new bus transfer station would be relocated. Unfortunate that they built it where they did instead of planning for the future (but as someone else mentioned, by the time any of the MAPS 3 projects are finished, we are probably talking a minimum of another 5 years down the road...based on the 5 yr lag between passage and the 1st project to open the Ballpark, 5 years later). That's at least another 5 years use out of the current transfer station. The current station could most likely be repurposed couldn't it?

I would say that the quote/assertion is technically incorrect and unintentionally misleading. There have been no plans to discontinue use or transfer the current functions of the existing local bus transit center at 4th/5th/Hudson. The streetcar has always been described as "linking" this existing facility to a new commuter bus/rail hub.

However, combining all of these functions together and do as you suggest has been promoted by Councilman Pete White. He visited St. Louis and has vocally appreciated their fully integrated hub.

And the possibility of the combined hub will be studied in the Inter-modal Hub Study about to get underway. But local bus service integration is not the first concern of that study. It will be generally evaluated and factored after the primary connection to the rail alignments and preferred commuter bus location is rated.

In the end it will probably come down to how much land is available at the selected location how much money we have.

[Kerry]

Double track, single track, how wide are the blocks, how far do you have to walk? All of that misses the point. A fixed rail system is going to spawn it own transit oriented development. Where ever the tracks go that is where new residences and offices are going to be built. The system should serve existing major employers, city/state services, and recreation facilites but after that everyting is going to be new development. You need to concentrate on where you want the new development to be. I think not going all the way to the capitol complex is a HUGE HIGE mistake.

[Urban Pioneer]

I think not going all the way to the capitol complex is a HUGE HIGE mistake.

I don't think we have enough money to go to the Capitol Complex in the MAPS allocation. However, in Alternatives Analysis process, the capitol will be evaluated by the committee. It is probably a great candidate for supplemental federal/state funds.

In a week or so, we may know which cities in the US have received the first wave of Federal funds for streetcars. A post was made earlier in this thread about the funding. Presumably, another wave will follow soon and we will be more applicable with our AA process underway and local matching pledge through MAPS.

[urbanity]

With public meetings and citizen input, three possible streetcar routes materialize | OKG Scene.com

[Doug Loudenback]

A change has been made to the "options" which earlier included 1, 2, and 3. A new 4th option has been added, a Walker route:



With my editing, the streets and mileage is shown below:



Mike McAnelly explains at On June 24, 2010, at What's It All About, Alphie? | A Community Discussion on Oklahoma City's Modern Streetcar and Alternatives Analysis, Central Oklaho, comment 7, that:

We appreciate your giving five stars and positive comments for the Let's Talk Transit process. COTPA designed the process to obtain input from stakeholders and the public, and we consider it to be very effective thus far.

An additional alignment option that features a north-south alignment on Walker and Broadway, forming a “big loop” alignment, was discussed in the May 27 meeting. Recognizing that input, a new Option 4 map has been posted on the LTT website at: Public Meetings & Events | A Community Discussion on Oklahoma City's Modern Streetcar and Alternatives Analysis, Central Oklaho

This option totals 6.14 track miles. In addition to the Walker-Broadway loop, it includes linkages with St. Anthony Hospital, Bricktown, Deep Deuce, and the OU Health Sciences Center.

As further analysis is reported to the Steering Committee, additional alignment options will be posted on the Let's Talk Transit website for public review. Upcoming public meetings will be announced and conducted as COTPA continues the Downtown Circulator Alternatives Analysis. Public input received will be presented to the AA Steering Committee, as they consider recommending a preferred streetcar alignment to the MAPS Oversight Committee. Citizen input and technical analysis will shape the selection of the locally preferred alternative. The Mayor and City Council will ultimately be the community’s decision makers.

[SkyWestOKC]

I like that one.