Streetcar

[Kerry]

Not every train needs to stop at every station every single time. Some trains could skip some of the stations that have lower ridership numbers. Electrifying the system would also help some with frequent stops.

If you go with electric then you won't be using existing BNSF right of way. It would have to run down I-35 and never get close to OU

It would take many west side Norman residents 30 or more minutes to travel to a downtown Norman location on a street car. Then consider the time waiting on the street car and then commuter train. At this point most would just keep driving. It would take 10 minutes or less for most west side Norman residents to drive to a north Norman station, this is where most of the Norman commuters live.

Rail is a magnet for development, just like a road is. Rail is more about driving future development than it is about alleviating current traffic problems. This is why people say traffic is no better in Dallas after DART was put in. If you adjust your lifestyle to rail your traffic does get better.

People parking at the OU station would be required to buy a parking permit.
Currently virtually all OU parking within a mile of this location is by permit or it is metered.

OK, so I am in town visiting family (as I live out of state) and I want to take the train to OKC, you want be to buy a parking permit? FYI - Parking at all MARTA stations in Atlanta is free. Most park and ride lots are. If you charge people to park their car and charge them to ride the train, everyone will just drive.

[ou48A]

If you go with electric then you won't be using existing BNSF right of way. It would have to run down I-35 and never get close to OU



Rail is a magnet for development, just like a road is. Rail is more about driving future development than it is about alleviating current traffic problems. This is why people say traffic is no better in Dallas after DART was put in. If you adjust your lifestyle to rail your traffic does get better.



OK, so I am in town visiting family (as I live out of state) and I want to take the train to OKC, you want be to buy a parking permit? FYI - Parking at all MARTA stations in Atlanta is free. Most park and ride lots are. If you charge people to park their car and charge them to ride the train, everyone will just drive.

If the overhead catenary wiring above the tracks is installed with enough clearance a freight train would have no problems and it would be entirely compatible. Diesel and electric locomotives do operate on the same tracks else were.

If you’re in town visiting you would might get a visitors pass as they do now or take CART to the OU station or else drive to the north Norman free parking station. Not all park and ride facilities are free parking.


To a certain extent C rail is about driving future development, this can and will occur even around OU, but it should not ignore a major high destination public area like OU that already exist and that will continue to grow regardless if it’s served by commuter rail.

[HOT ROD]

BG, very good illustration, but your commuter rail is more of a setup for light rail actually; way too many stops.

I think in your North-South alignment, you would only have stops at Downtown Edmond, S. Edmond Park N Ride, 63rd Park N Ride or Transit Center, Capitol Transit Center (NE 23rd), DOWNTOWN and then Downtown Norman, Crossroads Mall Park N Ride, DOWNTOWN. Those two lines could terminate at Guthrie (in the North) and Purcell (in the South) to truly connect the metro area.

Anything more, then you would lose the benefit of commuter rail (capacity/speed) and would be implementing more of a light rail (lower capacity/higher stops/slower) system. Streetcar would have even more stops and be even slower than light rail.

With Cr, you're basically stopping at Park N Rides in the suburbs and Employment Centres in the city, and Downtown - of course.

But very good ideas. You didn't draw in the Choctaw/MWC/Tinker line - but I would think it would go Choctaw (terminus)-TIK (near one of the gates)-MidDel Transit Center-DOWNTOWN. I honestly think OKC could do all three of these commuter rail lines today, definitely around the same time the downtown streetcar is implemented. Longer term would be the WRWA line (which I thing should be light rail) and the El Reno-Yukon-W OKC PnR-Fairgrounds-DOWNTOWN commuter rail line.

4 commuter rail lines would really connect the metro area suburbs to downtown, and with streetcar in downtown and the inner core, and light rail connecting the inner core to the outer OKC - we would have a transit serviceable city. I think we should START NOW with implementing Commuter Bus, using the same routes as those planned for CR. Even if it is today just a few runs (maybe 200-500 daily pax). Once we get over 1000, then it would justify CR.

[ou48A]

Would the money be better spent on a light rail system?
I’m not sure- just asking.
It would be better for more frequent stops.
It wouldn’t be restricted to current rail road right of way.
It could be built to take passengers closer to high destination stops.
As it was expanded it would be more of a seamless system.

[OKC@heart]

You're right in that it is not restricted to existing right of way, but to set its own would make the cost so prohibitive that it is doubtful that we would ever have the ridership to overcome the initial cost of investment in the next 30 years. Financially it makes the most sense to have a commuter type rail system with its own double track in the BNSF right of way and to use light rail or street car to make the frequent stops as necessary to feed the commuter rail and allow for a seemless and comprehensive transportation system that will serve the broadest poulation possible.

[Kerry]

I think light rail is dead. It tries to do the impossible and make an automobile based city a rail based city. It doesn't (and can't) work that way. The trend is streetcar as cities re-invent themselves at the core. We are building new cities in the middle of legacy cities.

[HOT ROD]

I agree with OKC@, CR and Streetcar is the best initial approach for OKC. Once the city densifies and we need 'more stops', then we could implement light rail and put in Transit Oriented Developments at the major stops.

I think we are a LONG WAY away from that though (the city just doesn't have the density or enough density clusters YET for it to work), and it makes more sense to do CR for the suburbs to downtown, and streetcar in downtown and perhaps other nodes (like a Norman/OU streetcar, maybe a 63rd Streetcar that could continue down to connect to downtown, maybe a southside streetcar eventually, that could connect Capital Hill, Stockyard's City, Crossroads, and Fairgrounds/Meridian to Union Square/Central Park/Downtown.

And with CR, there won't be many stops - the emphasis with CR is really on 'commute' and less on frequent stops/service. Once you get to a destination, say downtown, then Streetcar or walking could pick up from there since it is a major node of activity/attractions already.

I can definitely see this model successful in OKC - just as long as we don't make the streetcar too initially far reaching that it does not serve the density of 'say' downtown. Remember, Streetcars have the most stops - so we want it to be initially compact with lots of track/routes in downtown instead of using all 6 miles to get ONLY 1 line from Asian district into dowtown. After downtown is built, then it could be expanded with spur routes when more initiative/money comes online.

[Urban Pioneer]

BUILDER ONLINE

Chicken or Egg
Transit-oriented development often travels on light rail.

By: John Caulfield


Over the past year, developers have applied for permits to build 1,500 apartments and condos within a half-mile of transit stations in Seattle’s Rainier Valley neighborhood. Those stations will serve the 15.6-mile Link light-rail line connecting downtown Seattle with Sea-Tac Airport. The rail line is scheduled to open in July 2009.

This housing represents Rainier Valley’s first nonsubsidized multifamily projects in more than three decades. Nearly half of these housing units will be built by developer Othello Partners, including The Station at Othello Park, an $80 million project with 350 rental units and 20,000 square feet of retail space. “One of the most important factors in our decision to build was the light rail,” says Mike Hlastala, Othello Partners’ COO.

In cities across the U.S., light rail had the biggest increase in riders—8.3 percent—among all modes of public transit in 2008, according to the American Public Transportation Association. Burgeoning municipalities and states see transit-centric development as essential to managing their population growth, which in Seattle’s case is expected to rise by 1.2 million over the next quarter century. Many cities also see a receptive federal government now that President Obama has made infrastructure investment a linchpin in his administration’s long-range economic growth strategy. The U.S. Department of Transportation and HUD recently formed a joint task force to devise ways to put more affordable homes near job centers and transit hubs.

“Transit-oriented development really sets out our future,” Todd Apo, chairman of Honolulu’s City Council, told The Honolulu Advertiser after that city’s mayor in March signed a bill that establishes transit-*oriented development (TOD) zones around its nascent light-rail line.

Since Charlotte, N.C., opened its Lynx system in November 2007, more than 1,000 housing units have been added or approved near its stations, says Dena Belzer, president of Berkeley, Calif.–based Strategic Economics, one of three partners in the Center for Transit-Oriented Development, a national nonprofit focused on promoting TOD research and best practices. And Phoenix-area businessmen who might have squawked about the cost of their market’s $1.4 billion 19-mile light-rail line, which opened in December, now lobby to have future stations built near their stores and offices after the line’s ridership jumped 15 percent in February over January to more than 908,000.

“Transportation facilities can be designed in ways that integrate, support, or trigger economic activity to benefit the community by reorganizing land use, increasing land value and tax revenues by attracting capital and providing jobs, and increasing incomes while also supplying well-located, needed services to the community,” states “Moving Communities Forward,” a report analyzing nearly 30 transportation projects published in January 2008 by The American Institute of Architects and the University of Minnesota’s Center for Transportation Studies.

But light rail doesn’t always catalyze transit-oriented residential development. Developers aren’t always enamored of building near transit systems whose attached strings often include density and affordability mandates. Under pressure from developers, Washington state’s legislature in March tabled two bills that would have established rules for development along transportation corridors.

Sacramento, Calif.’s 22-year-old light-rail system, which currently runs 37.4 miles and handles 14.4 million passengers per year, is recognized as a model for California’s new statewide smart-growth regulations. But only recently have TOD projects sprouted along that line, say local transportation analysts and planners. In 2002, city financing helped transform a brownfield with warehouses and a closed lumber mill into a mixed-use TOD near the rail line’s 65th Street station. A spur that will connect downtown Sacramento to its airport will run through a 240-acre brownfield that could hold “all kinds” of TOD possibilities, says one planner for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon wants to create America’s first carbon-neutral metropolis. This spring the city initiated a study with a goal of integrating proposed transit expansions into its general growth plan. That could lead to zoning changes and possibly more TOD activity, says city planner Carol Johnson. But what makes Phoenix unique is how housing densities outside of its central city—three to four units per acre—“mimic the topography, which is flat,” says Johnson. The challenge is to create “focused clusters,” possibly including some near transit stops, which provide urban living experiences and mesh with the suburban landscape. The study, she says, is a step toward finding out if that’s feasible.


http://www.builderonline.com/constru...en-or-egg.aspx

[urbanity]

http://www.okgazette.com/article/12-...yer_money.aspx

[soonerguru]

For some reason I totally do not buy what the city officials are saying in that article. How could there not be cost savings? They're trying to suggest the opposite, that it would cost more. That sounds like Orwellian double talk.

[Kerry]

According to story, most of cost is attributed to relocating underground utilites and not the cost of actual pavement. Furthermore, when putting in track, they don't tear up the whole road again. They only tear up the portion where the track is going.

[Urban Pioneer]

According to story, most of cost is attributed to relocating underground utilites and not the cost of actual pavement. Furthermore, when putting in track, they don't tear up the whole road again. They only tear up the portion where the track is going.

True, true, Kerry. The concrete that would be cut out of the street itself is a minimal cost. It really is the utility relocation opportunity that is the big concern. Such relocation may require cutting out entire swaths of street surface and deep excavations into the newly compacted road bed on other parts of the street from the track.

But even if cutting an 8' section of concrete out is a minimal concern, it might be argued from an inconvenience and aesthetic integration standpoint.

Obviously, shop owners and tenants will experience some impact with the streets torn up once, but twice would be even more trying.

Regarding aesthetics, much of the 180 design as extends as far as the shade and coloring of concrete. Having the stop platforms integrated into the final sidewalk surface certainly would enable the transit system to further blend with the new pedestrian environment.

We are going to work extremely hard as a committee to determine the best possible route as soon as we have the preliminary hub data. Don't misunderstand that anyone on the committee proposes rushing ahead of the ongoing study of where this important connection to the future regional system should occur. Project 180 cost savings is very important, but the relationship to the future is just as important.

[Larry OKC]

Urban,

Glad to hear.

IMO, that is why as soon as MAPS 3 passed there should have been an immediate moratorium on ALL Project 180 projects that were probable streetcar routes. Most of the money for Project 180 is borrowed money (at least with the Devon TIF portion, it is being paid back twice). Once with the initial loan made by Devon to proceed and then borrowed/paid back again when the TIF portion kicks in eventually (again, borrowed money that is to be paid back eventually with the anticipated increase in property values).

In the minds of the City, it would appear that MAPS 3 operates in a vacuum and no planning/contingency was made for its passage/failure. There definitely should have been a MAPS 3 clause in the Devon agreement that would allow the city to put parts of P180 on hold. But as I understand it, the City is contractually required to finish P180 by the time the Devon tower opens.

[Kerry]

Out of curiosity, what does 'utility relocation' mean. Are they moving underground utilities to other areas or just making them deep underground, or both? Are there any specific examples of 'relocated untilities' yet?

[betts]

Platemaker - you are thinking to small. Dream big! That hub might do for a remote hub but not for downtown. The downtown hub has to be larger than life. Think "Old Penn Station" not "New Penn Station".

The city spent how many millions on the Performing Arts Center that get used a couple of time per week. Spend at least that much on a building that will be used daily.

The problem is, Kerry, that current funding for a hub comes out of the streetcar millions. If you spend that much on the building, there will be no transit to link to it. I think the key is to work with the concept of ultimate expansion of the Santa Fe station. Perhaps utilizing the Cox building in the future would work, combining it with the station as suggested previously.

[Hutch]

Under MAPS 3, Oklahoma City Council specificallly directed $120 million for the Modern Streetcar and $10 million to go toward a hub facility or commuter rail infrastructure. The hub funding is separate and distinct from the funding for the streetcar system. Also, it was not intended to pay for the full development and construction of the intermodal hub, which will certainly require significant more funding if the facility is to serve as our future regional rail transit center. We are most likely a number of years away from development of a commuter rail system and construction of an intermodal hub facility. As with the MAPS 3 funding for the Modern Streetcar, we have the opportunity to leverage the $10 million to obtain FTA New Starts matching funds, potentially providing an additional $40 million for hub development. Once ACOG completes the current Intermodal Transit Hub Study and the upcoming Alternatives Analysis for the Fixed Guideway Study rail tranist corridors, we will be very well positioned to seek additional federal funds for development of the hub. Until then, the best thing we can probably do with the $10 million once the hub study is completed and a hub location is determined is to use some or all of the funding to secure the properties that will be needed for eventual development of the hub.

[Kerry]

The problem is, Kerry, that current funding for a hub comes out of the streetcar millions. If you spend that much on the building, there will be no transit to link to it. I think the key is to work with the concept of ultimate expansion of the Santa Fe station. Perhaps utilizing the Cox building in the future would work, combining it with the station as suggested previously.

Betts - it has to built in phases but that doen't mean the whole plan can't be conceived at once and built on a time table. Just look at OU memorial stadium. It was built in three or four different expansions with each expansion giving no regard to future expansions. The whole place looks like a mish mash. On the other hand, look at T. Boone Pickens stadium. The whole thing looks uniform and was built in 2 or 3 phases spread over a couple years. We need one plan with multiple phases spread over several years, not multiple plans with one phase each spread over multiple years.

[Urban Pioneer]

Folks, let's just see what the outcome of the hub study is. Lol. We will know some answers from it soon.

If we have to build on a new site, I do hope the land purchase doesn't require us to expend all $10 million. We will just have to see.

[okclee]

Is the hub study going to be similar to the never ending convention center location studies?

[Urban Pioneer]

Is the hub study going to be similar to the never ending convention center location studies?

No! Absolutely not. Very few parties (if any) advocating for the hub to be in a certain location. It wouldn't matter if they did anyway as the location should be determined by its technical merits, connections to current and future transit alignments.

Really the only debate to be had on a committee level is regarding how to start, what is a reasonable amount to spend and accomplish immediate but expandable goals, how far in the future to plan for, and whether the "technically preferred" location fits into the "walk ability plans."

[Urban Pioneer]

Fort Worth's streetcar plan is derailed

By John Henry

jfhenry@star-telegram.com

FORT WORTH -- The city's discussion and study of the viability of a modern streetcar system for the central city is over for now.

The City Council voted 5-3 on Tuesday to pull the plug on a feasibility study of running a streetcar line to the near north side through downtown and the near south side.

Mayor Mike Moncrief joined council members Carter Burdette, Jungus Jordan, Danny Scarth and Zim Zimmerman in voting against continuing to the final phase of the three-part study. Council members Joel Burns, Sal Espino and Frank Moss voted to proceed.

District 8 Councilwoman Kathleen Hicks was in Europe on city business, said Will Trevino, her assistant.

"This has been a real struggle for me," Moncrief said. "The bottom line is, many of us are still wrestling with concerns over funding."

A vote to proceed with the study would have paved the way for the city to accept a $25 million federal grant, which was expected to jump-start the estimated $88 million project.

A consultant, HDR Engineering, reported that streetcars were viable for the center city.

The line, according to city plans, would have consisted of three cars traversing a six-mile round-trip. It would have operated 14 hours a day, 365 days a year and carry an estimated 2,000 people a day.

The total cost of construction would have been offset by the federal grant. The rest would have been covered by the Trinity River Vision and Southside tax increment financing districts, or TIFs.

Officials estimated the system's operating cost at $1.6 million a year, which initially would be funded by the Fort Worth Transportation Authority, or the T.

Later, residents of the neighborhoods where the line runs would vote on whether to take on operational costs.

The assumption that the residents would take on operating costs and the unknown health of the TIFs in the future made forging ahead a risky proposition for taxpayers, Burdette said.

Critics were also skeptical of a study that projected $334 million in new residential and commercial development along the line. Not to mention that the federal government didn't need to be spending the money, either, their thinking went.

Advocates promoted the project as a environmentally friendly transportation option and a big step toward the dream of downtown as a fully functional and livable urban center.

Many were at Tuesday night's council meeting to plead with the council to "get all the facts," as one speaker said, before making a final decision.

"Proven by every economic study, investment in streetcars creates billions in economic development and brings jobs to our community," Burns said. "We are taking these job opportunities away from the Fort Worth community."

However, Moncrief asked: "What if economic development doesn't occur? What if interest rates don't drastically improve? How do we pay for maintenance and upkeep?"

Proceeding to Phase 3 of the study did have the support of the transportation committee of DFW Inc. as well as a majority of the board that replied to a survey, President Andy Taft said.

'Not the end'

About $821,000 was spent on the study, a large portion of which -- roughly $657,000 -- was covered by a federal grant. The city and The T split the difference. The city's money not spent on Phase 3 will be returned to a bond fund dedicated to urban projects.

A yes vote would not have cleared the way for streetcars. Phase 3 was expected to take up to a year to complete and included an environmental assessment.

The council is unanimous in agreeing that a comprehensive mass transit plan to deal with congestion and moving people from the suburbs to the central city is a priority.

Whether the streetcar is a part of that discussion is still a question.

Moncrief and Scarth both said streetcars would and should be discussed again, but with investors and not taxpayers bearing the burden of the cost.

"This is not the end of the conversation about streetcars and the related transportation needs of this city," Burns said.

"If we are to realize our potential as an important, major U.S. city and provide the economic opportunities we owe our citizens we must not fail to plan for our future."


Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/12...#ixzz17d1lPobn

[sethsrott]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2073/...98ae52.jpg?v=0

^^ I would like to see our hub look something like this in Boston. I think that greco-roman should be the theme of most civic buildings...or depending on the location we could go with art deco like this in Tulsa:
http://images.travelpod.com/users/xe...0.img_0106.jpg

Just saying...I think we need something majestic, classic and powerful and I think that something like that as opposed to a more modern structure would be wonderful. Think grand banking hall in FNC as a reception area. Just my thoughts, don't want to get too grand.

[Kerry]

However, Moncrief asked: "What if economic development doesn't occur? What if interest rates don't drastically improve? How do we pay for maintenance and upkeep?"

How do they think they pay for maintenance and upkeep of suburban roads? This is what drives me crazy - they think all this urban sprawl is free but for some reason encouraging high density development is cost prohibitive. They have it ass backwards.

[Kerry]

Just saying...I think we need something majestic, classic and powerful and I think that something like that as opposed to a more modern structure would be wonderful. Think grand banking hall in FNC as a reception area. Just my thoughts, don't want to get too grand.

Get ready to cry.

This:


was replaced by this:

[sethsrott]

How did that happen? WHERE did that happen? And who's house do we need to go burn down?????