Who is it for? What do you think its use is?
What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
Who is it for? What do you think its use is?
Participating Member
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
A few things:
A) Expand the walkable area
B) Circulate people downtown
c) Connect residents in near-downtown neighborhoods to downtown
D) Designed to be fully expandable.
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
I'm going to take a different approach in answering this question, with regards to some of the different perspectives I have personally seen/encountered.
*The streetcar is NOT just a long-term approach that needs to serve where we think downtown will develop in the next 30 years.
*The streetcar IS a short-term thing that is going to be reality soon and Phase 1 needs to focus on what CURRENTLY exists.
*It is going to be a utility for economic development and growing density downtown.
*It is intended as a quality of life asset and something intended to make living downtown more attractive, desirable, feasible, and so on.
*It is going to have to be one part of a system that interfaces with other transit modes, including other types of fixed guideway transit systems.
*In the same vein, it is not an extension of the existing bus system which is need of major reform itself. These two particular systems must be divorced.
*It is going to have to be focused on downtown, starting with a small geographic area, and converting it to be totally pedestrian-friendly.
*It will be a total change from what we're used to. It will have the potential for technological support systems that will make downtown more user-friendly. It will be reliable.
*It will be a modern streetcar system, nothing else. It will be fixed, not a bus or rubber-tire trolley, and it will not be a historic trolley.
Banned
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
wow!Originally Posted by spartan
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
So, is this an investment in the quality of life for a couple of thousand people? Or a subsidy for downtown businesses and developers? If so, I hope this puts to rest the criticism of subsidizing Bass Pro.
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
I assume that this is the first step of a comprehensive plan to reduce commuting car traffic, improve the air quality, reduce commute travel time to downtown, etc. If so, it ultimately services those who would commute from Edmond, Norman, Yukon/Mustang and MidWest/Del City areas so they can work downtown and not have to crowd the streets with cars, saving the city in street costs, parking garage costs, etc.
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
Note: You bring up some interesting and strong criticisms. I think you have a valid argument, but in thinking over what my response to that is, I have some strong points--the tone may seem argumentative but it's really not. When I talk/think I have a lot of inflection and stress things, which I guess in text can come off argumentative..just regard them as strong points I'm trying to emphasize. :-)
It has to do with what is appropriate for a downtown area. There is a lot of criticism about "subsidizing" transit--we believe it should be done for "normal people" for the most part, as if that excludes the few hundred rich boozers that call downtown home. We obviously dislike spending money on services that will only be used by the rich but we still support transit, for the most part. But the reality is that downtown has to be viable for thousands of "normal people" and the only way to make downtown public transit viable is with a fixed transit system. For those who don't live downtown, your transit is subsidized whether you use our city's pitiful bus system or whether you use our city's over-built road system. The city builds and maintains whatever system you use. So why is it taboo to provide downtowners with the same luxury of a city-supported transit system?
Furthermore, it's not about subsidizing downtown businesses or investing in the quality of life for .1% of our city's population that live downtown. The reality is that downtown has demand for tens of thousands of more units over the next 10 years and the overwhelming majority of those units are going to be built in areas that are currently seeing initial development. Bricktown is about 50% done. Deep Deuce is about 30% done probably. Midtown and the Arts District are absolutely fledgling. A-Alley's status fluctuates depending on how you define its boundaries. The point is that if a district has seen a few hundred residential units in the last 5 years, that's going to indicate we need to make it a priority for the next 10 years, and that excludes Core2Shore which is a 30 year plan. It's important for both C2S and the current downtown to coexist successfully that they be phased independently, and that that alone be a productive process that matures the existing downtown while we're still getting C2S ready to start seeing new development.
This is also not on the same level of subsidizing Bass Pro, but to be clear, the city subsidizes a LOT of things, not just the roads we use, and not just the Bass Pro that people from Bowlegs and Kingfisher use. The city is also subsidizing the new outlet mall's construction. So I'll just go back to what is appropriate for a downtown, a streetcar is, a Bass Pro probably isn't. The city will make bank on the streetcar and see a return on its investment in terms of the development it will be a catalyst for. Streetcars have enormous economic development potential that no other system has. Just like the city will probably see a return on investment with the outlet mall in terms of sales tax recaptured.. those are good investments that help move the city forward and at the same time keep the coffers out of the red.
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
Spartan, I didn't read any of your comments as argumentative. As I've told you, I really appreciate your perspective, opinions, and passion.
I started this tread because I was curious to know what those on here thought the whole streetcar issue was about. I have seen the thread about the route options, but the routes are just a reflection of the intent of the system. If the real intent is understood and agreed on then the routes naturally fall out and shouldn't be political or even a matter of opinion.
It is my belief that the streetcars are not for the service of just those living downtown, but is the first step of providing a transportation infrastructure that will allow people to come into the city without their cars and to do everything they need to do while here. We can't have a very effective train system until we have a way for people to get around once they get here. We can't have an effective light rail commuter system without transport once they get downtown. And all this assumes that the inner city will be the absolute business and entertainment core of our city. While it enables transportation for those living downtown, IMHO that is not the core reason to invest in it. And while you argue that the streets and freeways are subsidies for the rest of the city, the city already maintains streets and infrastructure downtown too. So, I think this all makes sense if it works for EVERYONE in the city.
Participating Member
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
My intent when voting for MAPS (with the streetcar and park as the two things I was primarily voting for) was for the streetcar to serve several functions. First, I think that it's a way to introduce people in Oklahoma City to the good things about mass transit and remove some of the stigma associated with buses and mass transit. But, perhaps more importantly, I see the streetcar as a way of opening up our downtown to people.....of making them actually see it as a place. As a rider rather than a driver, you actually SEE spaces and places, rather than the road and other cars. It's a way for people who would never drive through our downtown to comfortably ride around downtown and get a sense of what it is, see places they could go, understand it as an area and see if as their downtown....develop of sense of connectedness to it. So obviously I think that it's really key for it to make downtown functional for riders. But, as Rover said, I also think it's very important that as we do develop other forms of mass transit or, wonder of wonders, get people to ride buses, that it is a way for someone in a suit or high heels to come to downtown via the hub and have a way of getting to work or their destination without sweating through their suit in the summer, slipping in their heels in the winter. We're really too small a downtown to be terribly functional for taxis, so a streetcar can serve that short distance function for people arriving via mass transit, or those who want to park on the perimeter of downtown. But, ultimately, and possibly right away if it's doable, I'd also like it to link places like the Paseo or the Plaza district or the Health Sciences Center, giving people downtown potential destinations outside of downtown.
We who live downtown really don't need the streetcar to move us around downtown. We already walk everywhere. We're used to it and most of us like it. One person skateboards everywhere. If you, skateboarder, are a member here, thanks for making me smile when I see you off to work in your suit and skateboard. I don't see it as a necessity for downtown residents at all, except perhaps if it makes people who aren't walkers or who worry about getting around downtown more likely to move here. If it serves as a stimulus to increase downtown population, great.
VIP Member
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
I am going to go with Platemakers response. It will serve two purposes:
1. Circulate people throughout downtown OKC
2. Connect neighborhoods and other areas of interest
I have spent the last 3 nights studying the Oslo, Norway system and I like their approach a lot. They have a loop through the central part of their city with 4 access points to the larger city-wide system. As you leave the central city on one of those four access points (feeder lines) they come to a 'Y' with each branch going further out into the greater metro area. To explain it in simple terms they get a multiplier effect of service times closer to the central loop. If their system only had 8 trains then all 8 will move around the central loop, each feeder line would get two trains, with each metro-area line getting one train each after the 'Y'. This pretty much ensures frequent service around the central loop with steady service on the 4 feeder lines. The lines that go further out in to the city wide area also have numerous turn-around points, usually 2, before they reach the end of the line. This allows them to offer short service during non-peak times or to increase frequency on portions of the system to maximize service.
I hope I did an okay job of explaining that.
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
No doubt. But we have and will continue to develop a downtown that emphasizes mixed-uses. This means that downtown should focus on circulation between key areas and providing connections from opposite ends of downtown. The housing, dining, and entertainment in most cases are together. Either an area has a lot going for it or an area is still dead, and there are many hotspots downtown, and many areas between them that are still kind of dead. The only separate and well-confined use that is significant is office, which is overwhelmingly in the core, and that's an area we also hope to see a lot of residential in eventually as we hope for the core to become more vibrant eventually. We're already beginning to see some more mixed-uses invade the core, such as restaurants, hotels, and some housing conversions.
If the real debate is not about hotspots and more about the use for it and who will use it, how does that change the route? I'm just curious. Is that when we start looking about using the starter line to link downtown and the north side, rather than just doing a complete downtown connector?
Member
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
Although I am not opposed to it completely, I do think that our Mayor had this as an agenda from the beginning and used everyone's public outcry of public transportation as the excuse. It was a misrepresentation of the true outcry. What people really wanted was dependable buses throughout the city. That is not what they received with this streetcar. I am sure that if you polled those on OKCTalk.com you would get a different result than you would from that average citizen. With all of that said, I am not opposed to the street car but do wish they would have addressed the embarrassment they call a bus system here.
Participating Member
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
I really don't think people want buses unless they're really dialed in to mass transit. I know very few people who would voluntarily ride a bus, even if we had a better system. I wouldn't be shocked if people thought they were voting for light rail rather than a streetcar system, however.
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
I think that if the streetcar system is a part of the overall mass trans plan, then the current patterns of people flow into the area is important for determining the routes of the streetcars themselves. While it isn't the principle purpose of the streetcar system to develop areas, it is true that areas around street car routes will naturally develop higher density. Mass trans satisfying current requirements will be very compatible with the stated interests of creating higher density in the inner core.
Participating Member
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
I generally visit downtown because of professionals I use who are located there or for lunch. But I've also attended meetings and events, enjoyed symphony performances, and a few other things.
Usually my trips are single destinations. But when multiple destinations exist it is always a question of whether to move the car or not. Probably if I could grab a streetcar I'd do things a little differently. Bet I'd be more likely to catch lunch before heading back.
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
I think if it were something other than a fixed system you will not see any extra development spurred. The current rubber tire trolley has failed miserably. The Oklahoma Spirit Trolleys have had their route changed a number of times, and as a result any system maps or stop signs have been completely removed so it's essentially a phantom system. It's not as easy as saying, "Well we'll do the same thing, just do it better, have cooler trolleys, and not change the route." But isn't that everything Pete White is against? Furthermore, the route wasn't changed because they thought it was a good idea. The route was changed because rubber tire trolleys have much higher operational expenses, compared to the streetcars which have virtually negligible operational expenses compared to buses (to the point that they equal out after a little under a decade I believe, even considering the capital expenses).
There's also a larger reason why the trolleys have zero ridership, and that's because it is not reliable and you can't "see" the route. With streetcars, not only is it always on time and totally reliable, but you can see the route and if you're familiar with the downtown streets then you already know everywhere it goes without even looking at a system map. You know that the streetcar stops right there because you see the rails and you see the little pavilion next to them. That's why it serves as a catalyst for development all up and down the streetcar line. Never in the history of cities has a bus system or non-fixed guideway transit been considered to have economic development potential.
So, to that extent, there is no way we can achieve the result we want without doing a streetcar. Can we look to minimize the cost and hopefully have it come under $20M/mile? I hope so. The majority of that cost is actually from utility relocation, so I'm skeptical as to how much that cost can be brought down. But I agree we certainly don't need any frivolous bells and whistles. With the Ford Center, it was such a great deal because we built a bare bones center with the goal of getting an NBA team and came through big-time, even though we had to spend more than double what we originally spent renovating it just 5 years after the thing opened, but whatever. With this, if we can somehow achieve the same result and only spend $10M or $15M a mile, then I agree that it's absolutely ideal that we do that.
VIP Member
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
They did address the bus system - it is called a street car. There are maybe two or three bus systems in the US that even work effectively. The experiment forced on American by GM failed. I don't know about OKC but in Tampa the last year the streetcar system operated there they had 24 million passengers. The best the replacement bus system ever did 12.8 million and that was with a population about 10X what the streetcar served.
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
Agreed
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
Well, there are some bus system remedies being studied that could offer real solutions. The most promising idea I've heard suggested for COTPA is converting all bus routes to a grid system, where the bus will follow one street the entire length of the route. Trying to get to Walker and S. 44th from Penn and N. 36th? Take the Penn bus all the way to 44th, get off, and then take the 44th bus all the way to Walker. Simple. There is also some potential for timing intersections, which would involve some massive recalibration of all the traffic signals, but there are some technologies that the bus could signal to and then change the light allowing the bus to pass through without having a delay.
This can not be done with MAPS money because what the voters passed explicitly said downtown streetcar. That's also what the voters were sold. There was confusion out there about light rail, but most who were confused about that were opposing what they were confused about anyway. This has to come out of COTPA's budget, and I think they're hesitant to make these changes unless they can get more buses, which will have to be brought up later. They need greener buses too..I'm tired of walking along Walker downtown and having a bus pass me and spew fumes and emissions out at me and anything else on the sidewalk, not to mention being unable to hear anything else in a 100-foot radius.
The simple reality of the situation is that when your city is sprawlville like OKC, finding any efficient way to do public transit is not going to work as well. When routes are so long and the road system is so over-built, you're going to have inefficiencies such as the buses being late. It's not possible for a bus to go 20 miles and still stay on exactly the schedule it was predicted it would be on because out on the open road where people like Brian Walters are fulfilling their American duty, unexpected things happen.
Participating Member
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
This is partly correct. People's sentiments are definitely supportive of a serious investment in public transit. But what was clear in the polling is that it was an investment in trains that people wanted, not buses. I wish that there was far more MAPS money towards a greater system, but it still is an incredible start. We will have a state-of-the-art, start to a pemanent regional/intra city rapid transit system.
It also important to understand why the streetcar was chosen. It will serve as the nucleus of this larger system. Downtown belongs to everyone and a greater cross section of voters will benefit using it. The biggest reason is that it is the cheapest annual operating expense of the larger system. When we discontinue the use of the rubber tired "trolleys", the annual operational cost can be absorbed. Maps builds infrastructure, it doesn't pay for operations. We simply don't have a funding mechanism to pay for the incredible annual costs associated with running buses.
But finally, no one should propogate the idea that voters might have been voting for something else. The streetcar had an extensive public education campaign to itself that was continually monitored by scientific polling. I know because I made sure of it. It was laborously debated before the resolution language was adopted. And ultimately it has had more public input meetings, debates, and professional analysis than any other MAPS project.
It originated as a professional recommendation in the multi year FGS study, it became a grassroots public agenda, it was successfully detailed out and debated before council, it gained resolution status, it was endorsed as the best step forward by a majority vote of our citizens, and it has been scrupulously developed as a plan.
It is our intention to make it the best damn streetcar system in the world.
Participating Member
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
This is partly correct. People's sentiments are definitely supportive of a serious investment in public transit. But what was clear in the polling is that it was an investment in trains that people wanted, not buses. I wish that there was far more MAPS money towards a greater system, but it still is an incredible start. We will have a state-of-the-art, start to a pemanent regional/intra city rapid transit system.
It also important to understand why the streetcar was chosen. It will serve as the nucleus of this larger system. Downtown belongs to everyone and a greater cross section of voters will benefit using it. The biggest reason is that it is the cheapest annual operating expense of the larger system. When we discontinue the use of the rubber tired "trolleys", the annual operational cost can be absorbed. Maps builds infrastructure, it doesn't pay for operations. We simply don't have a funding mechanism to pay for the incredible annual costs associated with running more buses.
But finally, no one should propogate the idea that voters might have been voting for something else. The streetcar had an extensive public education campaign to itself that was continually monitored by scientific polling. It was laborously debated before the resolution language was adopted. And ultimately it has had more public input meetings, debates, and professional analysis than any other MAPS project.
It originated as a professional recommendation in the multi year FGS study, it became a grassroots public agenda, it was successfully detailed out and debated before council, it gained resolution status, it was endorsed as the best step forward by a majority vote of our citizens, and it has been scrupulously developed as a plan.
It is our intention to make it the best damn streetcar system in the world.
Participating Member
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
No one is depriving the downtowners the same "luxury" as the rest of the city as they have the same roads and buses. Giving one group of people something the rest of the city doesn't have is the problem. That was part of some resistance to MAPS 3 and the reason why other projects were included. To avoid the "this only benefits Downtown".
I agree there is a huge difference between the Bass Pro deal and other "subsidies. One thing is the City built the Bass Pro building and is the landlord (something the City really shouldn't be doing). The City isn't building the Outlet Mall (but is making infrastructure improvements around it) and giving them a rebate/reimbursement on their marketing expenses for a certain number of years. A streetcar system serves an area and not a specific business. Although specific businesses will benefit by the streetcars eventual route. Just as certain businesses saw great benefit from being located directly on the Canal.
Supposedly, the City was going to be making all of its money back with Bass Pro (just as it is planning with the Outlet Mall). But the last article I saw on it (years ago) showed the Bass Pro was not coming close to meeting expectations. City Manager shrugged the criticism off and said it didn't matter. Reportedly, there are clauses in the rebate/reimbursement part of the Outlet Mall deal that makes the owners verify their expenses and that the sales tax rebates (or whatever they are calling them) is dependent on actual receipts and not projections). If it doesn't meet up to expectations, they don't get the full amount.
Agree with the intent of the post if not the specifics. There was a bait-n-switch of sorts regarding the City's unscientific MAPS 3 survey where "Mass Transit" was suggested by a 3.5 to 1 margin than the next suggestion. The Mayor used this survey as justification for just about anything MAPS 3 related when it served his purpose. He even said that "mass transit" means different things to different people and from the Survey we don't know what the breakdown was for Streetcars, Light Rail, buses etc. But the end result wasn't the "comprehensive" solution the Mayor also spoke of many times leading up to MAPS 3, just the Streetcars.
That is why it is critical to coordinate with Project 180 as much as possible, so we can take advantage of streets being torn up and utilities being moved etc just one time. Unfortunately, under the Devon deal, the city is obligated to complete P180 by a certain date and it seems unlikely from earlier reports that there is going to be much overlap between the time when P180 is over and construction of the Streetcars begins. Depends on where the streetcars end up going as P180 is being done in phases and possible that one of the earliest phases may already be finished before the routes for the streetcar a finalized, much less construction begins.
Sorry, but the "bare bones" contention just doesn't line up with the facts (won't go into it here). While the renovations did cost more than the original building, it wasn't "more than double". Original building cost $90M (mol) and the renovations were slated to cost $120M (including the stand alone $20M to $25M Practice Facility). According to Bennett, the Practice Facility was broken out due to footprint limitations of the Ford site.
Wrong. Neither the Ballot or the Ordinance (what voters were actually voting on) "explicitly said downtown streetcar." They didn't mention ANY of the announced projects at all. There is nothing legally preventing them from using any of the MAPS 3 money for just about any purpose they decide as long as it fits the all encompassing definition of "capital improvement". Although I agree, it is what voters were "sold" (just not in the Ballot/Ordinance).
Unlike the original MAPS ballot that went into quite a bit of detail. But even the original MAPS had language in it that gave the City an out, something along the lines that the Council could deem at any time that a project was finished (even if one spade of dirt hadn't been turned). This was brought up when they were considering scraping the Ford (due to massive cost over runs of the other MAPS projects). But IIRC, we were assured by mayoral candidate Humphreys, that MAPS could be built on time and on budget. Of course neither turned out to be the case (even took a voter approved 6 month "extension" to "finish MAPS right" to build the Ford).
Again, think we have the Mayor to thank on this one as I never saw where he cited the scientific polling you mentioned (just the City's unscientific internet MAPS 3 Survey). As I mentioned above, the City lumped "Mass Transit" into a single category and never gave a breakdown of the self admitted different components. We could have covered the concerns of a wide area of the city and not just those on the 5 to 6 miles of the eventual route.
The Mayor mentioned in his 2007 address:
He repeated the comprehensive plan in his 2009 address:Now, the plan includes four distinct methods of public transportation: Bus Rapid Transit, Commuter Rail, Downtown Streetcar, and Enhanced Bus Service.
The indication that it was still going to be a comprehensive mass transit solution that he had been pushing for a few years was mentioned just a couple of weeks before the MAPS 3 announcement.Fully implemented, it calls for a greatly enhanced bus system, including Bus Rapid Transit, and there are also light rail and downtown streetcar components.
MAPS 3 proposals almost ready for Oklahoma voters (Oklahoman, 9/14/09)
Yet, in MAPS 3, he abandoned the other 3 components (which were included in the City's Survey). Think this abandonment (at least temporarily) helps explain the huge gap between the 85% MAPS 3 approval cited by the Mayor and the barely passing 54% when it came to the actual vote.Whether those transit improvements will include better bus service, light rail, a modern streetcar or some combination of the three will be among the details city officials release at a news conference within two weeks, Cornett said.
It would have cost more to do the comprehensive plan that would have covered a much larger portion of the voters but not outrageously more:
Oklahoma City's mass transit overhaul comes with a big price (Oklahoman, 11/5/08)
That would have meant elimination of some of the lesser projects (designed to get broader support but basically eliminating the widespread support for the comprehensive plan that people said they wanted), or a roughly 10 year tax instead of the 7.75 one we ended up with.Metro Transit spent 18 months studying public transportation options, which included public forums. The resulting plan included better bus service, commuter rail, a modern streetcar for the downtown area and bus rapid transit, which is a hybrid between bus and rail. Total price tag: $394 million to build and $90 million a year to maintain.
Know you mentioned previously that the Trolleys are ending the end of their expected operational life and will be retired (no pun intended), but what is going to replace them? Granted the Streetcars might replace the DT ones (if on the same route) but what about the line that goes to the Meridian corridor? Are we depending on the River Cruises to replace it?
WOW, I knew we had streetcars at one time but didn't know the extent:
Sorry, but don't know exactly where I pulled this from but believe it was a site related to Urban.In the words of a 2001 article in The Oklahoman, "At one time, local residents enjoyed a transit system unrivaled nearly anywhere else in the country, with 138 miles of trolley tracks reaching into all parts of the city and a rapid-transit Interurban leading from Oklahoma City to Norman, Guthrie and El Reno."
Participating Member
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
Using your logic Larry, the downtown Public Library, the Civic Center, the Arena, the ballpark.....in other words, virtually every existing MAPS project only benefits downtown. The whole concept of MAPS was to create a downtown that offered multiple different types of entertainment/leisure time options to people who live anywhere in the city...to create a city that appealed to people not only from here, but from elsewhere. A major reason we lost the United contract was because Oklahoma City was dull and dying. The best way to do locate these projects was to centralize them, IMO, so that people who live in the north of the city and the south have equal access. Were those MAPS projects not downtown, I'm hard pressed to think of a logical place to put them, or it's difficult to think of any of them having the impact they do if we'd put the arena in far southeast Oklahoma City, the ballpark in far northwest Oklahoma City and so forth Every city has the downtown as its heart, and its amenities are available to all. The streetcar offers the option to make the downtown even more accessible to people, especially those who aren't big walkers or who feel intimidated by the geography.
As I said earlier, most of the people who already live downtown are people who do so because the don't mind walking or who wish to walk. That's one of the appeals of living here. I see the streetcar as a way of getting even more people downtown to enjoy its options by making the city seem accessible and welcoming, by making it easy to get from place to place and enjoy the city they have helped create.
Then, if the route is planned sensibly, the possiblility of extension of the streetcar to make it part of a complementary mass transit package that includes light rail, the street car and (hopefully) natural gas buses exists. I don't think anyone supporting the streetcar thinks it will be the be all and end all of mass transit. It is my fervent hope that by offering a type of mass transit that is new and exciting, the eyes of people who would never consider mass transit in the past might be opened, and we might be able to encourage more use of other options by them.
Participating Member
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
"Again, think we have the Mayor to thank on this one as I never saw where he cited the scientific polling you mentioned (just the City's unscientific internet MAPS 3 Survey). As I mentioned above, the City lumped "Mass Transit" into a single category and never gave a breakdown of the self admitted different components. We could have covered the concerns of a wide area of the city and not just those on the 5 to 6 miles of the eventual route."
The polling that I refer to is the ongoing polling that was occurring before the vote by the chamber, Gazette, and several independent consultants. The unscientific web based poll that you mention was simply an indicator way before the vote. The information that I saw and made decisions on clearly demonstrated that the public understood exactly what they were getting with the modern streetcar and supported it. The Gazette polling was relatively "inline" with the internal assessments at the time on individual projects.
"The Mayor mentioned in his 2007 address:
"Now, the plan includes four distinct methods of public transportation: Bus Rapid Transit, Commuter Rail, Downtown Streetcar, and Enhanced Bus Service."
He repeated the comprehensive plan in his 2009 address:
"Fully implemented, it calls for a greatly enhanced bus system, including Bus Rapid Transit, and there are also light rail and downtown streetcar components."
The indication that it was still going to be a comprehensive mass transit solution that he had been pushing for a few years was mentioned just a couple of weeks before the MAPS 3 announcement."
I was physically present at that conference. His speech demonstrated that this would be a start to a comprehensive mass transit solution. The comprehensive plan in which the modern streetcar was specified as a recommendation was the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study that he was referencing. And the recommendation that the planners made in 2005 was specific to the downtown area as a distribution and collector for the system at large and for people who are present in downtown.
"MAPS 3 proposals almost ready for Oklahoma voters (Oklahoman, 9/14/09)
Whether those transit improvements will include better bus service, light rail, a modern streetcar or some combination of the three will be among the details city officials release at a news conference within two weeks, Cornett said.
Yet, in MAPS 3, he abandoned the other 3 components (which were included in the City's Survey)."
The mayor himself did not abandon the other two components. The council was confronted with the reality that more buses and/or other types of rail require an ongoing operational budget of which the city has no budget for. The modern streetcar annual operational costs was the only element other than basic maintenance on a hub facility that the city budget can absorb each year.
"It would have cost more to do the comprehensive plan that would have covered a much larger portion of the voters but not outrageously more:
"Oklahoma City's mass transit overhaul comes with a big price" (Oklahoman, 11/5/08)
"Metro Transit spent 18 months studying public transportation options, which included public forums. The resulting plan included better bus service, commuter rail, a modern streetcar for the downtown area and bus rapid transit, which is a hybrid between bus and rail. Total price tag: $394 million to build and $90 million a year to maintain."
The $394 million number is first a 2005 number. We can assume that price tag would be more now.
2nd, it is for not only enhanced bus service, but also for a regional commuter rail system. Such a system will require inter-jurisdictional agreements with other cities who would want to participate in the studies findings. Norman, Moore, Midwest City, Del City, Edmond, and Yukon would have the opportunity to participate.
But MAPS was never intended to fund items outside of the city limits. and again, it does not provide the ongoing operational budget which the only other item (being buses), require.
"Think this abandonment (at least temporarily) helps explain the huge gap between the 85% MAPS 3 approval cited by the Mayor and the barely passing 54% when it came to the actual vote."
Doubtful... MAPS had organized opposition that used fear for cuts in emergency services as their primary oppositional campaign device. And... we were emerging into an anti-tax environment as the economic downturn nationally affected even of our local psyche about the future.
"That would have meant elimination of some of the lesser projects (designed to get broader support but basically eliminating the widespread support for the comprehensive plan that people said they wanted), or a roughly 10 year tax instead of the 7.75 one we ended up with."
I can't speak on the other projects other than to say that the council endorsed what they endorsed under the successful MAPS template.
A regional transit project will not only require the inter-jurisdictional agreements to "formalize" such a proposal, but it will require a political campaign specifically for transit that stretches across three counties. Most certainly, we would not have been prepared for such a campaign when the MAPS tax was expiring and it is unlikely that any kind of tax for transit projects specifically would have passed without higher gas prices and a more favorable economic environment.
"Know you mentioned previously that the Trolleys are ending the end of their expected operational life and will be retired (no pun intended), but what is going to replace them? Granted the Streetcars might replace the DT ones (if on the same route) but what about the line that goes to the Meridian corridor? Are we depending on the River Cruises to replace it?"
The life expectancy for the existing trolleys is 12 -13 years of operational use. Apparently, we have enough in reserve millage to maintain the Stockyard City and Meridian routes without new vehicles. I (believe) I heard from Metro Transit that we can get another 6 years out of what we have if the fleet is consolidated and used only for those corridors. They will be assessing federal opportunities for replacement and I would assume that there will be another bond issue vote in the future that might resolve any dire situation that we might be n if the federal monies or alternative solution is not there. They are apparently a maintenance headache.
"WOW, I knew we had streetcars at one time but didn't know the extent:
In the words of a 2001 article in The Oklahoman, "At one time, local residents enjoyed a transit system unrivaled nearly anywhere else in the country, with 138 miles of trolley tracks reaching into all parts of the city and a rapid-transit Interurban leading from Oklahoma City to Norman, Guthrie and El Reno."
Sorry, but don't know exactly where I pulled this from but believe it was a site related to Urban."
We had one of the largest streetcar systems in the world. Anton Classen and John Hefner were visionary business men. This project is the start to bring a real system back.
Participating Member
Re: What do YOU think the purpose of the Maps3 Streetcar system is?
Larry, thanks for pressing these issues though. Your very thoughtful in assessing MAPS. You pay attention.
However, I can assure you that we obtained a substantive start to the Regional solutions that you desire. We obtained nearly everything that we possibly could within the MAPS framework considering the annual operational budget issues. We also got as much as possible within the existing political framework.
Now it is important to "hunker down" and build it. What we don't want is to "re-debate" something that the public very clearly supported and has continued to support. To not do it would be political suicide and potentially set real transit reform back decades.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks