Streetcar

[leprechaun]

Yes Spartan I too am excited for Tulsa, especially with the possibility of a streetcar system. They have so much potential and it seems that they might finally be getting the ball rolling. I wish more people would realize that it's okay to root for both cities, as Oklahoma as a whole will be all the better for it. In a utopian world I would combine Tulsa's beautiful landscape and urban fabric with OKC's sense of civic pride and corporate investment.

The only streetcar factory in the USA is in suburban Portland and while it is in a prime area for streetcar friendly cities, they plan on dominating the whole US market for streetcars. So far they are building six streetcars for Portland and seven for Tucson. Even though are the only US streetcar manufacturer, it is still considered a very risky venture because of such low demand. It might be possible for Oklahoma to enter into this market, but demand will have to increase significantly, and we would have to act fast before another state enters the market. It seems there are many cities with preliminary plans for a streetcar, but funding seems to be the issue. If cities like Tulsa, Austin, and San Antonio ever get started on plans maybe it would become viable for Oklahoma to build a streetcar factory, which would be great for our state. Our central location in the US makes for a great spot to locate one.

Here is a video about the streetcar factory in Portland (United Streetcar):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU1W9EOxBhE

[Urban Pioneer]

The State of the Union was interesting last night. I don't think I've heard HSR mentioned at such lenghth in a State of U address.

Also, infrastructure generally talked about. While a great many people want to cut spending, infrastructure usually has broad bipartisan support.

[Kerry]

I just don't see buses generating this kind of public enthusiasm.

[urbanity]

Hub hookup: A public transit centerpiece creeps toward reality as planners select three possible sites

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...ub-hookup.html

[warreng88]

Urbanite posted it before me.

[okclee]

This is exciting progress!

I'm trying to get a visual of a downtown Okc transit hub that encompasses so many forms of transit at one location. Does anyone have an idea of what this hub could look like one day? (preferably example pictures of other transit hubs)

[Kerry]

nm

[Snowman]

Hub hookup: A public transit centerpiece creeps toward reality as planners select three possible sites

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...ub-hookup.html

If they are consider making the hub in the lumber yard, why not the south side where they could have stops on the BNSF and UP lines

[Kerry]

Urban Pioneer - was there a reason why the Chamber site was not considered? It is right next to the tracks, is on the better side for a hub, and is bigger than half the proposed sites. Plus there is nothing on it.

[Urban Pioneer]

Urban Pioneer - was there a reason why the Chamber site was not considered? It is right next to the tracks, is on the better side for a hub, and is bigger than half the proposed sites. Plus there is nothing on it.

They did do a preliminary assessment. From the reasons I vaguely remember, the city doesn't own it, expansion of the elevated rail yard might impact Untitled on 3rd, and it is difficult to make BRT and other vehicular connections as that is a "crimp point" at 4th. It would require reconstruction all the way to Broadway Extension entrance/exit ramps.

While the new Boulevard and and EK Gaylord are easy to "vilify" because of their size, there is ample opportunity to integrate transit more effectively in the new construction.

How we "technically" take advantage of this has yet to be determined as the hub study is still narrowing down from the 3 sites at the "Tier 2" level that we are currently at, to a single location/area.

[Kerry]

How we "technically" take advantage of this has yet to be determined as the hub study is still narrowing down from the 3 sites at the "Tier 2" level that we are currently at, to a single location/area.

Thanks for the info.

Just so everyone knows, those three sites are...

Those three sites are a north Bricktown parking lot combined with the so-called “buffalo statue site” on the east side of the tracks on Main Street; Santa Fe Station combined with parking lots north and south of Reno; and the lumberyard facility south of where Interstate 40 currently sits.

[Hutch]

If they are consider making the hub in the lumber yard, why not the south side where they could have stops on the BNSF and UP lines

The planning at this point is for the UP line to be reconnected to the BNSF line where they intersect just north of the new Crosstown. That will be accomplished using one or two ramp spur lines leading north from the UP line and up to the BNSF line on its east and/or west sides. Also, it is anticipated that a new southern ramp spur will reconnect the old east west line on the north side of Bricktown with the BNSF line. That line not only ties in to the east to the Adventure line, but also intersects the UP line to the east.

With those ramps and connections in place, all north-south and east-west commuter trains can effectively move in and out of a single terminal facility on the BNSF line without need for a separate stop on the UP line.

[Kerry]

The planning at this point is for the UP line to be reconnected to the BNSF line where they intersect just north of the new Crosstown. That will be accomplished using one or two ramp spur lines leading north from the UP line and up to the BNSF line on its east and/or west sides. Also, it is anticipated that a new southern ramp spur will reconnect the old east west line on the north side of Bricktown with the BNSF line. That line not only ties in to the east to the Adventure line, but also intersects the UP line to the east.

With those ramps and connections in place, all north-south and east-west commuter trains can effectively move in and out of a single terminal facility on the BNSF line without need for a separate stop on the UP line.

If you are talking commuter rail that would be correct. Does anyone know if the Salt Lake City commuter rail uses dedicated track or does it mix with freight traffic?

[Hutch]

If you are talking commuter rail that would be correct. Does anyone know if the Salt Lake City commuter rail uses dedicated track or does it mix with freight traffic?

Found this for you:

FrontRunner North
Route Description
The first phase of the commuter rail alignment will extend from Weber County to Salt Lake City and lies on the east side of the existing Union Pacific (UP) Railroad mainline tracks. The alignment extends 44 miles, contains 38.15 miles of exclusive right-of-way, shares 5.87 miles of track with UP, has 43 at-grade crossings and a 2,043 foot bridge over the Ogden rail yard.

[Kerry]

Thanks Hutch. Dedicated right-of-way might be an issue with Greater Oklahoma City Area Rail Transit (GOCART).

I was playing around with Google Earth and here is a video of my Black Line from Deep Duece to the Civic Center. The blue trolleys are stops.

[Meaculpa]

The YouTube video is real cool.
If you have the time, you should continue this kind of work.

I've already shared it with some friends and the reaction was very positive.

[Kerry]

The YouTube video is real cool.
If you have the time, you should continue this kind of work.

I've already shared it with some friends and the reaction was very positive.

Thanks, I am working on it but since I am cheap, I am having to use a combination of free software products so it doesn't turn out exactly as I like.

[Doug Loudenback]

In the process of working up a blog article about MAPS 3 & 17-years of the Pubic Trust, the catalyst for which is/are Pete White's 12/21/2010 comments, I've put together a video containing all of his comments, plus those of Jill Adler. At 29 minutes, it's pretty long. Pete's remarks begin at about 6:55 in case you want to use the slider to skip ahead past my introduction. The video is larger if seen at its You Tube location.

[betts]

I think, to be fair to Pete, he only had access to the AA "figure 8" recommendation at that time, which was nowhere near as thoughtful of different interests as what I believe you will ultimately see from the committee. I certainly cannot speak for him but I think and hope future responses will be a little different.

[Kerry]

I think, to be fair to Pete, he only had access to the AA "figure 8" recommendation at that time, which was nowhere near as thoughtful of different interests as what I believe you will ultimately see from the committee. I certainly cannot speak for him but I think and hope future responses will be a little different.

If that is the extent of his knowledge I suggest he read OCKTalk. Maybe I should send him my route ideas and Google Earth videos.

[Popsy]

Dougie,

I had a good deal of respect for you prior to watching the YouTube piece. No more.

[Snowman]

Thanks Hutch. Dedicated right-of-way might be an issue with Greater Oklahoma City Area Rail Transit (GOCART).

I do like the acronym GOCART for our rail transit system

[betts]

I do like the acronym GOCART for our rail transit system

Me too. Is that a personal creation Kerry, as I've never seen that one anywhere else?

[OKCisOK4me]

Doug thanks for the video. Not watching all of it and really couldn't take any more of it after nearly 2 minutes. Is there an email for this guy? What a d*&$@e!

Nevermind on the email, I just went to OKC.gov. and now I'm going to email him.

[Doug Loudenback]

At this point, I do not think that Pete White is actively trying to "sabotage" the streetcar. Nor do I think that he was intending to.

What I do think is that he over-reacted in public to a visual presentation that inadequately conveyed the "grand plan" that was/is in the process of being developed.

It was limited in what it portrayed and it perpetrated an idea that the perspective volunteers were pushing for something that had no "vision" or coherent depiction of how the conceptual core routes connected to other modes of transit.

It was a COTPA visual presentation that had not been formally ratified as a/the official proposal by the MAPS subcommittee.

While I think that it could have been handled differently by Mr. White, I think his heart is in the right place. While it caused some angst for the people trying to go through the process, it ultimately helped the process.

Ultimately, always be on your toes and concerned. But really, this all worked out for the best even though it was a bombastic performance.
* * *
None of us are "naive," but you have acknowledge that this is a public, democratic, process. It's going to be messy until the rail is in the ground and the concrete is poured around it.

Urban Pioneer (and all), I'm working up a blog article about the 17-year history of the public's trust in the MAPS process and how MAPS 3 requires more public vigilance than the earlier sales-tax projects did ... obviously necessitated because of the council resolution issue.

The impetus/catalyst for my article is, of course, the collection of comments made by Pete (a friend, incidentally) on 12/21. I've deliberately gone slow with this possible project for several reasons: I've not wanted to knee-jerk; I've been uncertain about whether to even do such an article since Pete is a friend and a fellow Okc history buff; I've been uncertain about the need for the article. In the end, I reached the conclusion that the article ought to be done.

The earliest versions of the video were sometimes sarcastic, more in the nature of a Jib-Jab, but I thought better of that and have pretty much eliminated the sarcasm from the final version. The reason for the possible sarcasm, however, still exists, and that reason is the collection of words that Pete chose to make which, I should think, speak for themselves. Although in his 12/21 remarks Pete speaks about his change of heart as being based on the process as it has developed, with regard to each of his new-found reasons for his new-found opposition to downtown streetcar, each of those stated reasons existed then exactly as they do today back when MAPS 3 was announced to the voters in September 2009. Nothing new has been added, and nothing has been changed. $120 million divided by 5-6 miles still equals about $20 million a mile; streetcar tracks are still laid into the ground and fixed. As for the location of the tracks and location for the hub, none of that was then, nor has it by now been, determined. Pete knew all of these things in September 2009 just as he did on December 21, 2010.

If a legitimate basis for an epiphany has occurred since September 2009, i.e., something that wasn't known in September 2009 but was known in December 2010 when he made his remarks, Pete did not identify anything that was new between those dates in time.

In assembling the You Tube video which appears above this message, I must have listened to Pete's words 30-40 times while trying to synchronize the audio with the visual presentation and in reducing most of his comments to accurate text. And his comments weren't made in just one speech ... there were 4 sets of comments, spread out over the course of the council session.

So, unlike you, I have reached the conclusion that, most probably, Pete WAS saying, in the strongest and most unambiguous of terms, that MAPS 3 SHOULD BE REVISED to scrap the downtown streetcar element. And, of course, that could only be done by city council resolution, so, implicitly, a fair conclusion is that Pete was advocating exactly that, even if he did not explicitly say those words.

About the genuineness of what he did say, I have no reason to doubt that when Pete spoke on 12/21 that he was being absolutely sincere. Aside from my personal knowledge of Pete, altogether positive and tells-it-like-it-is type of guy, aside from that, objective factors are present that when Pete spoke on 12/21 he was being completely sincere. Pete is a seasoned lawyer and is the senior council member when it comes to longevity. He is smart, is deliberate, and understands and knows his environment, and he is not one who is so foolish as to make knee-jerk outbursts which he might later want to take back. If this council session is the exception which proves the rule, though, there were 4 separate instances of his expressions on the topic, which, of course, was not on the council's agenda at all. Knee-jerks aren't usually multiplied by 4.

He is also politically savvy and understands who is audience is when he is speaking, and he speaks to that audience. At one point, he spoke to Rick Cain and said,

I'm not talking to you, Rick, I'm talking to whoever's looking at me out there.

I guess that that means you, me, and the rest of the citizens.

Anyway, we disagree about whether Pete was setting the stage to sabotage the MAPS 3 streetcar element.

You also said, though,

While it [Pete's comments] caused some angst for the people trying to go through the process, it ultimately helped the process.

Please explain how Pete's comments have helped the process. Perhaps you mean Pete's remarks about the foolishness (my words) of showing a tentative streetcar route on Hudson so that it would pass by the existing bus hub at 4th & Hudson, and, to the extent that such route might be chosen for a route FOR THAT REASON, I'd certainly agree. Pete's remarks about that provided the ONLY instance in all of his comments which would be remotely germane -- remotely since track location was not before the council -- to agenda matters before the council. I'm quite sure that Pete was fully knowledgeable that the COTPA drawing was just that and that it did not represent anything even bordering on "official."

So, aside from that possibility, how do you think that Pete's remarks "ultimately helped the process?" I'm not being facetious -- if there is something that I missed, I certainly want to include any "positives" of which I am presently unaware.

You also said,

But really, this all worked out for the best even though it was a bombastic performance.

What do you mean, "worked out for the best?" Did something other than the discussion that his remarks spawned occur that I don't know about? Again, if I've missed something, I'd like to know so that the article I assemble in the next couple of days includes everything that it ought.

Stepping slightly aside from streetcars, the streetcar element is not all that's involved here. As Larry OKC said earlier in this thread,

And that's pretty much the way it should have been (at least the legal way). Those projects that are not like-kind are to be listed as separate propositions. Think bond issue format (Prop 1: Roads, Prop 2: Parks etc etc). As Doug, myself and a few others pointed out before the vote, there is nothing requiring them to do any of the announced projects. Shadid is correct, that the money can indeed be re-directed at the Council's discretion. Doesn't even take 5 or more, as long as a quorum is present, they only need a majority vote. But many on these threads insisted that we can trust them to keep their word. We will just have to wait and see.

I wholeheartedly concur in Larry's observations. If streetcars are even being publicly discussed as having the potential to be placed on the MAPS 3 scrapheap, what other project might be next?

Moreover, how do we know that Pete was speaking only for himself? What other council member(s) might have something that he/she would like to discard or radically discomboble?

Some of you have characterized Pete as a "moron" or some such terms. Each of you who have done this are outrageously mistaken. I assure you, Pete is as sharper than your tacks and he knows what he is doing ... and what he is doing from his eyes may well be something different than what we might see from ours. In my video, I said, "But I also said we'd need to keep a close eye on these wiley waskels."

If any of you do not perceive that Pete White should be taken very seriously, you are very badly mistaken.

One last thing. I've e-mailed Pete a link to this message as well as to the You Tube video. Pete has a much greater capacity to express himself than I do, and I hope that he will. And in that expression I hope that we will find some good news.