Streetcar

[leprechaun]

I think that would be a great idea. I am generally in favor of keeping people at street level as much as possible in order to spur development, but a connection to The Underground would be great for occasions of extremely hot or cold weather.

[BoulderSooner]

Back on topic for debate:

Direct connection to The Underground (Conncourse) by the streetcar via a escalotor bay type stop or not? What do you think?

yes or at the very least a stop somewhere near one of the entry points

[Spartan]

I actually wouldn't mind if they filled the underground with dirt and closed it off. OKC doesn't have the downtown population to support underground and street level activity and it probably never will in the areas served by the Conn-course. I understand the desire of staying out of cold weather and rain but it comes at the expense of developing street level activity. Cities much colder than OKC seem to thrive without underground systems.

Total agreement. Look at Houston if you want an example of a city with more life at the subterranean level. It might actually bring down the cost of downtown construction if we had a facility available for dirt storage, instead of having to haul it off. That's a really good idea.

I do think it is inevitable though. Probably be a stop somewhere in the downtown core that happens to be right in front of a Conncourse entrance anyway. I would hate to see Conncourse improvements come out of the streetcar funding, though. That would be a tragedy.

[TheTravellers]

yes or at the very least a stop somewhere near one of the entry points

A stop near an entry/exit would definitely be a good thing. I'm not sure if there are maps of the Underground once you get down there, but a map of the underground showing entry/exit points and relating them to streetcar stops/route would also be good. I'm assuming there will be a map of the streetcar route(s) posted at each stop, but if not, there should be.

[Meaculpa]

GOCART! That will probably sound dorky to out-of-towners.

If you have ever ridden the buses, then you would want to leave "rapid" out of the acronym.

[Kerry]

If you have ever ridden the buses, then you would want to leave "rapid" out of the acronym.

Greater Oklahoma City Area Rail Transit (GOCART). No 'rapid' in it. As an out-of-towner myself, I think it sound pretty cool and unique.

[Meaculpa]

Oops!

That shows that my assumption was very much "in the box"

[HOT ROD]

It has been a long time (in internet years). Two things though. OCART was my suggestion and we took a group poll and we all agreed on the name. The next day someone suggested adding the G to the front but I don't remember who that was. Anyhow, I loved GOCART and never forgot it. If I remember correctly I suggested the nickname Renaissance City but I don't recall if it was you or Rob Anderson that started using Continue the Renaissance first.

Somewhere out there in internet land is the OCART website I made on geocities.com. I even had the train horn that sounded when you opened the page. I checked for it a couple of years ago and it was still there but the geocities domain was bought by Yahoo and then shutdown.

Do you remember Heartland Castle and the siege park (I was even reprimanded by someone because I mixed the Renaissance and Medieval)?

Oh yes, I remember the Heartland Castle plans as well as the oil tower. We had some great ideas.

As for OCART, I don't exactly remember how it came about - you're probably right. I just remember going along with the idea once I heard it. As for Renaissance City, I thought I was the first to come up with it but was initially rebutted due to it being Detroit's. Then, Patrick and I coined Continue the Renaissance, which did catch on. Pulse still uses it, and I still use it as well as Renaissance City.

Truth be told, I thought of Renaissance when the Renaissance Hotel was being constructed. It was OKC's first new downtown hotel in years and was only the 2nd available. Back then, it was a big deal - and I saw something forward about more hotels and developments and thought, why dont we just coin OKC as the Renaissance City?

You may have similar or other reasons/ideas, but I think I was the first to champion it and initially it didn't go. Nevertheless, I'm glad we're all still around for the most part. Despite our differences, and there are some glaring - I think we all respect each other as 'old folks' since we were the original internet boys of OKC. I honestly am so impressed with how many people are online now, and standing up for OKC. I remember the days when neither was the case. ......

[HOT ROD]

Sorry Urban for detracting. ...

I still like gOCart, or OCART. I can't really think of another aconym (sp?) that fits OKC and the metro with rail.

Kerry, it was myself that made the mistake with 'rapid' transit. But you're correct, the focus was ALWAYS with rail based transit options for OKC and the metro and not necessarily a comprehensive branding (like Metro/COTPA, Translink, Metrolink, SoundTransit, etc)....

[ljbab728]

I actually wouldn't mind if they filled the underground with dirt and closed it off. OKC doesn't have the downtown population to support underground and street level activity and it probably never will in the areas served by the Conn-course. I understand the desire of staying out of cold weather and rain but it comes at the expense of developing street level activity. Cities much colder than OKC seem to thrive without underground systems.

You're not totally wrong, Kerry, but there are other examples that contradict that.

http://www.vieux.montreal.qc.ca/plaq...ng/gare_5a.htm

However, in Oklahoma City, there is so little in the way of businesses along the concourse that it has basically no effect on other development. Maybe you just want to see more people walking on the sidewalks even if they are wet, freezing, or sweating.

[Doug Loudenback]

I've revised the video which contains all the remarks made by Pete, plus Jill Adler's comments, at the 12/21/2010 city council meeting. If you want to skip my introduction, use the slider bar to move to @ 7:00 in the 30:15 long video. To see the video in a larger view, click on the video after it begins to see it at You Tube.

[Urban Pioneer]

You're not totally wrong, Kerry, but there are other examples that contradict that.

http://www.vieux.montreal.qc.ca/plaq...ng/gare_5a.htm

However, in Oklahoma City, there is so little in the way of businesses along the concourse that it has basically no effect on other development. Maybe you just want to see more people walking on the sidewalks even if they are wet, freezing, or sweating.

I actually agree with those who see the Underground as a detriment to sidewalk activity. If it hadn't been recently renovated, I might be more sympathtic towards closing it off.

The renovation has however, turned it back into something that many consider an asset and use daily. So on a personal note, connecting to it is to try to get more ridership on the streetcar by office dwellers. We need those trains absolutly full from day one. So making an easy interface seems like a worthwhile endeavor for helping the initial success of the streetcar. IMO

[Larry OKC]

Doug, thanks for the video.

One thing that you mentioned at the end is those who can't walk very far. Isn't that one of the inherent problems with (to borrow Mr. White's terms) spending $20M/mile for something that will serve those people that are on whatever route is decided upon? Yes, the same is true for buses or any other sort of transportation, but one of his points was that you can more effectively give access to a lot more people with the same dollars as those other forms.

I still strongly feel that the City should have gone "all in" and went for the comprehensive transit system the Mayor spoke of many times. One that would have addressed Streetcars, Buses etc etc. That is what I was expecting and then we got what we got. How many more years or decades is it going to take before we get that comprehensive plan and probably at a significantly higher cost? Remember that under the original MAPS we were supposed to have had fixed rail too ($16M). With MAPS 3, the cost rose dramatically ($120M). I realize these are not the same type of fixed rail systems and that may certainly account for some of it, but the cost multiplied by a factor of 7.5 in just 16 years. The cost to implement the comprehensive system was $394M. Just doing some quick-n-dirty math, what could be costing $274M to do now, could easily cost $2.055 Billion by then. WOW.

[Spartan]

I've revised the video which contains all the remarks made by Pete, plus Jill Adler's comments, at the 12/21/2010 city council meeting. If you want to skip my introduction, use the slider bar to move to @ 7:00 in the 30:15 long video. To see the video in a larger view, click on the video after it begins to see it at You Tube.

Doug, you should look at the next council meeting and maybe include some of those comments, which I think got even harsher...especially the back-and-forth between Jeff and Pete. (Pete was pretty rude to Jeff)

[betts]

On the other hand, streetcars have wide open doors and are at street level so for the handicapped they're easier to access than buses. Mass transit, regardless of type, is difficult for those who cannot walk far. Think about how hard it would be to get a wheelchair or scooter on a bus, while you can simply roll it onto a streetcar. It's not as if buses run on every single street so that no one ever has to walk to a bus stop. And while it is true that you can offer access to a greater number of people with buses, you've got to get them in the buses. How many do you see running that are full? Usually I see one to five people in every bus that goes by, and since fourth street is on one of the routes, I see a fair number of buses. We could spend hundreds of millions for buses that no one will ride. To me, the streetcar not only is a starter system of what could be another form of mass transit for our city, but it is an excellent way to introduce people to mass transit who probably wouldn't consider riding a bus at this point in time. In other words, to get people on buses, we may have to teach them that mass transit is for everyone, not just those who cannot afford a car. Then we have the maintenance costs buses versus streetcars, with buses having considerably higher maitenance costs. The streetcar will cost more to startup, but less to maintain over 20 years.

[Doug Loudenback]

Did you notice, in the video, that I gave you a new name? Use the slider ... 18:50

[Doug Loudenback]

Doug, you should look at the next council meeting and maybe include some of those comments, which I think got even harsher...especially the back-and-forth between Jeff and Pete. (Pete was pretty rude to Jeff)

Thanks, Nick. I missed that one.

[Tier2City]

Doug:

As Spartan points out, you should also look at Pete White's comments at the January 4, 2011 City Council meeting. However, a lot has happened since then, and I would say substantially for the better. For instance, at that same meeting other Council members made important comments about the streetcar and its connectivity.

We've had an Oklahoman editorial and letters to the editor published that were strongly in support of the streetcar and for keeping promises made to the voters. One could interpret that as important stakeholders in the city realizing that if this is what could happen to the most popular MAPS project then what about the least popular?

With all the coverage in all types of media, one could argue that this debate started by Pete has made the project better, clarified its objectives, and further solidified support across the community. Who knows - this debate may even help push the Modern Streetcar definitively to the front of the list of MAPS projects.

I do think you should look at the comments made by Larry McAtee and then by Pete White at the January 18, 2011 City Council meeting. (The video is actually there if you go to the minutes page; Larry starts at 57:00 and Pete finishes on the topic at 1:00:10.) I think it's worth quoting Pete - "I've had some very good contacts with people involved in the Modern Streetcar program about some of the issues I've raised and I too think we will come to a solution that will make us all satisfied under the circumstances that we have the best we can get - again, I say, under the circumstances."

Pete attended all of the Modern Streetcar subcommittee meeting on Wednesday, January 26 where he sat next to Hutch and engaged in animated conversations with him throughout the meeting. At the end of the meeting Pete made a few comments, including specifically thanking the committee for their work. Larry McAtee was also at that meeting and he then commented about how the Modern Streetcar has the full support of Council.

The next day, Thursday, January 27, 1011, Larry spoke at the MAPS 3 Oversight Board meeting (53:50 thru 54:50 and 55:10 thru 55:31) where he commended the work of the subcommittee and emphatically confirmed the commitment to "...a roughly 6-mile transportation system that will have rails in the ground..." Do please watch his full comments - I think they may allay your concerns somewhat.

To my mind, it seems that the current Council fully understands that this issue is also about its credibility in general and, especially seeing Pete's more recent comments, I don't believe there is any current threat to the streetcar or or any other MAPS 3 projects.

But as you and Larry and many others have continually pointed out, the MAPS 3 projects are based on a non-binding resolution that could be changed at any time by a future council. Indeed, Mayor Bob Walkup of Tucson, when he was here for the US Conference of Mayors last summer and talked about the new Tucson modern streetcar system that is about to start construction, warned that the biggest issue is dealing with the future, when current proponents and supporters of streetcar system are gone.

So I for one will be looking very carefully at who is standing for Council come this Monday.

[Kerry]

I actually agree with those who see the Underground as a detriment to sidewalk activity. If it hadn't been recently renovated, I might be more sympathtic towards closing it off.

The renovation has however, turned it back into something that many consider an asset and use daily. So on a personal note, connecting to it is to try to get more ridership on the streetcar by office dwellers. We need those trains absolutly full from day one. So making an easy interface seems like a worthwhile endeavor for helping the initial success of the streetcar. IMO

If we have to connect to it, I already have a stop at the Kerr McGee/Robinson intersection on my layout. The Conncourse is right underneath it so a portal would need to be constructed to get to it. From that stop you could walk underground to most downtown buildings.

[Doug Loudenback]

Tier2City,

Thanks for that excellent report. I watched the 1/4/2011 meeting earlier today, the part of it where Nick & Jeff spoke and Pete & other council members made comments. I will also follow up on your other suggestions. From the sound of it, you seem to think that the matter (that being, hands off of what was promised voters) is under control. Is that your sense?

To expose my ignorance (again), who is Hutch? Doesn't ring a bell.

[Larry OKC]

betts:

Some of this is playing devil's advocate and some are linguring doubts/questions, so bear with me if you will. ... Are there not buses that are designed more like the streetcars (being ADA compliant) that don't require fixed rail? And presumably much cheaper. I'm just not sure how riding a streetcar is suddenly going to convince people they should be riding buses if they don't already do so. Think each form of transportation has its own set of preconceived pros/cons and getting anyone to change those by riding another form doesn't make sense does it? Or does it?

All of that said, I don't really know what the answer is as our buses aren't working and the rubber tired trolleys have pretty much been a failure, so I certainly don't think doing more rubber tired trolleys is the answer. But then again, what is the real difference between a rubber tired trolley and a bus other than asthetics(sp)?

I still wonder about having the same people that are responsible for the buses/trolleys doing the streetcars. Seems to be setting it up to be a failure.

I keep hearing (and have repeated it myself) that costs are higher in the beginning for streetcar, but maintenance etc is less than buses etc etc. But have yet to see the data that supports that. Presume that the Mayor and Council have been privy to the info and just didn't take someone's statement as gospel (no offense intended towards Jeff/Urban and MTP)

[Spartan]

I do legitimately think Pete White's primary concern was avoiding a crappy tourist trolley that serves nobody. I was concerned about his judgment when he made comments about 7-8 people standing at the bus stop at 74th and Santa Fe, and saying that downtown is already developed. From a logical standpoint, it is confusing because either nobody lives downtown (vignette #1) or downtown is already finished and developed (vignette #2) so these are two very contrasting ideas. And then I'm deeply concerned by anyone who thinks downtown is a finished product. Guess they haven't seen an aerial.

I am not however concerned about Pete's perspective on transit. I understand that he wants to improve the lives of the mobility-impaired. I just wish he would take more of a holistic approach. It would be similar to relegating government to pothole-patching to try and look for an immediate transit fix that only meets the needs of the homeless and mobility-impaired. We need to step back and look at the way our city is working for everyone. Just because people have the means to buy a steel box to move around in does not mean they are happy, or that it's best for their own health, so I am arguing that the transit fix needs to appeal to everyone. We need to completely retool our city. OKC needs to be rebuilt to serve people, not cars, and you can't rebuild a city with buses. You have to have the fixed option.

So I completely understand everything Pete was saying. I think it was extremely wrong for him to suggest we can change the ballot, and that's concerning to an extent that the "means" justify the "ends," but I'm not saying his goal or primary concern (the "ends") is not admirable. The biggest concern is, as Jeff suggests, getting some Tea Partier on the horseshoe who is encouraged by Pete's remarks leaving open the possibility of changing the projects and does not have the same motives as Pete, is not as willing to get along as Pete, and is not even willing to "play the game" and act like a councilman. That would be the big concern from this episode.

I just wish Pete would take his concerns even further and ask the harsh questions that perhaps it's not a problem with city services, it's a problem with the city's built environment. If he would ask those questions, then he would reach the natural conclusions that there needs to be a shift in the built environment ultimately. The goal is not a city service. I know that councilmen don't think this way, however. And it's not surprising to me that someone who lives out on Henney Rd would thumb their nose at planning wisdom...

[betts]

Here's some info, albeit from Portland Streetcar, so take it with a grain of salt:

"Streetcars offer higher rider capacity than buses. Examples show that streetcars attract new riders and people who otherwise would not ride a bus. Several streetcar routes in the U.S. are located along former bus routes, and there have been dramatic surges in ridership and development that did not occur when the corridor was served by a bus line. Streetcars run on a fixed guideway line so businesses are more likely to invest in areas with streetcar lines than bus lines. Bus lines can be and often are re-routed. Streetcars therefore serve as a better development catalyst than buses. Streetcar routes are also easier to understand and if you miss a stop it’s easy to find your way back. This is attractive to riders, particularly tourists. Streetcars also offer friendlier boarding options to riders. Due to their low floor design, modern streetcars allow riders with strollers, bicycles, and wheelchairs to board the streetcar more quickly than dealing with a lift or feeling as though they are causing other riders to wait. Streetcars are convenient, comfortable, attractive, and reliable. Streetcars operate on electric lines, not fossil fuels so they are better for our environment and air quality."

This is from a study looking at rail ridership versus bus ridership. It includes a fascinating piece of data:

"After rail service was eliminated in Oklahoma City and its environs, transit use fell 97 percent on a per capita basis."

In most cities served by buses exclusively, transit riding has declined 75 percent over the past 40 years. Exclusive busways have not made much difference absolutely, but they have helped relatively. In 11 areas with updated rail transit facilities, ridership has increased markedly, often by more than 100 percent. In two of these areas, the transit systems are attracting more ridership than they did when gasoline and tires were rationed. It appears that rail transit makes a great difference in ridership attraction, with attendant benefits (38).

Because transit use is a function of travel time, fare, frequency of service, population, and density, increased transit use can not be attributed to rail transit when these other factors are improved. When these service conditions are equal, it is evident that rail transit is likely to attract from 34 percent to 43 percent more riders than will equivalent bus service. The data do not provide explanations for this phenomenon, but other studies and reports suggest that the clearly identifiable rail route; delineated stops that are often protected; more stable, safer, and more comfortable vehicles; freedom from fumes and excessive noise; and more generous vehicle dimensions may all be factors.

http://www.heritagetrolley.org/articleTennyson.htm

I found this regarding the streetcar in San Francisco as well:

"Sometimes, buses are used to handle heavy peakloads, but people often refuse to ride the bus andwait extra for the streetcar instead."

[Larry OKC]

Thanks betts:, am often fond of the enhancing qualities of salt (in some ways the info makes both your & Mr. White's arguments)....LOL

Rail is what people were using and when it vanished, they didn't switch to buses. When both are available, would rather walk or wait for the streetcar rather than take a bus (so even if bus service was expanded, ran on every street etc, people still wouldn't take them). Also, I think the development argument is correct, even if one of the experts during the ULI presentation stated that it may not be the case.

"Streetcars are convenient (to those on the route and their are fewer routes than buses), comfortable, attractive, (buses can be equally so) and reliable (unless if operated by the same folks responsible for the buses)."

"Streetcars operate on electric lines, not fossil fuels so they are better for our environment and air quality." And how is the electricity generated (in OKC, isn't that primarily from fossil fuels)? During 2009, in the U.S., 69% is from fossil fuels (coal = 45%; natural gas = 23%; petro = 1%) Is it more efficient to use the fossil fuels to generate the electricity (streetcars) or direct fuel (buses) ...may balance the increased capacity component?

Again, I don't know, just asking.

BTW, wise move not to engage in a "debate" with Mr. White. Have noticed that whenever a "dialog" starts, council members are fairly quick to shut it down and they usually get the last and most words in. The Mayor often responds very neutrally, "Thank you for your comments/coming down".

[Urban Pioneer]

I still strongly feel that the City should have gone "all in" and went for the comprehensive transit system the Mayor spoke of many times. One that would have addressed Streetcars, Buses etc etc. That is what I was expecting and then we got what we got. How many more years or decades is it going to take before we get that comprehensive plan and probably at a significantly higher cost? Remember that under the original MAPS we were supposed to have had fixed rail too ($16M). With MAPS 3, the cost rose dramatically ($120M). I realize these are not the same type of fixed rail systems and that may certainly account for some of it, but the cost multiplied by a factor of 7.5 in just 16 years. The cost to implement the comprehensive system was $394M. Just doing some quick-n-dirty math, what could be costing $274M to do now, could easily cost $2.055 Billion by then. WOW.

Larry, we're not ready for a multi-county vote to impliment a multi-jurisdictional transit system, authority, and permanent funding source. It's that simple. If you want to volunteer some time, we'll send you to Moore and Yukon to help organize voters for transit. That's the type of campaign that it would take to see your wish above through.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but wishing it so doesn't make it so. We got as much for transit as politically possible in Maps. If you could have swayed the Chamber for a smaller Convention Center, or lost some other project, we could gladly use another $150 million on more streetcar, hub, or built bus shelters. But what your describing doesn't fit into the MAPS program and it's structure.

It is propogating a misnomer just like Mr. White tried to do. He now seems to understand that we are working hard to establish THE precedent that will enable broad public support for implementation of the greater multi-city masterplan.