Adventure District Rail Line

[venture]

Interesting proposal. The DMU/Commuter Rail option definitely talked down quite heavily in it. Though you would think if the money is going to be spent, why not get it done now instead of coming back down the road having to shell out the needed money to upgrade the line for commuter rail.

[OKVision4U]

"Rapid streetcar" is streetcars in light rail format going higher speeds and in its own right-of-way. The ADL study call for it in that form except in areas where in needs to go out of the right-of-way to meet FRA compliance in interacting with heavy rail.

So we are essentially proposing light rail as an alternative to "excursion" rail on the NE Line as you suggest. The only difference between standard light rail and standard streetcars are a smaller vehicle with less passenger capacity. Additional units can be added as needed.

Here is a link to the entire completed initial study that is going up for a vote tomorrow before city council. http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/view.as...fileid=2060457

Light Rail is NOT being proposed for the NE Line? ...and is the DMU the alternative?

[Urban Pioneer]

Light rail IS (IE: Rapid Streetcar) being proposed and DMU as an alternative. No preference given to either. Just illustrations as to what the options are.

[Urban Pioneer]

For what it is worth, it now comes down to Councilman Pettis identifying the level of service that he would like to see in Ward 7. So in a sense, some of these decisions are now political. Who are your partners along the line? How many stops do you need to have? Who at the end of the line needs service and what is in their various master plans that has not been incorporated into the current study?

This study "T's" up the the councilman to have a broader discussion with his constituents and ultimately it is the level of service that will determine the mode. Final cost and ongoing O&M, of course, will be the other major factor.

[OKVision4U]

Light rail IS (IE: Rapid Streetcar) being proposed and DMU as an alternative. No preference given to either. Just illustrations as to what the options are.

Big THANKS Mr. Pioneer. No debate here. Just getting some clarity. lol.

[Urban Pioneer]

No problem. It comes down to whether they want this to be an "excursion train" that connects two distant districts together, or whether they want more frequent stops with more Ward 7 neighborhood oriented service.

Traffic modeling does not provide a significant measurement of flow to and from this area. Therefore, it did not register in the 2005 FGS or other studies. If this is done, it is to act as a neighborhood and / or District stimulus and would be anticipating resulting stimulated growth.

The one element that causes it to have such resonance, is that the right-of-way itself exists. That is the one thing that causes it to be of such interest. The most expensive component of most light rail or commuter rail projects is not an issue. Therefore, not having that huge cost associated with obtaining that right-of-way significantly elevates these proposals into the realm of reason.

[OKVision4U]

No problem. It comes down to whether they want this to be an "excursion train" that connects two distant districts together, or whether they want more frequent stops with more Ward 7 neighborhood oriented service.

Traffic modeling does not provide a significant measurement of flow to and from this area. Therefore, it did not register in the 2005 FGS or other studies. If this is done, it is to act as a neighborhood and / or District stimulus and would be anticipating resulting stimulated growth.

The one element that causes it to have such resonance, is that the right-of-way itself exists. That is the one thing that causes it to be of such interest. The most expensive component of most light rail or commuter rail projects is not an issue. Therefore, not having that huge cost associated with obtaining that right-of-way significantly elevates these proposals into the realm of reason.

I am 100% with you on this ROW element. The RR are just historical headaches & they slow the progress of many (prositive initiatives) way down. Any way we can bypass them, the better. IMO.

[HOT ROD]

Tacoma Link is a rapid streetcar, hence it is often referred to as simply 'light rail'. Sid, I could totally see a Tacoma Link type of setup using your route as it would be cheaper than 'heavy' light rail AND we could have it interact with Meridian north of the river if so desired (me personally, I don't think it is that big of a deal as in the current rendering its less than a mile from the core hotel area - easily walkable).

I think more stops are needed in the inner city Eastside area and perhaps one or two more in the inner city Southside, but those are semantics and overall I totally love sid's route as rapid streetcar.

[hoya]

Remember that the streetcar network in OKC in the early 19th century was more extensive mileage wise than the starter route we're building or the length of this route. I could see streetcar being feasible. But, yes, for the route you've drawn, if not a commuter route on existing track at various spots, then light rail would have to be used in that ROW.

I didn't think we had streetcars in OKC 200 years ago. Learn something new every day.

[Just the facts]

I love mass transit as much as the nest person and take it every time I have a chance but I still don't see why someone would ride a train from downtown to a station in NE OKC and transfer to a shuttle bus that drops them off in a large free parking lot - with no way to walk to another Adventure District attraction without waiting for the shuttle bus again. In my opinion, attractions in the AD are too far apart once you get there to make mass transit serving the area viable. It would be different if once you got there everything was within walking distance but nothing is except maybe the Zoo and Science Museum. I know from personal experience that after hauling a couple of kids around the OKC zoo in the summer the last thing (and I mean the last thing) I would want to do is wait for a shuttle bus to take me back to a train that I have to wait again for.

If I suggested to my wife that we take this transit option she would tell me to go ahead, she is taking the car and will meet me there.

And sorry, but using a ROW simply because it exist is the worst idea ever. You have to go where the people want to go and where ridership will exist. You can build a train where it is easy but that doesn't mean anyone will ride it. WRWA has way more potential for ridership and should be built 20 years before the adventure line.

Now if it is going to be a line serving neighborhoods along the way - which high density neighborhoods would that be?

[OKVision4U]

I love mass transit as much as the nest person and take it every time I have a chance but I still don't see why someone would ride a train from downtown to a station in NE OKC and transfer to a shuttle bus that drops them off in a large free parking lot - with no way to walk to another Adventure District attraction without waiting for the shuttle bus again. In my opinion, attractions in the AD are too far apart once you get there to make mass transit serving the area viable. It would be different if once you got there everything was within walking distance but nothing is except maybe the Zoo and Science Museum. I know from personal experience that after hauling a couple of kids around the OKC zoo in the summer the last thing (and I mean the last thing) I would want to do is wait for a shuttle bus to take me back to a train that I have to wait again for.

If I suggested to my wife that we take this transit option she would tell me to go ahead, she is taking the car and will meet me there.

And sorry, but using a ROW simply because it exist is the worst idea ever. You have to go where the people want to go and where ridership will exist. You can build a train where it is easy but that doesn't mean anyone will ride it. WRWA has way more potential for ridership and should be built 20 years before the adventure line.

Now if it is going to be a line serving neighborhoods along the way - which high density neighborhoods would that be?

I agree. WRWA is one of the obvious assets that requires development. ( another reason Rail Road use makes all things more difficult ). Light Rail is a must in the selection of moving people ( large density first ) w/ WRWA to Downtown / Norman -OKC -Edmond / and HIgh Value Economic Districts.

[rlewis]

I love mass transit as much as the nest person and take it every time I have a chance but I still don't see why someone would ride a train from downtown to a station in NE OKC and transfer to a shuttle bus that drops them off in a large free parking lot - with no way to walk to another Adventure District attraction without waiting for the shuttle bus again. In my opinion, attractions in the AD are too far apart once you get there to make mass transit serving the area viable. It would be different if once you got there everything was within walking distance but nothing is except maybe the Zoo and Science Museum. I know from personal experience that after hauling a couple of kids around the OKC zoo in the summer the last thing (and I mean the last thing) I would want to do is wait for a shuttle bus to take me back to a train that I have to wait again for.

If I suggested to my wife that we take this transit option she would tell me to go ahead, she is taking the car and will meet me there.

And sorry, but using a ROW simply because it exist is the worst idea ever. You have to go where the people want to go and where ridership will exist. You can build a train where it is easy but that doesn't mean anyone will ride it. WRWA has way more potential for ridership and should be built 20 years before the adventure line.

Now if it is going to be a line serving neighborhoods along the way - which high density neighborhoods would that be?

I feel the same way about this line as well. The customer base of the various businesses in the Adventure District is not in the downtown area. The customers are in the immediate neighborhoods and in suburbs such as Edmond. The existing track goes through no-man's land, and it terminates way too far from all the major attractions with the exception of the Softball Hall of Fame. It would be a four to six block walk to the east for the residents in that part of the city just to get to the track area. They might as well walk north to the Adventure District directly. The only attraction that would generate significant ridership from this line would be the Softball HOF during its big events. However, that adds up to only a few weeks every year.

I would much rather see money be spent on connecting the suburbs to the system before a line is established to the AD. Once the suburbs are connected, then the line may be more viable. However, I still don't like the proposed line even with the suburbs in the mix. Without regard to cost, I would rather see an extension of the streetcar that runs from downtown to the OUHSC, on to the Capitol, continue north up Lincoln, turn east onto 36th or 50th, and then turn north again on MLK. Going up the spine of the district on MLK would allow it to serve all of the major AD businesses.

[AP]

I guess I can see the appeal for an AD line, I just don't understand why it is prioritized over other transit that would benefit OKC.

[venture]

Echoing what others are saying, I would also add that the AD line appears to be one that would work - with a full network roll out. At least then you also have the option to divert assets (trains) to routes with more traffic while other routes slow down.

I'm just worried if this is put out there, and fails after spending $50-80 million, how badly is it going to sour the area on rail and put off the more substantial rail options (Norman, Edmond, WRWA, MWC, etc).

[Urban Pioneer]

I wouldn't trip out too much folks. Doing the study essentially gives the city what the options are with it and subsequently will help "protect it" for future generations should Councilman Pettis not develop consensus with his constituents and demonstrate where the funding would come from to build it.

Plus, it has helped us illustrate further detail about what a aerial ramp connection to the Santa Fe Hub might entail. The same E/W connections / corridors needed for commuter rail to Tinker and potential rail to Tulsa.

The study was accepted unanimously this morning and gives us a much higher level of detail as to what is involved not only throughout ward 7, but also the connections to the hub in Bricktown.

It will help us negotiate with Union Pacific on all these other matters.

[venture]

Who would actually be operating the trains? Is this something the city is going to do, or are we looking at something like Chicago where BNSF operates the commuter train on their rails and Union Pacific operates it on theirs? If it was in the report, my apologizes for speed reading.

[Urban Pioneer]

Initially COTPA uhhh.... I'm mean EMBARK! But it could be done in the form of the Regional RTA or the Adventure District Association to subcontract directly with someone to run them. If its rapid streetcar, then it would presumably be part of the overall MAPS 3 streetcar system.

[ljbab728]

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/3891305?embargo=1

A streetcar running from Bricktown through northeast Oklahoma City on the “adventure line” would have limited value as a tool for economic development, a study prepared for the city says.
Only the streetcar has potential to foster mixed-use development at transit stops along the adventure line, the study found.

That potential is limited, though.

Such development would occur “only at the downtown stops and only if it is part of a broader city effort to facilitate redevelopment,” the study says.

[Cocaine]

why would a street car only be needed to spur development? Isn't the point kind of a street car to improve public transportation?

[ljbab728]

why would a street car only be needed to spur development? Isn't the point kind of a street car to improve public transportation?

But the point is that would spur development.

[betts]

I disagree that it would only spur development at the downtown stops. This study was done primarily as an engineering study and didn't look at economic development in any depth. I think it would likely facilitate development at any stops. I see this line as possibly having a fourfold advantage: provide access to the Adventure District for downtown visitors and residents (which would be a great amenity for convention-goers), potentially offer park and ride option with all the day parking at Remington Park and Tinseltown, provide transit for residents of NE Oklahoma City and offer economic development opportunities for stops along the line. I think that this line might have a great chance of getting federal funds since it would offer transit to the NE side and connects to the intermodal hub.

[Spartan]

why would a street car only be needed to spur development? Isn't the point kind of a street car to improve public transportation?

No

[Just the facts]

So let's say the line gets built, where would the new high-density TOD get built?

[hoya]

If you're going to do a streetcar, there's a lot of better options than that rail line. I followed in on Google Maps, and there's several miles of industrial, and gravel pits, and stuff like that. None of it is pretty to look at. I think you'd be better off going down Reno to the new bus station, and then straight up MLK, all the way to the zoo.

[catch22]

It's not just an existing right of way, it's an existing rail. Very little modification ($$$) needs to be spent to get that line working again. The cost to buy new rail and place it in the street would be hundreds of millions. (more than the MAPS3 streetcar budget). The streetcar can run on that line as it is. All you need is a power source and some small modifications to certain areas of the line.