Streetcar

[soonerguru]

Ready when you are. I'm just asking questions. I've got no say in the matter. Onward!

And I have no more say than you do! The point I was trying to make is that this isn't going to be some super-complicated system of routes. Legibility is a legitimate concern, but we are going to have FIXED transit for a change. That is an advantage of rail-based transit. It doesn't move. People will very quickly figure out the route and legibility will not be a problem.

I lived in New York, and I've traveled there dozens of times, and yet I STILL check out the subway map. Not on the 6 Train, or whatever train I normally ride, but when I use another route. New Yorkers will readily admit that they check out the subway maps all the time.

What we're building here will be nowhere near as complex. I think legibility -- while a valid concern -- is something we don't need to worry about with our little OKC streetcar.

[CaptDave]

As a frequent transit rider in cities all over the world, I don't think our humble streetcar is going to be that complicated to understand. Perhaps quality signage will ameliorate your concerns about confusion.

OKC residents will be the first to catch on to the routes. Tourists may need to look at a map. But we're not building a complicated maze of routes. I think the "legibility" argument is a sound one, but is being stretched to hyperbolic extremes here.

Can we just get some damn tracks in the ground and move forward?

By the way, if you want to have a good discussion about the lack of legibility, check out our bus routes. Completely insane. And no signage. And when you hit the website on your mobile device there is no easy map to download. "Legibility" in transit has not been a strong suit in our city, and I would argue that the streetcar route will make far more sense to average folks than our current system.

My point exactly. There is absolutely nothing illogical or complicated about the proposed streetcar route. Continually repeating that fallacy does not make it suddenly become true. In fact it is somewhat insulting to continually say people in OKC can't figure the Zeta route out. If anything, the near perfect street grid in OKC lends itself very well to exactly the type of route proposed because of the inherent legibility of a simple grid.

[CaptDave]

A Pedestrian/Transit Mall concept:



One of the really obvious factors of this kind of a proposal is if we could get the frequencies down to 5 minutes or less, we'd have some serious connectivity going on all along Sheridan from the east end of Bricktown all the way through Film Row.

Less obvious though... this actually connects to the rail line just east of 235. So expansion to the Adventure Line might be able to be accomplished on Sheridan? If that is indeed possible, for an 'adventure' line, that might end up being a better connection into Bricktown anyway. Just a thought.

The white polygon is just me putting a maintenance facility in. This is 1.75 miles (3.5 tracked miles). Denver's Mall is about 1.5 miles (3 track miles).

Phase II could be a N/W Walker or Robinson spine.

WTH? Just because a route is not arrow straight does not make it inherently difficult to understand. People around the world figure out how to use transit systems with these crazy things called turns and transfers and crossings every day. I managed to figure out Chicago's L at 10PM the first time I went there, I managed to make a few transfers on DC's Metro to get where I wanted to go, I even deciphered a couple of systems in Korea without much signage in English, and Rome 20 years ago as well. Same in Atlanta, Dallas, CA, and other places. This, from a person who drives around in a car 99.999% of the time and is fairly representative of most OKC citizens. One doesn't need to be dependent on transit to quickly understand how best to use a given system.

Sorry, but arguing Zeta (or any of the routes proposed) is somehow more complicated than an average person can decipher is wrong. If it looked like many of our bus routes then I could see your point. But honestly I cannot figure out why you are being so intransigent on this issue. There are going to be compromises made in any route selected and we cannot posibly reach every desirable destination right now, but people will adapt and figure out how to use it according to their individual needs and later the system will expand to other places thereby making it even more useful. Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree on the sequence of building routes in OKC's streetcar system.

[CaptDave]

I never said people couldn't figure it out. Please don't put words into my mouth. There is a point at which making a decision to figure out and even risk making an error will cause potential riders to just walk short distances instead.

Anyone can eventually figure out even the most complex system. The #50 route is confusing. I know it is cause I use it all the time and people all the time say it is while on the bus. They look at the little paper pamphlet for a few minutes and then eventually asks the driver "does this go to the Myriad Botanical Gardens?" I watched people stare at the maps on the sidewalk many times and then walk away from the stop. Perhaps they were curious and just reading it. Or perhaps they just didn't get convinced to use it -- for whatever reason. That's all I was addressing. Not suggesting OKC people can't figure it out. I am suggesting however that in a city with such a low number of transit riders, that patience threshold might be lower. Perhaps not?

OK, but when you constantly use words such as "illogical" and "illegible" to describe a simple route like Zeta, what other conclusion as to your intent is expected?

I am fairly certain people will be more than willing to spend a few seconds to determine how to use the new streetcar to their advantage. Frequent riders will be more than willing to help anyone with questions - that's kind of what Oklahomans do.

I do agree with you that getting the highest frequency possible on any route will be very important. The streetcar must be the most convenient option or it will not garner the hoped for ridership. IIRC we will purchase 6 or 7 vehicles for this first 5-6 miles of streetcar. If one vehicle is out of service for maintenance, assume 6 are running. That would put frequency at approximately 5-7 minutes (assuming an average speed of around 15 mph). That is probably about right for the circulator but I would increase it if possible. Try to get service intervals under 5 minutes around the circulator might be a good goal.

As far as the patience threshold, I think it will be pretty high. The streetcar is going to attract a lot of attention and an awful lot of people will want to try it out. By and large people around here are a patient lot and will understand if there is an occasional hiccup in the early operational stage. Going back to the frequency issue, if 5-7 minutes can be maintained by the operators, I think that is within most peoples time they are willing to wait. Once they ride it a time or two, they will start to see shortcuts or tricks within the system they will exploit to their advantage.

Sorry if I sounded harsh earlier - I didn't mean it that way. I am honestly trying to understand your reasoning but simply cannot.

[Spartan]

All good points. I agree to disagree. And I don't care if I sound smart or knowledgeable in what's trendy in transit today. You know I don't have the education you do. I'm telling you how I feel and what I think as a daily transit user.

Surprise me with something new. But don't try to ask for "public support" when no discussion is being had really about the holistic solution. The FGS was the first and last time it was done from a downtown perspective. The conversation today for me, only confirmed my concerns. We are banking on a massive amount of transit investment and (I feel) missing out on an opportunity to do something more meaningful now.

It's my armchair perspective.

I'm not saying no one will use it downtown. In fact, about 15 minutes ago I was telling people I think there will be riders. You're making my point though. I'm ready to take current, high capacity or high use corridors (existing or hidden) and make them dignified. We're on the same page there. I'm just asking that it not be an island of dignity. That it celebrate our current system and offer said dignity for as many current and future riders as possible.

Who said I don't see how OKC has changed? Not sure what you mean there. I think I've got a pretty good grasp of how this area has changed. Having a lot of people driving downtown isn't what I'm going for. I'm going for a lot of people able to get to downtown, car free. A park and ride centered in downtown isn't my brand of transit. If that makes me old-school, okay.

Sid, what do you think we need to be celebrating and loving about our current bus system? It's all a piece of warped junk. I am shocked that the Nelson Nygaard study, which I'll admit I just haven't had time to read, isn't pushing for a grid system. That said, we know how these consultants work in telling us what we want to hear regardless of the project, and I sense that the bus advocates are hostile to a grid system which I don't understand why. OKC was built on a grid. It's transit needs should be served on the same grid, rather than routes that meander past all the Wal-Marts between the outer fringe and the bus transfer center.

This seems like a very circular notion of being hostile to talk of changes to bus service and then dramatically withholding support for the streetcar because we're not talking about bus solutions. Where I'm coming from is that I am curious how you'd feel about a limited service boundary inside I-240 and the NW Expwy, within which we can offer excellent service, outside which we should offer none. Then we keep building important social service facilities distant from existing bus routes, so I hope that we don't expect to create a new route for all of that, too.

[Spartan]

Answer me this...

Is it just because this new TOD is so shiny and new that people who live down here just don't get it? Sure, we tend to make friends with people who agree with use (I suppose) and I'm here to tell you, I'm concerned there isn't a ton of excitement from people who do live down here.

I'm not fishing for feedback tuned to my bias. People who have seen the plans are very willing to come out and say they are flat out confused or worse.

I've got an inbox full of emails from people telling me how grateful they were for publicly asking for a more transit-centric solution. Something to help people get to downtown and use the amenities.

If the "TOD method" is the slam-dunk new way of doing transit, I'd submit that it is going to need better spokespeople and explanation.

Sid, could you post a few emails to explain? The notion that people are confused is a little fuzzy, and frankly, I'm right there with them.

OKC is still sprawling and migrating its population base further and further away from downtown. I don't know how you plan to improve OKC without addressing its sprawl. I think the best way to do that is to provide an agreeable, market-based impetus to get those housing units planned for Moore or Deer Creek to be built in downtown instead.

It sounds like you want transit without TOD, which you only get by doing transit the way it's been done in OKC since the 1950s, and ensuring that the built environment and transit are as separate as possible. When you connect transit to the built environment is when you are creating TOD, which isn't at all a new concept. Cleveland was talking and building TOD back in the 1920s. Chicago was one massive TOD.

So we're not just talking about some shiny new thing we want to see. It's an advanced, proven concept that will work in turning OKC's built environment around. It's nothing to be derisive toward.

[Spartan]

A Pedestrian/Transit Mall concept:



One of the really obvious factors of this kind of a proposal is if we could get the frequencies down to 5 minutes or less, we'd have some serious connectivity going on all along Sheridan from the east end of Bricktown all the way through Film Row.

Less obvious though... this actually connects to the rail line just east of 235. So expansion to the Adventure Line might be able to be accomplished on Sheridan? If that is indeed possible, for an 'adventure' line, that might end up being a better connection into Bricktown anyway. Just a thought.

The white polygon is just me putting a maintenance facility in. This is 1.75 miles (3.5 tracked miles). Denver's Mall is about 1.5 miles (3 track miles).

Phase II could be a N/W Walker or Robinson spine.

I like this. If you were talking about a Broadway-Robinson spine, you'd have me completely on board.

[warreng88]

I am curious as to how many streetcars will be running at a time. I would guess six to make it effecient, but I am not sure. Also, will there be specific stops or will there be something to alert the driver if someone wants to get off? What will the time between cars at stops be? 5 minutes? 10? Rubber-tire trolley times where you never know when the next one is coming around?

[Spartan]

Rail has very advanced ways of staying on sched regardless of traffic and stops. I think in SF you can drive in the trolley lane but if it comes you better get over, if i remember right. I'm excited that soon conservative Ohio will have a streetcar model that will win a LOT of cities over, in the same way that Tulsa will probably magically find funding for its own city after OKC has success w this.

As for a stop request button, that almost always comes standard and easily marked.

[CaptDave]

I am curious as to how many streetcars will be running at a time. I would guess six to make it effecient, but I am not sure. Also, will there be specific stops or will there be something to alert the driver if someone wants to get off? What will the time between cars at stops be? 5 minutes? 10? Rubber-tire trolley times where you never know when the next one is coming around?

I threw six streetcars out as a guess. It was just a quick estimate of service interval based on a SWAG of average speed, route distance, and not much more. Besides it was very late. It may not be exactly right but seemed to make sense. I think service frequency should be about 5 minutes - less if practical during peak times. I think it is achievable within the budget of the MAPS3 project but there are more qulified people that can answer that better than my guess.

I know discussions about including a system that gives streetcars priority at stoplights have been ongoing. That makes sense and should be rather easy to implement and would be one of the primary methods of keeping service intervals low.

[Tier2City]

Headway (time between streetcars arriving a stop) would most likely be 10 minutes (you may see 8-12 minutes quoted in places). The number of streetcars is then dictated by what is needed to maintain that headway with an extra streetcar as a spare/in maintenance. So we are probably looking at a five cars for Phase 1.

[Spartan]

I dont think 5 min is reasonable to expect, but thats fantastic if so. Id expect 10 min freq.

[Rover]

My observation is car to parking garage to car. LOL. Just kidding.

I know you are kidding, but that is the problem. Those who commute in during the day who are coming in to go to work will still do exactly that unless we make all new parking at the perimeter of the routes and force them to use the transit system to get to their point. Do they expand their lunch area by having transit or do they still go to lunch within a block or two because they have 45 min for lunch anyway? At night, will people from outside the transit routes park and go to multiple places, or will they drive close to their destination anyway. If it ties to the bus system, will the people who go to the restaurants in Btown and Midtown, or who go to the Civic Center or to Thunder games arrive to the system via the buses, or will they still attempt to park close to their ultimate destination?

I don't think the issue of route design is CAN they go multiple places by having the line, but WILL they. Will it be last mile, or will they still attempt to park close? If it is fed by other transit, where are those people going and are they frequenting the services made more available by the location of the line? Do the demographics match up?

[CaptDave]

Headway (time between streetcars arriving a stop) would most likely be 10 minutes (you may see 8-12 minutes quoted in places). The number of streetcars is then dictated by what is needed to maintain that headway with an extra streetcar as a spare/in maintenance. So we are probably looking at a five cars for Phase 1.

Thanks for clarifying/correcting that. I could not remember the number of cars included in MAPS3 Phase I. 8-12 minute headway is not unreasonable and maybe will eventually get closer to five minutes in time. I suppose that could be accomplished by a couple methods the simplest of which is adding a couple cars to the Phase I & II route.

Another way to decrease headway (my new word for today!) on the circulator might be the additional cars coming into downtown from other locations as the systems expands. For example, if someone needed to get from Midtown to Myriad Garden, and if the system is expanded NW to the Plaza District or OCU, they could catch a car coming in from those more distant locations and need not wait for the cars running only on the circulator loop. There are many possibilities for this system to grow and increase service for OKC residents eventually.

[CaptDave]

I know you are kidding, but that is the problem. Those who commute in during the day who are coming in to go to work will still do exactly that unless we make all new parking at the perimeter of the routes and force them to use the transit system to get to their point. Do they expand their lunch area by having transit or do they still go to lunch within a block or two because they have 45 min for lunch anyway? At night, will people from outside the transit routes park and go to multiple places, or will they drive close to their destination anyway. If it ties to the bus system, will the people who go to the restaurants in Btown and Midtown, or who go to the Civic Center or to Thunder games arrive to the system via the buses, or will they still attempt to park close to their ultimate destination?

I don't think the issue of route design is CAN they go multiple places by having the line, but WILL they. Will it be last mile, or will they still attempt to park close? If it is fed by other transit, where are those people going and are they frequenting the services made more available by the location of the line? Do the demographics match up?

I think you may have just described how people's usage of the system will evolve Rover. They may start out by trying to park front door until after a while people start to realize there is no need to do so any longer when they see a streetcar go by during their search for that perfect parking spot. That is just one example, but I think once it is operational people will eventually chose it for the purposes you describe once they break their prior habits.

[CaptDave]

Are there any Streetcars running faster than 10 minute headways in the US?

Good question. I wonder what exactly is considered minimum acceptable or the standard. What headway is considered a "high performance" system? Sounds like I have a little research project for the day.

I am still trying to catch up to some of the more knowledgeable members on the technical details. My perspective is usually that of a transit consumer.

[Rover]

While I am far from a transit expert, the problems I see in this thread are similar to marketing issues I see in inventors and new product development. The inventor focuses on the object and how great it can be instead of the actual market for the object. They have great ideas about what people SHOULD do and little information on what people WILL do. We tend to focus on data and look for answers that fit our preconceived notion of what it means. The questions I am asking are relative to setting expectations. Without proper setting of expectations we will argue about whether the results, whatever they are, represent success or failure and whether we should expand the system or keep it as an image enhancer and toy. Without execution to a specific target, and without proper expectations, we will have divisive arguments over design and expenses for decades and it will eventually fail.

[CaptDave]

Interesting - I see where you are coming from Rover. You certainly cannot gage success by how much money any transportation mode makes generally speaking. Ridership data is definitely part of it but not the only way to evaluate it. TOD is a component but more of a long term data point. I don't think many people disagree the streetcar represents a quality of life improvement, but how is that measured? Transit is something that requires "fuzzy" logic to judge success I suppose even though hard data is available for some aspects of it. It is definitely not as easy as P&L.

[Spartan]

Are there any Streetcars running faster than 10 minute headways in the US?

The Red Line in Cleveland runs every 5 min during rush hour but thats LRT. I'd bet Portland ramps up freq for rush periods, maybe even Blazers games, etc. keep in mind OKC and Portland have far more in common than people realize, incl being rabid NBA towns.

[Just the facts]

Maybe instead of trying to figure out 'last mile' the initial phase should serve 'first mile'. Find the center of the neighborhood with the highest population density, map the daily transit pattern of those people, and then replicate that path with the streetcar. If you want break it down into daytime and nighttime populations then do the same thing with both groups and connect their routes at the transit hub.

[soonerguru]

Maybe instead of trying to figure out 'last mile' the initial phase should serve 'first mile'. Find the center of the neighborhood with the highest population density, map the daily transit pattern of those people, and then replicate that path with the streetcar. If you want break it down into daytime and nighttime populations then do the same thing with both groups and connect their routes at the transit hub.

Oh Good Lord the semantics are getting thick. It's a downtown streetcar. Call it the first mile, the middle mile, or the last mile, it's still a downtown streetcar, and it's what we voted for. The subcommittee has tried to balance density (for early ridership) with TOD opportunity. The route that seems to be favored does both. Also, we're not just building for the city we are today, we're building for the city we're going to become. Does anyone think Deep Deuce will be the last district to see major residential development in Downtown? Of course not (and by the way, Deep Deuce is going to have stops within fairly easy walking distance). Just the Facts, you made what I thought was a thoughtful critique of MAPS being voted on way too far in advance, so by the time projects come online they don't fit the city we've become. I would argue that the planned streetcar route takes into account this growth, not just what we see today.

Keep in mind the earliest the streetcar will be operational is 2017. The mind boggles how much new housing we will have seen come online downtown by then, not to mention thousands of new hotel rooms, new office towers, new retail, new restaurants, etc. Linking, say, Bricktown to Midtown via Automobile Alley may not seem like a big deal today, but imagine what we're going to be looking at in four years! Literally thousands of new residents, thousands of new hotel visitors, thousands of new office workers, a new public school, and a new university law school. That's what we already know is happening today! Ridership is not going to be a problem.

I know we're all afraid this is going to be screwed up because we have PTSD from past developments in OKC, but of all the concerns, ridership should not be one of them. We're going to have riders, lots and lots and lots of them. All you have to do is look at the numbers. I feel more confident about this now than I ever have, and I've supported this project from Day One.

[Just the facts]

Since we have to start somewhere why don't we start where the people are? If people might be at location X in 5 years then in 5 years we might put a streetcar there. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[soonerguru]

Since we have to start somewhere why don't we start where the people are? If people might be at location X in 5 years then in 5 years we might put a streetcar there. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

You keep saying this but the route scoring is based on density. The streetcar won't even be in the ground for almost five years, so why would we limit our scope to where people are today? This is a circular argument.

[Rover]

I am following JTF on this and he is kind of saying what I am saying. (I can't believe I just said that ) You have to figure out where the people likely to use the system are going ... both from and to. You either build it to serve them or build it to influence development of things that appeal to that demographic segment and enable access to those things through cheap and reliable transit. Transit serves no purpose if it doesn't enable people to go where they want to go, safely, cheaply and reliably on the schedules they want. So, without knowing their transit destinations we know nothing. We should know where people who are likely users originate and what their movement patterns are. OR, build the route and then encourage development of compatible services along that route. Otherwise, it is just an amusement park ride.

[Spartan]

I don't understand what specific planning recommendations you guys have for the first vs. last mile problem... If you're not just making noise, be more specific in your outrage over this streetcar process.