Core to Shore

[Urban Pioneer]

ACOG Hub Committee meeting. The next one I believe is on the 15th. We are trying to coordinate the streetcar subcommittee and Hub meetings as they conflict on that day though. A public meeting is planned inside of Santa Fe station on the 16th though about the hub project.

[HOT ROD]

Urban, that sounds like a wonderful idea and I think NWX and Classen thrufares are 'natural' light rail corridors (and possibly the ONLY ones that exist today in OKC) - BUT

I also agree with the critics that we should START that light rail corridor with bus. Begin with Express bus to build ridership. Once critical mass is achieved, then we move to Commuter Bus (which is expanded Express Bus for those who are not aware [express runs during rush hours and has very limited stops, commuter bus runs more frequently and moreso through the day and typically has a few more stops than express]). I wouldn't feel very good (and neither would the feds/state) by OKC planning to JUST build a light rail line without first having critical mass numbers/transit users built up along the corridor first. And no doubt, such a light rail line (even if it is so-called Expanded/Rapid Streetcar - which I think is a horrible idea given the distance/just build LRT) will require monies above what MAPS could/SHOULD contribute.

I honestly think/hope that MAPS IV capitalizes on the MAPS III Streetcar portion, and is more or less a TRANSIT MAPS for the region - with the suburbs chipping in this time (at least where the lines would likely go).

[Spartan]

It hasn't really affected it at all with exception of the Park subcommittee. They have specifically asked that we go down and interface with the park. At a minimum, we will be at Robinson, which is a block away. Integrating transit into the new Boulevard may offer expansion possibilities, but because the design process for it has not begun yet, it hasn't been a debated item.

So C2S as it stands by itself as an "idea" has not swayed Phase 1, 2, or 3 streetcar conceptual routes as of yet. Obviously, that could change, but the "drivers" have not been there specifically.

Well I am sure that other developments are a factor, but I imagine the subcommittee would weigh them just the same as other developments (or weigh the ones that actually exist now a little more).

But I do think that a streetcar line through C2S that connects Capitol Hill would be a better way to catalyze development in there than by throwing all of our resources there when the park and convention center might make more sense in different spots.

[betts]

Actually, one of the most interesting things that came out of the hub meeting yesterday is that bus rapid transit is about as expensive to implement as the streetcar: 10 to 20 million per mile. So, to me, bus rapid transit should be off the table in most discussions.

[Spartan]

Actually, one of the most interesting things that came out of the hub meeting yesterday is that bus rapid transit is about as expensive to implement as the streetcar: 10 to 20 million per mile. So, to me, bus rapid transit should be off the table in most discussions.

110% agree. BRT is a sham that plays on people's hesitation to make the plunge into real transit. It is basically about avoiding fixed guideway transit at all costs, even if those costs become higher than rail transit.

I don't think that is saying that LRT needs to be on the table though, but I think we can all hopefully settle on the fast streetcar concept. In some European cities they're called "snell trams" (snell means "fast" in many languages). I've seen them all over the Netherlands.

[BoulderSooner]

LRT 100% needs to be on the table ... in a few directions NW for one it is the only real option

[Urban Pioneer]

And no doubt, such a light rail line (even if it is so-called Expanded/Rapid Streetcar - which I think is a horrible idea given the distance/just build LRT)

This comment puzzled me a bit. Rapid Streetcar is LRT. The difference between a "Dart type" LRT and Rapid streetcar is cost.

There is nothing wrong with Rapid Streetcar from a design standpoint in an existing vehicular lane or a protected lane on corridor such as NW Expressway or Classen. In fact, it would have "less impact." The difference between the two is that the rail for "Dart type" is a heavy gauge because the vehicles are heavier and they tend to be in more of a protected alignment. Because the rail itself is larger, it is more invasive and requires more cost for site preparation.

If we wanted to use the MAPS streetcar line as a "inbound" section, we would have to spend more money on heavier track and such. Even DART is considering Rapid Streetcar as a more cost effective alternative.

Many of the streetcars themselves are designed so that more car units can be sandwiched in between thus creating a Dart type capacity vehicle. But it wouldn't make every local stop in downtown or else it would take forever to get there and the stops would have to over sized.

Anyways, it is something to consider and will take more study. Probably too complicated to get into detail on this C2S thread.

[HOT ROD]

I personally think people are getting too cute with regard to all of this hybrid naming of things. Streetcar is a streetcar, Light Rail is light rail. There is a difference in the two, and as someone who has ridden both and whose city has both - I can attest there are major differences, most of which come from capacity and transit times.

It is rather stupid IMO to build a Streetcar/Tram longer than a 5 mile journey, because of the nature of Streetcar (frequent stops, small capacity). Streetcar is basically one step above a bus, the benefit of which it shares with LRT in that the rails are fixed. But it is what it is, and Streetcar has too many stops and too small of vehicles to be considered for long distance or 'metro' type of operations. Who would want to be on a Streetcar for the duration of NWX into downtown - something that most likely would take over one hour given the stops and likely would be a white elephant given the headways.

this is why I say, just plan for the NWX to be light rail. LRT will be cheaper in OKC anyways, and with LRT you can plan for a 'metro' like system with stops every mile. If you all are afraid that OKC will not fill up a Light Rail train, then just use one car/pair instead of running hour long Streetcar runs.

If you're going to have limited stops along NWX (say, every mile - which makes sense), then you might as well do it as LRT. NWX and Classen are 'classic' LRT corridors with traffic separation you can run trains in the median and be able to have 'shorter' trip durations using 'higher' capacity LRT cars and less frequent stops (say 1 mile along NWX, major destination hubs/streets in the inner city).

Streetcar is a great idea for downtown and the inner city, given the frequent stops and short distances. But over the 3 mile trip threshold, Streetcar starts to lose its appeal. This may all be speculation, but I think it is important for the city to plan for an overall transit network. And we need to capitalize on technology that exists and use the best of whats out there for our needs and not "force" technology to do extended service just because we are scared about usage and/or cost.

In the long run, I think 'Rapid' Streetcar would fail - because its name 'rapid' is a misnomer. Streetcar by definition and design is ALREADY rapid, and what the 'Rapid Streetcar' people are really pitching is "Extended/Long Range Streetcar" - which by nature will fail (small cars/low capacity, long distances, lengthy headways, frequent stops). It would be a waste.

[Rover]

I remember reading about an innovative train tranisit system that used a series of disconnected cars on a fixed rail system. It used a scheduling system much like some of the new elevators where you put in the floor you are going to and it uses an algorythm to aggregate riders on cars to the same or nearby floors. In other words, the stops were secondary loops. When you check in at your departure you punch in a destination station. Then the next car going there stops and picks you up. It essentially fills with riders going to the same places and bypasses making stops at each intermittent stop. The cars are smaller, faster and cheaper to run, and the scheduling makes for rapid transit. Cars are dispatched into the system based on demand and pick/up drop off stations. By doing it this way you can have more cars on the track making pick-up time shorter. It is something we should look at....thinking outside the box.

[Urban Pioneer]

I personally think people are getting too cute with regard to all of this hybrid naming of things. Streetcar is a streetcar, Light Rail is light rail. There is a difference in the two, and as someone who has ridden both and whose city has both - I can attest there are major differences, most of which come from capacity and transit times.

It is rather stupid IMO to build a Streetcar/Tram longer than a 5 mile journey, because of the nature of Streetcar (frequent stops, small capacity). Streetcar is basically one step above a bus, the benefit of which it shares with LRT in that the rails are fixed. But it is what it is, and Streetcar has too many stops and too small of vehicles to be considered for long distance or 'metro' type of operations. Who would want to be on a Streetcar for the duration of NWX into downtown - something that most likely would take over one hour given the stops and likely would be a white elephant given the headways.

this is why I say, just plan for the NWX to be light rail. LRT will be cheaper in OKC anyways, and with LRT you can plan for a 'metro' like system with stops every mile. If you all are afraid that OKC will not fill up a Light Rail train, then just use one car/pair instead of running hour long Streetcar runs.

If you're going to have limited stops along NWX (say, every mile - which makes sense), then you might as well do it as LRT. NWX and Classen are 'classic' LRT corridors with traffic separation you can run trains in the median and be able to have 'shorter' trip durations using 'higher' capacity LRT cars and less frequent stops (say 1 mile along NWX, major destination hubs/streets in the inner city).

Streetcar is a great idea for downtown and the inner city, given the frequent stops and short distances. But over the 3 mile trip threshold, Streetcar starts to lose its appeal. This may all be speculation, but I think it is important for the city to plan for an overall transit network. And we need to capitalize on technology that exists and use the best of whats out there for our needs and not "force" technology to do extended service just because we are scared about usage and/or cost.

In the long run, I think 'Rapid' Streetcar would fail - because its name 'rapid' is a misnomer. Streetcar by definition and design is ALREADY rapid, and what the 'Rapid Streetcar' people are really pitching is "Extended/Long Range Streetcar" - which by nature will fail (small cars/low capacity, long distances, lengthy headways, frequent stops). It would be a waste.

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree with it. However, the technologies have blended together somewhat over the past 5 years to be more cost effective.

So the question that I was stressing was we might feel that NW Exp deserves "true" Light Rail, but should the MAPS streetcar sections be an early investment allowing for such a future extension? If so, "Dart" type rail prep would cause the streetcar infrastructure to cost more. If you believe that a bigger/slight heavier streetcar could serve those future needs, it would allow you to spend less on heavier rail as part of this Phase 1 project.

Not to get into semantics or a debate, but it is something that we intend to study. Obviously the future passenger load is the question.

[Urban Pioneer]

If you want to take this up further, go to the transit thread as the C2S thread has been "derailed" enough. lol

[Spartan]

Hey UP, what do you think of the opportunity to use streetcar instead (a line linking downtown and the southside) to spur development from core to shore?

[Urban Pioneer]

Hey UP, what do you think of the opportunity to use streetcar instead (a line linking downtown and the southside) to spur development from core to shore?

First- Connections to Capitol Hill Proper can be made as part of a Commuter Rail stop on the way to More/Norman as depicted in the study.

2nd- the MAPS streetcar route proposed has the inherent ability built in to the system to extend further into C2S or even potentially the river area.

I think that the future looks favorably on C2S. Depending on the MAPS schedule as it relates to the park, that definitely will affect the short term viability of the area. However, the demolition will continue and the Sky Dance Bridge will be erected.

My opinion is that if developers make a pitch in the area and want streetcar, they should consider it as strongly as they would a parking garage or other infrastructure element they often ask for via TIF funds. Use the Portland model. Have the connections there, make the extension part of the project costs itself.

I do not feel at this time that MAPS streetcar monies should be used to try to "spur" development in a "Phase1 or 2." TIF or other funds should be used in the area as part of an actual planned project. We have enough "infill" to do along the rest of the line and should focus on early ridership to ensure that there is a successful start to the streetcar system.

"Making it to the bridge/Union Station" would have its benefits though. Going beyond that would be difficult to justify.

Our local developers are either going to have to broaden their obsession with parking to the streetcar, or I'm sure that out-of-state developers will do it for them as they have done in other cities.

[UnFrSaKn]

I don't suppose anyone cares to see the old International Harvester building go do they?



Map

[Dustin]

[UnFrSaKn]

A lot has changed already since that was produced.

[BBatesokc]

Maybe I missed it, but has Robinson (in the Core-to-Shore area) always been referred to (officially) as Hubcap Alley?

I just noticed these signs attached to several light poles in the area.....

[Urban Pioneer]

Cool sign.

[BBatesokc]

Cool sign.

I personally thought it was on the verge of being a cool sign, but didn't quite make it.

[Urban Pioneer]

I don't suppose anyone cares to see the old International Harvester building go do they?



Map

I missed the last Park Subcommittee meeting but ran into Michelle at Coffee Slingers. She said that assessing historic buildings that were slated to be torn down to be potentially incorporated into the park is now being discussed.

[Urban Pioneer]

I personally thought it was on the verge of being a cool sign, but didn't quite make it.

I guess I like it because it looks like the neighbors actually made it themselves.

[Pete]

has Robinson (in the Core-to-Shore area) always been referred to (officially) as Hubcap Alley?

Yes, I've heard that area called that many times and for good reason.

I hope at least the section between the new I-40 and the river gets cleaned up.

[Architect2010]

I guess I like it because it looks like the neighbors actually made it themselves.

I've seen them myself and they look like they were professionally produced. That picture makes them look like cardboard.

I've seen these signs up for over a month now, maybe longer if I remember right. That little strip between the river and I-40 is almost completely devoid of any life. However, I really dig the empty garages and buildings lining the street. It would be a really neat area if gentrified, which obviously, someone is taking the proactive step. That strip has also received rebuilt sidewalks and curbs along it's entirety.

[metro]

Awesome find, cool sign, and yes that area has been called that for a long time. I like it, definitely original to OKC

[edcrunk]

I don't suppose anyone cares to see the old International Harvester building go do they?



Map

One of my earliest experiences at an underground dance club was in the basement of this building in 1992.