(I wish I could edit my headline... Heavy-Rail vs. Light-Rail)

The University of British Columbia recently published the results of a staudy in which they compare various forms of transportation to determine which was the most energy efficient. The study included a subway, bus system, streetcars, a Prius, and an SUV. They found the streetcar system to be the most efficient. It was cheaper to build and required less right-of-way acquisition.

Another reason I like streetcars is because the system is more easily expanded and adapted for heavier-use times. Here's the link to the article:

globeandmail.com: Rethinking the need for speed (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081212.wcotransport15/BNStory/specialComment/BritishColumbia/)

Implications for a future streetcar system in OKC?

(sp) Heavy.


Anyhow, I bet you see electric streetcars before we see anything else.

According to the study, Light.

Which I agree with.

Depends on what you are trying to accomplish and what your ridership predictions indicate. Heavy allows for much greater capacity, but also requires ROW acquisition and usually far greater cost. Light is usually slower, having to deal with mixed traffic, but cost alone makes it more viable to cities getting into the rail transit business. There are only a few viable Heavy rail candidates in this country and I promise OKC is not one of them.

Streetcars for OKC!!!!! Though I think we could support one commuter line from Norman to Edmond through downtown.

Remember: Commuter Rail =/= Heavy Rail

and also commuter rail =/= light rail

I took the commuter rail in Boston everyday when I lived there... it's definitely heavy.

^I think you are confusing the two.

For the sake of argument: (important key differences are noted)

Definition: Heavy Rail

Heavy rail refers to traditional high platform subway and elevated rapid transit lines. Principal characteristics are operation over rights of way that are completely segregated from other uses, with the track placed in subway tunnels, on elevated structures, or on fenced surface rights of way, free of grade crossings with roads. Trains consist of anywhere from two to 12 cars, each with its own motors, and drawing power from a third rail (or in some cases from overhead wire). Boarding is from high platforms that are even with the floor level of the car, allowing large numbers of people to enter and leave rapidly. Before World War II, true heavy rail rapid transit systems existed only in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. Since the war, new systems have been opened in Cleveland, Baltimore, Washington, the San Francisco-Oakland region, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Miami, plus Montreal and Toronto in Canada.

Heavy rail systems are extremely expensive to build due to the need to build tunnels, elevated structures, or other fully segregated rights of way and to accommodate more gentle curves and grades than are needed for light rail or streetcars. Given the high costs and the recent huge overruns of the Los Angeles rapid transit construction, funding of new heavy rail systems in the United States has become much less likely.

Definition: Commuter Rail

Commuter rail refers to passenger trains operated on main line railroad track to carry riders to and from work in city centers. The trains are normally made up of a locomotive and a number of passenger coaches. The coaches are dimensionally similar to intercity (Amtrak) coaches, but typically have higher density seating as the average ride is shorter. Commuter rail lines normally extend an average of 10 to 50 miles from their downtown terminus. In some cases service is only offered in rush hours. In other cities, service is operated throughout the day and evening and on weekends. Service rarely is offered more frequently than one train every 30 minutes and station spacing is typically measured in miles. Commuter rail systems (some electrified, some diesel hauled) are traditionally associated with older industrial cities such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, but in recent years new diesel powered commuter rail systems have been inaugurated in cities as diverse as Los Angeles and Burlington, Vermont, as traffic congestion has made auto commutes much more difficult. Many additional cities are planning commuter rail lines currently. Commuter rail lines can be relatively inexpensive to build as they normally operate over existing rail lines. However, typical planning challenges are negotiating use of the tracks with very busy freight rail operators and finding adequate funding both for construction and for operating subsidies.

Definition: Light Rail

Light Rail is essentially a modern evolution of the conventional trolley. The concept evolved largely in the German and Dutch speaking countries of Europe in the decades after World War II. In this era cities in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and France, among other countries, replaced their streetcars with buses, but in the German and Dutch-speaking countries the streetcars were retained and upgraded.

The Transit Research Board definition is: "Light rail transit is a metropolitan electric railway system characterized by its ability to operate single cars or short trains along exclusive rights of way at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways or, occasionally, in streets, and to board and discharge passengers at track or car-floor level."

Key characteristics that distinguish light rail from streetcars are the following:

* Track is segregated from traffic wherever possible enabling higher operating speeds. Track is normally placed in reserved lanes on streets, in separate reservations on or next to streets, on private right of way similar to railroad lines, in subways, or on elevated structures. But the lines can still negotiate sharp curves and steep grades, similar to streetcar lines.

* Station spacing is usually further apart than on streetcar lines, again to allow increased operating speed. Stations are also typically more formally defined than on streetcar lines, often featuring shelters, seating, passenger information, and fare machines.

* Cars are normally longer and more spacious. Most today are articulated, meaning that they are made of several body sections connected by a flexible joint that allows lengthy cars to bend as they negotiate sharp curves and steep grades.

* Traditionally boarding of light rail cars, as with streetcars, is via steps from a low platform. However, several new light rail systems have opted for high platforms level with the car floor. The latest trend is to use cars specially built with the floor over some or all of the length of the car lowered to about 12 inches from the top of the rail, providing ADA compliant accessibility from relatively low platforms and speeding boarding and alighting for all passengers.

* Fares are often not collected on cars, to enable boarding through many doors without a staff member collecting fares at the door, and to speed loading. Modern systems typically use an honor system requiring purchase of a ticket before boarding the car and use fare inspectors to verify compliance randomly.

Light rail systems are normally less expensive to build than heavy rapid transit systems (see Heavy Rail) as they require less and simpler infrastructure. Light rail lines can carry more passengers through a given corridor than buses or streetcars, but fewer than a heavy rapid transit system.

Surviving trolley systems in cities such as Boston, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco have been upgraded to light rail status in recent decades. Since 1981 many completely new light rail systems have been built in cities such as San Diego, Portland (OR), Buffalo, Baltimore, St. Louis, and Dallas to name just a few.

Source (http://www.heritagetrolley.org/Definitions.htm)

Thanks for that link. Just to chime in, I have always heard of light rail and commuter rail as the most likely options for OKC in the immediate future. From what I have heard, the most likely sequence would be for OKC to see a light rail circulator system for the downtown and near-downtown area, with long-term plans for commuter rail to outlying commmunities. They are two very separate things, but need to be planned together as a system for optimal success.

Thanks for that link. In Boston they call it a 'commuter rail' Although the Northeast Corridor is electified by third rail and and opperate on segregated right of ways... whereas other lines on the system are diesel locomotives that operate on main line railroad leased or shared from the rail road.

Guess it is hard to put a deffinition on Boston's at least because it is a mixed bag.

^Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the explanation. It seems like the term "commuter rail" has taken on its own definition within that area. Similar to what will probably happen in Denver as they build a few commuter lines. Everyone will probably just call it "light rail" because that's what they are used to calling any type of rail service, regardless of its true definition.

FWIW: Subways are Heavy Rail.

FWIW: Subways are Heavy Rail.

yes... but I'm talking about the MBTA Commuter Rail... the Purple line.

Is that the one that goes to places like Salem and Gloucester? I rode that a couple of times when I was in Boston a few years back. Seemed like a great way to commute. It was very obviously a different animal from the T, even leaving from a different station. If I remember right, the T dropped you off in the North End, right by what is now the TD Banknorth Garden, formerly the Fleet Center. The train left from a station that was basically in the basement of the Garden.

Yes... that is part of the Puple line... but the purple line is acutally eight lines with many more branches.

Thanks for that link. Just to chime in, I have always heard of light rail and commuter rail as the most likely options for OKC in the immediate future. From what I have heard, the most likely sequence would be for OKC to see a light rail circulator system for the downtown and near-downtown area, with long-term plans for commuter rail to outlying commmunities. They are two very separate things, but need to be planned together as a system for optimal success.

This is already been in planning for quite some time with several groups here locally. Hopefully, we'll see some proposals come out middle of next year.

That's why I said "I have always heard..."

Toronto has a mix of all the rail options. They have an extensive network of commuter trains, a few heavily used subway lines, and hundreds of even more heavily-used streetcars. The streetcars are much slower than the other two, but they enable residents to live without a car which is great. Also, all three are well integrated with the bus system.

Toronto’s system is old and has not been well maintained over the years. It is also often the political weapon of choice for local politicians (i.e., blocking funding for police, libraries, and transit unless they get their pet project). Toronto’s streetcars are often filled over-capacity. During rush hour, you might have to wait for several to pass before finding one with room to board.

Also, Toronto makes the mistake of charging by the trip. This causes problems when transferring, and it discourages taking short trips. I would like to see them charge by time. Several cities do this. For example, your ticket may be good for unlimited use of the system for perhaps 2 hours.

By the definition above, it sounds like Commuter Rail would be cheaper than Light Rail.

Subways are not necessarily heavy rail, although they commonly are. Yes, commuter rail is cheapest out of the three options covered here, mainly because of the infrastructure being limited to primarily just rail. Bussing tons of power all over costs a load of cash. Most commuter lines are diesel locos (there are plenty of electric ones though).

I am very much against streetcars or anything mixed with street-level traffic in or near OKC. (unless of course we get rid of automobile traffic downtown and that is not likely to fly) I think way too many people only look at it and say "Wow that really looks neat" and they don't consider the function of the mode of transit and how it would interact with our heavy automobile-dominated downtown. That mode of transit requires automobile and streetcar traffic to constantly yield to each other and there is little in the way of safety other than 'keep your eyes peeled', whether you are a pedestrian walking or a car driving. There is also a huge investment in power distribution, not to mention the overhead wiring aesthetics and cost. Take a look at my ideas below...I want to know what y'all think of this idea?

As folks have established back in the past threads here, subway with your choice of rail type is best for a downtown, however, we don't have that option for our existing downtown. Maybe for the south C2S part we can build the tunnels with the new roads, but not for what we have now. People, we don't have enough lanes for street-level traffic as it is, let alone bike lanes or room for buses...so to "give a lane" to streetcar is not a good functional solution for okc.

What would work most efficiently for OKC (downtown) would be to run a raised rail people mover that connects people in the area with parking and to a future multimodal transit facility. For aesthetic and money reasons I would suggest a mono-rail style rail configuration with some really cool environment-friendly power configuration so we don't have large power distro's all over the place with thick copper bus bars and conduits running along the rail. This would eliminate the big, wide, ugly aerial rails like Miami has, and would be simply a foot-wide (approx) pre-fab bar and support pillars lined in a dual-track config (for redundancy/backup as well as constant two-way service) and could be painted/decorated to match the architecture it is near. The stations that are not directly connected to buildings or parking garages would need to be designed and laid out to be very easily accessible and visually pleasing (blend in to the surrounding area so as not to detract from the downtown look more than the road itself does). Now, consider this: when C2S begins to take shape, the south 'downtown' gets a subway tunnel and we extend the downtown monorail loop into the subway tunnel in the new part of downtown...it would be just like heavy-rail subways elsewhere, but a fraction of the cost! We would then have the cheapest subway system in America! ;)

This loop would be high-speed, to say the least. I'm talking no more than 3-minutes between trains and a total of maybe ten minutes to 'do the whole loop'. Stops would be less than or equal to 30 secs, just like rapid transit.

Other manufacturers exist, but have a look at Metrail (metrail.com). They've got a unique product. That system costs way way way less than competing systems (and less than streetcar) and is modular as heck! You can configure and marry the stock to fit your needs. I think that around five sets of two or three trains connecting downtown in a high-speed loop that includes the transit station and parking lots would be awesome. We would keep cars on the roads and pedestrians off of them...and save money too! That is both economical and safe. The bike lane folks could have more luck getting bike lanes with this plan as well.

http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp9/sgrayddsgav/1A99BDE27BC06213.jpg http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp9/sgrayddsgav/versa.jpg
http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp9/sgrayddsgav/multra.jpg http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp9/sgrayddsgav/Metraile.jpg


I know most of you associate a mono rail configuration with the ugly and expensive systems that have been erected in America in the past. The Las Vegas system is a disaster because they made it a disaster by design. Bombardier is the most expensive system on the market and they built it where no one to get to it and charge sky-high rates! So, I challenge you, in the course of exploring these options, be open-minded about our options. Check out Sydney's downtown or Khuala Lumpur, Moscow (even cheaper) or Tokyo, China, etc... lots of options that are starting to make their way to America, like high-speed rail, originate from these areas. Dont look at the town or region itself, but rather the impact of the mode of transit on the downtown! See how well it integrates with traffic and keeps auto's flowing smoothly without right-of-way issues.

I have a concept plan for downtown if anyone is interested.

----

Now, concerning the greater metro, that is a huge animal. Do understand that "light rail" is just a term that has been recently applied to a type of rolling stock and it doesn't necessarily mean that the cars are "lighter". Look at the "heavy rail" or "rapid transit" Breda cars that Marta, Metro and others run on...they are lighter than a bunch of the "light rail" cars. So don't let that 'light' term fool you. The light part doesn't necessarily mean anything.

The way I see it, flexibility is key. In most, if not all, light rail configurations, you have a end cars with cabs, and ones that are middle cars only. Whereas with "rapid transit" or "heavy rail" cars, they are typically "married pairs". So, if there is a huge OU game happening, you can run sets of 16 of those friggin things in high frequency to handle the traffic loads to/from norman. If there's a huge game at the Ford center, same thing. And during regular hours, you can run them however they need to run. Break 'em or mate 'em as the traffic loads require! Bottom line is, they are like tools in your toolbox and you can make them work to match the public's needs...much more friendlier to maintenance dept as well when trying to shuffle stock that's out for maintenance.

I also believe that to be efficient and popular, the system is gonna have to have an unobstructed right-of-way so that it can at least get up to a reasonable speeds.

Obviously, electric is more environmentally friendly, but OKC may be better to run the metro-spread with diesel stock first to cope with the cost and then as the system catches on, execute a plan to move to a complete electric rapid transit solution.

I have a concept plan for the metro system is anyone is interested.

----

Ever wonder why most of all the public transit systems in the U.S. cost more to operate than they bring in? We've got to quit thinking the same way all the time and be open to new ideas. Public transit systems in some other countries do much more than break even, they pay for themselves and cost less to ride than some of our systems! We've got to look at why others did what they did. Let's build a system for metro OKC that is not just another system.

I would be happy with a street car system that focuses oon the area with 2 or 3 miles of downtown. OKC needs to reinvent itself to be mass transit friendly. They need to build a transit network from the core out. Commuter rail (heavy rail or whatever you want to call it) from Edmond and Norman to downtown won't do you much good if you don't have a way to get to the west edge of downtown, the health sciences center, the state capital, or midtown without having to walk. A street car system will also encourage higher densities along the lines which will make downtown a 24/7 environemnt.

But Kerry, what good is a streetcar system that takes you as long to get around the slow-moving loop as it does to fly to ATL? In addition to the speed and safety issues, you have the redundancy issues. What if a train breaks down? How do you get around that? This idea I proposed would not stop because of the dual-ring redundancy. Same way it is set-up in those cities I mentioned that works so well.

If we could build a faster, safer, more efficient system for less $$$, then why spend more money on a slower, less-efficient, less-safe system? For looks alone? The method I proposed has never had one fatal accident, in close to 100 years of operation--not because of the mode, but because of the separated modes. Not to mention that changes to the system would be easier as there wouldn't be so much "hard" infrastructure all over the place, so it would also cost less to change the system as the city changes, you know?

Mixing automobile traffic and rail traffic with invisible 'yield' signs all over the place is not a future-proof solution. Not only will the line be slow and prone to accidents due to right-of-way, but the existing traffic is gonna slow to even more of a crawl due to the additional load.

The best transit designs in the world separate different modes of transit.


http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp9/sgrayddsgav/light-rail.jpg

SGray - here is the angle I am coming from. 90% of all trips are local. Grocery store, eating out, school, shopping, etc. If you are going to build a system why not build one that covers 90% of the trips? On the monorail front, what happens if the monorail breaks down? With an electric trolley a flatbed truck with a crane comes along and lifts it off the tracks and takes it back to the repair facility. These would be electric trolleys so there really isn't much that can go wrong with them anyhow.

We are also talking about to different geographic areas. Your plan seems to be metro wide and I am only concerned with the urban core and surrounding neighborhoods. If you want to live out on Northwest expressway then you are on your own under my plan. If you want to live near or in downtown then you have the option of doing so without needing a car under my plan. Not all of OKC can be a 24/7 district, but downtown can be. OKC is one big suburban city, we need to start building an urban core.

On a final note – whatever rail plan is adopted it needs to be free to ride. Pay for it through ads.

Mixing automobile traffic and rail traffic with invisible 'yield' signs all over the place is not a future-proof solution. Not only will the line be slow and prone to accidents due to right-of-way, but the existing traffic is gonna slow to even more of a crawl due to the additional load.

The best transit designs in the world separate different modes of transit.


I hear what you are saying and on the surface it sounds great. However, by following your assumption that the best way to circulate people is by separating their paths of travel to avoid accidents, it would seem pedestrian traffic should be separated from other other modes as well. I would encourage you to do your reseach on what happens when you do that.

Kerry- I am curious if you read any of my post. There are two parts-1) downtown loop connecting all common points (including what you mentioned); and 2) a metro-wide transit system, which does offer connecting service to downtown. So I dont get how you think my plan doesn't include downtown--I wrote almost an entire half-page on downtown alone!

Also, apparantly you still didn't finish reading my post because I made a point about the dual-ring topology, where there is continuous non-stop service even if a train does break down. Even if a train breaks down, service will not stop. The monorail train would be towed and left on the rail and service would not stop because of the other ring. So while your rail is being lifted and moved, nobody gets to ride--they have to find another way--you only have one track along that line. Also, don't forget that because under normal operations the trains are going opposite directions... yep, if you are wanting to go the opposite way to the store, you don't have to ride the loop all the way around, or in the case of the streetcar, wait for it to come back in the correct direction.

CuatrodeMayo- No, no, no. The point was to keep congestion to a minimum. We don't want to put additional burden on the roadways just because we are adding another mode of transit. And if we build any more at-grade train/streetcar crossings, the traffic wont move at all. Look at all the railroad crossings we have in busy city areas now where traffic has to sit and wait just because a train is crossing. Why? Why can't we invest in things like under/overpasses and means to keep modes of transit moving independently and freely when we use it every day of our lives for the foreseeable future? Why do we have to be so cheap with things that would be so helpful to our everyday lives? This is why so many systems worldwide do it this way and why it works so well and their systems are paying for themselves--unlike here in the states. There are areas here in this country where things are done pretty good though.

Let me ask you this: our earlier generation had the foresight and open-mindedness to build some of those old underpasses down there near 7th st where the tracks run east-west. And the best we could do was to put railroad crossings all over the place where people have to sit and wait for no reason at all other than to save a few bucks on building the road under the rail??? Why is such a helpful thing a bad investment? Something that we would use daily and it would improve our way of life in our community.

Also, look at it this way: why do we build vertical buildings instead of horizontal ones? Efficient use of space, right? Well transit works no different. What if every 200 feet you had a stop sign on the highway? All of a sudden travel by automobile would be a bit**, right? Well, lots of limits are lifted when we get that train off the ground. We choose where the stops are, and the train can zoooom from point to point. Whereas on the surface, it has to go very slow and stop and move with the traffic. So, if cars clog up an intersection (intentional or not), that train can't just crash through them, it has to stop and delay everyone on that train even more. Works much better either below ground (preferable) or fail that, above the surface enough to clear obstacles below.

Hope that helps clear things up.

Kerry- I am curious if you read any of my post. There are two parts-1) downtown loop connecting all common points (including what you mentioned); and 2) a metro-wide transit system, which does offer connecting service to downtown. So I dont get how you think my plan doesn't include downtown--I wrote almost an entire half-page on downtown alone!

Also, apparantly you still didn't finish reading my post because I made a point about the dual-ring topology, where there is continuous non-stop service even if a train does break down. Even if a train breaks down, service will not stop. The monorail train would be towed and left on the rail and service would not stop because of the other ring. So while your rail is being lifted and moved, nobody gets to ride--they have to find another way--you only have one track along that line. Also, don't forget that because under normal operations the trains are going opposite directions... yep, if you are wanting to go the opposite way to the store, you don't have to ride the loop all the way around, or in the case of the streetcar, wait for it to come back in the correct direction.

CuatrodeMayo- No, no, no. The point was to keep congestion to a minimum. We don't want to put additional burden on the roadways just because we are adding another mode of transit. And if we build any more at-grade train/streetcar crossings, the traffic wont move at all. Look at all the railroad crossings we have in busy city areas now where traffic has to sit and wait just because a train is crossing. Why? Why can't we invest in things like under/overpasses and means to keep modes of transit moving independently and freely when we use it every day of our lives for the foreseeable future? Why do we have to be so cheap with things that would be so helpful to our everyday lives? This is why so many systems worldwide do it this way and why it works so well and their systems are paying for themselves--unlike here in the states. There are areas here in this country where things are done pretty good though.

Let me ask you this: our earlier generation had the foresight and open-mindedness to build some of those old underpasses down there near 7th st where the tracks run east-west. And the best we could do was to put railroad crossings all over the place where people have to sit and wait for no reason at all other than to save a few bucks on building the road under the rail??? Why is such a helpful thing a bad investment? Something that we would use daily and it would improve our way of life in our community.

Also, look at it this way: why do we build vertical buildings instead of horizontal ones? Efficient use of space, right? Well transit works no different. What if every 200 feet you had a stop sign on the highway? All of a sudden travel by automobile would be a bit**, right? Well, lots of limits are lifted when we get that train off the ground. We choose where the stops are, and the train can zoooom from point to point. Whereas on the surface, it has to go very slow and stop and move with the traffic. So, if cars clog up an intersection (intentional or not), that train can't just crash through them, it has to stop and delay everyone on that train even more. Works much better either below ground (preferable) or fail that, above the surface enough to clear obstacles below.

Hope that helps clear things up.

First of all, monorail systems, no matter who builds them, are expensive (although cheaper than conventional elevated heavy rail). You complain about a streetcar needing electrification, but neglect the ridiculous expense of building elevated track. This isn't New York or Chicago. Downtown, area wise, is very small and compact, but that doesn't mean the streets could not accommodate street cars or light rail. Yes, inherently there are minor problems associated with mixed-modal traffic, but its nothing that any other city couldn't handle - we are no different. You complain about railroad crossings DT, but fail to mention the big difference between a standard freight train and a light rail/streetcar train - length. Do you really think a freight train and streetcar are the same length? While a monorail is great for Disney World, Vegas, Seattle, and Asia; there is no reason, outside of aesthetics and intensification, to build such an extravagant system. Cities are strapped for cash as it is. Let's be realistic.

Yes, I agree, let's be realistic. Pre-fabricated beams are cheap. Having no electrification bus bars or communication circuits per my plan would drastically reduce the cost below that of the streetcar. You fail to realize not only the cost of getting such massive power (dedicated) to the area and the cost of the long copper bus lines coupled with the fact that the streets have no tracks and therefore will have to be torn up and have tracks laid , then re-surfaced after said tracks are laid. The system I speak of is in no way comparable to las vegas or a disney world system...I tried to inform you of that and provided details to such, yet you wont have anything to do with it. It's wrong because you say so not because the figures say so.

Let's be realistic. It's streetcar or nothing. Any talk of alternatives or ideas is a waste of time... If you have some facts you want to debate, let's debate it, but your charges of my idea being more expensive have no basis and you have shown no figures to back up that charge.

Railroad crossings-length of train is irrelevant. It's an unnecessary hassle and one that is left in place just to save a few bucks and that's pathetic.

Name one city in the U.S. to implement such a system? A true commuter oriented system? I know we could be the first, but why reinvent the wheel? Again, this isn't Asia. Use a proven technology, one that allows for more stops, better access, and easier expansion.


Railroad crossings-length of train is irrelevant. It's an unnecessary hassle and one that is left in place just to save a few bucks and that's pathetic.

Yes, because trenching, elevating, or tunneling only costs a "few bucks".


the fact that the streets have no tracks and therefore will have to be torn up and have tracks laid , then re-surfaced after said tracks are laid

This is actually a good thing. Two, maybe three birds with one stone. Many of the DT streets are in need of resurfacing, safety upgrades, and sidewalk improvements.



It's wrong because you say so not because the figures say so.

Pot meet Kettle

sgray - Most new streetcar systems that are being built have crossovers or wyes so that other cars can get around one that is broken down. Plus, most are being built with multiple unit operation, double ended configuration with doors on both sides. There's nothing stopping streetcars from using crossovers to get around a disabled vehicle. It would be identical to when half of a road is closed and traffic has to share a single lane - one direction passes at a time.

ALSO... have we forgotten about OKCs city wide wifi streetlight configuration thing-a-ma-gig??? Some how I'm sure that could be used to keep traffic flowing. Streetcars would be able to pass traffic jams by favoring the traffic lights of oncoming traffic to stop while the streetcar moves on to the left lane and passes the stalled traffic.

This could also be used to pass a disabled streetcar.

And another thing.... sure downtown would be 'congested' but once you get into the neighborhoods OKC still has all of the original trolley neutral grounds. Why not reuse them.?

Yes, I agree, let's be realistic. Pre-fabricated beams are cheap. Having no electrification bus bars or communication circuits per my plan would drastically reduce the cost below that of the streetcar. You fail to realize not only the cost of getting such massive power (dedicated) to the area and the cost of the long copper bus lines coupled with the fact that the streets have no tracks and therefore will have to be torn up and have tracks laid , then re-surfaced after said tracks are laid. The system I speak of is in no way comparable to las vegas or a disney world system...I tried to inform you of that and provided details to such, yet you wont have anything to do with it. It's wrong because you say so not because the figures say so.

Let's be realistic. It's streetcar or nothing. Any talk of alternatives or ideas is a waste of time... If you have some facts you want to debate, let's debate it, but your charges of my idea being more expensive have no basis and you have shown no figures to back up that charge.

Railroad crossings-length of train is irrelevant. It's an unnecessary hassle and one that is left in place just to save a few bucks and that's pathetic.

You've obviously given this a lot of thought.

Do you have a plan for the downtown area that you could explain? Is there a diagram?

You've mentioned cost. Do you have any cost estimates for your plan?

That is exactly my point, ptownsnwbrdr. Nearly every transit system in america is over budget and can't even break even on operation costs. Reinvent the wheel? Hardly...I'm suggesting that we break from the same 'ol cost overruns that everyone else is doing and find a better way. Streetcar isn't the only option and neither is a mono-rail configuration, but this study, just like so many things here went to a default choice way too fast without a real detailed analysis. Heck, even the individual transit mode fact sheets were pre-fab documents that they show to every city. You're right, this isn't Asia, or Europe, or Australia, or South America. Most of them have learned a thing or two. They should, some of those countries have a higher population and density, however, some of their cities are no different than ours. Heck, look at the system in downtown Sydney. Look at China and Japan for sure. They all went with this config mainly because it was the most cost-effective solution and it's much faster at getting people where they need to go.

On building the beams, yes, they are each a 3-foot (approx) beam set in the ground and that's it. They lay in the pre-fab crossbeams and they just mount in place. The beams would be in the ballpark of the price of the in-ground rails (installed-after you add costs for re-configuring the road), however, after taking away the expense of power and communication busses and lines, that equates to a huge chunk of change. It would cost millions alone to get over 10kV of juice from the power co to each of the distribution points.

See, these details are the things that are often too much overlooked by transit planning in the US and we should take the time (since we obviously have it) to get it right.

Pot meets kettle, eh? Interesting. Because I proposed a system that is better because it is a) safer, b) faster, c) cheaper. I didn't say that my plan was superior "just cuz"--I backed it up with facts. That first message of yours was mudslinging because you included no facts to back it up other than to say that I "am wrong". See my point?

Platemaker-I understand there are bypass mechanisms, but there's only so much room on the road. You've got to cut off something to bypass a train, but that isn't so much the problem as would be all the equipment out there cutting into traffic while folks need to get through. You're not incorrect in saying that there are mechanisms to deal with those rare situations, but why are we so obsessed with cramming the two modes of transit together, you know? Why are we so obsessed with the streetcar that we are not willing to at least consider what is going to give us the most return on our dollar? I mean, if I didn't know any better, I would wonder if some of the comments here were being made by shareholders of a streetcar manufacturer.

You see, so many options were thrown out the window by the consultant on this because they "didn't fit the bill". Well, that's all fine and dandy, but each of the other cities here did the same thing because they were told to and look at what happened. The consultants don't carry a very good reputation based on the consistent cost overruns and piling debt. We should at least a thorough investigation of the costs for 'our' city, as opposed to 'average' city in the study. After all, those numbers included costly mistakes by other cities (las vegas for example) that was reflected in the consultants decision to rule them out. Now, that's no fault of the technology, it's the fault of the implementer. If we go along with that logic, we very may well screw our community out of a better solution. Maybe streetcar is the right solution, maybe it is not. We need to obtain actual numbers for 'our' city and decide based on that so we don't end up like everyone else.

And another thing.... sure downtown would be 'congested' but once you get into the neighborhoods OKC still has all of the original trolley neutral grounds. Why not reuse them.?

sgray... that's what I was pointing out in this post.... downtown would be mixed and crowded... but isn't that in a way what we all want.. a dense happening downtown?

Future extentions would not be in traffic, except for intersections, because we have all the original trolley medians (what I meant by neutral ground... that's my deep south talk).

SouthsideSooner, no, I am really not an expert or anything but I am one step above a dee-dee-dee. Having said that, I believe in critical thinking and questioning everything...especially in advance.

I do have plans for this system--most of the figures are in-place...some of the final stuff is being worked on. Some of it is in electronic form, however most is still in hardcopy form. I do want to share it with you and would like you to offer suggestions, changes, re-do's...anything goes as long as you don't just simply agree with it. If you want to PM me we can discuss further.

Platemaker-it's gonna be crowded right away no matter how we do it, even with a separation of modes. However, what about 20 years from now? We're already out of traffic lanes. We can't cut into buildings or get rid of the sidewalks. You know as well as I do that most of downtown has, on average, 2 lanes per side for traffic (today). The medians you mention that exist in some areas, that is a valid point, but do you think it would be wiser to save that space for bike lanes/automobile lane expansion, etc? I mean, 2 lanes per side is not much at all and most places don't have a dedicated turn lane. Also, in keeping with the cities' current use of medians...might it also be of benefit to use that center space for decorative landscape, info signs, street lighting, etc? Personally I am not a fan of landscaping the center of the road, but it's being done all over. Even near my house on classen.

You are correct, we do want density. And this encourages it while leaving at least some way to upgrade as OKC grows.

Think about this...scenario #1: ridership starts to pick up as folks catch on and like using the system for both work and play. Eventually, we'll probably get more tall towers with hundreds of offices and tons and tons of extra bodies moving into and out of the downtown area each and every day. It is only going to grow, we know that. Well, on this plan I have suggested, we can have an extremely high frequency of variable-length trains, and with dual-tracks we can move a friggen buttload of people at a very fast rate. The nice part is, starting out, we can buy fewer, smaller trains and run them at lower frequencies. Those trains have no stop signs and a much higher speed limit than we'd have to exceed So compared to the streetcar, which runs at a much lower speed, if folks pack that streetcar out during rush hour, they've got to wait on another to come around eventually, and there's only so many we can load electrically onto a given piece of track at the same time, so it limits our expansion. There is also a limit on the length of the streetcars due to clearance of intersections behind it. The system I proposed are independently-powered stock and you can run as many as you want within safe limits, but also have the added advantage of the extra track. Man, we could really make that system rock during rush hour...we could have trains at even less than 3-minute intervals, and that's pretty dang good already, don't you agree?

Scenario #2: Consider after-hours, when large events are happening...ford center concert or thunder game...opening night...festivals,etc, etc... We could run any configuration on any schedule, each track independent of the other. We should have east and west parking shuttles running independent to distribute the load; we could run 80% of the stock on one track just shuttling folks from the Ford center to parking or bricktown, or whatever...WHILE the other track runs a normal light evening schedule for normal ops.

Man, I just think it would be so cool to have all that flexibility, speed, and redundancy and have ZERO interaction with the flow of automobile traffic whatsoever. Due to safety controls & design, there would be zero chance of impact with an automobile, and no feasable way to de-rail or get hurt by the train's movements due to the controlled access at the stations. I really am a fan of those safety features.

In closing, let me say this. The features of such a system are nice. But the selling point is that this particular system could be installed here for less than the cost of the streetcar system.

I am open-minded about the streetcar as always, so shoot me any arguments you have too and let's debate it.

can't even break even on operation costs

This is a reality of public transportation. It's subsidized, just like highways. New York is the only city that comes close to recapturing operation costs. Why? Because they have the capacity and volume to nearly fund themselves. Oklahoma City's system, regardless of mode, will never be financially sustainable. Period.


but this study, just like so many things here went to a default choice way too fast without a real detailed analysis.

In a way this is true, but original study findings actually didn't include rail transportation at all. They found that expanding bus service would be the most efficient approach. City leaders basically had a new study done to find that rail transit was optimal.


You're right, this isn't Asia, or Europe, or Australia, or South America. Most of them have learned a thing or two

They learned to build monorail? Streetcars rule in Europe. BRT is coming on strong in South America.


They should, some of those countries have a higher population and density, however, some of their cities are no different than ours. Heck, look at the system in downtown Sydney

Sydney without a doubt is, at its core, a different city than 75% of U.S. cities, especially OKC. Apples and Oranges.


Look at China and Japan for sure. They all went with this config mainly because it was the most cost-effective solution and it's much faster at getting people where they need to go

We (OKC) have very little in common with Japan and China in terms of infrastructure and general urban fabric. Intensities are astronomically higher, congestion is ridiculous, and ROW is probably nearly impossible to acquire (without force). Again, apples and oranges.



Look, I'm not against monorail, I'm against its implementation in OKC and its inclusion in the urban environment. That is, its accessibility (i.e. number of stations, at grade stops, etc), intended purpose (to move people for short trips, i.e. 8 blocks to the grocery store), and expansion. Monorail is inherently hard to expand branch-wise because of switching problems, that's why most system are point A to point B or Looped. If you wanted to add a stop on a streetcar line, just build a platform at grade, relatively cheap. If you want to add a stop on monorail, just build an elevated station, complete with elevators and stairs, not cheap.

How long has monorail technology been around? 40 years? In all those decades why hasn't any other city (in the U.S.) built a true monorail system? Seattle has seen it in action, albeit on a tourist level, but chose to spend $17 billion on light rail. Why? Because all city official, transit planners and engineers are naive and discriminatory?

We can go round and round, source every fact, debate every opinion, but to claim that I or cities in this country have not examined monorail as a transit alternative is ludicrous.



If you want to see a decent proposal for monorail in the U.S. Check out this (http://192.220.91.173/highspeedmonorail/index.html). Although not approved or funded, the idea has support, whether it be conventional monorail or maglev.

If you are interested in a conventional elevated people mover, that's a whole other beast, but may be better suited for an inner-city system.

Platemaker-it's gonna be crowded right away no matter how we do it, even with a separation of modes. However, what about 20 years from now? We're already out of traffic lanes. We can't cut into buildings or get rid of the sidewalks. You know as well as I do that most of downtown has, on average, 2 lanes per side for traffic (today).

That's true.. but I don't like the picture that paints of OKC 2030.... I'd hope we as a society become more transit oriented and there are less cars on the road. I was actually reading an article recenty about how NYC is trying to figure out what to do with thier roads when noone drives anymore. It had some fascinating renderings of major streets in NYC that were converted to transit/park/bike thoroughfares.


The medians you mention that exist in some areas, that is a valid point, but do you think it would be wiser to save that space for bike lanes/automobile lane expansion, etc? I mean, 2 lanes per side is not much at all and most places don't have a dedicated turn lane. Also, in keeping with the cities' current use of medians...might it also be of benefit to use that center space for decorative landscape, info signs, street lighting, etc? Personally I am not a fan of landscaping the center of the road, but it's being done all over. Even near my house on classen.

Don't you think ALL of the above plus transit could be added?



You are correct, we do want density. And this encourages it while leaving at least some way to upgrade as OKC grows.

Think about this...scenario #1: ridership starts to pick up as folks catch on and like using the system for both work and play. Eventually, we'll probably get more tall towers with hundreds of offices and tons and tons of extra bodies moving into and out of the downtown area each and every day. It is only going to grow, we know that. Well, on this plan I have suggested, we can have an extremely high frequency of variable-length trains, and with dual-tracks we can move a friggen buttload of people at a very fast rate. The nice part is, starting out, we can buy fewer, smaller trains and run them at lower frequencies. Those trains have no stop signs and a much higher speed limit than we'd have to exceed So compared to the streetcar, which runs at a much lower speed, if folks pack that streetcar out during rush hour, they've got to wait on another to come around eventually, and there's only so many we can load electrically onto a given piece of track at the same time, so it limits our expansion. There is also a limit on the length of the streetcars due to clearance of intersections behind it. The system I proposed are independently-powered stock and you can run as many as you want within safe limits, but also have the added advantage of the extra track. Man, we could really make that system rock during rush hour...we could have trains at even less than 3-minute intervals, and that's pretty dang good already, don't you agree?

Completely... I just figured with today's GPS the transit cars would never have to worry about streetlights in the first place... all trains would stay only far from another.... heck the whole thing could be nearly driverless



Scenario #2: Consider after-hours, when large events are happening...ford center concert or thunder game...opening night...festivals,etc, etc... We could run any configuration on any schedule, each track independent of the other. We should have east and west parking shuttles running independent to distribute the load; we could run 80% of the stock on one track just shuttling folks from the Ford center to parking or bricktown, or whatever...WHILE the other track runs a normal light evening schedule for normal ops.

Man, I just think it would be so cool to have all that flexibility and redundancy and have ZERO interaction with the flow of automobile traffic whatsoever.

In closing, let me say this. The features of such a system are nice. But the selling point is that this particular system could be installed here for less than the cost of the streetcar system.

I am open-minded about the streetcar as always, so shoot me any arguments you have too and let's debate it.

Actually I would have argued against your thought of monorails..... UNTIL I found this artist rendering of a hanging monorail. I just thought it was too cool not to want one here!

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/mass-tram.jpg

Here is the problem with an elevated transit system in an urban core.

Jacksonville Skyway (lots of pictures)
Jacksonville Skyway (http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/Jacksonville/)

The problem is only about 2500 people a day ride it at an original construction cost of $73 million per mile.

Do a little research on Underground Atlanta and see what happens when you seperate people from ground level retail. Or just look what the Conncourse did to retail in downtown OKC (and all they did was move pedestrians below the street level).

Here's some interesting facts about what Cincinnati is currently doing...

The City of Cincinnati has approved a plan to build a 3.9-mile streetcar line between 2nd and Main to 20th & Elm together with an undefined connector to the Uptown area around the University of Cincinnati.

An “alternatives analysis” is underway to determine the Uptown connector’s preferred route.

The cost of the Downtown Loop is $102 million in 2010 dollars. The cost of the Uptown Connector is $26-30 million.

The Downtown Loop would use six modern streetcars, and the Uptown Connector would use two additional streetcars.

The cost to operate the Downtown Loop is $2.3 million per year.
Fewer than twenty downtown parking spaces will be lost due to the operation of the Cincinnati Streetcar.

System crossovers are provided on eastbound Central Parkway between Walnut Street and Main Street and at the intersection of Race Street and 12th Street. System crossovers will permit partial operation of the streetcar system if a section of track needs to be closed.

The Cincinnati Streetcar will operate seven days per week, averaging 18 hours of service per day.

The Cincinnati Streetcar will operate every 10 minutes during the peak travel periods and every 20 minutes during the off-peak.

The average streetcar travel time from the Banks to McMicken Avenue at the north end of Over-the-Rhine (a distance of 1.9 miles) will range from 15 minutes in the off-peak to about 16:30 minutes in peak periods.

There will be eighteen stops along the 3.9-mile route.

Much of the information above was taken, in some cases verbatim, from the “Cincinnati Streetcar Feasibility Study” by HDR Engineering and PB Americas, dated July 2007. The study can be accessed here: http://www.ci.cincinnati.oh.us/city/downloads/city_pdf17754.pdf

How long has monorail technology been around? 40 years? In all those decades why hasn't any other city (in the U.S.) built a true monorail system? Seattle has seen it in action, albeit on a tourist level, but chose to spend $17 billion on light rail. Why? Because all city official, transit planners and engineers are naive and discriminatory?

The monorail in Seattle is a tourist thing, it is a little over a mile long and has a stop on each end. one at the Seattle Center and the other at Westlake Center Mall. In the 4 years I lived in Seattle it was closed more than it was up and running. There were several attempts to create other monorail lines, one going to West Seattle. All were voted down.

Portland and Seattle have good bus systems in place. OKC doesn't even have that.

ptownsnwbrdr-

As long as we keep building mass transit the way we are, it is going to keep costing too much money. Why is it so many other countries can design well enough and cut costs down enough to make it at least break-even? It's not rocket science.

The new study is what I am talking about. It was never a thorough analysis, but rather a 'transit system in a box' for more than $750k that just says "you should do it this way and don't look at these alternatives because they dont work."

Dude, they did learn to build various technologies. Streetcars work in some places. Europe also had a lot of subways built early on too as they had access to the technology early on, so that helps a lot. Streetcars can be a great option to a line running down a street that would have otherwise been bus,etc but as a cities' primary access into and out of downtown? No.

Please explain what makes Sydney a different city in terms of transit and why some of the same design principles cannot be applied to other cities.

Japan and China are extremely dense and populated, but they have roads just like every one else. Here's the deal: they found that Hitachi could install those systems for $15m / mile, so that ended up winning over everything else. IF they had forbidden mono-rail as an option, they may have been in a $50m a mile system that was deeply in debt, but they chose to weigh all options. The system has been very successful and popular in those areas.

Your arguments that mono-rail is hard to expand due to switching, etc, is not valid because it switches just like surface rail, only in the air...it's done all over the place.

Oklahoma City has not examined mono-rail as an option other than to say "it costs up to $100m a mile so it sucks". Which is entirely not true. Furthermore, you not only draw comparisons to outdated, old-technology systems, but refuse to look at the energy saving and cost-effective option I've proposed. In fact, no one that has commented against my proposal here will even acknowledge the differences between it and older technologies that were inefficient even at the time of their installation.

In order to be open-minded to an alternative that is a completely different core technology, you will have to quit associating it with other older systems.


Your link to a proposed monorail is still a completely different, and more expensive animal. It REQUIRES power bus bars all along the line. Heck, even maglev requires that.

You had mentioned raised people movers and I would never suggest that over monorail...expense is way too high in comparison and monorail can go just as fast. Look at Miami's system (which is the same as the airport people movers), it costs like over $100m a mile I think.

UPDATE- apparently, I missed your comment about the $17billion being spent on LRT in Seattle. That is very disturbing to say the least. Sad to see so much money just being thrown at a problem. How big is that $17b system again? ha, wow...

Platemaker-

I agree with you, I would hope that our automobile traffic is not at that point in 2030 either. I think we can both agree the reality is that this area is not going to give up automobile traffic any time soon, and if it does, it will likely be one of the last areas hanging on to it. I think it is going to be next to impossible to even curtail it's use. That's really why I am so supportive of a system that competes with automobile for speed. Folks around here drive cause it's faster and they are way less likely to switch to a slow system.

I think all of the options plus streetcar could be added today, but what about tomorrow? I don't see automobile traffic reducing or even slowing down for many more years to come.

Yeah, I hear you on the driverless thing. I don't see a way to make it driverless when it's mixed with auto and pedestrians.

Your artist rendering is neat, but we wouldn't have to make it such a stand-out attraction here. That's why I was suggesting the monorail over a raised rail alternative. Raising a standard rail system makes for a huge eyesore. I thought with the simple single rails and no attached garbage, we could surely decorate them to blend in with the surrounding architecture.

Kerry-

You did my arguing for me! Ha ha. That system in Jacksonville is what I am arguing against doing. It is a raised people mover on a wide-a** raised beam-o-lux! And they paid for it too! Definitely not a wise move. Have you looked at the system I proposed? Just wondering, because it is so far ahead of most alternatives it is unreal. And nicer to look at too, just like the streetcars and modern rail cars.

southernskye-

The seattle system was opened in 1962! Come on guys... that city has an ancient system that should have been replaced years ago. It is more than 40 years old!!! And people are comparing 'that' to the neat, cheaper, energy-efficient and fast system I am proposing.

Also realize that when seattle recently proposed extending the system, they tried to use proven failed technologies that cost way too much money. Of course it didn't fly. I wouldn't have voted for that either, because it was throwing money at the problem and nothing else, you know?


----

Our city has it's share of politics and red tape, but you have to agree that we can still research things and build them right if we want to. We can design and tweak a system to be the most cost-effective in America...we should take advantage of that. All options should be on the table and they have not as of yet.

UPDATE- I just want to clarify that the mono-rail portion of my ideas are for a downtown people mover only. I just wanted to clear that up because I see some comments stating that it would be better suited as a downtown thing. The monorail is not a city-wide idea.

SGray - I am trying to limit my discussion to just the downtown core and surrounding areas (Midtown, Capitol, Core to Shore, OU Medical, Downtown, Bricktown). I think the best way to serve this area is street level electric trolley. I also don't like the idea of stops or stations. They should all be hop-on hop-off. As the trolley approaches you should be able to walk out to the curb and raise your hand (just like hailing a cab). When you want off just push a button or pull a cord and the trolley will left you off at the next corner. This will encourage residential and retail development along the tracks because people will be able to have door to door service. Finally, the system should be free (I can't say that enough).

Thanks for that link. Just to chime in, I have always heard of light rail and commuter rail as the most likely options for OKC in the immediate future. From what I have heard, the most likely sequence would be for OKC to see a light rail circulator system for the downtown and near-downtown area, with long-term plans for commuter rail to outlying commmunities. They are two very separate things, but need to be planned together as a system for optimal success.

didnt we talk about this before?

I think you mean to say, streetcar. Yes, there is a downtown streetcar plannned as a circular (which most are). We are following the Portland Streetcar model (see Portland Streetcar). This successfully revitalized several districts in downtown Portland, most notably the Pearl District and created a brand new one on the southern fringe (I forget the name). Portland Streetcar is free, btw but does mix with existing downtown street traffic (but I've never noticed it cause backups).

I think a streetcar for OKC would definitely work for downtown and it's districts, then on up to the Capitol Campus and OHC, and perhaps over to Paseo/Asia District chinatown/OCU and to Capitol Hill and maybe to Stockyard City and the Meridian corridor. Any further than that, and your margin of utility really starts to drop off, due to the frequent stopping, SLOW travel, lack of capacity.

I think OKC should start developing the downtown circular NOW for the CBD/Midtown/Bricktown corridor and start construction by 2010-2012. This will FEED downtown and create another attraction for suburban visitors. Perhaps it could also be first cut with the OHC and Capitol Campus but to me those are lower priority since the density doesn't quite justify it yet (but the city could get a HUGE jump using it as an INNER commuter route). Once this is complete and the Devon Tower TIFF/I-40 relo starts Core2Shore in ernest, I think the streetcar network should be extended south all the way into Capitol Hill, perhaps on to Stockyard City. This will tie in the entire inner south and all of the tourist attractions, ensuring people will be using the system. Much later, the system should be extended north into the inner northside, but to me - the whole thing should be completed by 2020; and if so, should create a vibrant inner city and downtown much like that of Portland's.

We can start Commuter Rail right now. All we need is the rail cars and build a few platforms. Commuter Rail is MASS capacity with very infrequent stops, usually at park n rides, transit centers, or shopping destinations. Notice my last phrase, this could be a GODSEND for Crossroads Mall, since it naturally will be a Commuter Rail stop. The stops in my mind would be: N. Guthrie, Guthrie, Edmond, N. OKC (new construction), N. 63rd area (new construction), Downtown OKC *Union or Santa Fe, Crossroads Mall, Norman, Purcell.

Keep in mind, Commuter Rail is also the CHEAPEST form of mass transit to implement; since you don't necessarily need to own the ROW. This is because it follows the Amtrak and Freight ROW, so all would need be done is a few enhancements and perhaps a few twinning. Platforms already exist at the AMTRAK stations and only a couple would need to be built for the park n rides. This CR routing would be successful today!, given it's route (notice all of the employment/shopping bases it passes) and could be used for sporting events (NBA train, OU Football train, etc). People WILL use it!

Again, if OKC is serious about joining the 21 Century, then we could start immediately and have mass transit in 2 years. Commuter Rail should be started (actually last year would have been nice, given the high gas prices) and the light rail streetcar should be planned (mostly routing in my opinion, we know the type of vehicle/design) and construction shortly thereafter. CR could be started using Amtrak in the very early am, for starters; perhaps adjusting the Amtrak service an hour later - we're going to get another train anyways, why not use it for OKC commute and Amtrak as a demonstrator/trial. We need to get ODOT thinking more than just highways, we need rail also - especially as Metro OKC approaches the 1.5M mark.

OKC does this, then we'd have even more evidence of emerging as a big league city!



(by the way, I know somebody is going to be a goon and chime in that CR causes/encourages sprawl - oh the contrary, CR actually causes density along it's route; highways/freeways is what has caused sprawl! 'need example? See Los Angeles.)

Kerry-

Yeah, I see your point of view. I think my concern came from handling the traffic into and out of the downtown core, not just within the core. Take for example, everyday workers at the thousands of jobs in that small area alone, or the loads of people that go to large events. My plan is for a downtown people mover that would connect with most of the parking as well as a future transit center.

I suppose it is possible that these are two completely different needs. Perhaps the there is a separate need for the needs of folks that live in that area.

Hot Rod- those are good points. On the metro solution, I strongly agree that we need to act now and starting with commuter-style is a good cost-effective move in the short-term. Do keep in mind that we would have to have a maintenance facility in addition to operations management of some sort. It doesn't have to be a taj mahal though.

FWIW: Subways are Heavy Rail.

Cuatro, not all subways are Heavy. Vancouver's subway network uses light vehicles that are automated, but everything else is subway (underground/overground in dedicated ROW, 3rd electrofied rail, large capacity (mostly due to frequency in Vancouver's case), turnstiles (are coming). Toronto has the TTC, which is the same as Vancouver's metro, as does Bangkok.

Some subways aren't even rail, as is the case with Montreal. Some subways don't use electricity. But in general, subways use 3rd rail, heavy cars, mostly underground in high density areas/above ground (or sometimes on) in exclusive ROW in lower density thru areas.

Vancouver's metro, known as SkyTrain by the way, is unique not only for being the longest automated metro in the world but also because a substantial portion of the original lines are elevated (only Chicago's El has more elevated runs)(most subways are ground level outside of the density area, but in Vancouver - even the suburbs are dense, hence elevation was required). The original lines are underground only in Downtown Vancouver (ala Chicago and SF). However, this is rapidly changing, as Vancouver's new subway line opening next year will be all undergound in the entire city (elevated in the suburbs) and a new line in planning will also be underground in the entire city.

Cuatro, not all subways are Heavy.

But in general, subways use 3rd rail, heavy cars, mostly underground in high density areas/above ground (or sometimes on) in exclusive ROW in lower density thru areas.

Like I said...

I like the idea of a Edmond-Norman line but those line are so busy that there is no way the trains could be ever on time. A once-a-day Amtrak can't even do that. Most likely a new set of tracks would have to be built in existing ROW.

As long as we keep building mass transit the way we are, it is going to keep costing too much money. Why is it so many other countries can design well enough and cut costs down enough to make it at least break-even? It's not rocket science.

So let me get this straight. We build a monorail line in 2500ppsm UA Oklahoma City at the same cost of a comparable streetcar system and magically it captures enough riders to supplement operating costs?! You're right! It's not rocket science!

Again, no U.S. transit system outside of New York, comes close to financial sustainability. Again, no city in the U.S. has the ridership numbers New York has.

In most cases the logic is simple.

Greater intensities = greater ridership = operational sustainability

OKC is missing the first part of the logic. And its not one to change until we better regulate new development, build a quality transit system, encourage lifestyle change.

You keep comparing other cities (Europe, Asia, South America) to OKC and the like. This makes me question your understanding of the built environment of such cities and their abilities to sustain transit systems. OKC is now way, shape, or form, comparable to these cities.


The new study is what I am talking about. It was never a thorough analysis, but rather a 'transit system in a box' for more than $750k that just says "you should do it this way and don't look at these alternatives because they dont work."

Again, that's because the "thorough analysis" originally called for bus expansion and BRT. Which in reality makes the most sense for *not*, but doesn't take into account economic development possibilities associated with fixed guideway systems.


Dude, they did learn to build various technologies. Streetcars work in some places. Europe also had a lot of subways built early on too as they had access to the technology early on, so that helps a lot.

Subways = greater capacity. European cities require such capacities because they are a) far denser and b) accustomed to that lifestyle (no car).


Streetcars can be a great option to a line running down a street that would have otherwise been bus,etc but as a cities' primary access into and out of downtown? No.

I'm not advocating for a streetcar system stretching to the far reaches of the OKC region. That's the purpose of commuter rail. Get the people downtown and use streetcars to disperse workers and residents throughout DT, DD, Brictown, Midtown, OUHSC, and the state government campus.


Please explain what makes Sydney a different city in terms of transit and why some of the same design principles cannot be applied to other cities.

http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/images/content/futurepg/aerial.jpg
Source (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/images/content/futurepg/aerial.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/programs_of_study/postgraduate/urban_regional_planning.shtml&usg=__Ko-Ko6MF-Bi7nJsa-E-gdkKEPQM=&h=411&w=700&sz=92&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=fZ6pKXcP93JVyM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsydney%2Baerial%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%2 6sa%3DG)

Only a handful of cities in the U.S. have this kind of built environment. OKC is not one of them. They built it for what they need. What they need and what we need are different.


Japan and China are extremely dense and populated, but they have roads just like every one else. Here's the deal: they found that Hitachi could install those systems for $15m / mile, so that ended up winning over everything else. IF they had forbidden mono-rail as an option, they may have been in a $50m a mile system that was deeply in debt, but they chose to weigh all options. The system has been very successful and popular in those areas.

A) Road size (width) and capacity in Japan are not the same as OKC. We have plenty of room, they do not.

B) Initial transit construction costs are not completely comparable between countries because of the dynamics of ROW acquisition, labor costs, planning (to include design and EIS), and project time frame.

C) Japan:
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/environment/assets/denver_tokyo_japan_shinjuku.jpg Source (http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/environment/assets/denver_tokyo_japan_shinjuku.jpg)



UPDATE- apparently, I missed your comment about the $17billion being spent on LRT in Seattle. That is very disturbing to say the least. Sad to see so much money just being thrown at a problem. How big is that $17b system again? ha, wow...

The price tag includes expansion of bus service, tunnels, and a floating bridge. Remember Seattle has topography. HotRod can better explain.

I never drew one comparison of other countries/cities to OKC. What I DID do is mention other cities efficient systems and ask you to tell me why we couldn't take some of the design principles and apply those to a system here. Your pictures dont explain anything with regard to why the core concepts of the transit systems are incompatible, as you suggest. I see a different layout in those pictures, that's all.

OKC does meet the first part of that logic you mention...what the heck do you think are clogging up the highways during rush hours? Cars with no people in them? Problem is, you're never gonna attract folks away from heavy auto usage with a s-l-o-w alternative. Comprendey?

We do not have "plenty of room" in downtown okc for road expansion. Heck, most places, we have built up to the sidewalk that is up against the buildings. Where is all this room you speak of? I just drove down there again tonight and I just don't see where, unless you are gonna "part waters", where all this extra space you speak of is located?

Both the original and additional "study" that were purchased for $750k were not complete as no cost estimates for the "disqualified" solutions were actually obtained for OKC. Old numbers from other areas were used to sell us a packaged "transit study in a box" and that is wrong. We should go back to the drawing board and thoroughly investigate all the options and the actual cost estimates for an OKC installation and then make a choice. Maybe streetcar would be the choice...maybe it would not. But just going with it because the packaged study said it's our only choice is a bad idea.

Reason I brought up the $17billion is because your comment stated that it was for "LRT". Your original comment didn't say it was for everything transit-wise.

I never suggested a streetcar be used for the "stretches of the OKC region". Are you reading my posts or someone else's? I said "Streetcars can be a great option to a line running down a street that would have otherwise been bus,etc but as a cities' primary access into and out of downtown? No." You see, I never suggested the "stretches of the OKC region".

The fact that you are pushing to use the streetcar to disperse workers to work in the morning and the intense loads for large events tells me that you are not taking into account the loads and frequencies that would be required even for our downtown loads today, let alone tomorrow. There aren't a measly 100 people working downtown scattered across a 3-hour window, dude. You couldn't put enough streetcars in series and move them fast enough to get the in/out rush traffic into and out of downtown. A streetcar could be placed in service for stuff like Kerry was suggesting, but for massive loads of people that are in a hurry to get to work? No, you wont get them out of their cars to wait 10-15 min for a streetcar to pull up and then spend another 15-30 minutes (depending on where they are going) to wait for every little hand that's raised on the way. They could walk faster, like they do now.

Heck, look at the miami downtown people mover. Now that city isn't all that big, but if streetcar was so much better at moving large loads of people, then why wouldn't they be using that as their people mover?

The irrefutable fact is you are not going to convert automobile drivers to a slower system where they have to sit around and wait. If this system is supposed to just be for the use of folks that live in that specific area, then I suggest they build it for just that purpose using local funds...but if we are all sharing in the cost, we need something that makes getting into downtown more efficient for all of us, not more time consuming.

Well, I tried.

It's continually apparent that you won't be learning much about the fundamentals of transportation planning. You really should listen. There are a few posters on this site who know what they are talking about, because they a) have several years of planning/transportation planning education and b) do it for a living.


OKC does meet the first part of that logic you mention...what the heck do you think are clogging up the highways during rush hours? Cars with no people in them? Problem is, you're never gonna attract folks away from heavy auto usage with a s-l-o-w alternative. Comprendey?

You really need to get out more.



We do not have "plenty of room" in downtown okc for road expansion. Heck, most places, we have built up to the sidewalk that is up against the buildings. Where is all this room you speak of? I just drove down there again tonight and I just don't see where, unless you are gonna "part waters", where all this extra space you speak of is located?

See above.


The fact that you are pushing to use the streetcar to disperse workers to work in the morning and the intense loads for large events tells me that you are not taking into account the loads and frequencies that would be required even for our downtown loads today, let alone tomorrow. There aren't a measly 100 people working downtown scattered across a 3-hour window, dude. You couldn't put enough streetcars in series and move them fast enough to get the in/out rush traffic into and out of downtown. A streetcar could be placed in service for stuff like Kerry was suggesting, but for massive loads of people that are in a hurry to get to work? No, you wont get them out of their cars to wait 10-15 min for a streetcar to pull up and then spend another 15-30 minutes (depending on where they are going) to wait for every little hand that's raised on the way. They could walk faster, like they do now.

While there is a capacity threshold, all rail modes are inherently expandable within themselves.


Heck, look at the miami downtown people mover. Now that city isn't all that big, but if streetcar was so much better at moving large loads of people, then why wouldn't they be using that as their people mover?


I'm sorry, but this one is funny.

From the Census (http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/CBSA-est2007-annual.html)

Miami-Ft. Lauderdale MSA est. 2007 pop. - 5,413,212

I don't know why Miami chose a people mover, maybe because Florida has a historical relationship with it. Disney developed it for Tomorrowland and Tampa was the first to install one at an airport.


The irrefutable fact is you are not going to convert automobile drivers to a slower system where they have to sit around and wait. If this system is supposed to just be for the use of folks that live in that specific area, then I suggest they build it for just that purpose using local funds...but if we are all sharing in the cost, we need something that makes getting into downtown more efficient for all of us, not more time consuming.

I don't know if you realize this, but the OKC area does not have a regional transportation authority. One is currently being developed, but that is a couple of years away. OKC is planning on paying for a streetcar system as part of MAPS 3.

I still don't get this "getting into downtown". That's what commuter rail is for. You get on a station in Norman and get off at Santa Fe. Therefore, you are *in* downtown.

If you still can't see the differences of the pics I posted and OKC, then you never will.

If you really want to debate this and get even more professionals involved in the discussion create a thread over at SSP (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/) in the Transportation section.

As frustrated as I sometimes became with the system in Toronto, there was a certain beauty in its chaos. Streetcars, taxis, pedestrians, commuter trains, and bicycles all share the streets. Most of these streets are old with only one lane each direction. You have to be on your toes to drive on these streets, but I saw few accidents. The madness gives the city a fast-paced urban atmosphere.

The streetcars have seldom-used redundant tracks on alternate streets. They are used only to transfer cars to more heavily travelled routes during rush hour, to transport cars to the maintenance facility, or to get around a broken down streetcar. If there was a problem on a street such as construction or an accident, streetcars would simply go around on the next block.

The only transit system that never interesects a street in Toronto is the subway. It is entirely underground.

http://www.sitebits.com/images/photo/streetcar_toronto_1.jpg

sgray, while there are some streets downtown that are pretty locked in and narrow, such as Robinson and Broadway for a couple blocks, most are pretty wide by urban standards and have plenty of room for a streetcar. The streetcars aren't going to run on EVERY street, so we don't have to worry about the few that are too narrow.

jbrown84-

Those are good points you make. I think once you are out of that central core, there is more room. I was mostly speaking of that center core downtown...where all the tall buildings are and things are more dense. Perhaps that area wouldn't cause too much of an issue for the line.


ptownsnwbrdr,

If you cannot answer the questions I presented to you, that is okay.

What I find even funnier about the Miami example is that you brought the numbers from Ft Lauderdale into the equation. Does miami pay for ft lauderdale's transit system? Are downtown miami and downtown ft lauderdale one and the same? That's really funny! I'll bet I can make the okc numbers look bigger too if I throw in Norman and Moore, El Reno, etc...heck, let's mix in Tulsa too. Wow, BIG city. Ha ha. REAL MIAMI POPULATION 2007, city=409,719 ... metro=about 2.4m without FLL figured in. So, for the purpose of our downtown transit system discussion, Miami IS NOT all that big.

Have you not noticed that others have engaged in useful discussion and we seem to be debating just fine...no mudslinging there. Dude, if you dont want to debate that's cool... I can't get anywhere asking you questions though. If I ask what an apple tastes like, you'll tell me you really dont like oranges cause they are tangy. I still, after several replies, cannot get you to tell me why we couldn't use some of the same design principles for a transit system here. You want to bash me, saying things like I'll never learn, but you wont answer the questions.

. . . . it's gonna be crowded right away no matter how we do it, even with a separation of modes. However, what about 20 years from now? We're already out of traffic lanes. We can't cut into buildings or get rid of the sidewalks. You know as well as I do that most of downtown has, on average, 2 lanes per side for traffic (today). . .

Nearly every downtown OKC street has one or more lanes dedicated to surface parking. The OKC downtown of the future will begin to incrementally eleminate those inefficient and costly curbside parking spaces as our new urban transit system is constructed. Good mass transit will help keep some people from driving their cars into the CBD and density will keep many urban dweller owned vehicles in their garages a lot of the time. Bicycle and scooter parking space will need to be improved and increased to encourage low impact transportation and many more people will begin to not have a thought about walking a mile or two to get from one place to another.

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on.

Michael Smith

Although I'm a suburbanite who has no desire to ever live downtown, I have always supported the efforts to reinvigorate our urban core.

I supported MAPS 1, the Ford Center upgrade and will support MAPS 3. I have supported the idea of mass transit as a component of that but I'm becoming increasingly concerned with our ability to come up with an affordable plan that really works for our city.

I posted some interesting numbers from a streetcar system about to be built in Cincinnati. It is a 3.9 mile system, with 6 cars, coming by every 10 minutes during peak times and every 20 minutes during non peak times. It will have 18 stops and it will take 15 minutes or more to travel 1.9 miles. The cost for this if it's brought in on budget is 102 million dollars and will cost 2.3 million dollars a year to operate.

Is that something that would work for downtown Oklahoma City? The more I see what these rail systems cost, the more I wonder if we shouldn't stick with rubber. I would think we could have an awfully nice CNG bus system downtown for 100 million dollars that would be far more flexible at meeting our needs as our downtown evolves.

For the cost involved, I'm having a harder and harder time seeing rail as being our best option.

OK - I've done zero research and this is just my opinion...

I would prefer a north - south line like the BART in SF. Even though it would never happen here... how cool would that be? Have to be underground stations in some spots I assume. But we're talking big $$ for that to happen.

jbrown84-

Those are good points you make. I think once you are out of that central core, there is more room. I was mostly speaking of that center core downtown...where all the tall buildings are and things are more dense. Perhaps that area wouldn't cause too much of an issue for the line.


ptownsnwbrdr,

If you cannot answer the questions I presented to you, that is okay.

What I find even funnier about the Miami example is that you brought the numbers from Ft Lauderdale into the equation. Does miami pay for ft lauderdale's transit system? Are downtown miami and downtown ft lauderdale one and the same? That's really funny! I'll bet I can make the okc numbers look bigger too if I throw in Norman and Moore, El Reno, etc...heck, let's mix in Tulsa too. Wow, BIG city. Ha ha. REAL MIAMI POPULATION 2007, city=409,719 ... metro=about 2.4m without FLL figured in. So, for the purpose of our downtown transit system discussion, Miami IS NOT all that big.

MSA Definition: (transit related issue is noted in bold)

Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas (metro and micro areas) are geographic entities defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use by Federal statistical agencies in collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics. The term "Core Based Statistical Area" (CBSA) is a collective term for both metro and micro areas. A metro area contains a core urban area of 50,000 or more population, and a micro area contains an urban core of at least 10,000 (but less than 50,000) population. Each metro or micro area consists of one or more counties and includes the counties containing the core urban area, as well as any adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) with the urban core.
source (http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/metroarea.html)

So for the purpose of a downtown transit distributor, yes, MSA numbers are deemed appropriate. People in Ft. Lauderdale, do commute to Miami and is exactly why it is included.

As for Norman, yes they are included in MSA tabulations (http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/CBSA-est2007-annual.html). Why? Because the commuting patterns show their connection. People in Norman, do commute to OKC, especially DT.

Within these Metropolitan Statistical Areas are regional transit authorities such as this (http://www.rtd-denver.com/Projects/Fact_Sheets/RTD_Facts.pdf). They can be multi-county districts used to fund area-wide transit. We (OKC area) is in the process of creating such a district.



Have you not noticed that others have engaged in useful discussion and we seem to be debating just fine...no mudslinging there. Dude, if you dont want to debate that's cool... I can't get anywhere asking you questions though. If I ask what an apple tastes like, you'll tell me you really dont like oranges cause they are tangy. I still, after several replies, cannot get you to tell me why we couldn't use some of the same design principles for a transit system here. You want to bash me, saying things like I'll never learn, but you wont answer the questions.

As far as I and others (moderation) on this site are concerned we are having a debate.

And to answer your question, Yes, we could use some of the design principles for a system here, but again, our built environment (intensities, road width, and general sprawl) dictate we don't need to.

Again, please post this debate over on SSP (skyscraperpage.com/forum)for an even larger audience of transit junkies, professionals, and scholars.

Although I'm a suburbanite who has no desire to ever live downtown, I have always supported the efforts to reinvigorate our urban core.

I supported MAPS 1, the Ford Center upgrade and will support MAPS 3. I have supported the idea of mass transit as a component of that but I'm becoming increasingly concerned with our ability to come up with an affordable plan that really works for our city.

I posted some interesting numbers from a streetcar system about to be built in Cincinnati. It is a 3.9 mile system, with 6 cars, coming by every 10 minutes during peak times and every 20 minutes during non peak times. It will have 18 stops and it will take 15 minutes or more to travel 1.9 miles. The cost for this if it's brought in on budget is 102 million dollars and will cost 2.3 million dollars a year to operate.

Is that something that would work for downtown Oklahoma City? The more I see what these rail systems cost, the more I wonder if we shouldn't stick with rubber. I would think we could have an awfully nice CNG bus system downtown for 100 million dollars that would be far more flexible at meeting our needs as our downtown evolves.

For the cost involved, I'm having a harder and harder time seeing rail as being our best option.

This is actually what could work now, at a substantially lower cost, but the problem with a bus only system is two fold. First, buses, in the eyes of the general public, are considered subpar aesthetically to their rail counterparts. Many studies indicate that many people don't ride buses because they are *for poor people* and *gross*. Rail has sex appeal. Secondly, buses do not allow for the economic development opportunities associated with station redevelopment like TOD. Pedestrian oriented communities are springing up all over the country on newly developed light and commuter rail lines. Communities that are far more sustainable than suburban development.

We do need a revamped bus service along with education to help break stereotypes about this transit mode.

didnt we talk about this before?

I think you mean to say, streetcar. Yes, there is a downtown streetcar plannned as a circular (which most are)...
I've never talked about it before. I'ver read this board for years, but haven't been posting long.

Actually, I was referring to light rail, at least as it is defined in this post (http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/15100-heavy-rail-vs-light-rail.html#post188630).

That's really splitting hairs, though. A streetcar and light rail are essentially the same thing, with true light rail providing just a bit more range, speed and flexibility, and often protected lanes. The term streetcar/trolley is evocative of something I don't think we'll see here, though, which is the old-fashioned trolley cars from different eras. I think the time for OKC to have a romanticized nostalgic trolley added to the mix is in the past at this point, and we'll more likely see a modern conveyance.

If it has potential to expand to the type of range you are describing though, meaning the long-term ability to go to places like Capitol Hill, C2S, and Stockyards City, it will more than likely fit the definition of light rail. Yeah, it may start out looking/functioning more like a streetcar. But I think the end result, especially if exanded, will incorporate elements of light rail.

I've never talked about it before. I'ver read this board for years, but haven't been posting long.

Actually, I was referring to light rail, at least as it is defined in this post (http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/15100-heavy-rail-vs-light-rail.html#post188630).

That's really splitting hairs, though. A streetcar and light rail are essentially the same thing, with true light rail providing just a bit more range, speed and flexibility, and often protected lanes. The term streetcar/trolley is evocative of something I don't think we'll see here, though, which is the old-fashioned trolley cars from different eras. I think the time for OKC to have a romanticized nostalgic trolley added to the mix is in the past at this point, and we'll more likely see a modern conveyance.

If it has potential to expand to the type of range you are describing though, meaning the long-term ability to go to places like Capitol Hill, C2S, and Stockyards City, it will more than likely fit the definition of light rail. Yeah, it may start out looking/functioning more like a streetcar. But I think the end result, especially if exanded, will incorporate elements of light rail.

Actually, that's exactly what OKC is proposing. A downtown modern streetcar circulator similar to this (http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/map.php). Not to be confused with Portland's Max Light Rail (http://trimet.org/max/index.htm).