That is where we have existing rail lines, why it is our easiest to implement system in cost and has no/little need for eminent domain than alternatives, plus most of the south traffic will probably be coming from Moore and Norman which theoretical stops for them are not in the image. Given an unlimited budget and ability to place track on a whim several paths would look different but compared to a lot of cities our hub/core is still much more centrally located for even route times. There is no getting around with the population we have in an area this large there are going to be a lot of people not near it no matter what type it is.

True, but there's a very large amount of housing in that unserved area. I suppose it would be irrelevant with good bus service, though. Something running every 15 minutes on the arterials.

I was in Seattle for most of last week, and was really impressed with how comprehensive, regular and reliable their bus service was. At least downtown, they had buses with arms like bumper cars and an electrified grid over the streets. Pretty neat.

Privileged to be on the Gwin Faulconer Show yesterday. Here is the podcast.

http://www.ktok.com/player/?station=KTOK-AM&program_name=podcast&program_id=GwinnFaulconerLippert.xml&mid=22227491

No the MPX is a standard diesel electric locomotive - the diesel engine turns generator(s) which power electric traction motors at the wheels. It is not "convertible" - which I think would be far less efficient than either type simply due to the additional weight of the unused power system when operating on the other. The VRE in northern VA /DC runs them.

This is where cheasepeake, Devon, and continental resourses could throw in some R&D and develope CNG/LNG locomotives to help use the product these companies provide. If it were to cut operating cost by even a quarter I could see other metro areas converting their diesel locomotives to CNG or LNG which with any vehicle conversion to CNG or LNG would lead to more revenues to Oklahoma's royalties and taxes. By using natural gas we would be using a fuel that is much less votile in the market than diesel. It could also save Cheasapeake J/K

This is where cheasepeake, Devon, and continental resourses could throw in some R&D and develope CNG/LNG locomotives to help use the product these companies provide. If it were to cut operating cost by even a quarter I could see other metro areas converting their diesel locomotives to CNG or LNG which with any vehicle conversion to CNG or LNG would lead to more revenues to Oklahoma's royalties and taxes. By using natural gas we would be using a fuel that is much less votile in the market than diesel. It could also save Cheasapeake J/K

My suggestion is a natural gas fired electrical generation plant with its primary customer being an electrified LRT system in the OKC metro. Then sell off any excess power generated to OG&E or any coop that desired to purchase it. Utilities could put potentially put off capital outlay for more generation capacity, one (or more) of the OKC based energy companies would win by having a guaranteed customer and great PR, and a future RTA could possibly build the system we want rather than settling for something less. Chesapeake, Devon, and Sand Ridge have done great things for our city but usually from a philanthropic viewpoint. This is a way they could actually benefit from a business perspective while greatly assisting their hometown.

I understand this may not take into account all the particulars of energy economics, but the basic idea seems to be a win for everyone involved from my point of view.

I posted the following as part of my comments on another thread...it's very relelant to our discussions here:

Just as an FYI, the Governance-Finance Committee of ACOG's 2009-2010 Regional Transit Dialogue prepared a final report that provided an excellent model for creating a regional transit district and funding a regional transit system. Here' a link to that report:

2009 RTD Governance-Finance Committee Final Report (http://www.acogok.org/Programs_and_Services/Transportation_and_Data_Services/RTD/documents/final_report_GovFin.pdf)

See pages 19-22 for the recommended layout of the district and page 53 to see the annual amount of funding that would be available for the transit system based on various permanent sales tax dedications for the district. As one example, a 3/4-cent sales tax from the district would generate more than $100 million annualy for a regional transit system based on 2009 sales tax revenues. That's how we're going to be able to build a great regional transit system.

My suggestion is a natural gas fired electrical generation plant with its primary customer being an electrified LRT system in the OKC metro. Then sell off any excess power generated to OG&E or any coop that desired to purchase it. Utilities could put potentially put off capital outlay for more generation capacity, one (or more) of the OKC based energy companies would win by having a guaranteed customer and great PR, and a future RTA could possibly build the system we want rather than settling for something less. Chesapeake, Devon, and Sand Ridge have done great things for our city but usually from a philanthropic viewpoint. This is a way they could actually benefit from a business perspective while greatly assisting their hometown.

I understand this may not take into account all the particulars of energy economics, but the basic idea seems to be a win for everyone involved from my point of view.

I think this is an excellent idea. It's a way of powering our streetcars with natural gas without clumsy conversions, the necessity of having a car out of the line being fueled, the creation of fueling stations, the possible risk of explosion, etc.

I think this is an excellent idea. It's a way of powering our streetcars with natural gas without clumsy conversions, the necessity of having a car out of the line being fueled, the creation of fueling stations, the possible risk of explosion, etc.

Thanks Betts - I meant to include the streetcar with LRT.

powering the Streetcar with the cheapest electricity possible is the best idea

I think Smith Cogeneration already does this out by the old Dayton Tire plant. Not sure who their customers are but i'd bet they'd take on another.

OG+E apparently offers NG power as an option just as they do wind power. We've looked into it. Now the NE Line train would be an interesting opportunity for a conversion.

OG+E apparently offers NG power as an option just as they do wind power. We've looked into it. Now the NE Line train would be an interesting opportunity for a conversion.

being that O + M is a big issue with transit in general .... why would we want to spend extra money "using" NG or wind power ..

powering the Streetcar with the cheapest electricity possible is the best idea

Just make sure they aren't on the Smart Meters...don't run between the hours of 2 & 7 pm or your fare will be up to 10 times normal...LOL

being that O + M is a big issue with transit in general .... why would we want to spend extra money "using" NG or wind power ..

I'm not personally advocating. Just noting that their are some simple solutions not involving special trams or other infrastructure should this be an issue somehow.

Anything that creates more demand for nat gas is good for Oklahoma and OKC maybe one day they will make planes powered by natural gas

Kansas City's application for TIGER funds for their new streetcar system was rejected, but that has not stopped KC from moving forward. They know any sort of fixed guideway transit will spur economic development along the route. Therefore they have started a campaign seeking local donors to contribute to getting their starter system built. It is a variation of our MAPS theme except it is not a tax. I wonder if a similar campaign for extending the streetcar system beyond the initial MAPS 3 system would be successful here.

http://www.neighbor.ly/en/kc-streetcar

At the very least, it is an interesting idea and something I plan to watch closely.

Kansas City's application for TIGER funds for their new streetcar system was rejected, but that has not stopped KC from moving forward. They know any sort of fixed guideway transit will spur economic development along the route. Therefore they have started a campaign seeking local donors to contribute to getting their starter system built. It is a variation of our MAPS theme except it is not a tax. I wonder if a similar campaign for extending the streetcar system beyond the initial MAPS 3 system would be successful here.

http://www.neighbor.ly/en/kc-streetcar


At the very least, it is an interesting idea and something I plan to watch closely.

I hope they get something going. When I lived there, all the transit iniatives got voted down in referendum.

What about naming rights for the streetcar system? Doesn't Devon do the riverboats, already?

As I was looking at the roundabout concepts being offered as an alternative to ODOT's elevated freeway/boulevard, it occurred to me the Market Circle concept would allow the streetcar system to easily connect to the Stockyard area using Exchange. The Public Farmers Market could become a destination in and of itself if the streetcar system can ever be extended in that direction and being able to ride from Bricktown to the Stockyards would be pretty cool. I realize I am getting WAY ahead of things, but I enjoy imagining what our city could be like in a few years.......

From Kansas City..... http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/15/3706318/kcs-leaders-know-light-rail-action.html

I find the similarities between KC and OKC interesting in the struggle to improve their transit infrastructure. However where our streetcar enjoys strong support from the citizens and some resistance from small, powerful interests, KC seems to have the opposite problem. I give the KC leadership credit for their tenacity in finding ways to build something that will benefit their city in the future even in the face of opposition now.

From Kansas City..... http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/15/3706318/kcs-leaders-know-light-rail-action.html

I find the similarities between KC and OKC interesting in the struggle to improve their transit infrastructure. However where our streetcar enjoys strong support from the citizens and some resistance from small, powerful interests, KC seems to have the opposite problem. I give the KC leadership credit for their tenacity in finding ways to build something that will benefit their city in the future even in the face of opposition now.

I would rather have KC's problem. There are about 10 people in OKC that if you can get them on your side it doesn't matter what the other 650,000 think.

I would rather have KC's problem. There are about 10 people in OKC that if you can get them on your side it doesn't matter what the other 650,000 think.

I think we sometimes have the same problem honestly - the convention center issues come to mind....... and I am concerned about the boulevard. How quickly would we have a streetcar system if the same people who pushed for the CC were advocating it?

How quickly would we have a streetcar system if the same people who pushed for the CC were advocating it?

You would already be riding it.

You would already be riding it.

Along with 20-30 other people, wherein lies the problem.

Along with 20-30 other people, wherein lies the problem.

Spoken like someone with ties to ODOR. Therein lies the real problem - institutionalized obstructionism to any form of transportation not involving automobiles and roads.

Along with 20-30 other people, wherein lies the problem.

Spoken like someone who hasn't done his/her homework. You might check Jacobs' ridership projections, and look at other cities' experiences where ridership has far exceeded initial projections.

Betts beat me to it. Every rail system in the US has exceeded ridership estimates.

I read this KC article last week when it first came out. When I was in KC, I thought I'd follow the Main Street line and just get a feel for what their streetcar will feel like, and I was impressed. KC will be perfect for this. However, this is merely another episode in the sad, prolonged history of KC rail transit proposals, which is truly a political phenomenon of its own, just as I'd argue Portland's rail obsession is also a phenomenon of its own.

If you compared OKC to KC in terms of urban fabric, you'd almost think their rightful city leadership was on loan to us. But KC has always had pretty bad city leadership and very resourceful, innovative urban pioneers who have done a good job of getting around the morons. I remember their past mayor, Funkhouser (who was very anti-rail, got voted out) gave me the impression that KC has some corruption issues and the top leadership echelons are protecting certain interests.

The only claim in the article that I felt was a hard hit was the attack on TOD and the claim that the statistics on spurring real estate investment are skewed do to incentives offered around other city's streetcar lines. She only used Portland as her example, and it's true that Portland added an incentive program to sweeten the deal in the Pearl District. However she left out the Pearl District was Portland's skid row, and the enormity of the challenges the streetcar helped them turn around. Today it looks like this:

http://static.flickr.com/36/110507092_f2c304c23e_o.jpg

OKC is not dense enough for a streetcar system.

I say spend a few hundred million on the bus system, make it usable and 24/7.

The city only has 24 routes. Increase this to 100 or so. Add 2-3 buses to each route with different times. Add more stations and substations. They would probably need around 250-300 actual buses to make it useable.

They really have to hit every area of OKC and frequently for people to start using public transit. Yes, you would have lots of empty busses at first, but once people realize it is a usable system, they would take advantage. I want to be able to go from my house in uptown to my girlfriends house near rockwell/macarthur and not have it take more than 45 minutes. I want to be able to go from my house to the airport in 45 minutes. Both of these destinations will take 2 hours each taking the buses+walking decent distances. Both take 20 minutes by car. I'd sacrifice the extra time if the fare was half the price of gas.

Install sidewalks on all the main roads so I can walk safely to the bus stop with my disability. Then, I'd use public transit.

Sure, making a crazy system like this would be complicated, but it would work. Just need to educate people first on the system and subsidize the fares significantly at first. My car gets 28mpg in the city and 35 on the highway, fares need to be 1/2 of that or less.

We have computers now-a-days and people have GPS on their phones. Create an app with realtime bus info. Have monitors at every bus station showing real-time ETAs.

I would think building a bus system is cheaper than building a streetcar system that would cover all of okc's populated area (areas with subdivisions/planned housing), I'm talking all of OKC city limits with lot sizes less than 12,000ft and incorporated suburbs like warr acres/bethany. There is a pretty good road system in place here with 4 lane roads, just work on the stop lights to "turn green" when the busses are approaching and it would be pretty convenient. The technology is out there.

OKC is not dense enough for a streetcar system.

This was a valid argument in 1990. Since then thousands of new residents have moved downtown, the downtown office worker count and space footprint has expanded considerably, and the main addition is that downtown's primary use after 5 has become a restaurant district, not just confined to Bricktown, but the entire downtown region has emerged as the metro's premier restaurant and nightlife district with no other area even close.

Furthermore, in the last two years we've seen new development congregate along the proposed route and many instances in which developer's have credited the streetcar. The answer today is a combination of realizing how much downtown has changed over the last 20 years (to a degree that nobody has quite fathomed today), and realizing where downtown is going especially with the addition of streetcar. That is a difference worth paying for, even on top of the recent positive trajectory.


I say spend a few hundred million on the bus system, make it usable and 24/7.

I'm not sure this city will ever be able to expect 24/7 bus service like other cities, but we can certainly work toward finding dedicated transit funding, Sunday service, and perhaps a few lines serving nightlife districts that run 24 hours to cut down on drunk driving. I'd say that would be a reasonable goal to have, just as a small starter streetcar system was a more reasonable goal than a massive city-wide LRT system, despite how much more I'd want to see that.


The city only has 24 routes. Increase this to 100 or so. Add 2-3 buses to each route with different times. Add more stations and substations. They would probably need around 250-300 actual buses to make it useable.

We're not getting 100 routes. I'd say to keep the same number of routes, shrink the service area to something bounded roughly by 63rd and 240, and then definitely add the 2-3 buses to each route as you suggest. You can't have a decent transit system with people having to wait in between 30-60 minutes between buses, especially a hub system that depends on switching buses, and then the service not being very reliable on top of that.


They really have to hit every area of OKC and frequently for people to start using public transit. Yes, you would have lots of empty busses at first, but once people realize it is a usable system, they would take advantage. I want to be able to go from my house in uptown to my girlfriends house near rockwell/macarthur and not have it take more than 45 minutes. I want to be able to go from my house to the airport in 45 minutes. Both of these destinations will take 2 hours each taking the buses+walking decent distances. Both take 20 minutes by car. I'd sacrifice the extra time if the fare was half the price of gas.

You're probably going to be able to rely on fixed guideway transit in the future because in Uptown, you live in an area that is worth investing in and will see an influx of change in the coming years. I think you especially should stay tuned to streetcar Round 2 talks, and perhaps even push for bus and streetcar Phase 2 funding in the 2016 bond issue that's coming up. Problem is that streetcar funding is easier to come up with bc it relies more on capital costs, very little on operating costs - which is harder to find a source for.


Install sidewalks on all the main roads so I can walk safely to the bus stop with my disability. Then, I'd use public transit.

The city is definitely not working on sidewalks fast enough - there are still so many busy inner city streets without sidewalks, despite so many non-motorists trying to dodge the cars. It's frightening, and it's amazing only a few people get killed by cars. My heart just weeps for anyone who doesn't own a car in OKC.


We have computers now-a-days and people have GPS on their phones. Create an app with realtime bus info. Have monitors at every bus station showing real-time ETAs.

The sad thing is that because I know the streetcar guys are working on that as we speak, I'm more confident in that brand-new system that has yet to serve a single passenger getting that kind of technology than our antiquated bus system. The problem there is that there is no way to wrestle the buses away from COTPA because it's an existing service they've always ran. COTPA will need to embrace modernization, however, the streetcars likely won't be the responsibility of COTPA and have a better outlook in that regard.


I would think building a bus system is cheaper than building a streetcar system that would cover all of okc's populated area (areas with subdivisions/planned housing), I'm talking all of OKC city limits with lot sizes less than 12,000ft and incorporated suburbs like warr acres/bethany. There is a pretty good road system in place here with 4 lane roads, just work on the stop lights to "turn green" when the busses are approaching and it would be pretty convenient. The technology is out there.

Absolutely. Traffic signal synchronization is another thing that needs work, however, minimal synchronization that would be disruptive for motorists would be necessary if the buses revert to a grid system and just follow a single street for 10 miles.

However I disagree that we need to provide A+ services to folks living that far out. Those homes should not have been built in the first place, we need to reassert the benefits of living closer in without shirking on reasonable services on those folks, and transit among other things is just one area that applies to. I think living north of the NW Expressway, folks should expect transit service around what we currently have, which is pretty bad. Folks between the expressway and 240 however DO have a reasonable right to expect quality transit service, and that's where our focus should be.

I think the limits of Public transportation in OKC for the foreseeable future (20 years) is Portland to I-35 and N 63rd to I-240, with the bulk of the system being in the Urban Core (235 -> 40 -> 44 -> 235).

You can't address the whole city when the city is the second largest city in the country with the 44th (or whatever) ranked population.

I think the limits of Public transportation in OKC for the foreseeable future (20 years) is Portland to I-35 and N 63rd to I-240, with the bulk of the system being in the Urban Core (235 -> 40 -> 44 -> 235).

You can't address the whole city when the city is the second largest city in the country with the 44th (or whatever) ranked population.

This is by far the single biggest obstacle to improving public transit in the OKC metro. The sprawl (of which I concede I am part of) makes it nearly impossible to effectively serve the majority of the population. But the sprawl did not happen overnight and likewise, the solution is a long term one.

I think we need to decide if building transit infrastructure in a targeted area will be incentive enough to cause the population to shift back toward the area you defined. It goes beyond transit though, I live in the suburbs to give my kids the best public education I can. I think this is one of the main reasons people live so far away from the downtown core (and the desire to have the yard and 2 car garage.) I would love to have a downtown OKC home but that will have to wait until my youngest child graduates high school. Then it is very likely I will be house hunting somewhere along the streetcar route.

The thing is that OKCPS would benefit tremendously from actual home ownership in the inner city areas, and good families moving into those areas. I'm not arguing to reduce any services like education, libraries, fire, police, etc., for suburban areas due to our sprawl. Transit, however, I feel does need to be a major advantage the inner city has over the suburban areas. It's not equitable when the burbs have every advantage over the inner city, and people surmise there is no way to fix the vicious cycle that the inner city has gotten into.

I'd say just give it a couple advantages that may appeal to some families to start getting some families moving back in. That disrupts the vicious cycle and gets probably the north side at least back on a virtuous cycle of improvement. To that end, I agree at some point we can't keep restoring the north side on the backs of young professionals and empty nesters alone; we will need the families - especially in that area, which is the urban answer for them, where downtown per se may not be a perfect fit. It shouldn't be downtown or burbs - the inner city neighborhoods need to serve as that intermediary for people who want family-friendly streets and neighbors, and the urban advantages along with authentic community.

CaptDave, I recommend you read Chapter 7 of Suburban Nation. That great education for your children comes at a terrible price, and you probably aren't even aware of it. It actually breaks my heart what we have done to our children in the name of ‘safety’. Since I am a fellow suburbanite I include myself as a participant in this travesty.

Spartan & JTF - I agree with both of you on this. (Did the planets just align??!!)

I liken urban renewal to turning a large ship around. It takes a long time to be heading 180 degrees from your initial course. The good news is OKC has started to make the turn I think. I also don't think we have made even 45 degrees of that turn so far. This is why it is critical to nurture the momentum OKC has created by doing things like restoring OKCPS to the standard of the suburban schools or better, building transit infrastructure that attracts residents, creating an environment that small businesses can thrive in, creating a downtown where residents enjoy being in at all times of the day...... just a short list of things to get done.

But the reality remains that at this time, the best public education available for my kids is in one of the suburban systems. I have to make decisions that are best for them even though I would like to live in downtown. I think we are at the beginning of OKC's turnaround and eventually we will see families living in downtown OKC and their kids getting a great education in urban schools.

CaptDave - I agree that trying to shift the monentum is hard; Newton's laws of motion don't just apply to the physical world. I know what you are saying about education but it isn't what they learn in school that is the price of suburbia, it was they don't learn about life that is the problem. Chapter 7 that I mentioned above describes the victims of urban sprawl, one of which is 'Cul-de-sac Kids'. Those are children who grown up on suburban residential streets isolated from most of the world around them who end up living in a suspended state of childhood until they are 18, at which point they enter the world probably never having gone to the store by themselves.

I don't know your situation but I know mine. My oldest boy is 13 and the only place he has ever gone by himself is to our local subdivision park and he just started doing that last year. With the traffic on our local collector streets riding his bike to the store is just too dangerous. The first time he goes to the store by himself he will have to do it driving a car. What kind of world have we created where a child can drive a car before he buys his first candy bar?

Just to throw this out there, but Classen SAS and Harding Charter Prep are both in the Urban Core, and those are two of the best HS in the metro.

But the reality remains that at this time, the best public education available for my kids is in one of the suburban systems. I have to make decisions that are best for them even though I would like to live in downtown. I think we are at the beginning of OKC's turnaround and eventually we will see families living in downtown OKC and their kids getting a great education in urban schools.

This is why the city has been targeting singles and those old enough to not have kids first to move to the core, it would be much preferable to have the largest audience possible but reality is they can start with this demographic first while they work on the schools.

I'm not sure this city will ever be able to expect 24/7 bus service like other cities, but we can certainly work toward finding dedicated transit funding, Sunday service, and perhaps a few lines serving nightlife districts that run 24 hours to cut down on drunk driving. I'd say that would be a reasonable goal to have, just as a small starter streetcar system was a more reasonable goal than a massive city-wide LRT system, despite how much more I'd want to see that.

I don't remember with Portland, but even Seattle's buses don't even run 24 hours. I think they run 5AM to 12AM or 2AM. I do think contracting the bus routes would be a smart move, as long as they keep a few long distance routes to Quail Springs and the airport.

I don't remember with Portland, but even Seattle's buses don't even run 24 hours. I think they run 5AM to 12AM or 2AM. I do think contracting the bus routes would be a smart move, as long as they keep a few long distance routes to Quail Springs and the airport.

Yeah, there are VERY few transit systems that run 24/7.

Yeah, there are VERY few transit systems that run 24/7.

I thought their time coverage was more than adequate. What astonished me was the frequency of arrivals. I was admittedly in the downtown business district, but it seemed like I never waited more than 5 minutes for a bus that would get me to where I wanted to go.

I was there for business with a colleague from Nashville. It astonished him that most of the workers in our offices didn't drive, and several didn't own cars. He was really hung up on the concept of not being "independent" by relying on public transit. By the end of the trip, he said it wasn't too bad, but I still couldn't convince him to take the light rail to the airport versus hiring a cab($2.75 vs $35) even though Seattle's light rail is very nice, and the ride to the airport is only about 30 minutes.

OKC is not dense enough for a streetcar system. ...
Except we had a rather extensive streetcar system (forget the exact number of track miles but IIRC, was a couple of hundred?) for decades and then abandoned it...ripped out the tracks or paved over them for the most part...had interurban runs to surrounding communities

Except we had a rather extensive streetcar system (forget the exact number of track miles but IIRC, was a couple of hundred?) for decades and then abandoned it...ripped out the tracks or paved over them for the most part...had interurban runs to surrounding communities

Larry, I have been over this a hundred times with the nay-sayers. It is like the past never happened. BTW - I think the old OKC streetcar system had 77 miles. The interurban probably had several hundred miles.

Some of you might find this story interesting (from 2008). The irony is that what brought down the Oklahoma Railway Company is the exact same thing we are doing with our roads.
http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/print-article-2784-print.html


By 1944, there had been over two million commuter rides on the interurban trains and 52 million on the streetcars

...population of OKC at the time, 65,000.

but alas...


Postwar prosperity, with its cheap fuel and emphasis on cars, was ending the need for the interurbans.

"Oklahoma City was already starting to spread out by then," Dean said. "The first shopping center had already gone up."

But, Eugene Jordan of Jordan Petroleum and his partner Robert Bowers still saw the interurbans as a threat. They had earlier bought the Oklahoma Transportation Corporation, an instate version of Greyhound, for $1.6 million. Now they petitioned the court to buy the Oklahoma Railway Company with its interurbans and city buses for $2.5 million. The court agreed, transferring ownership to the Oklahoma Transportation Corporation in the fall of 1945.

Jordan and Bowers quickly sold off the firm's assets. The trains were sold to a firm in Mexico City.

By 1947, only old rail tracks embedded into city streets were left of commuter rail in Oklahoma City.

The next year, in 1948, the last of the commuter rails, the Nowata-Union Electric Railway shut down, ending commuter rail within the state.

I think the future of OKC streetcar can be as exciting as the past. Especially when you combine the sleek modern streetcars with urban development of today.

I think the future of OKC streetcar can be as exciting as the past. Especially when you combine the sleek modern streetcars with urban development of today.

It is funny because the original street cars were used to create urban sprawl, but the cost of keeping up with sprawl put them out of business. Now we are using streetcars to re-urbanize the core. There should be a lesson in there for people proposing park 'n rides as part of a larger regional rail network (as-in, are we going to use rail to go chasing sprawl again).

It is funny because the original street cars were used to create urban sprawl, but the cost of keeping up with sprawl put them out of business. Now we are using streetcars to re-urbanize the core. There should be a lesson in there for people proposing park 'n rides as part of a larger regional rail network (as-in, are we going to use rail to go chasing sprawl again).

Sprawl did not put street cars out of business

It is funny because the original street cars were used to create urban sprawl, but the cost of keeping up with sprawl put them out of business. Now we are using streetcars to re-urbanize the core. There should be a lesson in there for people proposing park 'n rides as part of a larger regional rail network (as-in, are we going to use rail to go chasing sprawl again).

I would not characterize neighborhoods like Crown Heights, and commercial strips like 23rd Uptown and the Plaza, as bad sprawl.

Just to throw this out there, but Classen SAS and Harding Charter Prep are both in the Urban Core, and those are two of the best HS in the metro.

There's also Kipp for Middle School, Dove Science Academy, and Aztec that are all also in the urban core.

I would not characterize neighborhoods like Crown Heights, and commercial strips like 23rd Uptown and the Plaza, as bad sprawl.

No, not by today's standards they aren't. Back then people still had to walk from the their house to the streetcar stop so it was still classified as transit oriented development, but it was far less dense then downtown OKC at the time.

Sprawl did not put street cars out of business

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/print-article-2784-print.html


"There was enormous pressure on them from the city and officials to expand their line," said Dean, noting the Oklahoma Railway had gone far beyond the housing districts Classen and Shartel had built.

A workers strike in 1911 demonstrated how important the interurbans had become to a city of 65,000.

By the early 1920s, both Classen and Shartel were out of the interurban rail business.

"In the 1920s, they were in constant receivership," Dean pointed out. "The interurbans never paid a dividend to their investors."

A large part of the reason for this was due to continually expanding the system.

BORROWING TO PAY
To do so, the Oklahoma Railway was constantly borrowing to pay for the expansion. The firm found itself it a catch-22 situation. The public and local government demanded their expansion and in so doing the lines' profits were eaten away from paying off loans.


This was demonstrated after Hubert Hudson took over the company in 1927, spending more than $2 million for expansion. To offset costs, Hudson sold Belle Isle to Oklahoma City.

Then Oklahoma City saw its interurban commuter train system hit by both the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Revenues plunged and the company was handed over to the federal government to be administered from 1939 to 1945.

...

World War II, however, created a boom in interurban usage. In 1941, prior to Pearl Harbor, 39 train runs were conducted daily; by 1944, that number was up to 192.

All that traffic was overwhelming the 11 interurbans and 40 streetcars the firm operated. The U.S. Navy helped some: Since the line served the two naval bases on Norman's north side, the Navy bought 10 and converted two that were being used as roadside diners.

By 1944, there had been over two million commuter rides on the interurban trains and 52 million on the streetcars.

END OF THE LINE
But the end of the war brought an end to the boom in business. The two naval bases were closed. Revenue plummeted.


Postwar prosperity, with its cheap fuel and emphasis on cars, was ending the need for the interurbans.

"Oklahoma City was already starting to spread out by then," Dean said. "The first shopping center had already gone up."

After reading a few articles and watching some lectures on modern transit systems and spending some time thinking about our present transit system, it has become apparent the city has the ability to proactively set the conditions that will make a comprehensive transit system successful in OKC - if they have the will to do so. If the number of available, inexpensive parking slots in the downtown area is reduced, and the availability of transit to move people into the city center is increased to where it is abundant and reliable, then using transit will become more convenient than driving a car. The primary caveat to this is that transit, regardless of mode, must run often enough to so that riders do not tire of waiting then give up and get their cars.

Another factor that increases transit confidence and ridership is establishing a transit "brand" - meaning the interior of a bus looks very similar to a streetcar. The signage should be consistent system-wide, the schedule needs to be clear and intuitive, and finally it must run where it is most efficient rather than trying to stop at the doorstep of every potential rider. Riders will walk to a transit stop if they believe the next vehicle is inbound and will arrive in a matter of a few minutes. If we did these things, we could maximize the transit assets we have now in a defined area and along specific corridors, thereby making our system more functional.

I know none of this is original or even new to this group of people. But I do think it is a new concept to city and COTPA leadership. Thankfully we have a group of people on the MAPS Transit subcommittee that "gets it" even if it isn't unanimous on the committee.

I'd have to imagine that the guy from Portland who is one of the key components of the streetcar subcommittee is probably wondering why our state transportation department is so inbred.

The primary caveat to this is that transit, regardless of mode, must run often enough to so that riders do not tire of waiting then give up and get their cars.


This is why reducing the geographic scope is so important. To achieve any kind of frequency we can't be running buses 10 or 15 miles up and down Portland Ave. I have always said it is much better to serve a smaller area really well then to serve a large area poorly.

This is why reducing the geographic scope is so important. To achieve any kind of frequency we can't be running buses 10 or 15 miles up and down Portland Ave. I have always said it is much better to serve a smaller area really well then to serve a large area poorly.

But what about the large number of people that could make really good use of transit(Low wage workers) who work at Quail Springs/Memorial? I would think running a few express buses up there would still generate plenty of fares.

But what about the large number of people that could make really good use of transit(Low wage workers) who work at Quail Springs/Memorial? I would think running a few express buses up there would still generate plenty of fares.

They need to buy a car, move out there, or find work in the transit zone.

But what about the large number of people that could make really good use of transit(Low wage workers) who work at Quail Springs/Memorial? I would think running a few express buses up there would still generate plenty of fares.

It would probably be more feasible get Edmond to extend the route that ends at Santa Fe to Quail, they already run an semi-express bus from bricktown to their hub. Fares generally do not cover but a small part of the cost to run a line, from the last report our fares collected was even lower than the national average, something like five to ten percent.

It would probably be more feasible get Edmond to extend the route that ends at Santa Fe to Quail, they already run an semi-express bus to their hub. Fares generally do not cover but a small part of the cost to run a line, from the last report our fares collected was even lower than the national average, something like five to ten percent.

Which is why we shouldn't even be collecting a fare. They spend more tracking money in the fare box than the fare box contains.

Anyone who doubts the reality of transit oriented development need only take a trip down I-35 to Dallas. Twenty years ago downtown Dallas was decaying fast - it was a virtual ghost town once all the suburb dwelling workers left for the day. The West End was starting to die and Deep Ellum was in bad shape. Despite all the griping from numerous groups, DART started their light rail system along existing rail right of ways they purchased. Now, as I look through my hotel window at the West End station, I see numerous thriving restaurants, mixed use development, trains that run every 5-7 minutes per line, commuter rail to Ft Worth, and Amtrak heading into Union Station. There are numerous restaurants that stay open after midnight all week, and now it is possible to live, shop, and work in Dallas without driving a car every day. Even so, I can also see slow moving traffic that makes a commute in a car in this city pure misery.

There is absolutely no reason this cannot be done in OKC as well even though it will obviously be a smaller scale - for now. It has been mentioned that population density is the main barrier to transit working in OKC. I think the population will naturally congregate around a fixed guideway transit system if we ever have the vision to build one. Our MAPS streetcar system is a great start, but I hope we will be willing to go beyond the streetcar and develop a regional system within the next decade. The I think the population density will take care of itself once people figure out how much they can save by reducing the number of vehicles they own, or by better serving those without a car.

One other thing I have noticed is the overhead power cables are hardly noticeable. I think we will be wasting our time worrying about a few people complaining about something no one will notice once it has been there a while. If anything, the supports for the cables add a bit of character to the streetscape.

One other thing I have noticed is the overhead power cables are hardly noticeable. I think we will be wasting our time worrying about a few people complaining about something no one will notice once it has been there a while. If anything, the supports for the cables add a bit of character to the streetscape.

I agree with you on the cables, but the mafia lined up against it is too big to topple. Cables are a non-starter at this point.

I agree with you on the cables, but the mafia lined up against it is too big to topple. Cables are a non-starter at this point.

Well, hey, if they want to forgo overhead wires, they can go the "30% more expensive than wires" route:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply