New Streetcar Routes in Other Cities

[Larry OKC]

Soonerguru:

Don't get me wrong, even though they are incredibly expensive, I am not against the Streetcars. I'm not saying that there isn't any development with Streetcars or not even substantial development because of it (that wouldn't exist elsewhere). Development will certainly occur on it (just like it does when you build major streets, highways etc). It does allow another spot for concentration. No doubt.

The only thing I would take slight issue with is "Private residential, commercial and retail development in the urban core is essential for this city to grow." The City has grown without that for quite a while now without it being concentrated in the urban core, why do we suddenly need it there now? If you want the urban core to grow, that makes since, but then again, it seems like we are back to "cannibalizing" to a certain extent again. Some retail stores give great thought to how closely they put a new location to an existing one because they know a certain percentage will shift (now you have to pay for 2 buildings, 2 sets of management, staff, utilities etc, but do the number of new customers justify it?) Now apparently this doesn't bother McDonald's in the least because they have keep opening them up (seems like there is at least one and sometimes 2 of them at the same exit. Seemingly along every exit there on I-40 west of the I-244/44). LOL.

[shane453]

The only thing I would take slight issue with is "Private residential, commercial and retail development in the urban core is essential for this city to grow." The City has grown without that for quite a while now without it being concentrated in the urban core, why do we suddenly need it there now?

Larry I know you have read this a million times on this forum so I'm not sure why you're asking, but growth will not be healthy and our city will not be attractive to the incoming generation if we do not have urban core growth. We need it there now because it is in high-demand nationally among college graduates and empty nesters, both important demographics. This doesn't require a stop to fringe growth- we can continue trying to live in a faux-pastoral fantasy land while destroying actual countryside. But if we want to attract new people and businesses we will need a more developed core. There is a reason why there are so many cities trying to pursue streetcars, light rail, and other kickstarters for urban development.

[Larry OKC]

Shane, I still am not understanding why the sudden change with the "incoming generation"? By the time this gets built (am speaking more generally of the whole Core to Shore, which is a 30 to 50 year plan), who's to say the pendulum won't have swung back the other way (perhaps multiple times)? Even when talking about mass transit, it has a similar time line as Core to Shore. Seems like we are doing this because it is the "in" thing to do right now?

[Spartan]

Well Larry, the point is that when OKC has been sprawling, the older sprawl and inner city has been ghetto as hell. Now that OKC is concentrating more on the inner city, it's only a little bit ghetto with some nice areas in between. A huge improvement over ghetto as hell.

So to break it down into the most basic terms, it's about neighborhood improvement. That's what this is all about. Having livable, nice neighborhoods.

[okclee]

I read an article a couple of days ago (I will try and find it later today).

It was stating that the U.S. needs the upcoming generational shift in order to fix suburban sprawl. It was stating how the Boomer generation loves the suburbs and Gen X and Y are only now starting to move back to urban. Obviously not everywhere or everyone fits into this article but, it had some good points.

[Kerry]

okclee - it is an efficiency issue for me. The higher the density the more efficient cities can be run, and not from a central planning point of view, but from an individual point of view. When I look at my personal life and where expenses can be cut and time saved, it is almost all in yard maintenance, automobile ownership, and getting from point A to point B.

[Larry OKC]

Kerry, no doubt...just ask Betts, think she said she is saving an amazing amount/year by living downtown (seems like it was in excess of $10K/year)

[Kerry]

Kerry, no doubt...just ask Betts, think she said she is saving an amazing amount/year by living downtown (seems like it was in excess of $10K/year)

I would move to downtown OKC in a heartbeat with kids and all - but we have a darn house in Florida that we can't sell. Every time I drive somewhere I get ticked off that I can't walk there. As I said before, we have an awesome Chinese takeout place that I can see from my bedroom window. It is maybe 1000 feet away but I have to drive 2.5 miles round trip to get to it.

[okclee]

Not necessarily all streetcar but here is a list ......

"The 13 Best U.S. Cities for Public Transit"

1.) Portland, Oregon. (No surprise here. Portland’s expanding light rail and streetcar lines make it the poster child for livable cities.)

2.) Salt Lake City (A surprise, but this underrated city has aggressively built light rail lines.)

3.) New York (Life here would unimaginable without transit. It’s the only major U.S. city where more than half of all households don’t even own a car.)

4.) Boston (The birthplace of subways in America, Boston’s compact settlement makes trains and buses a way of life.)

5.) Minneapolis-St. Paul (A shocker to me, and I live here. A good bus system now augmented with light rail. U.S. News awards it extra points for a stellar safety record.)

6.) San Francisco (Charming cable cars, but also the BART subway, an extensive network of light rail, commuter rail and buses.)

7.) Los Angeles (Even more of a shocker than Minneapolis, but Angelenos have been quietly assembling a respectable network of rapid transit alongside one of the world’s most extensive bus systems.)

8.) Honolulu (A 20-mile elevated rail system is in the works.)

9.) Denver (A little-low on the list, I argue, for a city where voters have said “yes”to an impressive network of light rail lines.)

10.) Austin (I’m skeptical, but must admit it’s been seven or eight years since I last visited.

11.) Washington (Way low for a city with some of the most walkable suburbs in America thanks to its wide-ranging Metro system.)

12.) Seattle (For a city that built a demonstration monorail in 1962, Seattle was late in the game in expanding transit beyond buses.)

13.) Chicago (The Windy City should demand a recount. The el trains and buses go everywhere you need to go.)

.................read more..........................
http://www.shareable.net/blog/the-13...public-transit

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...transportation.

[Kerry]

There must be a typo - San Jose was not on the list despite VTA, CalTrain, and ACE (and those are just the rail systems). Not sure how Honolulu makes the list with a 'coming soon' system.

[Spartan]

Kerry, this is the thread for your screenshots of Bordeaux, please.

[Kerry]

Thought I would pass this article along. Jacksonville is looking to create a transit hub at our convention center. It will serve as a hub for Amtrak and Greyhound. The Skyway also serves the convention center. Keep in mind that the Jackonville Convention Center is a former railroad station.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2...-osborn-center

[Urban Pioneer]

http://www.themilwaukeestreetcar.com/index.php

[ljbab728]

I find it interesting that they are pleased that their proposed system is within 1/4 mile of most areas that could utilize their street car system. Many of our detractors are worried about having to travel more than two blocks to get to our system. They are also very happy about a route that will be much shorter than our initial system.

[Just the facts]

I find it interesting that they are pleased that their proposed system is within 1/4 mile of most areas that could utilize their street car system. Many of our detractors are worried about having to travel more than two blocks to get to our system. They are also very happy about a route that will be much shorter than our initial system.

Milwaukee has one thing OKC doesn't have - a route. The Milwaukee route was planned mostly behind the scenes and after they got a route they sold it to the public. OKC did it the other way around, which is why there is so much more debate in OKC. The people of OKC said we want a streetcar, but no route had been planned. Cincinnati did the same thing - created the route then tried to sell it. That is why you can see a map of both streetcar routes (Milwaukee and Cincinnati) years before there is any funding available, meanwhile, OKC has funding available but no route yet. The OKC situation is ripe for debate.

[BoulderSooner]

Milwaukee has one thing OKC doesn't have - a route. The Milwaukee route was planned mostly behind the scenes and after they got a route they sold it to the public. OKC did it the other way around, which is why there is so much more debate in OKC. The people of OKC said we want a streetcar, but no route had been planned. Cincinnati did the same thing - created the route then tried to sell it. That is why you can see a map of both streetcar routes (Milwaukee and Cincinnati) years before there is any funding available, meanwhile, OKC has funding available but no route yet. The OKC situation is ripe for debate.

okc has a route ..

[Just the facts]

okc has a route ..

It has half a route and it came after the vote for funding took place.

[betts]

Barring engineering issues, we have a route, give or take a block at the ends. There is no route that will please everyone, especially if they're members of this forum.

[Just the facts]

Barring engineering issues, we have a route, give or take a block at the ends. There is no route that will please everyone, especially if they're members of this forum.

That is what I am saying. If there was a final route selected BEFORE the MAPS III vote there would be nothing to debate except when constuction starts. Milwaukee and Cincinnati both had final routes selected before they took their sales pitch to the people. By the time the public was informed that only thing left to talk about was how to fund it. In OKC the public was ahead of the curve fromt the get-go.

However, things in Cincinnati might not be as smooth as hoped. They had an intial route planned but when they lost $58 million in state funding they had to shorten the route to match available funding. Not everyone is happy about the modified route, including the NAACP who now wants to kill the whole thing.

[G.Walker]

One mistake that Okc is making is that they are making street car routes in areas that are already developed...therefore no new development will spur from the street car, you need to put street routes around areas that promote new construction

[ljbab728]

That is what I am saying. If there was a final route selected BEFORE the MAPS III vote there would be nothing to debate except when constuction starts.

You have to be kidding. You actually think that would have prevented any criticism or debate on this forum? LOL
Nothing stops it.

[G.Walker]

The best thing they could do is put a street car route around new central park, and near the river...

[mcca7596]

No one will ride it down by the river initially. There are many areas to still develop in the core, as much as many from the suburbs (not saying you are G. Walker) would not understand, it still needs to densify.

[lasomeday]

G Walker, The route should go past areas that are developed. That is where the riders are. The good thing about downtown is that we have lumps of areas that are not developed or underdeveloped. Automobile Alley has a lot of potential for development as well as the areas the route is going. I don't see a street in Midtown or downtown that could not be developed more.

Taking it by the river and around Central Park is a waste for now. Maybe in 10 or 15 years it will be feasible.

[G.Walker]

G Walker, The route should go past areas that are developed. That is where the riders are. The good thing about downtown is that we have lumps of areas that are not developed or underdeveloped. Automobile Alley has a lot of potential for development as well as the areas the route is going. I don't see a street in Midtown or downtown that could not be developed more.

Taking it by the river and around Central Park is a waste for now. Maybe in 10 or 15 years it will be feasible.

My point exactly, because the street car will not be operational for another ten years anyway, why not plan ahead instead of waiting until MAPS 5.