Steve, I wonder if anyone besides you has actually read the ULI report and its entirety.

While I understand the concerns expressed by ULI, I have been less than impressed by the results of the various “studies” we’ve commissioned and paid for for various MAPS projects. I’ve been less than impressed with most studies commissioned at my workplace. Sometimes there’s no substitute for common sense.

Also, to address the issue of simplicity: Simplicity was the watchword in the Streetcar subcommittee during the route selection process, and I challenge anyone to create a simpler design than the couplet system, a design supported by cities which actually have working streetcar systems. However, if simplicity is one of the primary considerations for a transit system, and I personally believe it is THE most important criteria, it also simplifies decisions regarding routes, as a “ride around the Christmas tree” may allow stops at every possible attraction or civic building, but may not be used because it is too cumbersome and the route is too difficult to explain to visitors or citizens who aren’t regular frequenters of downtown.

While transit oriented development is certainly desirable, and looking at areas passed by the streetcar route under consideration it seems likely it will occur, it should be secondary to efficient travel.

Using an elegantly simple design, our streetcar route will be designed to move passengers from multiple points in Bricktown, through downtown and into Midtown, stopping at almost all of our past and future MAPS projects, the Bombing Memorial and various points in the CBD. It offers access to the neighborhoods of Heritage Hills and Mesta Park as well. I think, given a four mile route, it is rather amazing how efficiently this has been achieved. I find it hard to believe a study will come up with a better one, as someone who spent years using mass transit only.

LOL. I downloaded it from somewhere but haven’t gotten around to reading it yet (only 50 pages)

The differentiating factor when it comes to ULI is that these are literally some of the best minds in the business, and they essentially volunteer their energies simply for the intellectual challenge. This also keeps them immune from the corrupting influence of money– in other words, they tend not to be “swayed” by the party that retains them.

This is in contrast to a typical consulting firm report; in many cases the consultants are folks who couldn’t make a better living actually doing business themselves and/or are easily swayed by the desires of their clients who are wielding the checkbook.

I would be extremely careful in disregarding the recommendations and observations of the ULI study team– we were lucky to get them in the first place, and… again, they are some of the top minds in the real estate and urban planning industry.

So can anyone put this into better context? How does this mesh with our current various MAPS study committees? It doesn’t bother me if we aren’t doing everything by the letter of the ULI report. However, do the current committees address any or all of the concerns in the report or not?

It’s just my opinion, a streetcar maybe be nostaligic, but it also is not the most efficient in keeping traffic moving. After living in Dallas for 13 years the DART light rail stops traffic all around the routes. A streetcar would also impact the efficient movement of people.

Maybe one of the consultants should take a trip to Disney world in Orlando and take a trip on the monorail. I don’t think I have ever witnessed a more efficient system. Walt was definitely a visionary planner.

Brent, sure we are addressing the concerns and suggestions “via the process.” First of all, I don’t remember when this ULI report was filed, but obviously several things have changed since then.

A detailed travel model study is being processed as part of the Alternatives Analysis. It is thoroughly scientific.

It analysis that is underway right now is “the best technology available in order to be able to make the most informed decisions regarding connectivity and circulation.” as the report suggests we perform, that is available to us.

Probably the biggest element that has changed however is the desire of the council to change this from a “downtown circulator” to the “Midtown to Bricktown” line that we see. They would like to see it “stretched” outside of downtown. Right now, the current orientation of the recommendation is angled towards the NW which is the Plaza District, OCU, Classen/23rd Asian District.

So the context of the streetcar will change and theoretically become more successful as the system reaches further out into these areas. But, in the original context, all the streets have been “scored” for viability and nearly every downtown N/S corridor “tests” the highest, with the Broadway/Robinson corridor scoring the highest for redevelopment potential and usage. It makes sense, because it is along the densest corridor with the highest number of people.

But keep in mind “travel demand models” often predicate most of their data based on trips that people are already making, predominantly by car. The flaw in how that applies to streetcar projects that is difficult to overcome is the more esoteric question to people, “Where would you go that you don’t go now, if you didn’t have to use a car?” That’s a tough question that is not easy to “model.” Because people are taking up a new way to getting around that does not involve parking garages, traffic patters, and other hindrances. It is basically the unquantifiable part of a streetcar project that often surprises the leadership who installs it because it usually exceeds what can be scientifically predicted.

An example of this is someone who works in Leadership Square or First National. Probably most office workers there don’t consider going to McNellies an everyday option without taking an extended lunch. It means getting the car out of the garage, and driving. Getting out of the Main Street parking garage for example can easily be a 10 minute ordeal in both directions depending on what floor your car is parked on and how far you have to walk. That’s only one example.

But be assured that the people n our committee are not simply “guessing” and we have accepted information as it has become available to us. There is “cross-over” between the Alternatives Analysis Committee that is performing modeling and the ongoing Hub Committee that just made their decisions via the consultants base on such data.

Regarding the streetcar “moving too fast”, we don’t believe that it is. We are doing everything we can to ensure that it is successful from day one and it is in the best place to reinforce what is happening in greater downtown.

When the ULI study was going on, only a few were interviewed about transit, and the information gathering had just begun.

I would concur that the committees tasked with studying the implementation of a streetcar system have likely matched if not exceeded the expertise of the ULI panel when looking specifically at Oklahoma City. As I’m posting these snapshots of the 2010 ULI report, please note I’m not saying they are always right. I am saying that it’s worth revisiting and asking if there are any lessons to be learned from this report a year later, and before we make any big decisions. Reading this section, I’m also a bit confused as to whether they are questioning rushing into a streetcar system altogether, or if they are voicing concern about setting it up in Core to Shore too early.
Any thoughts on that?

My thoughts on Core to Shore are personal opinions only. The boulevard is potentially important to the streetcar, because it may be the simplest and least expensive way to access Bricktown, as we know the railroad bridge can be engineered to accomodate streetcar lines. I hope the park will be an important gathering point for citizens of OKC, and so I would like to see it very accessible via streetcar as well, and extending the streetcar to the boulevard is one way to do that. Farther south than the boulevard, I think there are too many unanswered questions to consider a streetcar route in Core to Shore. While streetcars do stimulate TOD, although I believe when we have enough cities with them we’ll find the degree of TOD varies considerably, there is so much open land there that I believe the streetcars’ ability to stimulate TOD may be overwhelmed by the absence of character to the location. While I can certainly see that ultimately the streetcar might offer great mass transit for a neighborhood this close to the CBD, I think it’s better to wait and see how it develops, spending available monies accessing neighborhoods or areas we already know will offer ridership.

Steve, I believe ULI is only voicing concern that the streetcar is a bad idea for Core to Shore, not that streetcar in other areas are bad. I think ULI is questioning anything and everything that involves C2S, and I agree.

ULI keeps repeating themselves as saying ‘Stay Away from CORE TO SHORE, Stay Far Away’.

Not to be flippant, but the streetcar has become the MAPS “gift” to Midtown. We’re going there because we believe that it is the most likely place in which the streetcar may see its most obvious and visible immediate success with development and ridership.

While nearly all of the MAPS downtown projects are gravitating towards Bricktown and the Core 2 Shore area, the streetcar attempts to leverage connections to the overall lineral length of the somewhat rectangular downtown area through it’s N/S/W axis.

There is a strong emphasis on capturing and expanding the tremendous private development and enthusiasm around Midtown. Lee is right. When the ULI panel was here, observations of community leaders shifting attention and support away from the ongoing “densification” was a big concern to them. It’s entirely possible that the nascent streetcar discussions being had may have sounded as though the streetcar would be a critical part to C2S.

However, the proposed Santa Fe hub does provide a solid southern “center of gravity” in a great location. Sandwiched between successful Bricktown and C2S MAPS Park, and possibly the new Convention Center.

But as you can see, we are relying on St. Anthony’s, historic and current housing around 13th, and the new Urban Renewal Development as a strong northern “center of gravity” as well.

The streetcar will be successful. It will leverage nearly all of downtown’s historic and burgeoning assets to do so and thus reinforce the current and future success to become an even stronger element in our urbanization. It is the start of a “real” transit system in the process.

Thanks for chiming in Jeff. That is exactly what I was hoping for. Steve, if at all possible, when posting the old ULI report snippits, can we get some idea if anything is being done to address the concerns? Based on most of the comments I’ve seen, it seems that most people are taking the ULI postings to mean nothing was being done at all and it would appear that is not the case.

What’s sad is that the latest recommendation almost entirely ignores the “public input” that was solicited over several months. Almost all agreed light rail needed to move people across east-west, into and out of Bricktown. I don’t know if there’s any tip-of-the-hat to Core to Shore and the possibility of making it largely vehicle-free through an extension of light rail – it was suggested, but haven’t heard any more out of it. And ultra-light rail will extend the taxpayers’ dollar – the six-mile limitation was imposed from day one, as if there’s no way a comprehensive network of rail-based vehicles could be developed. Hopefully the result will not doom the “streetcar” to token status.

Hi Walt. I am not sure that I understand all of your comments. Therefore, as a courtesy, I will try to respond.

1. “the latest recommendation almost entirely ignores the “public input”

I don’t see how. Many of the MAPS Transit subcommittee members attended the public meetings. We have used that collated information to determine what locations are important to people that they desire we should “connect to.” Also, the N/S alignment reaching through downtown to Midtown was a consistent “theme” that emerged in the public input.

2. “Almost all agreed light rail needed to move people across east-west, into and out of Bricktown.”

Yes, they did. Bricktown is important. We NEED to go to Bricktown for immediate ridership to help make the streetcar system successful and to minimize the waste of land on parking. For the citizens, to give them options other than parking. For vistors, to connect the Convention Center directly to Bricktown. I don’t know anyone of the committee that is against going there. The question still remains, “how?”

We just received word that Santa Fe is being officially recommended by the Hub Committee to us, so we need to figure out where the best interface for it is on the way to and from Bricktown. We also need to determine what the costs are to go under the Sheridan, Reno, or New Boulevard Bridges. That is something we hope to have determined in the near future once our engineer is hired. A Phase 1B recommendation will be coming shortly.

3. “And ultra-light rail will extend the taxpayers’ dollar – the six-mile limitation was imposed from day one”

Modern Streetcar is “ultra-light” rail. That is exactly what we are doing.

The 6 miles is not a limitation. It is a starting point. It is a minimum goal if we were forced to pay a premium price for the entire system. It does not assume cost savings from Project 180 or potential Federal supplemental funds. If we make good decisions, retain the current recommended time line proposed to the City Council by ADG, the MAPS implementation consultants, we very well could exceed the 6 mile goal.

4. “as if there’s no way a comprehensive network of rail-based vehicles could be developed. Hopefully the result will not doom the “streetcar” to token status.”

The “transit spine” is our first recommendation and is intentionally designed to anticipate a larger streetcar streetcar system. The inter-modal hub that is planned is also intended to be a direct interface between the streetcar and future other rail such as commuter rail to our sister cities.

Anyways, I think we have done everything within our power as volunteers or transit advocates to prevent the streetcar project from being relegated to “token status.”

Our biggest challenge now is to maintain our proposed schedule by ADG to maximize our integration with Project 180 and enable us to pursue federal supplemental funds to build the larger system that you hope for.

Obviously, there are people advocating that the streetcar be moved to the “end of the line” in order for the Convention Center to be moved up. While myself, and several of us are not going go as far to say that it shouldn’t be moved, we feel that the ongoing P180, construction timeliness, escalating materials cost, and our current federal opportunities provide a profound argument for leaving our specific project remain slotted as proposed.

That is the biggest challenge to our project right now.

Jeff: I thought the 5 to 6 miles and the corresponding budget/cost per mile was a mid-point or average of modern streetcar systems (instead of the premium price you just mentioned)?

Larry, it is the “upper-mid” price point based on averages for construction costs of streetcar systems at the time. Construction costs in OKC are typically lower.

The $120 million for the streetcar was still an “all inclusive” budget for 5-6 miles and did not factor Project 180 or Federal Supplemental Funds at all.