That has been suggested on Steve's blog. It is my guess that Doug is going to vent his suspicions about the process. He has been a vocal questioner of the process. What is funny, is that many of his concerns he has outlined in blog posts on the "Lets talk transit site."

I have not seen these three designs that are being unveiled tomorrow. If he is the blogger, maybe he has.

Nice try Jeff.
No, it's not Doug.
But folks, keep a close eye on OKC Central. And those of you attending tomorrow's session, there may be some things not immediately obvious to you at the meetings, but are in the documents, that may surprise you... I look forward to reading about this tomorrow morning.

I am sure that you could email Mike and get any designs or routes that may be in the works. He's pretty willing to share anything he's got, it seems.

I have been very impressed by him. He seems to be a stellar guy who instills a great deal of confidence.

Folks, pay attention to those routes. Look at what they come out with tomorrow, and compare that to what you asked for.

Based on conversations I've had with Mike McAnelly and other COTPA consultants and employees, they're hesitant to create such routes in the first place because of the strong criticism awaiting any preliminary route that will likely not even closely resemble the final product.

I am faaaaar more concerned with the route miles than the route itself. If they limit themselves to 6 miles, shame on them. They need to look past this $15-20 million/mile figure as a constant. That needs to be the variable, if you ask me, not the miles. They need to start with a route, not a cost. The miles needs to be the constant and the features and other bells and whistles that increase the cost need to be the variable if you ask me. It's easier to add or subtract a streetcar system feature than it is to just chop off or add a mile in case there's a surplus or shortage in the money budgeted toward the project.

Based on conversations I've had with Mike McAnelly and other COTPA consultants and employees, they're hesitant to create such routes in the first place because of the strong criticism awaiting any preliminary route that will likely not even closely resemble the final product.

I am faaaaar more concerned with the route miles than the route itself. If they limit themselves to 6 miles, shame on them. They need to look past this $15-20 million/mile figure as a constant. That needs to be the variable, if you ask me, not the miles. They need to start with a route, not a cost. The miles needs to be the constant and the features and other bells and whistles that increase the cost need to be the variable if you ask me. It's easier to add or subtract a streetcar system feature than it is to just chop off or add a mile in case there's a surplus or shortage in the money budgeted toward the project.

Spartan, your perspective sounds good but there's just not that much to cut from the type of streetcar being generally pursued. The reason this public input process has been expedited is because of Project 180. The Alternatives Analysis committee is looking "long-term" in how we would expand the system or interface it with compatible technology.

The real risks here are not "finding the right balance" between existing urban fabric and the potential for creating density via our streetcar. The last thing that you want is this system not having solid ridership numbers that grow right out-of-the box.

The real costs savings to be obtained are in the proper coordination between the Project 180 streetscape and the installation of the rail, power infrastructure, and utility location. Project 180 offers a huge opportunity to add more track miles through potential savings.

The other huge cost variable is if we pursue a different type of streetcar other than is generally in use right now in the NW US- aka a streetcar powered by fossil fuels, catenary/overhead wire free, or some other unproven technology in the US. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't explore it, but we have to be judicious.

Jeff, what do you think we can save from coordination with Project 180? With the current $15-20 million/mile estimate equating to 6 miles or so, unless more MAPS 3 money or federal money can be allocated, 6 miles will not enable the system to serve the Oklahoma Health Center. We saw this time after time in the routes that were generated..

"Yeah it looks nice, I just wish it would cover the medical area.." said a lot of the people. I think you HAVE to cover the health center, just because of the sheer number of high-income jobs and the urban growth potential that exists in that area and the opportunity to translate that into an entirely new downtown residential base (studies indicate current downtown residents primarily commute from suburb jobs). If you can't cover it, due to the undeveloped territory along the SW edge of the medical district I think you have to cut your losses and relegate the idea of a medical district spur to a potential 2020-2030 expansion, thus keeping the entire 6 mile streetcar system on one side of I-235. (There's just no point in going to Lincoln and 8th or whatever and stopping there.)

Whatever we get, we'll be happy with. It's just right now is the time to vent concerns and complaints because we can still do something about it. If they don't focus on Broadway and Sheridan corridors, I will be massively disappointed in this. I don't know what to think of COTPA's bizarre preference of Robinson and "The Mythical Boulevard."

I agree with Spartan about Robinson and the 'new boulevard' being bad ideas. However, Spartan, I somehow don't think we're going to end up with that. I'm fairly pleased with what I've seen of this process.

That has been suggested on Steve's blog. It is my guess that Doug is going to vent his suspicions about the process. He has been a vocal questioner of the process. What is funny, is that many of his concerns he has outlined in blog posts on the "Lets talk transit site."

I have not seen these three designs that are being unveiled tomorrow. If he is the blogger, maybe he has.
I am one of 3 bloggers scheduled to blog tomorrow and I will be attending the evening session. Unless it's changed since I received a March 27 e-mail, the bloggers tomorrow's session are: Charifa Smith (morning), unspecified session - Nick Roberts & me. But I've not received any pre-session information ever during this process ... I get there and hear and see what unfolds just like everyone else does.

So, I cannot anticipate what will occur tomorrow ... but I doubt that I'll be "venting" about the process even if I may still be "wondering" how, if at all, the process may have helped shape the final outcome. A question that I'll probably be asking is, "Please give one specific example of how the public input received during the Let's Talk Transit sessions has caused possible routes to be modified from those which were contemplated as possibilities before the Let's Talk Transit sessions began." Or something like that ... I probably need to do more work fine-tuning the question.

Personally, I don't see myself as qualified to select routes, etc., and I'd really prefer that the same be done by experts in the field as I expect will actually be the case, and I'm quite content with that. Sure, it's been fun attending and participating ... but I do still have my doubts that what's been done is much more than parlor games for those who attended. Window dressing to evidence public input? Probably. But, even if so, does it matter? Probably not. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Either way, the Let's Talk Transit people have done a very good job in what they've done.

And, lest we forget, keep in mind that these proceedings are well below the Maps Oversight Board and, ultimately, City Council, in the overall pecking order.

I have been very impressed by him. He seems to be a stellar guy who instills a great deal of confidence.
I concur. I am completely satisfied that Mike McAnelly knows his stuff and that we (the city) are in good hands with his expertise.

Folks, pay attention to those routes. Look at what they come out with tomorrow, and compare that to what you asked for.
Ha ha. If you go back over the process and the routes proposed by the various "table" groups, you'll find that just about everything conceivable has been proposed by someone. What we see tomorrow will have to be radically strange if it does not match someone's view of possible routes, probably a blend of several, I'm guessing.

Nice try Jeff.
No, it's not Doug.
But folks, keep a close eye on OKC Central. And those of you attending tomorrow's session, there may be some things not immediately obvious to you at the meetings, but are in the documents, that may surprise you... I look forward to reading about this tomorrow morning.
I don't understand what you mean to say. But I'll be there, blogging, at the evening session.

I am one of 3 bloggers scheduled to blog tomorrow and I will be attending the evening session. Unless it's changed since I received a March 27 e-mail, the bloggers tomorrow's session are: Charifa Smith (morning), unspecified session - Nick Roberts & me. But I've not received any pre-session information ever during this process ... I get there and hear and see what unfolds just like everyone else does.

So, I cannot anticipate what will occur tomorrow ... but I doubt that I'll be "venting" about the process even if I may still be "wondering" how, if at all, the process may have helped shape the final outcome. A question that I'll probably be asking is, "Please give one specific example of how the public input received during the Let's Talk Transit sessions has caused possible routes to be modified from those which were contemplated as possibilities before the Let's Talk Transit sessions began." Or something like that ... I probably need to do more work fine-tuning the question.

Personally, I don't see myself as qualified to select routes, etc., and I'd really prefer that the same be done by experts in the field as I expect will actually be the case, and I'm quite content with that. Sure, it's been fun attending and participating ... but I do still have my doubts that what's been done is much more than parlor games for those who attended. Window dressing to evidence public input? Probably. But, even if so, does it matter? Probably not. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Either way, the Let's Talk Transit people have done a very good job in what they've done.

So are we supposed to be at the evening meeting, I'm guessing?

So are we supposed to be at the evening meeting, I'm guessing?
The e-mail I received in March did not assign you or me to a particular session but I'll be attending the evening event. I think that you could take your pick and be just fine. Charifa is a very nice lady but whether she'll be a the 11:30 session I don't know. All I know is that, in March, she was scheduled to be. It would be good to have that base covered, just to be sure.

Okay great. Here are the three routes COTPA is going to unveil at the meeting. Soonerguru, don't forget you felt pretty confident that Robinson and mythical boulevard wouldn't be considered..lol

I'm just going to upload them to my blog and I'll post a link after I do that..

A Downtown ontheRange: 3 options (that don't stink) (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2010/05/3-options.html)

There are three routes COTPA is unveiling..red, green, and blue. I just don't like the green route personally, love the red route, blue route is alright, too. That's just my opinion though. I think that the red route does the best job on focusing on a comprehensive downtown picture, and you realize just what a huge geographic area downtown is. I think the blue sort of focuses, more than anything, on employers. I am not sure what green is supposed to be focusing on, honestly.

A Downtown ontheRange: 3 options (that don't stink) (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2010/05/3-options.html)

There are three routes COTPA is unveiling..red, green, and blue. I just don't like the green route personally, love the red route, blue route is alright, too. That's just my opinion though. I think that the red route does the best job on focusing on a comprehensive downtown picture, and you realize just what a huge geographic area downtown is. I think the blue sort of focuses, more than anything, on employers. I am not sure what green is supposed to be focusing on, honestly.

If these are the options, I'm less than thrilled. I wish Film Row were brought in more as well as more of Automobile Alley.

A Downtown ontheRange: 3 options (that don't stink) (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2010/05/3-options.html)

There are three routes COTPA is unveiling..red, green, and blue. I just don't like the green route personally, love the red route, blue route is alright, too. That's just my opinion though. I think that the red route does the best job on focusing on a comprehensive downtown picture, and you realize just what a huge geographic area downtown is. I think the blue sort of focuses, more than anything, on employers. I am not sure what green is supposed to be focusing on, honestly.
Very good, Nick. Where did you get these route pictures? They are quite useful in previewing the meetings to be held later today.

Guru, They're pretty much the same as what they tried to present at the last meeting, except red and blue have been modified.

Doug, I got them in my email from Kinsey Crocker today.

I'm going to beat up on her for not sending them to me, too!

Not only is it important to co ordinate this with Project 180 (cost savings and inconvenience of tearing up the streets multiple times), but one thing that somehow keeps being left out of the route talks (may have been addressed at the Lets Talk meetings, but if they did, it doesn't appear to be reflected in the routes) is a direct link to the

1) MAPS 3 Convention Center (run thru the C.C.)
2) MAPS 3 Park, the Southern end (Union Station)
3) MAPS 3 transit hub (if @ Santa Fe station then it is covered, if not...)

Obviously the problem with #1 and #3 is we don't know where they are going to be. I understand that these routes are very preliminary and changes are most likely going to happen between the oversight committee and Council so maybe by then it will be determined. But I don't see how we can leave direct connections to those out.

I'd vote the blue routes. I don't have a reason, blue is my favorite color...

But really, i like how all three have the NW terminal at a place that could and would be added on to in the future toward the near downtown neighborhoods.

I live in this area and I can't see me using these routes as an alternative to driving. Although I would really like too. I really really would.
It should be simplified.
It is apparent special interest corrupted the planning process.
Something is not always better than nothing. I would rather not waste the citizens money on THIS.

My guest blogger today is Blair Humphreys - OKC Central - Information about Oklahoma City, Bricktown and beyond (http://www.okccentral.com) - and he shares Doug's concerns.

I think the blue route is way to confusing. It appears it has three lines running their own loops. Green and red appear good but I think I prefer green, no wait - red, no - green. I can't decide. I wish there was a secret 4th option that combined the best of red and green.

I like green because thru the residential portion of Bricktown it has good coverage and serves city offices. I like the red because it goes up Broadway and it serves what will be the new main enterance of the Ford Center.

In general, I don't like it running right next to the Memorial. I think the Memorial is something you should walk up to, not hop off a street car at.

Is it just me? None of these routes look very efficient. I counted 14 turns on one of them. Every streetcar system with which I have had experience generally runs straight and with purpose. They connect one point with another without meandering around the city. All of these routes appear to be more for tourists than for general transportation needs. Perhaps in a 50-year plan, these might make more sense. All the turns provide ample opportunity for future connecting routes. But, I don't like these -- not even as starter system routes.

I think the red option is the best, everything considered, but I have to second Larry's concern: Why don't we have the line going to the new park? The blue line goes closest to the park but completely ignores most of the eastern part of downtown.

If it's a "miles" consideration, even though I work at the Health Sciences Center, I'd rather see the red line not go to the Health Sciences Center and somehow traverse Core to Shore. I worry that any extensions of the line won't occur for years and years, and by not having transit there, Core to Shore won't become what is envisioned for it. If I could feel comfortable that it will be easy/quick to extend a line there once the park has been created, then that's different. Then, the red line is fairly satisfactory.

My guest blogger today is Blair Humphreys - OKC Central - Information about Oklahoma City, Bricktown and beyond (http://www.okccentral.com) - and he shares Doug's concerns.

Great article. Blair's written thoughts are exactly the thoughts that went through my mind when I sat down at the last meeting and saw that clusterf***.

I think that the city is going to really miss this one if they do not include a civic center stop with the street car. My thought is that when people come to an event at the civic center it would be nice to eat in bricktown and then go to the civic center for the event. The only problem with this type of evening now is that you would have to pay to park twice, which most people will not do. So if you had a route that linked the civic center and bricktown, people could pay once and enjoy both downtown venues.

Yes, I went over and read Blair's blog. It's excellent, and he has the same concern I do: it's a waste of miles to run a line to the Health Sciences Center. It would be nice to take the streetcar to Bricktown for lunch for me, and there are probably a few people with families who are hospitalized who are staying in a Bricktown hotel, but the numbers don't warrant the amount of line it would take to get to the Health Sciences Center.

This is where COTPA is coming from: "Well, we got Sheridan people covered..there are four blocks of Sheridan. We got Robinson covered. We got so and so street covered." The old, tryin to make everyone happy. It would be nice to see COTPA take a stand with whatever viewpoint they think is right and commit to a simplified streetcar route. That said, I really don't think that the red route is that bad. I am curious as to why there is a double track along the east end of Deep Deuce as opposed to a single track down Joe Carter and another opposite track going down Walnut, but I will assume it has to do with the projected cost constraint of reinforcing the Walnut Street bridge and maybe not being an option with a 6.75 mile system.

The Sooner route option is by far the best. I am with Kerry though in that a streetcar stop at the Memorial is not nearly as pivotal as they seem to think it is.

Blair has a REALLY fascinating point I have not considered about the viability of OHC coverage. He's dead-on about the importance of simplicity. I am not so sure about his assessment that COTPA has ignored us.. I think the problem is being too inclusive of all the morons, and not taking the side of those of us that do know what we're talking about. I actually don't understand why Jeff isn't just running this whole process, but oh well.

As for today, the noon meeting starts now. I'm in a cubicle in Norman. I will be at the 6:30 meeting. If anyone else will be there, send me a message on here and we might go get coffee afterward somewhere. We oughta have an OKC Talk seating section at the meeting, or, at the very least say hi. lol

I'm going to the six o'clock meeting. I'll be very curious to see how the three routes are presented and how interested they will be in feedback.

I agree with Blair Humphreys that the ultimate routes should have as few turns as possible, else they turn into permanent versions of the stupid tourist trolleys. As he put it, the routes need to be purposeful and direct.

I like Blue.

Would like to see Blue adjusted just a bit.

Like going further north to 11th street shown in route Red. Also I like how red and green have the track along Stiles through deep duece area.


But I do not like any double track. That is why I do not like red.

What's wrong with double track? Wouldn't we want to catch it going both ways?

Portland has had success with single track with one line going down street A and another going the other way down street B a block away. That way new development is spread over several blocks instead of being concentrated on one street.

The Portland streetcar also follows a very meandering path down to the south waterfront--although Downtown and the Pearl District are just a long straightaway route.

Portland has had success with single track with one line going down street A and another going the other way down street B a block away. That way new development is spread over several blocks instead of being concentrated on one street.

That is my thinking too. Lets spread out the lines more for development reasons.

Get on the streetcar on one side of the block but when you come back you are on the other side of the block. Nothing wrong with that. This way both sides of the block get to benefit from the streetcar presence and can spur more development.

That is my thinking too. Lets spread out the lines more for development reasons.

Get on the streetcar on one side of the block but when you come back you are on the other side of the block. Nothing wrong with that. This way both sides of the block get to benefit from the streetcar presence and can spur more development.

Exactly. You could even spread it out 2 blocks (3 blocks max) and hit more areas. Denver also does this with their light rail through downtown.

Most are spread out more than one block, more like the two or three, if you look at the proposed routes.

That is why I like the Blue route.

I also like how the Blue adds an extra block or two to the south west, which will be the future Boulevard.

The Blue doesn't include Broadway, though. I consider that its biggest failing, besides the fact that the route is confusing. Personally, I think if we're going to have a line anywhere at all, it needs to go down Broadway and one of the major east-west streets.

The best part about the blue line is that it heads further west than the others, closer to Union Station.

The Blue doesn't include Broadway, though. I consider that its biggest failing, besides the fact that the route is confusing. Personally, I think if we're going to have a line anywhere at all, it needs to go down Broadway and one of the major east-west streets.

I agree on both points.

The obvious streets -- to me -- include Broadway and Walker and/or Hudson for N/S, and Sheridan and 10th for east/west streets.

Any route plan that doesn't include three of four or four of four of those streets is idiotic and will not work.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_L3gtvb8usg4/S_4B2SmmEeI/AAAAAAAAAn4/a8m5LKgX3P8/s1600/map3.jpg

Looks like Broadway to me.

East west you have Sheridan and 4th street.

The route you posted looks ridiculous. Can you imagine having to ride that whole route to get where you're going? Only a tourist or someone with lots of time on their hands will bother.

They need to separate the southern part of that route with a different line.

Hmm. You're right. I couldn't read the streets on the smaller map and it looked like it was west of Broadway. OK, I have changed my mind. It still looks too complicated to me, in terms of planning your route. I certainly like the fact that it goes farther west. In fact, if you left out the places where the line intersects itself on 4th and Sheridan and made it a continuous loop you'd have the extra mileage left to bring it over to Walker on Reno.

Has anyone given an estimate regarding how long it would take to ride the loop from start to finish?

What if we had 3 streetcars?

#1. running the entire track
#2. running just the southern looped area.
#3. running along the north looped area.

That could help create some definition for the "medical business corridor."

We keep thinking about connecting the OUHSC with Bricktown.

What if they were more connected with Midtown instead?

Sure you could still get to bricktown, if one were to ride the streetcar #1, making the entire track run. Going to Midtown would be easier, just hop on streetcar #3 that only makes the north loop track.

I am still intrigued by Blair's suggestion that linking the Oklahoma Health Center is not worth the cost per mile..if the frequency can't be increased during lunch and commute hours.

The best argument for connecting the OUHSC with Bricktown is that some people with hospitalized families might stay in the Bricktown area. As far as people coming to Bricktown verus Midtown to eat lunch from the Health Sciences Center, I think if you polled people, they probably wouldn't care which it connected to, as people eat lunch both of those places. I don't really see any reason to connect St. Anthony's to the Health Sciences Center particularly.

But, I don't really see a huge need to connect to the Health Sciences Center with our first line, unless we want to encourage people who work at the Health Sciences Center to move downtown. That would probably be the biggest factor in doing so to me.

Isn't one of the purposes of the streetcar to spur development?

I think we could all easily envision a hotel or two in Midtown.

Here's what I would like, something similar.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8793/okctrans.png
Red = MAPS3, light blue = possible future additions

Total of 6.8 miles of track using two-traffic. I prefer the double track method because that way, in order to go from Point A to Point B, you don't have to ride the whole way around the loop. Allows greater flexibility and speed for the traveler, in my opinion. Broadway to merge onto EK Gaylord and follows it south to 7th.

I also utilized the hub system as opposed to a loop system. The "focus station", not really a hub but just a connecting point at 4th and Broadway. The main "hub" being at Shartel and EK Gaylord. Other connecting points would be built on later on, as seen in my map.

Personally, that is what I would like to see. For example, if I am in the medical area, I don't want to follow the loop all the way to Automobile Alley to get into Bricktown, I'd be better off driving and saving 15 minutes.

All good comments folks. Mike McAnelly made it a point at the end of the meeting today to say that they would be reading them and considering your opinions and feelings about all of these issues.

There are some obvious challenges on the table.

I do think that this input process has been one of the most encompassing that I have experienced and that may be to the detriment of these first drafts. It may be that we have to go through this explosion of ideas to get somewhere practical.

Also I think there are hard questions such as whether we should sacrifice a certain area to be done at a later date to develop a better "heart" of the system.

Question for everybody: the Urban Land Institute study suggests Core to Shore will take 50 years to develop. Should this area be reserved for future expansion of the system? Where should development be prioritized - in Core to Shore or the empty gaps in Deep Deuce/Flat Iron, MidTown and the Arts District?

Am I missing something?

Where do you see the system going into Core to Shore?

I will add on to that for context. Two of the drawings show the route "touching" core-to-shore on the proposed new boulevard.

Question would be, do you think that a streetcar connection to the new Central Park and Convention Center is vital? If so, do you think that we should use MAPS 3 money to facilitate that connection or save that money and provide that connection as a "built-in cost" to the new Boulevard budget?

We know where the park is going and that there is the money to build it. That is a certainty.

Doesn't matter at this point - my questions are independent of that because we have no idea what routes will be submitted to the MAPS 3 board and council.

Urban Pioneer, do you think we know where the convention center will be built?

Urban Pioneer, do you think we know where the convention center will be built?

Who being "we?" I know as much about what people want as you do. I read your blog.

I will add on to that for context. Two of the drawings show the route "touching" core-to-shore on the proposed new boulevard.

Question would be, do you think that a streetcar connection to the new Central Park and Convention Center is vital? If so, do you think that we should use MAPS 3 money to facilitate that connection or save that money and provide that connection as a "built-in cost" to the new Boulevard budget?

We know where the park is going and that there is the money to build it. That is a certainty.

If we could be sure that monies from the new boulevard would be used to construct a link to the Central Park and/or Convention Center (hoping it might be located separately) then I wouldn't mind waiting. However, if that's just a hope and far from a certainty, then I would like the connection to Union Station at least as part of the first line. Again, if we are going to argue that development follows the streetcar, what better way to jumpstart Core to Shore? I agree it will be a long time before it's completely done, but Core to Shore stretches to the River, and that timeframe encompasses a lot more territory than the Central Park. Undoubtedly, the line would have to be extended south at least.

I'm afraid that, without the streetcar, Central Park will end up like Will Rogers Park.....unutilized because of its location. If we don't have something drawing people there, what will draw development?

And I'm confused. It looks as if the streetcar plans as draw go to Bricktown. Am I again reading them wrong?