Oklahoma City voters made their streetcar desires clear

The Oklahoman Editorial

January 13, 2011

Voters were promised a streetcar system when they approved MAPS 3. It's a promise that must be kept on track.

Building it will be expensive — $20 million a mile or more — and it will be confined to downtown/Bricktown. It would primarily be used by tourists and downtown workers and residents.

Yes, the city's bus system that serves many residents who don't live downtown needs improvement. But the streetcar system and the bus system are separate issues. Ward 4 City Councilman Pete White and others want to scrap the fixed-track system for a cheaper alternative and shift spending to the bus system.

Nothing would turn off voters more in future initiatives such as MAPS than to have an unkept promise lingering from the previous vote. Nothing would give opponents of a future vote more ammunition.

We believe MAPS 3's passage was aided by voters excited by the streetcar system even if they weren't enthusiastic about other projects in the $777 million initiative. Since MAPS 3's passage in December 2009, the city has sought citizen input on the streetcar system; the response has been enthusiastic. No such ardor exists for shifting MAPS funds to a system using rubber-tired vehicles.

The streetcar system may never match its predecessor, scrapped in 1947 in favor of buses, but it's the start of an exciting new phase in Oklahoma City's progress.

More importantly, the system would be a promise kept to voters.


Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-voters-made-their-streetcar-desires-clear/article/3531752#ixzz1AxI2WIiE

Typical Tea Party "take away my freedom" b.s. Somebody get Walters out of there. He's nothing but an obstructionist to progress.

Typical Tea Party "take away my freedom" b.s. Somebody get Walters out of there. He's nothing but an obstructionist to progress.

People are trying. Come move down to S OKC, we could use your vote. :-)

I hear Foshee might make a come-back.

Typical Tea Party "take away my freedom" b.s. Somebody get Walters out of there. He's nothing but an obstructionist to progress.

Huh?

Yes I would prefer that.

I just don't like that part of downtown. Doesn't seem conducive to streetcar success.

Is it that entire section or just the one stop? Surely the Library, Devon, Oklahoma Tower, City Hall, The County Court House, Park Harvey, The Civic Center, and the Oklahoma Museum of Art are worthy stops.

Spartan - I made a slight adjustment. I used Lee Ave instead of Shartel to turn around on and took out the Shartel stop. I think there is too much TOD potential in this area to eliminate it completely.

While it hasn't been formally voted on yet, I would say that Hudson is completely out of the picture now and that double tracking on major streets is unlikely.

Hudson is considered by most to be too big of a "loop" and is not in the AA route that has moved on to our committee. Double tracking may occur on limited segments due to street constraints.

More to come soon.

Thanks for always keeping us informed of the progress and updates.

Can you give us the names of streets that have moved on to the committee?

Thanks for always keeping us informed of the progress and updates.

Sure. No problem. I enjoy the dialogue an there have been some great ideas that have been thrown out there on this blog that may in fact broaden the perspective of decision makers who read it. Myself included.

Can you give us the names of streets that have moved on to the committee?

Its a little premature for me to name most of the streets. I think at the next meeting, consensus will come about on a great many of them.

I would however reconfirm that there does seem to be enough majority consensus about Robinson being the key "transit spine" in the system as it reaches without major disruption all the way to Edgemere and south to Capitol Hill. At least no one has pushed back on that. In many ways, the Robinson "spine" reminds me of the "pedestrian spine" coined by Hans Butzer for Harvey street through the Devon, Myriad, new Central Park, and Core-to-Shore.

No one has really disputed Automobile Alley from 10th to 4th either.

Circulation pattern seems to be Northbound on Robinson/Southbound on Broadway creating the "Transit Mall" that we have often discussed.

Sheridan and 4th are generally considered key East/West streets.

There is nothing really new to tell you without getting ahead of the ongoing process. The only thing that's really huge is that a bunch of us are spending hours and hours driving around, walking, measuring, and taking pictures outside of downtown. I personally have spent a great deal of time looking around the Capitol, Paseo, Western Avenue, Classen, Plaza, and Capitol Hill. A few of us have even run into each other with measuring wheels not knowing we were in the same neighborhood. lol

Does a transit mall mean no true hub served by all lines? (i.e. do all roads not lead to Santa Fe?)

At this point, I don't think anyone is definitely talking about more than one line. It's hard to imagine the line not going to the hub. To me, the transit mall is an area in which public transit is so designed as to encourage pedestrian travel between stops, i.e. the couplet design which promotes development on more than one street allowing it to function kind of like an open air mall.

At this point, I don't think anyone is definitely talking about more than one line.

If not, they need to start. That would be the equivalent of only putting one road in town with no plans for a second.

Perhaps I was unclear. I don't think you can assume the first six miles will contain multiple lines. If/when there is money for more, I think it's safe to say there will need to be more than one line.

Perhaps I was unclear. I don't think you can assume the first six miles will contain multiple lines. If/when there is money for more, I think it's safe to say there will need to be more than one line.

This and "we don't know yet." But yes, all tracks do go to the planned intermodal hub site.

Ok, I have not read all the posts. So forgive me for possibly restarting something.

Is N. Walker Ave a thought for the street car? Specifically anything south of 10th street.
I participated in the meetings at the Civic Center last spring, and remember Walker being somewhat popular.
So has Walker survived the vetting process so far?

Kerry, that's probably better to not go all the way to Shartel. I personally would rather just serve the Arts District with a N/S line along Walker. For me, it's more about corridors in which I can envision the streetcar looking good. If you stand at Walker and 5th and look to the south, you'll see a pretty well-built urban neighborhood that the streetcar where the streetcar would look perfect. Making a circle around Bicentennial Park not so much. Speaking of Walker..

Meaculpa, Jeff will have a LOT more details than me on this, but Walker is a part of some of the routes I have seen from the subcommittee and from AA (which carry more weight than the user-created routes you see from posts on here). Walker does carry with it some problems though. The first is that the Arts District is sort of seen as being fairly isolated on the west side of downtown, and neither AA or the subcommittee seem to be full of enthusiasm for the Arts District. Also there's the problem of Rick Dowell who will throw a hissy fit and complicate things if there are overhead wires anywhere near his properties because he's simply a douche when it comes to things like that. Another issue is the traffic circle at 10th, which poses challenges for circumventing with track. I wouldn't say Walker has more challenges than any other street but it does have its fair share.

Urban, perhaps you can help Rob who posted these questions over at a recent Oklahoman editorial

posted by Rob, Richardson at http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-voters-made-their-streetcar-desires-clear/article/3531752?custom_click=pod_headline_opinion-oklahoman-editorials#


...educate me. Show me your economics. Rather than blathering about doubtful savings.

Perhaps you can show me how a supposed savings on maintenance and operation cost - in your opinion - will recover $20 million per mile of rail cost. Show how much savings you estimate on operations.

And why you say savings exist. Remember: $20 million per mile estimated cost to install rail. Show how fixed rail would be more economical than 10 or 20 CNG powered trolleys. I estimate $500,000 per vehicle. And CNG is economical. There's a start for estimates. How about your estimate?

Urban, perhaps you can help Rob who posted these questions over at a recent Oklahoman editorial

posted by Rob, Richardson at http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-voters-made-their-streetcar-desires-clear/article/3531752?custom_click=pod_headline_opinion-oklahoman-editorials#

Well first of all, thanks for defending the project/MAPS vote and taking on the bloggers on the Oklahoman. It is not an easy thing to to do. Usually, I do not respond there.

Regarding costs- Most of my comments before and after the campaign have to do with operating costs, replacement of vehicles, and ongoing maintenance in general terms.

For example, an average bus life in full operation is about 12.5 years according to the FTA. In that time it will receive some degree of an overhaul. There is the ongoing costs associated with tires and other equipment that wear out relatively quickly.

An average streetcar vehicle life is 30 - 35 years before a complete overhaul or replacement is recommended. The steel rail itself doesn't really wear.

Regarding operating costs, the general conversation is that it would be great to have $120 million worth of buses, but how would we pay for the ongoing operational and maintenance costs for their operation.

Its kind of like building a beautiful school and not having the ongoing funds tho pay for teachers to operate it.

Regarding CNG, from day one we planned on evaluating it as an alternative to electric. The committee is committed to having a technical assessment made before making our decision.

However, there are some basic issues that I can point out without even having the assessment that will have to be factored.

For example (One Question): A combustion fueled vehicle requires a big enough tank to keep something like the streetcar operating as continuously as possible minimizing down time for refueling. How big is the tank and where does it go?

Well first of all, thanks for defending the project/MAPS vote and taking on the bloggers on the Oklahoman. It is not an easy thing to to do. Usually, I do not respond there.

Regarding costs- Most of my comments before and after the campaign have to do with operating costs, replacement of vehicles, and ongoing maintenance in general terms.

For example, an average bus life in full operation is about 12.5 years according to the FTA. In that time it will receive some degree of an overhaul. There is the ongoing costs associated with tires and other equipment that wear out relatively quickly.

An average streetcar vehicle life is 30 - 35 years before a complete overhaul or replacement is recommended. The steel rail itself doesn't really wear.

Regarding operating costs, the general conversation is that it would be great to have $120 million worth of buses, but how would we pay for the ongoing operational and maintenance costs for their operation.

Its kind of like building a beautiful school and not having the ongoing funds tho pay for teachers to operate it.

Regarding CNG, from day one we planned on evaluating it as an alternative to electric. The committee is committed to having a technical assessment made before making our decision.

However, there are some basic issues that I can point out without even having the assessment that will have to be factored.

For example (One Question): A combustion fueled vehicle requires a big enough tank to keep something like the streetcar operating as continuously as possible minimizing down time for refueling. How big is the tank and where does it go?

I get the main point here. Bus maintenance > Streetcar maintenance. But it brings up a point.

Because Maps provides for only capital costs, where are the operational costs for the streetcars going to come from? General fund?

Why isn't anyone talking about that? And more importantly, would bus service have to be cut to provide the necessary operational funding?

Because Maps provides for only capital costs, where are the operational costs for the streetcars going to come from? General fund?

It comes from advertising and ticket prices.

I'll see if I can find it again but the Utah system had a pretty good break-down of operating cost for buses and streetcars. However, just look at the difference between you car and your bicycle. If you only drove 5 miles per day eventually you would need gasoline, an oil change, new tires, etc. You could ride your bike your entire life at 5 miles per day and probably never need to replace anything. An electric streetcar doesn't have very many moving parts to wear our.

As for CNG idea, it sounded good at first but I don't think it is feasable. The size of the tank is one issue but it will also make more noise which could raise some flags and opposition when rails are moved into residential areas. If you have ever heard an electric streetcar - they are pretty quite. In fact, they are almost whisper quite.

It comes from advertising and ticket prices.

I'll see if I can find it again but the Utah system had a pretty good break-down of operating cost for buses and streetcars. However, just look at the difference between you car and your bicycle. If you only drove 5 miles per day eventually you would need gasoline, an oil change, new tires, etc. You could ride your bike your entire life at 5 miles per day and probably never need to replace anything. An electric streetcar doesn't have very many moving parts to wear our.

As for CNG idea, it sounded good at first but I don't think it is feasable. The size of the tank is one issue but it will also make more noise which could raise some flags and opposition when rails are moved into residential areas. If you have ever heard an electric streetcar - they are pretty quite. In fact, they are almost whisper quite.

So, you're telling me advertising and fare are going to cover the ~$3.5 million streetcar operations?


Some examples that say you need more than that:

Milwaukee (http://www.milwaukeeconnector.com/finance.html)

Annual Operating Funding - The estimated annual operations cost for the initial route is $2.62 million and $3.85 million for the initial route and route extensions. The annual operating costs are intended to be financed through the City's parking fund, farebox revenue, and state and federal transit aid; however, if a new dedicated revenue source for an RTA is approved by the State Legislature, the operating costs for the Streetcar should be financed by that source.


Kansas City (http://www.kcata.org/light_rail_max/kansas_ctiy_streetcar_concept/)

The specifics of the alignment and financing have not been determined, but information is being assembled for inclusion in an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) TIGER grant application. A TIGER grant could provide most or all of the funding needed to design and construct the streetcar line. Operating costs would be funded by passenger fares and public or private financing.

Portland (http://pantographblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/streetcar-construction-cost-portland-or.html)

"The entire project cost USD 56.9 million, including the purchase of seven low-floor trams for USD 14.8 million. Funding came from various local sources, but primarily 20-year municipal bonds backed by a rate increase at city-owned multi-storey car parks in the central area (and also at parking meters), and a ‘Local Improvement District’ (LID) tax on properties located along or near the line. Of the 1781 property owners covered by the line’s first phase, only eight objected at a public inquiry on the subject of the proposed LID, and their property represented only 2.7% of the land area of the LID. Operating costs are met directly from city funds, and the available budget has had an effect on the initial frequency that is being offered (15 minutes) compared with that planned (12 minutes). The annual operating cost is predicted to be USD 2.4 million, and for the first five years Tri-Met has agreed to pay two thirds of this (capped at USD 1.6 million/year), in exchange for the city spending USD 6.5 million over the same period on traffic-signal modifications at several locations to give transit pre-emption. There is no federal funding involved.

Salt Lake (http://www.rideuta.com/files/SugarHousefinanceplanUpdated2-10FINAL.pdf)

Both scenarios assume that the project ’s operat ing costs are covered on an ongoing basis
by a combinat ion of fares, advert ising revenues, and operat ing support from the Utah
Transit Authority (UTA). (something we don't have here)


I'm all for streetcars. I'm just curious about how we will fund them. Maybe there is a creative way to do so.

So, you're telling me advertising and fare are going to cover the ~$3.5 million streetcar operations?


Some examples that say you need more than that:

Milwaukee (http://www.milwaukeeconnector.com/finance.html)

Annual Operating Funding - The estimated annual operations cost for the initial route is $2.62 million and $3.85 million for the initial route and route extensions. The annual operating costs are intended to be financed through the City's parking fund, farebox revenue, and state and federal transit aid; however, if a new dedicated revenue source for an RTA is approved by the State Legislature, the operating costs for the Streetcar should be financed by that source.


Kansas City (http://www.kcata.org/light_rail_max/kansas_ctiy_streetcar_concept/)

The specifics of the alignment and financing have not been determined, but information is being assembled for inclusion in an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) TIGER grant application. A TIGER grant could provide most or all of the funding needed to design and construct the streetcar line. Operating costs would be funded by passenger fares and public or private financing.

Portland (http://pantographblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/streetcar-construction-cost-portland-or.html)

"The entire project cost USD 56.9 million, including the purchase of seven low-floor trams for USD 14.8 million. Funding came from various local sources, but primarily 20-year municipal bonds backed by a rate increase at city-owned multi-storey car parks in the central area (and also at parking meters), and a ‘Local Improvement District’ (LID) tax on properties located along or near the line. Of the 1781 property owners covered by the line’s first phase, only eight objected at a public inquiry on the subject of the proposed LID, and their property represented only 2.7% of the land area of the LID. Operating costs are met directly from city funds, and the available budget has had an effect on the initial frequency that is being offered (15 minutes) compared with that planned (12 minutes). The annual operating cost is predicted to be USD 2.4 million, and for the first five years Tri-Met has agreed to pay two thirds of this (capped at USD 1.6 million/year), in exchange for the city spending USD 6.5 million over the same period on traffic-signal modifications at several locations to give transit pre-emption. There is no federal funding involved.

Salt Lake (http://www.rideuta.com/files/SugarHousefinanceplanUpdated2-10FINAL.pdf)

Both scenarios assume that the project ’s operat ing costs are covered on an ongoing basis
by a combinat ion of fares, advert ising revenues, and operat ing support from the Utah
Transit Authority (UTA). (something we don't have here)


I'm all for streetcars. I'm just curious about how we will fund them. Maybe there is a creative way to do so.

I think you just answered your questions above. We have a downtown BID, there are possible mechanisms for financing for those along the tracks that directly benefit financially, the "rubber tired" trolley's are going away downtown and those annual funds can be re-appropriated.

It goes on and on. The simple answer is that the annual budget can absorb $2.5 to $4.0 million in funding by itself. Large amounts of buses on the other hand couldn't be touched by those relatively small numbers.

Personally, I think the streetcars should be free to ride so whatever funding source they plan to use I hope they don't make fare-box revenue one of them.

Personally, I think the streetcars should be free to ride so what ever funding source they plan to use I hope they don't make fare-box revenue one of them.

Portland has a "free zone." Usually you charge something. Not necessarily to make money, but to prevent public transport from becoming a mobile homeless shelter. Usually it is enforced through an "honor system" if ticket purchases occur at the stop. But it allows the streetcar operator the mechanism to boot out people if need be.

I think you just answered your questions above. We have a downtown BID, there are possible mechanisms for financing for those along the tracks that directly benefit financially, the "rubber tired" trolley's are going away downtown and those annual funds can be re-appropriated.

It goes on and on. The simple answer is that the annual budget can absorb $2.5 to $4.0 million in funding by itself. Large amounts of buses on the other hand couldn't be touched by those relatively small numbers.

Never said they should.



I am curious to know how the annual budget can absorb $2.5 - $4.0 million without cutting something else?

Well, I think we need to consider that our economy is relatively stable and will grow. By the time the streetcar system is installed, lots of things will have changed budgetary. COTPA for example, may not even exist in its current form.

We have between 4- 6 years to figure out all the different mechanisms that will finance the relatively small cost of the system. These same sorts of debates are going to be had with most of the MAPS projects as they are developed.

Well, I think we need to consider that our economy is relatively stable and will grow. By the time the streetcar system is installed, lots of things will have changed budgetary. COTPA for example, may not even exist in its current form.

We have between 4- 6 years to figure out all the different mechanisms that will finance the relatively small cost of the system. These same sorts of debates are going to be had with most of the MAPS projects as they are developed.

Are you saying that we are 4-6 years away from the streetcar system being operational? Seems like a long time from now...

Well, I think we need to consider that our economy is relatively stable and will grow. By the time the streetcar system is installed, lots of things will have changed budgetary. COTPA for example, may not even exist in its current form.

We have between 4- 6 years to figure out all the different mechanisms that will finance the relatively small cost of the system. These same sorts of debates are going to be had with most of the MAPS projects as they are developed.

Yeah, let us assume that the economy will grow. Forever!

Yeah, let us assume that the economy will grow. Forever!

How 'bout a subcommittee to the subcommittee that would deal with transit funding and operations?

Are you saying that we are 4-6 years away from the streetcar system being operational? Seems like a long time from now...

I think the plan was always to get the route identified as soon as possible with actual construction coming later.

Are you saying that we are 4-6 years away from the streetcar system being operational? Seems like a long time from now...

FASTEST generalized schedule-

2 - 4 month's for route recommendations to make it through council to implementation and affect P180
8 month's-Preliminary/Final Engineering/Environmental
3 month's- Bidding
1-2 month's- Evaluation/Selection
3 Years- Rail Fabrication/Streetcar Vehicle Fabrication
9 month's- Installation
2-3 month's- testing and fabrication


And that's just off the top of my head from what I know about what's out there. Add CNG or some such thing to the mix and it's a whole different longer ball game.

Yeah, let us assume that the economy will grow. Forever!

FOREVER!!! Lol

How 'bout a subcommittee to the subcommittee that would deal with transit funding and operations?

You would know about subcommittee's LG. lol Your probably right. One is probably coming once we get some of the first concerns out of the way.

I think the plan was always to get the route identified as soon as possible with actual construction coming later.

Yes.

Need to know where the hub exactly is (2 month's out). COME TO THE HUB MEETING TOMORROW 4-6 at OKC Community Foundation
Convention Center Location (3-4 months?)
Be nice to know where is the downtown Elementary. (3 month's maybe?)
A planned grocery store? (Never?)

Just a few things that might make us feel better about a final recommendation.

I will be on the Gwin Faulconer Show, KTOK 1000 AM, around 8:35 PM about the streetcar.

Thanks to all those who came to ACOG's Hub Study meeting and provided input.

I will be on the Gwin Faulconer Show, KTOK 1000 AM, around 8:35 PM about the streetcar.

Thanks to all those who came to ACOG's Hub Study meeting and provided input.

For those that are of towners, you can listen live at this link:

http://www.ktok.com/main.html

Good job tonight Jeff. I know it is hard to respond on the fly when be asked questions but If I could offer one suggestion, when people bring up rubber tire buses you can respond that rail generates transit oriented development and buses do not.

Nowhere in the world does a hotel, office building, apartment complex or residential tower get built because it is on a bus route or near a bus stop. However, it has been demonstrated time and again in every city in the world with a rail system that those kinds of developments are attracted to rail lines and train stations. You did touch on it with the 'permanence' comment but I think it needs to be driven home with real world examples. To borrow a phrase from the Bricktown Hotel thread (can't remember who said it off the top of my head), we need to "re-urbanize the sprawl".

I really think that there should be a street car line going to the Meridian Ave. area with all the motel/hotels. Just using common sense would tell us that many of the out of town visitors stay in that area. A line there could service the fairgrounds and continue to downtown. In fact,that line should be very high on the priority list. How far is this area from downtown,6 miles or so? Just about the distance they are planning for in phase one. This area is a must for service.

Good job tonight Jeff. I know it is hard to respond on the fly when be asked questions but If I could offer one suggestion, when people bring up rubber tire buses you can respond that rail generates transit oriented development and buses do not.

Nowhere in the world does a hotel, office building, apartment complex or residential tower get built because it is on a bus route or near a bus stop. However, it has been demonstrated time and again in every city in the world with a rail system that those kinds of developments are attracted to rail lines and train stations. You did touch on it with the 'permanence' comment but I think it needs to be driven home with real world examples. To borrow a phrase from the Bricktown Hotel thread (can't remember who said it off the top of my head), we need to "re-urbanize the sprawl".

Thanks. Yes, TOD is important. I wish I had more time. I was trying to speak to who I thought "think" the audience might be and it wasn't at the top of my list. Also, we are very "in tune" with what we think council's concerns are and are subsequently trying to convey that we listened.

I really think that there should be a street car line going to the Meridian Ave. area with all the motel/hotels. Just using common sense would tell us that many of the out of town visitors stay in that area. A line there could service the fairgrounds and continue to downtown. In fact,that line should be very high on the priority list. How far is this area from downtown,6 miles or so? Just about the distance they are planning for in phase one. This area is a must for service.

Metro Transit did some feasibility studies even in their most far reaching proposal, a 'modern street car' would still stay mostly downtownish. One proposal had commercial rail end up going to the airport and suburbs and meet up with the street car at the hub.

Thanks. Yes, TOD is important. I wish I had more time. I was trying to speak to who I thought "think" the audience might be and it wasn't at the top of my list. Also, we are very "in tune" with what we think council's concerns are and are subsequently trying to convey that we listened.

Just pray the clown (Dr. Edward Shadid) that was on before you doesn't get elected to District 2 in March. He wants to direct all MAPS money to sidewalks, buses, and the police/fire departments.

This city spends way too much on police/fire already and absolutely zero on transit. How many of you knew that OKC PD are the highest-paid in the region? They make more than Dallas PD even. The average taxpayer cost per year of 1 OKC PD officer is well over $80,000. They certainly benefit from the absolute newest, shiniest equipment I've ever seen police have, save for maybe Edmond..

And they don't even give rides to pedestrians (who are otherwise expected to get ran over on roads with ZERO sidewalks) while they're out patrolling traffic.

This city spends way too much on police/fire already and absolutely zero on transit.

Well, Dr. Shadid (candidate for Ward 2 in March) doesn't think OKC should be spending any money on convention centers, streetcars, commuter rail, or rafting parks until every street in OKC is safe to live on and walk on. He even made a point that the projects are not required to be built, implying that the money could be re-directed at the Councils discretion. He also seemed willing to spend MAPS money on buses. Needless to say, I think this is going to be the last MAPS style tax. Everything else is going to have to be single issue votes.

Spartan....


The city spends what is is considered average on Police and Fire. Furthermore, the city does spend some money on transit, which is more than "absolutely zero"

We shouldn't exaggerate while making our case.

I agree we should spend more on transit. But public safety isn't the enemy to transit.

But public safety isn't the enemy to transit.
I don't know how closely you followed this forum during the leadup to the last MAPS election but that wasn't the common belief of most of the posters here.

Spartan....


The city spends what is is considered average on Police and Fire. Furthermore, the city does spend some money on transit, which is more than "absolutely zero"

We shouldn't exaggerate while making our case.

I agree we should spend more on transit. But public safety isn't the enemy to transit.

The city does not spend average on PD and Fire. OKC's public safety is top-notch. Having a dedicated, permanent public safety sales tax that never expires is unheard of elsewhere, but here in OKC, we have it.

And what we spend on transit is effectively zero. It is a ridiculously small portion of City Hall's budget. Actually, I think we seriously do need to evaluate where all of our money goes, and what are our priorities. What do we as a city pride ourselves on?

My guess?

1. Public safety
2. Street re-paving
3. Downtown projects
4.
5
6
7
8
9
...
100. Parks and public spaces
101. Transit

And I'm just talking about civic priorities. And I'm not saying downtown's not up there, we all know it is.. but come on, I think anyone's kidding themselves if they don't think so-called public safety (cops, jails, and administrators) don't get the biggest piece of the pie already.

And we need to spend MORE on public safety? That's ludicrous. That is just astounding. Some people will NEVER be happy at the top of the totem pole.

Well, Dr. Shadid (candidate for Ward 2 in March) doesn't think OKC should be spending any money on convention centers, streetcars, commuter rail, or rafting parks until every street in OKC is safe to live on and walk on. He even made a point that the projects are not required to be built, implying that the money could be re-directed at the Councils discretion. He also seemed willing to spend MAPS money on buses. Needless to say, I think this is going to be the last MAPS style tax. Everything else is going to have to be single issue votes.

And that's pretty much the way it should have been (at least the legal way). Those projects that are not like-kind are to be listed as separate propositions. Think bond issue format (Prop 1: Roads, Prop 2: Parks etc etc). As Doug, myself and a few others pointed out before the vote, there is nothing requiring them to do any of the announced projects. Shadid is correct, that the money can indeed be re-directed at the Council's discretion. Doesn't even take 5 or more, as long as a quorum is present, they only need a majority vote. But many on these threads insisted that we can trust them to keep their word. We will just have to wait and see.

And that's pretty much the way it should have been (at least the legal way). Those projects that are not like-kind are to be listed as separate propositions. Think bond issue format (Prop 1: Roads, Prop 2: Parks etc etc). As Doug, myself and a few others pointed out before the vote, there is nothing requiring them to do any of the announced projects. Shadid is correct, that the money can indeed be re-directed at the Council's discretion. Doesn't even take 5 or more, as long as a quorum is present, they only need a majority vote. But many on these threads insisted that we can trust them to keep their word. We will just have to wait and see.

That's what's at issue here. It was taken for granted that the city council would not go against the popular vote, just present the projects, let the vote speak for itself, and make sure that the voters' intent was carried through. But now it does appear to be a very real effort to bait and switch being carried out and led by Pete White. If Ward 2 falls, that's bad, but I doubt it would happen. I think the other councilors are kind of just waiting to see it play out, waiting to see if they need to support the original proposal that was voted on or support a new direction.

I think somewhere along the line, somebody decided that voter apathy would win at the end of the day. Voters showed up just enough to allow them to get their hands on the money, and now they think they can do whatever they want with it now that there is no way the voters care enough to reinforce the original vision. At least, that seems to be the dominant thinking on the city council right now.

I love Dr. Shadid and understand Pete White, but they need to realize that the people already voted on this and this was one of the more popular projects. If they don't spend the money on these projects the days of MAPs are over in OKC.

That's what's at issue here. It was taken for granted that the city council would not go against the popular vote, just present the projects, let the vote speak for itself, and make sure that the voters' intent was carried through. But now it does appear to be a very real effort to bait and switch being carried out and led by Pete White. If Ward 2 falls, that's bad, but I doubt it would happen. I think the other councilors are kind of just waiting to see it play out, waiting to see if they need to support the original proposal that was voted on or support a new direction.

I think somewhere along the line, somebody decided that voter apathy would win at the end of the day. Voters showed up just enough to allow them to get their hands on the money, and now they think they can do whatever they want with it now that there is no way the voters care enough to reinforce the original vision. At least, that seems to be the dominant thinking on the city council right now.

I don't disagree. Was wondering what had changed as I thought Mr. White was a supporter of MAPS 3 and if he had issues with it, he should have said something back then (and maybe he did in his own way)...


Ward 4 Councilman Pete White and Ward 8 Councilman Pat Ryan both said MAPS 3 isn’t perfect, but neither joined Walters in opposition.

"Some of us don’t like a lot of it, but the people get a chance to vote on it,” White said.

"I feel obligated to go ahead and put this to a vote of the people ... and I do that with some enthusiasm.”

Tried to find it on the forum, but how did White's Ward 4 end up voting on MAPS 3?

Spartan,

Actually dedicated sales tax to public safety isn't unheard of.
In fact, there are several cities in OK that have them.

Even with the PS sales tax, the city spends an average amount in public safety.

Sounds like general fund relief!
How about showing contempt for corporate welfare programs that are not core city services.
Transit, public safety, water, parks, sewer, courts, streets, transit. These are core services.
If any money is being diverted away from transit, look to projects not on the list and you'll find your target.

Again, public safety isn't transit's enemy.
This forum's popular beliefs shouldn't be mistaken for reality.
This is kinda like a small group of activists with a common zeal.
That's great, but look outside your group. You'll notice a little out of touch thoughts with the typical resident.

Peace....

At this point, I do not think that Pete White is actively trying to "sabotage" the streetcar. Nor do I think that he was intending to.

What I do think is that he over-reacted in public to a visual presentation that inadequately conveyed the "grand plan" that was/is in the process of being developed.

It was limited in what it portrayed and it perpetrated an idea that the perspective volunteers were pushing for something that had no "vision" or coherent depiction of how the conceptual core routes connected to other modes of transit.

It was a COTPA visual presentation that had not been formally ratified as a/the official proposal by the MAPS subcommittee.

While I think that it could have been handled differently by Mr. White, I think his heart is in the right place. While it caused some angst for the people trying to go through the process, it ultimately helped the process.

Ultimately, always be on your toes and concerned. But really, this all worked out for the best even though it was a bombastic performance.

I did not hear the first half of Dr. Shadid's comments. In the 2nd half of the program, he did say that while the streetcar might not be his preference, he understood that the voters "had spoken." He said this (I think) several times in different ways. So it seems that "he gets" that people specifically wanted a "rail start", to use his own words.

None of us are "naive," but you have acknowledge that this is a public, democratic, process. It's going to be messy until the rail is in the ground and the concrete is poured around it.

None of us are "naive," but you have acknowledge that this is a public, democratic, process. It's going to be messy until the rail is in the ground and the concrete is poured around it.

...and then neighborhoods are going to be clamoring for it when they see the benefits it brings.

Spartan,

Actually dedicated sales tax to public safety isn't unheard of.
In fact, there are several cities in OK that have them.

Even with the PS sales tax, the city spends an average amount in public safety.

Sounds like general fund relief!
How about showing contempt for corporate welfare programs that are not core city services.
Transit, public safety, water, parks, sewer, courts, streets, transit. These are core services.
If any money is being diverted away from transit, look to projects not on the list and you'll find your target.

Again, public safety isn't transit's enemy.
This forum's popular beliefs shouldn't be mistaken for reality.
This is kinda like a small group of activists with a common zeal.
That's great, but look outside your group. You'll notice a little out of touch thoughts with the typical resident.

Peace....

You are so wrong in every way. First of all, it's not general fund relief, because public safety still gets the largest chunk of the general fund in addition. Go look it up. Furthermore, this is not a small group of activists with a common zeal. During the election this place was literally overran by the nutjobs who only want OKC to spend on public safety (like a police state). Furthermore, it is hilarious to me that you want to try and tell me "public safety is not the enemy of transit." Why don't you save that for the public safety people? I'm not against public safety, I am just highly agitated by the unions and I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the election. I still feel that their shenanigans were shameful in every way.

And now they are continuing to spout their mouths. It also bothers me that you have basically the highest-paid cops in the region who spend soooo much of their time bitching for more money when you can look and see just how abysmal every other city service is. You can't do everything well. We're talking about people who's primary focus back during the election was to prevent MAPS from passing because they wanted that money. And then you've got the county cops who want a blank check to build a new jail because they screwed up the one we built in the 90s so badly. It's a nightmare. A very expensive nightmare.

You know, that was the whole point of MAPS in the first place. The citizens were willing to pay a tax if it was set aside and used to pay for capital projects the City otherwise couldn't afford. Whatever funding problems the City has (or doesn't have) MAPS money is 100% off the table as a solution. This money exist for one reason, and one reason only. If you aren't going to use it for that then give it back to the people.

Spartan,

The largest chunk of the general fund you speak of, is the average amount any city spends on public safety.

You seem overly concerned with a strawman the very few people who visit this site have created.
If you have any questions about the city budget just send me a message.
I'll school ya...

http://www.austinpost.org/files/image001.gif

OKC:
http://www.okc.gov/budget/fy03_04/gf_by_function.gif

http://www.austinpost.org/content/arrested-development-austin-police-gobble-more-budget-dollars
http://www.okc.gov/budget/fy03_04/q_and_a.html

*To my knowledge, NONE of the above cities have a dedicated public safety sales tax in ADDITION, except for OKC, of course..

One of the things that also gets under my skin is that public safety got a 2% budget cut last year. The city made EVERY other department take an 11% cut. City workers who work hard in other departments get no annual cost of living raise for two years, maybe more, but police DO because they write tickets, and our society considers that a moral responsibility. It's just so %$!@ed up that some woman who has worked in the planning department for 40 years is going to be screwed over, while some moron that couldn't get into college but got onto the police force a year ago gets his raise. What are our priorities here? Why are police and fire union workers treated like holy %$#$ing cows? To me I see that, and I just think, "That's not right."

It's kind of like a local version of the Pentagon.

edit: I'll just say, I have no idea what this has to do with streetcar, but I'm just responding to mea culpa's posts.. I guess we're talking about what deserves city money the most?

double edit: Crap, I'm turning into Larry with charts and graphs and links and all..lol

It's kind of like a local version of the Pentagon.

ding ding ding - we have a winner.

OK Spartan, You need to do more research. Lets see if I can yank your chain again.

Denver, Baltimore and Seattle buy their fire equipment out of a Capital Fund that is not included in the public safety budget. Which would greatly increase their budgets.
Outside of that it all adds up to average expenditures.

And Spartan, you only need to look to your local suburbs to find dedicated public safety taxes.

Now, many of you complain about sprawl. Why is the OKC fire department one of the biggest fire departments in the nation? Because of sprawl.
How do you fund 35 fire station and 1,000 firefighters with a metro population of 1.2 million? St. Louis has about 600 firefighters and a metro of well over 2 million.
This is the problem.

And Kerry, borrowing language from you. The citizens voted on a tax (public safety tax) and expect to get their money's worth. Last I checked the fire department has the highest rating of citizen confidence surveys. Even after the MAPS 3 vote.

Ding Ding ding... Your turn.

Peace...

How many firemen and police officers can we fit onto the future Okc streetcars?