wow, that was a blast from the past Kerry. I remember those days, over 10 years ago - we 'started' OKC's online discussions. wow - Amazing to look from then to now. We used to have to post so many times just to get enough page hits to register on a search engine, now - we're in the tops and lots of people frequent OKC on a number of different forums, with OKCTalk leading the way. Amazing the turn around of Oklahoma City and its citizens, a true Renaissance.

I remember the formulation of OCART but I think you can take the credit for GOcart, Kerry. OCART was Oklahoma City Area Rapid Transit, so adding the Greater makes it sound even more regional in stature than just the city.

Thanks for recalling a very intimate and innocent time when OKC's Renaissance was just in the minds of those of us on those forums. It is so interesting to see many of our then dreams have come true and the progressiveness of the city continues to move forward. Rail Transit? In OKC? and funded,,, wow!!!

To again recite the phrase that we originated, "CONTINUE THE RENAISSANCE"!

It has been a long time (in internet years). Two things though. OCART was my suggestion and we took a group poll and we all agreed on the name. The next day someone suggested adding the G to the front but I don't remember who that was. Anyhow, I loved GOCART and never forgot it. If I remember correctly I suggested the nickname Renaissance City but I don't recall if it was you or Rob Anderson that started using Continue the Renaissance first.

Somewhere out there in internet land is the OCART website I made on geocities.com. I even had the train horn that sounded when you opened the page. I checked for it a couple of years ago and it was still there but the geocities domain was bought by Yahoo and then shutdown.

Do you remember Heartland Castle and the siege park (I was even reprimanded by someone because I mixed the Renaissance and Medieval)?

Hey Sparky.

Unfortunate you see nothing but your own opinion on so many topics. At least I gave you the opportunity to practice your drama queen act again. Perhaps Queeny would be a more appropriate nick name for you Nick.

Come on guys. Keep it real.

Popsy, I think I met you during the campaign and I like you. Nick has his convictions and he stands by them. I like that too within reason. Anyways... enough already.

This thread is going to be an interesting archive of chunk of the public process to say the least.

Back on topic for debate:

Direct connection to The Underground (Conncourse) by the streetcar via a escalotor bay type stop or not? What do you think?

Back on topic for debate:

Direct connection to The Underground (Conncourse) by the streetcar via a escalotor bay type stop or not? What do you think?

I actually wouldn't mind if they filled the underground with dirt and closed it off. OKC doesn't have the downtown population to support underground and street level activity and it probably never will in the areas served by the Conn-course. I understand the desire of staying out of cold weather and rain but it comes at the expense of developing street level activity. Cities much colder than OKC seem to thrive without underground systems.

I think that would be a great idea. I am generally in favor of keeping people at street level as much as possible in order to spur development, but a connection to The Underground would be great for occasions of extremely hot or cold weather.

Back on topic for debate:

Direct connection to The Underground (Conncourse) by the streetcar via a escalotor bay type stop or not? What do you think?

yes or at the very least a stop somewhere near one of the entry points

I actually wouldn't mind if they filled the underground with dirt and closed it off. OKC doesn't have the downtown population to support underground and street level activity and it probably never will in the areas served by the Conn-course. I understand the desire of staying out of cold weather and rain but it comes at the expense of developing street level activity. Cities much colder than OKC seem to thrive without underground systems.

Total agreement. Look at Houston if you want an example of a city with more life at the subterranean level. It might actually bring down the cost of downtown construction if we had a facility available for dirt storage, instead of having to haul it off. That's a really good idea.

I do think it is inevitable though. Probably be a stop somewhere in the downtown core that happens to be right in front of a Conncourse entrance anyway. I would hate to see Conncourse improvements come out of the streetcar funding, though. That would be a tragedy.

yes or at the very least a stop somewhere near one of the entry points

A stop near an entry/exit would definitely be a good thing. I'm not sure if there are maps of the Underground once you get down there, but a map of the underground showing entry/exit points and relating them to streetcar stops/route would also be good. I'm assuming there will be a map of the streetcar route(s) posted at each stop, but if not, there should be.

GOCART! That will probably sound dorky to out-of-towners.

If you have ever ridden the buses, then you would want to leave "rapid" out of the acronym.

If you have ever ridden the buses, then you would want to leave "rapid" out of the acronym.

Greater Oklahoma City Area Rail Transit (GOCART). No 'rapid' in it. As an out-of-towner myself, I think it sound pretty cool and unique.

Oops!

That shows that my assumption was very much "in the box"

It has been a long time (in internet years). Two things though. OCART was my suggestion and we took a group poll and we all agreed on the name. The next day someone suggested adding the G to the front but I don't remember who that was. Anyhow, I loved GOCART and never forgot it. If I remember correctly I suggested the nickname Renaissance City but I don't recall if it was you or Rob Anderson that started using Continue the Renaissance first.

Somewhere out there in internet land is the OCART website I made on geocities.com. I even had the train horn that sounded when you opened the page. I checked for it a couple of years ago and it was still there but the geocities domain was bought by Yahoo and then shutdown.

Do you remember Heartland Castle and the siege park (I was even reprimanded by someone because I mixed the Renaissance and Medieval)?

Oh yes, I remember the Heartland Castle plans as well as the oil tower. We had some great ideas.

As for OCART, I don't exactly remember how it came about - you're probably right. I just remember going along with the idea once I heard it. As for Renaissance City, I thought I was the first to come up with it but was initially rebutted due to it being Detroit's. Then, Patrick and I coined Continue the Renaissance, which did catch on. Pulse still uses it, and I still use it as well as Renaissance City.

Truth be told, I thought of Renaissance when the Renaissance Hotel was being constructed. It was OKC's first new downtown hotel in years and was only the 2nd available. Back then, it was a big deal - and I saw something forward about more hotels and developments and thought, why dont we just coin OKC as the Renaissance City?

You may have similar or other reasons/ideas, but I think I was the first to champion it and initially it didn't go. Nevertheless, I'm glad we're all still around for the most part. Despite our differences, and there are some glaring - I think we all respect each other as 'old folks' since we were the original internet boys of OKC. I honestly am so impressed with how many people are online now, and standing up for OKC. I remember the days when neither was the case. ......

Sorry Urban for detracting. ...

I still like gOCart, or OCART. I can't really think of another aconym (sp?) that fits OKC and the metro with rail.

Kerry, it was myself that made the mistake with 'rapid' transit. But you're correct, the focus was ALWAYS with rail based transit options for OKC and the metro and not necessarily a comprehensive branding (like Metro/COTPA, Translink, Metrolink, SoundTransit, etc)....

I actually wouldn't mind if they filled the underground with dirt and closed it off. OKC doesn't have the downtown population to support underground and street level activity and it probably never will in the areas served by the Conn-course. I understand the desire of staying out of cold weather and rain but it comes at the expense of developing street level activity. Cities much colder than OKC seem to thrive without underground systems.

You're not totally wrong, Kerry, but there are other examples that contradict that.

http://www.vieux.montreal.qc.ca/plaque/horizon/gares/eng/gare_5a.htm

However, in Oklahoma City, there is so little in the way of businesses along the concourse that it has basically no effect on other development. Maybe you just want to see more people walking on the sidewalks even if they are wet, freezing, or sweating.

I've revised the video which contains all the remarks made by Pete, plus Jill Adler's comments, at the 12/21/2010 city council meeting. If you want to skip my introduction, use the slider bar to move to @ 7:00 in the 30:15 long video. To see the video in a larger view, click on the video after it begins to see it at You Tube.

LGzUH9l4nXs

You're not totally wrong, Kerry, but there are other examples that contradict that.

http://www.vieux.montreal.qc.ca/plaque/horizon/gares/eng/gare_5a.htm

However, in Oklahoma City, there is so little in the way of businesses along the concourse that it has basically no effect on other development. Maybe you just want to see more people walking on the sidewalks even if they are wet, freezing, or sweating.

I actually agree with those who see the Underground as a detriment to sidewalk activity. If it hadn't been recently renovated, I might be more sympathtic towards closing it off.

The renovation has however, turned it back into something that many consider an asset and use daily. So on a personal note, connecting to it is to try to get more ridership on the streetcar by office dwellers. We need those trains absolutly full from day one. So making an easy interface seems like a worthwhile endeavor for helping the initial success of the streetcar. IMO

Doug, thanks for the video.

One thing that you mentioned at the end is those who can't walk very far. Isn't that one of the inherent problems with (to borrow Mr. White's terms) spending $20M/mile for something that will serve those people that are on whatever route is decided upon? Yes, the same is true for buses or any other sort of transportation, but one of his points was that you can more effectively give access to a lot more people with the same dollars as those other forms.

I still strongly feel that the City should have gone "all in" and went for the comprehensive transit system the Mayor spoke of many times. One that would have addressed Streetcars, Buses etc etc. That is what I was expecting and then we got what we got. How many more years or decades is it going to take before we get that comprehensive plan and probably at a significantly higher cost? Remember that under the original MAPS we were supposed to have had fixed rail too ($16M). With MAPS 3, the cost rose dramatically ($120M). I realize these are not the same type of fixed rail systems and that may certainly account for some of it, but the cost multiplied by a factor of 7.5 in just 16 years. The cost to implement the comprehensive system was $394M. Just doing some quick-n-dirty math, what could be costing $274M to do now, could easily cost $2.055 Billion by then. WOW.

I've revised the video which contains all the remarks made by Pete, plus Jill Adler's comments, at the 12/21/2010 city council meeting. If you want to skip my introduction, use the slider bar to move to @ 7:00 in the 30:15 long video. To see the video in a larger view, click on the video after it begins to see it at You Tube.

LGzUH9l4nXs

Doug, you should look at the next council meeting and maybe include some of those comments, which I think got even harsher...especially the back-and-forth between Jeff and Pete. (Pete was pretty rude to Jeff)

On the other hand, streetcars have wide open doors and are at street level so for the handicapped they're easier to access than buses. Mass transit, regardless of type, is difficult for those who cannot walk far. Think about how hard it would be to get a wheelchair or scooter on a bus, while you can simply roll it onto a streetcar. It's not as if buses run on every single street so that no one ever has to walk to a bus stop. And while it is true that you can offer access to a greater number of people with buses, you've got to get them in the buses. How many do you see running that are full? Usually I see one to five people in every bus that goes by, and since fourth street is on one of the routes, I see a fair number of buses. We could spend hundreds of millions for buses that no one will ride. To me, the streetcar not only is a starter system of what could be another form of mass transit for our city, but it is an excellent way to introduce people to mass transit who probably wouldn't consider riding a bus at this point in time. In other words, to get people on buses, we may have to teach them that mass transit is for everyone, not just those who cannot afford a car. Then we have the maintenance costs buses versus streetcars, with buses having considerably higher maitenance costs. The streetcar will cost more to startup, but less to maintain over 20 years.

Did you notice, in the video, that I gave you a new name? Use the slider ... 18:50

Doug, you should look at the next council meeting and maybe include some of those comments, which I think got even harsher...especially the back-and-forth between Jeff and Pete. (Pete was pretty rude to Jeff)
Thanks, Nick. I missed that one.

Doug:

As Spartan points out, you should also look at Pete White's comments at the January 4, 2011 City Council meeting. However, a lot has happened since then, and I would say substantially for the better. For instance, at that same meeting other Council members made important comments about the streetcar and its connectivity.

We've had an Oklahoman editorial and letters to the editor published that were strongly in support of the streetcar and for keeping promises made to the voters. One could interpret that as important stakeholders in the city realizing that if this is what could happen to the most popular MAPS project then what about the least popular?

With all the coverage in all types of media, one could argue that this debate started by Pete has made the project better, clarified its objectives, and further solidified support across the community. Who knows - this debate may even help push the Modern Streetcar definitively to the front of the list of MAPS projects.

I do think you should look at the comments made by Larry McAtee and then by Pete White at the January 18, 2011 City Council meeting. (The video is actually there if you go to the minutes page; Larry starts at 57:00 and Pete finishes on the topic at 1:00:10.) I think it's worth quoting Pete - "I've had some very good contacts with people involved in the Modern Streetcar program about some of the issues I've raised and I too think we will come to a solution that will make us all satisfied under the circumstances that we have the best we can get - again, I say, under the circumstances."

Pete attended all of the Modern Streetcar subcommittee meeting on Wednesday, January 26 where he sat next to Hutch and engaged in animated conversations with him throughout the meeting. At the end of the meeting Pete made a few comments, including specifically thanking the committee for their work. Larry McAtee was also at that meeting and he then commented about how the Modern Streetcar has the full support of Council.

The next day, Thursday, January 27, 1011, Larry spoke at the MAPS 3 Oversight Board meeting (53:50 thru 54:50 and 55:10 thru 55:31) where he commended the work of the subcommittee and emphatically confirmed the commitment to "...a roughly 6-mile transportation system that will have rails in the ground..." Do please watch his full comments - I think they may allay your concerns somewhat.

To my mind, it seems that the current Council fully understands that this issue is also about its credibility in general and, especially seeing Pete's more recent comments, I don't believe there is any current threat to the streetcar or or any other MAPS 3 projects.

But as you and Larry and many others have continually pointed out, the MAPS 3 projects are based on a non-binding resolution that could be changed at any time by a future council. Indeed, Mayor Bob Walkup of Tucson, when he was here for the US Conference of Mayors last summer and talked about the new Tucson modern streetcar system that is about to start construction, warned that the biggest issue is dealing with the future, when current proponents and supporters of streetcar system are gone.

So I for one will be looking very carefully at who is standing for Council come this Monday.

I actually agree with those who see the Underground as a detriment to sidewalk activity. If it hadn't been recently renovated, I might be more sympathtic towards closing it off.

The renovation has however, turned it back into something that many consider an asset and use daily. So on a personal note, connecting to it is to try to get more ridership on the streetcar by office dwellers. We need those trains absolutly full from day one. So making an easy interface seems like a worthwhile endeavor for helping the initial success of the streetcar. IMO

If we have to connect to it, I already have a stop at the Kerr McGee/Robinson intersection on my layout. The Conncourse is right underneath it so a portal would need to be constructed to get to it. From that stop you could walk underground to most downtown buildings.

Tier2City,

Thanks for that excellent report. I watched the 1/4/2011 meeting earlier today, the part of it where Nick & Jeff spoke and Pete & other council members made comments. I will also follow up on your other suggestions. From the sound of it, you seem to think that the matter (that being, hands off of what was promised voters) is under control. Is that your sense?

To expose my ignorance (again), who is Hutch? Doesn't ring a bell.

betts:

Some of this is playing devil's advocate and some are linguring doubts/questions, so bear with me if you will. ... Are there not buses that are designed more like the streetcars (being ADA compliant) that don't require fixed rail? And presumably much cheaper. I'm just not sure how riding a streetcar is suddenly going to convince people they should be riding buses if they don't already do so. Think each form of transportation has its own set of preconceived pros/cons and getting anyone to change those by riding another form doesn't make sense does it? Or does it?

All of that said, I don't really know what the answer is as our buses aren't working and the rubber tired trolleys have pretty much been a failure, so I certainly don't think doing more rubber tired trolleys is the answer. But then again, what is the real difference between a rubber tired trolley and a bus other than asthetics(sp)?

I still wonder about having the same people that are responsible for the buses/trolleys doing the streetcars. Seems to be setting it up to be a failure.

I keep hearing (and have repeated it myself) that costs are higher in the beginning for streetcar, but maintenance etc is less than buses etc etc. But have yet to see the data that supports that. Presume that the Mayor and Council have been privy to the info and just didn't take someone's statement as gospel (no offense intended towards Jeff/Urban and MTP)

I do legitimately think Pete White's primary concern was avoiding a crappy tourist trolley that serves nobody. I was concerned about his judgment when he made comments about 7-8 people standing at the bus stop at 74th and Santa Fe, and saying that downtown is already developed. From a logical standpoint, it is confusing because either nobody lives downtown (vignette #1) or downtown is already finished and developed (vignette #2) so these are two very contrasting ideas. And then I'm deeply concerned by anyone who thinks downtown is a finished product. Guess they haven't seen an aerial.

I am not however concerned about Pete's perspective on transit. I understand that he wants to improve the lives of the mobility-impaired. I just wish he would take more of a holistic approach. It would be similar to relegating government to pothole-patching to try and look for an immediate transit fix that only meets the needs of the homeless and mobility-impaired. We need to step back and look at the way our city is working for everyone. Just because people have the means to buy a steel box to move around in does not mean they are happy, or that it's best for their own health, so I am arguing that the transit fix needs to appeal to everyone. We need to completely retool our city. OKC needs to be rebuilt to serve people, not cars, and you can't rebuild a city with buses. You have to have the fixed option.

So I completely understand everything Pete was saying. I think it was extremely wrong for him to suggest we can change the ballot, and that's concerning to an extent that the "means" justify the "ends," but I'm not saying his goal or primary concern (the "ends") is not admirable. The biggest concern is, as Jeff suggests, getting some Tea Partier on the horseshoe who is encouraged by Pete's remarks leaving open the possibility of changing the projects and does not have the same motives as Pete, is not as willing to get along as Pete, and is not even willing to "play the game" and act like a councilman. That would be the big concern from this episode.

I just wish Pete would take his concerns even further and ask the harsh questions that perhaps it's not a problem with city services, it's a problem with the city's built environment. If he would ask those questions, then he would reach the natural conclusions that there needs to be a shift in the built environment ultimately. The goal is not a city service. I know that councilmen don't think this way, however. And it's not surprising to me that someone who lives out on Henney Rd would thumb their nose at planning wisdom...

Here's some info, albeit from Portland Streetcar, so take it with a grain of salt:

"Streetcars offer higher rider capacity than buses. Examples show that streetcars attract new riders and people who otherwise would not ride a bus. Several streetcar routes in the U.S. are located along former bus routes, and there have been dramatic surges in ridership and development that did not occur when the corridor was served by a bus line. Streetcars run on a fixed guideway line so businesses are more likely to invest in areas with streetcar lines than bus lines. Bus lines can be and often are re-routed. Streetcars therefore serve as a better development catalyst than buses. Streetcar routes are also easier to understand and if you miss a stop it’s easy to find your way back. This is attractive to riders, particularly tourists. Streetcars also offer friendlier boarding options to riders. Due to their low floor design, modern streetcars allow riders with strollers, bicycles, and wheelchairs to board the streetcar more quickly than dealing with a lift or feeling as though they are causing other riders to wait. Streetcars are convenient, comfortable, attractive, and reliable. Streetcars operate on electric lines, not fossil fuels so they are better for our environment and air quality."

This is from a study looking at rail ridership versus bus ridership. It includes a fascinating piece of data:

"After rail service was eliminated in Oklahoma City and its environs, transit use fell 97 percent on a per capita basis."

In most cities served by buses exclusively, transit riding has declined 75 percent over the past 40 years. Exclusive busways have not made much difference absolutely, but they have helped relatively. In 11 areas with updated rail transit facilities, ridership has increased markedly, often by more than 100 percent. In two of these areas, the transit systems are attracting more ridership than they did when gasoline and tires were rationed. It appears that rail transit makes a great difference in ridership attraction, with attendant benefits (38).

Because transit use is a function of travel time, fare, frequency of service, population, and density, increased transit use can not be attributed to rail transit when these other factors are improved. When these service conditions are equal, it is evident that rail transit is likely to attract from 34 percent to 43 percent more riders than will equivalent bus service. The data do not provide explanations for this phenomenon, but other studies and reports suggest that the clearly identifiable rail route; delineated stops that are often protected; more stable, safer, and more comfortable vehicles; freedom from fumes and excessive noise; and more generous vehicle dimensions may all be factors.

http://www.heritagetrolley.org/articleTennyson.htm

I found this regarding the streetcar in San Francisco as well:

"Sometimes, buses are used to handle heavy peakloads, but people often refuse to ride the bus andwait extra for the streetcar instead."

Thanks betts:, am often fond of the enhancing qualities of salt (in some ways the info makes both your & Mr. White's arguments)....LOL

Rail is what people were using and when it vanished, they didn't switch to buses. When both are available, would rather walk or wait for the streetcar rather than take a bus (so even if bus service was expanded, ran on every street etc, people still wouldn't take them). Also, I think the development argument is correct, even if one of the experts during the ULI presentation stated that it may not be the case.

"Streetcars are convenient (to those on the route and their are fewer routes than buses), comfortable, attractive, (buses can be equally so) and reliable (unless if operated by the same folks responsible for the buses)."

"Streetcars operate on electric lines, not fossil fuels so they are better for our environment and air quality." And how is the electricity generated (in OKC, isn't that primarily from fossil fuels)? During 2009, in the U.S., 69% is from fossil fuels (coal = 45%; natural gas = 23%; petro = 1%) Is it more efficient to use the fossil fuels to generate the electricity (streetcars) or direct fuel (buses) ...may balance the increased capacity component?

Again, I don't know, just asking.

BTW, wise move not to engage in a "debate" with Mr. White. Have noticed that whenever a "dialog" starts, council members are fairly quick to shut it down and they usually get the last and most words in. The Mayor often responds very neutrally, "Thank you for your comments/coming down".

I still strongly feel that the City should have gone "all in" and went for the comprehensive transit system the Mayor spoke of many times. One that would have addressed Streetcars, Buses etc etc. That is what I was expecting and then we got what we got. How many more years or decades is it going to take before we get that comprehensive plan and probably at a significantly higher cost? Remember that under the original MAPS we were supposed to have had fixed rail too ($16M). With MAPS 3, the cost rose dramatically ($120M). I realize these are not the same type of fixed rail systems and that may certainly account for some of it, but the cost multiplied by a factor of 7.5 in just 16 years. The cost to implement the comprehensive system was $394M. Just doing some quick-n-dirty math, what could be costing $274M to do now, could easily cost $2.055 Billion by then. WOW.

Larry, we're not ready for a multi-county vote to impliment a multi-jurisdictional transit system, authority, and permanent funding source. It's that simple. If you want to volunteer some time, we'll send you to Moore and Yukon to help organize voters for transit. That's the type of campaign that it would take to see your wish above through.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but wishing it so doesn't make it so. We got as much for transit as politically possible in Maps. If you could have swayed the Chamber for a smaller Convention Center, or lost some other project, we could gladly use another $150 million on more streetcar, hub, or built bus shelters. But what your describing doesn't fit into the MAPS program and it's structure.

It is propogating a misnomer just like Mr. White tried to do. He now seems to understand that we are working hard to establish THE precedent that will enable broad public support for implementation of the greater multi-city masterplan.

Larry, we're not ready for a multi-county vote to impliment a multi-jurisdictional transit system, authority, and permanent funding source. It's that simple. If you want to volunteer some time, we'll send you to Moore and Yukon to help organize voters for transit. That's the type of campaign that it would take to see your wish above through.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but wishing it so doesn't make it so. We got as much for transit as politically possible in Maps. If you could have swayed the Chamber for a smaller Convention Center, or lost some other project, we could gladly use another $150 million on more streetcar, hub, or built bus shelters. But what your describing doesn't fit into the MAPS program and it's structure.

It is propogating a misnomer just like Mr. White tried to do. He now seems to understand that we are working hard to establish THE precedent that will enable broad public support for implementation of the greater multi-city masterplan.

Urban is spot on. The reality of the matter is the only way we'll achieve a great comprehensive transit system, including bus, for the metropolitan area is through establishment of a regional transit authority, district and dedicated funding source, just like DART, Denver RTD or UTA. And the only way to garner the necessary public, political and business support for creating such a mechanism is through rail-based transit as the foundation, which unlike bus transit can gain the support of middle and middle-upper class voters who will use rail transit, as well as political and business interests who understand the economic development opportunities created by rail transit. But before we can get there, we must carefully educate and introduce to those whose support we'll need the value of rail-based transit, which has been gone from the Oklahoma City metropolitan area for more than 50 years. And that is without question the most valuable aspect of the modern streetcar project.

Tier2City,

Thanks for that excellent report. I watched the 1/4/2011 meeting earlier today, the part of it where Nick & Jeff spoke and Pete & other council members made comments. I will also follow up on your other suggestions. From the sound of it, you seem to think that the matter (that being, hands off of what was promised voters) is under control. Is that your sense?

Doug – I would indeed say the matter is under control for now. Again, I really do think a lot of positive benefits – at this juncture - have come from the whole conversation.

But the fundamental risks to this and any MAPS 3 project will always be there. The magic number is not $120 million, 6 miles or 7 years and 7 months. It’s five. Five votes by the current City Council at any the time, for potentially the next ten years until the last project is completed.

Here’s a possible challenge for you: Would you be able to do the same thorough analysis that you bought to bear on the MAPS 3 ballot and campaign to the upcoming Council candidate’s positions and general philosophy on MAPS 3?


To expose my ignorance (again), who is Hutch? Doesn't ring a bell.






Hutch, you have some fantastic ideas, and you have obviously put much thought into the possibilities.

Welcome to Okctalk too.


Marion Hutchison is probably "the citizen hub expert." He and OnTrac have been working on this for years. Marion also serves on our Hub Committee.

Marion Hutchison is one of the most tireless, technically informed, and - very importantly - politically astute and politically realistic activists in the central Oklahoma transit advocacy community. As well as considerable work on commuter rail he has recently been putting in a lot of work in on the streetcar.

Urban is spot on. The reality of the matter is the only way we'll achieve a great comprehensive transit system, including bus, for the metropolitan area is through establishment of a regional transit authority, district and dedicated funding source, just like DART, Denver RTD or UTA. And the only way to garner the necessary public, political and business support for creating such a mechanism is through rail-based transit as the foundation, which unlike bus transit can gain the support of middle and middle-upper class voters who will use rail transit, as well as political and business interests who understand the economic development opportunities created by rail transit. But before we can get there, we must carefully educate and introduce to those whose support we'll need the value of rail-based transit, which has been gone from the Oklahoma City metropolitan area for more than 50 years. And that is without question the most valuable aspect of the modern streetcar project.

What an excellent time to plug Central Oklahoma's effort to establish a regional transit dialogue. Phase I is in the books, Phase II will most likely start this year.

Regional Transit Dialogue (RTD) (http://www.acogok.org/programs_and_services/transportation_and_data_services/rtd/default.asp)

Thanks Mr. Hutchison! ;)

Doug – I would indeed say the matter is under control for now. Again, I really do think a lot of positive benefits – at this juncture - have come from the whole conversation.

But the fundamental risks to this and any MAPS 3 project will always be there. The magic number is not $120 million, 6 miles or 7 years and 7 months. It’s five. Five votes by the current City Council at any the time, for potentially the next ten years until the last project is completed.
Theoretically, if my understanding is correct, the magic number could be as low as three. I think that a quorum of mayor and council is 5, and a majority of the quorum would be 3. Not that such a thing would happen, of course.


Here’s a possible challenge for you: Would you be able to do the same thorough analysis that you bought to bear on the MAPS 3 ballot and campaign to the upcoming Council candidate’s positions and general philosophy on MAPS 3?
If the information is out there and I learn of it, sure. But I don't know how readily such information will be. Probably, not much will be learned from campaign brochures which will doubtless stress family values, conservative labels, support for police & fire, etc. If a candidate would include a statement such as, "I fully support implementation of the MAPS 3 projects exactly as they are identified in the resolution adopted by the city council on [whichever date]," now wouldn't that be something?

If some sort of a network of people could approach the candidates and learn their points of view, and then pool the information, I'd be more than glad to report it. Steve doesn't do political reporting, I don't think.


Marion Hutchison is one of the most tireless, technically informed, and - very importantly - politically astute and politically realistic activists in the central Oklahoma transit advocacy community. As well as considerable work on commuter rail he has recently been putting in a lot of work in on the streetcar.
Thanks, good to know. Hi, Hutch!

Urban and Hutch:

I apologize in advance if some of this seems snarky, but here we go...

One nagging question that I have asked seems to keep getting over looked: what is the maintenance/operations cost on comparative systems (such as bus vs. streetcars). Keep hearing how much cheaper it is, but what is the hard data?

But to get back to your post...I'm not talking about a multi-county proposition and from most of the Mayor's remarks, it didn't sound like he was either. How much of the $394M announced price tag would have been for the multi-county part? According to the Mayor in 2007, which parts of the comprehensive system wouldn't fit into a MAPS format?


Now, the plan includes four distinct methods of public transportation:
Bus Rapid Transit,
Commuter Rail,
Downtown Streetcar, and
Enhanced Bus Service.

One of the earliest reports announcing the unveiling of MAPS 3 stated that commuter rail was included
MAPS 3 will include $130 million for public transit, including five to six miles of downtown streetcar lines, commuter rail lines and a downtown transit hub which will link the streetcar, rail and bus systems.

My reading of that indicated the hub would be a multi-modal one that housed rail, streetcars, Amtrak, City bus and possibly even Greyhound. Gleaning from the Council meeting, Mr. White mentioned that the Streetcar might be going to the existing bus transit center. Wasn't the bus transit center on the spot of the Ballpark and was moved to its current location (or am I thinking of something else?) So I am confused.

What part doesn't fit into the MAPS structure? Are you talking about maintenance/operations? If so, none of the MAPS projects account for those either. The same article that mentioned the $394M price tag, said it would cost $90M/year to operate. How much are the streetcars going to cost to operate and where is that money going to come from?


"...we must carefully educate and introduce to those whose support we'll need the value of rail-based transit..."

Huh? Educate and introduce it to the same 85% that said they wanted a MAPS 3 and the same people that said they wanted "Transit (light rail, streetcars, etc.)", more than any other suggestion by a decent margin. Again, the same survey the Mayor often cited for the justification for anything MAPS 3 related? What about the scientific polling the Urban has mentioned that said the Streetcars were the most wanted part (still haven't seen a link or hard data on it either).

Since passage of MAPS 3 dropped down to the same "barely passing" 54% of the original MAPS, how well did that "education" work?

Now to get back to an earlier question I had, by delaying the implementation of the comprehensive system, what is the projected escalated price tag going to be? Just look at the 7.5 times increase in the cost of downtown streetcars in the original MAPS and now. As I asked in the earlier post, what was reported as costing the $274M balance could easily cost over $2 BILLION by then. Seems like it would be a much easier sell to raise $294M (roughly 3 years of a penny tax) than $2 billion+ (22+ years).

I understand the Chamber probably threw their support mainly due to the Convention Center and that was most likely going to be included in MAPS 3 no matter what. But instead of including the comprehensive system the Mayor often spoke of/what the respondents said they wanted, which would effect the entire city (much like MAPS for Kids transformed EVERY school in the Metro and many surrounding districts), they traded what would appear to be near universal support for pet projects to roughly equate the same areas of the city.

These are the things the Mayor consistently stated would be included in MAPS 3 (and just 3 days before MAPS 3 was unveiled), this is what I fully expected to be on the Ballot:
• "public transit improvements" ($394M)
• "a new convention center" ($280M
• "a large downtown park" ($130M)
For a total of $804M or an 8 year, penny sales tax. Nearly identical to the 7.75 span with MAPS 3.

Foreshadowing the other projects he added: "I expect there to be more projects, but the bulk of it is going to be those three,” He expects? He didn't know just 3 days before it was announced what was in there? That aside, if it was decided for political purposes to include the other projects, fine, then it would have been a 10.75 year tax instead. But again, they appear to have traded something that would have effected the whole City for some projects that may/may not. Maybe there was a resistance to go with a 10 year tax and maybe even resistance to an 8 year one (so that may be why we have a 7.75 year). But again, if part of the comprehensive plan included a multi-county element, that amount would be taken out and would shorten the tax.

One thing that I noticed in Mr. White's remarks at Council was that he was never a supporter of the DT streetcars, it was only when $10M was thrown in the mix for the hub that he decided to support the $120M (for something he stated he didn't support). Interesting.

"Streetcars operate on electric lines, not fossil fuels so they are better for our environment and air quality." And how is the electricity generated (in OKC, isn't that primarily from fossil fuels)? During 2009, in the U.S., 69% is from fossil fuels (coal = 45%; natural gas = 23%; petro = 1%) Is it more efficient to use the fossil fuels to generate the electricity (streetcars) or direct fuel (buses) ...may balance the increased capacity component?

They are looking at using Wind power for the streetcars.

Here are videos containing the audio of pertinent remarks made as follows:

City Council, January 4, 2011
Comments by Nick Roberts, Jeff Bezdek, Pete White, Sam Bowman & Skip Kelly
v/ABQ88wzxc9E?version=3

City Council, January 18, 2011
Comments by Larry McAtee & Pete White ... Pete appears to back off
v/W8pgyj9bev4?version=3

Maps Advisory/Oversight , Committee Meeting on January 27, 2011
Comments by Larry McAtee ... says the council is committed to the modern streetcar project; notes the possibility of misunderstanding because of earlier comments by unnamed person(s)

v/-XOdQInbINM?version=3

Thanks Nick & Tier2City for pointing me in the right direction.

Do you mean what he said on January 18? If he spoke publicly on the 27th, I'm not aware ... please educate me.

Sid, I've got very high opinions of Pete most of the time. But his remarks, had they been pursued by him or someone else would have had a disastrous effect not only upon street cars but the entirety of the MAPS process. It's not a matter of believing or disbelieving what anyone has to say ABOUT Pete, it's about what he spoke himself. No one was putting words into his mouth.

RESPONSE TO LARRY

What is the maintenance/operations cost on comparative systems (such as bus vs. streetcars). Keep hearing how much cheaper it is, but what is the hard data?

As a general rule of thumb, streetcars cost less than buses to operate as seen over and over again in various cities where the two are compared. We are about to embark on a technical estimate of what the exact cost is (via the consultants) for our own city.


But to get back to your post...I'm not talking about a multi-county proposition and from most of the Mayor's remarks, it didn't sound like he was either. How much of the $394M announced price tag would have been for the multi-county part? According to the Mayor in 2007, which parts of the comprehensive system wouldn't fit into a MAPS format?

Now, the plan includes four distinct methods of public transportation:
Bus Rapid Transit,
Commuter Rail,
Downtown Streetcar, and
Enhanced Bus Service.

The only elements that council, mayor, city manager, felt they could (and would be willing) to afford is the streetcar, hub facility, and some permanent commuter rail improvements as recommended by the MAPS subcommittee.

Off the top of my head, BRT along NW Expressway and "enhanced" bus routes were the only elements that fall within our city limits. All the other commuter rail and BRT elements were inter-jurisdictional. This does not include the Adventure Line. It was not included in the FGS of which you are referring most of your comments from.


One of the earliest reports announcing the unveiling of MAPS 3 stated that commuter rail was included:

MAPS 3 will include $130 million for public transit, including five to six miles of downtown streetcar lines, commuter rail lines and a downtown transit hub which will link the streetcar, rail and bus systems.

Pete White helped obtain $10 million in the package for a transit hub geared primarily towards making commuter rail connections to start. The $10 million was also generally considered flex funds to help make those connections through improved commuter rail infrastructure to be advised by MAPS transit subcommittee. Mr. White has indicated that he would like to see us ultimately have a hub at which all major relevant transit connections are made.


My reading of that indicated the hub would be a multi-modal one that housed rail, streetcars, Amtrak, City bus and possibly even Greyhound. Gleaning from the Council meeting, Mr. White mentioned that the Streetcar might be going to the existing bus transit center. Wasn't the bus transit center on the spot of the Ballpark and was moved to its current location (or am I thinking of something else?) So I am confused.

My reading the above statement doesn't suggest that at all. However, it is our intention to figure out how to build capacity for all relevant transit connections in the facility as funds allow.


What part doesn't fit into the MAPS structure? Are you talking about maintenance/operations? If so, none of the MAPS projects account for those either. The same article that mentioned the $394M price tag, said it would cost $90M/year to operate. How much are the streetcars going to cost to operate and where is that money going to come from?


The early estimate for streetcar operation that was suggested by the consultants was between $3.2 and $4.5 million per year. It was the smallest estimated operational cost for an entire system within the overall planned future system. The council felt comfortable that they could find the ongoing funds enough to move forward with including it in MAPS. Some possible mechanisms for funding that have been discussed include discontinuing the "rubber tired trolleys" downtown specifically, on board and stop advertising, BID funds, special assessment mechanisms, fare collection, and absorption into the annual budget.


"...we must carefully educate and introduce to those whose support we'll need the value of rail-based transit..."
Huh? Educate and introduce it to the same 85% that said they wanted a MAPS 3 and the same people that said they wanted "Transit (light rail, streetcars, etc.)", more than any other suggestion by a decent margin. Again, the same survey the Mayor often cited for the justification for anything MAPS 3 related?

I can't speak for the Mayor and won't. But the online poll cited is unscientific. If it were even relevant, it only really speaks to OKC voters. I can assure you that a vote covering several counties and area cities to provide a permanent funding mechanism for ongoing operations would require broad support cannot be compared to the statement above in any real context.


What about the scientific polling the Urban has mentioned that said the Streetcars were the most wanted part (still haven't seen a link or hard data on it either).

The polling information that I have is privileged. It is critical information that I will not release nor do I have the authority to release. I do not own it. I can refer to it in general terms and have, to reassure people.

Feel free to criticize my unwillingness to make it available, but I think I have a stellar track record of being honest with people. My presence on this blog is evidence of that. For that matter, I think that the three of us who are formally placed on the committees who do blog, sends a signal that we care about factual information getting out. I don't know if anyone else on the other MAPS subcommittee's blog. Not to use a Doug Loudenbeck line, but "Trust Us." We're one of you.



Since passage of MAPS 3 dropped down to the same "barely passing" 54% of the original MAPS, how well did that "education" work?

It worked pretty well in light of real organized opposition.


Now to get back to an earlier question I had, by delaying the implementation of the comprehensive system, what is the projected escalated price tag going to be? Just look at the 7.5 times increase in the cost of downtown streetcars in the original MAPS and now. As I asked in the earlier post, what was reported as costing the $274M balance could easily cost over $2 BILLION by then. Seems like it would be a much easier sell to raise $294M (roughly 3 years of a penny tax) than $2 billion+ (22+ years).

That is infrastructure "raw cost". It doesn't take into account Federal Funding by which the brunt of most Regional Systems are paid for. Yes, it has and will become more expensive with time. That's too bad. Nothing that I or any of us can do about it individually. It will take collective leadership of area city governments.


These are the things the Mayor consistently stated would be included in MAPS 3 (and just 3 days before MAPS 3 was unveiled), this is what I fully expected to be on the Ballot:
• "public transit improvements" ($394M)
• "a new convention center" ($280M
• "a large downtown park" ($130M)
For a total of $804M or an 8 year, penny sales tax. Nearly identical to the 7.75 span with MAPS 3.

Foreshadowing the other projects he added: "I expect there to be more projects, but the bulk of it is going to be those three,” He expects? He didn't know just 3 days before it was announced what was in there? That aside, if it was decided for political purposes to include the other projects, fine, then it would have been a 10.75 year tax instead. But again, they appear to have traded something that would have effected the whole City for some projects that may/may not. Maybe there was a resistance to go with a 10 year tax and maybe even resistance to an 8 year one (so that may be why we have a 7.75 year). But again, if part of the comprehensive plan included a multi-county element, that amount would be taken out and would shorten the tax.

I think that you are "meshing" comments made at different times for different purposes into something that MAPS transit was never going to be. I don't ever remember the mayor ever putting the FGS 2005 price tag of $394 million out there. However, he serves as the Chairman of the RTD referred to above by Plansit (Regional Transit Dialogue) which aims to organize leadership support of central Oklahoma regional cities for a comprehensive implementation of the FGS. He has made comments about this in general contexts in many of his speeches. But he has never insinuated that MAPS would pay for it with transit improvements outside of our city limits as the $394 million is relevant to.

What I have said over and over again is that this is the START of the implementation of that larger plan as it is the centerpiece of the FGS system plan; along with the hub.


One thing that I noticed in Mr. White's remarks at Council was that he was never a supporter of the DT streetcars, it was only when $10M was thrown in the mix for the hub that he decided to support the $120M (for something he stated he didn't support). Interesting.

I think that perspective may rapidly be changing as he attend our meetings and now consults the people in the trenches. his comments caused a "bit of chaos", but they have actually "helped." They have made us more focused and more aggressive at getting done. More people are becoming re-educated as to why we are doing it the way we are doing it.

Corrrected version of 1/18/2011 Council Meeting Excerpts -- McAtee & White
v/jVG0WzdbW-w?version=3

Tier2...appreciate the comments.

Plansit...you're welcome.

I'm just one of many trying to move rail transit forward...it will take all of us and more working together over many years to get us where we need to go.

Doug...hello to you too...thanks for your efforts to inform the masses.

Larry...ditto Urban's follow-up...and to re-emphasize a few things:

1) The $394 million capital costs and $90 million annual operating costs you keep referring to in numerous posts are estimated cost figures directly from the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study, which is a regional system plan for the entire Oklahoma City metropolitan area.

2) I have never heard the Mayor or any other city official state or even insinuate that the regional system plan proposed under the Fixed Guideway Study should be fully paid for and implemented by Oklahoma City under MAPS 3.

3) MAPS 3 passed with just 54% of the vote. There's no question that between now and when the time comes for a single ballot proposition for a permanent dedicated regional transit funding source that additional public education will be requied.

4) The Intermodal Transit Hub Study being conducted by Jacobs Engineering on behalf of ACOG will make recommendatioins for a hub facility designed to effectively service and connect all transit and transportation modes for the next 30 years...commuter rail, high-speed rail, Amtrak, modern streetcar, bus rapid tranist, enhanced bus, regular bus, bicycle, pedestrian.

It seems plausible that streetcar would have had a wider margin if it wasn't attached to highly unpopular projects like the convention center. Just talking from a voter standpoint, not from what's best for the city...

Urban & Hutch

Thank you for the replies. I know that at times it seems we are on opposite ends of this dialog but it seems we are in agreement about a lot of things. Just not the specifics or the interpretation.

I didn't mean to imply that either of you are trying to hide information. Just that it has been asked for before and not answered previously (again, think it gets lost along the way for the most part)


I think that you are "meshing" comments made at different times for different purposes into something that MAPS transit was never going to be.
Indeed, that was a summation of the many speeches and articles where the Mayor has spoken about such MAPS 3 things. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a place where it has all been compiled in a neat, tidy organized format, so the info has to be pieced together. Usually try to stick with what an individual actually said (rather than what they didn't say or try to read between the lines type of thing). The items I did mention that were in quotes (not necessarily direct quotes of the Mayor), but the wording in the article that came out 3 days before MAPS 3 was announced and attributed to the Mayor). It aligned with what the Mayor had previously stated. Here is the text from the article:

The proposal will include public transit improvements, a new convention center and a large downtown park, Cornett said.
"I expect there to be more projects, but the bulk of it is going to be those three,” he said.
...
Whether those transit improvements will include better bus service, light rail, a modern streetcar or some combination of the three will be among the details city officials release at a news conference within two weeks, Cornett said. The cost of the proposal and length of the sales tax also will be announced.

I don't think I am alone in the interpretation of the expectation of the comprehensive plan. Seems that the writer was thinking along the same lines. While we discovered that enhanced bus service was no longer included, an article describing the announcement, indicated that other elements were still included (not just the streetcars). Here is the text from that article (same writer):

MAPS 3 will include $130 million for public transit, including five to six miles of downtown streetcar lines, commuter rail lines and a downtown transit hub which will link the streetcar, rail and bus systems.
The foreshadowing of it not being the comprehensive plan that the Mayor had spoke of previously and had started to back off of is certainly there. But again, he didn't know at that late date what the details were? Three days before it was announced? The City had been working on MAPS 3 back when Humphreys was still Mayor and MAPS for Kids and just passed. Not inconceivable, but still amazing that things weren't finalized at that point. Considering that the City had bought themselves another 12 to 15 months on MAPS 3 with the passage of the Ford tax.
Sorry if that wasn't clear, but believe it or not was trying to edit things down from the 25 page dissertation that my simple post had grown into. Hard for me to believe I had such a hard time coming up with word counts back in high school & college days. LOL


I don't ever remember the mayor ever putting the FGS 2005 price tag of $394 million out there.
True, that was not the Mayor's number that I know of, but from an 11/5/08 Oklahoman article where a presentation was given before Council? Unfortunately I don't have the complete article as it is archived, so rely mainly on the teaser paragraph the Oklahoman now provides. Can't recall who gave the presentation or what entity they were with. Here is the blurb where I got the $394M amount:

Oklahoma City's mass transit overhaul comes with a big price
BY BRYAN DEAN
Oklahoma City ’s mass transit plan isn’t the problem. It’s the money.
Metro Transit spent 18 months studying public transportation options, which included public forums.
The resulting plan included better bus service, commuter rail, a modern streetcar for the downtown area and bus rapid transit, which is a hybrid between bus and rail.
Total price tag: $394 million to build and $90 million a...

It seems plausible that streetcar would have had a wider margin if it wasn't attached to highly unpopular projects like the convention center. Just talking from a voter standpoint, not from what's best for the city...

I agree completely, and think that a Mass Transit proposition (possibly subdivided into the individual components so we could actually determine what voters did/did not want) would have passed overwhelmingly. Think most of the MAPS 3 projects would have passed easily with various percentages.

Firmly believe (and the scientific polling that the Gazette published, and the internal Chamber memo) showed that the C.C. would have failed. While I didn't believe the numbers the Chamber stated with the C.C. (think they are over inflated, just as their MAPS investment numbers were heavily inflated), I actually supported the new C.C. because it is primarily NEW money being brought into the economy by tourists/visitors and not the reallocation of current spending within the City (say from Memorial to Downtown). Then their was the spin, half-truths and out right lies they posted in their "Facts" website about the C.C. in particular. But I digress <sigh>

Pete. LIKE THE NEW TRANSPORTATION SUB-CATEGORY!

Well, Larry, the convention center is what it is. Gonna be a Tier 2 City...that is good. What it takes is some selling out. I don't believe it will pay for itself in terms of tangible dollar amounts, but it will pay for itself in terms of having a quality city asset, hopefully an asset to Bricktown, and I know for a fact about several hotel developers who are currently in flux waiting to see where it gets built. So that will be some good development.

Two Tea Party candidates have announced for the non-partisan city council election. In Ward 6, incumbent Meg Salyer is challenged by Adrian Van Manen. In Ward 8, incumbent Patrick Ryan is challenged by Clifford Hearron.

Gwin Faulconer Lippert interviewed both on January 28 for her KTOK radio show which aired on January 30. Excerpts are presented here, those dealing with the candidates' thoughts about MAPS 3. Both candidates had comments about the streetcar as well as MAPS 3 generally.

v/SBXRV-lhk8s?version=3"

For the full interviews, go to http://www.ktok.com/cc-common/podcast.html and locate Gwin Faulconer Lippert's podcasts for January 30, 2011.

I agree with the comment that MAPS should be about permanency, that something should last 30 or so years...think he mentioned people not worrying about if the library would be moved...I laughed when I heard it because it immediately brought to mind the Ford Center, how it was intended to be a long term, permanent structure (just as the Cox has been a long term facility w/improvements along the way) yet the Mayor openly talked about REPLACING the Ford (at that point it wasn't even 5 years old). Hopefully with the upgrades we will get at least another 5 years out of it before that kind of talk starts up again.

Article on MAPS 3, including but not limited to streetcar: http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/01/maps-3-on-importance-of-being-earnest.html

you want to stay ahead of the curve and not take the approach Seattle took. .....

Hot Rod: want to elaborate?

Hot Rod: want to elaborate?

Not to speak for HotRod, but Seattle just kept adding lanes of freeways and they finally got to the point where they couldn't do that anymore. Now they have to spend billions to put in streetcars, lightrail, and bus rapid transit when they could have done it 20 years ago and saved the billion. Correct my if I am wrong HotRod but isn't Seattle on the hook for like $5 billion to pay for mass transit? In the meantime Seattle has to live with all the congestion. Once you get behind the curve you have to work twice as hard to get in front of it again. That is true with anything.

you want to stay ahead of the curve and not take the approach Seattle took. .....

Yes. What do you mean about this?

Not to speak for HotRod, but Seattle just kept adding lanes of freeways and they finally got to the point where they couldn't do that anymore. Now they have to spend billions to put in streetcars, lightrail, and bus rapid transit when they could have done it 20 years ago and saved the billion. Correct my if I am wrong HotRod but isn't Seattle on the hook for like $5 billion to pay for mass transit? In the meantime Seattle has to live with all the congestion. Once you get behind the curve you have to work twice as hard to get in front of it again. That is true with anything.

Actually, it's closer to $18 billion over 15 years via a 2008 vote.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Transit)

Consultants suggest BT as top spot for transit hub:

A convergence of improvements to public transportation — some real, some only hoped for — have planners circling downtown Oklahoma City trying to pinpoint the best site for an intermodal transit station.

The MAPS 3 ballot approved by voters in 2009 includes an estimated $10 million for a transit hub to serve a new $120 million streetcar system. Consultants working with the city and the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments say the metro area has one shot at picking a spot that could spur economic development throughout the region.

Read the rest of the article at:
http://newsok.com/consultants-suggest-bricktown-top-spot-for-10m-transit-hub/article/3538509#ixzz1D9YHnToF

I understand the need for due-diligence, but if the Santa Fe station is not chosen someone better come with a very good reason. There are 6 parking lots within 500 feet of Santa Fe that would be ideal for residential development.

my thoughts were answered by my friends Plansit and Kerry. It should be very well known on the forums and those who follow civic planning, sports, transit, and/or Seattle/PacNW politics. And all we have is one line, that barely gets 10,000 riders a day. Please don't make the same mistakes OKC. ... (IMO, you already made one with the Union Station debacle. ...).

Another thought of not following Seattle, is with regard to not investing in your infrastructure - (See Sonics/Thunder).

Hot Rod, what is your assessment of mistakes made with the streetcar in Seattle? I think one of the most important things we can do is understand what people would change in other cities, in an attempt to not repeat mistakes that have been made.

I do, however, disagree that Union Station was a debacle....if you are implying that not using it as our hub is the debacle. I think even outside analysts have seen that it is not the right location for a transit hub, although it could still conceivably be a stop on a variety of different types of transit lines, should the city grow significantly in that direction.

betts,

Was that outside analysis before the whole removal of rail lines issue? Not sure about the logistics (then or now) but purely from an aesthetics viewpoint, think Union Station is a much more attractive building than Santa Fe.

And I agree, look at others and learn from what works and what doesn't work (if applicable here)

There are still rail lines at Union Station. I agree that Union Station is much more attractive, but the location is impractical for a multimodal hub. Clearly the analysts think it is far less practical than the Santa Fe station for a hub location, but it still has the capability to be a stop. I believe there will be two lines still present, or at least one with space for a second. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.