View Full Version : Streetcar




Steve
03-02-2011, 10:22 PM
Alright.

Urban Pioneer
03-02-2011, 10:27 PM
And what I mean is that OKC Talk is real-time with minimal spam filter delays and the ability to edit. Much more comfortable format for someone being "targeted."

Steve
03-02-2011, 10:27 PM
Jeff, you know I've never censored you on OKC Central. I've also appreciated your contributions to the blog with your guest posts. I agree - the stupid spam filters are a problem that can lead to problems in such conversations.
You mentioned agendas, etc.
Tell me what questions you think I should be asking.

shane453
03-02-2011, 10:28 PM
I'm really excited about the pace of the streetcar progress since I hope to move to the inner city in the next few years and would love to have access to it as soon as possible. I simply think P180 and Streetcar subcommittee agreed to try to work together at an escalated pace AND reduced cost... All the while the route process has been open and public in "direct democracy" format with several committee members participating in discussions here. That's efficient and transparent decision-making if I ever saw it. Besides, the costs and vehicle specs will come as engineers look at the suggested routes later on... I'm having a hard time seeing anything shady here at all.

As for matching streetcar route to convention center... I don't think that's so important. The convention center, like any other future development, can choose to locate along the route or off it. As someone once pointed out to me, a streetcar isn't going to be so useful when a convention of 1,000 attendees lets out. Or anything more than 100. And planning our route based on a "connect the dots" of places with the most political backing is not going to create the best transit system for downtown.

Steve
03-02-2011, 10:46 PM
Guys, I just read through the last three pages to figure out how this discussion got so heated.
Yes, I've been aggressive in trying to find out what city staffers said, and who said what. But not once in this discussion have I impugned the character of Jeff, others on the committee, or the streetcar project.
From day one of Project 180 there has been a tremendous rush to get it done in an extraordinarily short time period. And I've never gotten a full understanding from the city as to why. This is the question I was referring to earlier. And what I'm trying to find out is how much the transit schedule is being influenced by the Project 180 schedule, and whether there could be some harm caused as a result.
Jeff, I suggest you look back at the past three pages yourself. Look at the column again. And ask yourself whether I'm really attacking your or the streetcar project in what I've written (I'm not)

Urban Pioneer
03-02-2011, 11:08 PM
"Originally Posted by Steve
Enjoy it Betts. Please realize, this is not meant to cause you or Sid any discomfort. I realize you guys are donating your time without any compensation whatsoever for all that you do."

It is obvious to me that there is something personal going on here. You certainly don't mind my discomfort. I feel like it has been personal with you since we launched this project.

If I'm wrong, fine. Let's leave it here. But otherwise, consider me always willing to sit down and explain this stuff honestly to anyone who wants to be educated. That particularly means you too.

Steve
03-02-2011, 11:10 PM
I edited that after wards to make it non name specific... not intended. I was talking to Sid and Betts at the time I wrote that.
My only irritation in all this is that it was so damn difficult to get out that city staff had set a schedule, not an agenda.

betts
03-02-2011, 11:11 PM
Steve, I think I understand your point. Now that Urban Pioneer mentioned it, I do remember the Jane Story presentation. But that was part of a presentation by multiple people. I've just about been presented to death, to be honest with you. It might have been she who first mentioned the timeline, but that was six meetings ago.

But, my point was that I don't really have a big problem with the timeline. I think every project should have a timeline. Regardless, we approached our route discussions with complete seriousness and no one in our group ever suggested we do anything but come up with the very best route, in our minds, regardless of the timeline. If I'd felt we were picking a route just to meet a deadline, I would have said we need to put on the breaks. But I didn't feel that way. I've said to a few people: "We have a group of ten very opinionated people who are all used to being in charge and making decisions. It's amazing that we had so little trouble coming up with something so many of us agreed upon and felt great about." I seriously think if we meetinged for another year, we'd come up with the same route. There are too many things about it that are logical, to me, to think another route might have emerged.

As far as the hub and convention center go, to my knowledge, everyone in the group thinks we should go to the convention center and hub. That's why we have dotted lines on the southern portion of the route.....so we can do just that and have the flexibility to adapt to engineering and right of way considerations, especially relative to the railroad bridges.

I think most of us were also very aware that we cannot move any farther forward until we have some reasonable idea of costs, and that requires a route. Without any idea of costs, any sort of planning beyond a simple loop is a pipe dream.

But again, it is not our job as committee members to determine if what we are told is false. We have to act on the information we are given. And, as good citizens and people concerned for the well-being of our city, financial and otherwise, I believe it is part of our charge to spend carefully and give our city the most cost-effective system we can. It is wasteful to tear up the street a second time to move utilities if we don't have to do so. However, if you find we were not given accurate information, I still do not believe it would substantially change the solid-line route as outlined.

Steve
03-02-2011, 11:13 PM
And there we go. It is part of my job to see whether is said to you - and taxpayers - is true or false....

BoulderSooner
03-02-2011, 11:15 PM
Start with your slanted article

Steve
03-02-2011, 11:18 PM
You think it was slanted. I disagree.
I explained this before to Betts. The "butchering of the steer" ending was a historic reference to the original MAPS projects - how different ideas, disagreements, questions about schedules, etc., can all seem a bit ugly to the observer, but in the end can lead to a nice result (as seen with MAPS).

soonerguru
03-02-2011, 11:27 PM
Steve,

You may want to inquire as to whether Jane Jenkins is getting pressured to "apply the brakes" from city insiders. Could her opinion be influenced by that? You know how things work in this town.

Larry OKC
03-03-2011, 12:24 AM
"...it is not our job as committee members to determine if what we are told is false. We have to act on the information we are given...."

But what if you find out the information you've been given is false? Then what?

Larry OKC
03-03-2011, 12:32 AM
City officials long ago acknowledged they were mis-spoken on the Devon deadline. Are you telling me that a city official has formally informed your committee that there is a deadline to get Project 180 done by the time Devon tower is done and occupied? If so, tell me who it is.

Steve, I must have missed that. How long ago was this? Do you have a link or link to the articles where it was expressly stated or implied that this was due to the requirements of the agreement with Devon? I am going to dig thru stuff myself, but thought this might be faster.

On edit this is what I found:
Robinson to be 1st Devon project (Lackmeyer, Oklahoman, 10/15/09)

After the meeting, [Devon Energy chief executive officer Larry ] Nichols acknowledged the pace of the improvements may seem rapid, but he believes it can be accomplished because they are all being funded at once.

The agreement between the city and Devon calls for improvements throughout the central business district to be completed by when the tower is open in 2013.
...
"To me, getting ahead of schedule is not a problem,” O’Connor said. "Getting behind schedule is a problem because we have completion dates in the implementation agreement.”

Criticism, confusion arise over Oklahoma City downtown projects (Lackmeyer, Oklahoman, 2/9/10)

"We do have this agreement to do streets around Devon's development by the time their building is done -- and those could not have waited," O'Connor said.
...
O'Connor and Story say they don't expect streetcar construction to begin until 2020 -- six years after work is to be completed on Project 180.

Project 180 and the MAPS 3 could save taxpayer money (Gazette, 12/1/2010)

As part of the Project 180 agreement with Devon Energy, the city has certain requirements and deadlines to meet in the construction and renovation process.
...
Eric Wenger, MAPS program manager, told the subcommittee that the next round of work for Project 180 would likely begin in early summer, meaning that if the subcommittee wanted to integrate the streetcar work with the other project’s work, a route would have to be decided on fairly soon, but several unanswered questions remain.

“I know timing is of the essence, but there are still so many unanswered questions, not just with 180’s schedule, but with the transit project itself,” Wenger said. “If we can avoid duplication — that is a goal.”
...
Project 180 program manager Laura Story, a former assistant city engineer, said overlap between her project and the MAPS 3 transit project is unavoidable, and to begin moving utilities for the streetcar with Project 180 funds would have likely caused large cost overruns.

“I don’t know that there is a conflict that could have been avoided with Project 180,” Story said. “We have found there are so many utilities in the ground that for us to clear everything for the streetcar railing would have been very, very irresponsible to ratepayers or taxpayers. We could not justify it.”

Where is the Implementation Agreement? It is referenced even in the 24 page PDF presentation on @ OKC.gov, but no speciifics are given.

Why is Devon saying there are no deadlines when Mr. Nichols stated there were?

Do the deadlines only include the property adjacent to the Devon tower or all of P180 as the articles suggest?

The answer would be in that agreement, where is it?

BoulderSooner
03-03-2011, 06:21 AM
You think it was slanted. I disagree.
I explained this before to Betts. The "butchering of the steer" ending was a historic reference to the original MAPS projects - how different ideas, disagreements, questions about schedules, etc., can all seem a bit ugly to the observer, but in the end can lead to a nice result (as seen with MAPS).

Of course you don't. But tell me this you focus on the "too fast" what facts bring you to that conclusion? You have been to a part of one meeting and spoken at length to 1 of the ten members ( the only one I will add that thinks things are going to fast). So tell me how is that not slanted. Your piece is closer to op-Ed. Then reporting

Tier2City
03-03-2011, 09:24 AM
Steve:

We're in business hours now. Have you been able to speak to anybody at the City?

Steve
03-03-2011, 10:05 AM
Klay Kimker, vp of admin at Devon, has stated repeatedly that Devon only asks that the improvements immediate to their campus be completed by the time the tower is completed. I've got calls out now to the city to clarify what they have and have not told the committee.
This quote from Betts is what this is all about:
"...it is not our job as committee members to determine if what we are told is false. We have to act on the information we are given...."
It is my job to see if information going to the public is true or false. That's what this is all about.

Urban Pioneer
03-03-2011, 10:23 AM
This quote from Betts is what this is all about:
"...it is not our job as committee members to determine if what we are told is false. We have to act on the information we are given...."
It is my job to see if information going to the public is true or false. That's what this is all about.

I completely disagree. This online skirmish is about you propagating the idea that our subcommittee members are rushing to judgment and making bad decisions.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

"Did I mention we don't know where the convention center, elementary school or transit hub will be located? Consider also that neither city staffers nor the MAPS 3 committee has any idea as to what the streetcars will cost on a per-mile basis, nor do they know what kind of system will be used, when the system will be built, or whether this route can be accommodated."


You cast doubt suggesting that these are critical answers that we should have answered even though it has been thoroughly explained to you that we are comfortable with our recommendation for all of the reasons outline above and on previous pages.

The reasoning for our 1A recommendation is sound and you suggest to the broader public that we might be making bad decisions. As reflected above by others, we cannot get answers to costs, "kinds of systems", accommodations and so on unless we start making route recommendations and have engineers design enough of it so that we can obtain factual answers.

What goes on about "conflicts" with scheduling facts on the city side is for you to find out. Bringing our credibility into question when we have sufficiently given answers to the public can be/is perceived as a negative attack on the project.

Steve
03-03-2011, 10:35 AM
Jeff, then maybe I'm confused. I've visited with you and several others from this committee before writing this and never got a clear understanding of why a preferred route must be picked before determining what kind of set-up is needed and what the cost will be. You feel as if the column cast your committee in a bad light. I disagree. I felt like it was showing just how complicated this sort of process can be.
So let's both try to take the heat out of this conversation and learn more about how this works. I'm genuine in my interest.
This sounds like a chicken and the egg sort of thing...

Urban Pioneer
03-03-2011, 10:52 AM
The conclusions derived were very clearly stated in hours and hours of public meetings and some of them have been expressed on this forum. The answers are publicly out there.

It is simple. We are now at a point we need our own engineers hired to make more recommendations. Costs, technology, other considerations cannot not be determined without professional assessment of our recommendation. There was no reason to procrastinate in the "safe" areas where we could actually make a recommendation to inform P180. We just worked harder, met twice a month, and came to consensus earlier.

Have faith in the knowledge that construction workers, planners, engineers, and other jobs have been preserved in the security of knowing their ongoing contracts for P180 work will not be delayed because we demand a halt to wait for us. We could have said, "No, we only have time for meeting once a month. If it takes four months instead and causes people to be laid off because of our recalcitrance, oh well. Sad for them. Well just demand that they wait."

Steve
03-03-2011, 10:58 AM
On another matter - Jeff, I never implied in this column, or meant to imply, that you guys haven't devoted anything less than an incredible amount of time - on your own dime - to this work and seeing it's done right. Looking back, if I could add that one thought, I would. It was not my intent to say you guys just showed up one day and chose a route. So please accept my apology if that's the crux of this matter.
For what it's worth, it's clear now, having talked again to Eric Wenger, that the answer to my original question here is that there never was a discussion of whether the Project 180 bids set for this spring could be delayed to allow you to see where venues might be located. They told you a schedule, you asked if a couple of streets could be done in later phases, and city staff never revealed whether the overall bids could be delayed a few weeks.
Now, my question is this: Can the costs per mile be different for one route vs. another? If so, I think I better understand why you went ahead and chose a route. I was under the impression the cost estimate is the same regardless of route.
Final thought: I would, as I have in the past, welcome you to write a guest piece for OKC Central or even work together on a follow-up for next week.
- Steve

Kerry
03-03-2011, 11:00 AM
I've visited with you and several others from this committee before writing this and never got a clear understanding of why a preferred route must be picked before determining what kind of set-up is needed and what the cost will be.

Maybe it should have been called a preliminary or exploratory route.

BoulderSooner
03-03-2011, 11:06 AM
On another matter - Jeff, I never implied in this column, or meant to imply, that you guys haven't devoted anything less than an incredible amount of time - on your own dime - to this work and seeing it's done right. Looking back, if I could add that one thought, I would. It was not my intent to say you guys just showed up one day and chose a route. So please accept my apology if that's the crux of this matter.
For what it's worth, it's clear now, having talked again to Eric Wenger, that the answer to my original question here is that there never was a discussion of whether the Project 180 bids set for this spring could be delayed to allow you to see where venues might be located. They told you a schedule, you asked if a couple of streets could be done in later phases, and city staff never revealed whether the overall bids could be delayed a few weeks.
Now, my question is this: Can the costs per mile be different for one route vs. another? If so, I think I better understand why you went ahead and chose a route. I was under the impression the cost estimate is the same regardless of route.
Final thought: I would, as I have in the past, welcome you to write a guest piece for OKC Central or even work together on a follow-up for next week.
- Steve

of course the costs can be different depending on the route .. the rerouting of utilities will be different on each and every street and that is a major cost factor

Steve
03-03-2011, 11:07 AM
So that's another chicken and the egg sort of thing, isn't it? Do you want to know which streets will be most cost effective before choosing a route? Or do you pick the route, see if it's cost effective, and then consider changes if the street turns into a nightmare?

Steve
03-03-2011, 11:08 AM
I wonder how other cities have phased this sort of task.

Urban Pioneer
03-03-2011, 11:12 AM
On another matter -
Now, my question is this: Can the costs per mile be different for one route vs. another? If so, I think I better understand why you went ahead and chose a route. I was under the impression the cost estimate is the same regardless of route.

They can be, the question is "Should you predicate a route based on what it costs versus what is ideal for the transit user?"

The answer usually lays somewhere in between.

A great example is the Sheridan and Reno Bridges. It is our preliminary understanding that those bridges cost a great deal to modify and we might have to wait for the BNSF to approve (possibly years from now). So, does that mean you "bite the bullet" and absorb the cost because you think you absolutely must go down Sheridan or Reno, or do you go under the new Boulevard because it is new and free. Part of that answer has to do with where the entrances to the hub are.

An argument can be made that your spending money putting track in "to go around" the obstacle. So now you understand why we need professional assessments by engineers.

Thanks for the invitation to write or be interviewed.

Steve
03-03-2011, 11:22 AM
FYI - I'm going to be offline most of this afternoon, so if you ask me a question and I don't respond, don't take that as me ducking out of the discussion. I realize that my aggressive questioning of Jeff last night was not fully appreciated, but I think we'll all learn a lot more about how this works as a result of this back and forth.

Kerry
03-03-2011, 11:31 AM
I realize that my aggressive questioning of Jeff last night was not fully appreciated, but I think we'll all learn a lot more about how this works as a result of this back and forth.

This is the reason I come to OKCTalk in the first place. If I wasn't interested in the inside scoop I would just wait to read about it after the fact.

Doug Loudenback
03-03-2011, 11:47 AM
Jeff, then maybe I'm confused. I've visited with you and several others from this committee before writing this and never got a clear understanding of why a preferred route must be picked before determining what kind of set-up is needed and what the cost will be. You feel as if the column cast your committee in a bad light. I disagree. I felt like it was showing just how complicated this sort of process can be.
So let's both try to take the heat out of this conversation and learn more about how this works. I'm genuine in my interest. This sounds like a chicken and the egg sort of thing...
Actually, this 3-4 page conversation reminds me more of something like this ...

v/lTX7sKHI_0g?version=3"

... perhaps mixed with a touch of this ...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Y42iMyTs8lw/TT5P8zBS0uI/AAAAAAAAA2w/FtEaOe6epmg/s1600/nook3.jpghttp://www.champuru.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2010-04-16a.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_REcQ2hCLkz0/ScGPxgQMTXI/AAAAAAAABls/FWz9zrrb5n4/s400/godog6.jpg

There are NO implied meanings by my choice of the foregoing humorous images other than to say, "Hey, lighten up, people!"

I'm such a tunnel vision kind of guy that while zeroing in on our elections just had that I'd missed out on all this fun, the first notice of which (to me) was this piece at Steve's blog (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2011/03/02/still-trying-to-make-sense-of-it-all/). I wondered, "What have I been missing?" Then I read Steve's article in the Oklahoman (http://newsok.com/questions-persist-over-timing-of-downtown-okc-streetcar-system/article/3544768?custom_click=rss). Then I read this thread beginning here (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=20121&p=407631#post407631) (my last check point before this morning). Then I went back to Steve's blog and saw the latest post (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2011/03/03/a-question-not-asked/), in which I commented,


With great respect, I think that the pot you are stirring, Steve, is much ado about nothing. And even it is about “something,” I’d suppose that you’d want to say just a bit more about the work that the transit committee has accomplished and the perspective of the 8 member majority, and with some adversity ala Pete White’s comments, than spending time and energy talking about what the clear minority member (1 of 9 ) of the committee thinks. My 2 cents.
This all coming to me in one sitting this morning, I do think that your article, Steve, sounds rather presumptive that you do impliedly align your piece with Jane Jenkins, the 1 of 9 (or 10? -- not sure which is correct) minority, and do single out Jeff as being the transit committee member who is in a hurry. Jeff is but 1 member of the majority, so their names are every bit as relevant as Jeff's is. As as far as Jane Jenkins is concerned, soonerguru certainly added a significant query as to why she might be on the slow side:


You may want to inquire as to whether Jane Jenkins is getting pressured to "apply the brakes" from city insiders. Could her opinion be influenced by that? You know how things work in this town.
Now, you may perceive and say that you expressed no opinion, but one does not use lead-in phrasing like, "Did I mention we don't know where the convention center, elementary school or transit hub will be located," which drips with attitude.

On the other hand, when you were pressing Jeff and Jill for a "name" in this 3-4 page saga, Jeff was a little slow to say that he didn't remember a single name -- which city staffer had said there was a P180 contract deadline. Jeff got his back up a bit ... more than a bit ... in that part of the story.

Jill added some salient points, I thought, which I'll boil down to an oversimplified statement (my words, not hers), "It really just doesn't matter." One can always count on Jill to boil something down to the lowest common denominator. Jill for mayor in 2014!

And lets not forget the audacity of Larry OKC who spent some time researching (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=20121&p=408616#post408616) some history relevant to the topic and who impudently {tongue in cheek, Larry} wondered,


Why is Devon saying there are no deadlines when Mr. Nichols stated there were? Do the deadlines only include the property adjacent to the Devon tower or all of P180 as the articles suggest? The answer would be in that agreement, where is it?
Daaamm! What a concept. By now, has anyone participating in this thread looked at the actual contract with Devon which would be ever so much more telling and important than would be what a Devon employee has to say about if and what any deadline for P180 might be? I'd suppose it to be a public record.

But, in the end, I'm thinking that what Jill had to say along the lines of how I characterized her remarks above is the the most significant of all ... it really just doesn't matter.

Now, I've expanded my 2 cents to about a quarter's worth ... though it may only be worth a mill or two (if you don't know what a mill is, you are too young to be reading this adult content).

And there you are. Live long and prosper, my friends.

betts
03-03-2011, 12:37 PM
So that's another chicken and the egg sort of thing, isn't it? Do you want to know which streets will be most cost effective before choosing a route? Or do you pick the route, see if it's cost effective, and then consider changes if the street turns into a nightmare?

Steve, the way I see it, if we were to find out which streets will be most cost effective before choosing a route, we would have to study every street downtown. That would definitely stop Project 180 dead in its tracks or make us dig up streets a second time. This way, we look at what, to us, are the best streets for a route and find out if there are insurmountable problems with the route we've chosen. It majorly narrows the scope of work that will have to be done, and will hopefully dramatically decrease the costs and time that would be involved in studying every street. We've actually spent a lot of time looking at streets and corners to see if there are obvious (to a nonengineer) problems with particular parts of the route prior to making a decision. However, as has been discussed in our meetings, we are well aware that the engineers could find problems we have not anticipated. If so, we will deal with them in as thoughtful a manner as possible.

Doug Loudenback
03-03-2011, 12:44 PM
Incidentally, readers, I emphasize that my use of images from the great children's book Go Dog Go! was in no way intended to equate any participant in this thread of having a child-like mentality. It simply came to mind as being one of the favorite stories I once read to my children and was a spin-off from my the 1st image which popped into my mind, the image of a dog chasing his/her tail. These items were simply intended to inject an element of lightheartedness and humor into a thread that struck me as having become much too serious.

Kerry
03-03-2011, 01:00 PM
In 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years no one is going to care if route A cost more than route B. All they are going to care about is if route A goes where they need to go. If cost is the driving factor then let's build this out at Village Verde for pennies on the dollar.

Spartan
03-03-2011, 01:50 PM
Kerry, the cost doesn't matter, but we only have so much money. It's not rocket science that a 7 mile system is better than a 6 mile system.

Tier2City
03-03-2011, 02:58 PM
Kerry, the cost doesn't matter, but we only have so much money. It's not rocket science that a 7 mile system is better than a 6 mile system.

Not necessarily. A six mile system that effectively serves as many key destinations as possible in a clear, legible manner and which can be easily expanded in the future is going to be much better than a 7 mile system that doesn't serve as many key destinations or follows a tortuous, non-intuitive route that can't be easily understood.

MIKELS129
03-03-2011, 03:29 PM
Jeff
It does sound as if you are hyperventilating a bit. Take a breath... please.

Spartan
03-03-2011, 03:44 PM
Not necessarily. A six mile system that effectively serves as many key destinations as possible in a clear, legible manner and which can be easily expanded in the future is going to be much better than a 7 mile system that doesn't serve as many key destinations or follows a tortuous, non-intuitive route that can't be easily understood.

Yeah but how likely is that... it's not like anyone has a BAD proposal for how to spend an extra mile (except for Kerry's county jail district route).

I'm thinking in the most realistic terms, not in terms of contradictions or exceptions.....

Urban Pioneer
03-03-2011, 03:55 PM
Jeff
It does sound as if you are hyperventilating a bit. Take a breath... please.

Did you read all three or four pages of this? I'm not hyperventilating. The article, if you can call it that, can easily be perceived as slanted. It calls into question the decisions we almost unanimously made by insinuating that we may be in conflict with things that we believe that we are not. We're intentionally not making decisions about routes in areas that are questionable.

Period.

okclee
03-03-2011, 04:06 PM
Urban,, you and the committee are doing and have done great work. That article did insinuate conflict and and indecisiveness amongst the committee, even second guessing the entire process.

So what if the committee can do a great job and do it fast. Doesn't mean that doing it slower would equal better results. P180 has to be taken into account, but if the committee is working a fast pace and it does coordinate with the P180 schedule, it is all a bonus.

Keep up the good work and the speed at which it is being done.

Urban Pioneer
03-03-2011, 04:07 PM
Jeff, then maybe I'm confused. I've visited with you and several others from this committee before writing this and never got a clear understanding of why a preferred route must be picked before determining what kind of set-up is needed and what the cost will be. You feel as if the column cast your committee in a bad light. I disagree. I felt like it was showing just how complicated this sort of process can be.
So let's both try to take the heat out of this conversation and learn more about how this works. I'm genuine in my interest.
This sounds like a chicken and the egg sort of thing...

I re-read this. If that is Steve's original intent, then that's fine. I'll accept it. But obviously a great many people interpret it differently.

Urban Pioneer
03-03-2011, 04:08 PM
Urban,, you and the committee are doing and have done great work. That article did insinuate conflict and and indecisiveness amongst the committee, even second guessing the entire process.

So what if the committee can do a great job and do it fast. Doesn't mean that doing it slower would equal better results. P180 has to be taken into account, but if the committee is working a fast pace and it does coordinate with the P180 schedule, it is all a bonus.

Keep up the good work and the speed at which it is being done.

Thank you. Stop by and say hi if you attend another meeting or run into me.

Steve
03-03-2011, 04:59 PM
Urban, part of the problem is we didn't communicate as well as we could have. I'll accept part of the blame. I had no idea you were unhappy with what I wrote until well into this online discussion. In the future, call me and we'll talk about these things.
There will probably be some people who will want to drag out this bit of a flare up and discuss it more. I suggest we move on, and use this as an opportunity to delve more into how this process works, and what's next.

BoulderSooner
03-03-2011, 05:08 PM
Urban, part of the problem is we didn't communicate as well as we could have. I'll accept part of the blame. I had no idea you were unhappy with what I wrote until well into this online discussion. In the future, call me and we'll talk about these things.
There will probably be some people who will want to drag out this bit of a flare up and discuss it more. I suggest we move on, and use this as an opportunity to delve more into how this process works, and what's next.

the problem is that you wrote a slanted one sided article .. ... how does everyone else see that except for you?

Steve
03-03-2011, 05:35 PM
Not everyone does. Just some folks in this thread Boulder. I've gotten a lot of positive response to it as well. I've heard your complaints...

Tier2City
03-03-2011, 05:37 PM
Steve:

We’re passed close of business. How did you get on at the City today? Has anybody contradicted the 2014 deadline for Project 180 that has been repeatedly stated in the many instances that Larry has identified?

Steve
03-03-2011, 05:40 PM
Klay Kimker, vice president of Devon Energy, has stated repeatedly they don't require all of Project 180 to be completed by 2014. Eric Wenger, confirmed they are following a schedule that they are trying to follow, but wasn't aware of a deadline required by Devon. I posted this info this morning.

Tier2City
03-03-2011, 05:54 PM
As Larry has clearly identified and as I’ve heard City Staff say repeatedly on numerous occasions at public presentations, there’s a 2014 deadline for the whole project. Yet you said last night “City officials long ago acknowledged they were mis-spoken on the Devon deadline.” Is that on the record? Who said that? When did they say that? What exactly did they say? Certainly it’s the first I’ve heard of this.

Are City Staff trying to backpedal and contradict all of their statements that are on the record?

Steve
03-03-2011, 06:02 PM
Yep. Laura Story a year ago after Kimker first said Devon didn't require everything to be done by 2014.
Tier2City, I'm still uncertain as to what is going on with the Project 180 schedule. I'll let you know as I find out.

mcca7596
03-03-2011, 06:06 PM
It doesn't seem like it would be such a bad thing to stick to a self-imposed schedule of road construction in this city, regardless of outside requirements.

Steve
03-03-2011, 06:08 PM
The question is whether by sticking to that schedule, is there harm done to staging the streetcar system, or vice versa, will much of the street work be ripped a couple years after it's completed to make way for the streetcars. And that's the challenge the committee has been dealing with. I've been trying to find out whether they've been properly informed about deadlines and schedules involving Project 180

mcca7596
03-03-2011, 06:18 PM
I think then, if there is no required deadline, the main concern isn't even connecting important destinations, cost estimates, etc... The real question is what is more important to finish first: creating a modern, walkable streetscape or implementing a core streetcar system? Yes, both are important for the success of the other, and I realize the subcommittee is trying to do both simultaneously, Steve seems to just be asking if that is feasible.

Spartan
03-03-2011, 06:26 PM
Yep. Laura Story a year ago after Kimker first said Devon didn't require everything to be done by 2014.
Tier2City, I'm still uncertain as to what is going on with the Project 180 schedule. I'll let you know as I find out.

So why can't you accept that the city is still going do P180 by 2014/2013/whenever irregardless of a Devon deadline? That certainly seems to be the case. My opinion of this matter, aside from understanding where you're coming from, is that P180 is moving forward and now it's settled that it's not because of Devon, it's just because the city wants to. The city is tearing up the next batch of roads in the next few months and they are doing the final drafts as we speak. And it's not because of Devon.

So for the third time, it's not because of Devon. Doesn't mean P180 isn't moving forward. The streets will be torn up in a few months and the reason won't matter. Personally, I think expediting these things actually is a good idea. Less construction headaches, less lost business for downtown cumulatively. It's like a bandaid that you have to just pull it off fast. But that's a reason, which it seems best not to get into. Reasons are irrelevant, they don't change the fact that the streets will be torn up.

Honestly, what needs to happen is that the committees behind the planning for EVERY downtown investment project right now need to get together in one room for a massive symposium. The people behind Devon, P180, streetcar, convention center, river improvements, sidewalks, Ford Center, boulevard planners, retail strategists, Deep Deuce developers, the Bricktown Association, C2S things, etc--all need to have a massive downtown decision day altogether and share knowledge.

mcca7596
03-03-2011, 06:29 PM
Honestly, what needs to happen is that the committees behind the planning for EVERY downtown investment project right now need to get together in one room for a massive symposium. The people behind Devon, P180, streetcar, convention center, river improvements, sidewalks, Ford Center, boulevard planners, retail strategists, Deep Deuce developers, the Bricktown Association, C2S things, etc--all need to have a massive downtown decision day altogether and share knowledge.

Probably the most logical, yet overlooked idea I've seen proposed for downtown development.

Steve
03-03-2011, 06:33 PM
It's not a matter of me accepting anything. I'm asking questions, delving into the process and trying to figure out if people are being properly informed and whether concerns being expressed are accurate or not. Some folks aren't happy with me doing that. Some folks aren't happy with what I've written. I get that. And I'm listening. Jeff, Betts and Sid, along with city staff today, answered some of my questions. Now I'm moving on to looking at what it all means.

Steve
03-03-2011, 06:34 PM
I think then, if there is no required deadline, the main concern isn't even connecting important destinations, cost estimates, etc... The real question is what is more important to finish first: creating a modern, walkable streetscape or implementing a core streetcar system? Yes, both are important for the success of the other, and I realize the subcommittee is trying to do both simultaneously, Steve seems to just be asking if that is feasible.

Thanks mccca. But I'll also acknowledge I was too aggressive in my questioning last night.

soonerguru
03-03-2011, 07:25 PM
Not everyone does. Just some folks in this thread Boulder. I've gotten a lot of positive response to it as well. I've heard your complaints...

I'm sure you have received a lot of positive response from Jane Jenkins, Larry Nichols, Charlie Swinton, and everyone else who wants to "slow down" on the streetcar. Reading the multiple pages of this thread, no one really provides any positive commentary about your piece. That seems like a fairly decisive repudiation. The pettiness of your tone and thorough lack of research (which Larry provides in a massive smackdown) are very clear to the people who comment on this board. We are paying attention.

Spartan
03-03-2011, 07:30 PM
...,Charlie Swinton, and everyone else who wants to "slow down" on the streetcar..

This is my biggest fear right now.

There is NO question in my mind that first we hear "whoa whoa slow down this process, let's get it right," and then we hear, "are we sure about streetcars? rubber tire trolleys are a great alternative, ya know..."

Come on. There is not a single person in this thread (maybe Kerry) who doesn't know how this game is played. And one thing is for sure, this is turning into a game, and it is being played. I don't think by Jeff, in fact, in my mind I see Jeff trying to prevent the game with damage control and moving the chess pieces around. No doubt there are still opponents, even downtown bankrollin' opponents, of the streetcar, who really want that money for other things, or would like to move with other projects sooner.

We have to stay the course and stay true to the voters who wanted transit above anything else. AND specifically approved a downtown modern streetcar and nothing more, nothing less. Period.

Tier2City
03-03-2011, 07:34 PM
Yep. Laura Story a year ago after Kimker first said Devon didn't require everything to be done by 2014.
Wow. That really is quite a change to the 2014 meme. Did I miss you writing about that at the time?


Tier2City, I'm still uncertain as to what is going on with the Project 180 schedule. I'll let you know as I find out.


Where is the Implementation Agreement? It is referenced even in the 24 page PDF presentation on @ OKC.gov, but no speciifics are given.

Why is Devon saying there are no deadlines when Mr. Nichols stated there were?

Do the deadlines only include the property adjacent to the Devon tower or all of P180 as the articles suggest?

The answer would be in that agreement, where is it?

Hopefully you'll be able to check out the Devon/City agreement which is at the root of all this.

Kerry
03-03-2011, 08:25 PM
This is my biggest fear right now.

There is NO question in my mind that first we hear "whoa whoa slow down this process, let's get it right," and then we hear, "are we sure about streetcars? rubber tire trolleys are a great alternative, ya know..."


Your comment about me withstanding, you are correct about the 'slow it down' crowd; they have no desire to get it right. They want to slow it down so they can offer up non-rail alternatives.

Tier2City
03-03-2011, 08:30 PM
Your comment about me withstanding, you are correct about the 'slow it down' crowd; they have no desire to get it right. They want to slow it down so they can offer up non-rail alternatives.

One could also think they simply want to get other, much less popular Maps 3 projects done first.

soonerguru
03-03-2011, 09:54 PM
I actually have wondered if some of the people at the City are intentionally trying to exclude the streetcar from the Project 180 timeline to sabotage it. It's ridiculous that Steve isn't hounding everyone involved with Project 180 about why they aren't accommodating the streetcar into the project as much as possible.

It would be an egregious waste of taxpayer money not to make every effort to combine the projects whenever possible.

Oddly, Steve has chosen to target what is possibly the most transparent group associated with MAPS construction in the history of any single project while at the same time letting the real under-the-table operators maneuver in the dark. The openness, thoroughness and transparency of the streetcar subcommittee are to be lauded. Meanwhile, the powerful continue to play games behind closed doors.

Journalists are supposed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Steve seems to have this in reverse.