I'm also somewhat concerned that Charlie Swinton is a Trojan Horse who will come in and muck up the streetcar. He needs to be called out and queried about his bizarre comments.

Bingo. Every year that CC isn't built...

On a side note, I must say it was incredibly refreshing and honest to hear Kirk Humphries bluntly say at the ULI Council Candidates Forum last week that the reason Maps 3 was set up as a single package was to get the Convention Center through.

I'm wondering if Steve hasn't been used in this entire ordeal?

Yeah, I'm a big patsy. Wow... it's like none of you have ever read a word I've ever written. This thread is getting ridiculous.

Yeah, I'm a big patsy. Wow... it's like none of you have ever read a word I've ever written. This thread is getting ridiculous.

I read your articles often. Your coverage of the streetcar has not been up to the standards of your other work. How many of the subcommittee meetings have you attended? I'm sorry, but your efforts in this regard have been beneath your standards. Also, you seem to have an issue with Jeff.

I read your articles often. Your coverage of the streetcar has not been up to the standards of your other work. How many of the subcommittee meetings have you attended? I'm sorry, but your efforts in this regard have been beneath your standards. Also, you seem to have an issue with Jeff.

I'm sorry to have to add it, but how many of the five Alternatives Analysis Steering Committee and the two AA Ad Hoc Working Group meetings have you been to, Steve?

After hearing that the objection from some of the Devon folks with the streetcar was with the "vibrations" I started to worry about alternative intentions. A quick amount of research and reading of other noise and vibration studies done surrounding streetcars have all yielded evidence there are no risks nor are special mitigation efforts needed.

I laughed when I heard Devon say that. Do they have any idea how old some of the building in Europe are that have streetcars running right in front of them 100 times a day? I actually felt sorry for the person that raised such a ridiculous question. And it isn’t like the building isn’t on a major thoroughfare with an 850’ tower under construction right next door.

I’ll bet you one million dollars if the previous owners of the Colcord had opposed construction of Devon Tower over ‘foundation cracking’ concerns Devon would have been able to produce study after study after study saying vibrations would not be a problem.

Precisely. If vibrations are an issue, they need to close Robinson to all truck traffic and construction of the Devon Tower should never have begun. I remember having dinner at La Baguette when the Tower was first being constructed. I heard some of the most ungodly banging and crashing noises while there. I think it would take a month of streetcar vibration to equal what I heard that night. I think we need to send a bunch of these people on a field trip to Portland to ride the streetcar, as there is so much ignorance on this subject among people who have the opportunity to influence opinion.

Ok Steve. Here is a question that you should ask that I can't answer that is totally relevant to P180.

I just received the email updating P180 announcing the beginning the Project around the National Memorial seen via this link:

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=p9ttvsdab&v=001QGVxMVttOObzwGRHKqUn2xbmlc5lEbMH6KnK961LC_re4 EoRCTM9qCAM0NuNzmsRLjuC58G0cmU3QLuMfHly0lZkVwiWv5s 88AtHTF-3y7KBrlk_58o_bg%3D%3D

1st Question: Will the MAPS 3 Transit Advisory Committee's route recommendation cause for integration of streetcar equipment allowances and utility relocation on the Robinson "rail spine" considering that construction is set to begin and council has not ratified the committee's recommendation yet?

(Assuming that it is approved by the Oversight Board, it goes to council on March 29th.)

2nd Question: How do you know what provisions to make if an engineer has not been hired yet? Where do the specs come from?


We have done our part to accommodate and inform the P180 process. Now it really is up to the city to preserve taxpayer funds by making allowances for utilities, stops, and actual rail to be installed later.

For those engineers and contractors reading this thread, we will be on the east side of the street headed northbound on Robinson.

A later, future, presumably Federally Funded line is conceived to be on the north side of the street on 4th headed Westbound.

Major intersection of rail lines at 4th/Robinson.

Precisely. If vibrations are an issue, they need to close Robinson to all truck traffic and construction of the Devon Tower should never have begun. I remember having dinner at La Baguette when the Tower was first being constructed. I heard some of the most ungodly banging and crashing noises while there. I think it would take a month of streetcar vibration to equal what I heard that night. I think we need to send a bunch of these people on a field trip to Portland to ride the streetcar, as there is so much ignorance on this subject among people who have the opportunity to influence opinion.

Well, I think they meant the laying the tracks in front of the Colcord, but I agree that it seems bogus. I think it's patently obvious that Devon is expressing a preference for the streetcar route. It's kinda creepy how subtle they're being about that though.

Well, I think they meant the laying the tracks in front of the Colcord, but I agree that it seems bogus. I think it's patently obvious that Devon is expressing a preference for the streetcar route. It's kinda creepy how subtle they're being about that though.

they said in the AA that they would want the route on hudson

$100 says this system is going to get all screwed up.

$100 says this system is going to get all screwed up.

I'd be happy to take that bet but first could you define screwed up - what have we got to avoid (couplets excepted)?

Steve,

I'm not Jeff, but as a voter who actually worked hard to campaign for the passage of Maps 3 on the basis of the streetcar project alone (and the potential for expanded future transit), I would like you to ask people in the know if there's an effort to needlessly move back -- or even sabotage -- the streetcar. I know -- and apparently Kirk Humphreys acknowledged -- that all the insiders really care about is the convention center. But I want to know if the streetcar was used as a pawn to get the CC that will now be shuttled.

I would like to know what opposition people have to it going down Robinson, for example. Is this a classic NIMBY example?

There's a lot more for you to report here.

I'd be happy to take that bet but first could you define screwed up - what have we got to avoid (couplets excepted)?

Honestly I can't define 'screwed up' although I think couplets would be a step in that direction. This line that takes the loop around Walker, is it single track? If so that would be another step towards 'screwed up'.

I'll tell you what, let me hold the $100 and then I will tell you in 5 years if it is screwed up or not.:smile:

Steve,

I'm not Jeff, but as a voter who actually worked hard to campaign for the passage of Maps 3 on the basis of the streetcar project alone (and the potential for expanded future transit), I would like you to ask people in the know if there's an effort to needlessly move back -- or even sabotage -- the streetcar. I know -- and apparently Kirk Humphreys acknowledged -- that all the insiders really care about is the convention center. But I want to know if the streetcar was used as a pawn to get the CC that will now be shuttled.

Personally, I haven't seen a concerted effort to move the Convention Center to the front of the line. The programming consultants at ADG are professional and their preliminary time-lines reflect a "streaming" process.

I do not understand why so many people think that the projects might be in a certain order. That is a bit of an oversimplification of how public projects of this scale work. The certainly will probably be an order in which some might finish earlier than others.

But with rail for example, ADG is talking about purchasing materials such as the cars and physical rail early on since the lead time is at least 3 years out for receiving them. This sort of discussion confirms that they have an understanding of what sorts of lead-time is attached to our project. They (ADG) have also hired an outside consultant who seems fairly competent thus far. I have met him several times in my travels across the country at rail events.

I do find Swinton's comments about shoving it behind the convention center the only publicly alarming thing said recently (that I am aware of) by a potential leader. I am alarmed by it.

I would like to know what opposition people have to it going down Robinson, for example. Is this a classic NIMBY example?

There is some "nimbyism" present. It has to do with the overhead wire. There are people that are vehemently against it. It is almost always an issue with streetcar projects no matter what city it is in unless they already have one. Devon has publicly acknowledged that they would prefer not to have an overhead wire near their buildings and around Myriad Gardens. Whether that has any bearing on the Colcord concerns I have no idea.

I will say that I have actively pursued information about the electromagnetic streetcar. It is possible that there is more to come on this. We will also assess CNG and other possibilities as we move forward.

It does irritate me that the question has been posed that we might be trying to propagate a certain technology. I think that being traditional overhead wire. We are not. But one has to understand that this committee is committed to avoiding recommendations that make our city a "guinea pig" for something that does not have some accountability attached to it. We also don't want to use a technology that inhibits consistent operation and prevents the system from having successful consistency.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the $20 million a mile number is based on a "composite" of traditional modern streetcar systems that run on an overhead wire. If significant cost savings are derived from proper integration with P180, then that presumably will provide an option to spend more on the "technology side" of things.

Steve,

There's a lot more for you to report here.

I agree with that.

I will say that I have actively pursued information about the electromagnetic streetcar. It is possible that there is more to come on this. We will also assess CNG and other possibilities as we move forward.

It does irritate me that the question has been posed that we might be trying to propagate a certain technology. I think that being traditional overhead wire. We are not. But one has to understand that this committee is committed to avoiding recommendations that make our city a "guinea pig" for something that does not have some accountability attached to it. We also don't want to use a technology that inhibits consistent operation and prevents the system from having successful consistency.


From what I have been reading about the European systems that went with alternative propulsion systems, they have run into significant cost over-runs and performance issues. The system in Bordeaux, France uses the ground-level power supply system and they claim to have solved their performance issues.

Look - no wires.

http://aquitaineraid.com/image/aquitaine-raid-organisation/produits/organisation-rallyes-aquitaine/rallye%20bordeaux/tram%20bdx.jpg

From what I have been reading about the European systems that went with alternative propulsion systems, they have run into significant cost over-runs and performance issues.

I have looked at some of those issues. A great many of them have to do with the involvement of a "3rd rail" in the ground that powers the tram. The great thing about the new ones is that many of them are starting to offer essentially a "backup" system that uses super capacitors or lithium batteries to operate is their is a failure with a section of the primary system. This is kind of like thinking of a streetcar operating the same way the Cherolet Volt does, except the other way around. The magnetic field is the "battery" and the capacitor/battery is the "gasoline."

Precisely. If vibrations are an issue, they need to close Robinson to all truck traffic and construction of the Devon Tower should never have begun. I remember having dinner at La Baguette when the Tower was first being constructed. I heard some of the most ungodly banging and crashing noises while there. I think it would take a month of streetcar vibration to equal what I heard that night. I think we need to send a bunch of these people on a field trip to Portland to ride the streetcar, as there is so much ignorance on this subject among people who have the opportunity to influence opinion.

Thought I would post these two photos of the new extension in Bordeuax, FR. These tracks were put in about 3 years ago.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Bordeaux2.jpg

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Bordeaux1.jpg

... I do not understand why so many people think that the projects might be in a certain order. That is a bit of an oversimplification of how public projects of this scale work. The certainly will probably be an order in which some might finish earlier than others. ...

Could it be because the Mayor has set up the "bookends" of MAPS 3? He has gone on record as it is his desire, placing the Park 1st (completed by 2014) and the Convention Center as being "staged last" (10 years or so). Of course the actual order is up to the Oversight recommendation and Council approval. That puts everything else somewhere in between and people are naturally curious when their particular pet project might happen. Then you have the idea that the projects are going to be done in a linear fashion (#2 not starting until #1 is completed etc), but undoubtedly, most of the MAPS 3 projects will be in various stages of planning, design, development, "ground-breaking" and completion. Then there is the sometimes confusing nature of the funding itself. How many times have we heard, "we don't do a project until we have the money collected"? Which leads to the linear timeline concept. But you don't have to have all $120M "in hand" before you can spend money on land acquisition, architects etc etc etc. With the exception of "shovel ready" projects like Trails & Sidewalks, it is going to be a few years before any major visible signs of progress are made (just as with the original MAPS). It was 5 years after the tax passed that the 1st project, the Ballpark, was completed. Similar story with MAPS for Kids. And the final projects won't be completed for a few years after the tax ends.

Part of the problem in knowing if some conspiracy theory is present for the possible proposition that some want to press for the Convention Center as the main downtown item to accomplish at the risk of the streetcar element is the transparency and/or lack thereof in those working for those individual aspects.

The streetcar element is the most transparent element I can recall ever seeing in any MAPS project ... lots of public input, lots of public meetings, all meetings, in fact, public. In the sense of an objective observer being in a position to be critical of the transit project's processes, since they are an open book they are also something like sitting ducks, should those who scrutinize public processes be so inclined.

On the other hand, principal powers that be which may favor the convention center even at the expense of downtown streetcar are anything BUT transparent and/or sitting ducks. The public has no access to chamber meetings or anything else "chamber" for that matter. The chamber does not share with the public any polls it makes or any studies it undertakes ... unless it wants to. The public has no access to what, if anything, elected pubic officials may have to say in chamber proceedings or to chamber members. The public has no access to what, if any, relevant conversations may occur between the principal high-rollers in the city, be it the leaders of Devon, Chesapeake, the Oklahoman, MidFirst, whoever. Nothing new in that. If there is any validity to a conspiracy theory to derail downtown transit in favor of the convention center, it would likely come from such hidden meetings and conversations. And, as far as I'm aware, there is nothing that can be done about that, if such happenings be true.

Please don't misunderstand me ... I'm a general fan of what the Chamber has done over this city's history and particularly with regard to MAPS. The Chamber was responsible for getting Wilson & Co. and Morris & Co (later Armour) to locate here, a very very big item in our city's earliest days ... and the same can be said for rail development in Oklahoma City when rail still made money. Oklahoma City was blessed by lots of rail lines which caused Oklahoma City to be a rail axis and hub in days gone by. The Chamber attempted to, but did not succeed, to get the Rock Island line to use Okc as its principal north/south route hub instead of El Reno. Lots lots more that the Chamber did to benefit our city could be mentioned. In the main, the Chamber has meant and will mean a lot for the city. In modern times, the genesis of the idea for the original MAPS came from a Chamber retreat and Mayor Norick picked up on that and ran with it. Who complains about that? Not me, for sure.

But, as we observed during the MAPS3 campaign, the marriage between the Oklahoman (Thompson was the Chamber president during the MAPS 3 campaign) and the Chamber means that we have no reason to expect that any Oklahoman reporter will be in a position to be a serious inquirer and reporter of and about things such as those which may relate to the possible conspiracy being discussed here. If there is such a conspiracy, we will not be finding out about it in the Oklahoman -- that's just not gonna happen. The Oklahoman censored and restricted reporting as to MAPS 3 and if the Chamber has a notion to press the convention center over and above downtown transit, we're never going to hear about it from an Oklahoman reporter. That just won't happen.

Maybe this might be a factor in deciding who to support in the Ward 2 runoff ... I don't live in that district but I'm blogging about it. But if it should become clear that Swinton favors going slow on transit and fast on the convention center, but that Shadid favors (as he has said in his present web postings) that he favors all projects being completed, particularly including transit ... and that's a big series of IF's ... it may well be that the only input the public may have at this point may be to elect a Ward 2 council member who is NOT a member of the inner circle but instead elect one who is independent of and from them but who regards the MAPS 3 concurrent council resolution as being promises made which are sacrosanct and all of which should be kept.

That's just me thinking out loud. There may be no sense to it at all. I've reached no conclusions.

As usual, Doug has it... we don't always agree on the same conclusions, but often see the same critical facts. That said, I never understood why it is the Mayor's preference that the Convention Center be "staged last". Other than the scientific polling that showed it never got 50% approval (and almost sank the rest of MAPS 3 with it). I am sure it would be unpopular to press ahead with it first. Especially if it meant it would be at the expense of Transit. But sometimes unpopular decisions have to be made.

IF the Chamber's numbers can be believed, the Convention Center needs to be built sooner rather than later for so many reasons. Reportedly, we are slowly going out of the convention business and a 10 year delay doesn't do anything to correct that. IF the convention center is THE economic engine that the Chamber claims, again, that is NEW money coming into the economy, NEW money being collected that can go towards the inevitable cost over runs etc that are sure to come with the remaining MAPS 3 projects. We already have to come up with another $40M just to complete the Trails Master Plan as promised.

Funny... I will actually be visiting a friend in Bordeaux in a month.

With the exception of "shovel ready" projects like Trails & Sidewalks, it is going to be a few years before any major visible signs of progress are made (just as with the original MAPS). It was 5 years after the tax passed that the 1st project, the Ballpark, was completed. Similar story with MAPS for Kids. And the final projects won't be completed for a few years after the tax ends.

just a note .. the lights for the river and the river wind screen will be done this summer/fall

Yeah, I'm a big patsy. Wow... it's like none of you have ever read a word I've ever written. This thread is getting ridiculous.

No, it's just that you have not done an equally hard interrogation or an article doubting (or we haven't seen the results of it) the following people about the streetcar integration:

1) P180 planners
2) city engineers (although you deserve big kudos for riding them hard on the sidewalk issues)
3) Charlie Swinton
4) anyone who is pro-convention center
5) the convention center committee themselves
6) the mayor's office
7) others, I'm sure you know who

You also haven't asked Jane Jenkins any hard questions, and I can think of a LOT of hard questions for her. But you do have her comment on every other downtown development article you write, something she has no involvement in (i.e., she has no role in getting Deep Deuce developed, yet she always gets to comment on how it is good..um..)

I do find Swinton's comments about shoving it behind the convention center the only publicly alarming thing said recently (that I am aware of) by a potential leader. I am alarmed by it.
Jeff, I'm working on updating my blog article, March 1 City Council Election Returns & Ward 2 Runoff (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/03/march-1-city-council-election-returns.html). I'm having difficulty finding an on-line report of what you mentioned above.

Can you or someone else give me a link or an explanation of when/where/what Swinton said?

ON EDIT: Never mind, I found it. Oklahoman, February 23 (http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-ward-2-candidates-answer-questions/article/3543100):




What do you think of the MAPS 3 projects?

[Swinton's reply] “I voted for every one of the MAPS. It's just a priority on which one we do first. I think there's one that ought to be shoved back and that's the trolley system. I hear there's some technology issues that might be happening that might help us do more with less ... I'm not saying not do it. I'm just saying there might be some technological changes that might be coming so why not wait and see if they do come.”

ON EDIT: Never mind, I found it. Oklahoman, February 23 (http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-ward-2-candidates-answer-questions/article/3543100):




What do you think of the MAPS 3 projects?

[Swinton's reply] “I voted for every one of the MAPS. It's just a priority on which one we do first. I think there's one that ought to be shoved back and that's the trolley system. I hear there's some technology issues that might be happening that might help us do more with less ... I'm not saying not do it. I'm just saying there might be some technological changes that might be coming so why not wait and see if they do come.”

Wow. The more I read this the more incoherent Swinton seems. He's definitely trying to "slow play" the streetcar. Something smells. I've personally spoken to Shadid and he's really into the streetcar. He will have my enthusiastic support and should have the support of anyone who supports getting the transit portion of MAPS built and built right.

just a note .. the lights for the river and the river wind screen will be done this summer/fall

True. I may have phrased it wrong, what I meant was major projects being done/finished. A river improvement here and there or a sidewalk trail isn't the same thing as 57 miles of Trails being completed or the opening of at least 1 of the Senior Aquatic centers, much less major/high dollar projects like Streetcars, Park, Convention Center type stuff or even the Whitewater Kayaking venue. Wind screens and some lighting seem like low dollar stuff that they can throw out there and say, "see we are doing stuff".

Wind screens and some lighting seem like low dollar stuff that they can throw out there and say, "see we are doing stuff".

I haven't heard anyone from the city making that kind of statement. It was only brought up by a poster here. Don't start finding fault with something before it happens.

I haven't heard anyone from the city making that kind of statement. It was only brought up by a poster here. Don't start finding fault with something before it happens.

Didn't find fault with it at all. Just saying that you know they are sensitive to criticism with the rate substantial, visible progress is perceived. It was that way with the original MAPS, unless they go out of their way to point it out. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a similar sentiment hasn't already been expressed by a Council member or two (Kelly in particular seems to get real defensive on a lot of subjects from what I have seen). There was emphasis placed in a recent Council meeting clarifying what was being paid for with P180, MAPS 3, Bond issue etc. Not unusual for folks to get things confused or think nothing is being done at all. Just look at the frequent complaints about roads (that we need to use MAPS money to take care of it) when they seem ignorant to the half a billion specified on the Ballot for roads in the 2007 G.O. bond. Or the City needs to spend money to improve schools (ignorant that the City has nothing to do with the operation of the OKC school district). Or the County jail (ignorant that it is a County responsibility and not a City one. Or some other issue that is a State responsibility and not City.

Jeff, I'm working on updating my blog article, March 1 City Council Election Returns & Ward 2 Runoff (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/03/march-1-city-council-election-returns.html). I'm having difficulty finding an on-line report of what you mentioned above.

Can you or someone else give me a link or an explanation of when/where/what Swinton said?

ON EDIT: Never mind, I found it. Oklahoman, February 23 (http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-ward-2-candidates-answer-questions/article/3543100):




What do you think of the MAPS 3 projects?

[Swinton's reply] “I voted for every one of the MAPS. It's just a priority on which one we do first. I think there's one that ought to be shoved back and that's the trolley system. I hear there's some technology issues that might be happening that might help us do more with less ... I'm not saying not do it. I'm just saying there might be some technological changes that might be coming so why not wait and see if they do come.”

What on earth?? What about "technological changes" (ignorant wording alert) for convention centers? Or the fact that the convention center is not a pressing need. Or the obvious glaring fact that there is only $120M for streetcar and obviously that is going to buy less in the future. Wow.

But if you ask the good folks at the Chamber there IS a pressing need for a C.C., since we are slowly going out of the convention business and all. LOL

I haven't heard anyone from the city making that kind of statement. It was only brought up by a poster here. Don't start finding fault with something before it happens.

It was brought up in recent sub committee meetings for the river development and the MAPS3 committee. The stadium lights will probably happen for the US rowing master nationals, the wind screen is less likely to happen by then as it had some new engineering concerns come up though they still would like to do it before then if it is possible.

But if you ask the good folks at the Chamber there IS a pressing need for a C.C., since we are slowly going out of the convention business and all. LOL

I don't think that's the Chamber line. I just think the convention center is part of the bigger picture. If the Chamber is willing to put the brakes on everything until we get the C.C. (aka something the citizens don't really want) then they must have learned that from the union playbook over the last 3 years. That's a position that does nothing but alienate whoever uses it, as we're now seeing with the unions.

MAPS is the Chamber's baby, we all know that. I think they are willing to take the bigger picture view, for the sake of the future franchise of the program, in other words, for the sake of Maps4 which will have to be how we address metro-area transit. And I do think the Chamber still has a real interest in streetcar and downtown development..don't forget that the streetcar was also a Chamber priority through the 2000's, and it was always in the exact same discussions that a new convention center was. I think they envisioned both would be a tough sell. Well, turns out streetcar really wasn't.

The streetcar is the only MAPS III project that generates private sector devlopment over the long run. It has to go first. The sooner we generate private sector development the better it will be for everyone. Building the CC before the streetcar would be like saying, "I've got this great idea that will make me a million dollars, but first I am going to do this other one that I will probably lose money on." Who does that?

Well I think the idea is that all of them are going to be economic engines to help power OKC forward. I definitely agree with you though that the streetcar has the potential to rise about the rest of the pack...

"Who does that?" is a good question. The answer to your question: I'm afraid to answer that. LOL

OK, lets do the Convention Center & Streetcars 1st and at the same time!

Well the park will be first just because the land is already acquired and the project is closest to being shovel-ready. I do think there is a real benefit to having the park open first, because it will give the public the chance to fall in love with one of the projects soon, before MAPS3 is even close to being finished.

With all of these other cities adding or expanding streetcar / light rail.

What does this do to Okc?

I was hoping our streetcar would help Okc move up a notch or two into a higher "Tier 2" type of city. But with so many other cities currently with streetcar or future streetcar expansion, it seems all Okc will do is try to keep pace and not really move upward.

Remind me again, where the Okc streetcar will place in comparison to other cities with streetcar. Will the Okc streetcar system be over and above others or does Okc fall somewhere in the middle?

I posted this in the thread titled "streetcar routes in other cities", but I think it would be answered better in this thread.

With all of these other cities adding or expanding streetcar / light rail.

What does this do to Okc?

I was hoping our streetcar would help Okc move up a notch or two into a higher "Tier 2" type of city. But with so many other cities currently with streetcar or future streetcar expansion, it seems all Okc will do is try to keep pace and not really move upward.

Remind me again, where the Okc streetcar will place in comparison to other cities with streetcar. Will the Okc streetcar system be over and above others or does Okc fall somewhere in the middle?

I posted this in the thread titled "streetcar routes in other cities", but I think it would be answered better in this thread.

Have no fear. The size of our local investment positions us to keep pace and remain #2 or #3 in overall size of systems in the near future.

Chronologically in order of existing and to be completed/expanded:

1. Portland (Always pursuing expansion)
2. Tacoma (No major change/expansions planned)
3. Seattle (being expanded)
4. Tuscon (Started dirt-work a year ago)
5. OKC (5-6 miles start) (2-4 miles of supplemental possible)

Washington and Cincinnati are probably the most likely projects of any comparable size being discussed, planned, building a modern streetcar system that will rival the first five.

There are many "small starts" happening through small federal grants, but they are for fairly minimal systems comparable.

Our local investment will in theory position us to receive Federal matching funds that should keep us in the top 3 o 4 slots for the next decade. That of course could change if the criteria at FTA changes and makes larger amounts more readily available to cities. It is somewhat unlikely though if history is any reference.

With all of these other cities adding or expanding streetcar / light rail.

What does this do to Okc?

I was hoping our streetcar would help Okc move up a notch or two into a higher "Tier 2" type of city. But with so many other cities currently with streetcar or future streetcar expansion, it seems all Okc will do is try to keep pace and not really move upward.

Remind me again, where the Okc streetcar will place in comparison to other cities with streetcar. Will the Okc streetcar system be over and above others or does Okc fall somewhere in the middle?

I posted this in the thread titled "streetcar routes in other cities", but I think it would be answered better in this thread.

Making a good system here that is useful to locals and visitors is the first priority. It does not matter about them having one, it matters how many people are using it. Traffic to the point developers, entertainment or retail are investing their money at is what they care about. Total length of track or type of train they could care less about.

It certainly does appear that Ward 2 candidate Ed Shadid is very much more committed to the MAPS 3 downtown transit element being completed, in a timely manner, than is Ward 2 candidate Charlie Swinton.

Compare what Swinton said in the February 23 Oklahoman article (http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-ward-2-candidates-answer-questions/article/3543100) ...




What do you think of the MAPS 3 projects?

[Swinton's reply] “I voted for every one of the MAPS. It's just a priority on which one we do first. I think there's one that ought to be shoved back and that's the trolley system. I hear there's some technology issues that might be happening that might help us do more with less ... I'm not saying not do it. I'm just saying there might be some technological changes that might be coming so why not wait and see if they do come.”
... with what Ed Shadid said in his March 9 Gazette ad (http://npaper-wehaa.com/oklahoma-gazette#2011/03/09/?page=8) (though he'd said the same earlier)




Dr. Shadid believes that MAPS 3 should be completed as it was promised to voters, with a maximum transparency, honesty and public deliberation. Needlessly delaying the rail component of MAPS 3 could cost the city $60-$120 million in federal matching funds, reducing the project's connectivity to neighborhoods.
It has become apparent to me after regurgitating all of the campaign rhetoric that candidate Shadid is much more inclined to protect, and complete, the downtown rail elements of MAPS 3 than is candidate Swinton who appears to have some other unspoken agenda.

In this same context, the words of councilman Sam Bowman in the March 8 city council meeting are not lost on me. Although Bowman never named names, in the context presented he could not possibly have been referring to anything but what's going on in the Ward 2 runoff election:




Sam Bowman speaking on March 8
And then, in these last few weeks, big money has gotten involved to the extent, my opinion, it has just made a mockery of our city elections. * * * The people, I think, need to know who's behind the money..."

v/H2tbdQL-yGE?version=3"

The Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum, which has yet to file a Form C-1 with the city clerk (Form C-1 shows receipts and expenditures) is the obvious reference. Reading the tea leaves tells me that the "big money" interests favor the convention center as its priority with downtown transit being moved to the back if not being altogether expendable.

The next transit subcommittee meeting is Wednesday, March 23rd, 3:30 PM at 420 Main on the 10th floor.

There will be an overview of ADG's projected schedule for MAPS and how the streetcar relates to that proposed schedule.

The Adventure Line will also be discussed.

We will be discussing stops. Where do you think stops ought to go on the newly unveiled Preferred and Protected Routes?

Urban Pioneer.......Can you give us the latest map / picture of the "Preferred and Protected Routes"? (I need to see the map to determine stops)

I searched the Let's Talk Transit website and couldn't find any new info, is that website staying up to date?

Thanks.

That website is for the AA not MAPS transit.

Sure, when I return to the office I'll post one for reference.

It certainly does appear that Ward 2 candidate Ed Shadid is very much more committed to the MAPS 3 downtown transit element being completed, in a timely manner, than is Ward 2 candidate Charlie Swinton.



Thanks for making my decision for me.

Urban Pioneer.......Can you give us the latest map / picture of the "Preferred and Protected Routes"? (I need to see the map to determine stops


Here you go. This is my version of the official map. I think it is easier to read. lol

The blue line is essentially the Phase 1a promoted to be paid for through MAPS funds.

The Red Line would probably be financed through Federal supplemental as the "back end" or the "western side" of the line going out to Health Sciences/PHF. We are trying to "protect" the corridor to minimize future costs.

The next question is what are the preferred stop locations.

793

I have a question concerning Politics and the acceptance of the Federal supplemental money. I have read lately that many "red" states are turning down the Federal money in order to play the political game.

Would Oklahoma politicians willing accept or decline Federal transit money, if it is coming from a Democrat President?

I have a question concerning Politics and the acceptance of the Federal supplemental money. I have read lately that many "red" states are turning down the Federal money in order to play the political game.

Would Oklahoma politicians willing accept or decline Federal transit money, if it is coming from a Democrat President?

At the municipal level, I think it is easier to justify. In fact, the process can almost feel "automated" as FTA "transit" projects are a common supplement to city projects.

At a state level, it would be more difficult if it were a publicized endeavor. Most of the high-profile FTA refusals have centered around High Speed Rail.

Fort Worth is one of the few exceptions. Their money was for a modern streetcar such as our. The difference was, the locals had not come up with a "match." They had filed an application under pretenses that now might be considered "questionable." The pretenses to the FTA were that they had the support and mechanisms in place to come up with the match.

Their mechanism promoted after-the-fact was Tax Increment Financing. However, they did not have the political support in place to actually "see it through." The council balked. Part of the balking surrounded the fact that they did not have a solid majority support for a streetcar in the first place.

Our situation is completely different. We had/have a solid majority support at city council and we had a city-wide voter referendum to provide any local monies (being MAPS). That certainly displays a broad citizen based and ballot majority support that most projects do not have.

Our streetcar system is not predicated by Federal Funds to be constructed. It will be constructed irregardless if we receive FTA funds. FTA funds will simply enable us to put a larger system in that covers more ground.

Also, we historically have been a "giver state" where we send more tax money into the Federal Transportation/Transit pool than we receive. It is an easy argument to make that we should get back at least what we send for transportation projects across the board.

It doesn't matter if you are anti-tax/anti-deficit, Oklahoma often gets the short end of the stick and funds projects in other reaches of the country. That is money that could be creating jobs here. It is certainly not going to be used to pay down the deficit. We do not have control over it. So we should demand that it return here at a minimum. That is something we have control over via our leadership.

I have a question concerning Politics and the acceptance of the Federal supplemental money. I have read lately that many "red" states are turning down the Federal money in order to play the political game.

Would Oklahoma politicians willing accept or decline Federal transit money, if it is coming from a Democrat President?

I don't know about this one but some of them have riders along with it for things have to be done if you accept federal money, hypocrisy rarely stops either side from accepting money as long as they can claim a win with their base supporters.

I have a question concerning Politics and the acceptance of the Federal supplemental money. I have read lately that many "red" states are turning down the Federal money in order to play the political game.

Would Oklahoma politicians willing accept or decline Federal transit money, if it is coming from a Democrat President?

okclee - the reason we turned down the HSR money here in Forida is because if the HSR line didn't meet ridership numbers the State was going to have to make up the revenue shortfall. We are already having this exact problem in Jacksonville with out Skyway System. After 25 years of operation it is only getting 10% of the expected ridership so the city has to pay $5 million per year in revenue shortfalls. If we take the system out the Feds say they want their $90 million back. So we are stuck with system that doesn't work and that we can't fix.

There is $10 million allocated in Maps 3 for the Hub location, I assume it is for land aquisition. Obviously, that's not enough for the actual construction of a modern hub; where will that money come from? Is it almost guaranteed that we would get a federal grant after performing the Alternatives Analysis?

There is $10 million allocated in Maps 3 for the Hub location, I assume it is for land acquisition. Obviously, that's not enough for the actual construction of a modern hub; where will that money come from? Is it almost guaranteed that we would get a federal grant after performing the Alternatives Analysis?

Great question. $10 million is for hub/commuter rail infrastructure. Based on where the hub committee seems to be headed, it is somewhat safe to assume that the funds might be used to re-acquire Santa Fe Station and the parking lots on the Bricktown side. Re-acquiring the old depot essentially would give us a Phase 1a hub that provides a direct interface between Amtrak and the streetcar. The parking lot acquisition around Zios and/or U-Haul ensures that there is room to expand via a future transit initiative and/or FTA funds.

I personally do not think that the entire $10 million will be spent on property acquisition alone. Hopefully, we will pay fair market value for the spaces and use what ever is left over to open the buried pedestrian tunnel from the station through the eastern retaining wall into Bricktown, make ADA improvements, and new platforms. If there is anything else available, starting the Adventure Line up certainly falls within the parameters of the funding.


Regarding where the funds come from for future phases and a full-fledged modern facility, that would come through the FTA or a local Regional Transit Authority. MAPS lays the foundation and provides the space for us to develop a serious hub facility for when we actually need it.

Thank you very much Urban. Hopefully, the streetcar's success will galvanize support for a MAPS for Transit type of vote that would include substantial hub funding as well.

Here is a link to a very interesting study released today. It's findings show the real estate development patterns (TOD) in 3 cities, Minneapolis, Denver, and Charlotte.

(I would Love to see Okc in this group 5 or 6 years from now!)

http://reconnectingamerica.org/
Rails to Real Estate:
Development Patterns along Three New Transit Lines


The Center for Transit-Oriented Development has released a report that examines real estate development patterns along three recently built light rail lines. The findings of Rails to Real Estate: Development Patterns along Three New Transit Lines should help local planners and others considering new transit lines to maximize the benefits of new transit investments and foster transit-oriented development.

The three transit lines are the Hiawatha Line in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region in Minnesota, the Southeast Corridor in the Denver region in Colorado, and the Blue Line in the Charlotte region in North Carolina.

The analysis considers development patterns with regard to a number of factors, including proximity to downtowns and major employment centers, the location and extent of vacant or “underutilized” property suitable for development or redevelopment, block patterns that influence “walkability,” transit connectivity and household incomes.

“Setting realistic expectations about the scale, timing and location of private investment along new transit lines is especially critical where new development is expected to help pay for needed transit improvements, neighborhood amenities, or other community benefits,” said Nadine Fogarty, principal with Strategic Economics and primary author of the report.

All three transit lines experienced a tremendous amount of new development. Charlotte’s Blue Line had the most development, with approximately 9.8 million square feet of new space between 2005 and 2009..................................read more..........http://reconnectingamerica.org/.

There is an 80 page PDF file, found at the bottom of the linked page, outlining the entire study.

Well, the urban streetcar subcommittee met today, so where are some reports (pretty please)?