I was pretty careful in explaining to them I was a volunteer appointee. One of 10 people.

I was pretty careful in explaining to them I was a volunteer appointee. One of 10 people.

It was generally apparent that the clip was an extremely high level story that basically got two things right - City Council talked about project requirements and that something could be in service in the future.

No doubt. You expected something more? Lol

News 9 has actually done a good job in covering transportation related issues in the past, in as best 30 second video coverage can.

I think they pulled some their archival stuff for that piece.

The Oklahoman article was well written today. I'm glad Zeke talked to Zane Boatwright. The discussion was well explained.

It also should be noted that most of the council's reservations/concerns have been and are going to be addressed there is going to be a 6 to 7 month process (starting in Feb/march) to verify and finalize the route .. and in that process will be public meetings/work shops ect that will eventually lead to a consultant final route recomendation ... that will come to the subcommittee then the Maps 3 board and finally the city council

Streetcar plans scrutinized by Oklahoma City Council | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/streetcar-plans-scrutinized-by-oklahoma-city-council/article/3742575)

A highly engaged OKC resident might read this article, then find him or her self pondering how the sidewalks and aquatics from M3 have seemingly been curtailed, and consider the discussions of how the central park features should perhaps be curtailed, and finally, ponder on how that relates to the fact there are four seats on the city council with filing dates rapidly approaching. Of course, an engaged OKC resident could also conclude he or she has complete faith in the current office holders to meet the desires of the public who trusted them with the open ended process that is M3.

Will be interesting to watch how the winter and spring unfold.

ugh, I knew this would happen. No, that wasn't Cornett's line. That was Zeke Campfeild's line, on Twitter, summarizing a conversation. It wasn't a quote. If you were listening to the conversation, the context made sense. He wasn't saying they intended or would entertain any type of transit project with MAPS 3 funds. They were talking about alternatives to the system, route, etc. Not eliminating the streetcar using a completely different mode.

For future reference, Oklahoman reporters are summarizing conversations held during council meetings through Twitter. Unless they add quotation marks, I hope we are all careful about quoting them. It's how rumors get started. :)

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't see the meeting so was only going by what was posted. However, my response was correct, they can legally use MAPS 3 money for just about anything they want.

ON EDIT: here is Cornett's quote (thanks Plutonic Panda for posting the link http://newsok.com/streetcar-plans-scrutinized-by-oklahoma-city-council/article/3742575:

“I think the language was very carefully crafted to give us options, but I think the intent was to make sure that we build the downtown streetcar as a circulator system for downtown,” he said.

Sounds pretty close to the sumation doesn't it?

It also should be noted that most of the council's reservations/concerns have been and are going to be addressed there is going to be a 6 to 7 month process (starting in Feb/march) to verify and finalize the route .. and in that process will be public meetings/work shops ect that will eventually lead to a consultant final route recomendation ... that will come to the subcommittee then the Maps 3 board and finally the city council

But, I also think it's safe to say that it will be impossible to please everyone, including City Council members. The first meetings with the public made that clear to me, as there were almost as many routes suggested as people in attendance. Everyone has their own personal idea of where they would like the streetcar to go. I'd also like to point out that it is likely that many of the people with opinions have rarely, if ever, been consumers of mass transit. If you've not lived without a car, or used mass transit for virtually all travel, it's hard to know where potential problems lie.

But, I also think it's safe to say that it will be impossible to please everyone, including City Council members. The first meetings with the public made that clear to me, as there were almost as many routes suggested as people in attendance. Everyone has their own personal idea of where they would like the streetcar to go. I'd also like to point out that it is likely that many of the people with opinions have rarely, if ever, been consumers of mass transit. If you've not lived without a car, or used mass transit for virtually all travel, it's hard to know where potential problems lie.

You just ruled out 99.9% of the people in Oklahoma. And that 0.1% that is left... well ... never mind. :)

You just ruled out 99.9% of the people in Oklahoma. And that 0.1% that is left... well ... never mind. :)

I'm one of the 0.1%! Well, that is, THAT particular 0.01%.

I find it annoying that I'm having to read what happened at a city council meeting by parsing Twitter feeds. Are we living in bizarro world?

Funny how council wants every possible route and option to be considered for the streetcar, but are extremely hell-bent on not changing the route of the Boulevard and closed to any discussion about it....

I find it funny that Marrs thinks this route is being pushed through with council and staff being reluctant to stand up against it, but how DARE anyone question or stand up against the boulevard in his mind. lol

oops, didn't refresh... you beat me to the thought, Catch22 :-)

oops, didn't refresh... you beat me to the thought, Catch22 :-)

Good to know I'm not the only one who thinks that.

I find it annoying that I'm having to read what happened at a city council meeting by parsing Twitter feeds. Are we living in bizarro world?

The video of the city council meeting is available online. Most meetings are shown live on the city's cable channel with a repeat broadcast that evening and on the weekend.

I have grown impatient with the lack of progress on the streetcar project. I am frustrated by the comments of the council members. Several of them seem ready to totally throw out all of the apparent hard work that the MAPS committees and others have put into the process. Where have they been for the past three years while citizens have been educating themselves, attending meetings, and considering options related to this project? If they were going to totally discount the work of the citizen committee that is trying to do the work that the council asked them to do why waste the citizens time? And why waste money on consultants and advocate hiring more consultants to achieve a different result? If the council is going to decide the route they want then they should do it and quit wasting time pretending to seek citizen input. Other cities like Atlanta, Cincinnati, and San Antonio seem to have had a much easier time determining a route and equipment.

I have grown impatient with the lack of progress on the streetcar project.

The way I understand it, they are entering the final 6 months-1 year of engineering and design, and construction should begin sometime next year as per the News9 story. That is sooner than I thought construction would begin. I wouldn't worry about the route changing honestly apart obstacles that Jacobs identifies.

I read that this morning and nearly fell out of my chair.
Two $100 million projects - one gets the rubber stamp because it is from ODOT/Public Works yet the other should be scrutinized with an electron microscope?
Why the dissimilar review process desired by individuals like Councilman Marrs?
Why are citizens concerned about the boulevard and the citizen volunteers on the Streetcar Subcommittee treated with such disdain by some of our city leaders and staff?
How dare citizens take the time to learn about the federal review requirements and expect the city and ODOT to follow them?
How dare citizens make a recommendation after spending countless hours and unknown amounts of their personal funds to learn about streetcar systems and options? How dare they support and advocate for those recommendations?

Kansas City just approved their system and they are already engaging vehicle suppliers. Why the incessant roadblocks to our system? Is the CC in THAT much trouble financially?

Funny how council wants every possible route and option to be considered for the streetcar, but are extremely hell-bent on not changing the route of the Boulevard and closed to any discussion about it....

Seemingly intransigent on the Convention Center, as well.

Seemingly intransigent on the Convention Center, as well.

When's the next council election? This year?

Funny. I thought the committees were for advisory purposes only. If so, being an advisor does not mean your advise will be implemented in full or in part. I feel certain that the city council is receiving opinions from other parties as well and it is their job to weigh all input and come to a final decision. Same goes for the self appointed (ffbb) committee. You get to make your case but try to remember there are others out there contacting the council with their input.

Funny. I thought the committees were for advisory purposes only. If so, being an advisor does not mean your advise will be implemented in full or in part. I feel certain that the city council is receiving opinions from other parties as well and it is their job to weigh all input and come to a final decision. Same goes for the self appointed (ffbb) committee. You get to make your case but try to remember there are others out there contacting the council with their input.

So Council doesn't say a word about the location of the Convention Center, they automatically go with the CC subcommittee's choice.
Not a word about the Central Park....
Not a word about sidewalks other than the budget was cut....
Not a word about senior centers other than a cut....
Not a word about the River improvements....
Not a word about the Fairgrounds improvements....
Let's scrutinize the streetcar route the subcommittee chose.

Makes a ton of sense.

So Council doesn't say a word about the location of the Convention Center, they automatically go with the CC subcommittee's choice.
Not a word about the Central Park....
Not a word about sidewalks other than the budget was cut....
Not a word about senior centers other than a cut....
Not a word about the River improvements....
Not a word about the Fairgrounds improvements....
Let's scrutinize the streetcar route the subcommittee chose.

Makes a ton of sense.

lol

I wonder if there are truly people in power in OKC, or citizens in general, who fear how increased, modern public transit will change the city...

lol

I wonder if there are truly people in power in OKC, or citizens in general, who fear how increased, modern public transit will change the city...

I think this is getting close to the heart of the matter. I said a long time ago that by the time it is done all the transit subcommittee will be able to do is pick the color, so long as they pick blue.

The cart is way before the horse on this one. I guess no convention center meeting last month. Hmmmm.

lol

I wonder if there are truly people in power in OKC, or citizens in general, who fear how increased, modern public transit will change the city...

I don't really think this is the heart of the matter. I think there are a lot of people who just don't "get" mass transit. They have cars and they have money to buy them and buy the gas for them. They don't see walking as desirable, and they don't really understand why the city should use good money to pay for transit for people who can afford cars. It gets back to that whole "mass transit is for people who cannot afford cars" concept, which totally changes how you prioritize funds for transit. It also means you're not that invested in routes, because "people who don't have money have time" as they assuredly don't have jobs (my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek here). The whole idea of getting people out of their cars, of having them walk or ride mass transit as a matter of choice, is so totally foreign that it's difficult for them to understand what a streetcar is really good for. Park and ride they can understand, though, as we all know how obsessed they are with getting people into and out of the Chesapeake Arena after a game.

Also, people who are decision makers don't like to have other people make decisions for them. Since I'm a decision maker at work, I really understand this and actually empathize with the emotions generated by this happening. So, we have a group of people who only see people like Larry Nichols as above them. Then, a group of individuals, the majority of whom they likely consider their social or political inferiors (or at least novices), are making decisions without consulting them or even taking their wishes into consideration. The possibility that a route might be chosen because it is logical and legible is so outside their experience that it is discountable.

I don't really think this is the heart of the matter. I think there are a lot of people who just don't "get" mass transit. They have cars and they have money to buy them and buy the gas for them. They don't see walking as desirable, and they don't really understand why the city should use good money to pay for transit for people who can afford cars. It gets back to that whole "mass transit is for people who cannot afford cars" concept, which totally changes how you prioritize funds for transit. It also means you're not that invested in routes, because "people who don't have money have time" as they assuredly don't have jobs (my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek here). The whole idea of getting people out of their cars, of having them walk or ride mass transit as a matter of choice, is so totally foreign that it's difficult for them to understand what a streetcar is really good for. Park and ride they can understand, though, as we all know how obsessed they are with getting people into and out of the Chesapeake Arena after a game.

Also, people who are decision makers don't like to have other people make decisions for them. Since I'm a decision maker at work, I really understand this and actually empathize with the emotions generated by this happening. So, we have a group of people who only see people like Larry Nichols as above them. Then, a group of individuals, the majority of whom they likely consider their social or political inferiors (or at least novices), are making decisions without consulting them or even taking their wishes into consideration. The possibility that a route might be chosen because it is logical and legible is so outside their experience that it is discountable.

Thank you for your thoughts, well put.

Maybe more of The Duke needs to remind us all. John Wayne and the Pledge of Allegiance - presented by William J. Ellingsworth - YouTube (http://youtu.be/3Jf3MQpffBc) via @youtube

When's the next council election? This year?

Yes, four seats are up this go around, with filing later this month.

I wonder if there are truly people in power in OKC, or citizens in general, who fear how increased, modern public transit will change the city...


I think this is getting close to the heart of the matter. I said a long time ago that by the time it is done all the transit subcommittee will be able to do is pick the color, so long as they pick blue.



I don't really think this is the heart of the matter. I think there are a lot of people who just don't "get" mass transit. They have cars and they have money to buy them and buy the gas for them. They don't see walking as desirable, and they don't really understand why the city should use good money to pay for transit for people who can afford cars. It gets back to that whole "mass transit is for people who cannot afford cars" concept, which totally changes how you prioritize funds for transit. It also means you're not that invested in routes, because "people who don't have money have time" as they assuredly don't have jobs (my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek here). The whole idea of getting people out of their cars, of having them walk or ride mass transit as a matter of choice, is so totally foreign that it's difficult for them to understand what a streetcar is really good for. Park and ride they can understand, though, as we all know how obsessed they are with getting people into and out of the Chesapeake Arena after a game.

Also, people who are decision makers don't like to have other people make decisions for them. Since I'm a decision maker at work, I really understand this and actually empathize with the emotions generated by this happening. So, we have a group of people who only see people like Larry Nichols as above them. Then, a group of individuals, the majority of whom they likely consider their social or political inferiors (or at least novices), are making decisions without consulting them or even taking their wishes into consideration. The possibility that a route might be chosen because it is logical and legible is so outside their experience that it is discountable.


Didn't we all three say the same thing?

No. I think the route will be similar to what is proposed right now. I don't think the opposition is fearful at all. I just think they don't care about transit and are somewhat bewildered by the interest. Others don't like to be left out of the decision making process. And I've already proposed the streetcar be blue.

Funny how council wants every possible route and option to be considered for the streetcar, but are extremely hell-bent on not changing the route of the Boulevard and closed to any discussion about it....

Well there you have the esteemed leadership of the Honorable Mr. Gary Marrs

lol

I wonder if there are truly people in power in OKC, or citizens in general, who fear how increased, modern public transit will change the city...

Ya think??

Anything Gary Marrs and his ilk on the Council do to transit is going to be scary. Good transit ideas aren't going to come from him or Skip Kelly. Let's keep that in mind.

Ya think??

Anything Gary Marrs and his ilk on the Council do to transit is going to be scary. Good transit ideas aren't going to come from him or Skip Kelly. Let's keep that in mind.

Sparky,no need to worry about Marrs and the other council members as you and JTF have a huge lead in the "ilk" race.

Sparky,no need to worry about Marrs and the other council members as you and JTF have a huge lead in the "ilk" race.

Again, another unnecessary personal comment about other posters. If you disagree with Spartan and Kerry, thats fine without this kind of post.

Again, another unnecessary personal comment about other posters. If you disagree with Spartan and Kerry, thats fine without this kind of post.

Interesting that you found my statement to be an unnecessary personal comment, but found no fault in Spartan referring to Gary Marrs and other council members as being ilk. I did not realize that being a "poster" grants license to refer to non-posters in any derisive manner they choose. If you are going to set yourself up as a holier than thou Judge, seems to me the provoker has as much culpability as the provoked. Perhaps you could give that some thought.

I'll tell you what Popsy, do things my way and if doesn't work out you can criticise it.

I find it funny that Marrs thinks this route is being pushed through with council and staff being reluctant to stand up against it, but how DARE anyone question or stand up against the boulevard in his mind. lol

Gary Marrs, Pete White, Ed Shadid, Skip Kelly, and others have had every right to attend the public subcommittee meetings that have been held for the last three years. For any of them to suggest there has not been public deliberation over the route is wrong. They are lying, or perhaps, very confused.

Is Ed Shadid the person the Oklahoman warned us he was? Someone who can't play in the sandbox with others and who also opposes MAPS III at his core? Is he someone who is hell-bent on mucking up the very public process involved with the citizen subcommittees?

Shadid whines endlessly about the need for public deliberation, and then when there is a body that has had three years of public (and well publicized) meetings in which the public is invited to participate and contribute, he falsely claims there is no public deliberation. Furthermore, it seems he wants to thwart this public body and force his own views about the route or what should happen with the transit funding. This is what I would expect from a "typical politician," not someone who goes to great lengths to promote himself as a heroic public advocate. Moreover, were he to "force his will" on the citizen subcommittee as a councilor, that would be behavior one would expect from a corrupted city alderman in Chicago, not a transparent, "good government" official. At its heart, it would be anti-democratic.

I have no idea what he is doing, but he seems hell-bent on mucking up the streetcar. Does he even want it built, as per the public's vote? Questions are coming to mind. Heads up, OKCTalk. Perhaps those of you who supported his campaign, as I did, should ask him to explain his position on the streetcar. At the very least, based on his public statements, it seems to be changing. His supporters need to hold him accountable for his positions, and he needs to explain to his constituents what his positions are. Does Ed Shadid really believe in "maximum public deliberation?" Does he support public citizen subcommittees? Does he support the will of the voters who passed MAPS III, with the streetcar being one of the two most popular initiatives?

For anyone paying attention, the biggest potential problem with the MAPS projects is the convention center, not the streetcar. Why is Shadid suddenly shifting his focus toward the streetcar?

Suddenly, the "progressive coalition" on the Council isn't acting very progressive.

Food for thought:

A "public" meeting at 3pm on a weekday is hardly public deliberation.

I think what Shadid is inferring is that we haven't actually achieved wide-spread input. There is a difference between making a meeting public and achieving public deliberation. There is a significant difference in fact in a city of this size and population.

I can certainly empathize with any desire to achieve widespread feedback about any project of this magnitude and impact.

That being said, more could have been done to propagate these discussions that we've had. I'm not sure why it has fallen on Jeff's shoulders to record meetings and share them with the public.

There are several city employees that attend every single one of these meetings could have been recorded and the recordings could have been shared with thousands of people via even just the social media platforms we already use. I would have liked to have seen a link to the recordings of these meetings with links to the agenda, minutes, and supporting documents as well as a link to a feedback form.

I recognize that the city has plans to replace their website with something more interactive and user-friendly. However, we have a few good tools already at our fingertips and we need to leverage them more. Especially in areas like this where there is a strong desire by everyone involved to include as much public feedback as possible.

What I don't agree with is calling anyone names for any reason, no matter their position on this issue. The moment someone chooses to start calling their opponent names is the moment I suddenly start to consider their opponents position more thoroughly. Meaning, it only hurts your position.

So Nick, stop calling Mars ilk. :) It only makes pro-streetcar folks look immature and makes it harder to come to the table with Mars to find a conclusion.

That's my holier than thou moment for the day. ;-)

Thanks for the "food," but not all of these meetings were at 3 p.m., Sid. There were public meetings in which citizens were invited to suggest route alternatives that were not held at 3 p.m., they were held after 5 p.m. and were widely publicized.

Shadid is trying to change the subject if he says this doesn't constitute public deliberation. What does he prefer, a Lincoln-Douglass debate involving thousands held on the steps of City Hall? Maybe we could have a big teach-in at the Marriott in which we hear people talk about the need for public transit solutions while proposing no concrete transit solutions.

Shadid needs to clearly state his position on the streetcar. Is he trying to divert funding to something else? If so, what? He will immediately lose my support -- and gain my fervent opposition -- if he messes with the streetcar. I know I'm not alone.

I'll tell you what Popsy, do things my way and if doesn't work out you can criticise it.

Tell you what Kerry, if I knew what your way was I might agree to it if I could determine what your way actually meant. To me, you seem to be all over the map in sharing your advise. If you mean be critical of everything that has or is being done by OKC, then I can't agree to trying it. If your way dictates that I give up my car and either walk or take public transportation, then I can't agree to that until walking or taking public transportation can get me to where I want to go and return me to where I started in a timely manner. Are you, in reality, talking the talk, but not walking the walk? If not, then how can you ask someone else to do so? Perhaps you could share with me a few the things that make up your way, then I could consider trying them. Please make them easily performed to start and try not to ask me to do anything that you are not currently doing on a full time basis.

If they aren't familiar with the term then has anybody bothered to look up the meaning of "that ilk"?

I went to several evening public meetings before I was asked to be on the streetcar committee. People met in small groups and suggested possible routes. Multiple "best average of suggested" routes were distributed to both the streetcar subcommittee and the AA, if I remember correctly. I would like to speak first as a private citizen and then as a subcommittee member.

When I went to the initial meetings, as I said, I went as a citizen. But I also went as a consumer of mass transit, having lived without a car in Denver for 8 years. So, I understand what it's like to look at a route map, wait at a stop in all weather, as well as have to ride on a schedule, as I was first a student and then an employed, self-supporting individual during that time. I remember those meetings as being fairly well-attended, but I also remember thinking many of the participants had clearly never ridden mass transit on a regular basis. I didn't really see a lot of understanding about route legibility (which to be fair, is an issue with our bus system as well, so we can't just blame private citizens), distances people would be willing to walk for mass transit, consideration of who the streetcar would serve. To me, a lot of the proposed routes seemed to be designed to stop at as many downtown attractions as possible, and cover the maximal amount of area. I remember looking at a lot of them and thinking, "I don't know how I'd ever give someone directions on how to get where they want to go on the streetcar and, even worse, how to get back once they arrive at their destination. I remember wondering whether this was going to be a sightseeing ride for tourists, or if we really planned to make it useful.

A few months later I was asked to be on the subcommittee. I was introduced to all sorts of new concepts for route determination: existing utilities, right and left hand turns (your turning radius cannot include an existing building!), the Sante Fe railroad and it's authority over bridges and underpasses, couplets versus doubletracking, transit oriented development, and finally, financial considerations. Probably as a result of my personal experiences riding mass transit and my experiences during the first few public meetings, my main early priority was route legibility. I felt that emphasis was one aspect that is particularly easy to overlook if you've never ridden mass transit. Everyone wants to stop at or go past as many attractions as possible, but the route has to be simple to use and make sense or it will run empty. I also learned that willingness to compromise is an important trait for a committee member.

While I think every subcommittee member welcomes public input, this is not a simple decision like where to locate the Chesapeake Arena, the Bricktown Ballpark or even the convention center. There are so very many variables that go into where a route can run, there are so many different options, and considerations such as route legibility, transit oriented development, maximizing usefulness for citizens and visitors have to be factored in. Add in the fact that we don't have unlimited funds, and it suddenly becomes a very complex process. As a subcommittee, we walked or drove every single inch of the route, multiple, multiple times. We did the same for many other options. I tried to think like a rider, and think about why I would be riding. After weighing all the information we had and examining AA recommendations, we came up with what we thought was a very good route. I am extremely pleased with it. However, all of us as subcommittee members were excited about the prospect of having the route reviewed by experts. I don't think there is anyone on the group that doesn't welcome that process, and we are eagerly awaiting their report. If they have suggestions for improvement, they will be received with open minds. Public comments will be welcomed too, but again, the majority of the public is not aware of engineering route constraints, so this has to be weighed. I know public meetings are planned, and I urge everyone to attend and speak up.

There is no way to please everyone, but I would like to think everyone feels free to speak their mind.

Well, I can't read his mind but I've never once had the impression that he didn't like the streetcar project or that he wants to divert those funds.

Either I'm being obtuse or someone is being paranoid. I can't imagine him being happy with less mass transit.

I'm not sure Shadid views the streetcar project as "mass transit." It was never proposed to be a complete transit solution for OKC. That would cost billions. It's a "downtown streetcar," providing transit in the inner core. It's also a transit starter. Once successful with the public, it could be expanded.

The woeful OKC bus system was not addressed in MAPS III, nor should it be. MAPS projects are infrastructure projects. We need a better bus system with more funding, but MAPS is not the method to achieve that.


What I have heard him say enough times is that he is concerned that the project isn't getting enough feedback from the community. And maybe it doesn't need more feedback. I think that is his position though.

More perspective: I attended an Urban Neighbors board meeting the other evening. I found it somewhat odd that the neighborhood association for the downtown area hasn't really being involved at all. Now, I blame them as much as anything but I think it is strange to have assumed we have sewed this thing up without having involved certain groups.

Has the Bricktown Association been consulted? I honestly don't know. Just 'asking out loud'.

Hundreds of stakeholders were consulted in the process in all of the areas involved. City councilors and their staff were given rides of the proposed route and their opinions were sought.


I was under the impression we would have the same kind of process the park is now going through. Significant public input through meetings heavily marketed. Why wouldn't we? The Central Park has a Subcommittee too.

I don't know your definition of "heavily marketed," but when the meetings about route design took place, subcommittee members made information available about the meetings through television news interviews, interviews with the Oklahoman, the Gazette, the Journal Record, and the City Sentinel. An extensive online awareness campaign took place through OKCTalk and other online venues. Guerilla marketing efforts, including posters and flyers, were undertaken. Additionally, stakeholders and business owners were personally solicited for their input. As a result of this process, several key changes were made, such as moving away from a solution involving overhead wires.

I'm not aware the subcommittee has a huge budget for advertising, so I don't know what else they should have done to encourage participation. What else should they have done?

This is a canard.

I'm not sure Shadid views the streetcar project as "mass transit." It was never proposed to be a complete transit solution for OKC. That would cost billions. It's a "downtown streetcar," providing transit in the inner core. It's also a transit starter. Once successful with the public, it could be expanded.

The woeful OKC bus system was not addressed in MAPS III, nor should it be. MAPS projects are infrastructure projects. We need a better bus system with more funding, but MAPS is not the method to achieve that.

This is key to the entire discussion about mass transit in OKC as a whole. The circular argument about mass transit goes from "how do you get people to location 'x'?" to "how do they get around once they are at location 'x'?" and around and around. We had to choose a place on that circle to start since we essentially have nothing in place that works very well. The streetcar is a good starting point because it provides immediate benefits to residents and businesses downtown and is useful even to people who drive in from the suburbs to work. Providing a way to get around the city center is probably the best place to start before investing in light and/or commuter rail from the suburbs and other towns.

Hopefully we will have a MAPS4 that will expand the streetcar to other areas of downtown such as boathouse row, Farmers Market, OU HSC, Capitol, and/ or the south edge of the Central Park. We may even see some sort of other rail based transit in a future MAPS. I hope it will be in the next MAPS but there is no way of knowing if that will be possible at that time.

Simultaneously, we need to improve our bus system and that is where Dr Shadid's points are valid. It should not be streetcar OR bus though, it should be how to best integrate the two modes of transit.

I really haven't had time to address this thread. However, I am very shocked that there is this assertion that there hasn't been a public process. There has been a LENGTHY public process with more to come.

If I have the time, I will try to collate the list of meeting location and times in which public input meetings have taken place.

Regarding the Bricktown Association, I know of at least two times I personally did presentations for their broader membership. Bob Kemper performed even more presentations above and beyond the streetcar. There were private meetings with the Bricktown Association elected board to gauge their further input.

Urban Neighbors has consecutively been directly represented by having a board member, sometimes two board members, on the MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee at the same time. Historically, Urban Neighbors has been very well represented although I cannot speak for the current board.

Not trying to be flippant, but just because Ed Shadid didn't attend previous public meetings doesn't mean we didn't have a process to get this far. Will write more later.

...Simultaneously, we need to improve our bus system and that is where Dr Shadid's points are valid. It should not be streetcar OR bus though, it should be how to best integrate the two modes of transit.

One good way to integrate different modes of transit is at an intermodal hub.

One good way to integrate different modes of transit is at an intermodal hub.

What a "crazy" idea! Wonder if anyone has thought of that?? :D

I know the company that owns the hub location hasn't been consulted and they have been in complete contact and responsive to the city's process.

Mr. Shadid questioned the city manager on the non responsiveness of the hub owner and requested condemnation move forward. This is not true. There has been a response and the property is in a due diligence period.

Sid, I'm flattered that you think I designed this project. However, I did not. I had more to do with making sure it was included in MAPS 3. That is my accomplishment through the Public's and the City Council's support.

Jacobs Engineering developed the chosen Locally Preferred Alternative through a very thorough public planning process.

The Subcommittee "tweaked it" and further narrowed down the form of the LPA to something they felt was consistent with what they thought were the commitments made to the voters during the campaign.

I have undoubtedly exerted "leadership" during this process to help people come to consensus. And that process has been like herding cats.

While the public process will and should continue, the reality is that engineers, planners, and professionals should give their blessing to what we hope is a route that is already outstanding or that can be further improved.

We want to ask consultants directly their opinion on the couplet versus the double track design. If it needs to be changed and can be improved, it should be. At this point, it has been the absence of experienced professionals (on the implementation side) that has been the problem. Not a shortage of public input or further blessings.

Shadid has obviously talked to you. He asserts that streetcar isn't really legitimate transit fulfilling a "need". He believes its sole justifiable purpose is as an economic development tool... That we should throw tracks down in vacant lots in Core to Shore to stimulate development.

I argue, and I think an educated majority would, that immediate success, immediate ridership, is absolutely critical to this project being deemed a success by the public. I think that there is also plenty of urban fabric that needs further reinforcement. Fabric that offers almost assuredly a balance between further substantial infill development, as well as immediate ridership serving key destinations. A route that has legitimate "anchors" at either end.

An opportunity, for the first time ever, to create a fully functional connected downtown without using an automobile.

These are important times.

Or are you going to continue to deliberately take my words out of context.

Sid, I'm taking your words literally on here. We can't assume that people visiting this site know nuance or other context. I certainly didn't know you we're being sarcastic.

Yeah, I think we need to have a conversation that happens over coffee. Not a public forum.

If you take a look at downtown OKC, there will be development opportunities regardless of the final route. The currently proposed route serves multiple purposes including development - it will also provide for circulation downtown and move people from and through 5 districts fairly effectively. Of course we could make a more "perfect" system with more dollars, but the current proposal is pretty darn good given the constraints. I am fairly sure future expansion will be addressed by looking at probable future expansion routes and installing the points that will eventually make those connections if funds permit. This would preclude service interruptions of the first phase and make extending the route much easier.

Jeff, I think we are talking a little bit in circles. We just need to grab coffee so I can hash it out with you. This has nothing to do with collating feedback while you are developing the project. This has everything to do with getting final feedback and even approval from the community for the project you designed.

I have been PM many times on projects. I never once thought that I wouldn't have to present the application or whatever I was building in the final stages for comprehensive review.

I can't imagine us not taking this entire project before the people in the final stages so that everyone has a chance to see what you've designed (in collaboration with all the stakeholders).

Not speaking for Jeff, but Sid, I'm quite sure you don't know the entire story. For the record, Jeff has said he has no problem with feedback on the route decision -- which is now being vetted by professional consultants. If someone is telling you otherwise, they are mistaken.

That being said, it would be ridiculous to try to go back in time and synthesize the numerous hours of public meetings and input that got us where we are today because some politician wishes he had been involved all along.

Question: did professional consultants contracted with the city ever do any in-depth comparison of streetcars compared to light rail?

Yes. They were compared in the 2005 Fix Guideway Study and the Intermodal Hub Study.

The NW Expressway corridor was the only corridor that ranked in a cost-benefit ratio analysis. But the suggestion was to start with Bus Rapid Transit and "convert over" if the ridership grew and justified the cost.

Edmond, Moore, Norman, Del City, Midwest City are proposed to be served with lesser cost commuter rail.

And streetcars are really Light Rail "light".

Question: did professional consultants contracted with the city ever do any in-depth comparison of streetcars compared to light rail?

Fixed Guideway Plan (FGP) | METRO Transit Providing Central Oklahoma Transportation & Bus Service Options (http://www.gometro.org/fgp)

See Chapters 4 & 5.

Just a question I heard someone recently ask. Thanks for the info.

Just a question I heard someone recently ask. Thanks for the info.

Hmmm...wondering who that "someone" is.

He's one of the "men in black" who are always watching from their black helicopters - they're out to destroy any attempt at improving public transit. Actually, it's a woman who reads my column and struck up a conversation with me at a coffee shop in Edmond the other day.

He's one of the "men in black" who are always watching from their black helicopters - they're out to destroy any attempt at improving public transit. Actually, it's a woman who reads my column and struck up a conversation with me at a coffee shop in Edmond the other day.

LOL. You're not really paranoid if they're really out to get you -- and some people are.