Yeah, but I've got to wonder if the responses I've seen in this thread to Sid and I somehow suggest we're part of some conspiracy (I am not)

This thread convinces me that we're probably not going to actually get transit. Among other things.

Not seeing that in the real world Spartan.

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. ;-)

Marrs is ilk. It goes beyond just this issue. I would personally donate to a legitimate progressive replacement candidate who runs against him.

Marrs does not deserve a place at the table. All he deserves is to be voted out. His record is atrocious, he is the most backward person on the council.

Not seeing that in the real world Spartan.

We already have seen it in the real world...Maps 1.

All of the projects need to be held to the same amount of scrutiny. If council wants to wage war on the streetcar committee, they also need to apply the same level of scrutiny to all of the other subcommittees (which have received little to no flak or opposition by council). Something is really fishy about the tone of council towards the streetcar all of the sudden. It is quite worrying, to be honest.

I'm all for public vetting of how these dollars are spent, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. But, when all other projects (which by the way have been far less open) have been given the rubber stamp of approval with little to no council input, yet the transit project (which has been one of the more thorough and transparent) is receiving (all of the sudden!) negative undertones from council is a little peculiar...

Yeah, but I've got to wonder if the responses I've seen in this thread to Sid and I somehow suggest we're part of some conspiracy (I am not)

The responses to Sid are factual. I certainly don't think you're part of a conspiracy. Where was that suggested or implied?

The streetcar has been, by far, the most transparent of all the MAPS3 projects. To suggest otherwise isn't being very transparent.

I am confident that some better intended councilmen making these comments are honestly trying to improve the streetcar. I am just as confident that Gary Marrs has jumped on board to kill the project.

If anyone can explain how such a worthless council of men AND women who take credit for the work of folks they actively work AGAINST is going to somehow make good decisions on transit, I'm all ears. But after their complete absence of collective leadership on the boulevard issue, I don't see it.

Until these curmudgeons, not even fit for Edmond's city council (maybe Norman), get voted out we won't have civic leadership on the side of urban progress. Period.

I don't think anyone can honestly say the Streetcar Subcommittee has not conducted its proceedings in an open manner. I know members have invited anyone to come to the meetings, and then go above and beyond to provide those who cannot attend a way to at least listen in after the fact.

Catch22 asked the uncomfortable question the city council and others won't answer - why are not ALL the MAPS subcommittees as open and subject to the same scrutiny? Why are our elected leaders appearing to cower and roll over at the whim of other SC's? I am afraid this group of councilpersons and city staff will be the ones to preclude there being another MAPS and essentially killing the impressive forward progress OKC has made over the past 10-15 years.


And finally.....
Why all the fussing about saying someone is of "an ilk"? Aren't we all of one sort of ilk or another?

We already have seen it in the real world...Maps 1.

That's a misinterpretation of history, Spartan. MAPS I had an incredibly shaky transit premise that had a huge caveat - IF federal funding could be obtained. Voters decided to oust Rep. Mickey Edwards for writing hot checks. He would have gotten the federal funding. His successor, Ernest Istook, was vehemently against rail transit and blocked every move to make it a reality. I struggle to see how one is related to the other. That was real world 1996 with very different circumstances, and I would have been the first to tell you then that there was an effort to kill the transit project - by Istook (and I did just that). Whether Jeff or others on the subcommittee like to hear this or not, what their critics are most vocal about what they perceive to be a very defensive attitude toward anyone questioning their assumptions. The same is said about the convention center subcommittee. Ironically, such attitude hasn't been observed by anyone I've talked to about a subcommittee that has endured incredible second guessing about schedule, justification for its existence, etc - the park.

And to those who might now suggest I am an enemy of the streetcar system - I have before, and I still question how downtown redevelopment and continued momentum can continue without a reliable and trustworthy rail system of the sort that is embraced and sought out by young professionals who are helping make these urban revivals possible.

I certainly don't think you are some sort of enemy to the streetcar project or any of MAPS 3 Steve. Regarding the "criticism" that may be occurring out some individuals about perceived "defensiveness", I can see how they might interpret that. The issues regarding the proposed route have been very well thought out and the Subcommittee has worked hard as a group to analyze as many issues as we have information on.

What IS very frustrating, is that many of these people have criticized from the sidelines when most of them have been invited to directly participate in the process. If they haven't been directly asked to participate, the opportunities to take initiative and do so on their own have definitely been there.

One element I am still shocked about is the lack of concern/coverage that seems to exist on the P180/Streetcar integration issue. Particularly in front of Santa-Fe Station.

Comparing this process to the Boulevard is just silly. They are not similar in just about any way from a project standpoint.

Enough to know that we're fighting each other on this one. It's all friendly fire.

I can't wait to ride this freaking streetcar.

Line 1 - I agree and didn't intend to draw a direct comparison between the Blvd and Streetcar. I meant to highlight the apparent difference in level of scrutiny on two very important projects that while different, should be evaluated on what we want OKC to be in the next 10 - 20 years.

Line 2 - Friendly fire , isn't. I think we are discussing the disparity of method rather than a common desired eventual outcome of improved transit for OKC that will enhance the lives of present day residents and attract new ones that will continue the revitalization of downtown OKC and the city as a whole. All of us should be careful of what we say so as to minimize misunderstandings and giving the appearance of questioning the motives and integrity of friends and allies.

Line 3 - agree 10000%. Heck, I wouldn't mind being an operator on one of them! I am concerned that it is not pushed even farther back in the MAPS3 schedule. I think we are missing an opportunity to generate more excitement about downtown and the other MAPS3 projects by not expediting this one. I may be a bit off base on this next statement, but I think if the will were present in city hall, we could have been riding by the end of 2013.

As of today, the only sure thing is that we have money for a short downtown circular. All we have are dreams and studies for anything else. No guarantees ($$) of commuter rail, HSR, and all other things associated with an intermodal hub. Amtrack is a state project. So basically at this point is it fair to say all the city needs is
a street car stop in front of the depot.

As of today, the only sure thing is that we have money for a short downtown circular. All we have are dreams and studies for anything else. No guarantees ($$) of commuter rail, HSR, and all other things associated with an intermodal hub. Amtrack is a state project. So basically at this point is it fair to say all the city needs is a street car stop in front of the depot. With an EKG Project 180 redesign or space on the myriad side this can easily be achieved.

... 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.

politico-think: never take heat for directly destroying something if you can love a project to its slow death via a 'need' for further study.

One element I am still shocked about is the lack of concern/coverage that seems to exist on the P180/Streetcar integration issue. Particularly in front of Santa-Fe Station.


I covered this before Project 180 even began, before MAPS planning began. Will cover again.

This talk about needing more public process does kind of make me, as one of the more active citizen participants in the earlier public process, feel marginalized. I remember even flying back from Calgary once primarily just to partake in one of the Let's Talk Transit meetings.

Steve, fair enough about Istook. That doesn't mean no Istook, no problem. It was a remarkable testament to MAPS1 and the civic will at that time that they "finished MAPS right." By which I mean, passing a contentious extension to cover the cost run-up, otherwise the Ford Center wouldn't have happened.

A lot of us have been screaming that the poor stewardship of some MAPS projects are going to lead to massive cost overruns. Like the convention center, which we can't afford. It turns out, this slate of projects was one of the most poorly conceived grouping of public works initiatives ever, and the only thing that carried it was a streetcar idea that had a lot of grassroots support. The only thing that justified all 7 projects to local leaders was needing to get $250 million for a CC.

We have no idea what we're doing with this park thing. We're waking up to the realization that we're not serious about C2S, after all. We have no idea how the senior centers are going to get run, other than that it's going to be a miracle to get operators to step up. Sidewalks and bike trails..oh wait just kidding. And most remarkably the city is considering eminent domain on an $80 million site for the CC we already can't afford when there is only $40 million budgeted.

Something's got to go. When we're asked to vote for an extension in order to get the streetcar system, will it THEN be reported that certain folks killed the project? There's no way this city is voting for an extension after how ugly and unorganized the program's planning has been.

And anyone, and I mean anyone, calling for more public attention on the streetcar needs to first take a deep look at this convention center project. Accusing the project's leaders of defensiveness is also unfair. I definitely have my disagreements, but I consider all of the subcommittee members friends and have met each one personally. These guys aren't defensive. They are trying to lead and we keep undermining them, and accusations of "defensiveness" do nothing but set the public dialog up to fail.

I won't get into who I have or haven't met from the CC subcommittee, but I'd challenge someone else who like me is just an active citizen, to meet one on one about the CC or be able to make meaningful public input.

politico-think: never take heat for directly destroying something if you can love a project to its slow death via a 'need' for further study.

Another option: Keep getting new studies until one says precisely what you'd like it to say.

Its very early in the process, but up till now it just resembles a land grab project/s. Hopefully not. Only time will tell I guess.

A few key things will be coming out soon.

Hope so. A letter has been received stating that condemnation proceedings will start at the end of this month and the property owner hasn't even received their
appraisal back to make a counter offer.

This talk about needing more public process does kind of make me, as one of the more active citizen participants in the earlier public process, feel marginalized. I remember even flying back from Calgary once primarily just to partake in one of the Let's Talk Transit meetings.

Steve, fair enough about Istook. That doesn't mean no Istook, no problem. It was a remarkable testament to MAPS1 and the civic will at that time that they "finished MAPS right." By which I mean, passing a contentious extension to cover the cost run-up, otherwise the Ford Center wouldn't have happened.

A lot of us have been screaming that the poor stewardship of some MAPS projects are going to lead to massive cost overruns. Like the convention center, which we can't afford. It turns out, this slate of projects was one of the most poorly conceived grouping of public works initiatives ever, and the only thing that carried it was a streetcar idea that had a lot of grassroots support. The only thing that justified all 7 projects to local leaders was needing to get $250 million for a CC.

We have no idea what we're doing with this park thing. We're waking up to the realization that we're not serious about C2S, after all. We have no idea how the senior centers are going to get run, other than that it's going to be a miracle to get operators to step up. Sidewalks and bike trails..oh wait just kidding. And most remarkably the city is considering eminent domain on an $80 million site for the CC we already can't afford when there is only $40 million budgeted.

Something's got to go. When we're asked to vote for an extension in order to get the streetcar system, will it THEN be reported that certain folks killed the project? There's no way this city is voting for an extension after how ugly and unorganized the program's planning has been.

And anyone, and I mean anyone, calling for more public attention on the streetcar needs to first take a deep look at this convention center project. Accusing the project's leaders of defensiveness is also unfair. I definitely have my disagreements, but I consider all of the subcommittee members friends and have met each one personally. These guys aren't defensive. They are trying to lead and we keep undermining them, and accusations of "defensiveness" do nothing but set the public dialog up to fail.

I won't get into who I have or haven't met from the CC subcommittee, but I'd challenge someone else who like me is just an active citizen, to meet one on one about the CC or be able to make meaningful public input.

I'm not arguing with anything you've said ...except.... $80 million for the land for the convention center? Where in the world did you get this figure?

I'm not arguing with anything you've said ...except.... $80 million for the land for the convention center? Where in the world did you get this figure?

What Howard wants for that land. And what I'd argue isn't a bad valuation for the best development site in the entire city.

Um, bud... I'm calling you out. Shenanigans. Prove it or cite it.

I'll own up to that. We'll have to see how much gets spent on the land, but it will come out of the $250...until there is no more 250. As it was explained to me recently, the way eminent domain works when two sides fight the amount in court (unless Howard wakes up and is willing to accept 40 one day) is you're forced to pay the value a judge settles on. There are no take-backs if it's too high and you want to shop around for a different site.

Choosing one site over a better, more affordable site...like East Bricktown, which could be serviced by more hotels AND the streetcar, would be a huge irrevocable mistake. The larger the budget, the more scrutiny there should be on a project. So I agree it would be nice to see the public more involved with the streetcar, but the CC situation is getting absurd. I'd like to see them claim citizen meetings where everyone wanted a CC to either break up the green span or take away good mixed-use development sites (maybe an "OKC Live" ala LA Live or 4th Street Live).

I'm not hearing anything out of any camp that comes close to $80 million. Now, is it truly the best site or would east Bricktown be better? That's a different question.

So a Cordish development site vs CC development site maybe.

I'm not hearing anything out of any camp that comes close to $80 million. Now, is it truly the best site or would east Bricktown be better? That's a different question.

Well do you think East Bricktown land acquisition would leave more funding for building the actual facility? That would also require a slight retooling of the streetcar route, but nothing I don't think the streetcar SC wouldn't be happy to do.

I've not seen anything that convinces me that enough questions were asked about any of the MAPS 3 projects....

There were people attacking the council for wanting this process. Matt and David went on to draw a false conclusion that the Streetcar was getting unfair treatment. Comparing this process to the Boulevard is just silly. They are not similar in just about any way from a project standpoint.

I'm defending the council for being eager to get to this final review phase because there are at least a couple of them that have concerns.



(Sid, I'm cutting out the rest of the post to save space and clutter but I am keeping what I am specifically replying to)

Obviously the two projects are completely different and in most aspects unrelated from each other (except for 2 blocks on the south end of the proposed route). I was using the Boulevard as more of a reference point to how two-faced the council seems to be issue-to-issue. For one project they are begging for more input, the other they are trying to silence input. I'm all for equality....you need to allow public input for all projects and it is my personal feeling (which may be 100% off, but it is still my opinion) that the streetcar is being treated unfairly. None of the other projects are receiving any of the same questions. Obviously each project is on a different timeline and in different phases of their development. However, there does not seem to be any tough questions going to any of the other projects. I don't really see where they are looking to just get the route confirmed, they seem to be implying the proposed route needs to change. At least that is how their tone came across to me, and apparently others as well.

I agree this is friendly fire, though. And I also can't wait to ride the streetcar. :)

Getting through the last 2 or 3 pages was tough, but I have never been 'happy' about the streetcar route, couplets, or anyone wanting to investigate 'experimental' propulsion systems. I am glad the route is getting scrutiny.

1) There seems to be a myth the streetcar has to run in a straight line or it will be too confusing. The reality is the streetcar has to go where the people want to go, and in OKC those areas are not in a straight line. The original OKC streetcar system didn't run in a straight line and I have research dozens of streetcar systems around the world and none of them even come close to straight lines, even the much heralded Portland system looks like a drunken blind guy drew the southern portion. When you get to Europe the streetcar lines look like someone dropped a bowl of spaghetti.

2) Couplets are not the answer for OKC because we don't even have that question. OKC no longer has one-way downtown streets that would require the use of couplets. Running streetcar both directions on the same street doubles the number of properties within 1 block of two-way travel. If converting streets from one-way to two-way makes sense, then why would we implement one-way street cars? I know people think it will create a great pedestrian mall between the two couplets but in reality the growth will occur along the streetcar line, not on the side streets.

3) OKC doesn't have the resources to go around searching for experimental propulsion systems. We need to go with what we (and the rest of the street car world) know works, two rails in the ground and an overhead electric line.

Anyhow, two years ago I said I would wait until some point in the future for the route assumptions and decisions to be reviewed by council and here we are.

OKC's original streetcar network
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKC-Original.jpg

I'm not arguing with anything you've said ...except.... $80 million for the land for the convention center? Where in the world did you get this figure?

don't know for sure but i think the 80 mil number comes if you use the vitagraph property as the comp for the CC site ..

don't know for sure but i think the 80 mil number comes if you use the vitagraph property as the comp for the CC site ..

The Stage Center site might also play a role. With multiple interested parties it won't go cheap, the only question is will it 'go' before the CC site.

JTF, thanks for re-posting that map. It really helps illustrate how big of a system we used to have.

Regarding couplets, I have vehemently argued in the past that they should be considered as we were told by Rick Gustafsen and other experienced streetcar planners that is what everybody is doing now. That is that "couplet designs" are being considered in both most American and European cities. Apparently this design stimulates greater economic development.

However, with that said, I want to directly question Gustafsen about it. It has been pointed out that while couplets are being "planned", there are really very few of them in existence. Also, it has been pointed out that our street bock widths are significantly greater than some of the other cities used for comparison thus involving a longer walk.

I personally do think that significant and meaningful signage would be critical to communicating how the system works if tracks are separated by a block although presumably the locals would figure it out relatively quickly.

There is also the overall width of Broadway, which is 80'. Obviously, a double track throughout Automobile Alley could easily be accommodated with center island stops, just like in the old days. However, there are turns at EK Gaylord/3rd that would have to be accommodated going Northbound.

And obviously Broadway dead ends into the the super block of the Cox Convention Center at Sheridan necessitating a turn to the east or the west.

The subcommittee is pretty confident that we have given engineers and planners a very good "tweaked" Locally Preferred Alternative.

But yeah, if it needs to be changed or improved, we are hoping to have good discussions with the experienced professionals to draw those conclusions.

Regarding the Council and scrutiny, obviously they have the final say. But requests and suggestions from most of them have been directly incorporated coalescing to the the LPA that we now have.

Urban: that is what is bewildering about recent Council remarks since some of the same folks expressing concerns have been involved in the process???

So with the 2 year postponement of the Boulevard, we're now looking at a delay for this segment of the streetcar. They going to put turnstiles in?? I mean, if all goes well with procurement of funding and actual construction of the route, when is it planned to start? 2015 or 2017? Surely when ODOT and the city build the boulevard between Shields and Robinson, they will incorporate the relocation of utilities with the streetcar route so that it won't have to be torn up again.

So with the 2 year postponement of the Boulevard, we're now looking at a delay for this segment of the streetcar. They going to put turnstiles in?? I mean, if all goes well with procurement of funding and actual construction of the route, when is it planned to start? 2015 or 2017? Surely when ODOT and the city build the boulevard between Shields and Robinson, they will incorporate the relocation of utilities with the streetcar route so that it won't have to be torn up again.

there are very few utilities under the old I40 ... and 16 is a very late estimate ... the blvd will most likely be done in 15

there are very few utilities under the old I40 ... and 16 is a very late estimate ... the blvd will most likely be done in 15

Thank you for filling me in on information I was not aware of, but do you A) have concrete evidence of when this portion of the boulevard is suppose to begin and B) if ODOT is going to work with the city and whatever company installs the streetcar route when it comes to this segment? Thanks.

Thank you for filling me in on information I was not aware of, but do you A) have concrete evidence of when this portion of the boulevard is suppose to begin and B) if ODOT is going to work with the city and whatever company installs the streetcar route when it comes to this segment? Thanks.

there has not been any indication that odot will work with the city to mitigate duplicate efforts concerning the streetcar ... how ever the city has told the Subcommittee that they are talking about this issue with odot ..

and i don't think there is yet a concrete timeline ..

I think they should just work on this segment of the boulevard last and just build the streetcar route into it at the very same time. There's no reason for them not to coordinate with eachother and the timing may end up being perfect.

JTF- "Urban: that is what is bewildering about recent Council remarks since some of the same folks expressing concerns have been involved in the process???" Well I think you just used the same word our Vice Chairman used in the Oklahoman article "bewildering". I can honestly say that direct input from Pete White, former Councilman Sam Bowman, Meg Salyer, and Mayor Cornett have directly influenced route recommendations helping coalesce the route into the current proposal. Pat Ryan and Larry McAttee have not had any qualms about the proposed route taht we know of. Meg Salyer, Mayor Cornett, Ed Shadid, Pete White, Skip Kelly, Pat Ryan, and former Councilman Sam Bowman have had personal, extensive tours of the route. I cannot remember if Larry McAttee went on any of the tours as various committee members took them in different groups. I do know that Gary Marrs and David Greenwell have been extended offers multiple times for tours and direct input and have not accepted the invitation. At the direct request of former Councilman Sam Bowman, Skip Kelly, and Pete White, assessment of the NE Corridor (The Adventure Line) was directly incorporated into our process. We also took Council Members who were not as invested in the Adventure Line on tours of that as well to help them understand the issues surrounding it. So... with that in mind, I'd say that perhaps this process has simply gone on so long that some people have either forgotten the input that they gave was incorporated, they want to re-emphasize elements of our projects that are dear to their perspectives, or they do not want to deal with the committee directly at all and feel that speaking from the horseshoe is effective enough. And it probably is. We do watch these meeting and we do try to accommodate their concerns and desires. I will say that this process is about to be very quickly "sped up" and that there are some very good things that are happening even this week. Everything will be "re-vetted" by professionals that we have confidence in.

This is the way this post is supposed to look. A little easier to read. The edit feature have completely shut down. JTF- "Urban: that is what is bewildering about recent Council remarks since some of the same folks expressing concerns have been involved in the process???" Well I think you just used the same word our Vice Chairman used in the Oklahoman article "bewildering". I can honestly say that direct input from Pete White, former Councilman Sam Bowman, Meg Salyer, and Mayor Cornett have directly influenced route recommendations helping coalesce the route into the current proposal. Pat Ryan and Larry McAttee have not had any qualms about the proposed route that we know of. Meg Salyer, Mayor Cornett, Ed Shadid, Pete White, Skip Kelly, Pat Ryan, and former Councilman Sam Bowman have had personal, extensive tours of the route. I cannot remember if Larry McAttee went on any of the tours as various committee members took them in different groups. I do know that Gary Marrs and David Greenwell have been extended offers multiple times for tours and direct input and have not accepted the invitation. At the direct request of former Councilman Sam Bowman, Skip Kelly, and Pete White, assessment of the NE Corridor (The Adventure Line) was directly incorporated into our process. We also took Council Members who were not as invested in the Adventure Line on tours of that as well to help them understand the issues surrounding it. So... with that in mind, I'd say that perhaps this process has simply gone on so long that some people have either forgotten the input that they gave was incorporated, they want to re-emphasize elements of our projects that are dear to their perspectives, or they do not want to deal with the committee directly at all and feel that speaking from the horseshoe is effective enough. And it probably is. We do watch these meeting and we do try to accommodate their concerns and desires. I will say that this process is about to be very quickly "sped up" and that there are some very good things are happening in the very near future. Everything will be "re-vetted" by professionals that we have confidence in and their will be a further public process.

I give up. The editing mechanism has completely locked up and won't let me save changes.

I think everything understands what you're saying without any editing, UP. Thanks for othe imformation.

Please note that I had the same problem trying to edit my post for typos. It didn't work. I guess we're just all going to have to be perfect the first time. LOL

Just for fun, I keep a map of projects and their relative status in my Google Earth program on my laptop. Here they are overlaid with the proposed streetcar route:

http://gyazo.com/0afab9a3ef63e8d76a705a3ff07ee194.png?1357791010

Note my map only contains new construction and doesn't include renovations. Red = Under construction or soon to be. Pink = Solid proposed project but not under construction. Blue = On the horizon but not really confirmed to be solid yet.

I get goosebumps thinking about how that will look in 10 years!

No worries UP, to echo ljbab728's comment - we get the jist of it. If anything, the streetcar has probably had too much public input but that is the nature of MAPS. Most cities start with the rail plan first and then try to obtain funding. This causes most of the debate to center around funding. OKC did it the other way around. Getting the funding was the 'easy' part, so all we have left is to do is argue about the route, and there is plenty of time to do that while we wait for funding to accrue.

That is a very interesting way to look at it. I dare say a very accurate way imhop also.It is a bit frustrating... No.. Very frustrating, for myself and other committee members to be described by Councilman Shadid and others to be resistant to public input. There has certainly been more input over the broadest period of time than any other of the MAPS projects.We just tried to exert leadership to come up with what we think is a sensible design to hand off to the consultants. And there will be even more public input into this process in the coming months.

While I was a city planner in the Tampa area our big thing at the time was a Hillsborough County light-rail system. I attended countless MPO meeting on it, listened to hundreds of people offer suggestions, and on and on. 13 years later, there is still no Hillsborough County rail systems. On the other hand, the TECO streetcar line was built with almost no public input. They just said here is the plan, had 3 public meetings, and built it.

Feel free to "Like"... lol Big updates forthcoming...

Oklahoma City Streetcar | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Oklahoma-City-Streetcar/203749819767937)

Feel free to "Like"... lol Big updates forthcoming...

Oklahoma City Streetcar | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Oklahoma-City-Streetcar/203749819767937)

kewl!

http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/812606_203756616433924_190462360_o.jpg

Feel free to "Like"... lol Big updates forthcoming...

Oklahoma City Streetcar | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Oklahoma-City-Streetcar/203749819767937)

Who is running the page? What names are behind this? There's no info on the Facebook page.

The Modern Transit Project is reactivating communications as a great deal has happened recently. There is a crossover of over half of the Streetcar Subcommittee and active volunteers. Will improve the page with more info. Expect a large email shortly with updates.

The Modern Transit Project is reactivating communications as a great deal has happened recently. There is a crossover of over half of the Streetcar Subcommittee and active volunteers. Will improve the page with more info. Expect a large email shortly with updates.

You weren't kidding with the "large" statement.

Will try to post that big email, but do not know how to post with with the pictures. The "copy/paste" really only grabs the text.

###

###