Just giving him a hard time. I know, it was a low blow. ;)

I don't actually disagree with most of what he said. I just thought the Couch comment was too tempting. :)

It is refreshing for Mr Couch to step up in that manner though. Honestly, that statement allays most of the concern I had about never seeing a streetcar running down an OKC street. I disagreed with him strongly on some other issues, but you must give credit where credit is due.

Jeff said that construction on the streetcar will start Spring of 2014. Guys, that will be here before we know it. Any chance that O&M costs, if not funded out of the $400 million annual budget, as Couch so eloquently put it, or advertising, could be funded by a MAPS type tax? Seems something like that could go a long way and be covered for years to come.

Also, a question I've had in mind (please either Jeff or Betts answer this since they're on the committee), will there be a free zone, kind of like Portland's street car in their central central district? Also, will there be day passes that you purchase at an automated stand with your card or over the internet or will there be cash purchasing stands, say at the intermodal hub?

Thanks for the answers!

I think the closest a tax like you describe could be implemented is something like a BID or so forth. It would take leadership on Downtown OKC's part since they just re-did the BID. BID being Business Improvement District.

Regarding fares... Fares in the best scenario in other parts of the country have only generated offsets of 14% or less. And fares decrease ridership. I think most of us would like to see the entire 1st phase streetcar system be fare free and paid for with advertising, leasing space, parking revenues, or if council does continue to support, out of the general fund if necessary. Ultimately all costs being resolved through a Regional Transit District and a major voter initiative for a permanent funding source for bus and rail including the streetcar system. Too early to give you a specific answer.

Seriously regretting my decision to support -- and actively campaign for -- Ed Shadid. Some of you were right about him.

Ah - I was wondering how you were coping. :)

I'll try to further help clear up the misinformation that is being propogated by some claiming that the City doesn't have or know where it's going to get the necessary operational funds for the streetcar.

I attended Councilmember Ed Shadid's Transit Workshop on Monday. At the beginning of the meeting, the Councilman suggested that the streetcar may not even be built due to the fact that the City has no funding in place to pay for operation of the system. Later in the meeting, Councilman Shadid's hired bus consultant Jarrett Walker repeated the same misinformation, at which point Assistant City Manager Laura Johnson spoke up and set the record straight by saying that Oklahoma City's operational funding needs are allocated annually through the budget approval process, and since the streetcar system is not constructed yet and ready for operational funding, that item will not be included in the annual budget until the fiscal year in which the operational funding becomes necessary. It's not that the City doesn't have the funding to operate the system. It's that the City hasn't budgeted the operational funding yet because that's how the budget process works.

I then attended the Transit/Streetcar Subcommittee meeting on Wednesday. Near the end of the meeting, subcommittee member Jane Jenkins, who was also at the workshop on Monday and heard the same explanation, began raising the operational funding question again and suggested that the streetcar project shouldn't be built until operational funding is in place. Based on the way the budget process works, what she suggested would result in never building the streetcar because the City couldn't start construction until the operational funding was budgeted, but the City couldn't budget the operational funding until the streetcar was constructed and ready for operational funding. City Manager Jim Couch was also in attendance, and at that point he clearly decided it was time to put to rest all of the misinformation and nonsense being spread around about not being able to fund the operational costs of the streetcar. Mr. Couch stated in no uncertain terms that (1) he will have no problem allocating the necessary $3-4 million operational funding required for the streetcar out of the more than $400 million that is available for such expenses out of the annual budget and (2) he will not cut funding for the bus system in order to pay for the operational requirements of the streetcar, which is another false charge being propogated about the streetcar project along with accompanying accusations that the City will be sued for violating federal discriminatory laws if we build the streetcar system.

This all reminds me of the story of someone who doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand certain meteorological processes because they dislike the weather, and who walks outside on a very foggy morning and starts running up and down the street trying to convince his neighbors that the sky is falling.

We all sincerely care about developing a great transit system, both bus and rail. It does none of us any good if we allow the transit community to be spit into separate corners and pitted against ourselves based on misinformation and differing personal opinions about the various transit technologies.

Hutch. You may want to share this information with Steve, as he seemed to parrot Shadid's misinformation in his online chat today on NewsOK.

There is no misinformation; at this point, there has been no allocation of money by the Oklahoma City Council for operation of the streetcar system. The city council, which decides such matters, has not decided the source of such funding. I understand fully, and I've pointed out in the past, that the city manager intends to recommend it be funded from the general fund. But that has yet to be decided. Ditto for source of funding for the park and convention center.

There is no misinformation; at this point, there has been no allocation of money by the Oklahoma City Council for operation of the streetcar system. The city council, which decides such matters, has not decided the source of such funding. I understand fully, and I've pointed out in the past, that the city manager intends to recommend it be funded from the general fund. But that has yet to be decided. Ditto for source of funding for the park and convention center.

And as of now the city council has no way to fund it as they don't pass future budgets. They pass them one year at a time. The police are also not funded for 2017 Or the firemen that get payed from the general fund

I realize this is a very strong advocacy group in this thread. But I won't report what isn't true. The city council has made NO policy decision, has had NO presentation, on even the idea of using the general fund or any other funding source for a new streetcar system. The city council has for decades had a policy on how it funds public safety and other departments. This question isn't unique to the streetcar system - it's true for several of the MAPS 3 projects. Add it all together, as I've been told by several sources, and we're looking at a potential hit of up to $20 million a year from the general fund for the new venues. Can the city handle that expansion in spending during good years? Can it handle it during down years? I've not heard this discussion.

So basically it's here say on what Couch may or may not have said...

Now, Steve, wouldn't it be true that once no more MAPS taxes are run and downtown has more of a work force presence as well as residential status, that a more plentiful annual budget be available for all these O&M ventures whether it be streetcar, central park, etc.? If not, where do you see these monies being drawn from...besides the aforementioned advertising or what not?

No, it's not. It's not a secret that Couch hopes to hit the general fund for operation and maintenance of the streetcar system. But it's not his call. And he has not presented this plan - to my knowledge - to the city council yet.

I see, I see. Check out my post above again, as I edited it for more questions. Thank ya sir!

I realize this is a very strong advocacy group in this thread. But I won't report what isn't true. The city council has made NO policy decision, has had NO presentation, on even the idea of using the general fund or any other funding source for a new streetcar system. The city council has for decades had a policy on how it funds public safety and other departments. This question isn't unique to the streetcar system - it's true for several of the MAPS 3 projects. Add it all together, as I've been told by several sources, and we're looking at a potential hit of up to $20 million a year from the general fund for the new venues. Can the city handle that expansion in spending during good years? Can it handle it during down years? I've not heard this discussion.

So the opposite isn't true, either, specifically Shadid's reckless suggestion that there is no source of funding.

No, it's not. It's not a secret that Couch hopes to hit the general fund for operation and maintenance of the streetcar system. But it's not his call. And he has not presented this plan - to my knowledge - to the city council yet.

You keep using the word "hit" like it's some kind of bank robbery. Smacks of editorializing. You also sidestepped the point made by BoulderSooner.

Surely the Council considered operational costs when they put together the MAPS initiatives.

Couch doesn't seem concerned that this "hit" is that big of a deal.

OKCisOKforMe, you've got a good question and proposition. But consider also that public safety costs are going up pretty dramatically with such growth.
Soonerguru, hit is not my way of editorializing. I did some of the most critical coverage of Ernest Istook's successful attempts to kill rail based transit with MAPS 1, and did quite a bit of coverage about rail systems being done in other cities over the years. So any effort of portraying me as anti-rail won't fly with those who really know me and my reporting. But I'm not going to give a false portrayal of funding as being secured for any of the MAPS 3 projects operations when that's not true.
As for potential funding sources, I'm surprised there has no council discussion about setting up a transit assessment district to capture property tax increases that might be generated by a rail system.
The council never publicly deliberated operational costs prior to the passage of MAPS 3. I am not making this up. This was very different from MAPS 1.
I realize that saying something that is not appreciated by the advocates is welcoming an attack. I've been down this road before... see ya.

But what is missing from your explanation of the situation and Ed's is the fact that the Subcommittee is aggressively and publicly working on the problem as appointed members by Council.

It's a pseudo controversy as there is the innuendo and portrayal (certainly not explaining the existence of the Subcommittee and its concern about O&M at the Symposium), that this issue is going on unnoticed and without an attempt at resolution.

The explanation above is accurate but leaving out the MAJOR fact that the concerns are being attempted to be addressed. Undoubtedly, the solutions presented can only be enacted by Council and the authority will indeed rest with them.

Dr. Shadid seems to be ignoring some fundamentals of political science.

The older and wealthier an individual is the more likely they are to vote. Since the tax revolts of the 1970's and 1980's the American electorate has been generally unwilling to pass additional taxes.

To really make public transit happen in OKC, there has to be a major focus on getting affluent whites to ride a public transit system. The focus has to be on affluent whites because they are the most likely voters, and therefore the demographic most important to engaging in the public transportation discussion. If affluent white voters buy into the system, then the O&M revenue source will be less of a struggle (whether general funds, user fees, a special BID along the route, commercial sources, or combination) because the politically influential have buy in. This analysis holds true both from a pluralist framework or elite theory framework.

That leaves three major problems: 1) how to engage affluent whites to ride public transit rather than drive their cars--trains for some reason (possibly European travel?) don't have the stigma of buses, 2) how do you maximize access--you put it where there are the largest concentrations of work/entertainment so that suburbanites and outer-area city dwellers may still have a reason to ride, and 3) how do you maximize ridership--you have no fare.

The attempt to refocus towards buses, while laudable, would undercut public transit in this city. Large numbers of affluent whites are HIGHLY UNLIKELY IN THE EXTREME to patronize a bus service no matter how dapper and gussied up. If the regularly voting public won't ride it, then public transit will continue to shuffle along in the same dilapidated way because no serious expansion of funds will ever be allocated to extended bus service.

I'm proud to have worked on Doc's campaign, but this shortsightedness is distressing. I won't be walking door to door for him again.

So basically it's here say on what Couch may or may not have said...

Now, Steve, wouldn't it be true that once no more MAPS taxes are run and downtown has more of a work force presence as well as residential status, that a more plentiful annual budget be available for all these O&M ventures whether it be streetcar, central park, etc.? If not, where do you see these monies being drawn from...besides the aforementioned advertising or what not?

what couch said was recorded at the meeting and will be online sooner rather than later i would think ...

he also said that he thinks the additional dollars for all the maps projects will be about 5 mil a year net increase

No, it's not. It's not a secret that Couch hopes to hit the general fund for operation and maintenance of the streetcar system. But it's not his call. And he has not presented this plan - to my knowledge - to the city council yet.

true it is not his call per say but he (his staff) present the budget to the city council for approval ... and to my knowledge what he presents usually gets passed with minor adjustments and those adjustments often come at a later time

what couch said was recorded at the meeting and will be online sooner rather than later i would think ...

he also said that he thinks the additional dollars for all the maps projects will be about 5 mil a year net increase

Well that's two pluses in my book!

Dr. Shadid seems to be ignoring some fundamentals of political science.

The older and wealthier an individual is the more likely they are to vote. Since the tax revolts of the 1970's and 1980's the American electorate has been generally unwilling to pass additional taxes.

To really make public transit happen in OKC, there has to be a major focus on getting affluent whites to ride a public transit system. The focus has to be on affluent whites because they are the most likely voters, and therefore the demographic most important to engaging in the public transportation discussion. If affluent white voters buy into the system, then the O&M revenue source will be less of a struggle (whether general funds, user fees, a special BID along the route, commercial sources, or combination) because the politically influential have buy in. This analysis holds true both from a pluralist framework or elite theory framework.

That leaves three major problems: 1) how to engage affluent whites to ride public transit rather than drive their cars--trains for some reason (possibly European travel?) don't have the stigma of buses, 2) how do you maximize access--you put it where there are the largest concentrations of work/entertainment so that suburbanites and outer-area city dwellers may still have a reason to ride, and 3) how do you maximize ridership--you have no fare.

The attempt to refocus towards buses, while laudable, would undercut public transit in this city. Large numbers of affluent whites are HIGHLY UNLIKELY IN THE EXTREME to patronize a bus service no matter how dapper and gussied up. If the regularly voting public won't ride it, then public transit will continue to shuffle along in the same dilapidated way because no serious expansion of funds will ever be allocated to extended bus service.

I'm proud to have worked on Doc's campaign, but this shortsightedness is distressing. I won't be walking door to door for him again.

This is a dead-on analysis. I think it's especially true in OKC. In cities on the East and West Coast, or even upper midwest, bus ridership is more ingrained in the culture. It is not that way in OKC.

what couch said was recorded at the meeting and will be online sooner rather than later i would think ...

Yes, I did record the meeting as usual and when the audio is re-mastered, we will put it online. Since there is so much interest in the O&M discussion, I will have Jon section that part out as a separate recording including Couch's clarifications.

...Surely the Council considered operational costs when they put together the MAPS initiatives....
Maybe. Maybe not. The powers-that-be have, at least publicly, have not always answered those questions directly...something they will deal with AFTER the vote passes etc. Historically, MAPS dollars are nothing than a funding method to get something built. The maintenance of the project seems to be an afterthought at best (if at all).

So what happened at today's council meeting? Seems there was a bit of a hubbub.

See for yourself:

SIRE Public Access (http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2083&doctype=AGENDA)

01:31:24 to 01:48:55

3 Posts on OKCtalk and I become politically notorious! Aren't yall jealous!?!

For the record, i am not involved with any city committees, a city employee, or even a regular attendee at civic functions. I vote regularly, study political science, and work on the occasional political campaign. I am not a close associate of anyone on any of the MAPS committees.

If someone agrees with my OPINION (which is just, like, my opinion, man) than I would agree they are also a moderately informed viewer of the electorate and constituent politics.

I don't disagree with Dr. Shadid's point about ensuring that those benefiting most from the street car (downtown, midtown, bricktown, and environs) should be on the hook for a little more of the O&M. But the streetcar will benefit anyone who patronizes downtown, including janitors, waitresses, and suburbanites.

WHAT I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, IS HAVING AN ELECTION (YOU KNOW, DEMOCRATIC ACTION) AND THEN RE-APPROPRIATING FUNDS TO SOMETHING THE VOTERS DIDN'T VOTE ON.

Urban Renewal prepares eminent domain action against owners of Santa Fe train depot in Oklahoma City | News OK (http://newsok.com/urban-renewal-prepares-eminent-domain-action-against-owners-of-santa-fe-train-depot-in-oklahoma-city/article/3761735?custom_click=rss)

Dr. Shadid seems to be ignoring some fundamentals of political science.

The older and wealthier an individual is the more likely they are to vote. Since the tax revolts of the 1970's and 1980's the American electorate has been generally unwilling to pass additional taxes.

To really make public transit happen in OKC, there has to be a major focus on getting affluent whites to ride a public transit system. The focus has to be on affluent whites because they are the most likely voters, and therefore the demographic most important to engaging in the public transportation discussion. If affluent white voters buy into the system, then the O&M revenue source will be less of a struggle (whether general funds, user fees, a special BID along the route, commercial sources, or combination) because the politically influential have buy in. This analysis holds true both from a pluralist framework or elite theory framework.

That leaves three major problems: 1) how to engage affluent whites to ride public transit rather than drive their cars--trains for some reason (possibly European travel?) don't have the stigma of buses, 2) how do you maximize access--you put it where there are the largest concentrations of work/entertainment so that suburbanites and outer-area city dwellers may still have a reason to ride, and 3) how do you maximize ridership--you have no fare.

The attempt to refocus towards buses, while laudable, would undercut public transit in this city. Large numbers of affluent whites are HIGHLY UNLIKELY IN THE EXTREME to patronize a bus service no matter how dapper and gussied up. If the regularly voting public won't ride it, then public transit will continue to shuffle along in the same dilapidated way because no serious expansion of funds will ever be allocated to extended bus service.

I'm proud to have worked on Doc's campaign, but this shortsightedness is distressing. I won't be walking door to door for him again.

Or is it that you appeal to the entire community to support (through taxes, etc. ) this system for each of their own benefit? You are correct, free would encourage the greatest useage (but a very small fee would encourage responsibility). Though it is true that the more affluent participate more (regardless of their 'color'), it would be unwise to encourage just a part of the electorate. Even if thousands of affluent voters never once road the rail (or bus) it would still be a great benefit to them by keeping thousands of cars off the highways, and would encourage economic growth - thus subsidising their affluency. The concept that taxes don't already support the wealthy is rediculus. Roads, highways, streets - all created through tax. If you can afford a car you are supported, if you can't there is no convience to help you with your goal of becoming more affluent. Every group of society is helped when real accessibility is expanded. I think it is best to tie this concept in with roads as another aspect of transportation. Currently, it is limited - only those who can afford cars (motorcyles are not cheap either) are supported.

Urban Renewal prepares eminent domain action against owners of Santa Fe train depot in Oklahoma City | News OK (http://newsok.com/urban-renewal-prepares-eminent-domain-action-against-owners-of-santa-fe-train-depot-in-oklahoma-city/article/3761735?custom_click=rss)

Who did not see this coming? When has any project in or near bricktown not brought out the greed in property owners, sometimes delaying growth for decades. But, the property is probably worth more (now) than they were offered, it will be interesting to see how this 'plays out' - and for how long......

23.5 M is definitely too high. But 2.5 M is a low ball.


I want this to happen just as much as anyone, but I understand Brewer is sitting on a gold mine - why should it be his fault that he scooped up the Depot back in the 90s for the cheap? Can anyone really blame him for not accepting 2.5M?

Who did not see this coming? When has any project in or near bricktown not brought out the greed in property owners, sometimes delaying growth for decades. But, the property is probably worth more (now) than they were offered, it will be interesting to see how this 'plays out' - and for how long......

if the property goes to condemnation and ED then a 3 person (maybe judge) panel sets the price the city will pay .. and it is binding

$23.5 million is absurd. They will get more than $2.5 million but nowhere near that amount.

The Brewers have done little more than squat on that property for 20+ years. In fact, it has been poorly maintained (I took a bunch of photos a few years ago), used primarily as a parking lot for their gain and they recently put up some awful electronic bulletin boards.

Dr. Shadid is really reaching for straws. He is so far out there he might pull a muscle. It isn’t like OKC is the first city in America to implement a streetcar or even regional rail, but he seems to think that either we are or at least federal regulation is so impossible to abide by that the only logical solution is to scrap the streetcar and invest only in a bus system (which I presume would also prohibit BRT since it would go into white areas at a higher frequency than the non-white areas).

If Dr. Shadid is really this concerned and the streetcar can't exist without major upgrades to the bus system then I would be in favor of just discontinuing the bus system all together, closing down COPTA, and creatng a new regional agency to rebuild mass transit in central Oklahoma from the ground up. I suspect however that Dr. Shadid might not be around after the next election anyhow.

Heck, why can't the city just say they are re-implementing an existing service that was discontinued - after all, OKC had streetcars long before they had a bus.

$23.5 million is absurd. They will get more than $2.5 million but nowhere near that amount.

The Brewers have done little more than squat on that property for 20+ years. In fact, it has been poorly maintained (I took a bunch of photos a few years ago), used primarily as a parking lot for their gain and they recently put up some awful electronic bulletin boards.

i would bet that it ends up around 5 mil

Or is it that you appeal to the entire community to support (through taxes, etc. ) this system for each of their own benefit? You are correct, free would encourage the greatest useage (but a very small fee would encourage responsibility). Though it is true that the more affluent participate more (regardless of their 'color'), it would be unwise to encourage just a part of the electorate. Even if thousands of affluent voters never once road the rail (or bus) it would still be a great benefit to them by keeping thousands of cars off the highways, and would encourage economic growth - thus subsidising their affluency. The concept that taxes don't already support the wealthy is rediculus. Roads, highways, streets - all created through tax. If you can afford a car you are supported, if you can't there is no convience to help you with your goal of becoming more affluent. Every group of society is helped when real accessibility is expanded. I think it is best to tie this concept in with roads as another aspect of transportation. Currently, it is limited - only those who can afford cars (motorcyles are not cheap either) are supported.


I wasn't arguing for social justice. I was arguing that if someone is an advocate of public transit, they should support the street car because it increases the likelihood of public support for future transit initiatives of all forms.

I also don't believe anywhere in my post i argued that we don't subsidize the affluent. I pretty much said we have to subsidize the affluent to achieve goals for average and low income citizens. This would be because i use elite theory to evaluate our political system at the municipal, state, and federal level. If you would like to discuss this in further detail, please pm me and I will send you some fascinating readings you may be interested in. Wikipedia also has a pretty nice article on "elite theory" if you want a quick overview and introduction the current thinkers.

ROFLMAO - Brent Brewer is out of his mind. I would acutally be embarrased to say $23.5 million. They bought it for $375,000 in 1998 so the bidding starts there. I suspect by the time they are done in court they will be wishing they took the $2.5 million offer.

He even had a Latrell Sprewell moment.


“We've been down here for so long, we just want it to be fair,” Brewer said. “This property is important to our family. These kinds of investments are starting to make a return for us, and at the end of the day, we want to be able to support our children.”



I guess $2.5 million doesn't go as far in OKC as I thought it did.

The county assessor has the market value at just under $1.5 million.

A fair price seems to be between $3 - $5 million. Asking $23 million is extortion.

Growing Debate Over Transit, MAPS 3 Streetcar System | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2013/03/06/growing-debate-over-transit-maps-3-streetcar-system/)

The county assessor has the market value at just under $1.5 million.

A fair price seems to be between $3 - $5 million. Asking $23 million is extortion.

It would be interesting to see what Brent Brewer would think if the Assessor had it valued at $23.5M and he was paying property taxes at that assessed rate.

Don't think that would happen.

It would be interesting to see what Brent Brewer would think if the Assessor had it valued at $23.5M and he was paying property taxes at that assessed rate.

Don't think that would happen.

Wouldn't that be an interesting trap. Let's say I'm trying to sell my house and set the price at $200K. County sees that and spot-adjusts my assessed value. After all, I'm there everyday and so I must have a better idea of it's value than the county, eh? Shock. Horror. Indignation. Shame over making a bed I wouldn't want to lay in.

It would be interesting to see what Brent Brewer would think if the Assessor had it valued at $23.5M and he was paying property taxes at that assessed rate.

Don't think that would happen.

Not only that but they should ask him how long he thought it was worth $23.5 million and then have him cough up back taxes.

I wouldn't read into this article to much. This just has to go through a process and i'm sure both parties will come to
a fair price thats in each others best interests.

I wouldn't read into this article to much. This just has to go through a process and i'm sure both parties will come to
a fair price thats in each others best interests.

or the city will just move forward with the ED process and a panel will set the fair price

I wouldn't read into this article to much. This just has to go through a process and i'm sure both parties will come to
a fair price thats in each others best interests.

To the tune of $2.5 million per kid.

Folks, if you really care about these issues, this is EXTREMELY important stuff here. Litterally a transcendental opportunity to fundamentally change how things are done. Enough with the pseudo controversy's for now. lol Let's get the inaction on rail issues out of ODOT.

WANTING A BROADER RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM BEYOND MAPS 3 STREETCAR?

Read this from Rep Charlie Joyner.

These initiatives are happening now and needs your help!

1. HB2180 would remove the Rails Division from ODOT and create the Oklahoma Railways Commission whose Commissioners, appointed by the Governor, would be rail experienced and knowledgeable. This act will not grow government but instead makes government smarter and more focused. Oklahoma is seventh in the nation in total tonnage, equaling 882-million tons per year shipped by rail into, from, or through Oklahoma and projections are for it to increase by 88% by 2030. There is also a huge interest in developing and expanding passenger and commuter rail in Oklahoma. I feel it is vital Oklahoma takes these steps looking to its future economic development and recognizing the success of the Space and Aeronautics Commission who was similarly established.

2. HB 2187 establishes the ‘right of first refusal’ on the sale of any rail property owned by the Department of Transportation and being leased or operated by a private entity. This bill if enacted would protect railroad companies that invest millions of dollars in the lines they presently lease, as well as their shippers who have chosen to locate along those lines; shippers who count on the railroads as part of their supply chain and their distribution network. SB584 is a similar bill that I am supporting as the House Author. This is the correct thing to do when dealing with companies doing business with the state of Oklahoma.

As the previous House Vice-Chair of Transportation and presently the House Chair of the Transportation Committee, I have been very involved on issues concerning our Rail industry in Oklahoma. This email is to advise you of the two railroad bills I have authored with Speaker T.W. Shannon as co-author and Senator Mike Schultz as the Senate Principal Author.

Attached are HB2187 and HB2180 for your review. I ask for your support in my effort at strengthening the rail industry in Oklahoma. Please contact your senators, representatives, and Governor immediately, asking for interest and passage of these bills as they are moving through the Legislative process.

Thank you for your consideration,
Charlie Joyner
Representative Charlie Joyner
Oklahoma House of Representatives
District 95

CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE AND TELL THEM TO PASS THESE TWO BILLS!

I was just about to post that. They seem like very good bills and I hope they pass!!!!!

Do you have copies of the bills?

I don't, but you can go search them here: WebForm1 (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/WebApplication2/WebForm1.aspx)

Enter either of these bills: HB2187 or HB2180

Folks, if you really care about these issues, this is EXTREMELY important stuff here. Litterally a transcendental opportunity to fundamentally change how things are done. Enough with the pseudo controversy's for now. lol Let's get the inaction on rail issues out of ODOT.

WANTING A BROADER RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM BEYOND MAPS 3 STREETCAR?

Read this from Rep Charlie Joyner.

These initiatives are happening now and needs your help!

1. HB2180 would remove the Rails Division from ODOT and create the Oklahoma Railways Commission whose Commissioners, appointed by the Governor, would be rail experienced and knowledgeable. This act will not grow government but instead makes government smarter and more focused. Oklahoma is seventh in the nation in total tonnage, equaling 882-million tons per year shipped by rail into, from, or through Oklahoma and projections are for it to increase by 88% by 2030. There is also a huge interest in developing and expanding passenger and commuter rail in Oklahoma. I feel it is vital Oklahoma takes these steps looking to its future economic development and recognizing the success of the Space and Aeronautics Commission who was similarly established.

2. HB 2187 establishes the ‘right of first refusal’ on the sale of any rail property owned by the Department of Transportation and being leased or operated by a private entity. This bill if enacted would protect railroad companies that invest millions of dollars in the lines they presently lease, as well as their shippers who have chosen to locate along those lines; shippers who count on the railroads as part of their supply chain and their distribution network. SB584 is a similar bill that I am supporting as the House Author. This is the correct thing to do when dealing with companies doing business with the state of Oklahoma.

As the previous House Vice-Chair of Transportation and presently the House Chair of the Transportation Committee, I have been very involved on issues concerning our Rail industry in Oklahoma. This email is to advise you of the two railroad bills I have authored with Speaker T.W. Shannon as co-author and Senator Mike Schultz as the Senate Principal Author.

Attached are HB2187 and HB2180 for your review. I ask for your support in my effort at strengthening the rail industry in Oklahoma. Please contact your senators, representatives, and Governor immediately, asking for interest and passage of these bills as they are moving through the Legislative process.

Thank you for your consideration,
Charlie Joyner
Representative Charlie Joyner
Oklahoma House of Representatives
District 95

CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE AND TELL THEM TO PASS THESE TWO BILLS!

Doesn't look like this legislation will change the status quo. If Joyner is looking to repeat the "success" of the Space and Aeronautics Commission, that shouldn't be a problem.

More layers of government.

Joyner's resume looks like that of an uneducated Gary Marrs. Plus, his political talking points are old and tired. Federal government=bad, unless it pertains to keeping Tinker open. Please.

"Success" is definitely in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure what your referring to. It is my understanding that small airports in small towns and cities have flourished as part of the Space and Aeronautics Commission.

ODOT has done very little, if anything, to maximize the interest of the state as it relates to trains. In my direct experience, protecting corridors for anything other than freight is so far removed from their highway building priorities, a bit of independence couldn't even begin to make that worse.

"Success" is definitely in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure what your referring to. It is my understanding that small airports in small towns and cities have flourished as part of the Space and Aeronautics Commission.

ODOT has done very little, if anything, to maximize the interest of the state as it relates to trains. In my direct experience, protecting corridors for anything other than freight is so far removed from their highway building priorities, a bit of independence couldn't even begin to make that worse.

I guess it goes to my point that Joyner has no idea what he's talking about. There is the Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission, and there is the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority. The OAC has been around for quite a while, and does good work, by all accounts. It still falls under the direction of Gary Ridley.

My guess is that this new agency will still be under Ridley.

The OSIDA is responsible for the money pit out in Burns Flat.

It all smells of a legislator trying to establish something to get appointments for some of his cronies.

Maybe it "smells" that way to you. I can assure you that there is a much deeper level of politics involved in these two bills. Rural cities and towns haven't been well represented by the state in negotiations with the major railroads. The "short line" railroads have been adversely affected through bad representation. There has been a rash of state owned rail property being sold to the major railroads without conditions allowing for future state use.

And of course locally, here in the OKC metro, major decisions such as the sale of the connection to Tinker and the NE line were made to Union Pacific with no oversight. Now we will have to buy it back at a premium.

And this isn't just Joyner. TW Shannon is helping spearhead trying to get this through.

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.


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'.

But if the answer is no, then yeah, I'd say there is room for improvement, shall we say, for increasing deliberation.

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.

The Sidewalks and Trails group specifically leveraged the resources of Neighborhood Alliance to see where each neighborhood would like to see sidewalks included. There was quite a lot of feedback coming in from all around the city. Good feedback.


Whether or not we need more feedback to actually improve the final outcome, I don't know. But I fail to see how following the template of the Central Park process and calling for that kind of discussion is grounds to be concerned about a councilor.

I know I'm looking forward to the opportunity to stand before my peers and voice my opinion about the project and how I feel it could be best carried forward. And I'm in that .01%. I have a pretty good idea of what constitutes a good transit system and what doesn't. I'll happily drop my .02 cents and take my seat as others do the same. It will be up to the Subcommittee and the City Council to take that feedback and decide if any modifications, however slight or major, are warranted.

Think of this like the stage where you've built your prototype. You've put a lot of thought and research into your product up to this point. But every company has to go through that painful phase of having that prototype picked apart. It is an essential part of refining anything. It doesn't mean major modifications are in store. It just means we are moving along in the process and it is time to vet it once and for all.

Is the council calling for something other than that?

Have you had a chance to reevaluate your position on this?

UP told me that construction would start on the streetcar route in early 2014. My question is, wouldn't that get delayed just like everything else with this talk of transitioning funds or what not?

Very telling that a diverging viewpoint of how to best serve public transit is quickly chased away from this thread....

I drove through the HSC area the other day...I just can't see a reasonable way to make the streetcar work to that district. Although it has a ton of large buildings, a large employment base, etc. it is not easily walkable. The sidewalks are torn apart in many areas, buildings are fronted by huge parking lots. Wide streets with fast moving traffic circle the district. I went by on a weekday and a Saturday.The weekday was fairly active, lots of cars and buses and a decent amount of pedestrian traffic (for the quality of the sidewalks and generally unappealing walk). The Saturday, however, was completely devoid of life. I was one of a handful of cars driving around, I saw one city bus. I got out and attempted to walk around but with nowhere to really go and being the only human being in the area, I turned around and walked back to my car.

Since the area is difficult to walk (Sure it CAN be walked, but it does not seem to encourage walking), the streetcar would need to make a loop through the entire district. You couldn't put a stop on the edge of the district and count on riders walking to the line. The limited hours of the district would also be, IMO, an unwise investment of tax dollars. This line would only be useful for several hours a day, during the week. After working hours the line would be serving little to no value, and on the weekends ridership would be very low no matter the time of day.

I think in future extensions the HSC is a natural candidate for future expansion because you already have a core system built, and you can connect the HSC line to the core line(s) and maximize ridership through connections.

The currently proposed route is not perfect by any means, I don't think anyone is going to claim that it is. It does however provide the best potential for creating maximum ridership and benefiting the most number of users. You will connect a variety of uses together which will create round-the-clock demand.

You will have the potential ridership of:

CBD Traffic (6a-6p weekday)
Bricktown Traffic (5p-1a with weekend peak)
Convention Center Traffic (Cox and MAPS3) (8a-5p)
Auto Alley Traffic (7a-9p)
Central Park and Myriad Gardens Traffic (10a-8p)
CHK Arena/Cox Arena Traffic (On Operating Days 6p-1a)
St. Anthony Midtown (6a-6p weekday)

Those points are along the route connecting the neighborhoods of Deep Deuce, Bricktown (housing/hotels), and Midtown.

For a starter system this provides the opportunity for the greatest number and variety of potential users over the greatest number and variety of potential time uses.

Also included is the maximizing of potential development. There is an amazing balance between developed lots that would bring life to the line, and a number of empty lots that could build along the line. For subsequent extensions of the line, you can provide niche routes to further button together the transit system, such as the HSC or 23rd street.

That is my opinion of the subject.

thanks for the post i agree with most of what you said .. i will say that midtown traffic will go quite a bit past 6 .. with the growing housing and entertainment options it should be busy at least as late as AA and maybe as late as bricktown

Any kind of line on its own to HSC will be hard to justify for week and day-round ridership. I would argue that pushing through to at least MLK and 23rd at the same time makes a lot more sense and would be more viable.

nm

thanks for the post i agree with most of what you said .. i will say that midtown traffic will go quite a bit past 6 .. with the growing housing and entertainment options it should be busy at least as late as AA and maybe as late as bricktown

I meant St Anthony midtown, not the district itself. I agree midtown will itself be more a 24 hr district connected to one of the focal points i listed.