Quick translation: Okie Dave, Ed Shadid's public spokesman, is saying that people in OKC did not support the streetcar initiative, despite its prominent presence on the MAPS ballot and also despite MAPS 3's prominent public support. He's saying tat it cannot be proven that the streetcar initiative was popular with voters. He also implies that Councilmen (including, presumably, Shadid) should do what they think is "best," regardless of vote intent.

We"re not this dumb, Dave. We know what you're really saying is 'Screw the voters; Ed knows best."

For the record, I don't ever want to hear you or Ed make further pedantic statements about "citizen involvement" or "public deliberation." Because it is obvious you value neither.

I had a large reply typed up last night. I went ahead and condensed it down.

The transit crowd is all for an improved bus system. This does not have to be an either/or thing. Shadid's Anti-MAPS diatribe is only dividing the Transit crowd into two camps: rail or tire. When really most pro-transit people are for both. The MAPS3 vote was clearly streetcar. The ads and information put out said Streetcar, the Mayor said Streetcar, etc. MAPS3 money needs to fulfill that promise. If Shadid can get a package together for an improved bus system as well, I'm all for it and I'm sure the transit people such as myself will be behind him the whole way.

But I can't get behind Shadid on this one, because he is turning this into an anti-MAPS discussion. The goodwill of the voters is at stake.

I'm late to this discussion, but I have to ask the question - is there some notion here that the last iteration of MAPS was anything but a populist appeal (everything but the kitchen sink) to satisfy a political desire for a convention center?

I can't fathom anyone would rationally suggest that there was any enthusiastic public sentiment for a new convention center. There was plenty of MAPS pre-polling that told the city leaders a convention center would not pass on its own, so they lumped in some general, more broadly appealing notions to draw in the votes, tossed in the requisite ballot language to escape any form of accountability, and it worked. Pretty simple city politics.

I hope that notion doesn't make me a "MAPS Hater" or whatever; heck, I liked the idea of a new convention center, but realized myself it would likely not draw broad support even at the time, and also knew (and asserted here quite plainly) that the MAPS ballot language was effectively a blank check to the city, and the city's "intent" could be changed at will. If things aren't being implemented as they were sold, color me not surprised in the least.

I have attended many city council meetings and heard many discussions about MAPS involving politicians, consultants, city staff, the Chamber, etc. While I would agree that many of these people see the Convention Center as the crown jewel of MAPS 3, I have only heard one person suggest the citizens should get anything other than what they voted for. I've heard several city councilors emphasize that that while they may have little interest in or enthusiasm for particular parts of the initiative, they will support all aspects to keep the MAPS brand strong. I also think they have a sense of obligation to the voters. And they're not wrong, IMO. If they don't make every effort to give the voters what they voted for, there may well not be another MAPS for the foreseeable future. Considering what MAPS has done for OKC, I think that would be a serious error. I'm a voter, and I campaigned hard for the last 2 initiatives. But if I can't trust the city to give me something close to what I think I voted for, I will not support it again, with my time or my vote.

The irony in some of David's statements is that so far, the MAPS 3 Transit portion is being designed and implemented "as sold" with no changes from the original intent promised. A great part of the "trust us" argument put forth by the city was the appointment of Citizen Oversight Board for each project and the overall program.


Ed has discounted our existence because he doesn't believe in the streetcar project. But we're here. I'm one of 10 people. And we're all committed to ensuring that the project is built as promised.


If Ed can find more funds (and there might be some in other parts of the overall MAPS 3 program), I'll bet you that the Transit Oversight Committee will invest the time to see those other transit improvements you describe are installed as well.


But if the overarching issue is the concern on the over all MAPS process by Ed and David, then I'd say that Ed is in a great position to influence how the next one is created. Presumably or at least potentially MAPS 4 and the Bond issue. Both would be coming up very, very soon in political sphere.


Right now, we have a responsibility to the voters to build the promised 5 - 6 mile modern streetcar system, buy and build Santa-Fe Station for our Intermodal Hub, and do other transit improvements as appropriate. Appropriate means using whatever money is left over to maximize the effectiveness of the connections to the streetcar system and hub and their further related infrastructure.


So far, we as a committee are successfully doing those things as promised.

There is much truth in the responses, I appreciate all the doses of reality. I think the discussion here is good. One thing that almost everyone here has in common is that they want to help improve the city. We all come to the table with different perspectives and biases. The key is to understand our own potential conflicts and feelings.

Some people say things that are just incorrect - maps has done many great things for OKC - a different process and funding of the campaign would choose a more well thought out set of projects....maybe next time :) It is what it is, I think most serious and caring citizens want what is truly best for the most - I think we will get there - we are on our way.

True. And the forum is a great way to have that sort of reality check on nearly most all civic issues.

Obviously you recognize that.

But hopefully and more importantly your friend Councilman Ed does as well.

His lack of recognition of how far we have come, how many thousands of volunteer hours have been spent to get here, and his "fire and brimstone" rhetoric, have amounted to a complete "slap in the face" of those who mostly agree with what he states ultimately should be accomplished; in terms of a better overall transit system.

I don't think anybody cares whether Ed takes the baton and marches as elected leader to better transit. But disrespecting the people who voted for MAPS and those who are now trying to implement it, doesn't ring as a salient political strategy to winning that larger goal of a comprehensive transit solution.

But I'm glad you recognize that. Maybe he'll listen to you.

I'm enjoying just reading the comments. I don't agree with everything being said but as Jeff just alluded to, that's a'okay. In fact, I take issue with presuming that the transit crowd is divided in a functional way. I would hope there is some variety of opinion in a group this size. And that's okay too. But to say we are divided and therefore will fail the larger mission, I think is just more fire and brimstone.

Like I've said many times, I can't wait to ride the streetcar. Regardless of how useful it will be. ;-)

I just had dinner in Midtown last night, which is probably our favorite place to eat since there are so many dining options. We drove over because our walking limit is maxed out at about 10th and Broadway at this time of year. There are new signs up in the parking lot behind 1492/Stella/Louie's that states the parking is for those restaurants only. Looking over at The Edge site I commented that parking in Midtown is going to be a little tight once it is built, with visitors, etc. And then I said, "But, if the streetcar were in place we could ride it over here for dinner and not have to worry about parking." What a concept! Obviously I don't think having dinner in Midtown is the reason for a streetcar, but every trip that people out of their cars is a victory for the city, and a means to change mindsets about the value of mass transit. It's one of many positives to a streetcar.

I hope you're right about no division in the transit crowd. Of course I am very pro-streetcar. It and the park were the reasons I campaigned and voted for MAPS 3. At that time I was nothing more than a citizen-voter, and I was quite sure that I was voting for a streetcar. As a person who lived car-less for 10 years and walked and rode the bus exclusively (no rail transit in Denver at that time), I am decidedly in favor of significant improvements in our bus system. I in no way see the two as mutually exclusive, but rather complementary. I think, as a city, having a combination of streetcar/commuter rail and improving the bus system will be two more things that not only improve our image as a city, but that improve quality of life for our citizens. It's going to be a lot of work to get it all done, but I see it as one of the next major challenges/opportunities we have as a city. And, the way to do it, I think (sorry to reiterate, but different people read different threads and few go back and read old threads), is to create a regional transit district with a dedicated funding source. THAT's what I think we need to put all of our collective energy towards, rather than arguing about issues that were determined by the voters several years ago.

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.Sitting at a traffic light today, I noticed the vehicle "wrapper" on a city bus that made a left turn in front of me. It was a rolling advertisement for Kickapoo Casino featuring virtual bus riders celebrating their big wins at the slots and whatever as if they were riding the bus. It occured to me that a similar wrapper, featuring "upscale" images, such as that New Yorker Magazine Icon with the top hat, the Monopoly Man, J. Paul Getty, J.P. Morgan, some Downton Abby characters, and Bill Gates (all smiling through the windows) might cause people to overcome their snobbery and rethink not choosing to ride the bus.

As they say: "'Tis better to make one goofy suggestion than to curse the darkness." =)

I think you need clean new buses, great wrappers is a great idea, wifi, AND, most importantly, you need the buses to go where these new riders want to go. Where they absolutely don't want to go is the bus transfer center, at all. Ever. I have a friend who lives downtown, is very pro-downtown. She is terrified of walking past the bus transfer center, much less stopping there. I think that's a little extreme, but it's an attitude that at least has to be considered. And it has nothing to do with wasting 15 minutes waiting for your bus driver to get his/her coffee. It's all additive. People with good jobs need punctuality in transit, and they need speed and efficiency. If my job begins at 8, I don't want to have to get up at 6 to get to work, planning a 15 minute stop at the transfer center. That will only work in places where you're going to sit on the freeway for two hours regardless, so you might as well be sitting in a bus with wi-fi. Buses need to have comparable travel times to cars.

People with good jobs need punctuality in transit, and they need speed and efficiency. If my job begins at 8, I don't want to have to get up at 6 to get to work, planning a 15 minute stop at the transfer center. That will only work in places where you're going to sit on the freeway for two hours regardless, so you might as well be sitting in a bus with wi-fi. Buses need to have comparable travel times to cars.

That's why I'm not a bus rider. To be at my desk at 8, I would have to get on a bus at 7:05. If I drive, I leave at 7:40. If I had a more frequent option, I would be a convert. I've said this on here before, but I don't need the commute times to be equal, but when riding a bus costs me an extra 5 hours a week - and doesn't save me any money (I have a paid off, fuel efficient car and employer paid parker) - I'll keep driving.

One of the things this discussion has done for me: I never noticed the people waiting in the elements for the bus, they were invisible to me, now I see them every day. Think - if you were them what would you want?

A couple/three years ago, I asked for a bus stop halfway between the two "out of the way/extra walking distance" bus stops (northbound, #5) and my request was granted. Like within a week or two. Only one of the three had a bench, but the one to the east at least had a privacy fence behind which I could shield myself from the blistering summer sun while waiting for ten to fifteen minutes after the walk so I could be to work on time. It was about equidistant from the stop with a bench, but the bench had no wind or shade protection. Unfortunately, the guys who went out to plant the "Bus Stop" sign, put it at the end of the wrong/other old oil field access road that I mentioned in my request. But that was OK. Dress for the weather. Enclosed bus stops are expensive. At least the "alternatively placed" sign was adjacent to a big electrical/telephone pole providing shelter from the elements unlike the spot that would have saved me some steps, so I guess it was a better spot.

btw: there is no feeling that quite compares with actually seeing the bus arrive sort of on time whether it is hot or cold outside and you need to be at work at a certain time. (or even to respond to a "jury summons" that demands your presence downtown. The southbound bus around 6:00 am is a story unto itself. Not to mention the Saga of The Transfer Station. =)

One of the things this discussion has done for me: I never noticed the people waiting in the elements for the bus, they were invisible to me, now I see them every day. Think - if you were them what would you want?

if they are an oklahoma city voter i would want what was promised to me before the maps 3 vote

From Facebook-
While passage of any legislation is never certain until it is signed, we have been told that the Oklahoma Railways Commission (HB2180) and Right of First Refusal (HB2187) bills are in good shape. We still need to call our state senators in order to ensure passage of this legislation.

Less certain is HB1657 - Public-Private Partnership (P3) Design Build bill. We need to make certain House members know the importance of ‘cleaning up state statute’ to include railroad, airports, sewers, highways, etc… Presently design-build is not authorized. Such would be needed for example if a passenger rail carrier/ corporation were to come into the state to upgrade and operate the Oklahoma City – Sapulpa rail line.

One of the things this discussion has done for me: I never noticed the people waiting in the elements for the bus, they were invisible to me, now I see them every day. Think - if you were them what would you want?

We are in complete agreement on this Dave. This is due to a profit driven entity exercising control over randomly placed billboards - I mean bus stops - rather than COTPA controlling location and leasing ad space as nearly every other transit system in the country does. The MAPS Streetcar is not the reason for the grossly substandard excuses COTPA permits to pass for bus stops in OKC.

This is one of those issues we can correct without resorting to reducing or eliminating funding for a complimentary mode of transit. COTPA needs to end the ridiculous arrangement with Taylor Outdoor Advertising (or whatever they call themselves) and place bus stops in logical locations. Then work with city staff and COTPA to identify a funding source for immediately starting to improve bus stops in the locations most needed.

Why not focus our energy on this method of providing better service to the people you mention? I think you would have more allies than you know what to do with.

That's why I'm not a bus rider. To be at my desk at 8, I would have to get on a bus at 7:05. If I drive, I leave at 7:40. If I had a more frequent option, I would be a convert. I've said this on here before, but I don't need the commute times to be equal, but when riding a bus costs me an extra 5 hours a week - and doesn't save me any money (I have a paid off, fuel efficient car and employer paid parker) - I'll keep driving.

Has your workplace banned telecommuting like Yahoo? =) (just kiddng)

From Facebook-
While passage of any legislation is never certain until it is signed, we have been told that the Oklahoma Railways Commission (HB2180) and Right of First Refusal (HB2187) bills are in good shape. We still need to call our state senators in order to ensure passage of this legislation.

Less certain is HB1657 - Public-Private Partnership (P3) Design Build bill. We need to make certain House members know the importance of ‘cleaning up state statute’ to include railroad, airports, sewers, highways, etc… Presently design-build is not authorized. Such would be needed for example if a passenger rail carrier/ corporation were to come into the state to upgrade and operate the Oklahoma City – Sapulpa rail line.

"Facebook": there you have it. =)

Please be advised not to feel enough empathy for a fellow human being to offer a ride if you see them sitting or standing at a bus stop. They may feel patronized and/or may be a criminal fugitive. The same rule applies to unauthorized carpooling a.k.a. hitchhiking.

I should clarify. Easter Flyer Alliance posted that to the Friends for a Better Boulevard Page which subsequently got posted to the OKC Streetcar page which subsequently I have now posted here. LOL

And if you want to "Like" the OKC Streetcar Page, you can do it here-

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Oklahoma-City-Streetcar/203749819767937

My mother rides her bike to the grocery store at home, but when we lived in NH, she used to walk to the store when she visited. She usually got stopped two or three times every time she went shopping to see if she wanted a ride. She told me she was only tempted to accept once - when she got the offer of a ride from a handsome young man in a red Mercedes. Haha!

Read Exhibit A of the MAPS 3 City Council resolution approved on September 29, 2009:

MAPS 3 Resolution (http://www.okc.gov/maps3/resolution.pdf)

"The intended MAPS 3 projects include the following:

2. A new rail-based streetcar system..."

Obviously, buses are not rail-based. No room for misinterpretation on that one.
True, BUT the Intent Resolution has NO legal bearing on the Ballot or the Ordinance. The Ordinance is what the City is bound by. The Courts ruled that the City can change their intent at will (as they did with the MAPS for Kids Use Tax money that went to fund the Bass Pro deal. Council Members and Mayors come and go.

True, BUT the Intent Resolution has NO legal bearing on the Ballot or the Ordinance. The Ordinance is what the City is bound by. The Courts ruled that the City can change their intent at will.

Everyone knows that Larry. Rather, city council members also know that, if they veer too far away from what was promised, they risk never passing another MAPS resolution. I know that would make you happy, but I'm not sure the majority of people on the City Council would agree with you. It's smart politics, for those who think MAPS' projects have done great things for Oklahoma City.

So has the streetcar been nixed yet?

Everyone knows that Larry. Rather, city council members also know that, if they veer too far away from what was promised, they risk never passing another MAPS resolution. I know that would make you happy, but I'm not sure the majority of people on the City Council would agree with you. It's smart politics, for those who think MAPS' projects have done great things for Oklahoma City.


Seems to me that if the Council wanted to go a different direction this project would be ideal for doing so. I say ideal because they could claim they were sold a bill of B.S. information such as all the money that would flow in from the feds to help build and expand the streetcar system; the manipulation of the survey that was conducted online prior to the selection of the maps projects (Urban admitted to the manipulation by his group in this forum); having to tear up downtown streets again after going through project 180 for so long; the length of time it would take to build out a streetcar system that would still not service the majority of the populace ($130 million MAPS dollars every seven years at six miles per maps election starting April 1, 2017 would give OKC 42 more miles of track in 2066 for a total of 48 miles and that is only if there was absolutely ZERO INFLATION in the next 53 years. Of course the railies will continue to tell us that the feds will come through and bestow millions and millions of dollars on OKC for rail development if we just vote for streetcars in the next MAPS election and there is definately a chance for that because Oklahoma holds favor with the democratic party because we are the top red state in the Union.

I realize, having written the above, that most will think I am a streetcar hater, but that is not the case. I thought the idea of having a core circulator would be a good idea because the city could build two multi-story parking garages on the U-haul parking lot and have the streetcar tracks run between them for easy distribution plus the added benefit of having parking for both bricktown, the peake and cox center after 6 p.m., a win-win situation. I am now thinking improving the bus system would be of more benefit. My apologies to any railies I have offended. As a side note I would like to ask how a committee can make a site selection for transit or a convention center with out knowing what that site would cost. Seems to me that the smart thing to do would be to get a commitment from the owners of possible sites as to what they would legally commit to what they would sell it for. Makes more sense to me that this would be done rather than the process that was used.

So has the streetcar been nixed yet?

Yep...rumor has it that the streetcar is being replaced with a fleet of modern hybrid minivans. :cool:

3496

...and with the money left over, we'll get a 600-foot high flying Jesus statue in Core to Shore. :cool:

3497

...or was that a 100-foot high flying Elvis ride in Core to Shore...I can't remember which. :cool:

3499


Just trying to lighten things up a little...no offense intended at anyone.

I'm just a casual follower of this, so I have to ask. How much of this proposed "tinkering" of the streetcar funds for more buses is just Ed Shadid mumbling in the background with everything else proceeding as planned, or is there serious momentum to do this?

I ask because in reviewing the city council video from last week, it seemed the other councilors just kind of blew him off when he went off on yet another tangent. Yet on here it sounds like several posters are genuinely concerned that the streetcar proposal will not be followed through. I would really hate it if this were the case and I would have to reconsider any further support of future MAP's programs, let alone any sort of tax initiative.

I'm just a casual follower of this, so I have to ask. How much of this proposed "tinkering" of the streetcar funds for more buses is just Ed Shadid mumbling in the background with everything else proceeding as planned, or is there serious momentum to do this?

I ask because in reviewing the city council video from last week, it seemed the other councilors just kind of blew him off when he went off on yet another tangent. Yet on here it sounds like several posters are genuinely concerned that the streetcar proposal will not be followed through. I would really hate it if this were the case and I would have to reconsider any further support of future MAP's programs, let alone any sort of tax initiative.


Yes there are rumors going around that they want to do away with the streetcar and add some trolley buses and routes that will service the core every 15 minutes.

Love the rumor jokes ^^^^!

Adaniel - IMO the streetcar funds will stay put, but Shadid is bringing up several technical, operational and financial questions and issues that deserve answers and resolution. Does he go too far sometimes? Maybe, but its a worthwhile dialogue and I appreciate that over the alternative.

I think the results of the bus transit service study and how the city council reacts, with dollars, will be very telling as to how deep thier committment is to mass transit in OKC. We simply will not have a good or great streetcar system without more buses, higher frequency, hundreds more shelters, a regional focus and a new service provider with experience in cities with mass transit.
It takes money to make money, right?

Everybody loves the guard dog until it turns on them and bites them. Shadid could seriously obstruct the streetcar project and that would be too bad.

Well, the City Council already approved the timeline and the streetcar is on it so I'm not too worried about it.

Everybody loves the guard dog until it turns on them and bites them. Shadid could seriously obstruct the streetcar project and that would be too bad.

1st- Comparing Shadid to a "guard dog" would be too noble a compliment.

2nd- Obstructionism requires a few more friends and some political give and take. We'll see.

the manipulation of the survey that was conducted online prior to the selection of the maps projects (Urban admitted to the manipulation by his group in this forum)

I did? How noble of me me to admit to such a manipulation! Did you go to Shadid's forum? He went on and on about that meaningless online survey and how it "could have been" manipulated and that it probably had been.

I'm pretty sure that approaching council directly about doing a substantive and integral part of the 2005 transit System Plan had more effect than a unscientific online poll. A System Plan developed out of an authoritative regional transit study.

I would be more facetious but undoubtedly the comments would be taken out of context and read before council or something. Lol

I did? How noble of me me to admit to such a manipulation! Did you go to Shadid's forum? He went on and on about that meaningless online survey and how it "could have been" manipulated and that it probably had been.

I'm pretty sure that approaching council directly about doing a substantive and integral part of the 2005 transit System Plan had more effect than a unscientific online poll. A System Plan developed out of an authoritative regional transit study.

I would be more facetious but undoubtedly the comments would be taken out of context and read before council or something. Lol


Hey UP...did you also manipulate the ACOG Encompass 2035 Survey...LOL!


ACOG 2009 Encompass 2035 Transportation Survey (http://www.acogok.org/Newsroom/Downloads09/Encompass2035finalsurveyresults.pdf)


Question 10: In the future, which of the following ways would you prefer to travel in Central Oklahoma? (choose three*)

Response Total Response Percent
Rail 1146 63 %
Car 1074 59 %
Bus 619 34 %
Bike 512 28 %
Walk 277 15 %
Carpool 199 11 %
Other 67 4 %

Question 11: What are your top three priorities for the transportation system within Central Oklahoma? (choose three*)

Response Total Response Percent
Develop passenger rail 1003 56 %
Maintain roads and bridges 891 50 %
Improve public bus system 619 35 %
Add more bicycle paths/bike lanes 582 33 %
Add more sidewalks/walking paths 469 26 %
Expand interstate rail (Amtrak) 451 25 %
Improve interchanges on interstates 241 14 %
Add lanes to interstates 233 13 %
Improve traffic signals/intersections 227 13 %
Increase transportation services
for elderly and disabled 226 13 %
Add lanes to roads 206 12 %

Seems to me that if the Council wanted to go a different direction this project would be ideal for doing so. I say ideal because they could claim they were sold a bill of B.S. information such as all the money that would flow in from the feds to help build and expand the streetcar system; the manipulation of the survey that was conducted online prior to the selection of the maps projects (Urban admitted to the manipulation by his group in this forum); having to tear up downtown streets again after going through project 180 for so long; the length of time it would take to build out a streetcar system that would still not service the majority of the populace ($130 million MAPS dollars every seven years at six miles per maps election starting April 1, 2017 would give OKC 42 more miles of track in 2066 for a total of 48 miles and that is only if there was absolutely ZERO INFLATION in the next 53 years. Of course the railies will continue to tell us that the feds will come through and bestow millions and millions of dollars on OKC for rail development if we just vote for streetcars in the next MAPS election and there is definately a chance for that because Oklahoma holds favor with the democratic party because we are the top red state in the Union.

I realize, having written the above, that most will think I am a streetcar hater, but that is not the case. I thought the idea of having a core circulator would be a good idea because the city could build two multi-story parking garages on the U-haul parking lot and have the streetcar tracks run between them for easy distribution plus the added benefit of having parking for both bricktown, the peake and cox center after 6 p.m., a win-win situation. I am now thinking improving the bus system would be of more benefit. My apologies to any railies I have offended. As a side note I would like to ask how a committee can make a site selection for transit or a convention center with out knowing what that site would cost. Seems to me that the smart thing to do would be to get a commitment from the owners of possible sites as to what they would legally commit to what they would sell it for. Makes more sense to me that this would be done rather than the process that was used.


This makes more sense than ever - we could have had a few landowners bidding against each other to sell their site, rather than the chosen site owners holding their property hostage.

1st- Comparing Shadid to a "guard dog" would be too noble a compliment.

2nd- Obstructionism requires a few more friends and some political give and take. We'll see.

Six months ago, 90% of the folks on this board thought the sun rose and set in Shadid's behiney.....I've been pessimistic about him from the begining, thinking he had an alterior plan.

Now if someone turns up with concrete shoes at the bottom of Hefner.......it's probably me.

wrong forum for post

Six months ago, 90% of the folks on this board thought the sun rose and set in Shadid's behiney.....I've been pessimistic about him from the begining, thinking he had an alterior plan.


Captains floating with the tide sometimes think they are steering the ship. I think it fair to say that a lot of Shadid's support (at least on this site) is not because he was leading, but because he was walking in front and going the same way we were going. Then he strayed from the path and found out he wasn't being followed.

Captains floating with the tide sometimes think they are steering the ship. I think it fair to say that a lot of Shadid's support (at least on this site) is not because he was leading, but because he was walking in front and going the same way we were going. Then he strayed from the path and found out he wasn't being followed.

Him questioning the dedicated zoo tax set me off against him..... totally going against what the people had voted for.

Him questioning the dedicated zoo tax set me off against him..... totally going against what the people had voted for.

I hated Shadid before it became cool LOL!

Seriously though, I had my concerns for Shadid for some time now. I remember when a consulting company was presenting a survey of residents to the city council. Instead of looking at the results, Mr. Shadid instead expressed bewilderment that the city even used this company, even suggesting that the same results could be achieved by a robocall. So this city is supposed to decide on where to spend hundreds of millions of dollars off a robocall that 95% of people would hang up on? That's when I kind of figured, as good as his intentions are, he does not understand the intricacies of municipal government.

Everyone knows that Larry. Rather, city council members also know that, if they veer too far away from what was promised, they risk never passing another MAPS resolution. I know that would make you happy, but I'm not sure the majority of people on the City Council would agree with you. It's smart politics, for those who think MAPS' projects have done great things for Oklahoma City.
Seems that Hutch didn't, that's why I brought it up. Also remember that under the original MAPS we were also supposed to get rail-based streetcars but according to one article I read, the rail had been delivered and they were ready to start installation when the Federal funding got pulled...and we ended up with the rubber tired trolleys....essentially a bus. That brings me back to my original question: based on the language in the ordinance, is there anything legally stopping the Council from changing their stated intent and moving that money to buses or anything else? Other than voters holding them responsible (which they haven't so far), the answer is apperntly"No".

The rest is off topic so if someone wants to ignore it, feel free...
And while it is true that I voted "No" on every round of MAPS, it isn't for the reasons you think. Some things are a responsibility of government and some aren't. With MAPS, we have never been given the opportunity (as required by State law), to vote on "like kind" projects or propositions. It has always been an illegal all-or-nothing ballot. MAPS was a mixed bag of projects. MAPS for Kids was inappropriate because the City has nothing to do with the school district. While I was in favor of most of the MAPS 3 projects, I was against the continued spin, half-truths and in some cases out-right lies during the campaign. Add to that the once again illegal log-rolling ballot (even though the Mayors office said they wouldn't do it and the Mayor himself said that "each of these projects must stand on their own" (separate propositions).

Then there is the implementation factor. We are seeing the mistakes of MAPS all over again with MAPS 3 (Trials, Sidewalks, Senior Aquatic Centers). These are the "minor" projects. Is there any doubt that when it comes to the more expensive ones (Streetcars & Convention Center), that the likelihood of over-promise and under-deliver is going to happen? You even said as much when it comes to the Convention Center.

Seems that Hutch didn't, that's why I brought it up.

Of course I knew that. My post wasn't a legal opinion on the ballot language...it was just a reference to the resolution adopted by Council committing their support to specific projects. From a purely legal perspective, the current Council could do whatever they want with the $777 million dollars. They could even build a 600-foot high Jesus statue downtown if the zoning ordinances allowed for it. But that's not political reality and it won't happen unless a majority on Council are willing to risk destroying the public trust and the future of MAPS.

Saw this interesting slide show of what Denver is doing to re-purpose their Union Station as a multi-modal hub:

Denver's Union Station makeover taking shape: slideshow - Denver Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2013/03/15/union-station.html?s=image_gallery)

Its a really cool project. I'm pretty excited about our long term plans. They have a built in technicality do to poor choices in the past. Unless it has been changed, their having to build a "stub end" hub. Ours will be a "pull through" which will operate more efficiently.

Who the hell sheetrocks over a grand wrought-iron staircase (slides 8 & 12)? What was wrong with people?

Who the hell sheetrocks over a grand wrought-iron staircase (slides 8 & 12)? What was wrong with people?

Man, you actually made me go in and view that pic. I thought it was gonna be a pic of new sheetrock, lol.

These are the semantic games I was referring to. Everyone damn well knows what the intent of the MAPS Streetcar/Transit section of the MAPS3 ballot was. ….
Maybe you mis-spoke, but no where on the Ballot or the Ordinance was there a "Streetcar/Transit section" (or any of the other projects). Both the Ballot & Ordinance (what we were really voting on) essentially provided

1) A starting and ending date for the tax

2) The amount of the sales tax


Of course I knew that. My post wasn't a legal opinion on the ballot language...it was just a reference to the resolution adopted by Council committing their support to specific projects.
My apologies. It read as if you were under the impression that they can't change their collective mind when you wrote:


Read Exhibit A of the MAPS 3 City Council resolution approved on September 29, 2009:

MAPS 3 Resolution (http://www.okc.gov/maps3/resolution.pdf)

"The intended MAPS 3 projects include the following:

2. A new rail-based streetcar system..."

Obviously, buses are not rail-based. No room for misinterpretation on that one.

And as you are probably aware, they changed from rail-based before. What is stopping them from doing it again? Don't we have 2 new Council members since MAPS 3 passed? We have a runoff election on April 4, and there is a distinct possibility that at least 1, if not 2 more new Council members will be on the horseshoe. Thats 4 out of 9 members that have changed. What are the positions of the candidates in this upcoming election concerning MAPS 3 and Streetcars in particular? Will we have another Council election before Streetcar implementation happens?


From a purely legal perspective, the current Council could do whatever they want with the $777 million dollars. They could even build a 600-foot high Jesus statue downtown if the zoning ordinances allowed for it. But that's not political reality and it won't happen unless a majority on Council are willing to risk destroying the public trust and the future of MAPS.

And as history has shown us, they can and do change their intent. They have run the risk of destroying the public trust and the future of MAPS with the track record of MAPS & MAPS 2. Remember that MAPS 3 passed by the same low percentage as the original. Much lower than MAPS 2 and the NBA/Ford Center vote. We have seen the same risk taking with MAPS 3 from the Ballot, campaign on to the present.

I wish you & those on the committee well with keeping the Streetcar/Transit portion within budget, as promised and on time. Unfortunately, history is not on your side.

Man, you actually made me go in and view that pic. I thought it was gonna be a pic of new sheetrock, lol.

Sorry, it was some dolts years ago that did it. It is now being uncovered as part of the renovation.

Sorry, it was some dolts years ago that did it. It is now being uncovered as part of the renovation.

I wondered the same thing when you said so. Pretty cool renovations going on. I ended up going on to Google Maps and looking at where I think the train route to the airport will be. You can see it a lot easier coming from the airport, but it disappears into the grid once you get a little closer to I-70.

Maybe you mis-spoke, but no where on the Ballot or the Ordinance was there a "Streetcar/Transit section" (or any of the other projects). Both the Ballot & Ordinance (what we were really voting on) essentially provided

1) A starting and ending date for the tax

2) The amount of the sales tax


My apologies. It read as if you were under the impression that they can't change their collective mind when you wrote:



And as you are probably aware, they changed from rail-based before. What is stopping them from doing it again? Don't we have 2 new Council members since MAPS 3 passed? We have a runoff election on April 4, and there is a distinct possibility that at least 1, if not 2 more new Council members will be on the horseshoe. Thats 4 out of 9 members that have changed. What are the positions of the candidates in this upcoming election concerning MAPS 3 and Streetcars in particular? Will we have another Council election before Streetcar implementation happens?



And as history has shown us, they can and do change their intent. They have run the risk of destroying the public trust and the future of MAPS with the track record of MAPS & MAPS 2. Remember that MAPS 3 passed by the same low percentage as the original. Much lower than MAPS 2 and the NBA/Ford Center vote. We have seen the same risk taking with MAPS 3 from the Ballot, campaign on to the present.

I wish you & those on the committee well with keeping the Streetcar/Transit portion within budget, as promised and on time. Unfortunately, history is not on your side.

The rail in maps 1 was predicated on federal money. Maps 3 rail was not

This article is "spot on". It is my understanding that ODOT is scrambling. They want to retain that power over the Rail Division.

Kudos SW Aviator on the hard work on this! Obviously, if articles such as these are starting to emerge, it isn't just rail advocates taking note of our "Highway Department".

Hey, Porter - Bills have potential for real passenger rail service - Columns - Capitolist - Urban Tulsa Weekly (http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A57899)

The rail in maps 1 was predicated on federal money. Maps 3 rail was not
True for the most part. But you are missing the larger picture. Just as they changed from rail to rubber tired trolleys, they can do so again. Not saying they will, but the possibility definitely is out there. The precedent has been set. And although the Mayor stated they didn't put anything into MAPS 3 that we couldn't complete ourselves, there was always plans for Federal and other government monies for expansion (and possibly to make up for any funding shortfall/price increases that we have seen with other MAPS 3 projects). The $10 million earmarked for the Intermodal transit Hub isn't going to come close to the $128 million that is now projected for it to eventually cost (if high speed/commuter rail etc comes to pass). That other money is definitely dependent on outside funding sources. I am not trying to start another debate on the $128 million cost, but will the $10 million earmarked cover the improvements needed for the existing uses of the intermodal hub (Amtrack/Streetcars/Commercial & City Buses etc)? Then there is the current standoff between what the City is offering ($2.5 million) for the Santa Fe station and what the owners are asking ($23.5 million, more than double than the $10 million earmarked). All of that said, with the price increases with other MAPS 3 projects, how solid are the average cost per mile estimates originally put out there for the 5 to 6 miles of Streetcar? Is there enough contingency funds to make up for it???

Steve continues to diminish and brush over the key issues people here have with Shadid's candidacy and its relationship to the MAPS Streetcar initiative. In fact, he seems to outright dis the folks here with this comment from yesterday's chat:


No. We do not know if Ed Shadid is running for mayor. We know he is looking at it - which can be said about at least three or four other people. It's been my observation that the streetcar advocates at OKC Talk do not like to see their beliefs or assumptions challenged or questioned - which is certainly what Shadid has done.

Steve, this isn't about beliefs or assumptions, it's about votes. People voted for this project. Shadid has discussed shifting the money from this project elsewhere for his pet projects. Why do you continue to misrepresent the angst Streetcar supporters have with Shadid? Is it not clear to you that shifting money from a MAPS project that people have already voted for is going to piss a lot of people off? There's no reason to obfuscate or overcomplicate the matter.

It's very cut and dried.

You owe people here a mea culpa -- or at least fair reporting. Quit trying to act like this is about sensitive people who can't handle having their assumptions challenged. That is not only inaccurate -- it's a bit of a cheap shot.

Steve said last week during the chat that he was hearing reports the city is looking at proceeding with reconstruction of EK Gaylord between the new boulevard and Main street and that it will remain six lanes. Since the long term plan is to have the Santa Fe train station as the multimodal hub for all of downtown, do you think Project 180 will finally work with the MAPs 3 streetcar subcommittee to cut costs on the area in front of the station?

Honestly, no. There does not appear to be any actual cooperation and coordination between P180, PW, and the Streetcar engineers - I may be wrong though.

More concerning to me is PW's insistence on keeping EK Gaylord a 6 lane monstrosity that will continue to be a barrier between the CBD, transit hub, and Bricktown.

I understand trying to tone down EK, but honestly that road is a nightmare @ 5pm and I cannot imagine trying to get out of my parking garage (which is already a risky venture with the 6 lanes) if it was two lanes each direction.

I am not sure what a good solution to dilluting this barrier, would be.

We need a EKG thread, and that Walnut thread... :D Or downtown streets in general thread... lol

Nicely stated Sid. (Wish I could have made it down to OU yesterday.)

I sincerely hope the brakes will be put on any changes to Gaylord until we have a final route determination and transit hub plan for Santa Fe station. Leaving six lanes of automobile traffic for people to cross into the CBD from Santa Fe Station would be disastrous for transit. I am not a conspiratorial person, but is this part of the thought process at PW? They do not seem to want to be bothered by incorporating modes of transportation other than automobiles into OKC's infrastructure.

Leaving six lanes of automobile traffic for people to cross into the CBD from Santa Fe Station would be disastrous for transit. I am not a conspiratorial person, but is this part of the thought process at PW? They do not seem to want to be bothered by incorporating modes of transportation other than automobiles into OKC's infrastructure.

Ummm, it's not a conspiracy. They are doing it right out in the open and have city codes written to give cars the priority in decision making process.