... It smacks of behind the scenes meddling and manipulation of Steve and the DOK to me. And I am not a paranoid person.


21st century version of an old saw:

Just because you are not paranoid doesn't mean some stakeholder somewhere isn't trying to derail your streetcar.

My issue is that there shouldn't even be an article on a "fight". We have old commentary published in the DOK, written by someone who has not been to OKC nor who has any known connections to OKC and who clearly doesn't understand MAPS. Then Earnest Istook, who has not been a player in local politics for years and whose only memorable act as a Senator was to meddle in our transit plans is suddenly given a stage. Why now? Why not before the MAPS vote? O'Toole wrote his article in 2006 and then a letter to the editor shows up in the DOK last week? Again, why now? What made him write a letter this week and not years ago? Istook was alive when the MAPS vote took place and was silent. The streetcar passed and none of this should be relevant. By giving these people any voice, which neither deserves by virtue of the fact that they don't live here and have never previously spoken a word about our situation, you give them authenticity and authority they do not deserve. It smacks of behind the scenes meddling and manipulation of Steve and the DOK to me. I am not a paranoid person, but this timing all seems rather staged to me.

Steve didn't give them a voice, KTOK did. Did you see Steve's Twitter comments when KTOK first aired it? He appeared stunned that it was suddenly coming up. Therefore he wrote a column about it, and (rightly, I think) assumed that there was some reason that Istook suddenly showed up.

Steve didn't give them a voice, KTOK did. Did you see Steve's Twitter comments when KTOK first aired it? He appeared stunned that it was suddenly coming up. Therefore he wrote a column about it, and (rightly, I think) assumed that there was some reason that Istook suddenly showed up.

steve also wrote that the city was bold in putting out street car information (as part of the MAPS 3 streetcar public process) how is that bold??

steve also wrote that the city was bold in putting out street car information (as part of the MAPS 3 streetcar public process) how is that bold??

It is pretty bold. I've never seen the City do anything that proactive and creative before this.

It is pretty bold. I've never seen the City do anything that proactive and creative before this.

funny the word bold is now also changed in the column to "interesting"

the city also has never built a streetcar system before .. (well not in the last 60 years)

and it is not like this video is out of thin air ... it is the exact presentation that was given to the public at the May public street car meeting ..

and of course the MAPS 3 office is going to put the Maps 3 projects in a positive light .. why would they do otherwise ..

Steve didn't give them a voice, KTOK did. Did you see Steve's Twitter comments when KTOK first aired it? He appeared stunned that it was suddenly coming up. Therefore he wrote a column about it, and (rightly, I think) assumed that there was some reason that Istook suddenly showed up.

First, I don't follow twitter. Second, perhaps I was too veiled in my commentary. I wasn't blaming Steve. I think the media is being played. O'Toole was writing anti-streetcar polemics long before we even thought about voting for a streetcar. He's had 4+ years to write a guest comment in the DOK. What piqued his interest just now? Why did KTOK decide it was a good time to have Ernest Istook interview O'Toole? And then, why did that merit an article by Steve showing both sides of an issue that should have been (WAS) decided years ago? It's curious that this happened right before a meeting to unveil a preliminary route that even people around the country who follow streetcars probably aren't aware of.

No one who voted for MAPS 3 was told: "This is what you're voting for, but the City Council reserves the right to spend that money on anything they want." But clearly, someone is thinking that's an option and they see the streetcar as an easy target. Oh, I know. We voted for a pot of money, not specific items on the ballot. Someone will bring that up. But, any city council member with ethics understands that the public voted on the projects they were told were part of MAPS 3 and that to do something else with that money is a violation of the public trust. We should have been discussing the merits of a streetcar during the campaign, not now.

Even though I'm not a traditional journalist, I'm becoming educated on how various people, factions and interests can attempt to use me and the site to further agendas.

There is this strange trade-off between access to people and information and presenting that information in a way that allows continued access.

It's a funny business and it's easy to be manipulated.


I've been told more than once: "I'll make sure to come to you first with any of our news if ____________".


Things are way, way better with the traditional media because so many others now have a voice. I can't even imagine the back-room dealings before the Internet.

Steve didn't give them a voice, KTOK did. Did you see Steve's Twitter comments when KTOK first aired it? He appeared stunned that it was suddenly coming up. Therefore he wrote a column about it, and (rightly, I think) assumed that there was some reason that Istook suddenly showed up.

You are correct. However, while Steve didn't give the guy a voice, his newspaper did.

Let's not lose sight of the real story here. It is not Steve. The real story is that he is saying Shadid wants to scrap the streetcar project. While not surprising, that's news.

sausage, legislation and news .... three things where most folks are able to handle the finished product far easier than seeing it made.

First, I don't follow twitter. Second, perhaps I was too veiled in my commentary. I wasn't blaming Steve. I think the media is being played. O'Toole was writing anti-streetcar polemics long before we even thought about voting for a streetcar. He's had 4+ years to write a guest comment in the DOK. What piqued his interest just now? Why did KTOK decide it was a good time to have Ernest Istook interview O'Toole? And then, why did that merit an article by Steve showing both sides of an issue that should have been (WAS) decided years ago? No one who voted for MAPS 3 was told: "This is what you're voting for, but the City Council reserves the right to spend that money on anything they want." But clearly, someone is thinking that's an option and they see the streetcar as an easy target.

Oh, I know. We voted for a pot of money, not specific items on the ballot. Someone will bring that up. But, any city council member with ethics understands that the public voted on the projects they were told were part of MAPS 3 and that to do something else with that money is a violation of the public trust. We should have been discussing the merits of a streetcar during the campaign, not now.

In reading your post it seemed apparent that you feel a conspiracy is now being waged against the street car. In a previous post you stated you are not a paranoid person, yet when anyone starts questioning the streetcar merits you and Urban both come across as being somewhat paranoid. You bring up the ethics of council members, yet post in the newspaper comment section as Jill, regular citizen, without divulging that you are a member of the streetcar subcommittee.

The merits of the streetcar were not vetted during the campaign because hardly anyone in OKC knew enough about streetcars to start the vetting process. I feel that it is never too late to start the process. Did the council know enough about streetcars to make an intelligent decision about placing streetcars on the ballot? Probably not and that might be the reason some are having second thoughts, so I can see why you would not want it discussed further. You state that people that do not live here should not have a voice in the discussion, yet people in this forum that are pro streetcar do not live here and I have never seen you call them out.

I originally supported the distributor system that was promoted for the streetcar during the campaign, however, when the route headed north to service the EDGE my support began to diminish. That was a very positive move for the Edge as it will greatly improve their marketing. Did anyone on the committee receive compensation for that favor to your knowledge. Public transportation is needed by many in OKC. It is unfortunate they will not be served.

That is not what he said at all. I'm sure that is what you wanted it to say and that's why you're intentionally repeating it inaccurately.




Show me one piece of evidence from that article and these two quotes that says that Shadid definitively wants to scrap the Streetcar project? Now, that may actually be true, but if it is, it wasn't revealed in this article...meaning that isn't actually new news.

OK, I'll give you that. But where do you suppose Steve got the idea to write that? Do you think that's just idle speculation on Steve's part?

In reading your post it seemed apparent that you feel a conspiracy is now being waged against the street car. In a previous post you stated you are not a paranoid person, yet when anyone starts questioning the streetcar merits you and Urban both come across as being somewhat paranoid. You bring up the ethics of council members, yet post in the newspaper comment section as Jill, regular citizen, without divulging that you are a member of the streetcar subcommittee.

The merits of the streetcar were not vetted during the campaign because hardly anyone in OKC knew enough about streetcars to start the vetting process. I feel that it is never too late to start the process. Did the council know enough about streetcars to make an intelligent decision about placing streetcars on the ballot? Probably not and that might be the reason some are having second thoughts, so I can see why you would not want it discussed further. You state that people that do not live here should not have a voice in the discussion, yet people in this forum that are pro streetcar do not live here and I have never seen you call them out.

I originally supported the distributor system that was promoted for the streetcar during the campaign, however, when the route headed north to service the EDGE my support began to diminish. That was a very positive move for the Edge as it will greatly improve their marketing. Did anyone on the committee receive compensation for that favor to your knowledge. Public transportation is needed by many in OKC. It is unfortunate they will not be served.

Why will they not be served? I don't understand this argument. The streetcar was never promoted as a panacea for public transit. It is, however, an impressive starter system. It would seem logical that current city leaders and transit advocates could build on the streetcar support to improve bus service as well, but I don't see anyone leading constructive dialog in this area. The dialog I do see is, "The streetcar can't do everything we need for transit so it should be scrapped."

To me, scrapping the streetcar would send a terrible message to the public about the city's commitment to funding public transportation, when the public has already voted for the project and it's already funded by MAPS. This would be entirely counterproductive in broadening public support for the bus system or other future transit enhancements.

Perhaps, but isn't that different?

Look, I've said before, I can't stand the drama surrounding this project. I wish Ed and Jeff et al would just hug it out.

So for me, it is bad enough without haven't to 'reach' or speculate. I appreciate that Steve has a job to do and maybe dissecting this all is inevitable but if you are pro-streetcar, I frankly don't see this controversy (accurate or not) as being helpful.

Ergo, I'm not sure why so many people that are pro-streetcar continue to dive into the topic and in your case, try to draw it out more. It's probably a lack of emotional attachment on my part to fail to see the allure. I'll admit that.

I understand you are somewhat emotionally detached. But I don't see why it would not be relevant to find out the councliman's position on the issue, particularly when a journalist discusses it in print. At that point, it's not just people chattering. Surely Steve has some basis for his comment, and it is entirely reasonable for people who support this project (even marginally) to know the facts. This is a fair and reasonable question to ask at this point, right?

If people are saying the streetcar should not be built, when it was passed by a majority of the voters, then I don't think it's paranoia to suggest there's a conspiracy against it. There is.

And popsy, I am a voter as well as a member of the streetcar subcommittee. I was not a member when I voted for it and I have the same expectations as other voters. If you think I should identify myself in my comments then I will in the future, but I am also a citizen and voter.

I originally supported the distributor system that was promoted for the streetcar during the campaign, however, when the route headed north to service the EDGE my support began to diminish. That was a very positive move for the Edge as it will greatly improve their marketing. Did anyone on the committee receive compensation for that favor to your knowledge. Public transportation is needed by many in OKC. It is unfortunate they will not be served.

your support starting going away because the system might get to 13th and dewey??

if we want to expand the system .. (and classen looks like a great direction to expand) why would we not want the system to be as far north and west into midtown as possible??

Don't like the streetcar? Think it is too expensive? Think the funds should go to general transit instead? Here's a novel idea. Put it to a head to head vote.

Call it the OKC MAPs3 Reconfirmation Ballot. Have Folks choose A or B.

A. Kill the streetcar and use those millions for general public transit, with or without reinstating rubber wheel trolley cars.
B. Reduce the size of the Convention Center (by an equal dollar amount to killing the streetcar) and apply those funds to general public transit, with or without reinstating rubber wheel trolley cars.

Just ask the people to vote on which one they want, and live with the ding dang vote.


Now, this is merely the view of an outsider looking in, but I suspect the should we have a streetcar group would get real quiet real fast if moving that ballot out to the people was the actual choice on the table before the council.

Betts, being a subcommittee member you have a strong vested interest and I feel people reading your opinion deserve to know that when you share your view.

Don't like the streetcar? Think it is too expensive? Think the funds should go to general transit instead? Here's a novel idea. Put it to a head to head vote.

Call it the OKC MAPs3 Reconfirmation Ballot. Have Folks choose A or B.

A. Kill the streetcar and use those millions for general public transit, with or without reinstating rubber wheel trolley cars.
B. Reduce the size of the Convention Center (by an equal dollar amount to killing the streetcar) and apply those funds to general public transit, with or without reinstating rubber wheel trolley cars.

Just ask the people to vote on which one they want, and live with the ding dang vote.


Now, this is merely the view of an outsider looking in, but I suspect the should we have a streetcar group would get real quiet real fast if moving that ballot out to the people was the actual choice on the table before the council.

I don't see why we should have to do this though. We already voted for it. Why the hell should we have to do so again?

Don't like the streetcar? Think it is too expensive? Think the funds should go to general transit instead? Here's a novel idea. Put it to a head to head vote.

Call it the OKC MAPs3 Reconfirmation Ballot. Have Folks choose A or B.

A. Kill the streetcar and use those millions for general public transit, with or without reinstating rubber wheel trolley cars.
B. Reduce the size of the Convention Center (by an equal dollar amount to killing the streetcar) and apply those funds to general public transit, with or without reinstating rubber wheel trolley cars.

Just ask the people to vote on which one they want, and live with the ding dang vote.


Now, this is merely the view of an outsider looking in, but I suspect the should we have a streetcar group would get real quiet real fast if moving that ballot out to the people was the actual choice on the table before the council.


can we have the same vote .. with don't like transit .. use all the money from the current bus system to give extra money to the police and fire ..

of course not ..

we voted on MAPS 3 we should build every project in the best way possible ..

To claim that Steve is biased FOR the streetcar is absurd, and it is a lot more accurate to say he is against, but only by virtue of not being for it. The thing is that Steve himself, as I take it, is fairly skeptical on the implementation of the entire MAPS program and the benefit of it all. When one faction claims a project will result in urban redevelopment, Steve probably does roll his eyes because he covers a lot of urban infill already happening with our horrific downtown roads the way they are. And compare the amount of mixed-use development in the CBD to Deep Deuce and try and say that infrastructure is the only impetus.

However, there is still no way to argue that transit is the way only to develop TOD and that TOD is simply an elevated form of development. We've seen a lot of shoddy downtown projects revolve around parking, like the House of Bedlam. Streetcar will really help us with that issue in ways we can only imagine. Should it serve Deep Deuce, I imagine that where parcels were valuable enough to build 3-8 stories, the few remaining parcels would then be valuable enough to go much higher.

It's accurate to say that downtown OKC's redevelopment is going along just fine at the moment, just as it's accurate to say that streetcar will result in a higher form of development. One side may have underestimated the current trajectory of redevelopment just as the other side may underestimate the value of adding TOD to the picture. The important take-away is that combining both only results in a stronger belief that OKC really can be whatever city it wants, including "the next Dallas," or just "the New OKC."

I think at the end of the day, if we do this streetcar and do it right, we're going to be looking at a city that most closely resembles Denver. As of right now, all of our numerous development projects underway, and all of the massive construction sites downtown, would still be a blip on the radar in Denver because of the progressive infrastructure investments they have made.

We have this money, that's a done deal as it was already approved, thanks to the streetcar being the only big ticket item that the public actually supported. There is nothing better that we can invest it on right now.

Let me rephrase this another way. There has always been people that didn't want the streetcar to be built. Remember how many thousands of people who voted against MAPS3. Or didn't vote for it on any poll.

I'm simply somewhat worried that we are giving that faction a voice again. A voice that is not representative of the majority -- who voted IN FAVOR of the streetcar.

I see your point, but we cannot control what gets written in the newspaper. We cannot control who KTOK books on air for call-in shows, etc.

That is not what he said at all. I'm sure that is what you wanted it to say and that's why you're intentionally repeating it inaccurately.





Show me one piece of evidence from that article and these two quotes that says that Shadid definitively wants to scrap the Streetcar project? Now, that may actually be true, but if it is, it wasn't revealed in this article...meaning that isn't actually new news.

Sid, what exactly are you arguing? Is Ed for or against the streetcar? The reason it matters is because it looks like this will be a fight and that we will need the votes, and Ed could be in position to be the deciding vote.

Don't like the streetcar? Think it is too expensive? Think the funds should go to general transit instead? Here's a novel idea. Put it to a head to head vote.

Call it the OKC MAPs3 Reconfirmation Ballot. Have Folks choose A or B.

A. Kill the streetcar and use those millions for general public transit, with or without reinstating rubber wheel trolley cars.
B. Reduce the size of the Convention Center (by an equal dollar amount to killing the streetcar) and apply those funds to general public transit, with or without reinstating rubber wheel trolley cars.

Just ask the people to vote on which one they want, and live with the ding dang vote.


Now, this is merely the view of an outsider looking in, but I suspect the should we have a streetcar group would get real quiet real fast if moving that ballot out to the people was the actual choice on the table before the council.

I think this is a great idea, but expect there would be a very low turn out for it as people that desperately need public transportation do not tend to be aware of what the voting would be about in my opinion. A novel idea would be to send researchers to areas of poor concentration could have the vote explained to them and ask what they really need.

I originally supported the distributor system that was promoted for the streetcar during the campaign, however, when the route headed north to service the EDGE my support began to diminish. That was a very positive move for the Edge as it will greatly improve their marketing. Did anyone on the committee receive compensation for that favor to your knowledge. Public transportation is needed by many in OKC. It is unfortunate they will not be served.

I was probably the biggest supporter of 13th St. as it opens ridership up to Mesta Park and Heritage Hills, as well as offers the potential for park and ride to downtown events for people who live farther out. We had determined that we wanted to bring the streetcar to 13th long before the Edge was proposed. Regardless, your suggestion insults every citizen member of a subcommittee.

I think this is a great idea, but expect there would be a very low turn out for it as people that desperately need public transportation do not tend to be aware of what the voting would be about in my opinion. A novel idea would be to send researchers to areas of poor concentration could have the vote explained to them and ask what they really need.

should we also have a vote moving all transit funding city wide to police and fire .... because that vote would have a great chance of passing ..

both would be horrible ideas ..

Nope. Not one bit. I'm saying that Steve's article didn't reveal anything new.

So what is Ed's position on it?

Could it be the timing of this latest "uproar" was to coincide with the Ed Shadid for Mayor kickoff event that is popping up over on FB? The only bad press is no press after all.....

It is unfortunate that most of the news about the most favored MAPS 3 project is revolving around a couple of individuals and not the progress being made. Hopefully that will change after this week's subcommittee meeting though. Maybe the city will place some MAPS3 signs along the proposed route similar to the ones in the Union/Central Park area. That should generate some excitement as people start realizing where they can go on the streetcar once it is built.

And related to my first statement - anyone that attempts to divert MAPS3 funding from the projects that were presented to the voting public will never get my vote for mayor or any other office regardless of their other positive attributes.

I don't think this is going to be that big of an issue. Let's do the rundown of what we know. (For purposes of this post, I will capitalize "Streetcar" when referring to our specific plan and leave it lowercase when talking about them in general)

The last sort of public poll data we have comes from when the MAPS3 vote occurred, and it showed strong public support for the Streetcar. At the time the vote took place, details were very scarce and it is likely that few people in OKC had any sort of detailed knowledge about what it would entail, or what the benefits would be. Effectively the voters said "hey, a streetcar sounds cool".

The Streetcar has been fairly silent lately, with no final route announced (as far as I know anyway), but that is getting ready to change. In the interim, we have had a city councilman known for being a maverick who has made a few comments about getting better public transit from extra bus routes than we would get with a streetcar. Now, as we approach what is effectively the Streetcar program's "time in the sun" with big announcements and things like that, local media trots out a few old has-beens to stir up controversy.

Controversy sells papers. It gets people to listen to the radio. The media has done this since "Remember the Lusitania!" But the majority of voters, as far as we know, still support the Streetcar program. We have no reason to believe that anyone on the city council other than perhaps Ed Shadid have any desire to cancel funding. I don't want to demonize a guy who was the darling of OKCTalk this time last year for being willing to buck the system. I've never met him and never spoken to him, but from what I've seen he's only given hints that he would be opposed to implementing the plan, just a general "we could get more bang for our buck with something else" type statement.

There's a little bit of a "poor me" attitude from supporters of the Streetcar program. I think the Convention Center people have been portrayed as big bad businessmen who smoke cigars and plot the demise of the hippy public transit supporters who live in sustainable buildings and eat gluten-free organic soy. The OKC Streetcar is gonna get built. It's been funded. The city council is not gonna risk the massive public backlash that would come from cancelling a major part of MAPS3. It would kill their chances of re-election, it would hurt Mick Cornett's credibility, it would fatally wound the credibility of the MAPS brand. Nobody wants to do that. So they won't.

The Streetcar will be really cool. We don't have the population density needed in the downtown area to take full advantage of it. Shadid is right, you could serve more people with expanded bus routes. But this program isn't just about moving existing populations. It is about allowing for higher density construction. With the Streetcar I can park at Bass Pro Shop and then eat at Louie's in Midtown. Parking at any individual location becomes much less of an issue, because you can park anywhere along the line and still be a lazy fatso who doesn't have to walk very far. This means businesses can supply less parking (and in turn creating a higher density and thus easier to walk environment) and maintain the same access to customers. This increases land value and allows for taller buildings. We aren't going to turn into Manhattan overnight. But we will get more residential and commercial development along the Streetcar line, which will increase the number of riders. It's transportation for future populations moreso than existing ones.

Could it be the timing of this latest "uproar" was to coincide with the Ed Shadid for Mayor kickoff event that is popping up over on FB? The only bad press is no press after all.....


Ed Shadid for mayor? LOL.....thanks for the laugh.

Lol, why are you asking me? You've done that before. 1) I don't know. 2) If I did, I surely wouldn't speak for him on a public forum.

OK, I thought you knew and were being coy. LOL.

Ed Shadid for mayor? LOL.....thanks for the laugh.

Yep - dont wish to derail (ha - sorry) the thread but it is out there today. I think he has generally been a good influence on the Council but lately have been given reason to be concerned. I also support improving our bus system and would work with Ed to bring that about - but not by diverting funding from the MAPS Streetcar project. Hoyasooner spelled out some very good reasons the Streetcar will benefit OKC as a whole even if everyone doesn't get to ride it daily.

The MAPS Streetcar should be built as promised with an eye for expansion as part of an overall effort to improve public transportation in the OKC Metro. There will be development along the route - this has been proven in every city that has made the investment in improved public transit. I hope this rift between what should be mutually supporting ideas will end soon. I also want to see those MAPS3 Streetcar signs in windows along Broadway or wherever the route goes and at potential stops on the route soon.

Perhaps all Ed is trying to do here is call attention to the woeful bus system.

He's asking some good questions, such as could the MAPS 3 Streetcar funds be better utilized.

You might not always agree with the man but I really like that he challenges people and issues, generates a lot of discussion, and thereby engages a lot of people.

I hope that is the case Pete. We shall see as the Streetcar project gets closer to beginning construction. I appreciate challenges and discussion of the status quo but think they can be done in a more positive manner sometimes.

Perhaps all Ed is trying to do here is call attention to the woeful bus system.

He's asking some good questions, such as could the MAPS 3 Streetcar funds be better utilized.

You might not always agree with the man but I really like that he challenges people and issues, generates a lot of discussion, and thereby engages a lot of people.

i could be wrong but i think this might be the start of an attack against the street car project ..

This is a sincere question: Does anybody think Ed (or any one person, for that matter) has enough political capital to adversely impact the streetcar project, even if he waged an out-right attack?

Yep - dont wish to derail (ha - sorry) the thread but it is out there today. I think he has generally been a good influence on the Council but lately have been given reason to be concerned.....I also want to see those MAPS3 Streetcar signs in windows along Broadway or wherever the route goes and at potential stops on the route soon.

This actually wouldn't be a bad idea, and since we have a lot of streetcar committee members on this board I would hope they could strongly consider it. The average voter doesn't have the greatest attention span, and with a lot of the projects not close to the "breaking ground" phase a insurgent politician (not naming any names) could easily say "Look, no progress is being made, MAPS3 is a boondoggle blah blah blah." It could be a nice way to show there is indeed a lot of progress being made behind the scenes.

As for Shadid...all I can say is the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There is a way to do and not do certain things. I defer to people on this board who are way more involved and in the know than me. If they are worried he is going to try something like divert MAPS3 money and break a sacred promise to the taxpayers that this city has been built on in the past 20 years, well, I'm worried too.

This is a sincere question: Does anybody think Ed (or any one person, for that matter) has enough political capital to adversely impact the streetcar project, even if he waged an out-right attack?

i would think he might be able to delay the project but i would think that it would end up getting build either way ... he/it would likely damage the MAPS brand along the way

The way I see it, agreeing with Sid, is that on and prior to December 9, 2009, Ed Shadid had multiple opportunities to let his voice be heard regarding the MAPS 3 proposals. Many of us were active here, on the DOK comments sections and other blogs, we campaigned for or against MAPS, we voted. Citizens helped shape some of the MAPS projects even before the resolution was elaborated. He chose not to speak (unless I missed commentary of his) and he chose not to vote. Here was his reason: “Like 90 percent of Oklahoma Cityans, I felt disenfranchised with the system,” Shadid responded. “I felt like big money basically determined these elections." And yet the streetcar became a part of the ballot because of hard work by the little people, private citizens who are certainly not "big money". If they hadn't worked as hard as they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. Private citizens worked hard to further the campaign.

The way I see it, 2009 (and earlier) was Ed's chance to have a voice in how the MAPS 3 money was allocated, or if it was even funded at all. He chose not to, and so he needs to move forward. As a representative of his ward, he needs to support the voters and their decision in December of 2009, support those who did use their voice.

Now, I agree with him on the bus system. It is a bad system and we should be ashamed. We as citizens need to work together to create a better system. We need to move forward and work within the existing political and economic framework of the city. Perhaps we need to work towards a regional transit authority and a permanent funding source for all transit. We do not need to betray the will of the voters to make this happen.

I don't think this is going to be that big of an issue. Let's do the rundown of what we know. (For purposes of this post, I will capitalize "Streetcar" when referring to our specific plan and leave it lowercase when talking about them in general)

The last sort of public poll data we have comes from when the MAPS3 vote occurred, and it showed strong public support for the Streetcar. At the time the vote took place, details were very scarce and it is likely that few people in OKC had any sort of detailed knowledge about what it would entail, or what the benefits would be. Effectively the voters said "hey, a streetcar sounds cool".

The Streetcar has been fairly silent lately, with no final route announced (as far as I know anyway), but that is getting ready to change. In the interim, we have had a city councilman known for being a maverick who has made a few comments about getting better public transit from extra bus routes than we would get with a streetcar. Now, as we approach what is effectively the Streetcar program's "time in the sun" with big announcements and things like that, local media trots out a few old has-beens to stir up controversy.

Controversy sells papers. It gets people to listen to the radio. The media has done this since "Remember the Lusitania!" But the majority of voters, as far as we know, still support the Streetcar program. We have no reason to believe that anyone on the city council other than perhaps Ed Shadid have any desire to cancel funding. I don't want to demonize a guy who was the darling of OKCTalk this time last year for being willing to buck the system. I've never met him and never spoken to him, but from what I've seen he's only given hints that he would be opposed to implementing the plan, just a general "we could get more bang for our buck with something else" type statement.

There's a little bit of a "poor me" attitude from supporters of the Streetcar program. I think the Convention Center people have been portrayed as big bad businessmen who smoke cigars and plot the demise of the hippy public transit supporters who live in sustainable buildings and eat gluten-free organic soy. The OKC Streetcar is gonna get built. It's been funded. The city council is not gonna risk the massive public backlash that would come from cancelling a major part of MAPS3. It would kill their chances of re-election, it would hurt Mick Cornett's credibility, it would fatally wound the credibility of the MAPS brand. Nobody wants to do that. So they won't.

The Streetcar will be really cool. We don't have the population density needed in the downtown area to take full advantage of it. Shadid is right, you could serve more people with expanded bus routes. But this program isn't just about moving existing populations. It is about allowing for higher density construction. With the Streetcar I can park at Bass Pro Shop and then eat at Louie's in Midtown. Parking at any individual location becomes much less of an issue, because you can park anywhere along the line and still be a lazy fatso who doesn't have to walk very far. This means businesses can supply less parking (and in turn creating a higher density and thus easier to walk environment) and maintain the same access to customers. This increases land value and allows for taller buildings. We aren't going to turn into Manhattan overnight. But we will get more residential and commercial development along the Streetcar line, which will increase the number of riders. It's transportation for future populations moreso than existing ones.

I want to believe... but I just can't. It's almost too happy-magical to believe that OKC is going to get the Streetcar; too good to be true. I think we are starting to see that.

As for it being just Ed, I think that's the issue. Greiner is a tea party wackadoo and Pettis has indicated that he thinks an adventure district line would be a better idea (that would serve his entire ward and nobody else's). Pete White is unpredictable. Meg Salyer and Mick Cornett appear to be the only staunch supporters of the Streetcar, and surprisingly, Jim Couch has come around to its defense and made some key arguments, but that's not a vote.



Perhaps all Ed is trying to do here is call attention to the woeful bus system.

He's asking some good questions, such as could the MAPS 3 Streetcar funds be better utilized.

You might not always agree with the man but I really like that he challenges people and issues, generates a lot of discussion, and thereby engages a lot of people.

I think that Ed is definitely using this solely to highlight the condition of the woeful bus system, and I'm pretty sure that Ed knows that this one-time capital spending can't fund service, but right now he is dedicated toward helping people who use the bus. That's a big part of his constituency, probably more so than any other ward, and I know it's unfair and wrong, but it's kind of like he just doesn't care about fairly-affluent downtowners' concerns when people who can't afford a car can't rely on the bus system because it takes 2 hours to get anywhere.

One thing Ed talks about is rider dignity, which OKC just doesn't provide. The bus stops (all of which are contracted out to advertisers' who don't care about service quality) are frequently in disrepair, hidden behind landscaping or bushes, and lack sidewalk access. It's truly absurd and mind-boggling.

All that considered, he is also not fully considering how important the Streetcar will be to OKC's future. Single-mode transit systems have failed this country and especially this city. Lower income constituencies (who can't afford to pay for parking) will get a lot more use out of this streetcar than they realize therefor making downtown (employment opportunities, especially including a glut of higher-end service sector jobs that anyone can have) more accessible than ever. Additionally, if you get the general public from Edmond or Deer Creek on one of these trams, they're going to suddenly care a lot more about the bus system, too - even if they only ever use the Streetcar.

Big surprise, the people vote to create a pile of cash and some politicians can't keep their hands of it.

I want to believe... but I just can't. It's almost too happy-magical to believe that OKC is going to get the Streetcar; too good to be true. I think we are starting to see that.

As for it being just Ed, I think that's the issue. Greiner is a tea party wackadoo and Pettis has indicated that he thinks an adventure district line would be a better idea (that would serve his entire ward and nobody else's). Pete White is unpredictable. Meg Salyer and Mick Cornett appear to be the only staunch supporters of the Streetcar, and surprisingly, Jim Couch has come around to its defense and made some key arguments, but that's not a vote.




I think that Ed is definitely using this solely to highlight the condition of the woeful bus system, and I'm pretty sure that Ed knows that this one-time capital spending can't fund service, but right now he is dedicated toward helping people who use the bus. That's a big part of his constituency, probably more so than any other ward, and I know it's unfair and wrong, but it's kind of like he just doesn't care about fairly-affluent downtowners' concerns when people who can't afford a car can't rely on the bus system because it takes 2 hours to get anywhere.

One thing Ed talks about is rider dignity, which OKC just doesn't provide. The bus stops (all of which are contracted out to advertisers' who don't care about service quality) are frequently in disrepair, hidden behind landscaping or bushes, and lack sidewalk access. It's truly absurd and mind-boggling.

All that considered, he is also not fully considering how important the Streetcar will be to OKC's future. Single-mode transit systems have failed this country and especially this city. Lower income constituencies (who can't afford to pay for parking) will get a lot more use out of this streetcar than they realize therefor making downtown (employment opportunities, especially including a glut of higher-end service sector jobs that anyone can have) more accessible than ever. Additionally, if you get the general public from Edmond or Deer Creek on one of these trams, they're going to suddenly care a lot more about the bus system, too - even if they only ever use the Streetcar.

pat ryan strongly believes that the OKC should build what they told the citizens they would build ..

Pettis is far more committed to Deep Deuce than a lot of people on here give him credit for. And Ward 7 did vote for MAPS3. I think he would like to influence the route to connect to a future Eastside connection but I seriously doubt he would do anything to jeopardize this.



I think that Ed is definitely using this solely to highlight the condition of the woeful bus system, and I'm pretty sure that Ed knows that this one-time capital spending can't fund service, but right now he is dedicated toward helping people who use the bus. That's a big part of his constituency, probably more so than any other ward, and I know it's unfair and wrong, but it's kind of like he just doesn't care about fairly-affluent downtowners' concerns when people who can't afford a car can't rely on the bus system because it takes 2 hours to get anywhere.


What? Ed's ward includes some of the wealthiest nabes in the city. Crown Heights, Glenbrook, Belle Isle, OKCGCC, etc. I'm glad he's bringing attention to the bus system and I think it's genuine, but let's be honest here. He is not doing this to get in good with his fairly well-off constituents.

So how does anyone get Ed to see the error in his chosen method to highlight a legitimate problem? He seems to be alienating the very people who would enthusiastically support his goal of an effective modern bus system.

And to prove my point from earlier today - we are talking about a single person rather than how the streetcar will benefit OKC or other particulars about the streetcar itself.

My view of Ed is that he's using the metro bus system as a platform to get to the elected position of mayor and if he makes it there, only then, he will defer funds from the streetcar project to other causes. I believe he has anterior motives.

Ernest Istook, Ed Shadid Comment on Streetcar Discussion | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2013/06/24/ernest-istook-ed-shadid-comment-on-streetcar-discussion/)

Istook is shifty.

You think Istook is shifty? What about Shadid? The guy won't even come out and say what he believes. Ether.

You think Istook is shifty? What about Shadid? The guy won't even come out and say what he believes. Ether.

No, Ed is far from shifty and scummy like Istook is. But I really don't think Ed wants to be on the same side of an issue as a proven crook.

Ok, can someone please provide a link or at least a direct quote from Ed Shadid saying he does not want a street car in OKC, wants to use the funds that were dedicated to the streetcar for something else, or he opposes MAPS? I have searched for the past hour, watching videos and trying to find where he said something, and I haven't found something even remotely similar to him saying anything like that.

The only thing I found was he questioned what would be better, a street car or expansive bus system. I want this street car to happen, but as Steve has pointed out, and I agree with him, there seems to be people(I'm not going to name anyone specific) that get really defensive when asked questions that they don't like. I think Ed Shadid did just that and he's being attacked for it now. So I don't sound like a hypocrite, my name is Campbell Sadeghy and I'd like to know what be better for the city, a bus network or street car system. I think this street car system should be built, because that what was told would be built if the voters approved Maps3.

I just wonder how many people here would still be in the same position if a a bond package was passed to widen I-35 to 8 lanes with 4 express lanes from Downtown OKC to Norman and then the city decided, at the last moment, that they really feel like expanding the highway, and then built a light-rail instead.

Ok, can someone please provide a link or at least a direct quote from Ed Shadid saying he does not want a street car in OKC, wants to use the funds that were dedicated to the streetcar for something else, or he opposes MAPS? I have searched for the past hour, watching videos and trying to find where he said something, and I haven't found something even remotely similar to him saying anything like that.

The only thing I found was he questioned what would be better, a street car or expansive bus system. I want this street car to happen, but as Steve has pointed out, and I agree with him, there seems to be people(I'm not going to name anyone specific) that get really defensive when asked questions that they don't like. I think Ed Shadid did just that and he's being attacked for it now. So I don't sound like a hypocrite, my name is Campbell Sadeghy and I'd like to know what be better for the city, a bus network or street car system. I think this street car system should be built, because that what was told would be built if the voters approved Maps3.

I just wonder how many people here would still be in the same position if a a bond package was passed to widen I-35 to 8 lanes with 4 express lanes from Downtown OKC to Norman and then the city decided, at the last moment, that they really feel like expanding the highway, and then built a light-rail instead.

It's not being asked questions you don't like, it's giving a voice to an argument that we should not be having. The streetcar has been decided by the voters, so as a voter and a citizen, we should not be having debates on streetcar v. bus. This streetcar versus bus argument should have taken place about 4 years ago.

If Ed wants to get a bus system proposal together that doesn't sound like he wants to take streetcar moneys, then I am all in favor. But the discussion Ed is having should not include the word streetcar unless we are talking about complimenting and coordinating the bus system with the streetcar.

I am really not comfortable with this being a hotbed issue. I am fine with the convention center, but I feel that is a way more controversial part of MAPS3. The streetcar was the most popular issue to voters, and most of the rest of MAPS3 was attached. I understand that only a small percentage of the available voters voted, but they had their chance to vote. This should go forward. Some of these people can drag new voters in to vote their way, if given a special election. I don't feel it is deserved. I see no subterfuge or con game in the original writing of the bill.

I am really not comfortable with this being a hotbed issue. I am fine with the convention center, but I feel that is a way more controversial part of MAPS3. The streetcar was the most popular issue to voters, and most of the rest of MAPS3 was attached. I understand that only a small percentage of the available voters voted, but they had their chance to vote. This should go forward. Some of these people can drag new voters in to vote their way, if given a special election. I don't feel it is deserved. I see no subterfuge or con game in the original writing of the bill.

Not quite. The "powers that be" wanted a convention center. The public didn't, and their (the city's) internal polling demonstrated that quite plainly. They knew they couldn't pass a MAPS3 based solely on a new CC, so they cherry picked from a punchlist of "feel good" items that sold the idea to a broad enough swath of voters to get it passed. The voters liked the punchlist, the powers wanted a CC, and guess which project got prioritized...the CC. I don't particularly have a dog in the fight on the streetcar, but if the people wanted it and that's what they voted for, it should be done. But since we made it non-binding, we shouldn't be surprised it or any other piece of this puzzle (other than the CC) is seemingly ripe for "re-evaluation" for whatever reason, be it political convenience or general obstinance.

My beef is that many of us believe that MAPS is a honor pact with the public for those in power to do the things they promised to do with the money. Break that pact and city officials will need to start funding projects individually. That might not be a bad thing. Imagine a future ballot:

1) NFL Stadium: .35% sales tax
2) Commuter rail down the I-35 and I-40 corridors: .55% sales tax
3) An expansion of the bricktown canal: .25% sales tax

etc..

Let each project stand or fall on its own. I'd have much more confidence in that if we voted for the commuter rail, it wouldn't be scrapped in favor of a dome on a football stadium built on spec.

I think one issue with any politician feeling comfortable changing something the people voted on is that he or she is breaking faith with their constituency. That shows they are willing to ignore the people to push their own agenda. That attitude can subsequently be applied to any issue in government and is extremely paternalistic: "You may think you want this, but I know better." If someone is willing to ignore the public wishes of their constituents once, they may do it any time they see fit. Don't like the results of an election? "Let's have a revote!" I see this attitude as demonstrating the potential for significant abuse of power.

I'm not anti-streetcar. Nor anti-sidewalks. parks, wellness centers, etc. Not even anti-convention space (though I do think the present location is a really poor choice.)

That said, when one starts looking at what was 'promised' or where there were 'pacts' with voters, it seems like there are a lot of breaches of trust with the voters already.
What's the volume of the sidewalks touted v. what will likely be delivered? What's the park shaping up as v. the early hype before the vote. How about those aquatic wellness centers .. how many still have aquatics in the plans. So, if some folks do come along and start mucking around with the streetcar, instead of holding it all sacred trust with voter like, is it really a major surprise it might happen given how most other projects are faring as compared to their pact with voters status?

Today holds a very important meeting. For the first time, routes developed through engineering, technical, ridership, and economic development feasibility come from the consultants to our Subcommittee for debate.

Not everyone is going to get what they want, not every area will be served, and there will be significant differences from the "Concept 1" route that has made it through the process so far. And remember, that the committee through community input developed the “Concept 1” route and base line criteria volunteers had derived through our own education on the matter. We could not factor the utility costs, model ridership, or plan that route as the monies are let according to the MAPS 3 timeline.

The statement or portrayal that "The Subcommittee is not getting what they want." would be an unfair and disingenuous perspective. All 10 of us are prepared for more authoritative and educated proposals than which we could design ourselves as volunteers. However, expect many similarities as well. We have been working on understanding what "might" be feasible for a very long time.

With all of that said, for many people that don't support the streetcar project, I expect a potentially loud resistance.

It may be that this debate occurs in a very respectable manner. It may also be that character assassination, negative innuendo, and other dirty tactics "kick in" full pull under the premise of "just asking questions". There are a great many people that could benefit from additional controversy surrounding the streetcar.

It is ironic however; that it is one of the most widely supported MAPS 3 Projects has turned into a political football.

Regardless, I fully support a comprehensive transit resolution to our city and regional needs. We need buses, we need BRT up NW Expressway, we need Commuter Rail to Edmond, Norman, Midwest City, and we need some sort of meaningful connection the airport and NE side.

Any suggestion that the people who support streetcar don't support buses is ludicrous. But I have said till I'm blue in the face, MAPS only provides capital, not Operations and Maintenance monies. We need to honor the vote for the rail-based streetcar/transit hub, come together post MAPS 3, and push for a permanent funding source to resolve the even greater need that includes those O&M monies.

We need additional leadership that builds a continued political path to a comprehensive and permanent solution. If we're going to be a big city, we have to act like a big city. And a big city has meaningful and comprehensive transit infrastructure for all of it's citizens. The streetcar and Intermodal Hub should be just the start.

Jeff Bezdek

Today holds a very important meeting. For the first time, routes developed through engineering, technical, ridership, and economic development feasibility come from the consultants to our Subcommittee for debate.

Not everyone is going to get what they want, not every area will be served, and there will be significant differences from the "Concept 1" route that has made it through the process so far. And remember, that the committee through community input developed the “Concept 1” route and base line criteria volunteers had derived through our own education on the matter. We could not factor the utility costs, model ridership, or plan that route as the monies are let according to the MAPS 3 timeline.

The statement or portrayal that "The Subcommittee is not getting what they want." would be an unfair and disingenuous perspective. All 10 of us are prepared for more authoritative and educated proposals than which we could design ourselves as volunteers. However, expect many similarities as well. We have been working on understanding what "might" be feasible for a very long time.

With all of that said, for many people that don't support the streetcar project, I expect a potentially loud resistance.

It may be that this debate occurs in a very respectable manner. It may also be that character assassination, negative innuendo, and other dirty tactics "kick in" full pull under the premise of "just asking questions". There are a great many people that could benefit from additional controversy surrounding the streetcar.

It is ironic however; that it is one of the most widely supported MAPS 3 Projects has turned into a political football.

Regardless, I fully support a comprehensive transit resolution to our city and regional needs. We need buses, we need BRT up NW Expressway, we need Commuter Rail to Edmond, Norman, Midwest City, and we need some sort of meaningful connection the airport and NE side.

Any suggestion that the people who support streetcar don't support buses is ludicrous. But I have said till I'm blue in the face, MAPS only provides capital, not Operations and Maintenance monies. We need to honor the vote for the rail-based streetcar/transit hub, come together post MAPS 3, and push for a permanent funding source to resolve the even greater need that includes those O&M monies.

We need additional leadership that builds a continued political path to a comprehensive and permanent solution. If we're going to be a big city, we have to act like a big city. And a big city has meaningful and comprehensive transit infrastructure for all of it's citizens. The streetcar and Intermodal Hub should be just the start.

Jeff Bezdek


Jeff,

Is the new route posted anywhere yet? I'm curious... Will it only be available after the meeting?

Is this meeting open to the public? And if so when/where is it happening?

We haven't seen the route yet. The meeting is open to the public. It is held at 420 W. Main, 10th floor. There is a limited amount of room for visitors, but they are welcome.