I actually think the sight of overhead wires along Automobile Alley and other downtown corridors will make them look much cooler, urban and historical.

And has been previously mentioned, they also clearly mark the route.

Boulder, I hope you don't live in Edmond or any other burb with all of these accusations. The reality is that a lot of the Chamber board and top staff live outside of OKC proper and have never felt the necessity to move into the city limits in order to have due influence on city affairs.

I'll address the article fallout again here soon.. I've had some evolving thoughts.

that wasn't to any one but just the facts ..

The article is now open for the viewing public.

One thing is clear: it's going to be darned near impossible to implement transit improvements in this city, streetcar or no. There is a ton of entrenched opposition to moving forward on anything. Transit supporters need to work to stay together as much as possible going forward. Streetcars, buses, bicycles, regional transit, etc. Any healing we can do to bridge gaps between groups would be helpful.

you don't live here ... i don't really care if you support it or not ...

Just because someone can't vote doesn't mean they can't have an influence. I wonder if LN voted for MAPS III.

They are about 10 dBa quieter than a diesel engine powered bus Pete. That is actually a bigger difference than many people may think because the decibel scale is exponential.

There is a pretty clear comparison of noise levels of automobile and streetcar at the 2:00 mark. Much of Paris' tram system operates on transit malls or green medians. I think a green median along Broadway with platforms on both sides of the rails is an idea worth exploring. But that is probably heresy to traffic engineers.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp9llfJcIZY

Look how ugly that is. It is killing economic development along the route. [/sarc]

Noisy? Ugly? I don't think so.

It needs to be pointed out that the clips of the streetcars coming around the corner is probably the loudest they will ever be. The sharp turn causes maximum wheel impingement and thus the increased squeaking. The line also includes a handful of points - or locations where two rails cross - that have gaps that result in the highest noise levels. Yet the cars going by were as loud or louder.


http://youtu.be/2F8hlkYsm4I

Great video showing the reality of modern streetcars. Thanks for posting.

Does Larry Nichols (or anyone else) really believe there is something unique to OKC where a streetcar would be a detriment rather than an asset as it has been for the hundreds of other cities that already have them? That WE will be the exception to a rule already tested over and over again?

Can anyone cite an example where it has detracted from the community, or point to businesses and residents along a current route that wish it wasn't there?


This is simply fear of the unknown... But it's only an unknown to those that have never traveled much or made the slightest effort to learn about the countless other systems that have been operating for decades.

And while, yes, the streetcar committee should make it a point to educate and dispel misconceptions, how hard is it for a civic leader like Nichols to pull up a flipping Youtube video and learn something before making claims (like noisy and ugly) that simply aren't true?


This all strikes me as very irresponsible, especially from downtown's supposed biggest advocate and the chair of the Urban Renewal Authority.

One more for good measure today and I will save others for another day. Rome Italy - yeah, that's an ugly city.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiU7-Tg0iCM

Does Larry Nichols (or anyone else) really believe there is something unique to OKC where a streetcar would be a detriment rather than an asset as it has been for the hundreds of other cities that already have them? That WE will be the exception to a rule already tested over and over again?

Can anyone cite an example where it has detracted from the community, or point to businesses and residents along a current route that wish it wasn't there?


This is simply fear of the unknown... But it's only an unknown to those that have never traveled much or made the slightest effort to learn about the countless other systems that have been operating for decades.

And while, yes, the streetcar committee should make it a point to educate and dispel misconceptions, how hard is it for a civic leader like Nichols to pull up a flipping Youtube video and learn something before making claims (like noisy and ugly) that simply aren't true?


This all strikes me as very irresponsible, especially from downtown's supposed biggest advocate and the chair of the Urban Renewal Authority.

I just don't get it. You don't build a multi-billion dollar company by being an ignorant nimrod. These are such superficial objections. There has to be something else we are not seeing here.

Rome Italy - yeah, that's an ugly city.


All a matter of opinion. Parts of it are ugly. but probably parts of every city are ugly

I just don't get it. You don't build a multi-billion dollar company by being an ignorant nimrod. These are such superficial objections. There has to be something else we are not seeing here.

He sells natural gas and oil. It isn't hard to figue out. He wants the taxpayers of OKC to fund his R&D and proof of concept for a CNG streetcar. Convert this to CNG and you would see all these concerns vaporize and float away (which ironically CNG would produce many of the issues he is concerned about - and raise a few more).

All a matter of opinion. Parts of it are ugly. but probably parts of every city are ugly

True enough, but on balance Rome is considered quite nice with a character you only get after being around a couple thousand years. And streetcars with overhead wires don't seem to detract from that at all.

He sells natural gas and oil. It isn't hard to figue out. He wants the taxpayers of OKC to fund his R&D and proof of concept for a CNG streetcar. Convert this to CNG and you would see all these concerns vaporize and float away (which ironically CNG would produce many of the issues he is concerned about - and raise a few more).

please show me a link to anything that supports this

True enough, but on balance Rome is considered quite nice with a character you only get after being around a couple thousand years.

Rome is probably my second favorite city, behind Prague and ahead of Paris.

Wow. I continue to be amazed by those OkcTalk posters who form and express opinions without any basis in fact, most especially by those who formed decided opinions about a Lackmeyer story before even having read the article that he wrote. I'm flabbergasted.

Soonerguru, I see you as the most culpable (i.e., guilty) of fitting that mold. If you've still not read the article, use this link (http://newsok.com/devon-energys-larry-nichols-objects-to-downtown-streetcar-system/article/3864840). I won't further observe about your previous remarks.

Nick/Spartan, I don't know how you formed your opinion that Lackmeyer's article, which you'd read, was an example of crummy journalism (my choice of words, not yours, but that's the essence of what you said), but, my friend, you are badly mistaken, in my opinion.

Anytime a prominent public figure, i.e., Larry Nichols, publicly states a controversial opinion at an Urban Renewal Authority meeting (or any other public forum), as Nichols did in this instance, it is news in and of itself. That's what Steve's article was focused upon -- the story itself (Nichols' remarks). Would you have preferred that he stifle himself and not report on what Nichols had to say and render Nichols' remarks a non-story and lost in la-la land? Nick, was it to Lackmeyer's credit, or his discredit, that he wrote the story? By writing that story, did he likely endear himself to Larry Nichols? Hardly ... most certainly, Nichols did not like the attention OR the story, in my opinion.

As far the article being balanced is concerned, he noted that Jim Tolbert and Leslie Batchelor, also involved with the Urban Renewal Authority, hold contrary views. As to Automobile Alley, the article notes, "Nichols responded that some property owners along the eventual streetcar route may not want the tracks opposite their developments." The article also notes Jane Jenkins, president of Downtown Oklahoma City Inc., "disclosed that Nichols is not the only one with concerns, and that the Automobile Alley Association came close to voting for a resolution to oppose a streetcar route along Broadway if it included the overhead wiring system." "Coming close" is not the point. In fact, the Automobile Alley Assn. did NOT so vote or take such a position and, in fact, declined to do so.

As to Mayor Cornett's views, the article seems to say that he left himself some wiggle room. On one hand, the article says, "Mayor Mick Cornett responded that he believes some education is needed about 'modern' streetcars, which are different from those built over the last couple decades and vintage-style systems like the one built in Little Rock, Ark." But, on the other hand, the article also said, "Cornett said he understands Nichols' concerns. Nichols was a leader in setting up Project 180, and some of the streets rebuilt as part of the downtown beautification effort could be torn up again to make way for the tracks. ¶ 'We've come a long way on beautification,' Cornett said. 'We don't want to backtrack.' "

Fine, Mayor Cornett ... but what are you suggesting with that "backtrack" remark? "Backtrack" from the streetcar element of MAPS 3? Did you not champion the streetcar project during the MAPS 3 campaign? That's a rhetorical question ... of course he did. Is he trying to wiggle out of that support to quasi-support Nichols' recently stated opinion with his comment?

Nichols' comments have opened a whole can of worms, discussion/debate about whether the streetcar element of MAPS 3 should be scrapped. If Nichols' position gains traction, one can surely expect that gobs of articles will focus on that larger question, not just the "Nichols news story."

As to Nichols' views on this topic, it is news ... I'm not aware that he'd made similar public statements the streetcar on any prior occasion. By him doing so at this time, he appears to be staking out very dangerous turf.

One of his favorite projects, both before, during, and since the MAPS 3 campaign, has been the convention center project. See this still unfinished blog post of mine, "We CAN Have A Convention Hotel ...For a Few Dollars More" (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2013/07/yes-we-can-have-convention-hotel-for.html) ... for additional information. The convention center project was the least favored MAPS 3 project, according to polls.

If his streetcar views would be carried to their logical extension, that would mean elimination of the streetcar element of MAPS 3 even though it was one of the highest favored project in the polls.

If elimination of an element of MAPS 3 be "doable," as a practical matter, which I doubt that it is, that would also mean that his favorite project, the convention center (as well as the side-issue of a convention hotel), could likewise and more easily be put onto the MAPS 3 chopping block.

Before one wishes for something, one should certainly consider what might happen if that wish be granted.

More likely than the streetcar project getting its neck cut off is the prospect if not likelihood, is that Nichols' public stock will take a serious hit if that has not happened already.

While one can often "follow the money", I just don't see it in this particular case. Now if Devon had the exclusive contract for supplying the City with the fuel for the Streetcars....

Doug: Mr. Nichols has stated at some point in the past that he was against overhead wires for the Streetcars. Can't recall exactly when but seems like it was at least a couple of years ago???

Devon and Nichols would not profit from a convention center but I do know that project is a borderline obsession with him. I believe he sees it as a very important part of his legacy.

Not everything can be bought with money; at least not directly. Often, power and influence are much more important in getting what you want.

He sells natural gas and oil. It isn't hard to figue out. He wants the taxpayers of OKC to fund his R&D and proof of concept for a CNG streetcar. Convert this to CNG and you would see all these concerns vaporize and float away (which ironically CNG would produce many of the issues he is concerned about - and raise a few more).

please show me a link to anything that supports this

Do you have a more reasonable explination?

While one can often "follow the money", I just don't see it in this particular case. Now if Devon had the exclusive contract for supplying the City with the fuel for the Streetcars....

Doug: Mr. Nichols has stated at some point in the past that he was against overhead wires for the Streetcars. Can't recall exactly when but seems like it was at least a couple of years ago???

Larry - the streetcar industry is on the verge of exploding both here in the US and around the world. It isn't just here in OKC. You start running CNG streetcars with their little CNG logo around cities and you gain a huge marketing foothold for other CNG applications.

I can't help but agree with JTF on this one... Personally I think the opposition to the streetcar lies in the propulsion proposed. And, honestly, for a city that is building a renaissance of sorts with natural gas energy as one of the cornerstones... We probably SHOULD be running CNG streetcars, right?

And, honestly, for a city that is building a renaissance of sorts with natural gas energy as one of the cornerstones... We probably SHOULD be running CNG streetcars, right?

I disagree. Any internal combustion engine is going to be louder than electric motors and exhaust gasses are still being emitted in the streets; these are two attributes that make electric streetcars preferable to motor vehicles in many urban settings. Also, the vehicle complexity will be higher thus leading to higher maintenance costs. Additionally, electric vehicles generally accelerate smoothly and faster than those powered by ICE's, generators, and traction motors. This is a primary operational factor that must be considered.

However - I strongly support using electrical power generated by a gas turbine power plant for mass transit in OKC and just about anywhere else.

1+1=12

Linking and extrapolation is dangerous logic.

LN is opinionated. LN is used to winning. LN is powerful. LN may be irresponsible on this issue. I understand all these viewpoints. But to say he is doing this to boost Devon's stock by selling more natural gas is a pretty amusing conclusion. Wow. That would be like saying JTF intends to invest in copper wire futures and pushes modern streetcars to run up the demand for copper wire and make him rich. LOL

I'll admit that I don't know a lot about the technology behind modern streetcars and how they operate, but I doubt that all the people who gush over the Pacific NW for it's beauty and public transportation are doing so because they love how ugly and noisy the streetcars are.

Like I said, if Rover/BoulderSooner can think of a more logical reason for the opposition I would be willing to hear it. Remember, he said he wasn't opposed to streetcars, he said he was opposed to the propulsion system of this streetcar. What other technology would he be in favor of? Is it unreasonable to think that he mght be in favor a streetcar powered by a fuel system he produces? Why is it that making that connection is a crazy idea? Crazy would be NOT making that connection.

Like I said, if Rover/BoulderSooner can think of a more logical reason for the opposition I would be willing to hear it. Remember, he said he wasn't opposed to streetcars, he said he was opposed to the propulsion system of this streetcar. What other technology would he be in favor of? Is it unreasonable to think that he mght be in favor a streetcar powered by a fuel system he produces? Why is it that making that connection is a crazy idea? Crazy would be NOT making that connection.

where did he say that??

noise and eyesore .. is what he said right?

where did he say that??

noise and eyesore .. is what he said right?

And, the main argument here is that if this was a proposed CNG streetcar, would LN still be using noise and eyesore as an excuse at all? I would bet no.

This is the subheading from the DOK article: "Larry Nichols, one of the most influential voices guiding downtown Oklahoma City development, is preparing to oppose construction of a new streetcar system over concerns about noise and visual blight."

"Preparing to oppose construction" is the most concerning aspect to me. The basis for his opposition is irrelevant, but still worth investigating. The two stated reasons are easily rebutted with some very quick research. It doesn't make sense.

This is the subheading from the DOK article: "Larry Nichols, one of the most influential voices guiding downtown Oklahoma City development, is preparing to oppose construction of a new streetcar system over concerns about noise and visual blight."

"Preparing to oppose construction" is the most concerning aspect to me. The basis for his opposition is irrelevant, but still worth investigating. The two stated reasons are easily rebutted with some very quick research. It doesn't make sense.

Exactly... so if they don't make sense then what does? Oh, I don't know? Maybe it could have something to do with his actual business? Maybe?

Now, it could be possible that he thinks having a streetcar will impact his business in some other way. Possibly it could reduce the amount of CNG vehicles... maybe there is something else completely different going on here that none of us really know about... but this, like any other human endeavor, can most assuredly trace back to the MONEY. If I were a betting man I would lay even odds that this has something to do with CNG in one way or another. To think otherwise is pretty silly, honestly.

It's very simple: He doesn't think the streetcar will bring much to downtown and believes very strongly in the convention center.

He's probably always felt this way, which is one of the reasons he lobbied to move up the cc and move back the streetcar.

Now that real money is getting ready to be spent on both these projects, he just speaking out more strongly.


I don't think any of this is a great mystery. And I also believe Mr. Nichols believes this perspective is what is right for OKC.


You have to understand that Larry Nichols looks at everything as a businessman. Even with the P180 project, this was all framed in the context of luring other companies downtown, not residents. He said this many times. In fact, most people don't realize that some of the Devon TIF money goes towards incentive programs to bring companies downtown.

Similarly, he believes the convention center represents a great business investment: Spend a couple hundred of million and you can find studies that will show a great return. Where is the measurable return on the streetcar investment? If anything, he believes it will hurt existing businesses and certainly won't do much to help.

Similarly, he believes the convention center represents a great business investment: Spend a couple hundred of million and you can find studies that will show a great return. Where is the measurable return on the streetcar investment? If anything, he believes it will hurt existing businesses and certainly won't do much to help.
Not to mention the millions that will be wasted as they tear up some of the streets that have recently been redone to accommodate the street car routes.

Pete - I think you missing a few points. LN didn't say the streetcar wouldn't produce economic development - he said the unsightly wire would discourage it.

Here are two quotes from LN that are in the article.

Devon Energy's Larry Nichols objects to downtown streetcar system | News OK (http://newsok.com/devon-energys-larry-nichols-objects-to-downtown-streetcar-system/article/3864840)


“When you say streetcar, it depends on what kind of streetcar. If you're talking about these systems you see in older cities with overhead wires, I think that will make our city very ugly … If it involves cantilevered wires, there will be substantial opposition.”




“Having the wrong sort of streetcar will not enhance development, it will impede it,” Nichols said. “We all have the same goal. But a noisy, ugly streetcar may be a detriment to some of these areas rather than an enhancement.”



The wrong sort of streetcar is the one with wires.

I considered that after JTF brought it up, but I seriously doubt the volume of NG sold for a decade of CNG or LNG powered streetcar operation in OKC would even show up on Devon's balance sheet. I doubt he plans to go into NG Streetcar manufacturing either.

It is quite baffling unless it really is as simple as a matter of his personal preference against overhead catenary. In that case, his opinion is duly noted and we should move on toward developing an efficient, reliable streetcar circulator for downtown within the MAPS3 budget. That probably means conventional electric powered streetcars supplied by an overhead wire system. To threaten or imply there will be a heavyweight effort to oppose construction of a very popular project the voters approved simply because one or a few people did not get their way just seems beneath Mr Nichols who has done a lot of good for OKC.

Not to mention the millions that will be wasted as they tear up some of the streets that have recently been redone to accommodate the street car routes.

That needs to be addressed to the Project 180 office. I know the Streetcar Subcommittee attempted to get them to hold a couple phases of construction until the route was determined. That reasonable request was rejected out of a desire to get P180 done right away.

This is what happens when the benevolent plutocrat stops being benevolent.

For LN to say he's against overhead wiring and the streetcar being ugly and noisy and to leave it at that is IMO very unprofessional. Does he know or even care that us small fish are frying him right now? Probably not, but if you're a prominent leader and someone in power, you can't just come out and say something like that and leave it at just that. Well...maybe you can but lets have a little more vision instead of "I don't like this/that...".

It's very simple: He doesn't think the streetcar will bring much to downtown and believes very strongly in the convention center.

He's probably always felt this way, which is one of the reasons he lobbied to move up the cc and move back the streetcar.

Now that real money is getting ready to be spent on both these projects, he just speaking out more strongly.


I don't think any of this is a great mystery. And I also believe Mr. Nichols believes this perspective is what is right for OKC.


You have to understand that Larry Nichols looks at everything as a businessman. Even with the P180 project, this was all framed in the context of luring other companies downtown, not residents. He said this many times. In fact, most people don't realize that some of the Devon TIF money goes towards incentive programs to bring companies downtown.

Similarly, he believes the convention center represents a great business investment: Spend a couple hundred of million and you can find studies that will show a great return. Where is the measurable return on the streetcar investment? If anything, he believes it will hurt existing businesses and certainly won't do much to help.

That fails to acknowledge MAPS is above all a quality of life improvement project for the citizens who are paying the tax. The are legitimate arguments to be made about how MAPS 3 was presented, but it seems quality of life for OKC residents has been completely disregarded now that it is time to begin building. The streetcar is the MAPS3 project that can do both QOL and economic development fairly well.

Here is what he said in the JR article:


“I’m not prepared to say that streetcars in general will promote development in that area,” said Larry Nichols, OCURA board commissioner.


He knows darn well that any system will have to have overhead wires.

He just doesn't believe in the streetcar and is using the wires, noise and other reasons to rally people against it.

I can't help but agree with JTF on this one... Personally I think the opposition to the streetcar lies in the propulsion proposed. And, honestly, for a city that is building a renaissance of sorts with natural gas energy as one of the cornerstones... We probably SHOULD be running CNG streetcars, right?

Maybe, but then downtown residents would actually have a legitimate noise complaint. Well, I guess it could be done, but I have never heard a CNG engine that is quieter than an electric one. If Larry is using noise as a way to get the streetcar to be run on gas, he's basically trying to convince everyone that a go-kart is quieter than a golf cart (well those of an electric build of course).

Like I said, if Rover/BoulderSooner can think of a more logical reason for the opposition I would be willing to hear it. Remember, he said he wasn't opposed to streetcars, he said he was opposed to the propulsion system of this streetcar. What other technology would he be in favor of? Is it unreasonable to think that he mght be in favor a streetcar powered by a fuel system he produces? Why is it that making that connection is a crazy idea? Crazy would be NOT making that connection.

There are battery and induction systems. It doesn't have to be CNG to eliminate the wires. Now, I think none of these are the answer here like overhead electric is. Maybe he has invested in an induction system company. LOL

Maybe, but then downtown residents would actually have a legitimate noise complaint. Well, I guess it could be done, but I have never heard a CNG engine that is quieter than an electric one. If Larry is using noise as a way to get the streetcar to be run on gas, he's basically trying to convince everyone that a go-kart is quieter than a golf cart (well those of an electric build of course).

Or maybe in the negotiation process he decides he's just going to have to put up with noisy streetcars as long as they are running on CNG... Just sayin'

Again, we don't really know what exactly is going on here. I think we can all see it's pretty obvious his stated opposition points are a facade... But, beyond that we don't really know.

There are battery and induction systems. It doesn't have to be CNG to eliminate the wires. Now, I think none of these are the answer here like overhead electric is. Maybe he has invested in an induction system company. LOL

That's the best reasonable explanation you can come up with? Maybe Pete is right - he saw how much money the Stage Center site sold for, he knows he doesn't have the funds in MAPS III to buy his Ford Dealer site, so he has to find the money somewhere, and lo and behold - sitting right in front of him is $120 million ostensibly for the streetcar.

Ed Shadid just posted this comment on Steve's article and also on his Facebook page:


The most significant statement of this article is the one that reads "Nichols responded that some property owners along the eventual streetcar route may not want the tracks opposite their developments."

Larry Nichols, in asking that this question be considered, is very wisely going to the heart of the concern raised by urbanists, transit planners and walkability experts nationwide in regard to the theories used to promote the streetcar in situations such as we find ourselves in Oklahoma City. It is highly unusual at this stage in the game to not only have the absence of partnerships with developers and property owners in place prior to development of the streetcar, but also not to know the level of support of property owners along competing routes. It has been many months since four members of the city council asked that the streetcar consultants ask property owners along prospective routes of their level of support and their willingness to participate in the type of special assessment districts/ Business Improvement Districts formed by virtually all cities building streetcar systems. The streetcar subcommittee meeting tomorrow will be the very first presentation of the outlook of property owners along prospective routes.

Walkable City by Jeff Speck (2012) is on a trajectory to become the greatest selling book on urban planning in U.S. history. Consider Mr. Nichols' concern in the context of what Mr. Speck writes about streetcars (pp.153-154):

Portland's streetcars succeeded as a tool for increasing urban vibrancy because it was first a tool for neighborhood development. This fact is important for two reasons: first, because it is a mistake to promote a streetcar in the absence of a major real estate opportunity and, second, because such an opportunity suggests the presence of private parties who stand to benefit tremendously from the investment. And these parties should want to help pay for it........Principally, streetcars enliven not the downtown, but the new area opened up for development. Downtown only benefits as a secondary impact, if and when thousands of people move into the previously underdeveloped area. Indeed, more careful study of Tampa may show the opposite effect. While property values have soared where the trolley passes through former industrial land, the city's already established neighborhoods have fared less well. In Ybor City, Tampa's most walkable district, properties actually appreciated at rates from 24 to 36 percent below the rest of the surrounding county. The lesson here is that trolleys, unless integrated into a robust citywide transit network, are first and foremost a tool for creating new urban districts, and are not necessarily the mobility-enhancing, street-enlivening walkability bomb that their promoters would have us believe. By all means build one, if you can get someone else to pay for it.

Talk about an unholy alliance......judging from their statements, both seem to want the same thing for different reasons.

That's the best reasonable explanation you can come up with?

Take a deep breath...another....another...

Surely you didn't think I was being serious. That would be as silly as believing LN is for CNC driven streetcars to pump up Devon stock.

.

Much of the talk about CNG as a propulsion source for the streetcar comes from those in the oil and gas industry who like the idea of promoting the use of natural gas for industry purposes and corporate interests. Others like the idea because they have been educated to understand that the use of CNG for fueling buses is a great improvement, so it must be a good idea for streetcars. But the truth is it's not.

It makes sense to use CNG as a fueling source for buses. Those vehicles use internal combustion engines in the first place and it’s a big step forward in reducing emissions and fuel costs.

But it makes very little sense to overload a streetcar with a large, heavy internal combustion engine, combustible fuel tank and electric generator in order to produce electricity to run the electric motors. Streetcars are already fully-electric, emission-free, virtually silent and maximally-efficient. Why would you want to downgrade a purely electric vehicle by adding an internal combustion engine to it to generate electricity. That's like purposefully breeding a thoroughbred with a mule.

Obviously, it makes even less sense to eliminate the electric motors altogether and try to use CNG to fuel an internal combustion engine as the sole drive mechanism for a 100-ton streetcar vehicle. That's worse than putting lipstick on a pig. That's like tar and feathering the queen.

Here’s a list of the major benefits of electric motors over internal combustion engines:

More Energy Efficient

-electric motors are 90% efficient - internal combustion engines are at most 30% efficient
-electric motors can serve as generators when slowing the vehicle – this power can be stored as battery power or transferred by overhead wire into the system

Less Pollution

-electric motors create no direct emissions – there are no fumes created along the route and no possibility of fumes inside the vehicle

Better Acceleration

-electric motors provide maximum torque at zero speed for optimal acceleration for streetcar vehicles
-internal combustion engines offer poor torque for rail vehicles at zero speed

Smoother Riding

-there is no mechanical transmission associated with electric motors

Quieter Operation

-electric motors make very little noise compared to internal combustion engines of equivalent power
-there is no noise when the vehicle is stopped - internal combustion engines must idle

Much of the talk about CNG as a propulsion source for the streetcar comes from those in the oil and gas industry who like the idea of promoting the use of natural gas for industry purposes and corporate interests. Others like the idea because they have been educated to understand that the use of CNG for fueling buses is a great improvement, so it must be a good idea for streetcars. But the truth is it's not.

It makes sense to use CNG as a fueling source for buses. Those vehicles use internal combustion engines in the first place and it’s a big step forward in reducing emissions and fuel costs.

But it makes very little sense to overload a streetcar with a large, heavy internal combustion engine, combustible fuel tank and electric generator in order to produce electricity to run the electric motors. Streetcars are already fully-electric, emission-free, virtually silent and maximally-efficient. Why would you want to downgrade a purely electric vehicle by adding an internal combustion engine to it to generate electricity. That's like purposefully breeding a thoroughbred with a mule.

Obviously, it makes even less sense to eliminate the electric motors altogether and try to use CNG to fuel an internal combustion engine as the sole drive mechanism for a 100-ton streetcar vehicle. That's worse than putting lipstick on a pig. That's like tar and feathering the queen.

Here’s a list of the major benefits of electric motors over internal combustion engines:

More Energy Efficient

-electric motors are 90% efficient - internal combustion engines are at most 30% efficient
-electric motors can serve as generators when slowing the vehicle – this power can be stored as battery power or transferred by overhead wire into the system

Less Pollution

-electric motors create no direct emissions – there are no fumes created along the route and no possibility of fumes inside the vehicle

Better Acceleration

-electric motors provide maximum torque at zero speed for optimal acceleration for streetcar vehicles
-internal combustion engines offer poor torque for rail vehicles at zero speed

Smoother Riding

-there is no mechanical transmission associated with electric motors

Quieter Operation

-electric motors make very little noise compared to internal combustion engines of equivalent power
-there is no noise when the vehicle is stopped - internal combustion engines must idle

Do you think any of this really matters? lol. Larry Nichols sells CNG... period.

But, it does seem that maybe there is a deeper cause here that is driving his opposition.

Talk about an unholy alliance......judging from their statements, both seem to want the same thing for different reasons.

Sounds to me like he is just hiding behind Larry Nichols to justify his BS, more than anything. we really don't know if LN is opposing this just because he is concerned with aesthetics or wants CNG.

Never mind these two men have been adversaries. Someone should show him his own campaign literature about "finishing MAPs as promised," just to jog his memory.

My god, if this guy becomes mayor.....

I have saved a copy of that campaign flyer just in case....

Do you think any of this really matters?

It may not matter to Mr. Nichols, but you'd better hope it matters to everyone else or we might as well spend $120 million on a new fleet of combustion-engine-driven, rubber-tired trolleys.

I think LN is trying to get the $120 million for the convention center.
Kill the streetcar, altogether.
PURE and Simple.
Citizens be D*m*d

Here is what he said in the JR article:




He knows darn well that any system will have to have overhead wires.

He just doesn't believe in the streetcar and is using the wires, noise and other reasons to rally people against it.

Didn't he say this about the midtown urban renewal route. Not the street car in general

I wonder how Larry Nichols would take to some organized protests outside Devon to voice opposition to using his influence to ignore the voters and taxpayers of Oklahoma City?

Like I said, if Rover/BoulderSooner can think of a more logical reason for the opposition I would be willing to hear it. Remember, he said he wasn't opposed to streetcars, he said he was opposed to the propulsion system of this streetcar. What other technology would he be in favor of? Is it unreasonable to think that he mght be in favor a streetcar powered by a fuel system he produces? Why is it that making that connection is a crazy idea? Crazy would be NOT making that connection.
My guesses as to LN's motivations are two: 1), I do think (like Pete suggested, I think) that his viewpoint has to do with how HE sees that the city should develop, and project 180 certainly is a part of that; 2) vanity ... he likes, if not expects, to have his way and is not shy about saying so. I don't think that he is motivated by personal greed, only vanity.

It is very conceivable that as a very strong conservative Larry has been aware of the Cato Institute study and it's refutation of the development claims of streetcar systems. If that is true and he believes it, he may feel about the streetcars like many on here do about the CC. Difference is, he is more in a position to influence or control.

These last several pages are a testament to what happens when an elite wealthy few have such ridiculous power. I agree with Doug that with LN it's a vanity thing, an entitlement thing, as if to think his personal opinion outweighs everybody else's because of the size of his bank account. Think about how much we're talking here about LN's opinion, one guy. He already has too much influence, sits on too many boards, chairs too many committees, and thinks somebody anointed him King of Downtown. He's a nice enough guy, but he's wrong on this and he thinks what he wants, he gets. Unfortunately, he's probably right.

Well put. I'm sure a lot of people, including myself, reacted too strongly to Nichols and the article, but more than anything, people who want the streetcar need to make a case why OKC needs it now.

Yep, and I have to be careful about being too opinionated because obviously I need to set the correct tone for this forum.

I believe there is a way to have rational, intelligent conversation that presents well-reasoned challenges when necessary.

And for that dialog to be productive in the way we all want it to be, we have to keep coming back to a place of mutual respect.


I really, REALLY don't want to censor or restrict conversation and we've tried very hard to be as hands-off as possible. Keeping political posts separated has helped tremendously.

But what I want most of all is for this site to be a force for making OKC a better community -- and increasingly, you can see that happening -- but if we get too extreme we lose all our credibility and leverage.


So, I apologize for coming out a little strong against Mr. Nichols. As I've said all along, I have absolutely no doubt he is acting out of what he believes is the best interest of the community.

For those of us who are advocates of the streetcar, this is merely a call to action in terms of getting people educated and making sure this gets done, and done correctly.

Well you guys can all sit around and hold hands if you want but I stand by everything I said. If people don't like the word Plutocrat or Plutocracy associated with LN I don't know what to say - he is the definition of Plutocrat in every conceivable way.

Sid,

I expressed my concerns about Steve's article in a calm, direct manner. I'm sorry you took it to be picking a fight. To add, I was not the person here who called it a hit piece.

My concern still stands: I believe Steve could have consulted subcommittee members who are knowledgeable about the technical questions to answer some of Mr. Nichols' concerns.

Similarly, the headline flat-out said that Nichols is Opposed To The Streetcar. The article itself does not seem to say this. After reading the article three times, I'm not sure whether or not Mr. Nichols is actually opposed to it.

I am not going to make personal attacks here. I am going to challenge people here -- as you have challenged me -- from time to time, but I have no interest in personal attacks.

I fully support the project, so I will sometimes react viscerally to things such as Nichols comments.