Streetcar

[Of Sound Mind]

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.

[Just the facts]

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

“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.

[CaptDave]

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.

[CaptDave]

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.

[Just the facts]

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

[OKCisOK4me]

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...".

[CaptDave]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[BDP]

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).

[Rover]

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

[MikeLucky]

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.

[Just the facts]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[CaptDave]

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

[Rover]

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.

.

[Hutch]

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

[MikeLucky]

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.

[adaniel]

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.....

[CaptDave]

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

[Hutch]

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.

[city]

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

[BoulderSooner]

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

[dankrutka]

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?

[Doug Loudenback]

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.

[Rover]

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.