ANALYSIS. Since this was the final
Let's Talk Transit public meeting, my analysis focuses on two items in terms of recap: (1) Did the
Let's Talk Transit people do a good job? (2) Were my concerns about the meaningfulness of these sessions addressed, and, if so, how and why?
- Let's Talk Transit Gets 5 Stars. Did the Let's Talk Transit people do a good job? Absolutely yes, in my opinion. All those involved in the COTPA organization, including Rick Cain, Larry Hopper, and Michael Scroggins (as well as any other COTPA people that I've not thought to mention), moderator Jennifer Eve, and certainly consultant Mike McAnelly, as well as those in the city's planning staff who were sometimes involved, did a heck of a job in putting these meetings together as well as maintaining a very useful Let's Talk Transit website which is available to anyone who did not attend the meetings. Hundreds of hours, and not just a few bucks, were clearly expended in making this series of meetings happen, and all involved were helpful, courteous, informative, and patient throughout the lengthy process. Those involved in organizing and executing this process get my highest praise and respect.
- Was The Process Meaningful and not just window-dressing? Yes, with no qualification as to Let's Talk Transit, but this opinion wasn't as easily formed as the above. I'll explain:
Review of My Previous Reservations. It is only fair that I begin this section by giving an explanation for my caution in being concerned that the public input which was clearly allowed for, even cajoled and encouraged, by the COTPA and city staffers might not actually matter one way or another. Quite simply, the reason has to do with events leading to the MAPS 3 vote when the public was told similar things — starting with Mayor Cornett's promise in his May 13, 2009, Roundtable meeting that public forums or opportunities would occur before the matters were decided for residents to tell city leaders what they want to see on the ballot — which public forums or opportunities never materialized ... the saying, "trick me once, shame on you; trick me twice, shame on me," comes to mind. I won't even get into the Convention Center's possible location which we were and are told hasn't yet been decided. As for the MAPS 3 campaign itself, although many like myself strongly supported MAPS 3, for some, like me, that support existed notwithstanding the obvious conflict of interest that existed the campaign being headed up by David Thompson, publisher of the
Oklahoman and the censuring of his own employees,
Oklahoman journalists, during the campaign as to what they could report and how the reporting was to occur. This is the short version of how I came to be cautious, yes, jaded, about believing what I was told by city leadership. The fact is that during 2009 my willingness to accept what I was told by city officials as being necessarily sincere came to be tempered by a mineral that had not been there before — jade.
When top city leaders give cause for distrust, it has a spillover, a trickle-down, effect, at least it did for me. And so it was that, when the
Let's Talk Transit process began, I wondered out loud in my columns here whether the promised public input really mattered or whether it was merely window trimming for matters already decided or which would come to be decided regardless of public input. In this context, although I'd experienced excellent meetings during the
Let's Talk Transit process, I continued to wonder if all of fine public participation really mattered.
Part of that wonder had to do with the route scenarios presented at this meeting. Notice the omission of Walker in any of the three proforma route scenarios, shown above. If 4 of the 6 working groups indicated such a preference, and if public input really mattered, why was it not included in at least one of the presented possibilities?
To answer that question, let me digress a bit. I arrived at the meeting early and had an opportunity to chat with with Messrs. Mike McAnelly, Rick Cain, and Michael Scroggins. I mentioned to Michael that, if he'd read what I've previously written he might have noticed that an underlying concern I had was whether the public input gathered from the
Let's Talk Transit process would really matter when routes were finally determined, and that I was hoping to hear something in this last meeting that would allay my concern. His good-natured reply was, to the effect, "Well, if the meetings don't take public input into account in arriving at routes, we've (he and COTPA's staff) surely have been wasting a lot of time," but, of course, that answer begs the question. Without any doubt, COTPA and its staff, as well as those in the city planning department, have expended lots of time and money putting these excellent sessions together. But, the question remained, "to what end?"
My distrust was soothed a bit during McAnelly's presentation. He made it clear that everything presented during the sessions would be presented to the Oversight Committee, the next step in the process, including the routes submitted by all groups, including that a 2/3 majority of those favored that Walker be included.
But, the question lingered, why hadn't Walker included in the proforma scenarios?
After the meeting, a final opportunity to talk with him occurred. After Steve Lackmeyer asked McAnelly several questions, I got my turn. I had written my question on one of those cards that didn't have time to get answered (thanks to those who circumvented the written question approach), and here was my chance, face to face. I've forgotten how the written question was literally worded, but the gist, and my oral question, and the rest of the conversation, came out something like this:
Loudenback: We are told that public input is helping shape the placement of the streetcar routes. Given that, can you give one example of a route that would most probably NOT have been included but which was as a result of the public sessions? I understand that this is sort of a convoluted question, but do you get my drift? I guess that I'm saying, "Prove it."
McAnelly: I understand what you are saying. The example is probably Walker — it would probably not have been included in the routes.
Loudenback: But Walker is not included in any of the three models.
McAnelly: That was a mistake and it was probably my fault. That a majority favor Walker will be shown as a public preference.
Without-a-blink straightforward honesty and integrity will win me over anytime, anyplace. With that, my concerns, above expressed, were dashed, and I am exceptionally pleased to say that I have no lingering doubts about
Let's Talk Transit's stated intentions as being true. Trust is an earned thing, and, in
Let's Talk Transit, I am satisfied that the trust is deserved.
My final comment and additional hope: Perhaps the good will engendered by
Let's Talk Transit will have a
trickle-up effect, as well.
Is this what you expected me to say, Jeff?
Re: The Modern Streetcar and Commuter Transit Project in MAPS 3 Progresses
Originally Posted by Steve
Reply With Quote
Let's bury the streetcar and make it a subway--especially on the new C2S section! ha ha ha, that ought to stir up some crap with the angry pilgrims on here. 
Bookmarks