Streetcar

[Doug Loudenback]

How many miles is that? I like it, with the reservations outlined below.

And Doug, while one can hope Walker really was an oversight, as I said earlier, my walk over to city hall made me realize that it's possible Walker isn't the best choice. Athough you would never be more than two blocks from a streetcar line, were it to run down Walker and Broadway, what I didn't think about until my walk is that you might walk your two blocks and have to walk further to a stop. It doesn't sound like much, but in the heat it seems a lot farther than it is. If it seemed like a bit of a hike to walk five blocks west to me, to people unaccustomed to walking it might seem like an onerous experience, which we want to avoid. We want people to feel as if they can pop on or off easily anywhere in town. Also, if we want the line to stop at the city bus building, we would have to weave on and off Walker, and I'm now thinking the straighter the line the better.

Betts, my point wasn't whether Walker was or was not a choice to include exclude ... my point solely related to the effect, if any, of public participation in the process, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not arguing the value of any particular routes here ... I'm discussing the point that we were told that public participation would matter and that Walker was left out by a mistake (66% of the Session #2 participants favoring that route).

That's all I'm saying. And, to that point, McAnelley acknowledged that Walker's omission was a mistake.

My entire query had to to do with whether these sessions were merely a parlor game (merely under the guise of saying that public opinion would form the placement of the routes) or if they meant something beyond that. Nothing else.

Although I'm one who thinks that Walker would be a good choice, that's completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

[BG918]

If we want simplicity..


Can't get more simple than that. Then you run into the following problems (allow me to interrogate myself):

1. Is it not important to try and touch a potential convention center facility for those potential riders?
2. Completely missed the boat on Deep Deuce.
3. Should we not also attempt to pick up passengers in the downtown core during the day?
4. How does this system allow for future expansion? Doesn't look very conducive.

You will have to rework/get rid of the roundabout at NW 10 & Walker. Not a huge deal but I'm sure some people will whine about it.

[betts]

"Completely missed the boat on Deep Deuce."

People who live in Deep Deuce are used to walking. A walk to Sheridan or Broadway to pick up the streetcar is so not a big deal. People who are not used to walking are the ones who will complain about having to walk a couple of blocks. So, I wouldn't worry about Deep Deuce with this plan.

I do think we need to plan to connect the streetcar to the convention center as soon as it's built. But, if it truly is going to be the last thing built (which I'm not sure makes sense), perhaps we've got time to pick up additional funding to make sure it's connected by the time it's complete.

[Larry OKC]

Doug,

I appreciate your analysis but one question remains. If they used the meetings and the routes generated from those meetings, how in the blazes did they overlook or make a mistake and leave Walker out? Especially when it was chosen by 2/3 of the participants. I am afraid that I can't share your optimism on this. How do you know that "a majority favor Walker will be shown as a public preference"? How prominently will this be emphasized? Are they going to redo the maps reflecting Walker or is that going to be a throw away line buried in the report? As you said trust is earned and so far I think the jury is still out on this one.

[Larry OKC]

But, one of the problems with Oklahoma City goes back to our car driven society.

Might there be a connection???

I had a couple of thoughts tonight going to, during and after the meeting. First of all, I decided to walk to the meeting. It's pretty uncool to drive the five blocks when you've been talking about how living downtown means you can walk everywhere. That's when I realized that the weather is as much a factor as anything, and it's pretty darn hot even in May when you walk that far. So, while I can say that running the streetcar down Broadway and down Walker always puts you within two blocks of the line, you also have to walk to a stop once you reach the line, and that might be stretching it some times of the year.

I also discovered that walking down the sidewalk next to a plaza is far hotter than walking in the shadow of a building, and that got me to thinking about how many months of the year a plaza is even enjoyable. We create big concrete spaces that are comfortable about five to six months of the year only (sorry, Sandridge digression)?

When I got to the meeting and really started looking at the suggested routes, I thought of trying to give people directions to the streetcar: "You can catch it by turning right at the Boulevard onto Hudson. Two blocks later, turn right again for two blocks on Reno, then you turn left (north) on Robinson for six blocks, turn left on 4th street for two blocks and then turn right on Hudson again. You can pick it up anywhere on that route". Huh? That's just one north-south meander.

This should be simple. We should be able to say, "You can pick the streetcar up on Broadway, anywhere between Reno and 9th" or "The streetcar runs down Reno. There's a stop every two blocks between Walker and ....." I think we need a loop, and it mostly needs to look like a box.

Those are my thoughts so far.

Nothing wrong with those thoughts at all.

With our car driving preference, if people have to walk more than a certain distance (varies for each individual), they are going to say "screw it, I'm taking my car". That is one of the huge challenges with this "starter system" approach (rather than implementing the whole enchilada). If it isn't done correctly, people aren't going to use it, if they don't use it and see a value in it, that diminishes the likelihood of getting future voter approved funding approved (MAPS style, bond issue etc).

[Doug Loudenback]

Doug,

I appreciate your analysis but one question remains. If they used the meetings and the routes generated from those meetings, how in the blazes did they overlook or make a mistake and leave Walker out? Especially when it was chosen by 2/3 of the participants. I am afraid that I can't share your optimism on this. How do you know that "a majority favor Walker will be shown as a public preference"? How prominently will this be emphasized? Are they going to redo the maps reflecting Walker or is that going to be a throw away line buried in the report? As you said trust is earned and so far I think the jury is still out on this one.

I understand what you're saying and, yes, nothing is done until it's done. I guess that it was a strong sense about McAnalley that caused me to be trustful. When my written question is answered on-line (like all the others), we'll see how the answer is different, if any.

[Steve]

Here's the problem with consultants: no matter how smart, honest or good they may be, they still must compile what their employer wants. And that's where I'm skeptical. I don't buy that ignoring the preference for Walker was an "oops." Route maps aren't assembled like that. There was a conscious decision to ignore Walker, and I've got to still question whether McAnalley was being totally upfront in his explanation as to how that happened.
I've seen behind-the-scenes efforts by elected leaders and city staff to sway consultants' reports time and time again over the past 15 years. I've seen some consultants' reports killed all together (oh say, has anyone seen the Bricktown land use plan yet? How about the office marketing study commissioned four years ago by Downtown Oklahoma City Inc.?).
And there are people who feel that the Core to Shore plan was outright corrupted for political means.
So you've got to ask yourself this: what do you believe? Do you believe McAnalley and his crew did an "oops," are sloppy and either couldn't read survey responses right? Do you believe they traced the wrong line?
OR... do you believe there was a conscious decision made to ignore the Walker preference? And if so, shouldn't he explain more as to why rather than just say "my bad"?

[Decious]

Seems to me that McAnalley was saying that the mistake was not including the Walker route even though he doesn't think that it's best for the streetcar. He's not saying that he "forgot" or the "his hand slipped" but that he intentionally left it off and THAT was a mistake. It was a mistake because the goal of these meetings was to gather what the public wanted as to the streetcar route. Meaning if the conclusion had be a straight line down Walker from 23rd to the river, so be it. That's what the public wanted. This was to be a part of the decision making process and his omitting of Walker because of his own personal preference was therefore, a mistake...of commission...not omission. Like Doug, I'm satiated by the fact that he owned up to the "breaking of the spirit of the process" and am hopeful that more of our city leaders will learn to admit their mistakes. There is a new wave running through this city(and this message board) that belies what produces good results. Seemingly overnight, we've become very critical and quick when it comes to dealing out judgment. It's the latest fashion and will surely pass, but it's made this forum almost impossible to read and enjoy. I believe in asking questions and holding people's feet to the fire. However, most of these interrogations seem to be done in the name of what is "right" and good and true. It's always seemingly a moral inquisition, and it creates villains and evil doers where none exists. Very dangerous. There are many ways to err and erring in the name of righteousness is no better that erring in the name of ignorance. Thanks for the hard work Doug!

[Steve]

Interesting perspective....

[Popsy]

Could I ask what the basis is for "a LOT of people who feel that the Core to Shore plan was outright corrupted for political means" is about?

[Steve]

There are critics of Core to Shore who say the effort has been misrepresented as a group decision to back one convention center site over another when no such decision was made. Not my call - just saying that feeling is out there. I'll withdraw "a lot" because that's a matter of perspective. But there are quite a few.

[Paseofreak]

Here's the problem with consultants: no matter how smart, honest or good they may be, they still must compile what their employer wants. And that's where I'm skeptical. I don't buy that ignoring the preference for Walker was an "oops." Route maps aren't assembled like that. There was a conscious decision to ignore Walker, and I've got to still question whether McAnalley was being totally upfront in his explanation as to how that happened.
I've seen behind-the-scenes efforts by elected leaders and city staff to sway consultants' reports time and time again over the past 15 years. I've seen some consultants' reports killed all together (oh say, has anyone seen the Bricktown land use plan yet? How about the office marketing study commissioned four years ago by Downtown Oklahoma City Inc.?).
And there are A LOT of people who feel that the Core to Shore plan was outright corrupted for political means.
So you've got to ask yourself this: what do you believe? Do you believe McAnalley and his crew did an "oops," are sloppy and either couldn't read survey responses right? Do you believe they traced the wrong line?
OR... do you believe there was a conscious decision made to ignore the Walker preference? And if so, shouldn't he explain more as to why rather than just say "my bad"?

Steve, being from the consulting industry, I too find it hard to believe that the type of analysis conducted by Blair Humphreys is not one of the most elemental steps in this process that would never be overlooked by an able practicioner. However, I can't (and don't want to) for the life of me believe that such shenanigans are being carried out in the light of day if the motivations are as nefarious as critics suspect.

I've only been in OKC for five years and I've tried to pay attention, but I'm likely missing a lot of background. I see sensible criticisms of things like the exclusion of Walker Blvd. from the this process and city's initial siting of the Convention Center that offer up a preferred alternative. Good stuff. However, recognizing that these officials can be less than forthcoming, news and discussions fail to explore possible motivations, good or bad, for the decisions and actions in question. Unless it is simply ignorant arrogance (i.e., "I know what I'm doing, I don't need your input"), I can't come up with a plausible motivation for public officials actions beyond blatant favor swapping for personal profit which should ultimately be easily exposed to the light of day resulting in political disaster. I really would hate to think that either is the case.

Can you help me out?

[Doug Loudenback]

Here's the problem with consultants: no matter how smart, honest or good they may be, they still must compile what their employer wants. And that's where I'm skeptical. I don't buy that ignoring the preference for Walker was an "oops." Route maps aren't assembled like that. There was a conscious decision to ignore Walker, and I've got to still question whether McAnalley was being totally upfront in his explanation as to how that happened.
I've seen behind-the-scenes efforts by elected leaders and city staff to sway consultants' reports time and time again over the past 15 years. I've seen some consultants' reports killed all together (oh say, has anyone seen the Bricktown land use plan yet? How about the office marketing study commissioned four years ago by Downtown Oklahoma City Inc.?).
And there are people who feel that the Core to Shore plan was outright corrupted for political means.
So you've got to ask yourself this: what do you believe? Do you believe McAnalley and his crew did an "oops," are sloppy and either couldn't read survey responses right? Do you believe they traced the wrong line?
OR... do you believe there was a conscious decision made to ignore the Walker preference? And if so, shouldn't he explain more as to why rather than just say "my bad"?

Well, good friend, you were there with McAnelly asking him questions at the end of the meeting, even more questions than I did, and I didn't hear everything said between the two of you. With the concern that we evidently shared at that point in time, did you ask him questions along the lines you suggest above? If not, why not? If you did, what did he say?

[Spartan]

You will have to rework/get rid of the roundabout at NW 10 & Walker. Not a huge deal but I'm sure some people will whine about it.

You would actually avoid the roundabout altogether because Tenth curves northward as it nears the roundabout, so you would get off the pavement for about 50 feet or so.

[Doug Loudenback]

As an aside, for those who might be interested in a little Okc streetcar history, the map below, from When Oklahoma Took the Trolley by Allison Chandler and Stephen D. Maquire (Interurbans 1980) shows the city's routes ... I've color coded the map to show the types of routes involved: Red=early years' original tracks; Light Blue=later passenger or freight; Purple=freight only; and Green=interurban.



Note that not all tracks/routes were in place at any given point in time ... routes would be added and/or discontinued ... and the map shows all that existed over time. You can read more about this here: Doug Dawgz Blog: Okc Trolleys Part 1

[bdhumphreys]

You would actually avoid the roundabout altogether because Tenth curves northward as it nears the roundabout, so you would get off the pavement for about 50 feet or so.

This is absolutely true given the current configuration, but the already funded extension of the Classen Drive diagonal SE to Hudson - 2007 GO Bond if I remember correctly - could limit are ability to do this. That said, I say if that is the route we want, we just redo the roundabout or cancel the plans for the extension of the diagonal.

Sometimes it is difficult, but we have to keep costs and benefits in perspective. For instance, while it seemingly makes sense to connect the streetcar to the Downtown Transit Center on 4th and Hudson, the benefits of doing so are minimal. According to demographia, our bus system only carries 100 (or 0.9%) of our CBD commuter trips, so the number of riders that might transfer to the streetcar system is extremely low. And the Downtown Transit center is not a huge loss. It cost has been in use since August 2, 2004 and we have $6.2 million invested in its construction (source - pg5). By the time the MAPS 3 Streetcar is active, the center will have served (a few of) us for well over a decade. At $20 million per mile, we cannot afford to make route decisions based on flawed logic, nor can we afford to change the route based on comparatively inexpensive changes to existing infrastructure.

[Doug Loudenback]

Following up, to sort of "flush out" the trust issue as to whether public input was actually significant in the Let's Talk Transit process, I've left the following comment in my May 27 blog article at Let's Talk Transit website (not in my personal blog, but in the Let's Talk Transit blog):

I'll add my own comment:

After reaching the conclusion that I did following my conversation with Mike McAnelly (reported immediately above), some at OkcTalk remain skeptical that the omission of not including Walker on one of the 3 proforma scenarios was a mistake in one of two senses: (1) Merely an "opps" [sic - should have been "oops"] mistake, meaning that it really was intended to be included but because of inadvertence was not; or (2) a mistake for not including Walker given that 2/3 of the table participants in Session #2 thought it should be include [sic - should have been included] given that the stated aim is to represent public input.

It would do no harm, and would likely do some good, for someone from Let's Talk Transit to directly address the Walker omission from the 3 proformas, and I encourage that response, either in a comment here or in some other place in the Let's Talk Transit website.

It might be good for anyone who may be concerned about this issue (public input during the sessions as being meaningful) to add their own comments there because that might help to get additional Let's Talk Transit input and responses to the matter. When all is said and done, I ultimately based my conclusion, "OK, I trust you," on the responses I got from Mike McAnelly following the meeting which conclusions were based upon my "gut" reaction to what he said to me (or if one is from more sophisticated environs, a "visceral" reaction ... when I was stationed in Washington D.C. on a military legal team in 1969-70, a member of that team was a Harvard law school graduate, and that is when I learned that, while we have "gut" reactions in Oklahoma, they have "visceral" reactions there). No harm done in pressing the point to gain clarification ... soooo ... press it in the Let's Talk Transit arena whereat some additional Let's Talk Transit response might be forthcoming since it would be a mistake to expect such clarification in this forum from Let's Talk Transit. I'll add this ... my gut responses, while valuable to me, are hardly worth betting the farm on and I'm interested in hearing any additional comments that Let's Talk Transit may care to make, just as all of us are.

So, go for it. In the end, I'm much more interested in the truth being stated and/or confirmed more than I am in having my fat belly's instincts being vindicated ... though that would be OK, as well. My belly needs a nice rub now and then.

[Spartan]

This is absolutely true given the current configuration, but the already funded extension of the Classen Drive diagonal SE to Hudson - 2007 GO Bond if I remember correctly - could limit are ability to do this. That said, I say if that is the route we want, we just redo the roundabout or cancel the plans for the extension of the diagonal.

Sometimes it is difficult, but we have to keep costs and benefits in perspective. For instance, while it seemingly makes sense to connect the streetcar to the Downtown Transit Center on 4th and Hudson, the benefits of doing so are minimal. According to demographia, our bus system only carries 100 (or 0.9%) of our CBD commuter trips, so the number of riders that might transfer to the streetcar system is extremely low. And the Downtown Transit center is not a huge loss. It cost has been in use since August 2, 2004 and we have $6.2 million invested in its construction (source - pg5). By the time the MAPS 3 Streetcar is active, the center will have served (a few of) us for well over a decade. At $20 million per mile, we cannot afford to make route decisions based on flawed logic, nor can we afford to change the route based on comparatively inexpensive changes to existing infrastructure.

I forgot about the Classen extension. It would seem like a lot more information needs to come to the surface on this topic. I just don't see how we can move forward discussion any potential downtown capital investment without knowing more about the planned traffic circles, and my personal opinion as a design student is that we need more traffic circles, so the traffic circles NEED to go in there--but I am certain there is some way we can get a streetcar route through a roundabout as well.

There have to be some solutions within our financial reach that can get a streetcar line through a traffic circle safely. Considering how streetcars are overwhelmingly a Euro thing at this point, I am sure they have encountered this problem, although I know they are taking out traffic circles as well, there are tons that they're keeping. This issue has also come up in DC, which is considering streetcar, and also well-known for its iconic traffic circles that have defined urban neighborhoods such as Dupont Circle.

Here is a vintage photo of Thomas Circle in DC with a streetcar in it, granted, Thomas Circle has a much wider turning radius.
DC on the Move: Historic Streetcar Photos | ReadysetDC

Perhaps a solution for OKC could be just slicing right through the traffic circle and installing flashing stopping lights at each of the ingress points for traffic as the streetcar approaches the traffic circle. It would work very similarly to stopping lights at a crosswalk. The bottom line though is that we need to tackle the traffic circle issue first because, with traffic circles planned at 9th and Hudson and 8th and Harvey, there is virtually no way to connect MidTown (within a 6-7 mile starter system) until we figure that out.

_______________________________________________
Oh and Doug, I'm not ignoring your posts. Just responding to Blair's direct post, and when I get more of a chance, I'll read your posts. (I'm not trying to create a side discussion or get people to ignore your analysis.)

[Doug Loudenback]

Not a problem, Spartan.

Following up further, I've added the following to the end of my personal blog post on Session #5:

Session 5 Postscript: Some at OkcTalk.com are questioning whether I've been too generous in giving a pass to Let's Talk Transit's sincerity in being devoted to giving public input to the location of streetcar lines downtown. There, Larry OKC says,

I appreciate your analysis but one question remains. If they used the meetings and the routes generated from those meetings, how in the blazes did they overlook or make a mistake and leave Walker out? Especially when it was chosen by 2/3 of the participants. I am afraid that I can't share your optimism on this. How do you know that "a majority favor Walker will be shown as a public preference"? How prominently will this be emphasized? Are they going to redo the maps reflecting Walker or is that going to be a throw away line buried in the report? As you said trust is earned and so far I think the jury is still out on this one.

And Steve Lackmeyer adds,

Here's the problem with consultants: no matter how smart, honest or good they may be, they still must compile what their employer wants. And that's where I'm skeptical. I don't buy that ignoring the preference for Walker was an "oops." Route maps aren't assembled like that. There was a conscious decision to ignore Walker, and I've got to still question whether McAnelly was being totally upfront in his explanation as to how that happened.

I've seen behind-the-scenes efforts by elected leaders and city staff to sway consultants' reports time and time again over the past 15 years. I've seen some consultants' reports killed all together (oh say, has anyone seen the Bricktown land use plan yet? How about the office marketing study commissioned four years ago by Downtown Oklahoma City Inc.?).

And there are people who feel that the Core to Shore plan was outright corrupted for political means.

So you've got to ask yourself this: what do you believe? Do you believe McAnelly and his crew did an "oops," are sloppy and either couldn't read survey responses right? Do you believe they traced the wrong line?

OR... do you believe there was a conscious decision made to ignore the Walker preference? And if so, shouldn't he explain more as to why rather than just say "my bad"?

To get clarification on the matter, I've left this comment to my own blog article at the Let's Talk Transit website:

I'll add my own comment:

After reaching the conclusion that I did following my conversation with Mike McAnelly (reported immediately above), some at OkcTalk.com remain skeptical that the omission of not including Walker on one of the 3 proforma scenarios was a mistake in one of two senses: (1) Merely an "oops" mistake, meaning that it really was intended to be included but because of inadvertence was not; or (2) a mistake for not including Walker given that 2/3 of the table participants in Session #2 thought it should be include, given that the stated aim is to represent public input.

It would do no harm, and would likely do some good, for someone from Let's Talk Transit to directly address the Walker omission from the 3 proformas, and I encourage that response, either in a comment here or in some other place in the Let's Talk Transit website.

All I'm looking for and wanting to do here is present is the truth. So, if my gut reaction when speaking with McAnelly was mistakenly taken for the truth, I stand, and want to be, corrected. Why not post your own queries or comments at at the end of my blog article at Let's Talk Transit and perhaps Let's Talk Transit people will respond and get the matter clarified, once and for all.

Another side of the coin is this: If Let's Talk Transit DOES NOT present Walker as a public-preferred route-of-choice to the MAPS3 oversight committee, my "gut" reaction will be obviously have been proven to be erroneous, and all of what I've said above about believing that Let's Talk Transit was sincere in obtaining and putting forward public input will have been badly mistaken. I still hope, and trust, that is not the case.

So, if the gut reaction in my original blogpost is misplaced, I've presented you guys, as well as Let's Talk Transit, both a place and the opportunity of getting the truth out, one way or another, at Let's Talk Transit. Given the quotes that I've already made from here, there is no need to be shy.

Let the truth hang out.

By the way, Steve, still waiting on your response to my above post directed to you. To make your reply more convenient here, I asked you:

Well, good friend, you were there with McAnelly asking him questions at the end of the meeting, even more questions than I did, and I didn't hear everything said between the two of you. With the concern that we evidently shared at that point in time, did you ask him questions along the lines you suggest above? If not, why not? If you did, what did he say?

Signed: Sleepless in Okc ...

[Steve]

I asked how it happened - his response was it was a mistake and they shouldn't have done it. Now, I could have twisted his arm, but being surrounded by a group of people as I asked questions, I didn't want witnesses in court...

[Doug Loudenback]

Oh, fine. You're willing to plug him with and/or attribute theoretical assumptions or queries now, but not do the real deal when you had the opportunity to ask him first-hand? Sorry, my man, but that ain't fair play.

[Platemaker]

Portland has had success with single track with one line going down street A and another going the other way down street B a block away. That way new development is spread over several blocks instead of being concentrated on one street.

BUT... in Portland one block apart is about 250'... in OKC one block is about 550'. Then try to do like some have suggested and space each track two blocks about.... that's 1100 feet... half a block shy of a quarter mile. double track is OKC best option.

[Steve]

Oh, fine. You're willing to plug him with and/or attribute theoretical assumptions or queries now, but not do the real deal when you had the opportunity to ask him first-hand? Sorry, my man, but that ain't fair play.

Doug, I asked him how it happened. I asked twice. The only answer he would offer was that it was a mistake. I don't see the lack of "fair play." If you think you can get a better answer, go for it.

[betts]

BUT... in Portland one block apart is about 250'... in OKC one block is about 550'. Then try to do like some have suggested and space each track two blocks about.... that's 1100 feet... half a block shy of a quarter mile. double track is OKC best option.

The problem I see with double track is that we can only afford six miles of track. Double track allows us to only cover 3 miles. And, while you're right, two blocks is a significant number of feet, there's a problem with a double track. Let's imagine we have a double track running down Broadway. While people who are near Broadway won't have to walk very far to go the opposite direction, people who are over on Walker will have to walk four blocks to go either direction. That's 2200 feet. I still think we're better off having single track, which will cover more distance, and making it equitable for people regardless of where they are downtown. All things being equal, double track would be nice, but I'd rather have more area covered and have single track, personally.

[Spartan]

If we go with something like this, we are okay after the revelation that OKC blocks are further apart than blocks in virtually any other city.