Streetcar

[Steve]

Not trying to make anyone look like idiots. I'm asking questions you don't like.
All I wanted to know was whether or not anyone put a hard and fast deadline on Project 180, and thus the streetcars.
Why is this so contentious?

[soonerguru]

I just reread Steve's article and I have a question: why do you take what Devon says as gospel? Do you really think a PR guy for Devon is going to let you in on what they're demanding behind the scenes? I know you're not so naive as to think that Devon and other major players in downtown don't push things they want and expect behind the scenes. Just ask Jane Jenkins, the holdout you feature in your article.

The maddening irony of your muckraking style is you are poking the eyes of the most transparent of all MAPS projects. At every turn, the public has been involved and invited to participate in the streetcar planning.

Why don't you pick on the people who are working behind the scenes to derail or slow down the streetcar project? I know you know enough people to know there is an effort out there to push it back ten years or more. Also, you seem to have a personal issue with Jeff.

I generally admire your work, but the Gazette has done a much better job reporting on the streetcar project, and without the weird personal implications.

Why should I stay tuned? I'm frankly not interested. There's no hidden agenda on the streetcar committee. The secrecy lies with the under-the-radar campaign to needlessly delay the project. Your tit-for-tat silliness on a public message board strikes me as unprofessional.

[Steve]

Sooner, I'm trying to understand why the rush. It's that simple. And so far, the answers don't seem to match up with each other.

[mcca7596]

Decreased costs...?

[Steve]

Here's what I just posted at OKC Central. I hope this settles your concerns about my questions:
On Tuesday I delved into the whole discussion of the streetcar and I’m still not sure I understand all that’s going on with the move by the MAPS 3 transit committee to pick a preferred route before they know route costs, schedules, venue locations, etc.

I’ve continued to delve into this on OKC Talk, and there are some folks not happy with my questions. I understand the frustration. There are a lot of good people donating their time, and they might feel as if I’m trying to insinuate something. But what I’m trying to figure out is what is driving this schedule, what’s at risk, and whether some options might be ruled out, or a system might be favored, by proceeding at the pace currently set.

It’s that simple.

[Urban Pioneer]

I'm asking questions you don't like.

Don't like??? I would totally like them if the project was going to be in conflict. Instead, you ignore people reaching out to you to explain to you the rational of our decisions and instead descend into sensationalistic journalism that damages our relationship with the public.

Yeah your right. I don't like that.

[soonerguru]

Sooner, I'm trying to understand why the rush. It's that simple. And so far, the answers don't seem to match up with each other.

So you think they should just screw around for a few more years and watch their cost estimates blow up into the stratosphere? That's moronic. That may be your opinion, but it's your opinion, and it's weirdly obsessive.

Even if they determine a route, it's going to take years to get anything moving.

Is this really the most pressing news item for discovery? What I find weird is you seem to be advocating the "slow down" just as people are hearing about it on the street. What do you know about that and why aren't you reporting on it? Are you protecting some sources who are trying to push this project back? Is that your desire?

Frankly, as a citizen of this city, I would like to see some semblance of a transit-focused, urban, walkable environment before I'm dead or give up and move elsewhere where I can enjoy it before I'm dead.

And let's not forget that the streetcar was one of only two or three projects the voters even wanted. Just because the suits at the Chamber want the Convention Center post haste does not make that the best decision for the citizens.

Also, in your dustup, I find this point odd: "I’m still not sure I understand all that’s going on with the move by the MAPS 3 transit committee to pick a preferred route before they know route costs, schedules, venue locations, etc." Please, you must not be paying attention, as it has been stated no fewer than 50 times that final costs cannot be determined until engineers are able to study the routes. Therefore, the routes have to be decided -- not set in stone -- so the costs can be determined. Capiche? See, that wasn't so hard. Why you portray it to your readers otherwise I have no idea.

[BoulderSooner]

Sooner, I'm trying to understand why the rush. It's that simple. And so far, the answers don't seem to match up with each other.

what rush??? there have been months of AA meetings years since the fixed guide way study .. and hours and hours of subcommittee meetings and unofficial meeting discussing street car ... with public input the entire way .. you take the position of 1 of the 10 subcommittee members, that has missed some of the meetings fyi, as the center piece of your extremely slanted newspaper piece. you have been to what 1/3 of 1 meeting .. i am not even on the committee and have been to several of the meetings... the members 9-1 voted a portion of their preferred route, a section i will add that is very clear to anyone that has looked at the streetcar with any serious thought

so again i ask WHAT RUSH??

i will add .. the trails are using the master plan as a starting point .. the river has 2 projected already beginning .. are you asking whats the rush to them?

[Steve]

I'm not advocating a "slow down" and I am trying to figure out an answer to the questions Jane Jenkins has been asking. Why pick a preferred route before the venue sites are chosen later this spring? And no, there is no conspiracy involved here. I talked to Jeff and others last week. I wrote a column. There was a discussion that followed here at OKC Talk and I followed up with an explanation of my questions and an effort to see if any more insight could be gotten.
And believe it or not, I think I know more tonight than I did before. City staff didn't give a "deadline" - they only set out a schedule they said they were following for Project 180. Now the question is, will the city benefit, as you say, or stand to lose something by setting transit on the schedule it's on.
Jeff, if this got too intense, I apologize. Unfortunately online conversations get that way. But as I said, there are parts of this that just don't make sense.

[Urban Pioneer]

Here's what I just posted at OKC Central. I hope this settles your concerns about my questions:
On Tuesday I delved into the whole discussion of the streetcar and I’m still not sure I understand all that’s going on with the move by the MAPS 3 transit committee to pick a preferred route before they know route costs, schedules, venue locations, etc.

I’ve continued to delve into this on OKC Talk, and there are some folks not happy with my questions. I understand the frustration. There are a lot of good people donating their time, and they might feel as if I’m trying to insinuate something. But what I’m trying to figure out is what is driving this schedule, what’s at risk, and whether some options might be ruled out, or a system might be favored, by proceeding at the pace currently set.

It’s that simple.

My comments will remain on the neutral and perfunctory level playing field of OKC Talk. I would suggest to everyone else that they do the same. I learned my lesson the last time I challenged Steve on his "playing field."

[Steve]

Alright.

[Urban Pioneer]

And what I mean is that OKC Talk is real-time with minimal spam filter delays and the ability to edit. Much more comfortable format for someone being "targeted."

[Steve]

Jeff, you know I've never censored you on OKC Central. I've also appreciated your contributions to the blog with your guest posts. I agree - the stupid spam filters are a problem that can lead to problems in such conversations.
You mentioned agendas, etc.
Tell me what questions you think I should be asking.

[shane453]

I'm really excited about the pace of the streetcar progress since I hope to move to the inner city in the next few years and would love to have access to it as soon as possible. I simply think P180 and Streetcar subcommittee agreed to try to work together at an escalated pace AND reduced cost... All the while the route process has been open and public in "direct democracy" format with several committee members participating in discussions here. That's efficient and transparent decision-making if I ever saw it. Besides, the costs and vehicle specs will come as engineers look at the suggested routes later on... I'm having a hard time seeing anything shady here at all.

As for matching streetcar route to convention center... I don't think that's so important. The convention center, like any other future development, can choose to locate along the route or off it. As someone once pointed out to me, a streetcar isn't going to be so useful when a convention of 1,000 attendees lets out. Or anything more than 100. And planning our route based on a "connect the dots" of places with the most political backing is not going to create the best transit system for downtown.

[Steve]

Guys, I just read through the last three pages to figure out how this discussion got so heated.
Yes, I've been aggressive in trying to find out what city staffers said, and who said what. But not once in this discussion have I impugned the character of Jeff, others on the committee, or the streetcar project.
From day one of Project 180 there has been a tremendous rush to get it done in an extraordinarily short time period. And I've never gotten a full understanding from the city as to why. This is the question I was referring to earlier. And what I'm trying to find out is how much the transit schedule is being influenced by the Project 180 schedule, and whether there could be some harm caused as a result.
Jeff, I suggest you look back at the past three pages yourself. Look at the column again. And ask yourself whether I'm really attacking your or the streetcar project in what I've written (I'm not)

[Urban Pioneer]

"Originally Posted by Steve
Enjoy it Betts. Please realize, this is not meant to cause you or Sid any discomfort. I realize you guys are donating your time without any compensation whatsoever for all that you do."

It is obvious to me that there is something personal going on here. You certainly don't mind my discomfort. I feel like it has been personal with you since we launched this project.

If I'm wrong, fine. Let's leave it here. But otherwise, consider me always willing to sit down and explain this stuff honestly to anyone who wants to be educated. That particularly means you too.

[Steve]

I edited that after wards to make it non name specific... not intended. I was talking to Sid and Betts at the time I wrote that.
My only irritation in all this is that it was so damn difficult to get out that city staff had set a schedule, not an agenda.

[betts]

Steve, I think I understand your point. Now that Urban Pioneer mentioned it, I do remember the Jane Story presentation. But that was part of a presentation by multiple people. I've just about been presented to death, to be honest with you. It might have been she who first mentioned the timeline, but that was six meetings ago.

But, my point was that I don't really have a big problem with the timeline. I think every project should have a timeline. Regardless, we approached our route discussions with complete seriousness and no one in our group ever suggested we do anything but come up with the very best route, in our minds, regardless of the timeline. If I'd felt we were picking a route just to meet a deadline, I would have said we need to put on the breaks. But I didn't feel that way. I've said to a few people: "We have a group of ten very opinionated people who are all used to being in charge and making decisions. It's amazing that we had so little trouble coming up with something so many of us agreed upon and felt great about." I seriously think if we meetinged for another year, we'd come up with the same route. There are too many things about it that are logical, to me, to think another route might have emerged.

As far as the hub and convention center go, to my knowledge, everyone in the group thinks we should go to the convention center and hub. That's why we have dotted lines on the southern portion of the route.....so we can do just that and have the flexibility to adapt to engineering and right of way considerations, especially relative to the railroad bridges.

I think most of us were also very aware that we cannot move any farther forward until we have some reasonable idea of costs, and that requires a route. Without any idea of costs, any sort of planning beyond a simple loop is a pipe dream.

But again, it is not our job as committee members to determine if what we are told is false. We have to act on the information we are given. And, as good citizens and people concerned for the well-being of our city, financial and otherwise, I believe it is part of our charge to spend carefully and give our city the most cost-effective system we can. It is wasteful to tear up the street a second time to move utilities if we don't have to do so. However, if you find we were not given accurate information, I still do not believe it would substantially change the solid-line route as outlined.

[Steve]

And there we go. It is part of my job to see whether is said to you - and taxpayers - is true or false....

[BoulderSooner]

Start with your slanted article

[Steve]

You think it was slanted. I disagree.
I explained this before to Betts. The "butchering of the steer" ending was a historic reference to the original MAPS projects - how different ideas, disagreements, questions about schedules, etc., can all seem a bit ugly to the observer, but in the end can lead to a nice result (as seen with MAPS).

[soonerguru]

Steve,

You may want to inquire as to whether Jane Jenkins is getting pressured to "apply the brakes" from city insiders. Could her opinion be influenced by that? You know how things work in this town.

[Larry OKC]

"...it is not our job as committee members to determine if what we are told is false. We have to act on the information we are given...."

But what if you find out the information you've been given is false? Then what?

[Larry OKC]

City officials long ago acknowledged they were mis-spoken on the Devon deadline. Are you telling me that a city official has formally informed your committee that there is a deadline to get Project 180 done by the time Devon tower is done and occupied? If so, tell me who it is.

Steve, I must have missed that. How long ago was this? Do you have a link or link to the articles where it was expressly stated or implied that this was due to the requirements of the agreement with Devon? I am going to dig thru stuff myself, but thought this might be faster.

On edit this is what I found:
Robinson to be 1st Devon project (Lackmeyer, Oklahoman, 10/15/09)

After the meeting, [Devon Energy chief executive officer Larry ] Nichols acknowledged the pace of the improvements may seem rapid, but he believes it can be accomplished because they are all being funded at once.

The agreement between the city and Devon calls for improvements throughout the central business district to be completed by when the tower is open in 2013.
...
"To me, getting ahead of schedule is not a problem,” O’Connor said. "Getting behind schedule is a problem because we have completion dates in the implementation agreement.”

Criticism, confusion arise over Oklahoma City downtown projects (Lackmeyer, Oklahoman, 2/9/10)

"We do have this agreement to do streets around Devon's development by the time their building is done -- and those could not have waited," O'Connor said.
...
O'Connor and Story say they don't expect streetcar construction to begin until 2020 -- six years after work is to be completed on Project 180.

Project 180 and the MAPS 3 could save taxpayer money (Gazette, 12/1/2010)

As part of the Project 180 agreement with Devon Energy, the city has certain requirements and deadlines to meet in the construction and renovation process.
...
Eric Wenger, MAPS program manager, told the subcommittee that the next round of work for Project 180 would likely begin in early summer, meaning that if the subcommittee wanted to integrate the streetcar work with the other project’s work, a route would have to be decided on fairly soon, but several unanswered questions remain.

“I know timing is of the essence, but there are still so many unanswered questions, not just with 180’s schedule, but with the transit project itself,” Wenger said. “If we can avoid duplication — that is a goal.”
...
Project 180 program manager Laura Story, a former assistant city engineer, said overlap between her project and the MAPS 3 transit project is unavoidable, and to begin moving utilities for the streetcar with Project 180 funds would have likely caused large cost overruns.

“I don’t know that there is a conflict that could have been avoided with Project 180,” Story said. “We have found there are so many utilities in the ground that for us to clear everything for the streetcar railing would have been very, very irresponsible to ratepayers or taxpayers. We could not justify it.”

Where is the Implementation Agreement? It is referenced even in the 24 page PDF presentation on @ OKC.gov, but no speciifics are given.

Why is Devon saying there are no deadlines when Mr. Nichols stated there were?

Do the deadlines only include the property adjacent to the Devon tower or all of P180 as the articles suggest?

The answer would be in that agreement, where is it?

[BoulderSooner]

You think it was slanted. I disagree.
I explained this before to Betts. The "butchering of the steer" ending was a historic reference to the original MAPS projects - how different ideas, disagreements, questions about schedules, etc., can all seem a bit ugly to the observer, but in the end can lead to a nice result (as seen with MAPS).

Of course you don't. But tell me this you focus on the "too fast" what facts bring you to that conclusion? You have been to a part of one meeting and spoken at length to 1 of the ten members ( the only one I will add that thinks things are going to fast). So tell me how is that not slanted. Your piece is closer to op-Ed. Then reporting