Streetcar

[Tier2City]

Steve:

We're in business hours now. Have you been able to speak to anybody at the City?

[Steve]

Klay Kimker, vp of admin at Devon, has stated repeatedly that Devon only asks that the improvements immediate to their campus be completed by the time the tower is completed. I've got calls out now to the city to clarify what they have and have not told the committee.
This quote from Betts is what this is all about:
"...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...."
It is my job to see if information going to the public is true or false. That's what this is all about.

[Urban Pioneer]

This quote from Betts is what this is all about:
"...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...."
It is my job to see if information going to the public is true or false. That's what this is all about.

I completely disagree. This online skirmish is about you propagating the idea that our subcommittee members are rushing to judgment and making bad decisions.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

"Did I mention we don't know where the convention center, elementary school or transit hub will be located? Consider also that neither city staffers nor the MAPS 3 committee has any idea as to what the streetcars will cost on a per-mile basis, nor do they know what kind of system will be used, when the system will be built, or whether this route can be accommodated."


You cast doubt suggesting that these are critical answers that we should have answered even though it has been thoroughly explained to you that we are comfortable with our recommendation for all of the reasons outline above and on previous pages.

The reasoning for our 1A recommendation is sound and you suggest to the broader public that we might be making bad decisions. As reflected above by others, we cannot get answers to costs, "kinds of systems", accommodations and so on unless we start making route recommendations and have engineers design enough of it so that we can obtain factual answers.

What goes on about "conflicts" with scheduling facts on the city side is for you to find out. Bringing our credibility into question when we have sufficiently given answers to the public can be/is perceived as a negative attack on the project.

[Steve]

Jeff, then maybe I'm confused. I've visited with you and several others from this committee before writing this and never got a clear understanding of why a preferred route must be picked before determining what kind of set-up is needed and what the cost will be. You feel as if the column cast your committee in a bad light. I disagree. I felt like it was showing just how complicated this sort of process can be.
So let's both try to take the heat out of this conversation and learn more about how this works. I'm genuine in my interest.
This sounds like a chicken and the egg sort of thing...

[Urban Pioneer]

The conclusions derived were very clearly stated in hours and hours of public meetings and some of them have been expressed on this forum. The answers are publicly out there.

It is simple. We are now at a point we need our own engineers hired to make more recommendations. Costs, technology, other considerations cannot not be determined without professional assessment of our recommendation. There was no reason to procrastinate in the "safe" areas where we could actually make a recommendation to inform P180. We just worked harder, met twice a month, and came to consensus earlier.

Have faith in the knowledge that construction workers, planners, engineers, and other jobs have been preserved in the security of knowing their ongoing contracts for P180 work will not be delayed because we demand a halt to wait for us. We could have said, "No, we only have time for meeting once a month. If it takes four months instead and causes people to be laid off because of our recalcitrance, oh well. Sad for them. Well just demand that they wait."

[Steve]

On another matter - Jeff, I never implied in this column, or meant to imply, that you guys haven't devoted anything less than an incredible amount of time - on your own dime - to this work and seeing it's done right. Looking back, if I could add that one thought, I would. It was not my intent to say you guys just showed up one day and chose a route. So please accept my apology if that's the crux of this matter.
For what it's worth, it's clear now, having talked again to Eric Wenger, that the answer to my original question here is that there never was a discussion of whether the Project 180 bids set for this spring could be delayed to allow you to see where venues might be located. They told you a schedule, you asked if a couple of streets could be done in later phases, and city staff never revealed whether the overall bids could be delayed a few weeks.
Now, my question is this: Can the costs per mile be different for one route vs. another? If so, I think I better understand why you went ahead and chose a route. I was under the impression the cost estimate is the same regardless of route.
Final thought: I would, as I have in the past, welcome you to write a guest piece for OKC Central or even work together on a follow-up for next week.
- Steve

[Kerry]

I've visited with you and several others from this committee before writing this and never got a clear understanding of why a preferred route must be picked before determining what kind of set-up is needed and what the cost will be.

Maybe it should have been called a preliminary or exploratory route.

[BoulderSooner]

On another matter - Jeff, I never implied in this column, or meant to imply, that you guys haven't devoted anything less than an incredible amount of time - on your own dime - to this work and seeing it's done right. Looking back, if I could add that one thought, I would. It was not my intent to say you guys just showed up one day and chose a route. So please accept my apology if that's the crux of this matter.
For what it's worth, it's clear now, having talked again to Eric Wenger, that the answer to my original question here is that there never was a discussion of whether the Project 180 bids set for this spring could be delayed to allow you to see where venues might be located. They told you a schedule, you asked if a couple of streets could be done in later phases, and city staff never revealed whether the overall bids could be delayed a few weeks.
Now, my question is this: Can the costs per mile be different for one route vs. another? If so, I think I better understand why you went ahead and chose a route. I was under the impression the cost estimate is the same regardless of route.
Final thought: I would, as I have in the past, welcome you to write a guest piece for OKC Central or even work together on a follow-up for next week.
- Steve

of course the costs can be different depending on the route .. the rerouting of utilities will be different on each and every street and that is a major cost factor

[Steve]

So that's another chicken and the egg sort of thing, isn't it? Do you want to know which streets will be most cost effective before choosing a route? Or do you pick the route, see if it's cost effective, and then consider changes if the street turns into a nightmare?

[Steve]

I wonder how other cities have phased this sort of task.

[Urban Pioneer]

On another matter -
Now, my question is this: Can the costs per mile be different for one route vs. another? If so, I think I better understand why you went ahead and chose a route. I was under the impression the cost estimate is the same regardless of route.

They can be, the question is "Should you predicate a route based on what it costs versus what is ideal for the transit user?"

The answer usually lays somewhere in between.

A great example is the Sheridan and Reno Bridges. It is our preliminary understanding that those bridges cost a great deal to modify and we might have to wait for the BNSF to approve (possibly years from now). So, does that mean you "bite the bullet" and absorb the cost because you think you absolutely must go down Sheridan or Reno, or do you go under the new Boulevard because it is new and free. Part of that answer has to do with where the entrances to the hub are.

An argument can be made that your spending money putting track in "to go around" the obstacle. So now you understand why we need professional assessments by engineers.

Thanks for the invitation to write or be interviewed.

[Steve]

FYI - I'm going to be offline most of this afternoon, so if you ask me a question and I don't respond, don't take that as me ducking out of the discussion. I realize that my aggressive questioning of Jeff last night was not fully appreciated, but I think we'll all learn a lot more about how this works as a result of this back and forth.

[Kerry]

I realize that my aggressive questioning of Jeff last night was not fully appreciated, but I think we'll all learn a lot more about how this works as a result of this back and forth.

This is the reason I come to OKCTalk in the first place. If I wasn't interested in the inside scoop I would just wait to read about it after the fact.

[Doug Loudenback]

Jeff, then maybe I'm confused. I've visited with you and several others from this committee before writing this and never got a clear understanding of why a preferred route must be picked before determining what kind of set-up is needed and what the cost will be. You feel as if the column cast your committee in a bad light. I disagree. I felt like it was showing just how complicated this sort of process can be.
So let's both try to take the heat out of this conversation and learn more about how this works. I'm genuine in my interest. This sounds like a chicken and the egg sort of thing...

Actually, this 3-4 page conversation reminds me more of something like this ...



... perhaps mixed with a touch of this ...



There are NO implied meanings by my choice of the foregoing humorous images other than to say, "Hey, lighten up, people!"

I'm such a tunnel vision kind of guy that while zeroing in on our elections just had that I'd missed out on all this fun, the first notice of which (to me) was this piece at Steve's blog. I wondered, "What have I been missing?" Then I read Steve's article in the Oklahoman. Then I read this thread beginning here (my last check point before this morning). Then I went back to Steve's blog and saw the latest post, in which I commented,

With great respect, I think that the pot you are stirring, Steve, is much ado about nothing. And even it is about “something,” I’d suppose that you’d want to say just a bit more about the work that the transit committee has accomplished and the perspective of the 8 member majority, and with some adversity ala Pete White’s comments, than spending time and energy talking about what the clear minority member (1 of 9 ) of the committee thinks. My 2 cents.

This all coming to me in one sitting this morning, I do think that your article, Steve, sounds rather presumptive that you do impliedly align your piece with Jane Jenkins, the 1 of 9 (or 10? -- not sure which is correct) minority, and do single out Jeff as being the transit committee member who is in a hurry. Jeff is but 1 member of the majority, so their names are every bit as relevant as Jeff's is. As as far as Jane Jenkins is concerned, soonerguru certainly added a significant query as to why she might be on the slow side:

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.

Now, you may perceive and say that you expressed no opinion, but one does not use lead-in phrasing like, "Did I mention we don't know where the convention center, elementary school or transit hub will be located," which drips with attitude.

On the other hand, when you were pressing Jeff and Jill for a "name" in this 3-4 page saga, Jeff was a little slow to say that he didn't remember a single name -- which city staffer had said there was a P180 contract deadline. Jeff got his back up a bit ... more than a bit ... in that part of the story.

Jill added some salient points, I thought, which I'll boil down to an oversimplified statement (my words, not hers), "It really just doesn't matter." One can always count on Jill to boil something down to the lowest common denominator. Jill for mayor in 2014!

And lets not forget the audacity of Larry OKC who spent some time researching some history relevant to the topic and who impudently {tongue in cheek, Larry} wondered,

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?

Daaamm! What a concept. By now, has anyone participating in this thread looked at the actual contract with Devon which would be ever so much more telling and important than would be what a Devon employee has to say about if and what any deadline for P180 might be? I'd suppose it to be a public record.

But, in the end, I'm thinking that what Jill had to say along the lines of how I characterized her remarks above is the the most significant of all ... it really just doesn't matter.

Now, I've expanded my 2 cents to about a quarter's worth ... though it may only be worth a mill or two (if you don't know what a mill is, you are too young to be reading this adult content).

And there you are. Live long and prosper, my friends.

[betts]

So that's another chicken and the egg sort of thing, isn't it? Do you want to know which streets will be most cost effective before choosing a route? Or do you pick the route, see if it's cost effective, and then consider changes if the street turns into a nightmare?

Steve, the way I see it, if we were to find out which streets will be most cost effective before choosing a route, we would have to study every street downtown. That would definitely stop Project 180 dead in its tracks or make us dig up streets a second time. This way, we look at what, to us, are the best streets for a route and find out if there are insurmountable problems with the route we've chosen. It majorly narrows the scope of work that will have to be done, and will hopefully dramatically decrease the costs and time that would be involved in studying every street. We've actually spent a lot of time looking at streets and corners to see if there are obvious (to a nonengineer) problems with particular parts of the route prior to making a decision. However, as has been discussed in our meetings, we are well aware that the engineers could find problems we have not anticipated. If so, we will deal with them in as thoughtful a manner as possible.

[Doug Loudenback]

Incidentally, readers, I emphasize that my use of images from the great children's book Go Dog Go! was in no way intended to equate any participant in this thread of having a child-like mentality. It simply came to mind as being one of the favorite stories I once read to my children and was a spin-off from my the 1st image which popped into my mind, the image of a dog chasing his/her tail. These items were simply intended to inject an element of lightheartedness and humor into a thread that struck me as having become much too serious.

[Kerry]

In 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years no one is going to care if route A cost more than route B. All they are going to care about is if route A goes where they need to go. If cost is the driving factor then let's build this out at Village Verde for pennies on the dollar.

[Spartan]

Kerry, the cost doesn't matter, but we only have so much money. It's not rocket science that a 7 mile system is better than a 6 mile system.

[Tier2City]

Kerry, the cost doesn't matter, but we only have so much money. It's not rocket science that a 7 mile system is better than a 6 mile system.

Not necessarily. A six mile system that effectively serves as many key destinations as possible in a clear, legible manner and which can be easily expanded in the future is going to be much better than a 7 mile system that doesn't serve as many key destinations or follows a tortuous, non-intuitive route that can't be easily understood.

[MIKELS129]

Jeff
It does sound as if you are hyperventilating a bit. Take a breath... please.

[Spartan]

Not necessarily. A six mile system that effectively serves as many key destinations as possible in a clear, legible manner and which can be easily expanded in the future is going to be much better than a 7 mile system that doesn't serve as many key destinations or follows a tortuous, non-intuitive route that can't be easily understood.

Yeah but how likely is that... it's not like anyone has a BAD proposal for how to spend an extra mile (except for Kerry's county jail district route).

I'm thinking in the most realistic terms, not in terms of contradictions or exceptions.....

[Urban Pioneer]

Jeff
It does sound as if you are hyperventilating a bit. Take a breath... please.

Did you read all three or four pages of this? I'm not hyperventilating. The article, if you can call it that, can easily be perceived as slanted. It calls into question the decisions we almost unanimously made by insinuating that we may be in conflict with things that we believe that we are not. We're intentionally not making decisions about routes in areas that are questionable.

Period.

[okclee]

Urban,, you and the committee are doing and have done great work. That article did insinuate conflict and and indecisiveness amongst the committee, even second guessing the entire process.

So what if the committee can do a great job and do it fast. Doesn't mean that doing it slower would equal better results. P180 has to be taken into account, but if the committee is working a fast pace and it does coordinate with the P180 schedule, it is all a bonus.

Keep up the good work and the speed at which it is being done.

[Urban Pioneer]

Jeff, then maybe I'm confused. I've visited with you and several others from this committee before writing this and never got a clear understanding of why a preferred route must be picked before determining what kind of set-up is needed and what the cost will be. You feel as if the column cast your committee in a bad light. I disagree. I felt like it was showing just how complicated this sort of process can be.
So let's both try to take the heat out of this conversation and learn more about how this works. I'm genuine in my interest.
This sounds like a chicken and the egg sort of thing...

I re-read this. If that is Steve's original intent, then that's fine. I'll accept it. But obviously a great many people interpret it differently.

[Urban Pioneer]

Urban,, you and the committee are doing and have done great work. That article did insinuate conflict and and indecisiveness amongst the committee, even second guessing the entire process.

So what if the committee can do a great job and do it fast. Doesn't mean that doing it slower would equal better results. P180 has to be taken into account, but if the committee is working a fast pace and it does coordinate with the P180 schedule, it is all a bonus.

Keep up the good work and the speed at which it is being done.

Thank you. Stop by and say hi if you attend another meeting or run into me.