Streetcar

[betts]

I went to several evening public meetings before I was asked to be on the streetcar committee. People met in small groups and suggested possible routes. Multiple "best average of suggested" routes were distributed to both the streetcar subcommittee and the AA, if I remember correctly. I would like to speak first as a private citizen and then as a subcommittee member.

When I went to the initial meetings, as I said, I went as a citizen. But I also went as a consumer of mass transit, having lived without a car in Denver for 8 years. So, I understand what it's like to look at a route map, wait at a stop in all weather, as well as have to ride on a schedule, as I was first a student and then an employed, self-supporting individual during that time. I remember those meetings as being fairly well-attended, but I also remember thinking many of the participants had clearly never ridden mass transit on a regular basis. I didn't really see a lot of understanding about route legibility (which to be fair, is an issue with our bus system as well, so we can't just blame private citizens), distances people would be willing to walk for mass transit, consideration of who the streetcar would serve. To me, a lot of the proposed routes seemed to be designed to stop at as many downtown attractions as possible, and cover the maximal amount of area. I remember looking at a lot of them and thinking, "I don't know how I'd ever give someone directions on how to get where they want to go on the streetcar and, even worse, how to get back once they arrive at their destination. I remember wondering whether this was going to be a sightseeing ride for tourists, or if we really planned to make it useful.

A few months later I was asked to be on the subcommittee. I was introduced to all sorts of new concepts for route determination: existing utilities, right and left hand turns (your turning radius cannot include an existing building!), the Sante Fe railroad and it's authority over bridges and underpasses, couplets versus doubletracking, transit oriented development, and finally, financial considerations. Probably as a result of my personal experiences riding mass transit and my experiences during the first few public meetings, my main early priority was route legibility. I felt that emphasis was one aspect that is particularly easy to overlook if you've never ridden mass transit. Everyone wants to stop at or go past as many attractions as possible, but the route has to be simple to use and make sense or it will run empty. I also learned that willingness to compromise is an important trait for a committee member.

While I think every subcommittee member welcomes public input, this is not a simple decision like where to locate the Chesapeake Arena, the Bricktown Ballpark or even the convention center. There are so very many variables that go into where a route can run, there are so many different options, and considerations such as route legibility, transit oriented development, maximizing usefulness for citizens and visitors have to be factored in. Add in the fact that we don't have unlimited funds, and it suddenly becomes a very complex process. As a subcommittee, we walked or drove every single inch of the route, multiple, multiple times. We did the same for many other options. I tried to think like a rider, and think about why I would be riding. After weighing all the information we had and examining AA recommendations, we came up with what we thought was a very good route. I am extremely pleased with it. However, all of us as subcommittee members were excited about the prospect of having the route reviewed by experts. I don't think there is anyone on the group that doesn't welcome that process, and we are eagerly awaiting their report. If they have suggestions for improvement, they will be received with open minds. Public comments will be welcomed too, but again, the majority of the public is not aware of engineering route constraints, so this has to be weighed. I know public meetings are planned, and I urge everyone to attend and speak up.

There is no way to please everyone, but I would like to think everyone feels free to speak their mind.

[soonerguru]

Well, I can't read his mind but I've never once had the impression that he didn't like the streetcar project or that he wants to divert those funds.

Either I'm being obtuse or someone is being paranoid. I can't imagine him being happy with less mass transit.

I'm not sure Shadid views the streetcar project as "mass transit." It was never proposed to be a complete transit solution for OKC. That would cost billions. It's a "downtown streetcar," providing transit in the inner core. It's also a transit starter. Once successful with the public, it could be expanded.

The woeful OKC bus system was not addressed in MAPS III, nor should it be. MAPS projects are infrastructure projects. We need a better bus system with more funding, but MAPS is not the method to achieve that.

What I have heard him say enough times is that he is concerned that the project isn't getting enough feedback from the community. And maybe it doesn't need more feedback. I think that is his position though.

More perspective: I attended an Urban Neighbors board meeting the other evening. I found it somewhat odd that the neighborhood association for the downtown area hasn't really being involved at all. Now, I blame them as much as anything but I think it is strange to have assumed we have sewed this thing up without having involved certain groups.

Has the Bricktown Association been consulted? I honestly don't know. Just 'asking out loud'.

Hundreds of stakeholders were consulted in the process in all of the areas involved. City councilors and their staff were given rides of the proposed route and their opinions were sought.

I was under the impression we would have the same kind of process the park is now going through. Significant public input through meetings heavily marketed. Why wouldn't we? The Central Park has a Subcommittee too.

I don't know your definition of "heavily marketed," but when the meetings about route design took place, subcommittee members made information available about the meetings through television news interviews, interviews with the Oklahoman, the Gazette, the Journal Record, and the City Sentinel. An extensive online awareness campaign took place through OKCTalk and other online venues. Guerilla marketing efforts, including posters and flyers, were undertaken. Additionally, stakeholders and business owners were personally solicited for their input. As a result of this process, several key changes were made, such as moving away from a solution involving overhead wires.

I'm not aware the subcommittee has a huge budget for advertising, so I don't know what else they should have done to encourage participation. What else should they have done?

This is a canard.

[CaptDave]

I'm not sure Shadid views the streetcar project as "mass transit." It was never proposed to be a complete transit solution for OKC. That would cost billions. It's a "downtown streetcar," providing transit in the inner core. It's also a transit starter. Once successful with the public, it could be expanded.

The woeful OKC bus system was not addressed in MAPS III, nor should it be. MAPS projects are infrastructure projects. We need a better bus system with more funding, but MAPS is not the method to achieve that.

This is key to the entire discussion about mass transit in OKC as a whole. The circular argument about mass transit goes from "how do you get people to location 'x'?" to "how do they get around once they are at location 'x'?" and around and around. We had to choose a place on that circle to start since we essentially have nothing in place that works very well. The streetcar is a good starting point because it provides immediate benefits to residents and businesses downtown and is useful even to people who drive in from the suburbs to work. Providing a way to get around the city center is probably the best place to start before investing in light and/or commuter rail from the suburbs and other towns.

Hopefully we will have a MAPS4 that will expand the streetcar to other areas of downtown such as boathouse row, Farmers Market, OU HSC, Capitol, and/ or the south edge of the Central Park. We may even see some sort of other rail based transit in a future MAPS. I hope it will be in the next MAPS but there is no way of knowing if that will be possible at that time.

Simultaneously, we need to improve our bus system and that is where Dr Shadid's points are valid. It should not be streetcar OR bus though, it should be how to best integrate the two modes of transit.

[Urban Pioneer]

I really haven't had time to address this thread. However, I am very shocked that there is this assertion that there hasn't been a public process. There has been a LENGTHY public process with more to come.

If I have the time, I will try to collate the list of meeting location and times in which public input meetings have taken place.

Regarding the Bricktown Association, I know of at least two times I personally did presentations for their broader membership. Bob Kemper performed even more presentations above and beyond the streetcar. There were private meetings with the Bricktown Association elected board to gauge their further input.

Urban Neighbors has consecutively been directly represented by having a board member, sometimes two board members, on the MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee at the same time. Historically, Urban Neighbors has been very well represented although I cannot speak for the current board.

Not trying to be flippant, but just because Ed Shadid didn't attend previous public meetings doesn't mean we didn't have a process to get this far. Will write more later.

[Tier2City]

...Simultaneously, we need to improve our bus system and that is where Dr Shadid's points are valid. It should not be streetcar OR bus though, it should be how to best integrate the two modes of transit.

One good way to integrate different modes of transit is at an intermodal hub.

[CaptDave]

One good way to integrate different modes of transit is at an intermodal hub.

What a "crazy" idea! Wonder if anyone has thought of that??

[okcboy]

I know the company that owns the hub location hasn't been consulted and they have been in complete contact and responsive to the city's process.

[okcboy]

Mr. Shadid questioned the city manager on the non responsiveness of the hub owner and requested condemnation move forward. This is not true. There has been a response and the property is in a due diligence period.

[Urban Pioneer]

Sid, I'm flattered that you think I designed this project. However, I did not. I had more to do with making sure it was included in MAPS 3. That is my accomplishment through the Public's and the City Council's support.

Jacobs Engineering developed the chosen Locally Preferred Alternative through a very thorough public planning process.

The Subcommittee "tweaked it" and further narrowed down the form of the LPA to something they felt was consistent with what they thought were the commitments made to the voters during the campaign.

I have undoubtedly exerted "leadership" during this process to help people come to consensus. And that process has been like herding cats.

While the public process will and should continue, the reality is that engineers, planners, and professionals should give their blessing to what we hope is a route that is already outstanding or that can be further improved.

We want to ask consultants directly their opinion on the couplet versus the double track design. If it needs to be changed and can be improved, it should be. At this point, it has been the absence of experienced professionals (on the implementation side) that has been the problem. Not a shortage of public input or further blessings.

Shadid has obviously talked to you. He asserts that streetcar isn't really legitimate transit fulfilling a "need". He believes its sole justifiable purpose is as an economic development tool... That we should throw tracks down in vacant lots in Core to Shore to stimulate development.

I argue, and I think an educated majority would, that immediate success, immediate ridership, is absolutely critical to this project being deemed a success by the public. I think that there is also plenty of urban fabric that needs further reinforcement. Fabric that offers almost assuredly a balance between further substantial infill development, as well as immediate ridership serving key destinations. A route that has legitimate "anchors" at either end.

An opportunity, for the first time ever, to create a fully functional connected downtown without using an automobile.

These are important times.

[Urban Pioneer]

Or are you going to continue to deliberately take my words out of context.

Sid, I'm taking your words literally on here. We can't assume that people visiting this site know nuance or other context. I certainly didn't know you we're being sarcastic.

Yeah, I think we need to have a conversation that happens over coffee. Not a public forum.

[CaptDave]

If you take a look at downtown OKC, there will be development opportunities regardless of the final route. The currently proposed route serves multiple purposes including development - it will also provide for circulation downtown and move people from and through 5 districts fairly effectively. Of course we could make a more "perfect" system with more dollars, but the current proposal is pretty darn good given the constraints. I am fairly sure future expansion will be addressed by looking at probable future expansion routes and installing the points that will eventually make those connections if funds permit. This would preclude service interruptions of the first phase and make extending the route much easier.

[soonerguru]

Jeff, I think we are talking a little bit in circles. We just need to grab coffee so I can hash it out with you. This has nothing to do with collating feedback while you are developing the project. This has everything to do with getting final feedback and even approval from the community for the project you designed.

I have been PM many times on projects. I never once thought that I wouldn't have to present the application or whatever I was building in the final stages for comprehensive review.

I can't imagine us not taking this entire project before the people in the final stages so that everyone has a chance to see what you've designed (in collaboration with all the stakeholders).

Not speaking for Jeff, but Sid, I'm quite sure you don't know the entire story. For the record, Jeff has said he has no problem with feedback on the route decision -- which is now being vetted by professional consultants. If someone is telling you otherwise, they are mistaken.

That being said, it would be ridiculous to try to go back in time and synthesize the numerous hours of public meetings and input that got us where we are today because some politician wishes he had been involved all along.

[Steve]

Question: did professional consultants contracted with the city ever do any in-depth comparison of streetcars compared to light rail?

[Urban Pioneer]

Yes. They were compared in the 2005 Fix Guideway Study and the Intermodal Hub Study.

The NW Expressway corridor was the only corridor that ranked in a cost-benefit ratio analysis. But the suggestion was to start with Bus Rapid Transit and "convert over" if the ridership grew and justified the cost.

Edmond, Moore, Norman, Del City, Midwest City are proposed to be served with lesser cost commuter rail.

[Urban Pioneer]

And streetcars are really Light Rail "light".

[Tier2City]

Question: did professional consultants contracted with the city ever do any in-depth comparison of streetcars compared to light rail?

Fixed Guideway Plan (FGP) | METRO Transit Providing Central Oklahoma Transportation & Bus Service Options

See Chapters 4 & 5.

[Steve]

Just a question I heard someone recently ask. Thanks for the info.

[soonerguru]

Just a question I heard someone recently ask. Thanks for the info.

Hmmm...wondering who that "someone" is.

[Steve]

He's one of the "men in black" who are always watching from their black helicopters - they're out to destroy any attempt at improving public transit. Actually, it's a woman who reads my column and struck up a conversation with me at a coffee shop in Edmond the other day.

[soonerguru]

He's one of the "men in black" who are always watching from their black helicopters - they're out to destroy any attempt at improving public transit. Actually, it's a woman who reads my column and struck up a conversation with me at a coffee shop in Edmond the other day.

LOL. You're not really paranoid if they're really out to get you -- and some people are.

[Steve]

Yeah, but I've got to wonder if the responses I've seen in this thread to Sid and I somehow suggest we're part of some conspiracy (I am not)

[Spartan]

This thread convinces me that we're probably not going to actually get transit. Among other things.

[Steve]

Not seeing that in the real world Spartan.

[Spartan]

Food for thought:

A "public" meeting at 3pm on a weekday is hardly public deliberation.

I think what Shadid is inferring is that we haven't actually achieved wide-spread input. There is a difference between making a meeting public and achieving public deliberation. There is a significant difference in fact in a city of this size and population.

I can certainly empathize with any desire to achieve widespread feedback about any project of this magnitude and impact.

That being said, more could have been done to propagate these discussions that we've had. I'm not sure why it has fallen on Jeff's shoulders to record meetings and share them with the public.

There are several city employees that attend every single one of these meetings could have been recorded and the recordings could have been shared with thousands of people via even just the social media platforms we already use. I would have liked to have seen a link to the recordings of these meetings with links to the agenda, minutes, and supporting documents as well as a link to a feedback form.

I recognize that the city has plans to replace their website with something more interactive and user-friendly. However, we have a few good tools already at our fingertips and we need to leverage them more. Especially in areas like this where there is a strong desire by everyone involved to include as much public feedback as possible.

What I don't agree with is calling anyone names for any reason, no matter their position on this issue. The moment someone chooses to start calling their opponent names is the moment I suddenly start to consider their opponents position more thoroughly. Meaning, it only hurts your position.

So Nick, stop calling Mars ilk. It only makes pro-streetcar folks look immature and makes it harder to come to the table with Mars to find a conclusion.

That's my holier than thou moment for the day. ;-)

Marrs is ilk. It goes beyond just this issue. I would personally donate to a legitimate progressive replacement candidate who runs against him.

Marrs does not deserve a place at the table. All he deserves is to be voted out. His record is atrocious, he is the most backward person on the council.

[Spartan]

Not seeing that in the real world Spartan.

We already have seen it in the real world...Maps 1.