Streetcar

[catch22]

All of the projects need to be held to the same amount of scrutiny. If council wants to wage war on the streetcar committee, they also need to apply the same level of scrutiny to all of the other subcommittees (which have received little to no flak or opposition by council). Something is really fishy about the tone of council towards the streetcar all of the sudden. It is quite worrying, to be honest.

[catch22]

I'm all for public vetting of how these dollars are spent, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. But, when all other projects (which by the way have been far less open) have been given the rubber stamp of approval with little to no council input, yet the transit project (which has been one of the more thorough and transparent) is receiving (all of the sudden!) negative undertones from council is a little peculiar...

[soonerguru]

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)

The responses to Sid are factual. I certainly don't think you're part of a conspiracy. Where was that suggested or implied?

[Spartan]

The streetcar has been, by far, the most transparent of all the MAPS3 projects. To suggest otherwise isn't being very transparent.

I am confident that some better intended councilmen making these comments are honestly trying to improve the streetcar. I am just as confident that Gary Marrs has jumped on board to kill the project.

If anyone can explain how such a worthless council of men AND women who take credit for the work of folks they actively work AGAINST is going to somehow make good decisions on transit, I'm all ears. But after their complete absence of collective leadership on the boulevard issue, I don't see it.

Until these curmudgeons, not even fit for Edmond's city council (maybe Norman), get voted out we won't have civic leadership on the side of urban progress. Period.

[CaptDave]

I don't think anyone can honestly say the Streetcar Subcommittee has not conducted its proceedings in an open manner. I know members have invited anyone to come to the meetings, and then go above and beyond to provide those who cannot attend a way to at least listen in after the fact.

Catch22 asked the uncomfortable question the city council and others won't answer - why are not ALL the MAPS subcommittees as open and subject to the same scrutiny? Why are our elected leaders appearing to cower and roll over at the whim of other SC's? I am afraid this group of councilpersons and city staff will be the ones to preclude there being another MAPS and essentially killing the impressive forward progress OKC has made over the past 10-15 years.


And finally.....
Why all the fussing about saying someone is of "an ilk"? Aren't we all of one sort of ilk or another?

[Steve]

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

That's a misinterpretation of history, Spartan. MAPS I had an incredibly shaky transit premise that had a huge caveat - IF federal funding could be obtained. Voters decided to oust Rep. Mickey Edwards for writing hot checks. He would have gotten the federal funding. His successor, Ernest Istook, was vehemently against rail transit and blocked every move to make it a reality. I struggle to see how one is related to the other. That was real world 1996 with very different circumstances, and I would have been the first to tell you then that there was an effort to kill the transit project - by Istook (and I did just that). Whether Jeff or others on the subcommittee like to hear this or not, what their critics are most vocal about what they perceive to be a very defensive attitude toward anyone questioning their assumptions. The same is said about the convention center subcommittee. Ironically, such attitude hasn't been observed by anyone I've talked to about a subcommittee that has endured incredible second guessing about schedule, justification for its existence, etc - the park.

[Steve]

And to those who might now suggest I am an enemy of the streetcar system - I have before, and I still question how downtown redevelopment and continued momentum can continue without a reliable and trustworthy rail system of the sort that is embraced and sought out by young professionals who are helping make these urban revivals possible.

[Urban Pioneer]

I certainly don't think you are some sort of enemy to the streetcar project or any of MAPS 3 Steve. Regarding the "criticism" that may be occurring out some individuals about perceived "defensiveness", I can see how they might interpret that. The issues regarding the proposed route have been very well thought out and the Subcommittee has worked hard as a group to analyze as many issues as we have information on.

What IS very frustrating, is that many of these people have criticized from the sidelines when most of them have been invited to directly participate in the process. If they haven't been directly asked to participate, the opportunities to take initiative and do so on their own have definitely been there.

One element I am still shocked about is the lack of concern/coverage that seems to exist on the P180/Streetcar integration issue. Particularly in front of Santa-Fe Station.

[CaptDave]

Comparing this process to the Boulevard is just silly. They are not similar in just about any way from a project standpoint.

Enough to know that we're fighting each other on this one. It's all friendly fire.

I can't wait to ride this freaking streetcar.

Line 1 - I agree and didn't intend to draw a direct comparison between the Blvd and Streetcar. I meant to highlight the apparent difference in level of scrutiny on two very important projects that while different, should be evaluated on what we want OKC to be in the next 10 - 20 years.

Line 2 - Friendly fire , isn't. I think we are discussing the disparity of method rather than a common desired eventual outcome of improved transit for OKC that will enhance the lives of present day residents and attract new ones that will continue the revitalization of downtown OKC and the city as a whole. All of us should be careful of what we say so as to minimize misunderstandings and giving the appearance of questioning the motives and integrity of friends and allies.

Line 3 - agree 10000%. Heck, I wouldn't mind being an operator on one of them! I am concerned that it is not pushed even farther back in the MAPS3 schedule. I think we are missing an opportunity to generate more excitement about downtown and the other MAPS3 projects by not expediting this one. I may be a bit off base on this next statement, but I think if the will were present in city hall, we could have been riding by the end of 2013.

[okcboy]

As of today, the only sure thing is that we have money for a short downtown circular. All we have are dreams and studies for anything else. No guarantees ($$) of commuter rail, HSR, and all other things associated with an intermodal hub. Amtrack is a state project. So basically at this point is it fair to say all the city needs is
a street car stop in front of the depot.

[okcboy]

As of today, the only sure thing is that we have money for a short downtown circular. All we have are dreams and studies for anything else. No guarantees ($$) of commuter rail, HSR, and all other things associated with an intermodal hub. Amtrack is a state project. So basically at this point is it fair to say all the city needs is a street car stop in front of the depot. With an EKG Project 180 redesign or space on the myriad side this can easily be achieved.

[kevinpate]

... 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.

politico-think: never take heat for directly destroying something if you can love a project to its slow death via a 'need' for further study.

[Steve]

One element I am still shocked about is the lack of concern/coverage that seems to exist on the P180/Streetcar integration issue. Particularly in front of Santa-Fe Station.

I covered this before Project 180 even began, before MAPS planning began. Will cover again.

[Spartan]

This talk about needing more public process does kind of make me, as one of the more active citizen participants in the earlier public process, feel marginalized. I remember even flying back from Calgary once primarily just to partake in one of the Let's Talk Transit meetings.

Steve, fair enough about Istook. That doesn't mean no Istook, no problem. It was a remarkable testament to MAPS1 and the civic will at that time that they "finished MAPS right." By which I mean, passing a contentious extension to cover the cost run-up, otherwise the Ford Center wouldn't have happened.

A lot of us have been screaming that the poor stewardship of some MAPS projects are going to lead to massive cost overruns. Like the convention center, which we can't afford. It turns out, this slate of projects was one of the most poorly conceived grouping of public works initiatives ever, and the only thing that carried it was a streetcar idea that had a lot of grassroots support. The only thing that justified all 7 projects to local leaders was needing to get $250 million for a CC.

We have no idea what we're doing with this park thing. We're waking up to the realization that we're not serious about C2S, after all. We have no idea how the senior centers are going to get run, other than that it's going to be a miracle to get operators to step up. Sidewalks and bike trails..oh wait just kidding. And most remarkably the city is considering eminent domain on an $80 million site for the CC we already can't afford when there is only $40 million budgeted.

Something's got to go. When we're asked to vote for an extension in order to get the streetcar system, will it THEN be reported that certain folks killed the project? There's no way this city is voting for an extension after how ugly and unorganized the program's planning has been.

And anyone, and I mean anyone, calling for more public attention on the streetcar needs to first take a deep look at this convention center project. Accusing the project's leaders of defensiveness is also unfair. I definitely have my disagreements, but I consider all of the subcommittee members friends and have met each one personally. These guys aren't defensive. They are trying to lead and we keep undermining them, and accusations of "defensiveness" do nothing but set the public dialog up to fail.

I won't get into who I have or haven't met from the CC subcommittee, but I'd challenge someone else who like me is just an active citizen, to meet one on one about the CC or be able to make meaningful public input.

[betts]

politico-think: never take heat for directly destroying something if you can love a project to its slow death via a 'need' for further study.

Another option: Keep getting new studies until one says precisely what you'd like it to say.

[okcboy]

Its very early in the process, but up till now it just resembles a land grab project/s. Hopefully not. Only time will tell I guess.

[Urban Pioneer]

A few key things will be coming out soon.

[okcboy]

Hope so. A letter has been received stating that condemnation proceedings will start at the end of this month and the property owner hasn't even received their
appraisal back to make a counter offer.

[Steve]

This talk about needing more public process does kind of make me, as one of the more active citizen participants in the earlier public process, feel marginalized. I remember even flying back from Calgary once primarily just to partake in one of the Let's Talk Transit meetings.

Steve, fair enough about Istook. That doesn't mean no Istook, no problem. It was a remarkable testament to MAPS1 and the civic will at that time that they "finished MAPS right." By which I mean, passing a contentious extension to cover the cost run-up, otherwise the Ford Center wouldn't have happened.

A lot of us have been screaming that the poor stewardship of some MAPS projects are going to lead to massive cost overruns. Like the convention center, which we can't afford. It turns out, this slate of projects was one of the most poorly conceived grouping of public works initiatives ever, and the only thing that carried it was a streetcar idea that had a lot of grassroots support. The only thing that justified all 7 projects to local leaders was needing to get $250 million for a CC.

We have no idea what we're doing with this park thing. We're waking up to the realization that we're not serious about C2S, after all. We have no idea how the senior centers are going to get run, other than that it's going to be a miracle to get operators to step up. Sidewalks and bike trails..oh wait just kidding. And most remarkably the city is considering eminent domain on an $80 million site for the CC we already can't afford when there is only $40 million budgeted.

Something's got to go. When we're asked to vote for an extension in order to get the streetcar system, will it THEN be reported that certain folks killed the project? There's no way this city is voting for an extension after how ugly and unorganized the program's planning has been.

And anyone, and I mean anyone, calling for more public attention on the streetcar needs to first take a deep look at this convention center project. Accusing the project's leaders of defensiveness is also unfair. I definitely have my disagreements, but I consider all of the subcommittee members friends and have met each one personally. These guys aren't defensive. They are trying to lead and we keep undermining them, and accusations of "defensiveness" do nothing but set the public dialog up to fail.

I won't get into who I have or haven't met from the CC subcommittee, but I'd challenge someone else who like me is just an active citizen, to meet one on one about the CC or be able to make meaningful public input.

I'm not arguing with anything you've said ...except.... $80 million for the land for the convention center? Where in the world did you get this figure?

[Spartan]

I'm not arguing with anything you've said ...except.... $80 million for the land for the convention center? Where in the world did you get this figure?

What Howard wants for that land. And what I'd argue isn't a bad valuation for the best development site in the entire city.

[Steve]

Um, bud... I'm calling you out. Shenanigans. Prove it or cite it.

[Spartan]

I'll own up to that. We'll have to see how much gets spent on the land, but it will come out of the $250...until there is no more 250. As it was explained to me recently, the way eminent domain works when two sides fight the amount in court (unless Howard wakes up and is willing to accept 40 one day) is you're forced to pay the value a judge settles on. There are no take-backs if it's too high and you want to shop around for a different site.

Choosing one site over a better, more affordable site...like East Bricktown, which could be serviced by more hotels AND the streetcar, would be a huge irrevocable mistake. The larger the budget, the more scrutiny there should be on a project. So I agree it would be nice to see the public more involved with the streetcar, but the CC situation is getting absurd. I'd like to see them claim citizen meetings where everyone wanted a CC to either break up the green span or take away good mixed-use development sites (maybe an "OKC Live" ala LA Live or 4th Street Live).

[Steve]

I'm not hearing anything out of any camp that comes close to $80 million. Now, is it truly the best site or would east Bricktown be better? That's a different question.

[okcboy]

So a Cordish development site vs CC development site maybe.

[Spartan]

I'm not hearing anything out of any camp that comes close to $80 million. Now, is it truly the best site or would east Bricktown be better? That's a different question.

Well do you think East Bricktown land acquisition would leave more funding for building the actual facility? That would also require a slight retooling of the streetcar route, but nothing I don't think the streetcar SC wouldn't be happy to do.