Streetcar

[Steve]

No, it's not. It's not a secret that Couch hopes to hit the general fund for operation and maintenance of the streetcar system. But it's not his call. And he has not presented this plan - to my knowledge - to the city council yet.

[OKCisOK4me]

I see, I see. Check out my post above again, as I edited it for more questions. Thank ya sir!

[soonerguru]

I realize this is a very strong advocacy group in this thread. But I won't report what isn't true. The city council has made NO policy decision, has had NO presentation, on even the idea of using the general fund or any other funding source for a new streetcar system. The city council has for decades had a policy on how it funds public safety and other departments. This question isn't unique to the streetcar system - it's true for several of the MAPS 3 projects. Add it all together, as I've been told by several sources, and we're looking at a potential hit of up to $20 million a year from the general fund for the new venues. Can the city handle that expansion in spending during good years? Can it handle it during down years? I've not heard this discussion.

So the opposite isn't true, either, specifically Shadid's reckless suggestion that there is no source of funding.

[soonerguru]

No, it's not. It's not a secret that Couch hopes to hit the general fund for operation and maintenance of the streetcar system. But it's not his call. And he has not presented this plan - to my knowledge - to the city council yet.

You keep using the word "hit" like it's some kind of bank robbery. Smacks of editorializing. You also sidestepped the point made by BoulderSooner.

Surely the Council considered operational costs when they put together the MAPS initiatives.

Couch doesn't seem concerned that this "hit" is that big of a deal.

[Steve]

OKCisOKforMe, you've got a good question and proposition. But consider also that public safety costs are going up pretty dramatically with such growth.
Soonerguru, hit is not my way of editorializing. I did some of the most critical coverage of Ernest Istook's successful attempts to kill rail based transit with MAPS 1, and did quite a bit of coverage about rail systems being done in other cities over the years. So any effort of portraying me as anti-rail won't fly with those who really know me and my reporting. But I'm not going to give a false portrayal of funding as being secured for any of the MAPS 3 projects operations when that's not true.
As for potential funding sources, I'm surprised there has no council discussion about setting up a transit assessment district to capture property tax increases that might be generated by a rail system.
The council never publicly deliberated operational costs prior to the passage of MAPS 3. I am not making this up. This was very different from MAPS 1.
I realize that saying something that is not appreciated by the advocates is welcoming an attack. I've been down this road before... see ya.

[Urban Pioneer]

But what is missing from your explanation of the situation and Ed's is the fact that the Subcommittee is aggressively and publicly working on the problem as appointed members by Council.

It's a pseudo controversy as there is the innuendo and portrayal (certainly not explaining the existence of the Subcommittee and its concern about O&M at the Symposium), that this issue is going on unnoticed and without an attempt at resolution.

The explanation above is accurate but leaving out the MAJOR fact that the concerns are being attempted to be addressed. Undoubtedly, the solutions presented can only be enacted by Council and the authority will indeed rest with them.

[hatrick36]

Dr. Shadid seems to be ignoring some fundamentals of political science.

The older and wealthier an individual is the more likely they are to vote. Since the tax revolts of the 1970's and 1980's the American electorate has been generally unwilling to pass additional taxes.

To really make public transit happen in OKC, there has to be a major focus on getting affluent whites to ride a public transit system. The focus has to be on affluent whites because they are the most likely voters, and therefore the demographic most important to engaging in the public transportation discussion. If affluent white voters buy into the system, then the O&M revenue source will be less of a struggle (whether general funds, user fees, a special BID along the route, commercial sources, or combination) because the politically influential have buy in. This analysis holds true both from a pluralist framework or elite theory framework.

That leaves three major problems: 1) how to engage affluent whites to ride public transit rather than drive their cars--trains for some reason (possibly European travel?) don't have the stigma of buses, 2) how do you maximize access--you put it where there are the largest concentrations of work/entertainment so that suburbanites and outer-area city dwellers may still have a reason to ride, and 3) how do you maximize ridership--you have no fare.

The attempt to refocus towards buses, while laudable, would undercut public transit in this city. Large numbers of affluent whites are HIGHLY UNLIKELY IN THE EXTREME to patronize a bus service no matter how dapper and gussied up. If the regularly voting public won't ride it, then public transit will continue to shuffle along in the same dilapidated way because no serious expansion of funds will ever be allocated to extended bus service.

I'm proud to have worked on Doc's campaign, but this shortsightedness is distressing. I won't be walking door to door for him again.

[BoulderSooner]

So basically it's here say on what Couch may or may not have said...

Now, Steve, wouldn't it be true that once no more MAPS taxes are run and downtown has more of a work force presence as well as residential status, that a more plentiful annual budget be available for all these O&M ventures whether it be streetcar, central park, etc.? If not, where do you see these monies being drawn from...besides the aforementioned advertising or what not?

what couch said was recorded at the meeting and will be online sooner rather than later i would think ...

he also said that he thinks the additional dollars for all the maps projects will be about 5 mil a year net increase

[BoulderSooner]

No, it's not. It's not a secret that Couch hopes to hit the general fund for operation and maintenance of the streetcar system. But it's not his call. And he has not presented this plan - to my knowledge - to the city council yet.

true it is not his call per say but he (his staff) present the budget to the city council for approval ... and to my knowledge what he presents usually gets passed with minor adjustments and those adjustments often come at a later time

[OKCisOK4me]

what couch said was recorded at the meeting and will be online sooner rather than later i would think ...

he also said that he thinks the additional dollars for all the maps projects will be about 5 mil a year net increase

Well that's two pluses in my book!

[soonerguru]

Dr. Shadid seems to be ignoring some fundamentals of political science.

The older and wealthier an individual is the more likely they are to vote. Since the tax revolts of the 1970's and 1980's the American electorate has been generally unwilling to pass additional taxes.

To really make public transit happen in OKC, there has to be a major focus on getting affluent whites to ride a public transit system. The focus has to be on affluent whites because they are the most likely voters, and therefore the demographic most important to engaging in the public transportation discussion. If affluent white voters buy into the system, then the O&M revenue source will be less of a struggle (whether general funds, user fees, a special BID along the route, commercial sources, or combination) because the politically influential have buy in. This analysis holds true both from a pluralist framework or elite theory framework.

That leaves three major problems: 1) how to engage affluent whites to ride public transit rather than drive their cars--trains for some reason (possibly European travel?) don't have the stigma of buses, 2) how do you maximize access--you put it where there are the largest concentrations of work/entertainment so that suburbanites and outer-area city dwellers may still have a reason to ride, and 3) how do you maximize ridership--you have no fare.

The attempt to refocus towards buses, while laudable, would undercut public transit in this city. Large numbers of affluent whites are HIGHLY UNLIKELY IN THE EXTREME to patronize a bus service no matter how dapper and gussied up. If the regularly voting public won't ride it, then public transit will continue to shuffle along in the same dilapidated way because no serious expansion of funds will ever be allocated to extended bus service.

I'm proud to have worked on Doc's campaign, but this shortsightedness is distressing. I won't be walking door to door for him again.

This is a dead-on analysis. I think it's especially true in OKC. In cities on the East and West Coast, or even upper midwest, bus ridership is more ingrained in the culture. It is not that way in OKC.

[Urban Pioneer]

what couch said was recorded at the meeting and will be online sooner rather than later i would think ...

Yes, I did record the meeting as usual and when the audio is re-mastered, we will put it online. Since there is so much interest in the O&M discussion, I will have Jon section that part out as a separate recording including Couch's clarifications.

[Larry OKC]

...Surely the Council considered operational costs when they put together the MAPS initiatives....

Maybe. Maybe not. The powers-that-be have, at least publicly, have not always answered those questions directly...something they will deal with AFTER the vote passes etc. Historically, MAPS dollars are nothing than a funding method to get something built. The maintenance of the project seems to be an afterthought at best (if at all).

[soonerguru]

So what happened at today's council meeting? Seems there was a bit of a hubbub.

[Tier2City]

See for yourself:

SIRE Public Access

01:31:24 to 01:48:55

[hatrick36]

3 Posts on OKCtalk and I become politically notorious! Aren't yall jealous!?!

For the record, i am not involved with any city committees, a city employee, or even a regular attendee at civic functions. I vote regularly, study political science, and work on the occasional political campaign. I am not a close associate of anyone on any of the MAPS committees.

If someone agrees with my OPINION (which is just, like, my opinion, man) than I would agree they are also a moderately informed viewer of the electorate and constituent politics.

I don't disagree with Dr. Shadid's point about ensuring that those benefiting most from the street car (downtown, midtown, bricktown, and environs) should be on the hook for a little more of the O&M. But the streetcar will benefit anyone who patronizes downtown, including janitors, waitresses, and suburbanites.

WHAT I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, IS HAVING AN ELECTION (YOU KNOW, DEMOCRATIC ACTION) AND THEN RE-APPROPRIATING FUNDS TO SOMETHING THE VOTERS DIDN'T VOTE ON.

[UnFrSaKn]

Urban Renewal prepares eminent domain action against owners of Santa Fe train depot in Oklahoma City | News OK

[TAlan CB]

Dr. Shadid seems to be ignoring some fundamentals of political science.

The older and wealthier an individual is the more likely they are to vote. Since the tax revolts of the 1970's and 1980's the American electorate has been generally unwilling to pass additional taxes.

To really make public transit happen in OKC, there has to be a major focus on getting affluent whites to ride a public transit system. The focus has to be on affluent whites because they are the most likely voters, and therefore the demographic most important to engaging in the public transportation discussion. If affluent white voters buy into the system, then the O&M revenue source will be less of a struggle (whether general funds, user fees, a special BID along the route, commercial sources, or combination) because the politically influential have buy in. This analysis holds true both from a pluralist framework or elite theory framework.

That leaves three major problems: 1) how to engage affluent whites to ride public transit rather than drive their cars--trains for some reason (possibly European travel?) don't have the stigma of buses, 2) how do you maximize access--you put it where there are the largest concentrations of work/entertainment so that suburbanites and outer-area city dwellers may still have a reason to ride, and 3) how do you maximize ridership--you have no fare.

The attempt to refocus towards buses, while laudable, would undercut public transit in this city. Large numbers of affluent whites are HIGHLY UNLIKELY IN THE EXTREME to patronize a bus service no matter how dapper and gussied up. If the regularly voting public won't ride it, then public transit will continue to shuffle along in the same dilapidated way because no serious expansion of funds will ever be allocated to extended bus service.

I'm proud to have worked on Doc's campaign, but this shortsightedness is distressing. I won't be walking door to door for him again.

Or is it that you appeal to the entire community to support (through taxes, etc. ) this system for each of their own benefit? You are correct, free would encourage the greatest useage (but a very small fee would encourage responsibility). Though it is true that the more affluent participate more (regardless of their 'color'), it would be unwise to encourage just a part of the electorate. Even if thousands of affluent voters never once road the rail (or bus) it would still be a great benefit to them by keeping thousands of cars off the highways, and would encourage economic growth - thus subsidising their affluency. The concept that taxes don't already support the wealthy is rediculus. Roads, highways, streets - all created through tax. If you can afford a car you are supported, if you can't there is no convience to help you with your goal of becoming more affluent. Every group of society is helped when real accessibility is expanded. I think it is best to tie this concept in with roads as another aspect of transportation. Currently, it is limited - only those who can afford cars (motorcyles are not cheap either) are supported.

[TAlan CB]

Urban Renewal prepares eminent domain action against owners of Santa Fe train depot in Oklahoma City | News OK

Who did not see this coming? When has any project in or near bricktown not brought out the greed in property owners, sometimes delaying growth for decades. But, the property is probably worth more (now) than they were offered, it will be interesting to see how this 'plays out' - and for how long......

[Anonymous.]

23.5 M is definitely too high. But 2.5 M is a low ball.


I want this to happen just as much as anyone, but I understand Brewer is sitting on a gold mine - why should it be his fault that he scooped up the Depot back in the 90s for the cheap? Can anyone really blame him for not accepting 2.5M?

[BoulderSooner]

Who did not see this coming? When has any project in or near bricktown not brought out the greed in property owners, sometimes delaying growth for decades. But, the property is probably worth more (now) than they were offered, it will be interesting to see how this 'plays out' - and for how long......

if the property goes to condemnation and ED then a 3 person (maybe judge) panel sets the price the city will pay .. and it is binding

[Pete]

$23.5 million is absurd. They will get more than $2.5 million but nowhere near that amount.

The Brewers have done little more than squat on that property for 20+ years. In fact, it has been poorly maintained (I took a bunch of photos a few years ago), used primarily as a parking lot for their gain and they recently put up some awful electronic bulletin boards.

[Just the facts]

Dr. Shadid is really reaching for straws. He is so far out there he might pull a muscle. It isn’t like OKC is the first city in America to implement a streetcar or even regional rail, but he seems to think that either we are or at least federal regulation is so impossible to abide by that the only logical solution is to scrap the streetcar and invest only in a bus system (which I presume would also prohibit BRT since it would go into white areas at a higher frequency than the non-white areas).

If Dr. Shadid is really this concerned and the streetcar can't exist without major upgrades to the bus system then I would be in favor of just discontinuing the bus system all together, closing down COPTA, and creatng a new regional agency to rebuild mass transit in central Oklahoma from the ground up. I suspect however that Dr. Shadid might not be around after the next election anyhow.

Heck, why can't the city just say they are re-implementing an existing service that was discontinued - after all, OKC had streetcars long before they had a bus.

[BoulderSooner]

$23.5 million is absurd. They will get more than $2.5 million but nowhere near that amount.

The Brewers have done little more than squat on that property for 20+ years. In fact, it has been poorly maintained (I took a bunch of photos a few years ago), used primarily as a parking lot for their gain and they recently put up some awful electronic bulletin boards.

i would bet that it ends up around 5 mil

[hatrick36]

Or is it that you appeal to the entire community to support (through taxes, etc. ) this system for each of their own benefit? You are correct, free would encourage the greatest useage (but a very small fee would encourage responsibility). Though it is true that the more affluent participate more (regardless of their 'color'), it would be unwise to encourage just a part of the electorate. Even if thousands of affluent voters never once road the rail (or bus) it would still be a great benefit to them by keeping thousands of cars off the highways, and would encourage economic growth - thus subsidising their affluency. The concept that taxes don't already support the wealthy is rediculus. Roads, highways, streets - all created through tax. If you can afford a car you are supported, if you can't there is no convience to help you with your goal of becoming more affluent. Every group of society is helped when real accessibility is expanded. I think it is best to tie this concept in with roads as another aspect of transportation. Currently, it is limited - only those who can afford cars (motorcyles are not cheap either) are supported.

I wasn't arguing for social justice. I was arguing that if someone is an advocate of public transit, they should support the street car because it increases the likelihood of public support for future transit initiatives of all forms.

I also don't believe anywhere in my post i argued that we don't subsidize the affluent. I pretty much said we have to subsidize the affluent to achieve goals for average and low income citizens. This would be because i use elite theory to evaluate our political system at the municipal, state, and federal level. If you would like to discuss this in further detail, please pm me and I will send you some fascinating readings you may be interested in. Wikipedia also has a pretty nice article on "elite theory" if you want a quick overview and introduction the current thinkers.