Ed Shadid running for Mayor 2014!

[Popsy]

weak

[catch22]

weak

I agree. Very weak of Shadid to turn on the people who elected him.

[Just the facts]

What promise are we talking about? I have heard none of the council members promise anything, nor have I seen anything in writing where they are quoted as saying I promise. If they have, please provide a link.

Here is the thing Popsy - if you are this out of touch with reality none of us can help you. Please move along.

[Just the facts]

Originally Posted by Just the facts
Well, I am with Midtowner on this one. If someone on the council wants to "not do a MAPS project" or divert funds, then let them try it. It will be one of their last acts in Oklahoma City politics.

Fixed. I still think Shadid is a plant from Tulsa to cause OKC to self destruct.

No, I got it right the first time. Unless said person moved to another part of the state his local base would never support him. If you can't win your own part of town you can't win anywhere.

[RickOKC]

I'm trying to see the "big picture" concern on Ed Shadid as a mayoral candidate. Let me try to summarize what I'm reading:

1. Ed Shadid was elected to city council by significant support from the pro-transit community.
2. Ed Shadid received this support by statements that would have suggested that he would be a pro-transit advocate on the council.
3. However, since being elected to city council, Ed Shadid has said and done things that have growingly contradicted what seemed to be his previous positions and has given reason for increased concern to the pro-transit and even MAPS-appreciative community.

Is that right? Does that summarize the concern? If so, isn't the response as simple as discerning why there has been an apparent shift. IF there has been a shift--to me--it seems there could only be 3 basic options to explain why:

A) Ed Shadid never was as pro-transit as he seemed and is now acting out his original (if previously secret) mindset.
B) Ed Shadid is as pro-transit as he has ever been but feels some reason to moderate his stated support.
C) Ed Shadid has genuinely learned and incorporated new information since being on the council that has caused him to come to a sincere change of mindset.

It seems it basically comes down to that. Either he altered his real position early on, is altering his real position now, or has arrived at the divergent conclusions through a sincere development of mindset.

Which is it? Or is there an additional option I am totally missing?

[Just the facts]

I'm trying to see the "big picture" concern on Ed Shadid as a mayoral candidate. Let me try to summarize what I'm reading:

...

It seems it basically comes down to that. Either he altered his real position early on, is altering his real position now, or has arrived at the divergent conclusions through a sincere development of mindset.

Which is it? Or is there an additional option I am totally missing?

From January 2011...
http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...tml#post631401

[OKCTalker]

I don't recall anti-MAPS being an agenda of anyone running for City Council.

I recall at least one guy who promised to stop MAPS because he was against money being spent downtown instead of the suburbs. He was obviously a fringe candidate and didn't get very far. His name is lost to me, but others may recall (not that it matters).

[betts]

I'm trying to see the "big picture" concern on Ed Shadid as a mayoral candidate. Let me try to summarize what I'm reading:

1. Ed Shadid was elected to city council by significant support from the pro-transit community.
2. Ed Shadid received this support by statements that would have suggested that he would be a pro-transit advocate on the council.
3. However, since being elected to city council, Ed Shadid has said and done things that have growingly contradicted what seemed to be his previous positions and has given reason for increased concern to the pro-transit and even MAPS-appreciative community.

Is that right? Does that summarize the concern? If so, isn't the response as simple as discerning why there has been an apparent shift. IF there has been a shift--to me--it seems there could only be 3 basic options to explain why:

A) Ed Shadid never was as pro-transit as he seemed and is now acting out his original (if previously secret) mindset.
B) Ed Shadid is as pro-transit as he has ever been but feels some reason to moderate his stated support.
C) Ed Shadid has genuinely learned and incorporated new information since being on the council that has caused him to come to a sincere change of mindset.

It seems it basically comes down to that. Either he altered his real position early on, is altering his real position now, or has arrived at the divergent conclusions through a sincere development of mindset.

Which is it? Or is there an additional option I am totally missing?

I suspect the correct answer is "A". If the answer is "B", then he needs to explain what his motivation is and how that fits in with pro-transit plans. As I've said, I don't think "C" should be an option. Again, if you don't want the people to direct your spending, don't ask them how to direct it! Have an election and say, "We want a penny sales tax to spend in any way we see fit. We are your representatives and we will represent you in our decisions." That's how the city budget works and I'm fine with that. I would hope my city councilperson is honest about their budgetary interests when they run for office, but ultimately, in that setting they are allowed to represent us as they see fit. We can turn them out of office if we disagree with their decisions. But, when you publish a set of planned expenditures, put it to a vote of the people and the measure passes, you need to follow the direction of the people. If we're a democracy, and not a dictatorship, then you don't ask the people unless you're willing to do what they direct you to do. People who are elected after the vote takes place can help with budgetary decisions, but not with a decision of the people that preceded them because it is outside of the purview of a city councilor no matter when elected.

[catch22]

This thread and so many other posts on this forum confirms the suspicions of so many transit experts and advocates. Some Modern Streetcar advocates don't see the rest of the transit community as equals. To say Ed is possibly anti-transit is about as dishonest as you can be with yourself. That's blatantly not true and everyone knows that.

Chew on this... you can be 100% pro transit and still not be 100% for modern streetcars -- especially if you think they are going to be poorly implemented.

If you think the transit crowd is functionally divided, you've let useful debate and discussion get the better of you.

This thread is not about transit technology so I wont go further on that note. I haven't spoken about this subject for a while with Shadid but the last time I did, he sure seemed incredibly passionate about improving our transit system and was concerned that as far as he could tell (and from his own research), the streetcar might not help that goal as much as assumed previously. I disagree with him somewhat in the way he's handled his position but I can't recall ever doubting his desire to improve transit.

A lot of folks thought that the streetcar would be a real transit improvement. Some people, like myself, are more growing increasingly doubtful that it will be as useful as it could be. That doesn't make you or me less transit friendly.

That doesn't make you or me less transit friendly. (worth repeating)

What isn't acceptable is changing MAPS3. In every conversation I've had with him, I've said, "the streetcar must be built". MAPS is worth far more than any inefficiency in the proposal. I hope he comes to see that as true.

Sid that's the issue here. We are all 100% for transit improvement in every area. If it were up to me, I'd have made MAPS3 towards the bus system and it's improvements. I'd vote yesterday for bus system improvements, I'd vote today, and I'd vote tomorrow. I think we can all agree to that.

All of us here on this thread are also (for the most part) for the streetcar's implementation. We can all agree to be on the same page or at least in the same chapter for that.

It's also clear that Ed Shadid is pro-transit. That isn't a question or even an argument. He brings to light many issues with our bus system, that really really really need to be improved upon.

The issue at heart is him turning this into a streetcar v. bus issue, when it doesn't need to be. The voters voted for the streetcar thus it needs to be built. It's really as simple as that.

To some it back up. All of us agree the bus system needs to be improved, all of us agree the streetcar needs to be built. We're all on the same page. We just don't need to be putting the MAPS money in the bus fund to do it. I'd be behind Ed 100% on leading a measure through council on bus transportation improvements.

[Midtowner]

Maybe the MAPS voters don't care about a functional multimodal system at all. We just want a streetcar downtown because it's something cool to have in your city. I doubt many of the 75,000 who voted in the MAPS election cared much about our bus system at all. Tell ya what... if we need to fix the bus system, let's do a MAPS for Transit and promote a state of the art bus system.

[RickOKC]

This thread and so many other posts on this forum confirms the suspicions of so many transit experts and advocates. Some Modern Streetcar advocates don't see the rest of the transit community as equals. To say Ed is possibly anti-transit is about as dishonest as you can be with yourself. That's blatantly not true and everyone knows that.

Chew on this... you can be 100% pro transit and still not be 100% for modern streetcars -- especially if you think they are going to be poorly implemented.

If you think the transit crowd is functionally divided, you've let useful debate and discussion get the better of you.

This thread is not about transit technology so I wont go further on that note. I haven't spoken about this subject for a while with Shadid but the last time I did, he sure seemed incredibly passionate about improving our transit system and was concerned that as far as he could tell (and from his own research), the streetcar might not help that goal as much as assumed previously. I disagree with him somewhat in the way he's handled his position but I can't recall ever doubting his desire to improve transit.

A lot of folks thought that the streetcar would be a real transit improvement. Some people, like myself, are more growing increasingly doubtful that it will be as useful as it could be. That doesn't make you or me less transit friendly.

That doesn't make you or me less transit friendly. (worth repeating)

What isn't acceptable is changing MAPS3. In every conversation I've had with him, I've said, "the streetcar must be built". MAPS is worth far more than any inefficiency in the proposal. I hope he comes to see that as true.

Wow, Sid. That is super-helpful. I honestly have no axe to grind on this issue - just trying to make sense of the concern. So, if I were to substitute "pro-streetcar" for "pro-transit" throughout my previous post, would that make it accurate? If so, do you favor "C" to explain his evolution - that Shadid has learned information that makes him question whether streetcar is really the best way to help OKC's transit? What information would contribute to such a conclusion?

[betts]

My question is: Does Shadid have the right to change his mind? MAPS preceded him, and it was a decision of the people, similar to propositions in California. Once the people have spoken, I think it is unethical for a councilman to decide he or she knows what we need better than us. Don't ask us if you don't want us to decide.

[betts]

Is anyone saying Shadid isn't pro-transit? If anyone has gotten that opinion from me, I apologize. I think he is very pro-transit. But, I think prior to running for city council, he was neither intellectually nor emotionally involved with Oklahoma City and citizens goals to improve it. I don't think he understands MAPS. I think he was about 12 when the first MAPS proposal was proposed. I might not get it either, because I'm quite sure he went to Casady school and probably never went south of 63rd St. A lot of people didn't go south of 63rd in those days.

I did. I remember how shocked I was when we moved here from Denver. The word shocked doesn't really do my emotions justice. Stunned probably comes closer. I didn't have a car when we moved here. I'd ridden the bus for 10 years while living in Denver. Actually, I walked any distance 4 miles or shorter and used the bus for long trips. We lived on 24th and Shartel when we moved here, and one of us rode a bike to work. I'd just married and my husband had a car so I got to drive it some. In Denver I lived and worked in Capitol Hill. I went to school downtown, and both were vibrant places to be. Downtown Oklahoma City was a wasteland, and I remember being significantly depressed about my living situation for about a year. Then I got into medical school and didn't have time to be depressed.

When the first MAPS was proposed, it was almost like a dream. I would go downtown just to watch things being built and watch the city change. I supported MAPS for Kids after seeing what MAPS had done, and I campaigned vigorously for the next two MAPS. They made Oklahoma City into something from nothing. There was nothing to be proud of when I moved here, in comparison to other cities in which I'd lived. I was emotionally and intellectually tied to the MAPS projects, because of what they achieved. Ed Shadid was too young to know Oklahoma City pre-MAPS, and so it means far less to him than it does to people like me. He said he didn't vote for them, which probably means he didn't care to vote, or lived somewhere where he couldn't. Of course it's going to be easy for him to discount the emotional ties some of us have to these projects.

But, just like it's not fair to say Ed isn't pro-transit, it's also not fair to say people who are pro-streetcar aren't pro-transit. I want a streetcar for the same reason people in Seattle and Portland wanted one, the same reason Kansas City, Washington D.C., Cincinnati, Charlotte, etc wanted one. But, I also want a great bus system. A streetcar is easy. It's five or six miles, it's fairly cheap to maintain and there are some pretty obvious places it needs to go. A great bus system is harder. It's more expensive to maintain, it requires far more planning, and it will require either telling some people the bus no longer comes to them, or it at least comes somewhere different. In my opinion it requires telling people the bus transit center is an outmoded concept and that we should sell the land and not waste anyone's time going there. It needs a dedicated sales tax and smart people planning and operating it. That's something that requires very careful thinking and very careful planning. And, since I'm suggesting a dedicated sales tax, it's going to require getting people to vote for it. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people in Oklahoma City, right now, think the bus is for people who can't afford a car. The majority of voters. And we're a conservative group. People don't like paying for things for other people to use. So, it's going to require a whole new attitude towards transit, and that takes time. It takes success that people can see and feel. It's really important to have a united group fighting for great transit and the best way to do that is to build the streetcar that was promised, and then use the warm fuzzy feelings from that to build on, to get people excited about mass transit, to spend time showing people how great transit works and that it will work for them and make their lives less complicated. But, it's not going to happen overnight. And, it's not going to happen without a lot of public education, IMO.

[Pete]

I remember how shocked I was when we moved here from Denver. The word shocked doesn't really do my emotions justice. Stunned probably comes closer. I didn't have a car when we moved here. I'd ridden the bus for 10 years while living in Denver. Actually, I walked any distance 4 miles or shorter and used the bus for long trips. We lived on 24th and Shartel when we moved here, and one of us rode a bike to work. I'd just married and my husband had a car so I got to drive it some. In Denver I lived and worked in Capitol Hill. I went to school downtown, and both were vibrant places to be. Downtown Oklahoma City was a wasteland, and I remember being significantly depressed about my living situation for about a year. Then I got into medical school and didn't have time to be depressed.

When the first MAPS was proposed, it was almost like a dream. I would go downtown just to watch things being built and watch the city change. I supported MAPS for Kids after seeing what MAPS had done, and I campaigned vigorously for the next two MAPS. They made Oklahoma City into something from nothing. There was nothing to be proud of when I moved here, in comparison to other cities in which I'd lived.

betts, remind me of the year you moved to OKC?

And your description of the pre-MAPS state of affairs is harsh but completely accurate. I had never lived anywhere other than OKC and Norman and lacked your great perspective and the city STILL depressed the hell out of me. It's absolutely shocking to think back on how bad things were back then, at least from a south-of-63rd perspective. And even beyond that, there were almost no decent restaurants or places to go. The Varsity at 63rd and Western -- by today's standards the lamest of sports bars -- was the only place I could think to take some visiting friends circa 1988. Think about that for a minute!

I moved away in 1989 (mainly due to career necessity) and things were so grave I couldn't even imagine anything different. Famously, there was a cartoon in the Gazette that asked the question, "What can you say about a town where the only construction downtown is a prison?" And that was completely true. Ugh.

And of course, there was plenty of controversy and disagreement even when the first MAPS was being implemented. But at that time, there wasn't the Internet and nearly free-flow of information and opinions that there is now, otherwise I would bet that a good many of those projects would have been cut off at the knees, especially when several went well over budget.

[betts]

I moved here in 1980. I remember three restaurants - I don't think the Varsity existed at that time. We found one Cantonese Chinese restaurant - the Little Shanghai, which is where the Ace Hardware now is on Britton Rd. There was a Der Dutchman - ugh and I remember a nice restaurant called the Wine Cellar - I think. There was a Roy Rogers on 23rd St. though - maybe where the Mutts is now? We ate there a lot and I actually miss it. Haha! Our car didn't have air conditioning - I remember that VERY well, and our house had two window unit air conditioners. My husband used to ride his bike home in the afternoon and sit in front of the air conditioner for about an hour afterwards. The house is still there, and right behind the little shops on 23rd that house Cuppies and Joes, etc. It wasn't much nicer then than it is now.

[RickOKC]

Is anyone saying Shadid isn't pro-transit? If anyone has gotten that opinion from me, I apologize. I think he is very pro-transit. But, I think prior to running for city council, he was neither intellectually nor emotionally involved with Oklahoma City and citizens goals to improve it. I don't think he understands MAPS. I think he was about 12 when the first MAPS proposal was proposed. I might not get it either, because I'm quite sure he went to Casady school and probably never went south of 63rd St. A lot of people didn't go south of 63rd in those days.

I did. I remember how shocked I was when we moved here from Denver. The word shocked doesn't really do my emotions justice. Stunned probably comes closer. I didn't have a car when we moved here. I'd ridden the bus for 10 years while living in Denver. Actually, I walked any distance 4 miles or shorter and used the bus for long trips. We lived on 24th and Shartel when we moved here, and one of us rode a bike to work. I'd just married and my husband had a car so I got to drive it some. In Denver I lived and worked in Capitol Hill. I went to school downtown, and both were vibrant places to be. Downtown Oklahoma City was a wasteland, and I remember being significantly depressed about my living situation for about a year. Then I got into medical school and didn't have time to be depressed.

When the first MAPS was proposed, it was almost like a dream. I would go downtown just to watch things being built and watch the city change. I supported MAPS for Kids after seeing what MAPS had done, and I campaigned vigorously for the next two MAPS. They made Oklahoma City into something from nothing. There was nothing to be proud of when I moved here, in comparison to other cities in which I'd lived. I was emotionally and intellectually tied to the MAPS projects, because of what they achieved. Ed Shadid was too young to know Oklahoma City pre-MAPS, and so it means far less to him than it does to people like me. He said he didn't vote for them, which probably means he didn't care to vote, or lived somewhere where he couldn't. Of course it's going to be easy for him to discount the emotional ties some of us have to these projects.

But, just like it's not fair to say Ed isn't pro-transit, it's also not fair to say people who are pro-streetcar aren't pro-transit. I want a streetcar for the same reason people in Seattle and Portland wanted one, the same reason Kansas City, Washington D.C., Cincinnati, Charlotte, etc wanted one. But, I also want a great bus system. A streetcar is easy. It's five or six miles, it's fairly cheap to maintain and there are some pretty obvious places it needs to go. A great bus system is harder. It's more expensive to maintain, it requires far more planning, and it will require either telling some people the bus no longer comes to them, or it at least comes somewhere different. In my opinion it requires telling people the bus transit center is an outmoded concept and that we should sell the land and not waste anyone's time going there. It needs a dedicated sales tax and smart people planning and operating it. That's something that requires very careful thinking and very careful planning. And, since I'm suggesting a dedicated sales tax, it's going to require getting people to vote for it. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people in Oklahoma City, right now, think the bus is for people who can't afford a car. The majority of voters. And we're a conservative group. People don't like paying for things for other people to use. So, it's going to require a whole new attitude towards transit, and that takes time. It takes success that people can see and feel. It's really important to have a united group fighting for great transit and the best way to do that is to build the streetcar that was promised, and then use the warm fuzzy feelings from that to build on, to get people excited about mass transit, to spend time showing people how great transit works and that it will work for them and make their lives less complicated. But, it's not going to happen overnight. And, it's not going to happen without a lot of public education, IMO.

Thank you for presenting your personal perspective, Betts. Very compelling. I've only been here since 2001 but I couldn't agree more with your presentation of the difference MAPS has made in our city. I can only imagine the kind of perspective that being here the last 30+ years would provide.

[soonerguru]

Is anyone saying Shadid isn't pro-transit? If anyone has gotten that opinion from me, I apologize. I think he is very pro-transit. But, I think prior to running for city council, he was neither intellectually nor emotionally involved with Oklahoma City and citizens goals to improve it. I don't think he understands MAPS. I think he was about 12 when the first MAPS proposal was proposed. I might not get it either, because I'm quite sure he went to Casady school and probably never went south of 63rd St. A lot of people didn't go south of 63rd in those days.

I did. I remember how shocked I was when we moved here from Denver. The word shocked doesn't really do my emotions justice. Stunned probably comes closer. I didn't have a car when we moved here. I'd ridden the bus for 10 years while living in Denver. Actually, I walked any distance 4 miles or shorter and used the bus for long trips. We lived on 24th and Shartel when we moved here, and one of us rode a bike to work. I'd just married and my husband had a car so I got to drive it some. In Denver I lived and worked in Capitol Hill. I went to school downtown, and both were vibrant places to be. Downtown Oklahoma City was a wasteland, and I remember being significantly depressed about my living situation for about a year. Then I got into medical school and didn't have time to be depressed.

When the first MAPS was proposed, it was almost like a dream. I would go downtown just to watch things being built and watch the city change. I supported MAPS for Kids after seeing what MAPS had done, and I campaigned vigorously for the next two MAPS. They made Oklahoma City into something from nothing. There was nothing to be proud of when I moved here, in comparison to other cities in which I'd lived. I was emotionally and intellectually tied to the MAPS projects, because of what they achieved. Ed Shadid was too young to know Oklahoma City pre-MAPS, and so it means far less to him than it does to people like me. He said he didn't vote for them, which probably means he didn't care to vote, or lived somewhere where he couldn't. Of course it's going to be easy for him to discount the emotional ties some of us have to these projects.

But, just like it's not fair to say Ed isn't pro-transit, it's also not fair to say people who are pro-streetcar aren't pro-transit. I want a streetcar for the same reason people in Seattle and Portland wanted one, the same reason Kansas City, Washington D.C., Cincinnati, Charlotte, etc wanted one. But, I also want a great bus system. A streetcar is easy. It's five or six miles, it's fairly cheap to maintain and there are some pretty obvious places it needs to go. A great bus system is harder. It's more expensive to maintain, it requires far more planning, and it will require either telling some people the bus no longer comes to them, or it at least comes somewhere different. In my opinion it requires telling people the bus transit center is an outmoded concept and that we should sell the land and not waste anyone's time going there. It needs a dedicated sales tax and smart people planning and operating it. That's something that requires very careful thinking and very careful planning. And, since I'm suggesting a dedicated sales tax, it's going to require getting people to vote for it. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people in Oklahoma City, right now, think the bus is for people who can't afford a car. The majority of voters. And we're a conservative group. People don't like paying for things for other people to use. So, it's going to require a whole new attitude towards transit, and that takes time. It takes success that people can see and feel. It's really important to have a united group fighting for great transit and the best way to do that is to build the streetcar that was promised, and then use the warm fuzzy feelings from that to build on, to get people excited about mass transit, to spend time showing people how great transit works and that it will work for them and make their lives less complicated. But, it's not going to happen overnight. And, it's not going to happen without a lot of public education, IMO.

Outstanding. This is a virtuoso post. The only thing I take issue with is your comment about Ed's age; it's the same as mine and I well remember OKC before MAPS. I was in my early to mid-20s when the first MAPS was passed. Unless Ed took an extended vacation away from OKC he remembers OKC pre-MAPS as well.

The problem I see with Ed Shadid is he doesn't seem to know what to build upon and when. He demonizes decisions that are made -- and sometimes that has to be done -- but he lacks the pragmatism great leaders have. He relishes the opportunity to critique, but he cannot build consensus. If you're a politician, that's a recipe for failure.

OKC did not work hard to get a critic elected. We voted for a leader. This is a great moment in OKC's history for public transit. There's a large body of enthusiastic transit supporters out there who need to be nurtured, not divided. Ed is clueless how to do this.

[Just the facts]

Maybe the MAPS voters don't care about a functional multimodal system at all. We just want a streetcar downtown because it's something cool to have in your city. I doubt many of the 75,000 who voted in the MAPS election cared much about our bus system at all. Tell ya what... if we need to fix the bus system, let's do a MAPS for Transit and promote a state of the art bus system.

I would be all in favor of MAPS for Mass Transit/Walkability, but apparently MAPS is a fataly flawed system (not my words). Besides, if people had to choose between mass transit/walkability and police/fire protection whose to say that people won't prefer police/fire protection (once again, not my words).

[Midtowner]

I would be all in favor of MAPS for Mass Transit/Walkability, but apparently MAPS is a fataly flawed system (not my words). Besides, if people had to choose between mass transit/walkability and police/fire protection whose to say that people won't prefer police/fire protection (once again, not my words).

If you recall, the MAPS III vote was between folks wanting capital improvements and the police/fire departments.

[Just the facts]

If you recall, the MAPS III vote was between folks wanting capital improvements and the police/fire departments.

Yep, which is why I keep refering back to the 2011 Shadid interview on KTOK. Maybe KTOK should run a tape of that interview or provide a transcript.

On edit, I was just reading back through the threads I linked to from 2011 and several poster identified Pete White as one of the Council Memebers that were trying to bait and switch the people on MAPS III. This is the same Pete White who concluded last week that the city was focusing too much on downtown with MAPS. I guess not much has changed.

[BoulderSooner]

If you recall, the MAPS III vote was between folks wanting capital improvements and the police/fire departments.

which was not a smart narrative ... because you can't fund police/fire with a temp tax ..... if maps 3 failed police and fire number would not have got up ..

and they would have lost their capital replacements .. via the maps 3 use tax

[betts]

What's ironic about this discussion is that a MAPS for transit/walkability almost assuredly would have to do what was done to get the convention center passed. To get money for bus transit you would have to lure voters with something sexy like a streetcar extension or commuter rail. I doubt improved bus transit would pass as a stand alone item. Not enough people see the lure of bus transit or see themselves riding. In this city I think you have to approach it from the other direction. As people get used to riding trains they will learn the usefulness of buses linking them.

[catch22]

What's ironic about this discussion is that a MAPS for transit/walkability almost assuredly would have to do what was done to get the convention center passed. To get money for bus transit you would have to lure voters with something sexy like a streetcar extension or commuter rail. I doubt improved bus transit would pass as a stand alone item. Not enough people see the lure of bus transit or see themselves riding. In this city I think you have to approach it from the other direction. As people get used to riding trains they will learn the usefulness of buses linking them.

And really I'm one of those people... I wouldn't have riden buses until I rode rail in New York, Cleveland, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. and found the usefulness of mass transit in those systems, teaching me how to utilize the bus system as well.

[Just the facts]

And really I'm one of those people... I wouldn't have riden buses until I rode rail in New York, Cleveland, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. and found the usefulness of mass transit in those systems, teaching me how to utilize the bus system as well.

One of the things I notice when I travel is that people from non-transit cities are afraid to use mass transit. They aren't necessarily afraid of the people using it, they are intimidated by the system itself. My wife falls into this category. We have discussed going to Philly and she is less than thrilled about not having a rental car. I have explained to her multiple times that we don't need a car, and in fact a car would be a liability, but she just feels more comfortable having a rental car (even if cost $36 a night to park a car we don't even own). I suspect this isn't because she loves the idea if wasting money, but because she doesn't want to learn how to use the rail system. I had to drag her onto the subway in New York.

Anyone know the name of phobia for fear of mass transit systems, massatransitusphobia?

It turns out there are more people than just my wife with this fear.
http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/...-idiot-103463/

[Larry OKC]

Maybe the MAPS voters don't care about a functional multimodal system at all. We just want a streetcar downtown because it's something cool to have in your city. I doubt many of the 75,000 who voted in the MAPS election cared much about our bus system at all. Tell ya what... if we need to fix the bus system, let's do a MAPS for Transit and promote a state of the art bus system.

The Oklahoma County Election Board reported 40,956 votes (54.3%) for the proposal and 34,465 votes (45.7%) against with 271 of 271 precincts reporting. Precincts in Oklahoma City reported a 31 percent voter turnout rate.

Transit meant different things to different people per the Mayor & the City's self-admitted, unscientific, online MAPS 3 survey results. That said when lumped together as a category, Transit received by far the most number of suggestions, by several factors. The only thing we can gauge voter support for any particular item is thru polls like the City one or scientific polling done before the election. As far as the election itself, it might be completely fair to say that "MAPS voters don't care about a functional multimodal system at all" due to the fact that we weren't given an individual separate proposition ballot. In other words it is hard to break down what projects the Yes voters were voting for.

Even though voter turnout was relatively high for a local single issue election (IIRC, it was reported it ran about double), it is important to note that a minority, only 31% even voted. That means that 69% of the registered voters didn't. Divide that 31% by the Yes and Nos, and the numbers get even smaller. Factor into that, that only about half of the citizens even register. That means roughly 7-8% of the population decided for the other 92-93%. People talk abut 1 person, 1 vote. majority rules etc. But it doesn't. No matter what election you are talking about, no matter which way the vote goes, the decision is being made by a small minority. Bad enough when the overall citizens don't care but when the voters don't care either... Voter apathy is... well... pathetic.

To the last line of Mids post, that is exactly what statements by the Mayor prior to MAPS 3 being unveiled led me to believe would be in MAPS 3. A comprehensive mass trans proposal, truly being an intermodal, city-wide system that addresses the collective wants expressed by those surveyed & needs determined by various transit studies. Then due to whatever reasons, we only got the "starter" downtown streetcar (along with the other projects).

What's ironic about this discussion is that a MAPS for transit/walkability almost assuredly would have to do what was done to get the convention center passed. To get money for bus transit you would have to lure voters with something sexy like a streetcar extension or commuter rail. I doubt improved bus transit would pass as a stand alone item. Not enough people see the lure of bus transit or see themselves riding. In this city I think you have to approach it from the other direction. As people get used to riding trains they will learn the usefulness of buses linking them.

i agree that a stand alone Bus measure would likely fail. But it would be constitutional to have "like-kind" items as a separate measure (including the "sexier" items). Completely different from the unconstitutional logrolling of unrelated projects that we got on the MAPS 3 ballot.

Also, Betts, I was speaking in the hypothetical about a Council candidate that was actively against a prior voter passed project (that got elected because of that opposition)