Streetcar

[adaniel]

Him questioning the dedicated zoo tax set me off against him..... totally going against what the people had voted for.

I hated Shadid before it became cool LOL!

Seriously though, I had my concerns for Shadid for some time now. I remember when a consulting company was presenting a survey of residents to the city council. Instead of looking at the results, Mr. Shadid instead expressed bewilderment that the city even used this company, even suggesting that the same results could be achieved by a robocall. So this city is supposed to decide on where to spend hundreds of millions of dollars off a robocall that 95% of people would hang up on? That's when I kind of figured, as good as his intentions are, he does not understand the intricacies of municipal government.

[Larry OKC]

Everyone knows that Larry. Rather, city council members also know that, if they veer too far away from what was promised, they risk never passing another MAPS resolution. I know that would make you happy, but I'm not sure the majority of people on the City Council would agree with you. It's smart politics, for those who think MAPS' projects have done great things for Oklahoma City.

Seems that Hutch didn't, that's why I brought it up. Also remember that under the original MAPS we were also supposed to get rail-based streetcars but according to one article I read, the rail had been delivered and they were ready to start installation when the Federal funding got pulled...and we ended up with the rubber tired trolleys....essentially a bus. That brings me back to my original question: based on the language in the ordinance, is there anything legally stopping the Council from changing their stated intent and moving that money to buses or anything else? Other than voters holding them responsible (which they haven't so far), the answer is apperntly"No".

The rest is off topic so if someone wants to ignore it, feel free...
And while it is true that I voted "No" on every round of MAPS, it isn't for the reasons you think. Some things are a responsibility of government and some aren't. With MAPS, we have never been given the opportunity (as required by State law), to vote on "like kind" projects or propositions. It has always been an illegal all-or-nothing ballot. MAPS was a mixed bag of projects. MAPS for Kids was inappropriate because the City has nothing to do with the school district. While I was in favor of most of the MAPS 3 projects, I was against the continued spin, half-truths and in some cases out-right lies during the campaign. Add to that the once again illegal log-rolling ballot (even though the Mayors office said they wouldn't do it and the Mayor himself said that "each of these projects must stand on their own" (separate propositions).

Then there is the implementation factor. We are seeing the mistakes of MAPS all over again with MAPS 3 (Trials, Sidewalks, Senior Aquatic Centers). These are the "minor" projects. Is there any doubt that when it comes to the more expensive ones (Streetcars & Convention Center), that the likelihood of over-promise and under-deliver is going to happen? You even said as much when it comes to the Convention Center.

[Hutch]

Seems that Hutch didn't, that's why I brought it up.

Of course I knew that. My post wasn't a legal opinion on the ballot language...it was just a reference to the resolution adopted by Council committing their support to specific projects. From a purely legal perspective, the current Council could do whatever they want with the $777 million dollars. They could even build a 600-foot high Jesus statue downtown if the zoning ordinances allowed for it. But that's not political reality and it won't happen unless a majority on Council are willing to risk destroying the public trust and the future of MAPS.

[Buffalo Bill]

Saw this interesting slide show of what Denver is doing to re-purpose their Union Station as a multi-modal hub:

Denver's Union Station makeover taking shape: slideshow - Denver Business Journal

[Urban Pioneer]

Its a really cool project. I'm pretty excited about our long term plans. They have a built in technicality do to poor choices in the past. Unless it has been changed, their having to build a "stub end" hub. Ours will be a "pull through" which will operate more efficiently.

[Just the facts]

Who the hell sheetrocks over a grand wrought-iron staircase (slides 8 & 12)? What was wrong with people?

[OKCisOK4me]

Who the hell sheetrocks over a grand wrought-iron staircase (slides 8 & 12)? What was wrong with people?

Man, you actually made me go in and view that pic. I thought it was gonna be a pic of new sheetrock, lol.

[Larry OKC]

These are the semantic games I was referring to. Everyone damn well knows what the intent of the MAPS Streetcar/Transit section of the MAPS3 ballot was. ….

Maybe you mis-spoke, but no where on the Ballot or the Ordinance was there a "Streetcar/Transit section" (or any of the other projects). Both the Ballot & Ordinance (what we were really voting on) essentially provided

1) A starting and ending date for the tax

2) The amount of the sales tax

Of course I knew that. My post wasn't a legal opinion on the ballot language...it was just a reference to the resolution adopted by Council committing their support to specific projects.

My apologies. It read as if you were under the impression that they can't change their collective mind when you wrote:

Read Exhibit A of the MAPS 3 City Council resolution approved on September 29, 2009:

MAPS 3 Resolution

"The intended MAPS 3 projects include the following:

2. A new rail-based streetcar system..."

Obviously, buses are not rail-based. No room for misinterpretation on that one.

And as you are probably aware, they changed from rail-based before. What is stopping them from doing it again? Don't we have 2 new Council members since MAPS 3 passed? We have a runoff election on April 4, and there is a distinct possibility that at least 1, if not 2 more new Council members will be on the horseshoe. Thats 4 out of 9 members that have changed. What are the positions of the candidates in this upcoming election concerning MAPS 3 and Streetcars in particular? Will we have another Council election before Streetcar implementation happens?

From a purely legal perspective, the current Council could do whatever they want with the $777 million dollars. They could even build a 600-foot high Jesus statue downtown if the zoning ordinances allowed for it. But that's not political reality and it won't happen unless a majority on Council are willing to risk destroying the public trust and the future of MAPS.

And as history has shown us, they can and do change their intent. They have run the risk of destroying the public trust and the future of MAPS with the track record of MAPS & MAPS 2. Remember that MAPS 3 passed by the same low percentage as the original. Much lower than MAPS 2 and the NBA/Ford Center vote. We have seen the same risk taking with MAPS 3 from the Ballot, campaign on to the present.

I wish you & those on the committee well with keeping the Streetcar/Transit portion within budget, as promised and on time. Unfortunately, history is not on your side.

[Just the facts]

Man, you actually made me go in and view that pic. I thought it was gonna be a pic of new sheetrock, lol.

Sorry, it was some dolts years ago that did it. It is now being uncovered as part of the renovation.

[OKCisOK4me]

Sorry, it was some dolts years ago that did it. It is now being uncovered as part of the renovation.

I wondered the same thing when you said so. Pretty cool renovations going on. I ended up going on to Google Maps and looking at where I think the train route to the airport will be. You can see it a lot easier coming from the airport, but it disappears into the grid once you get a little closer to I-70.

[BoulderSooner]

Maybe you mis-spoke, but no where on the Ballot or the Ordinance was there a "Streetcar/Transit section" (or any of the other projects). Both the Ballot & Ordinance (what we were really voting on) essentially provided

1) A starting and ending date for the tax

2) The amount of the sales tax


My apologies. It read as if you were under the impression that they can't change their collective mind when you wrote:



And as you are probably aware, they changed from rail-based before. What is stopping them from doing it again? Don't we have 2 new Council members since MAPS 3 passed? We have a runoff election on April 4, and there is a distinct possibility that at least 1, if not 2 more new Council members will be on the horseshoe. Thats 4 out of 9 members that have changed. What are the positions of the candidates in this upcoming election concerning MAPS 3 and Streetcars in particular? Will we have another Council election before Streetcar implementation happens?



And as history has shown us, they can and do change their intent. They have run the risk of destroying the public trust and the future of MAPS with the track record of MAPS & MAPS 2. Remember that MAPS 3 passed by the same low percentage as the original. Much lower than MAPS 2 and the NBA/Ford Center vote. We have seen the same risk taking with MAPS 3 from the Ballot, campaign on to the present.

I wish you & those on the committee well with keeping the Streetcar/Transit portion within budget, as promised and on time. Unfortunately, history is not on your side.

The rail in maps 1 was predicated on federal money. Maps 3 rail was not

[Urban Pioneer]

This article is "spot on". It is my understanding that ODOT is scrambling. They want to retain that power over the Rail Division.

Kudos SW Aviator on the hard work on this! Obviously, if articles such as these are starting to emerge, it isn't just rail advocates taking note of our "Highway Department".

Hey, Porter - Bills have potential for real passenger rail service - Columns - Capitolist - Urban Tulsa Weekly

[Larry OKC]

The rail in maps 1 was predicated on federal money. Maps 3 rail was not

True for the most part. But you are missing the larger picture. Just as they changed from rail to rubber tired trolleys, they can do so again. Not saying they will, but the possibility definitely is out there. The precedent has been set. And although the Mayor stated they didn't put anything into MAPS 3 that we couldn't complete ourselves, there was always plans for Federal and other government monies for expansion (and possibly to make up for any funding shortfall/price increases that we have seen with other MAPS 3 projects). The $10 million earmarked for the Intermodal transit Hub isn't going to come close to the $128 million that is now projected for it to eventually cost (if high speed/commuter rail etc comes to pass). That other money is definitely dependent on outside funding sources. I am not trying to start another debate on the $128 million cost, but will the $10 million earmarked cover the improvements needed for the existing uses of the intermodal hub (Amtrack/Streetcars/Commercial & City Buses etc)? Then there is the current standoff between what the City is offering ($2.5 million) for the Santa Fe station and what the owners are asking ($23.5 million, more than double than the $10 million earmarked). All of that said, with the price increases with other MAPS 3 projects, how solid are the average cost per mile estimates originally put out there for the 5 to 6 miles of Streetcar? Is there enough contingency funds to make up for it???

[soonerguru]

Steve continues to diminish and brush over the key issues people here have with Shadid's candidacy and its relationship to the MAPS Streetcar initiative. In fact, he seems to outright dis the folks here with this comment from yesterday's chat:

No. We do not know if Ed Shadid is running for mayor. We know he is looking at it - which can be said about at least three or four other people. It's been my observation that the streetcar advocates at OKC Talk do not like to see their beliefs or assumptions challenged or questioned - which is certainly what Shadid has done.

Steve, this isn't about beliefs or assumptions, it's about votes. People voted for this project. Shadid has discussed shifting the money from this project elsewhere for his pet projects. Why do you continue to misrepresent the angst Streetcar supporters have with Shadid? Is it not clear to you that shifting money from a MAPS project that people have already voted for is going to piss a lot of people off? There's no reason to obfuscate or overcomplicate the matter.

It's very cut and dried.

You owe people here a mea culpa -- or at least fair reporting. Quit trying to act like this is about sensitive people who can't handle having their assumptions challenged. That is not only inaccurate -- it's a bit of a cheap shot.

[warreng88]

Steve said last week during the chat that he was hearing reports the city is looking at proceeding with reconstruction of EK Gaylord between the new boulevard and Main street and that it will remain six lanes. Since the long term plan is to have the Santa Fe train station as the multimodal hub for all of downtown, do you think Project 180 will finally work with the MAPs 3 streetcar subcommittee to cut costs on the area in front of the station?

[CaptDave]

Honestly, no. There does not appear to be any actual cooperation and coordination between P180, PW, and the Streetcar engineers - I may be wrong though.

More concerning to me is PW's insistence on keeping EK Gaylord a 6 lane monstrosity that will continue to be a barrier between the CBD, transit hub, and Bricktown.

[Anonymous.]

I understand trying to tone down EK, but honestly that road is a nightmare @ 5pm and I cannot imagine trying to get out of my parking garage (which is already a risky venture with the 6 lanes) if it was two lanes each direction.

I am not sure what a good solution to dilluting this barrier, would be.

[Anonymous.]

We need a EKG thread, and that Walnut thread... Or downtown streets in general thread... lol

[CaptDave]

Nicely stated Sid. (Wish I could have made it down to OU yesterday.)

I sincerely hope the brakes will be put on any changes to Gaylord until we have a final route determination and transit hub plan for Santa Fe station. Leaving six lanes of automobile traffic for people to cross into the CBD from Santa Fe Station would be disastrous for transit. I am not a conspiratorial person, but is this part of the thought process at PW? They do not seem to want to be bothered by incorporating modes of transportation other than automobiles into OKC's infrastructure.

[Just the facts]

Leaving six lanes of automobile traffic for people to cross into the CBD from Santa Fe Station would be disastrous for transit. I am not a conspiratorial person, but is this part of the thought process at PW? They do not seem to want to be bothered by incorporating modes of transportation other than automobiles into OKC's infrastructure.

Ummm, it's not a conspiracy. They are doing it right out in the open and have city codes written to give cars the priority in decision making process.

[BoulderSooner]

If you have a hole for a refrigerator and you are given the money by your insurance company to buy a new refrigerator, you are going to buy the biggest one that will fit in that hole. Regardless of what you actually need in capacity. And likewise, that refrigerator will eventually fill up -- but not because you are eating more.

Don't worry, I'm laughing at my own analogy.

of course if you have a mini fridge and a family of 12 you will not be able to store the food you need for them

[Just the facts]

of course if you have a mini fridge and a family of 12 you will not be able to store the food you need for them

That all depends on how many times you want to go to the grocery store, but one thing is for sure, you won't put 32 cubic feet of food in a 5 cubic foot fridge. You'll have to make other plans, and that is the whole point. When the West Side freeway was close on Manhattan in 1973, 53% of the traffic that used to travel on that road dissappeared (meaning that traffic counts on surrounding streets did not go up to match the lost capacity). 53% of the people simply stopped driving.

[Just the facts]

Well, not exactly. They made a different sequence and timing of trips. It's not like 53% of all trips ceased to exist. Just want to be clear about that.

No - 53% of trips stopped being made - at least by car.

Sorry, I meant to post the link in the previous post.

http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/...sWestSide.html

When the West Side Highway was closed in 1973, 53 percent of the traffic that had used this highway disappeared, dramatic proof that building freeways generates traffic and that removing freeways reduces traffic.

[hoya]

I work and park downtown. At 5 o'clock, it takes me less than 5 minutes from when I get to my car to when I am on the interstate. Our "rush hour" traffic is really not bad at all. I doubt eliminating two lanes from EK Gaylord will turn my 5 minute trip into even a 10 minute trip. But that 6 lanes is dangerous to cross when I walk from the courthouse to Bricktown at lunch. If you made it 4 lanes it would be much easier and I'd see more people making the trip.

I don't mind if it takes a little longer to get into downtown, if I have a better experience once I am there. The chief problem with our downtown is that too many people leave at 5. That's what everyone complains about. We want to make it a nicer place to live and work, even if it means a slightly longer commute.

[Rover]

Not to be contrary, but the West Side Highway was later rebuilt to modern standards about a dozen years ago, was it not?. The original one was functionally obsolete with cobblestones and designs fitting for early cars and their speeds. Traffic didn't just disappear and I don't think you will find the train ridership immediately shot up. I think to say its demised made people quit driving altogether is pretty naive.