Streetcar

[UnFrSaKn]

Ernest Istook, Ed Shadid Comment on Streetcar Discussion | OKC Central

[Spartan]

Istook is shifty.

[soonerguru]

You think Istook is shifty? What about Shadid? The guy won't even come out and say what he believes. Ether.

[Spartan]

You think Istook is shifty? What about Shadid? The guy won't even come out and say what he believes. Ether.

No, Ed is far from shifty and scummy like Istook is. But I really don't think Ed wants to be on the same side of an issue as a proven crook.

[Plutonic Panda]

Ok, can someone please provide a link or at least a direct quote from Ed Shadid saying he does not want a street car in OKC, wants to use the funds that were dedicated to the streetcar for something else, or he opposes MAPS? I have searched for the past hour, watching videos and trying to find where he said something, and I haven't found something even remotely similar to him saying anything like that.

The only thing I found was he questioned what would be better, a street car or expansive bus system. I want this street car to happen, but as Steve has pointed out, and I agree with him, there seems to be people(I'm not going to name anyone specific) that get really defensive when asked questions that they don't like. I think Ed Shadid did just that and he's being attacked for it now. So I don't sound like a hypocrite, my name is Campbell Sadeghy and I'd like to know what be better for the city, a bus network or street car system. I think this street car system should be built, because that what was told would be built if the voters approved Maps3.

I just wonder how many people here would still be in the same position if a a bond package was passed to widen I-35 to 8 lanes with 4 express lanes from Downtown OKC to Norman and then the city decided, at the last moment, that they really feel like expanding the highway, and then built a light-rail instead.

[catch22]

Ok, can someone please provide a link or at least a direct quote from Ed Shadid saying he does not want a street car in OKC, wants to use the funds that were dedicated to the streetcar for something else, or he opposes MAPS? I have searched for the past hour, watching videos and trying to find where he said something, and I haven't found something even remotely similar to him saying anything like that.

The only thing I found was he questioned what would be better, a street car or expansive bus system. I want this street car to happen, but as Steve has pointed out, and I agree with him, there seems to be people(I'm not going to name anyone specific) that get really defensive when asked questions that they don't like. I think Ed Shadid did just that and he's being attacked for it now. So I don't sound like a hypocrite, my name is Campbell Sadeghy and I'd like to know what be better for the city, a bus network or street car system. I think this street car system should be built, because that what was told would be built if the voters approved Maps3.

I just wonder how many people here would still be in the same position if a a bond package was passed to widen I-35 to 8 lanes with 4 express lanes from Downtown OKC to Norman and then the city decided, at the last moment, that they really feel like expanding the highway, and then built a light-rail instead.

It's not being asked questions you don't like, it's giving a voice to an argument that we should not be having. The streetcar has been decided by the voters, so as a voter and a citizen, we should not be having debates on streetcar v. bus. This streetcar versus bus argument should have taken place about 4 years ago.

If Ed wants to get a bus system proposal together that doesn't sound like he wants to take streetcar moneys, then I am all in favor. But the discussion Ed is having should not include the word streetcar unless we are talking about complimenting and coordinating the bus system with the streetcar.

[ABryant]

I am really not comfortable with this being a hotbed issue. I am fine with the convention center, but I feel that is a way more controversial part of MAPS3. The streetcar was the most popular issue to voters, and most of the rest of MAPS3 was attached. I understand that only a small percentage of the available voters voted, but they had their chance to vote. This should go forward. Some of these people can drag new voters in to vote their way, if given a special election. I don't feel it is deserved. I see no subterfuge or con game in the original writing of the bill.

[SoonerDave]

I am really not comfortable with this being a hotbed issue. I am fine with the convention center, but I feel that is a way more controversial part of MAPS3. The streetcar was the most popular issue to voters, and most of the rest of MAPS3 was attached. I understand that only a small percentage of the available voters voted, but they had their chance to vote. This should go forward. Some of these people can drag new voters in to vote their way, if given a special election. I don't feel it is deserved. I see no subterfuge or con game in the original writing of the bill.

Not quite. The "powers that be" wanted a convention center. The public didn't, and their (the city's) internal polling demonstrated that quite plainly. They knew they couldn't pass a MAPS3 based solely on a new CC, so they cherry picked from a punchlist of "feel good" items that sold the idea to a broad enough swath of voters to get it passed. The voters liked the punchlist, the powers wanted a CC, and guess which project got prioritized...the CC. I don't particularly have a dog in the fight on the streetcar, but if the people wanted it and that's what they voted for, it should be done. But since we made it non-binding, we shouldn't be surprised it or any other piece of this puzzle (other than the CC) is seemingly ripe for "re-evaluation" for whatever reason, be it political convenience or general obstinance.

[Midtowner]

My beef is that many of us believe that MAPS is a honor pact with the public for those in power to do the things they promised to do with the money. Break that pact and city officials will need to start funding projects individually. That might not be a bad thing. Imagine a future ballot:

1) NFL Stadium: .35% sales tax
2) Commuter rail down the I-35 and I-40 corridors: .55% sales tax
3) An expansion of the bricktown canal: .25% sales tax

etc..

Let each project stand or fall on its own. I'd have much more confidence in that if we voted for the commuter rail, it wouldn't be scrapped in favor of a dome on a football stadium built on spec.

[betts]

I think one issue with any politician feeling comfortable changing something the people voted on is that he or she is breaking faith with their constituency. That shows they are willing to ignore the people to push their own agenda. That attitude can subsequently be applied to any issue in government and is extremely paternalistic: "You may think you want this, but I know better." If someone is willing to ignore the public wishes of their constituents once, they may do it any time they see fit. Don't like the results of an election? "Let's have a revote!" I see this attitude as demonstrating the potential for significant abuse of power.

[kevinpate]

I'm not anti-streetcar. Nor anti-sidewalks. parks, wellness centers, etc. Not even anti-convention space (though I do think the present location is a really poor choice.)

That said, when one starts looking at what was 'promised' or where there were 'pacts' with voters, it seems like there are a lot of breaches of trust with the voters already.
What's the volume of the sidewalks touted v. what will likely be delivered? What's the park shaping up as v. the early hype before the vote. How about those aquatic wellness centers .. how many still have aquatics in the plans. So, if some folks do come along and start mucking around with the streetcar, instead of holding it all sacred trust with voter like, is it really a major surprise it might happen given how most other projects are faring as compared to their pact with voters status?

[Urban Pioneer]

Today holds a very important meeting. For the first time, routes developed through engineering, technical, ridership, and economic development feasibility come from the consultants to our Subcommittee for debate.

Not everyone is going to get what they want, not every area will be served, and there will be significant differences from the "Concept 1" route that has made it through the process so far. And remember, that the committee through community input developed the “Concept 1” route and base line criteria volunteers had derived through our own education on the matter. We could not factor the utility costs, model ridership, or plan that route as the monies are let according to the MAPS 3 timeline.

The statement or portrayal that "The Subcommittee is not getting what they want." would be an unfair and disingenuous perspective. All 10 of us are prepared for more authoritative and educated proposals than which we could design ourselves as volunteers. However, expect many similarities as well. We have been working on understanding what "might" be feasible for a very long time.

With all of that said, for many people that don't support the streetcar project, I expect a potentially loud resistance.

It may be that this debate occurs in a very respectable manner. It may also be that character assassination, negative innuendo, and other dirty tactics "kick in" full pull under the premise of "just asking questions". There are a great many people that could benefit from additional controversy surrounding the streetcar.

It is ironic however; that it is one of the most widely supported MAPS 3 Projects has turned into a political football.

Regardless, I fully support a comprehensive transit resolution to our city and regional needs. We need buses, we need BRT up NW Expressway, we need Commuter Rail to Edmond, Norman, Midwest City, and we need some sort of meaningful connection the airport and NE side.

Any suggestion that the people who support streetcar don't support buses is ludicrous. But I have said till I'm blue in the face, MAPS only provides capital, not Operations and Maintenance monies. We need to honor the vote for the rail-based streetcar/transit hub, come together post MAPS 3, and push for a permanent funding source to resolve the even greater need that includes those O&M monies.

We need additional leadership that builds a continued political path to a comprehensive and permanent solution. If we're going to be a big city, we have to act like a big city. And a big city has meaningful and comprehensive transit infrastructure for all of it's citizens. The streetcar and Intermodal Hub should be just the start.

Jeff Bezdek

[LakeEffect]

Today holds a very important meeting. For the first time, routes developed through engineering, technical, ridership, and economic development feasibility come from the consultants to our Subcommittee for debate.

Not everyone is going to get what they want, not every area will be served, and there will be significant differences from the "Concept 1" route that has made it through the process so far. And remember, that the committee through community input developed the “Concept 1” route and base line criteria volunteers had derived through our own education on the matter. We could not factor the utility costs, model ridership, or plan that route as the monies are let according to the MAPS 3 timeline.

The statement or portrayal that "The Subcommittee is not getting what they want." would be an unfair and disingenuous perspective. All 10 of us are prepared for more authoritative and educated proposals than which we could design ourselves as volunteers. However, expect many similarities as well. We have been working on understanding what "might" be feasible for a very long time.

With all of that said, for many people that don't support the streetcar project, I expect a potentially loud resistance.

It may be that this debate occurs in a very respectable manner. It may also be that character assassination, negative innuendo, and other dirty tactics "kick in" full pull under the premise of "just asking questions". There are a great many people that could benefit from additional controversy surrounding the streetcar.

It is ironic however; that it is one of the most widely supported MAPS 3 Projects has turned into a political football.

Regardless, I fully support a comprehensive transit resolution to our city and regional needs. We need buses, we need BRT up NW Expressway, we need Commuter Rail to Edmond, Norman, Midwest City, and we need some sort of meaningful connection the airport and NE side.

Any suggestion that the people who support streetcar don't support buses is ludicrous. But I have said till I'm blue in the face, MAPS only provides capital, not Operations and Maintenance monies. We need to honor the vote for the rail-based streetcar/transit hub, come together post MAPS 3, and push for a permanent funding source to resolve the even greater need that includes those O&M monies.

We need additional leadership that builds a continued political path to a comprehensive and permanent solution. If we're going to be a big city, we have to act like a big city. And a big city has meaningful and comprehensive transit infrastructure for all of it's citizens. The streetcar and Intermodal Hub should be just the start.

Jeff Bezdek

Jeff,

Is the new route posted anywhere yet? I'm curious... Will it only be available after the meeting?

[andrew3077]

Is this meeting open to the public? And if so when/where is it happening?

[betts]

We haven't seen the route yet. The meeting is open to the public. It is held at 420 W. Main, 10th floor. There is a limited amount of room for visitors, but they are welcome.

[Tier2City]

Questions to Ponder as Streetcar Routes are Unveiled | OKC Central

[LakeEffect]

To couplet or not to couplet, that is the question.

[BoulderSooner]

not sure how a couplet has anything to do with using more or less track (thus changing the distance of the route)

[Urban Pioneer]

The next MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee Meeting is next Wed, June 26th, at 3:30 PM, 420 Main Street, 10th floor Conference Room.

I'd like to say, this next meeting is going to be very important as now we have a full technical assessment by experts. For the first time, route analysis has included every conceivable factor. Expect to see 2 - 4 main spine alternates, 3 - 4 Midtown service alternates, 1 - 2 Bricktown alternates, and a plan to service MAPS 3 Park and Convention Center as they come online in the MAPS 3 timeline.

Also expect a great deal of discussion, input, and debate. And also expect significant resistance from those who are starting to realize this project is actually becoming a reality.

Earlier answer about the meeting/routes from a few pages back. No, I don't believe route maps are avaible until the presentation today.

[LakeEffect]

not sure how a couplet has anything to do with using more or less track (thus changing the distance of the route)

I can see a non-couplet reducing track length only if they ran on a single track for a bit, but that's highly unlikely and creates too many conflict points for streetcars themselves. The additional block length to make the circle would reduce the overall length minimally...

[soonerguru]

I got no dog in the couplet argument, but don't almost all of the streetcars coming online include couplets in at least part of the routes? It seems you design the route that works best, and if areas call for a couplet, you use them there. It would seem with no in-depth knowledge on the subject that if you have some couplets you broaden the opportunities for people to get on board, depending on their location, which would not only increase potential ridership but also expand potential for transit-oriented-development along the route.

[Urban Pioneer]

"Most" proposed modern streetcar systems are proposed with couplets. This is even apparently catching on in Europe, so I am told.

This is a phenomenal report about what other cities are doing.

http://www.streetcarcoalition.org/pd...Book_Print.pdf

[HangryHippo]

I'm just now wading into this discussion, but it does seem like a huge wasted opportunity to not run the streetcar to the OUHSC. Why would we not do that?

[BoulderSooner]

I'm just now wading into this discussion, but it does seem like a huge wasted opportunity to not run the streetcar to the OUHSC. Why would we not do that?

first ? is where would you run the streetcar too? (serious ? OUHSC is a very big area) second how much after 5 and weekend ridership would this route produce?

third how much day time traffic would this produce??

[catch22]

I think the HSC would be a terrific second phase. But in my opinion, it would be a waste of track miles to use our starter system to connect it. The starter system needs to cover as many uses as it possibly can. It would take quite a bit of track miles to get in and around the HSC when we could focus on connecting residential, entertainment, and businesses.

The HSC is mostly desolate anytime after 5pm. But it should be a great expansion opportunity when it comes time to expand the system. We'll see what the engineers and consultants have discovered, they know quite a bit more than I do, though.