Guest Blog Features

Meetings are over - but citizens should stay involved

Sam Sims — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:02:09 GMT

Session 5, May 27
Meetings are over - but citizens should stay involvedby Sam Sims
Even though the final Let’s Talk Transit meetings have wrapped up, officials assured those in attendance that these meetings have merely started the process with the main purpose of gathering options. I can only imagine what will be discussed, debated and deliberated as Oklahoma City embarks on realistic public transportation in the Downtown area.

So I’ve got some regrets about this process. Due to my personal and professional schedule I wasn’t able to make all the meetings when attendees laid out where they thought a street car line should be placed. After speaking with those who did attend those meetings, I was kicking myself even more because I heard they were a lot of fun and a lot of great information flowed. Well, trusting the process and those that participated, I was intrigued to see the options shown during the final meeting.

Quite interesting to see that among the groups drawing the street car lines, several iconic locations where selected as points of interest the lines should travel passed or stop near; such as the Oklahoma City National Memorial, the Ford Center and Bricktown Ball Park. What interested me the most were the lines making their way east to service the research park area around Lincoln Blvd. I wasn’t even thinking about that area, but now I can see that it makes perfect sense to include this area.

What did the people drawing the lines take into account when sketching out their ideas? They were instructed to consider visitors, residence and workers needs as they interact with key destinations among walkable and mixed-use areas today and how the areas might be in the future.

For some strange reason I thought we’d see a combination and final plan for the street car line. Whoa, was I wrong. According to the presenters, the three options started what is to be followed by an Alternative Analysis Report – my guess is this report is developed by folks with education and deep experience in transportation. Also to follow is how the street car will impact Oklahoma City’s Project 180 plan and how the plan impacts the lines. Let’s not forget that Oklahoma City is also in the process of MAPS 3, which will affect the transit plan too. And, then there are the general workings of the City that need to be addressed as this process moves forward. That is a lot – NICE! Just got choked up with pride that I live in such a great city.

A challenge to myself and every other citizen: continue to support this process and offer legitimate solutions to issues. Debating the facts are most certainly welcomed and encouraged, but do everyone a favor and opt-out if you have a reasonable beef with no real solutions.

Kudos to Let’s Talk Transit organizers. What a very cool way to engage everyone involved. I look forward to jumping on a street car and riding across town.

Think About It...

Nick Roberts — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:56:13 GMT

Session 5, May 27
Think About It...
by Nick Roberts

I just want to congratulate anyone and everyone who participated in one of the Let's Talk Transit public forums and took their beliefs public. It's often so easy to sit behind a computer screen and type and keep typing until you've written a how-to essay on what you want to happen in OKC, but it's harder to make the time to meet people in person and go before a group of strangers including city leaders and state your case. Those who participated did just that and left COTPA with the impression that the community is interested and is watching. I want to thank COTPA as well for giving us the chance to do this through the public forums, for paying attention to everything we said, and also for giving me the opportunity to be the guest blogger. Without much further ado I'll go into more detail on a few key points:

Routes: We're being told that any routes we may see mapped out are only preliminary. I want streetcar planners to realize that we know these maps will be the starting point for their system planning, so we ARE going to analyze the routes. Just because they are "preliminary" doesn't mean they're only preliminary. On the Let's Talk Transit website, Walter Jenny made the following comment on a previous blog entry of mine:

- Identify the purpose of the streetcar. It's not to move people from Edmond to downtown, for example. It's to move people around downtown once they're there.

This got me thinking. I myself, and others as well, have said a LOT about the importance of connecting the Oklahoma Health Center to downtown but since stressing that importance I've been waffling on the issue. Blair Humphreys made his case in an OKC Central guest post that given the track miles we have to work with, it is not worth connecting the Health Center to downtown for the purpose of the lunch rush. Given the frequency of having streetcars run every 15 minutes and carrying less than 100 people in each run, he has a good point. Is the lunch rush the purpose for connecting both sides of I-235? Of course not, but the point remains.

One of the things I'm hearing a lot about is the lack of simplicity in any of COTPA's preliminary routes. A lot of people have suggested that the routes indicate not listening to the people who have clearly expressed a desire to see Sheridan, Walker, and Broadway. I contend however that the routes show COTPA is listening to everybody and not just the majority and the experts and FAILING to commit to ONE alignment through an area, and the complex web of streetcar they've drawn up does seem to touch virtually every street for at least one-two blocks. Someone needs to tell them it doesn't work that way. For example, you can't describe to an out-of-towner where they can catch the streetcar and where it goes without turning blue in the face. You also do need to COMMIT to a corridor and stick to those corridors instead of interweaving in order to please every proponent of every corridor. While I'm not certain of this route and while I realize it misses key areas such as Deep Deuce (although some Deep Deuce residents have told me they are used to walking), here is my proposal for SIMPLICITY:

That would be within the 7 miles we have to work with and within the physical constraints that each corridor seems to have. For instance, Sheridan can't have a double track going in both directions due to the heavy underground utilities that exist underneath the south half of the street (eastbound lanes). Other constraints involve the traffic circles, and others also involve the underpasses underneath the elevated BNSF railroad (they lack the clearance for streetcar cables). Sheridan however is by far the most popular corridor thus it NEEDS a streetcar line and more than the 3-4 blocks COTPA has proposed.

Not that the COTPA routes are all that bad. I think that the red route could be really awesome if slightly tailored, as such:

All I changed about the red route was instead of southbound cutting west to Robinson on 4th, I kept the streetcar going down Hudson until Park where it turns west to Robinson. By touching Hudson/Park you've got Arts District coverage that the streetcar didn't before. I like the idea of CBD coverage as well--most people's routes seem to touch all of the periphery neighborhoods that make up downtown but NOT the downtown skyscraper core. Just because an area doesn't currently have mixed-uses doesn't mean it lacks potential for streetcar vibrancy.

Traffic circles: In the $835 million 2007 General Obligation Bond that the citizens passed by almost 90%, apparently there was funding for several more traffic circles. Traffic circles have been making their entry to the downtown area over the last few years, most notably in the Midtown area on both sides of St Anthony's--10th and Walker has a traffic circle and 10th and Dewey also has a traffic circle. I love these traffic circles and not only do they make the intersections very efficient but they also go a long way toward creating defined space and anchoring an area with an interesting street form and well-maintained streetscapes (intensive planting in the middle of the traffic circle). These traffic circles are GOOD things. They are also helping to extend Classen Drive which cuts diagonally (NW/SE) between Midtown and Heritage Hills. In the Classen Drive extension there are new traffic circles proposed to go in at 9th and Hudson, 8th and Harvey, and I think stopping at 7th and Robinson. You can view the 2007 GO Bond projects here at okc.gov. Getting to the point: These traffic circles are going to affect the route and we need to figure out what the deal is with these traffic circles SOON and before going any further.

There are surely some solutions to cutting through a traffic circle as well. The OKC traffic circles have too sharp of a turning radius for a streetcar to actually navigate the curve normally but perhaps a traffic signaling system similar to crosswalk lights (embedded street lights in the pavement that flash, stopping traffic when a pedestrian pushes a button) could be used and the streetcar route could just cut through the center pavers inside the traffic circle. Granted, you would still not be able to have a streetcar curve or intersection in the middle of a traffic circle, you just might be able to transect it evenly. Maybe.

Funding: A lot has been said about the funding ever since I brought up my concern that system expansion is not feasibly going to happen any time soon due to the funding mechanism, and especially considering COTPA has yet to identify a maintenance funding mechanism for this current starter system. The belief (or illusion) shared by many behind the streetcar initiative is that future expansions will be funded by the feds who have already begun issuing streetcar grants to cities. Let me just say this: Any city that is counting on the feds for any streetcar-related capital investment is deluding itself and needs to get off its arse and fund the damn thing itself. I don't want my taxes paying for streetcar in every city when we here in Oklahoma will likely NEVER see a dime for fixed guideway transit of our own. The reality is that the feds are very strict when they evaluate transit proposals and go for bang for the buck as well as FEASIBILITY. And they have strict determining factors for feasibility which take into account density, not the potential for density.

Also consider the people we send to Washington. These guys do everything they can to thwart transit funding and they're not going to go out of their way to secure transit funding for OKC, believe me. Remember in the 1990s when OKC was about to get a LIGHT RAIL grant from the feds to go with the original MAPS projects and disgraced Congressman Ernest "I-Took" Istook put the breaks on that? Let me state it again. Consider the people we send to Washington, these guys aren't on board with transit and will never go out of their way to secure funding so that their own community can have as decent transit as everyone else. These guys are obstructionist, self-defeatist, they do not believe in the greater good for the community and thus do not believe in the future of OKC and they're going to bring us down with 'em if we decide to rely on them for future expansions of this system. /end rant

Pedestrian malls: Another really cool idea that I think we ought to consider is integrating a streetcar corridor with a pedestrian mall. The result would be a street that incorporates numerous transit types, virtually everything except cars. It would have a bicycle lane, street vendors, a pedestrian mall, and a streetcar corridor connecting to other areas of downtown. Since Robinson is already such a screwed up one-way then two-way then one-way corridor why don't we just use Robinson for this? Between Park and Sheridan (adjacent to the Myriad Gardens) is where we could do this. An alternative is using Broadway between Sheridan and 4th, PROVIDED that SandRidge keep their buildings and builds up a Broadway streetwall.

Think about it:

What's It All About, Alphie?

Doug Loudenback — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 12:49:14 GMT

Session 5, May 27
What's It All About, Alphie?
by Doug Loudenback

The concluding sessions of the Let's Talk Transit public meetings occurred twice today in the City Council Chambers — a noonish session beginning at 11:30 am and an evening session beginning at 6:00 pm which is the session that I attended. I didn't take a head count but I'd suppose that 30-35 people were present, including staff and the presenters. You can see for yourself that the meeting was not elbow-to-elbow, but the attendance was not out of keeping from the earlier sessions, even if down from the number attending the working-group sessions. Click on most images in this article for larger views.

The first part of the meeting consisted of recaps of the previous meetings presented by Rick Cain, director of COTPA and Mike McAnelly with Jacobs Engineering of Dallas (and, as always, Jennifer Eve was the effervescent master of ceremonies). That said, nothing new was presented during this part ... it was just a recapitulation of what had been done and said before.

McAnelly then reviewed the three models submitted for discussion in this session. He described them with reservation — that they were by no means set in stone. More, when he described how these models derived from previous sessions, he postured them as being models which were designed to produce and provoke discussion. He took care to say that these models were not necessarily those which would later be presented to the MAPS 3 Oversight Board — at least, not in the sense of being "preferred routes" resulting from the Let's Talk Transit process. I'll say more about this in the Analysis section, below.

McAnelly Discusses The Three Proforma Options

The three options were presented thusly (click on images for a larger view):

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Were these options representative of what the public input had been? Let's do a flashback to Session #2 ... six groups, sitting at tables 1 through 6, had been assigned the task of coming up with proposed routes, with each table charged to present the perspectives of three different segments of downtown streetcar users, downtown visitors, residents, and employers and employees.
Let's Talk Transit assembled a composite map shown at session #3, shown below.

Notice that 4 of the 6 (that's 66%) arrived at drawings showing Walker as a preferred route regardless of the streetcar user group they were charged with representing (visitors, residents, workers). But, notice, also, that Walker was not included as a preferred route in any of the three proforma options presented at today's meeting. I'll get back to that point in the Analysis section below.

After Mr. McAnelly's presentation, a lengthy question and answer session followed. In fact, the meeting which was scheduled to end at 7:30 did not adjourn until at or shortly after 8 pm.

Most questioners followed the ground rules and wrote their questions on the forms presented — some others didn't and merely raised their hands and had their questions fielded on-the-fly. The meeting handlers weren't all that great about handling the flow of questions since some, who followed the rules, probably didn't get their questions answered because of the line-cutter-inners which were permitted to co-opt their legitimate place in line. Not a biggie, but it was nonetheless an irritant to me — if rules are established, damn it, follow them, and don't let others who didn't do so effectively cut in line with their non-form questions receiving priority attention.

I didn't make notes as all these questions and answers were being presented, partly because I was aware that ALL written questions would be addressed shortly in the Questions & Answers part of Let's Talk Transit website, just as they have before. The questions were plentiful and, I thought, they were answered straightforwardly during this session. When the Q & A is published at the Let's Talk Transit website, I'll include a link to them here. The Q & A session was substantial enough that the planned 7:30 p.m. end of meeting did not occur until about 30 minutes later and even then the presenters hung around to answer additional questions from any who wanted to ask, me included.

ANALYSIS. Since this was the final Let's Talk Transit public meeting, my analysis focuses on two items in terms of recap: (1) Did the Let's Talk Transit people do a good job? (2) Were my concerns about the meaningfulness of these sessions addressed, and, if so, how and why?

Let's Talk Transit Gets 5 Stars. Did the Let's Talk Transit people do a good job? Absolutely yes, in my opinion. All those involved in the COTPA organization, including Rick Cain, Larry Hopper, and Michael Scroggins (as well as any other COTPA people that I've not thought to mention), moderator Jennifer Eve, and certainly consultant Mike McAnelly, as well as those in the city's planning staff who were sometimes involved, did a heck of a job in putting these meetings together as well as maintaining a very useful Let's Talk Transit website which is available to anyone who did not attend the meetings. Hundreds of hours, and not just a few bucks, were clearly expended in making this series of meetings happen, and all involved were helpful, courteous, informative, and patient throughout the lengthy process. Those involved in organizing and executing this process get my highest praise and respect.
Was The Process Meaningful and not just window-dressing? Yes, with no qualifiation as to Let's Talk Transit, but this opinion wasn't as easily formed as the above. I'll explain:

Review of My Previous Reservations. It is only fair that I begin this section by giving an explanation for my caution in being concerned that the public input which was clearly allowed for, even cajoled and encouraged, by the COTPA and city staffers might not actually matter one way or another. Quite simply, the reason has to do with events leading to the MAPS 3 vote when the public was told similar things — starting with Mayor Cornett's promise in his May 13, 2009, Roundtable meeting that public forums or opportunities would occur before the matters were decided for residents to tell city leaders what they want to see on the ballot — which public forums or opportunities never materialized ... the saying, "trick me once, shame on you; trick me twice, shame on me," comes to mind. I won't even get into the Convention Center's possible location which we were and are told hasn't yet been decided. As for the MAPS 3 campaign itself, although many like myself strongly supported MAPS 3, for some, like me, that support existed notwithstanding the obvious conflict of interest that existed the campaign being headed up by David Thompson, publisher of the Oklahoman and the censuring of his own employees, Oklahoman journalists, during the campaign as to what they could report and how the reporting was to occur. This is the short version of how I came to be cautious, yes, jaded, about believing what I was told by city leadership. The fact is that during 2009 my willingness to accept what I was told by city officials as being necessarily sincere came to be tempered by a mineral that had not been there before — jade.

When top city leaders give cause for distrust, it has a spillover, a trickle-down, effect, at least it did for me. And so it was that, when the Let's Talk Transit process began, I wondered out loud in my columns here whether the promised public input really mattered or whether it was merely window trimming for matters already decided or which would come to be decided regardless of public input. In this context, although I'd experienced excellent meetings during the Let's Talk Transit process, I continued to wonder if all of fine public participation really mattered.

Part of that wonder had to do with the route scenarios presented at this meeting. Notice the omission of Walker in any of the three proforma route scenarios, shown above. If 4 of the 6 working groups indicated such a preference, and if public input really mattered, why was it not included in at least one of the presented possibilities?

To answer that question, let me digress a bit. I arrived at the meeting early and had an opportunity to chat with with Messrs. Mike McAnelly, Rick Cain, and Michael Scroggins. I mentioned to Michael that, if he'd read what I've previously written he might have noticed that an underlying concern I had was whether the public input gathered from the Let's Talk Transit process would really matter when routes were finally determined, and that I was hoping to hear something in this last meeting that would allay my concern. His good-natured reply was, to the effect, "Well, if the meetings don't take public input into account in arriving at routes, we've (he and COTPA's staff) surely have been wasting a lot of time," but, of course, that answer begs the question. Without any doubt, COTPA and its staff, as well as those in the city planning department, have expended lots of time and money putting these excellent sessions together. But, the question remained, "to what end?"

My distrust was soothed a bit during McAnelly's presentation. He made it clear that everything presented during the sessions would be presented to the Oversight Committee, the next step in the process, including the routes submitted by all groups, including that a 2/3 majority of those favored that Walker be included. But, the question lingered, why hadn't Walker included in the proforma scenarios?

After the meeting, a final opportunity to talk with him occurred. After Steve Lackmeyer asked McAnelly several questions, I got my turn. I had written my question on one of those cards that didn't have time to get answered (thanks to those who circumvented the written question approach), and here was my chance, face to face. I've forgotten how the written question was literally worded, but the gist, and my oral question, and the rest of the conversation, came out something like this:

Loudenback: We are told that public input is helping shape the placement of the streetcar routes. Given that, can you give one example of a route that would most probably NOT have been included but which was as a result of the public sessions? I understand that this is sort of a convoluted question, but do you get my drift? I guess that I'm saying, "Prove it." McAnelly: I understand what you are saying. The example is probably Walker — it would probably not have been included in the routes. Loudenback: But Walker is not included in any of the three models. McAnelly: That was a mistake and it was probably my fault. That a majority favor Walker will be shown as a public preference.

Without-a-blink straightforward honesty and integrity will win me over anytime, anyplace. With that, my concerns, above expressed, were dashed, and I am exceptionally pleased to say that I have no lingering doubts about Let's Talk Transit's stated intentions as being true. Trust is an earned thing, and, in Let's Talk Transit, I am satisfied that the trust is deserved.

My final comment and additional hope: Perhaps the good will engendered by Let's Talk Transit will have a trickle-up effect, as well.

We Talked Transit..apparently

Nick Roberts — Thu, 27 May 2010 19:33:43 GMT

Session 4, May 11
by Nick Roberts
Sorry I am just now getting around to writing up my recap for the Let's Talk Transit meeting waaaaay back on May 11. I've just been bogged down with work and of course, fighting SandRidge and now anti-preservation moron lawmakers--the topics that have very clearly preoccupied this blog lately.

But YES, there WAS a Let's Talk Transit streetcar public forum meeting on May 11..it was held at the usual time, 6 pm in the Hall of Mirrors, Civic Center 2nd floor.

Several points from other people first, and then I'll just finish with my own thoughts that I feel are relatively important to the subject. The format of this meeting was just open mic and attendants were encouraged to take the mic and voice their concerns for the streetcar system. In order to get us fired up, Mike McAnelly shared several potential streetcar alignments which I'm not even going to mention here because I think (hope) those were just to get us talking, and not something seriously being considered.

Jeff Bezdek: Jeff conveyed several great ideas, as usual, when he took the mic so I am going to start with him. The most important idea that he conveyed, as far as streetcar route alignment goes, is that there is a strong need to find a balance here and pick up people in destination areas in order for the streetcar to serve as an incubator for somewhere else. Put more simply, a streetcar with nobody riding on it does very little to actually invoke infill interest--it's the people that streetcar brings, not the streetcar itself. Jeff also publicly alluded to (for the first time I'm aware of) something that he privately mentioned to me at a previous meeting, so I'm going to assume it's okay to break the news: We may very possibly end up with more than $120 million for streetcar...and I don't think he is just talking about a fed contribution. I'm sure more details on this will be forthcoming when it's appropriate.

Dean Schirf: Dean, one of my co-transit bloggers, was quite possibly one of the foremost experts on rail in the room during the meeting. This, despite that he never officially headed up the campaign for streetcar nor is he the one getting paid by COTPA for consulting on streetcar. So it's with great respect and admiration when I preface this by saying that I actually have a disagreement with Dean when he said that it is important to start small and grow the system based on what we know works. He suggested that the wise thing to do would be to cautiously expand into 6 miles, in order to avoid any risks of going with a bad route. He also spoke up on the issue of the boulevard, which we can ALL agree with: The mythical boulevard still has not yet been funded, not by the city, not by the state, not by ODOT's 8-year plan, and not by the feds--and it is showing absolutely no signs of getting funded any time soon, either. So then why, on earth, is COTPA even suggesting that an E/W alignment share a route with the proposed boulevard? Yeah, it would be cool. Imagine it: A Paris-like street in the middle of OKC, lined with cafes and coffee shops and destination retail such as Nordstrom's, packed with pedestrians, super wide, with a streetcar going down it even. And then snap back to reality....

There was also a dude who showed up to argue for a $5 billion metro-wide light rail plan. He gave me a card, I lost it, forgot his name, forgot the name of his plan--but apparently he is serious about this. Personally I think he mislead a lot of people in the room into thinking that his private citizen initiative is a real deal like this streetcar project IS, but it was interesting nonetheless.

My own opinions: First, as for the "start small" concept, to me it's not a matter of the wisdom in the idea or being impatient to affect change. The bottom line is that if we do not have a system that is comprehensive and gets people everywhere they want to go, it will fail. So to that end, how does it help us to just gradually open a line that takes people up and down Sheridan and just Sheridan? When the ridership lags behind our hopeful wishes do we get to say, "Well, it's only the starter line, doesn't take people anywhere besides along Sheridan.." or is "Told ya so!" more appropriate?

I was speaking and Jennifer Eve, who was moderating, asked me to continue about how I feel about expansion..so I took a deep breath and this is what came out: The reality of this situation is really do or die for Oklahoma City. Here you have an infrastructure improvement that is so long overdue that it's easy to say just build the damn thing, whatever it is is we'll be happy with it. However, then it gets complicated. How much streetcar can $120 million buy us? That in my opinion is the MAIN QUESTION they should be asking, and NOT where can we stick 6 miles of streetcar? Because of the funding mechanism we are using for this project, any talk of expansion at the present is spurious--MAPS 4 will not even be a prospect until 2018 and a streetcar expansion can not be realized until 2025. We are committed to the overall MAPS 3 sales tax for the next 7-almost-8 years, and after that, we know the drill...voter approval, and then revenues must be collected BEFORE improvements begin. So yeah, don't even talk about expansion. What you have to do is design a system with the understanding that your hands are so tied by the funding mechanism that an expansion is not possible until 2025, or basically, a really long time.

Also my concern is with the project conception. Taking it like a scientific question, I think it asks the wrong question and has the control and variables inadvertently misplaced. The way COTPA has approached the question, the cost per mile is a constant and the route is the variable, the question being "How much can $120 million get us?" Instead I think that the route should be constant, the cost per mile should be the variable, and the question should be, "OK this is the route, now how much to spend per mile on it?"

See what I'm saying? There are certain things that make it more or less expensive per mile, and face it, the estimated $12-25 million per mile for modern streetcar systems is a HUGE range. If we come in closer to $12 million per mile, which would make me incredibly happy, then we could get 10 miles out of this system--and sure, we might not have some of the features that the $20 million/mile alternative would come with. But consider this: Which is going to attract more riders, a streetcar with bike racks and leather seats or a streetcar that connects Bricktown and Deep Deuce to the Oklahoma Health Center? We need to spend so much more focus on doing whatever we can to get slightly more than 6 miles. 8 miles would be great, and make a huge difference because in the current 6 mile system models I've seen, it is virtually impossible to do a good job connecting downtown districts and the medical district. I think that connecting the medical district is necessary due to the huge number of high-income jobs over there and the urban development growth that area is currently experiencing. But if you can't put a station in the middle of the medical district, don't even bother--there is no point in stopping at Lincoln and 8th because nobody is going to walk from 12th or 16th (OMRF) to get on the streetcar south of the medical district, basically.

Okay...so that's a LOT of issues, and a lot of debate, and a lot of respectful discourse. Thursday will mark the FINAL meeting of the Let's Talk Transit forum and it will basically consist of COTPA recounting back to us what we told them. It's a chance for us to see if they got our order right, basically. 11:30 am (lunchtime) and 6:30 pm, CITY HALL (not Civic Center).

Open Mic Night - Option 1, 2 or 3?

Dean Schirf — Thu, 13 May 2010 14:40:12 GMT

Session 4, May 11
by Dean Schirf
Arrived a little early to sign in along with approximately 40 other attendees in attending the fourth of five meetings of Let's Talk Transit in discussing the future of transit in downtown Oklahoma City.

The meeting was held in the Civic Center Hall of Mirrors and was filled with over a dozen easels showing various routes that were proposed by working groups from earlier meetings.....one set had all the north/south routes and the other had the east/west routes.....all routes were done in a very nice finished style and those responsible are to be commended in the format in which they were displayed. Many of the proposed routes had similarities but no two were identical. When we reached the tables to start the meeting there were three conceptual alignment maps compiled from all the maps mentioned above. Jennifer Eve, the moderator, welcomed everyone and introduced Mike McAnelly, the consultant from JACOBS Engineering Group Inc., who gave a review of earlier meetings and again defined the Modern Streetcar, the process used by the working groups in the past meetings to determine where the routes would be established inclusive of determining the circulation and alignments to best serve those working in the area, those living in the area and those visitors attending conventions and the like. Mike then stated the purpose for this evening's meeting would center on comments and discussions, using an open mic, to further define/refine the three streetcar routes that were placed on our tables for discussion. Mike also stated route selections take in so many variables and elements in establishing routes such as physical constraints like vertical clearance, sharing of lane miles with the vehicular traffic using the same streets as well as foot traffic and the costs in building the routes that would require bridges over/under other lanes of traffic, expressways and established railroad tracks....in a number of instances these costs can quickly expend the dollars made available by Oklahoma City voters to bring the downtown transit link to reality.

The meeting was then opened up to those attending to come to the open mic in the front of room and to give their respective comments on the three conceptual maps. Most of those that went to the mic favored the conceptual alignment north/south-east/west option 1 which was the longest route at 5.89 miles. A number of those (even those that favored option 1 had additional recommendations that they felt would be better if incorporated into the route)....this was fine as the consultant was looking for any and all comments even if they differed to some degree with any of the options as this was still a open process searching for the best possible route(s) that would become the end product and recommendation of the Lets Talk Transit effort.

I also felt that option 1 was the best option presented to date.....it has a east/west alignment complementing the north/south link which provides for a greater service area and took into account allowing access to the newly/and soon to be built housing areas along the eastern boundaries on the downtown area.....it also crosses the I-235 Centennial Expressway in providing an entrance to the burgeoning science research and health center area(s). I also like the southern east/west line being incorporated into the new boulevard knowing full well this can be problematic given the construction timetable in that there is not a single dime targeted presently for the construction of the downtown boulevard, which would not start until the elevated part of the I-40 Crosstown Expressway is leveled at the end of 2012....this may conflict with the timely completion of the downtown transit system and should that be the case the alignment along Reno should then come into play.

One additional comment on option 1 deals with Hudson and Robinson as the north/south streets.....I feel we would be better served if there was more distance separating these streets.....look at Broadway for the north route as it has a more visible dynamic appearance and has been going through a wonderful transition over the last dozen or so years to the point it is taking on its own identity thus stimulating even further development in the future.

One final thought and that deals with being ever mindful of the costs of operating and maintaining the route that is finally approved. There is not one cent of funding approved by the voters in running this system once it is built. The funds approved by the voters are dedicated only to the construction of a starter rail transit system being built along with a transit hub. Several of those in attendance expressed the routes should be further extended to serve the OU Health Center and even beyond to the State Capitol Complex/Oklahoma History Center. The consultant has made it very clear that the max mileage of the route selected, given the dollars that voters have allocated for its construction, should not exceed 6 miles. We must remember this is starter system that when opened to the public will have the best possible chance of succeeding in its uses by serving businesses and their employees, residents and visitors....in a very real way we are planting a seed in newly plowed ground in putting the rails in the best possible location that will give us the greatest return on our investment.....only in this way can we be given the best opportunity in going forward to build additional links that can radiate in the future to the Health Center, the State Capitol and eventually to our suburban neighbors in Edmond, Moore, Norman and the Mid/Del/Tinker areas.

In total the meeting served a useful purpose in further allowing comment/discussion in bringing about a downtown circulator system that will afford maximum connectivity along its route. The meeting was structured to allow open discussion and viewpoints to be expressed....a number of good questions/comments were made throughout the evening and even allowed for the consultant to address questions/ideas in a direct fashion which I felt brought about a greater understanding of what it was that we were trying to accomplish.

These are exciting times for Oklahoma City and Central Oklahoma.....so many good things are happening that is propelling our great city forward like the new Devon Tower Headquarter Complex on Sheridan, the complete appearance makeup and flow of traffic of our downtown streets (Project 180), the ever growing Bricktown footprint along with that happening along Broadway, new convention facilities, completion of the $600 million I-40 Crosstown Realignment and downtown Boulevard contraction following, Core to Shore and the new facilities along the Oklahoma River, the new OCU Law Center on West Main and last but not least is the new Transit Rail Link that will play a major role in bringing all these facilities together in making Oklahoma City a better place to live, work, play and visit.

From east to west, north to south

Doug Loudenback — Tue, 04 May 2010 19:26:24 GMT

Session 3, April 29 Wax On ... Wax Off
by Doug Loudenback
Session 2 might be akin to the beginning of Daniel-san's learning curve presented by Mister Miyagi in the Karate Kid. As it developed, the 3rd session was another step along the same path, "Brush up, brush down," except that the brush-stroke also went from side to side, from east to west as well as up and down, from north to south.

Before attending the meeting, I scoured the Let's Talk Transit website to see what this new session would be about ... heck, maybe I would even do a little homework to be better prepared. All I could locate was the date, time, and place of the meeting which, of course, required no homework at all. Just be there. Anyway, camera in hand, I got there about 20 minutes before the meeting began at the same place as the last meeting so I'll show no new pictures of the Civic Center Music Hall's Hall of Mirrors (but you can see a few of those in my article on Session #2).

On arriving I signed in, slapped on a name tag, and looked for a packet of materials similar to that given in the 2nd session. No, no packet this time ... just an agenda with an image on its backside which wasn't (as far as I could tell) in any way relevant to this evening's session.

The backside image is an overlay of the possible routes garnered from session #2, showing similarities and dissimilarities. However, each of the 6 groups had different purposes, e.g., residential, commercial, etc., so the image proved not to show anything particularly useful in the context of this evening's meeting.

I looked over this evening's agenda with great anticipation ... have a look: "Yo! Adrian! What's this meeting going to cover," I asked the sign-er-in-ers? They didn't know, either. Jennifer Eve, moderator for all meetings so far, called the meeting to order shortly after 6:00 in the Civic Center Music Hall's Hall of Mirrors and it lasted until about 7:40 p.m. About 47 people, plus or minus a couple, were in attendance, including staff personnel. Many faces were familiar from earlier meetings but some were there that I didn't recognize from earlier sessions.

Like the last session, we were all sitting at tables with various charts and maps and markers, so we knew it would be another working session.

SURVEY 2 RESULTS. Before that began, Rick Cain described results of Let's Talk Transit's on-line survey #2. Unless I missed it, no one said how many survey responses had been received as of the time the results below were assembled. In case the link just made eventually does not work (as it might not if the link comes to be a different survey), the links below will still work.

Who do you believe will be the primary user of the modern streetcar in Downtown Oklahoma City? 46% said employers/workers; 36% said visitors; 11% said downtown residents/workers; and 7% said downtown residents.
To access the streetcar, or when getting off the streetcar to reach a destination, at most I am willing to walk ... (in blocks). I didn't catch the detail on these responses, but the great majority responded 2-3 blocks with just a small percentage saying 1 block. I was in the "1 block" responder group since it is physically difficult for me to walk even that far without getting completely winded.
Using the table below please select the operating schedule (days) for the streetcar. 100% said all days of the week.
What hours would you like the streetcar to operate on those days? Responses varied considerably on Monday-Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Click an image below for a fairly readable chart.

How Early?
How Late?
How often should the streetcar come by a location? (in minutes) I must have been doing something else when this was reported but I'm sure it will be posted in the Let's Talk Transit website.
Prioritize the following streetcar route planning principles from most to least importance. Click the small image at the right to see the results. Not very sexy.
Have you ever used the downtown trolley currently in use today? currently in use today? I didn't get the answer to that one, but my own answer was, "No."

I am a downtown ... Resident; Employer / Worker; Resident / Worker; or Visitor Resident; Employer / Worker; Resident / Worker; or Visitor. Click on the chart but it shows that 46% of survey responders were employers/workers, 36% visitors, 11% downtown residents/workers, and 7% downtown residents.

WORKING GROUPS. Mike McAnelly then got to the business at hand and what we'd be doing. After reminding us of some guiding principles and stuff like that, each of the six table-groups were going to be given 40 minutes to figure out which three each of the various horizontal and vertical routes shown in drawings on each table would be our preferred choices.

Here were the options presented (click on either for greater detail). Routes (or portions thereof) having arrow points in each direction are double-track routes; the others are single.

Horizontal (East/West) Routes

Vertical (North/South) Routes

The following images show the meeting at this point in time. Click on any image for a larger view.

As in the 2nd session, each table had a staff member present to help keep the group on track. For example, at right is Wayne Simpson of COTPA who provided gentle and good guidance at the table where I was sitting. Here's a look at each of the table groups at work. Click on any picture for a larger view.




Come on, now ... no fair laying down on the job

BZZZZ ... TIME'S UP! 40 minutes is gone and it's time to show and tell. A representative from each group then presented that group's preferences and explained why. Here they are ...

ANALYSIS. Like I did with the 2nd session, I give the 3rd meeting high marks for the quantity and quality of public discussion and to Let's Talk Transit in providing a workable forum within which the same might occur. Oral questions and answers while the whole group was in session weren't permitted this time — it was back to the question-card approach used in the 1st day's sessions, together with the promise that the questions would all be answered (as was done after the 1st day's sessions). But, no complaints from me on using this protocol — you may recall that the 2nd session was originally scheduled to end at 7:30 p.m. but instead lasted until after 8:00 p.m. (I earlier said after 9:00 p.m. but that was a typo). This time, without a Q & A period, the session was done by around 7:40 (7:30 p.m. being the announced end time).

But I do have two suggestions:

Announce in advance what the meeting is to be about, or, if that's not known until the last minute, just say so and explain why. One had the feeling that the session's planners weren't all that sure themselves until shortly before the meeting was convened.

If possible, publish the handouts before the meeting occurs. In this instance, if we had the east/west and north/south alternatives available on-line before the meeting, having had the luxury of un-rushed deliberation, one could have come to the session much more prepared. For example, one could have done, before the meeting, an analysis in which preliminary choices were made to see the consequences of the same, as in the following possibility ...

From the east/west choices ...

... below I pick EW 1, 3, and 6 ...

... and from the north/south choices ...

... I select NS 1, 3 and 6 ...

... to arrive at these combined choices

... I could then make a transparent overlay ...

... and re-draw the map ...

If I like it, I could proclaim, "Hey! Mikey! He likes it!", or, conversely, I could say, "This is crap ... it's back to the drawing boards." Getting hit with all this stuff at game-time, and then working with varying degrees of personalities present at a group-table, and coming up with a table-group consensus in 40 minutes of time, is expecting more than a bit much. A table might well contain a person who, for whatever reason, has a penchant to attempt to dominate and who over-speaks others when they are speaking or to jerk around the table's charts when he/she is the only one who wants to do so. That, in itself, diverts time and attention away from the entire table's focus at hand.

The point is: given all of the dynamics present, 40 minutes ain't nearly enough time to learn how to whooping-crane-drop-kick a jerk like the Karate Kid did at the end of the movie. Much more thoughtful contributions would be possible in such a short span of time if some or all had already done the, "Wax on, right hand. Wax off, left hand. Wax on, wax off. Breathe in through nose, out the mouth. Wax on, wax off. Don't forget to breathe, very important," and then learned the "paint up, paint down" routines.

A last item has not left my consciousness since the very beginning — how, if at all, are these nicely presented sessions going to impact the ultimate decisions? Are we who are attending just enjoying a nice parlor game or does it have more meaning than that? No one has really addressed that. It was very evident from tonight's session that city planners and COTPA have given much thought to potential north/south and east/west routes, as one would hope and expect that they would. The fact that the various options were presented was a great aid in this evening's meeting.

While I'm one who was glad that that was so, one is nonetheless left to wonder, "In what way, if at all, was Session 2 (or 3) significant in the overall process, other than to provide evidence of public participation? Will any existing planner thoughts be changed by reason of anything that occurred during the course of this process?"

Don't get me wrong — I'm enjoying this exercise and will finish it out to its end. But, I can handle the truth whether it be that these sessions are just for fun or whether they just might mean something more. Perhaps someone will yet address those questions, not yet done, at least not to my satisfaction, before the process draws to a close.
Go To Top

And the Fun Begins

Doug Loudenback — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:39:47 GMT

Session 2, April 13 How To Design A Better Railroad
by Doug Loudenback

The second Let's Talk Transit public meeting began shortly after 6:00 in the Civic Center Music Hall's Hall of Mirrors, a large open space meeting room on the 2nd floor. Unlike the 1st session (which ended sooner than the scheduled time), this session lasted longer than its planned 8:30 p.m. end, not adjourning until shortly after 9:00 p.m., probably because everyone was having so much fun ... either that, or the break-out working groups were just poky in getting their work done. I'll get to that shortly. Around 40-45 or so, including host personnel, were present. This session was intended to allow participants to play-pretend at designing possible routes for the 5-6 (or 2.5-3.0 or something in between) mile downtown transit route. I qualify the mileage length since it was made clear that the total lineal measurement depends upon whether either single or double-track is used during parts or all of the overall system. Single-track is one track shared by cars operating in either direction; double-track includes a separate track for each direction. If single-track construction is used, there need to be periodic passing sidings where a car traveling in one direction can wait while one going in the opposite direction passes.

RESOURCES & MATERIALS. As did the 1st session, this one had a packet of materials for those attending. Some or all of these will probably find their way into the resource pages at www.letstalktransit.com but I'll show most of them below.

Survey 1 Results

Let's Talk Transit is taking online surveys as one means of getting the public's input (click that link to see and/or take Survey 2, now in progress). Survey 1 (now closed) asked two questions:

Looking at the Downtown Oklahoma City map, what high priority destinations would you recommend the modern streetcar travel by?
When planning a modern streetcar route it's important to consider what destinations would best serve as "anchors," or destinations that draw large amounts of people and/or are frequented often. From the list of destinations you provided in Q1.,which do you feel would best serve as anchors in Downtown Oklahoma City?

Before it closed, 265 people completed Survey 1 and the results are shown below – click either image below for a readable view.

Question 1

Question 2

Read the above results for more detail, but the top 6 for each survey question are shown below:

Question 1 High Priority Destinations		Question 2 Anchor Destinations
1. Arts District	11.884%	1. Bricktown	20.751%
2. Bricktown	11.318%	2. Ford Center	12.253%
3. Ford Center	9.458%	3. Bricktown Ballpark/CC Event	9.289%
4. OKC National Memorial	7.033%	4. Arts District	9.091%
5. Bricktown Ballpark/CC Event	5.982%	5. OKC National Memorial	5.731%
6. OHC	5.901%	6. OHC	5.138%

The survey results were used by staffers to identify various types of locations in the working-group maps which are observed in several of the photos, to be presented shortly. Some expressed hope that the survey would be re-presented to obtain a larger number of responses but, in this instance, a cutoff needed to be used so that staffers could prepare for Session 2.

Area Definition. The package included a general map showing the area being considered for the streetcars. Click the image for a larger view.

Questions & Answers From 1st Session. During the 1st session, participants wrote questions on cards provided and most of them were verbally answered by one of the presenters. However, program staff did a great job of reducing all of the 38 questions and answers to written form, including those not gotten to in the 1st session. The names of both the person asking and answering are provided. My guess is that these will eventual appear in the Questions & Answers area of the Let's Talk Transit website, but that's just a guess. In the meantime, I've scanned the 4-page handout and you can read and/or save it here.

THE MEETING

It took me a bit of time to locate the Hall of Mirrors, never having been there before. Basically, it is a ballroom sized room with some pretty deco decor with a small stage at the south end. The pair of images below shows some of what I observed ... click on images for larger views.

Better Than Deco
Kristy Yeager & Kinsey Crocker

Looking Through West Windows
The photo doesn't the room justice

Jennifer Eve, moderator, made a few comments followed by a series of four presentations designed to set the background. Rick Cain, director of COTPA, summarized what occurred at the last meeting. Randy Entz and A.J. Kirkpatrick with the Oklahoma City City Planning Department then got into was was called "Downtown Density Realities" in the agenda, Randy mainly introducing A.J. who was the main presenter. A.J. described changes in the past 10 years, 2000-2010: housing changes (rental - below 800 to above 1,800; owned - 600 to above 1,400); hotel rooms (400 to above 1,600); concentration of employers and number of employees; and maybe other stuff that I missed.

Randy Entz

A.J. Kirpatrick

Where is all this stuff leading to — competent and skilled railroad designers which we all were undoubtedly were — "What's it all about, Alfie?" That's where Mike McAnelly of Jacobs Engineering (I'll call him the "Killer Bee" — this guy clearly knows his stuff) came in. By this point, if we (the wannabe rail-line-locater-experts) weren't already given more information than we could absorb in a time-span of 20 minutes or so, we would soon know how little we actually knew about the process of selecting of a preferred alignment of a rather limited (5-6 miles single-track, 2.5-3 miles double-tracked) downtown streetcar path. Now, I mean no slight to McAnelly by saying this — he never talked down to us and put stuff in street-speech that was easy to understand and what he said was most helpful. But ... but ... but ... in just a few minutes time we were going to assimilate everything we'd heard and then be let loose with maps and magic markers to come up with plans in the space of an hour or so's time? OK, OK, maybe I'm slower than most of the attendees — it's fair to say that's a given. I listened as McAnelly presented slides and described:

Streetcar Guiding Principles

alignment considerations
physical constraints
patterns of economic development along "nodes" (I presume that means "stops"), varying depending upon whether single or double-track was employed
peer city comparisons; and a summary of technical methodology.

One thing he said that I'll pass along has to do with Bricktown. I recall hearing at the 1st session that the street underpasses under the Santa Fe tracks have less clearance than most streetcars require ... "How is that going to be solved," I wondered, "we sure as heck cannot change the elevation of the Santa Fe track." But McAnelly made it sound so simple ... lower the bed for the streetcar, i.e., make the road go "down!" I made a note to slap myself on the back of my head when no one was looking.

As he was speaking,
I panned back and saw something that caught my eye ...

Uh, oh ... right here in River City ... my keen eye caught sight of something high above McAnelly ...

What would Sally Kern say?

McAnelly's last slide summarized the "Technical Methodology" for finally arriving at selection of a preferred alignment:

Identification of destinations and route termini
Define physical constraints
Locate bus & rail connection possibilities
Review land use
Locate redevelopment and/or development potentials
Assess marketing [something? - my notes are obtuse]
[Missed this one altogether]
Delineate alignment options
Evaluate pedestrian and bicycle options
Assess ability to create public/private partnerships
Identify place making assets
Evaluate alternatives
Select preferred alignment

I may have gotten some of the above slightly wrong, but what I've said is pretty close to the mark. Youza! After hearing all these guys, for those of us who weren't experts at 5:59 p.m., we surely must be experts by now! At this point, the meeting broke into working groups. Each working group had a particular element to focus upon, e.g., residential or some other category. The goal of each group was to arrive at and then present to the group one or more alternatives within its assigned category, and this is where the fun began.

WORKING GROUPS

Armed with all of the above, participants broke into six working groups. Some were assigned one type of consideration (e.g., residential) or another. Each group had a moderator — for example, mine was Randy Entz with the city planning department — but the moderators were there to keep the rest of us on track and not to make route suggestions. At one point, I said to Randy, "You guys have surely come up with your own models. Can you give us a clue?" He said, "Yes," but declined to reveal planning department ideas, saying (to the effect), "that's not what these sessions are about." I asked him, "Have you ever seen a hub-spoke model like Mayor Cornett said he preferred during the MAPS 3 campaign," and he said, "No." The following pictures show the working groups as they came up with the routes which related to their assigned categories. Click on an image for a larger view.

The last element of the evening was a brief presentation of their work product by each group, as shown below. Click on images for larger views.

City personnel intend to take these maps and create overlays to be presented at a future session, which will be good to see similarities and differences in what each of the six working groups came up with. That will be interesting to see.

EVALUATION

One cannot but be seriously impressed with the amount of time, work, and money that city personnel put into making this a successful meeting — everything from handouts to presentations to organization of the working groups was exceptionally well thought through and executed. For example, at each table, large demographic maps were present to use as resources to identify where people worked and resided and how many, location of hotels, etc. One such demographic map is shown below. Click for a larger image.

Plus, it was great to meet and talk with others who are interested in this process and want it to succeed. The promised public participation was abundantly present in Session 2.

Postscript

One of my table's participants, Walter Jenny, and I were talking and he mentioned something about the location of the old Oklahoma Railway Co. lines in downtown — wouldn't that be good to see? He was absolutely correct. So, here you are, a crop of the trolley map from When Oklahoma Took the Trolley by Allison Chandler and Stephen D. Maguire (Interurbans 1980). I've included the area north of 13th Street up to 23rd, to give a better idea of that area, too. Click on the image for a larger view.

OKC Is On The Cusp of Something

Dean Schirf — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:12:39 GMT

by Dean Schirf

The second public meeting date of the Lets Talk Transit was held at the Civic Center Hall of Mirrors April 13th with the following discussed/observed:

A recap of the first meeting was given by Rick Cain followed by a discussion of downtown density realities by city planning staff followed by consultant Mike McAnelly of the JACOBS Engineering Group, Inc, discussing the development of guiding principles that should be considered in putting routes together upon which a future streetcar system would run based upon primarily the following criteria:

What are the destinations points
Who would use it

Discussion centered on a total of some 265 responses received that provided some 1300 entries of dealing with various issues inclusive of destination/anchor points....a further breakdown revealed the use of the system that would be used by visitors, followed by employee/workers, with residents next and resident/worker coming in last.

A number of questions were asked of Mike McAnelly regarding a number of points, some of which required specific answers that this process has not yet addressed, such as where is the track going to be two tracked, loops located, etc. The purpose of this meeting was designed to get input from the public for prospective routes (which is only a starting point) ......this input will now be shared with the consultants and COTPA staff in conjunction with the ongoing Alternative Analysis process which will be considered for a more detailed route system(s) that will begin to move forward in bringing to reality the first phase of the downtown Oklahoma City streetcar transit system.

There is still a good deal of misunderstanding regarding the first phase of this transit system in that the system should begin serving a larger area of Oklahoma City and made available to those who would use it. In time, that will come if we do this all important first phase correctly......ridership, routes and destinations were discussed in detail on this specific evening along with another very key element in this whole process.....mainly that of economic development and the inducement of such development that would be impacted by a transit system, even a starter transit system such as the one being developed for Oklahoma City.

At this point, the tables then were giving specific assignments and directed to draw up routes that would best serve that table's specific assignment area. The areas addressed were residential, visitors, and destination/employer location stops. Each table was given large maps upon which to work from and a spokesman was selected to make the report regarding their respective area of assignment along with the map upon which the best suggested route was drawn to accommodate their respective assignment.

A question was asked how valid would such routes be considering that the convention center and the transit hub locations are not yet known, to which the consultant advised to go ahead and proceed as that will be built into the route structure at the point their respective locations are determined.

A final area of concern is the amount of participants that are/have availed themselves to this process with input and the like. It was mentioned that there are 552,000 people living in corporate Oklahoma City (1.2 million in the metro area) and yet there are very few responses for input being received for consideration that we will all be asked to pay for down the line. Efforts need to be reviewed that will publicize/disseminate this process for broader input.

In total, I felt the meeting was well staged and getting the participants actively involved in breakout sessions certainly added to the interest/input level as opposed to sitting in the audience and hearing report after report. Future meetings should allow similar input/interaction and questions from those attending should be answered.....q&a was cut off several times to move on with the agenda.....this is a tough thing to gauge and it does take time and if a meeting is needed to specifically answer questions then we should have one.

Oklahoma City is on the cusp of something very exciting.....something that heretofore we have never really addressed. It will not be easy in putting this together "right" but the citizens of our city have said "yes" in building the first phase of a transit rail streetcar system for this great place we call home......Oklahoma City is a growing dynamic city and region and now is the proper time to look at other alternatives of surface transportation....do we continue to build expressways, bridges and interchanges for vehicular traffic or do we broaden our prospective transportation choices for the future of all our citizens beyond asphalt and concrete......we have an excellent opportunity to move ahead and I for one am looking very much forward to it.

Many thanks to all those that took the time to attend the April 13th meeting of Let's Talk Transit in discussing the future of transit in Downtown Oklahoma City.

Route Evolution

Nick Roberts — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:40:16 GMT

by Nick Roberts

Let's get straight to the issue surrounding COTPA's Let's Talk Transit forums. What people want to know is the route of the proposed streetcar system, when it's going to be built, and issues like that.

If you're still back on Page 1 and wondering what kind of rail we're doing and questions like that, just research "streetcar." Throw out everything you know about heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, etc--those types of mass transit are not designed to work effectively and safely within pedestrian spaces, do not make quick stops, travel too fast, and are cost prohibitive for a condensed (LOL at that one) downtown area. Streetcar is a cost-effective option that is also clearly the best-adapted to what we hope may at some point in the future be a good pedestrian area.

Now moving on. The route. That is the real issue, and probably one of the most complex issues that remain unresolved with MAPS 3 (besides how a powerless advisory board can possibly be relevant in anyway). It involves many complex issues, and possibly politics although I hope it doesn't come down to that.

Because of streetcar's incredible ability to stimulate infill development within 4 blocks of a streetcar line, you have to look at the potential of certain key nodes of activity in downtown, and not just what is presently there. With that said, you also want a good mix of current hotspots such as Bricktown, the Devon Tower site, Ford Center/Cox Center, etc. In my opinion the goal should be to maximize the best mix of potential infill stretches that link current hotspots. One example is the area between the Central Business District and the Walker Circle in MidTown, another example is the area between Bricktown and the OUHSC/Oklahoma Health Center area.

I would also encourage anyone looking at a route to heavily consider the potential to expand the system. For instance, if you go with a certain route, consider how an expansion to further-out important activity areas (such as perhaps the State Capitol, OCU, etc) would tie-in with what you're creating.

Then there are technical ramifications. Consideration of locating a hub for the system. What type of route configuration, are we going to go with a loop system, or a hub-and-spoke? I tend to prefer the loop because it's simple and incredibly easy to expand, difficult to mess up from a planning perspective--and with planning being what it is in the Heartland you definitely want to minimize the risk in that area. The mayor seems to prefer the hub-and-spoke system based off of what has been in the media, and I'm not one to question the planning expertise of Mayor Cornett. Actually though, the hub-and-spoke does offer a few advantages, the most important being that it seems you can cover more of downtown using the same 5-6 mile distance of track. That is a clear advantage that could make hub-and-spoke the best option for OKC if it chose to go in that direction with the streetcar project.

Like I mentioned, a loop route would be almost too easy. A hub-and-spoke system would require heavy coordination of tying in the different streetcar lines, a schedule that is a work of art, and of course it would require that every line be a double track.

I have put together an interesting hub-and-spoke on my blog. There are three overall lines: the Blue Line is just a strip down Sheridan Ave, the Red Line is just a loop that goes through MidTown and ties into the Orange Line, which connects downtown and Bricktown to the OUHSC area and closely resembles the abstract route proposed by the Modern Transit Project led by Jeff Bezdek.

This is a good route in my opinion because it does a good job of tying sites that currently have high importance with areas that could see a lot of infill. The infill is important because that is almost the only area in which OKC stands to get an economic benefit out of streetcar, and the economic impact of downtown development shouldn't be underestimated. The areas in this system that would see a ton of infill are along Sheridan in the Film Row area, the "Medical Business District" along 10th Street, the area along Walker before you get to the Walker Circle, and also the area along Lincoln would stand to be built up.

The system also ties in a good array of important sites, starting with the hub which would be placed at Santa Fe Station. In the past I've talked about the opportunity to expand the Santa Fe Depot and build a true transit hub that ties into the east side of the Cox Center (which is currently an embarrassing blank wall), but it's the same general area. Realistically with streetcar, you don't need a hub, but it can be a valuable bonus to tie the streetcar into Amtrak, potential light rail/commuter rail to other parts of the city, bus services, among other modes of transportation. Other important sites that are linked by this system are Bricktown (from end to end), the OUHSC, Devon Tower, the Cox Center/Ford Center, Myriad Gardens, and OCU Law School along the Blue Line and the OUHSC leg of the Orange Line. The Red Line connects the Arts District, City Hall, Civic Center Music Hall, OKC Museum of Art, Walker Circle (restaurants), and so on. The Orange Line goes all the way down North Broadway and feeds off of the Automobile Alley area--imagine how awesome the streetcar will look gliding along its rails with the historic storefronts of A-Alley behind it and the Central Business District skyline off in the distance.

And then, as for tie-in to potential expansion, I've drawn and expanded route on my blog.

The goal here is mainly to connect the one remaining big activity area (the State Capitol) to the rest of the system and for the rest of the expansions, I think the best idea is to follow historic precedent. There are certain historic areas of our city that were originally built around streetcar expansions in the first place and these areas today still offer the best chance for success. For the most part, these are also the denser, cooler strips that could use a real hand in redevelopment--such as the Plaza District or Uptown. Future streetcar expansions should connect hot spots such as OCU, 23rd Street, the Asian District, Uptown, Plaza District, perhaps Western Avenue, Paseo, etc. Imagine the diversity that someone from out of town would come in contact with simply by riding the streetcar of OKC.

First Meeting A 'Pass' On Public Participation

Doug Loudenback — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:44:25 GMT

Why Am I Blogging Here?

When invited to participate as a guest blogger here by Kinsey Crocker, account executive with Anglin Public Relations, in an email she said,

I work with the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA). We are going to be hosting a series of public discussions to: (1) collect citizen input on where the modern streetcar should go in downtown Oklahoma City and (2) get public input on an Alternatives Analysis looking at other transportation options for the future of downtown Oklahoma City. We’ll gather citizen input through a series of public meetings beginning March 29 and through online forums, discussions and surveys. The reason I am contacting you, we are looking for several guest bloggers (who are not employed by the city or on the transit oversight committees) to attend some of the meetings and report on the process on our LetsTalkTransit.com blog. Would you be interested?”

Her statement, “collect citizen input on where the modern streetcar should go,” caught both my attention and fancy and after speaking with her and agreeing to participate, she gave this definition of my and the other bloggers’ role here:

Your role is to serve as a citizen reporter for those who can not attend the meetings. You should report on what happens at the meetings, what questions are being asked by the public and provide your own perspective.

That explains part of why I am here, but not all. You may know that I’m an Oklahoma City history aficionado and, as part of that moniker, I and fellow blogger here, Dean Schirf, we do love our trains. Both Dean and I have written extensively on that topic in my history blog. Dean is more into “big” trains but I’m also nostalgic about smaller urban trains, the trolleys, like that shown above.

The March 29 Evening Public Meeting

The meeting was the second such meeting scheduled today, an earlier meeting having occurred in the City Council chambers at 200 N. Walker. Having time conflicts with its 11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. schedule, I couldn’t make the earlier meeting. The evening meeting was scheduled for 6:00 - 7:30 p.m., and this piece reports on that although I assume that the 11:30 a.m. meeting was much the same. Uncharacteristically, I arrived well before the appointed time to begin and looked around to see who, if any, I knew. Jeff Bezdek, founding member and mover-and-shaker in the Modern Transit Project (I’m sure that he has a more appropriate title but I don’t know what it is) was there; one of my favorite Oklahoma legislators, now retired House member Debbie Blackburn, and friend Casey Cornett were, too, as was Michael Scroggins, Public Information Officer for COTPA, who’d earlier given Steve Lackmeyer and me a most excellent tour of Union Station. The evening meeting was not crowded so you might look over the 40 or so faces to see who you might know:

The meeting convened shortly after 6:00 p.m. Jennifer Eve, moderator, introduced the three speakers: Rick Cain, director of COTPA; Mike McAnelly with Jacobs Engineering; and Project 180 engineer and coordinator Laura Story.

Rick Cain

Mike McAnelly

Laura Story

Laura was present only to comment briefly upon Project 180's coordination with the transit elements of MAPS 3 so to avoid unnecessary digging up of streets, etc. Truth is, Project 180's fast pace (set to begin in May 2010) may well be driving the speed and timing of the modern streetcar component of MAPS 3, and, if it is, hats off to Project 180. But, the heavy lifters during the presentation were Cain and McAnelly. As it developed, the meeting was largely expository of the modern streetcar and its potential commercial and other benefits — the subject of possible downtown transit routes never came up at all. If you’d care to peruse the content of this website and compare them with what Cain and McAnelly had to say, I very much doubt that you’d find anything new being said. Of the main presentations, my sense is that McAnelly’s was the most informed and articulately presented although both were fine. That said, the types of topics developed were very fundamental, such as ...

What is the modern streetcar?
How does it work with other traffic?
How is the modern streetcar ADA compliant?
Who are current manufacturers of modern streetcars?
What cities presently and prospectively have them?

What about fares — some free, some not? I’m not developing these and other generic topics here because I don’t see what was presented as being particularly newsworthy and no breaking news was presented during the presentations. Questions from the audience were written upon forms and were then selectively presented to either Cain or McAnelly, and quite a number were presented (I wasn’t counting). That said, no voices were heard during the meeting other than those of Jennifer Eve, Rick Cain, Mike McAnelly, and Laura Story. I will elaborate more if comments request it after this post is done. But, as Bryan Dean said in his Oklahoman article about today’s meetings, “Monday’s meetings were mostly informational,” and he is accurate in that description. Read his report for more than I’m saying here. He doubtless attended the mid-day meeting. This meeting was scheduled to end at 7:30 p.m. but it adjourned at 7:00, lasting less than 60 minutes’ time. I was easily able to return home to eat some soup and tapioca pudding and settle in to watch my all-time favorite TV show at 8:00 p.m., 24, in which I was once again able to voyeuristically participate in Jack Bauer’s endeavors to save us all from hideous acts of international terrorism. Now, to be fair, there aren’t many, if any, that have the capability of topping my hero Jack Bauer in my interest level, and this meeting, while generally informative, gave me nothing new to chew on. Jack Bauer always does.

Evaluation

It’s probably fair to give this first meeting a pass on public participation and a discussion of competing ideas, neither of which really occurred today. But since the meeting was apparently designed to be general and not specific in its scope but was merely an informative stage setter, that’s almost OK — except for the fact that we’ve been there and done that during the MAPS 3 campaign. As for me, only one such pass is OK. Future meetings need to provide a place for true public discussion — speakers and voices other than public officials actually need to be heard from the floor — and what about this concept: a meeting wherein ALL presenters would be non-public officials. Speaker 1 would advance and argue for Route #1; Speaker 2 would do the same for Route #2; and so on. If the Mayor or his proxy wants to present a route based on the “spoke system” he referred to during the MAPS 3 campaign, that would be great, too. That’s REAL public discussion. The submission of written questions which are then selectively advanced to a presenter by a question-screener may assure good order and avoid chaos, but that method does not allow for spontaneity and it does not provide for public discussion, not even close. “Discussion.” Look it up in your Webster’s. What we heard today was a general description of the modern streetcar. What we did not hear was a more fundamental description of why these 7 meetings were occurring or why they would matter when all is said and done. Window dressing we don’t want or need. What we do need is bona fide discussion, defined here to be “Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.”

Future meetings need to definitively define the process

WHAT IS the overall process for determining the downtown transit routes;
HOW DO these meetings relate to that process; and, if they don’t relate, then why bother?

But, like I said, today’s meeting almost gets a pass. As a general information meeting, it was nicely presented, but I’m guessing that the 40 or so in attendance were already primed on the topic and were hoping for a bit more.

Refreshing First Steps For Transit

Charifa Smith — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:00:48 GMT

I attended the first of seven public meetings to discuss the latest updates on the MAPS 3 Streetcar transit project. This first meeting was a general overview of the project and the other meetings will present themes, such as proposed routes, land use, and surrounding economic development. Rick Cain, Director of the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA) and Mike McAnelly, senior planner and project manager with Jacobs a planning and engineering firm under contract with COTPA to conduct the Alternatives Analysis, both gave brief presentations/answered questions. Project 180 was also represented at the meeting to discuss their partnership with COTPA in streetscape development which they will unveil next month. Some of the presentation highlights were that the Modern Streetcar will:

Initially have a 5-6 mile route throughout downtown w/hub, costs $130 million
Share a lane with the traffic, like a bus, going approx. 8-12 mph
Observe traffic signals with all passenger vehicles
Stops every 3 or 4 blocks, ADA accessible, and pedestrian friendly
Electric, therefore more energy efficient

Long term plans include connections to bus, rail, and taxi services from the suburban areas of Edmond, Norman, Midwest City, and the airport. There was some mention of implementing a park and ride capability, as well as citywide hub planning. Its worth noting that cities, Portland and Seattle, were used as comparisons to show that streetcar transit is successful at increasing ridership to downtown, creates private development within 3 blocks of transit lines, and promotes overall sustainability in urban areas. Most questions asked were concentrated on goals of the project, other streetcar options such as natural gas, construction start date, and feasibility of integration with the other transit systems. The presenters were clear that most decisions still had not been made and they needed community input to move forward. Some of the issues that were not addressed in the meeting were ongoing revenue and parking availability around stops. My questions are: What are commuter costs per ride? Will there be government subsidies? If not, will commuters actually pay for parking, then pay extra to ride the streetcar? Will there be advertising opportunities for businesses? How will it be used for weekends?

Having lived in New York City for 12 years and Atlanta for 4 years prior to that, I know the benefits of having high speed subways, rail, and major transit systems that span regions. However, the MAPS 3 Streetcar project is a refreshing first step and if planned efficiently, can promote growth downtown which I think should be the ultimate goal. Cities thrive when their downtown is a business and entertainment core. Obviously, I speak from the perspective of being a business and commercial property owner downtown (Deep Deuce). I advocate for a streetcar stop in Deep Deuce because it would bring customers to our business without the need for extra parking. It would also provide convenience to our residents to get to work daily, for example to the OU Health Science Center if it were a stop. I also live and raise my family downtown and would welcome more transportation options to the other districts. I do have some concerns. Although I envision immediate results of increased mobility amongst the downtown community, clearly our downtown is not as large as the cities that were profiled and spending the entire $130 million allotted would not be fully effective. For maximum benefit in the short term, it would be imperative to also upgrade current bus schedules/routes, bus reputation, and start integration concurrently with densely populated suburban communities to “drive” even more people and business downtown. No pun intended.

Slippery Slope Ahead

Sam Sims — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:59:59 GMT

The meetings are underway and ground work laid out for everyone to participate in Let’s Talk Transit, which is a quite interesting way for the City of Oklahoma City to engage the public in discussions surrounding transit in the downtown area.

During the first meeting held at City Hall at 11:30 a.m. on Monday, March 29 Jennifer Eve, Rick Cain, Mike McAnelly and Kristy Yager outlined the objectives of the meeting, which were to:

define the modern streetcar to the community
explain how the destinations and stops will be determined. (hint: by the community)
gather input and feedback from the community.

As we moved through the meeting, it became apparent I was unfamiliar with the differences between a streetcar and a light-rail system.To me it seemed like an argument in semantics, but what I learned from themeeting is that a street car is slower, stops more frequently and is designed to work well in areas with a lot of congestion. A light-rail system is designed for rapid transit over a greater distance; say from Edmond,Yukon, Mooreor Mid-Del to downtown. Who knew? Well apparently McAnelly did.

The presenters spent quite a bit of time outlining the modern streetcar verses other modes of transportation such as: buses, which are louder and less green; and rubber-tired vehicles, which don’t portray permanency. Personally I’m not a fan of the rubber-tired vehicles because we currently have those modes of transportation and it’s safe to agree that the current system is not filling our needs as a city.

Where will the street cars stop? According to Cain and McAnelly they will stop every three of four blocks, and through the Let’s Talk Transit meetings the location of the stops will be determined from input by the public.

Cool! I want to stop in front of my office and my parking garage. Wait, that won’t make sense because adjacent to my office building is amore prominent building containing more businesses and people and my garage isvery close to the state #1 tourist attraction. I can see how this discussion of stops and destinations will be a slippery slope.

Robert, a three-year-old boy, asked my favorite question during the meeting, “Can the train come to my house?” Honest question. The reality is stopping at every house isn’t feasible and my guess is Robert and his father live outside the downtown area. Still, kudos for asking the question little Robert.

If the modern streetcar is the decided mode of transportation, I’ve got a beef – overhead power lines. I’m just not a fan of a web or high-voltage (750 volts of DC power to be exact) wires strewn around downtown. Although I’m not a fan of the wires, I’m very interested in the studies showing an increase in retail and housing along the route of permanent steel tracks. I’ll have to dig more into those studies.

On the topic of overhead wires, we found out there’s a possibility of incorporating artwork concerning the poles that suspend thewires. Pole art, interesting. You can bet this will be a topic of lengthy discussion.

This meeting was a great start to the conversation of Let’sTalk Transit. I’m eager to attend the following meetings since each will have a different agenda with different objectives. If you want input, show up to the meetings or follow my live tweets during the meetings that I attend. I’ll tweet using the hash tag #letstalktransit.