Steve has me a little confused as well.

I have looked at all 3 proposed routes. All go through bricktown and all 3 go to Cox center.

As far as core to shore. Going along the south side of the Ford Center is far enough south. I do think it should take this route.

Question for everybody: the Urban Land Institute study suggests Core to Shore will take 50 years to develop. Should this area be reserved for future expansion of the system? Where should development be prioritized - in Core to Shore or the empty gaps in Deep Deuce/Flat Iron, MidTown and the Arts District?

To answer your questions.

Core to Shore, no further south than already shown. I do like the route running to the south of the Ford Center.

Priority should be deep deuce, midtown, and arts district over Core to Shore.

Considering the new entrance to the Ford Center will be south of it, then it does make sense to run the line there. Also, were we to get the Cotton Gin site as the convention center, then we've got a line there as well.

Who went tonight?

I was there. I got my questions answered as well.

Question for everybody: the Urban Land Institute study suggests Core to Shore will take 50 years to develop. Should this area be reserved for future expansion of the system? Where should development be prioritized - in Core to Shore or the empty gaps in Deep Deuce/Flat Iron, MidTown and the Arts District?

Steve,

The answer is obviously "no." We should build the system in phases as Core to Shore develops. "Sweetheart deals" for future developers should not drive decisions toward the routes, nor should warm fuzzy wishes about connecting the river to downtown.

The fact is, the river is a long way from downtown, and we shouldn't waste valuable track -- yet -- to get there.

I really, really like Skywest's route ideas. Big time. To add on, SkyWest, I think your route suggestion is the best I've seen yet.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8793/okctrans.png
Here's we'll give it the official treatment lol..a harsh vetting:

1. Why does the initial route only touch Deep Deuce through 4th?
2. Why is there a route along EKG? Did COTPA determine there are pedestrians and businesses there to serve?
3. What is the usefulness of the Lincoln/8th extension in the initial phase..who will get on at 8th?
4. Is this streetcar system sort of confirming that the fix is in regarding convention center location?
5. Initial route doesn't include Midtown, Arts District, and other activity hubs. Why not?

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________
I don't know if anyone remembers one of the questions I asked, but I was trying to get at two important points. The first was that as Mike McAnelly was talking about the strategic possibilities of linking COTPA parking structures, that just started ringing sirens in my head and it does somewhat explain why we might be looking at a system that we can't understand from an average person's perspective. It might be interesting to mark each of COTPA's parking facilities on this map.

Also, we've been told to not expect streetcar anytime soon..AND I've been against a phased streetcar system, but what if a compromise could be reached by doing the first two or three miles as the FIRST MAPS 3 project? That's a possibility nobody has discussed because it really has been assumed that you build it all at once. I think if phasing can get the system up and running sooner than complete build-out then that is something that might have distinct possibilities. It's a creative compromise that may allow the city to consecutively begin on streetcar and Core 2 Shore. Therefor real downtown is happy, and Mayor Mick's fantasy world is happy, too.

After the meeting I also asked Mike what he thought about the possibility of integrating a streetcar line into a pedestrian mall. Might as well if COTPA is going to include a route on a less significant street such as Harvey or Hudson. I know it would further disrupt the vehicular flow through downtown but ideally we no longer have to rely on vehicles to get across downtown anyway. If they're going to have a route down some street that doesn't matter (ie not Broadway or Walker) then might as well go with a whole different concept altogether. Harvey and Hudson need a LOT of infill in order to come off as viable pedestrian environments..maybe a pedestrian transit mall would be a concept worth pursuing to achieve that.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8793/okctrans.png
Here's we'll give it the official treatment lol..a harsh vetting:

1. Why does the initial route only touch Deep Deuce through 4th?
2. Why is there a route along EKG? Did COTPA determine there are pedestrians and businesses there to serve?
3. What is the usefulness of the Lincoln/8th extension in the initial phase..who will get on at 8th?
4. Is this streetcar system sort of confirming that the fix is in regarding convention center location?
5. Initial route doesn't include Midtown, Arts District, and other activity hubs. Why not?

Dude, this is only SkyWest's suggestion.

I will try to answer your questions, Nick, the best I can, and I am by no means a downtown expert.

1. Simplicity. Adding turns and stuff adds distance. 4th is only a block away from the housing in Deep Deuce. Surely this system isn't going to touch every district. Some walking required, but close enough where it wouldn't be a big problem.

2. EKG is already a wide road and could be considered a spine road through downtown/bricktown. It also passes near the Chase building and garages, as well as right next to the CC and Ford Center. Also, the hotel and Amtrack station.

3. I am by no means an expert of the area. I think that is where the medical district is, yes/no?

4. Not sure what you mean -- clarify and I will answer.

5. Do you want a long looping system or a short speedy system? Think of it like being in a theme park and wanting to go from Point A to Point D, but you have to ride the monorail all the way to Point L, well out of the way, first.

Well because it's as good if not better than the COTPA maps I just thought I would give it the official treatment. Notice I referred to "COTPA" in my questioning--I was just playing SimCity, trying to add a different dimension to the making a route game..

Sooner, I have no problem with Nick's questions. I appreciate criticism -- keeps everyone honest and thinking.

Whoa Whoa Whoa!!

Enough with the 80-mile streetcar maps! There is a misunderstanding among many people about the different components that make up the "system" OKC will eventually implement. People seem to be jumping the gun, thinking this is IT, the whole system.

I noticed at the last meeting that several people were complaining about the lack of "reach" of the proposed routes and complain about it not reaching the Capital, the Airport, etc, etc...

Many people seem to think that this is going to be "THE" transit system for OKC. People need to understand that the streetcar is a central city COMPONENT of the bigger SYSTEM. Longer-reach rail of whatever type is decided upon will be the means of moving around the non-core parts of the city--something with dedicated right-of-way so that you won't be riding a 2 MPH stop-and-start line for an extended distance. I.E. your NW, SW, SE, NE, Capital, Airport, Norman, Edmond, etc, etc lines. And of course, bus feeders as well.



Can you imagine riding a streetcar from the Airport, or Norman??? Talk about a long a** journey. Maybe if you are retired and are just joy riding for fun with no schedule or set plans.

Yeah, if I made a map I would want just as much questioning and criticism..especially if COTPA's routes are just "soft proposals" thus far.


1. Simplicity. Adding turns and stuff adds distance. 4th is only a block away from the housing in Deep Deuce. Surely this system isn't going to touch every district. Some walking required, but close enough where it wouldn't be a big problem.

2. EKG is already a wide road and could be considered a spine road through downtown/bricktown. It also passes near the Chase building and garages, as well as right next to the CC and Ford Center. Also, the hotel and Amtrack station.

Interesting about EKG though..do you think that this street is visually attractive in any way? Does width improve the ability to run a streetcar through the area? Are we better with or without EKG? (considering it is not an original part of any grid)


3. I am by no means an expert of the area. I think that is where the medical district is, yes/no?

4. Not sure what you mean -- clarify and I will answer.

5. Do you want a long looping system or a short speedy system? Think of it like being in a theme park and wanting to go from Point A to Point D, but you have to ride the monorail all the way to Point L, well out of the way, first.

Well the medical district actually starts at 10th, although most of it is along 13th, and goes up to 16th. A few people who work in the OUHSC told me they just didn't even see the point in COTPA's segment that ends at 8th.

As for the convention center, I was referring to the Shields alignment that you included--which would be great for the mayor's preferred convention center location but horrible for the location that is preferred by the ULI, most urbanists, myself, Bricktown business owners, and more.

No, Shield's being Core To Shore. That was just a proposed future extension, which could be debated, and would most likely be built when C2S gains ground -- well past the new CC.

EKG, like I said, there's nothing real special about it. It is wide enough and had a median where it would not be a problem of widing streets and etc., not to mention close to CC, FC, the Amtrack, Chase tower, and the Hotel and FC parking Garage. Also not a long walk from the Botanical Gardens and only a block away from the estimated Central Park (further south of course). It could also cut across south of the FC and then south along Robinson.

If we want simplicity..
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/5981/53088949.jpg

Can't get more simple than that. Then you run into the following problems (allow me to interrogate myself):

1. Is it not important to try and touch a potential convention center facility for those potential riders?
2. Completely missed the boat on Deep Deuce.
3. Should we not also attempt to pick up passengers in the downtown core during the day?
4. How does this system allow for future expansion? Doesn't look very conducive.

Exactly 7 miles.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/1769/okctrans2.png

If we want simplicity..


Although maybe less effective in the short-term, I have to say it is likely the more future-proof and less complex design. Your latest sketch looks a lot like the one I drew up in 2007, although mine does not have the east-west loop. My original sketch (which I can scan in and post) had almost the exact same north-south loop that you have, with the option of extending it on down when C2S is complete.

:bright_idLet's bury the streetcar and make it a subway--especially on the new C2S section! ha ha ha, that ought to stir up some crap with the angry pilgrims on here. :numchucks :numchucks

Why don't we just elevate the C2S streetcar (protection from the homeless on the street) and have sort of a monorail going over the Central Park for the purposes of connecting the Parkside Convention Center to the Turbinomic Tower. It should come in right around $120 mil, perfect.

Spartan,

I just dug out my original drawing and what I had was a line between the downtown loop and the transit center, and I had it making a stop in bricktown on the way to the transit center.

Why don't we just elevate the C2S streetcar (protection from the homeless on the street) and have sort of a monorail going over the Central Park for the purposes of connecting the Parkside Convention Center to the Turbinomic Tower. It should come in right around $120 mil, perfect.

I already tried that concept in another thread a long time ago and the angry pilgrims became very noisy. Simplicity and efficient design are frowned upon 'round these parts.

I had a couple of thoughts tonight going to, during and after the meeting. First of all, I decided to walk to the meeting. It's pretty uncool to drive the five blocks when you've been talking about how living downtown means you can walk everywhere. That's when I realized that the weather is as much a factor as anything, and it's pretty darn hot even in May when you walk that far. So, while I can say that running the streetcar down Broadway and down Walker always puts you within two blocks of the line, you also have to walk to a stop once you reach the line, and that might be stretching it some times of the year.

I also discovered that walking down the sidewalk next to a plaza is far hotter than walking in the shadow of a building, and that got me to thinking about how many months of the year a plaza is even enjoyable. We create big concrete spaces that are comfortable about five to six months of the year only (sorry, Sandridge digression)?

When I got to the meeting and really started looking at the suggested routes, I thought of trying to give people directions to the streetcar: "You can catch it by turning right at the Boulevard onto Hudson. Two blocks later, turn right again for two blocks on Reno, then you turn left (north) on Robinson for six blocks, turn left on 4th street for two blocks and then turn right on Hudson again. You can pick it up anywhere on that route". Huh? That's just one north-south meander.

This should be simple. We should be able to say, "You can pick the streetcar up on Broadway, anywhere between Reno and 9th" or "The streetcar runs down Reno. There's a stop every two blocks between Walker and ....." I think we need a loop, and it mostly needs to look like a box.

Those are my thoughts so far.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8793/okctrans.png


Without getting into the "why doesn't it go here" thing, this is perhaps the closest I have seen to what came to mind when the Mayor described it as a spoke and hub system (rather than the loopy kind in many of the others)...and I don't mean loopy in a derogatory way. LOL

For those that are proficient with the mapping, how does this "route" look in the real world? Add on the Memorial and OCU Law Library/Jail/Courthouse (if you can add the referenced points to the map that would help too). Length etc?


This map seems to be fairly correlative to Platemaker's but it looks like it goes further south to the southern tip of the park.

http://www.mtpokc.com/img/about/connections.jpg

Think the map originated with Urban Pioneer but may be mistaken, I grabbed it from the beginning of this thread.

No. You are correct. I did draw this up with our graphic artist, Koon at Creative Vega. The idea was to show all of the areas serviced by the streetcar depicted in the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study.

I made it a point not to suggest routes on specific streetcars. The MTP committee as a group has always done the same as well. We very much wanted to make sure that the public input process remained undisturbed.

I will say though, after sitting through every single one of these meetings, I am starting to draw conclusions of my own. At some point, when it is appropriate, I will speak up about specific streets. One thing that I want to absolutely make sure that my recommendations are sound.

It is really easy to start drawings lines on a map. The reality is, you have to to factor engineering concerns, turning radius of cars, platform spaces, and what is underground.

One quick tidbit for example- I will say I believe in double tracking Sheridan. However, that is not possible as there is a 20" high pressure gas main that we have to stay 10' away from. So Sheridan can only accommodate one track on the north side.

I am glad that the pipe is on the south side though. Because if Santa Fe station does become the hub, streetcars will be turning (west) or left to get onto Sheridan. It is the preference in most streetcar systems to be making left hand turns thus causing a counter clockwise operation.

So no offense to anybody drawing out routes on Google maps. They are food for thought and demonstrate the desire to connect a specific area which is extremely important. But if I ever vocally suggest preferring a particular street, it will be based on every bit of information that I can assimilate from all of the engineers, utility companies, and Project 180 people of every linear foot of concrete that might be affected.

And I will speak very judiciously in these committee meetings. We have to get this right.

Jeff, are you aware of any limitations to a streetcar along Park and Hudson? I'm thinking that the red route presented by COTPA very well could be an excellent proposal if we shifted the Hudson length further down and then turn down Park toward Robinson, instead of turning as far north as the memorial. By going all the way down Hudson until Park, you actually serve the Arts District area, which is key in my opinion.

Are Park and Hudson workable options?

If we want simplicity..
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/5981/53088949.jpg


Simple and legible; strengthens important urban corridors; and responds directly to the citizen's input given during the Let's Talk Transit process.

Well done.

Well, Jeff and others, after attending last evening's final Let's Talk Transit session, as well as speaking with Mike McAnelley after the meeting, I reached a different conclusion than you expected that I might. I am now persuaded that Let's Talk Transit was completely legit when it said that public participation would have an impact on streetcar route locations. The real test, of course, was Walker ... why was Walker left out of the 3 proforma models presented at the meeting ... and I am quite satisfied by what he said following the meeting ... that the omission was a mistake, and he took the blame for that happening, and said that the Walker route preference (by 66% of those involved in this process) would be made known to the MAPS 3 Oversight Committee, the next level in the pecking order.

My complete blog report is here: Doug Dawgz Blog: Blogging Rail At LetsTalkTransit (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/03/blogging-rail-at-letstalktransit.html#session5) ...

... but the Analysis section is set out verbatim below:
-----------------

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 qualification 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.
Is this what you expected me to say, Jeff?

Simple and legible; strengthens important urban corridors; and responds directly to the citizen's desire as stated during the Let's Talk Transit process.

Well done.

How many miles is that? I like it, with the reservations outlined below.

And Doug, while one can hope Walker really was an oversight, as I said earlier, my walk over to city hall made me realize that it's possible Walker isn't the best choice. Athough you would never be more than two blocks from a streetcar line, were it to run down Walker and Broadway, what I didn't think about until my walk is that you might walk your two blocks and have to walk further to a stop. It doesn't sound like much, but in the heat it seems a lot farther than it is. If it seemed like a bit of a hike to walk five blocks west to me, to people unaccustomed to walking it might seem like an onerous experience, which we want to avoid. We want people to feel as if they can pop on or off easily anywhere in town. Also, if we want the line to stop at the city bus building, we would have to weave on and off Walker, and I'm now thinking the straighter the line the better.

How many miles is that? I like it, with the reservations outlined below.


Just measure it. Works out to approx. 6.89 miles.

Anyone interested in laying out there own routes, I recommend ScribbleMaps (http://scribblemaps.com/#lat=35.47263615995857&lng=-97.5193589317322&z=16&t=Map&y=0&p=0). Use the line tool and it will give you the distance in kilometers (1 mile = 1.61 km).

How many miles is that? I like it, with the reservations outlined below.

And Doug, while one can hope Walker really was an oversight, as I said earlier, my walk over to city hall made me realize that it's possible Walker isn't the best choice. Athough you would never be more than two blocks from a streetcar line, were it to run down Walker and Broadway, what I didn't think about until my walk is that you might walk your two blocks and have to walk further to a stop. It doesn't sound like much, but in the heat it seems a lot farther than it is. If it seemed like a bit of a hike to walk five blocks west to me, to people unaccustomed to walking it might seem like an onerous experience, which we want to avoid. We want people to feel as if they can pop on or off easily anywhere in town. Also, if we want the line to stop at the city bus building, we would have to weave on and off Walker, and I'm now thinking the straighter the line the better.
Betts, my point wasn't whether Walker was or was not a choice to include exclude ... my point solely related to the effect, if any, of public participation in the process, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not arguing the value of any particular routes here ... I'm discussing the point that we were told that public participation would matter and that Walker was left out by a mistake (66% of the Session #2 participants favoring that route).

That's all I'm saying. And, to that point, McAnelley acknowledged that Walker's omission was a mistake.

My entire query had to to do with whether these sessions were merely a parlor game (merely under the guise of saying that public opinion would form the placement of the routes) or if they meant something beyond that. Nothing else.

Although I'm one who thinks that Walker would be a good choice, that's completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

If we want simplicity..
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/5981/53088949.jpg

Can't get more simple than that. Then you run into the following problems (allow me to interrogate myself):

1. Is it not important to try and touch a potential convention center facility for those potential riders?
2. Completely missed the boat on Deep Deuce.
3. Should we not also attempt to pick up passengers in the downtown core during the day?
4. How does this system allow for future expansion? Doesn't look very conducive.

You will have to rework/get rid of the roundabout at NW 10 & Walker. Not a huge deal but I'm sure some people will whine about it.

"Completely missed the boat on Deep Deuce."

People who live in Deep Deuce are used to walking. A walk to Sheridan or Broadway to pick up the streetcar is so not a big deal. People who are not used to walking are the ones who will complain about having to walk a couple of blocks. So, I wouldn't worry about Deep Deuce with this plan.

I do think we need to plan to connect the streetcar to the convention center as soon as it's built. But, if it truly is going to be the last thing built (which I'm not sure makes sense), perhaps we've got time to pick up additional funding to make sure it's connected by the time it's complete.

Doug,

I appreciate your analysis but one question remains. If they used the meetings and the routes generated from those meetings, how in the blazes did they overlook or make a mistake and leave Walker out? Especially when it was chosen by 2/3 of the participants. I am afraid that I can't share your optimism on this. How do you know that "a majority favor Walker will be shown as a public preference"? How prominently will this be emphasized? Are they going to redo the maps reflecting Walker or is that going to be a throw away line buried in the report? As you said trust is earned and so far I think the jury is still out on this one.

But, one of the problems with Oklahoma City goes back to our car driven society.

Might there be a connection???


I had a couple of thoughts tonight going to, during and after the meeting. First of all, I decided to walk to the meeting. It's pretty uncool to drive the five blocks when you've been talking about how living downtown means you can walk everywhere. That's when I realized that the weather is as much a factor as anything, and it's pretty darn hot even in May when you walk that far. So, while I can say that running the streetcar down Broadway and down Walker always puts you within two blocks of the line, you also have to walk to a stop once you reach the line, and that might be stretching it some times of the year.

I also discovered that walking down the sidewalk next to a plaza is far hotter than walking in the shadow of a building, and that got me to thinking about how many months of the year a plaza is even enjoyable. We create big concrete spaces that are comfortable about five to six months of the year only (sorry, Sandridge digression)?

When I got to the meeting and really started looking at the suggested routes, I thought of trying to give people directions to the streetcar: "You can catch it by turning right at the Boulevard onto Hudson. Two blocks later, turn right again for two blocks on Reno, then you turn left (north) on Robinson for six blocks, turn left on 4th street for two blocks and then turn right on Hudson again. You can pick it up anywhere on that route". Huh? That's just one north-south meander.

This should be simple. We should be able to say, "You can pick the streetcar up on Broadway, anywhere between Reno and 9th" or "The streetcar runs down Reno. There's a stop every two blocks between Walker and ....." I think we need a loop, and it mostly needs to look like a box.

Those are my thoughts so far.

Nothing wrong with those thoughts at all.

With our car driving preference, if people have to walk more than a certain distance (varies for each individual), they are going to say "screw it, I'm taking my car". That is one of the huge challenges with this "starter system" approach (rather than implementing the whole enchilada). If it isn't done correctly, people aren't going to use it, if they don't use it and see a value in it, that diminishes the likelihood of getting future voter approved funding approved (MAPS style, bond issue etc).

Doug,

I appreciate your analysis but one question remains. If they used the meetings and the routes generated from those meetings, how in the blazes did they overlook or make a mistake and leave Walker out? Especially when it was chosen by 2/3 of the participants. I am afraid that I can't share your optimism on this. How do you know that "a majority favor Walker will be shown as a public preference"? How prominently will this be emphasized? Are they going to redo the maps reflecting Walker or is that going to be a throw away line buried in the report? As you said trust is earned and so far I think the jury is still out on this one.
I understand what you're saying and, yes, nothing is done until it's done. I guess that it was a strong sense about McAnalley that caused me to be trustful. When my written question is answered on-line (like all the others), we'll see how the answer is different, if any.

Here's the problem with consultants: no matter how smart, honest or good they may be, they still must compile what their employer wants. And that's where I'm skeptical. I don't buy that ignoring the preference for Walker was an "oops." Route maps aren't assembled like that. There was a conscious decision to ignore Walker, and I've got to still question whether McAnalley was being totally upfront in his explanation as to how that happened.
I've seen behind-the-scenes efforts by elected leaders and city staff to sway consultants' reports time and time again over the past 15 years. I've seen some consultants' reports killed all together (oh say, has anyone seen the Bricktown land use plan yet? How about the office marketing study commissioned four years ago by Downtown Oklahoma City Inc.?).
And there are people who feel that the Core to Shore plan was outright corrupted for political means.
So you've got to ask yourself this: what do you believe? Do you believe McAnalley and his crew did an "oops," are sloppy and either couldn't read survey responses right? Do you believe they traced the wrong line?
OR... do you believe there was a conscious decision made to ignore the Walker preference? And if so, shouldn't he explain more as to why rather than just say "my bad"?

Seems to me that McAnalley was saying that the mistake was not including the Walker route even though he doesn't think that it's best for the streetcar. He's not saying that he "forgot" or the "his hand slipped" but that he intentionally left it off and THAT was a mistake. It was a mistake because the goal of these meetings was to gather what the public wanted as to the streetcar route. Meaning if the conclusion had be a straight line down Walker from 23rd to the river, so be it. That's what the public wanted. This was to be a part of the decision making process and his omitting of Walker because of his own personal preference was therefore, a mistake...of commission...not omission. Like Doug, I'm satiated by the fact that he owned up to the "breaking of the spirit of the process" and am hopeful that more of our city leaders will learn to admit their mistakes. There is a new wave running through this city(and this message board) that belies what produces good results. Seemingly overnight, we've become very critical and quick when it comes to dealing out judgment. It's the latest fashion and will surely pass, but it's made this forum almost impossible to read and enjoy. I believe in asking questions and holding people's feet to the fire. However, most of these interrogations seem to be done in the name of what is "right" and good and true. It's always seemingly a moral inquisition, and it creates villains and evil doers where none exists. Very dangerous. There are many ways to err and erring in the name of righteousness is no better that erring in the name of ignorance. Thanks for the hard work Doug!

Interesting perspective....

Could I ask what the basis is for "a LOT of people who feel that the Core to Shore plan was outright corrupted for political means" is about?

There are critics of Core to Shore who say the effort has been misrepresented as a group decision to back one convention center site over another when no such decision was made. Not my call - just saying that feeling is out there. I'll withdraw "a lot" because that's a matter of perspective. But there are quite a few.

Here's the problem with consultants: no matter how smart, honest or good they may be, they still must compile what their employer wants. And that's where I'm skeptical. I don't buy that ignoring the preference for Walker was an "oops." Route maps aren't assembled like that. There was a conscious decision to ignore Walker, and I've got to still question whether McAnalley was being totally upfront in his explanation as to how that happened.
I've seen behind-the-scenes efforts by elected leaders and city staff to sway consultants' reports time and time again over the past 15 years. I've seen some consultants' reports killed all together (oh say, has anyone seen the Bricktown land use plan yet? How about the office marketing study commissioned four years ago by Downtown Oklahoma City Inc.?).
And there are A LOT of people who feel that the Core to Shore plan was outright corrupted for political means.
So you've got to ask yourself this: what do you believe? Do you believe McAnalley and his crew did an "oops," are sloppy and either couldn't read survey responses right? Do you believe they traced the wrong line?
OR... do you believe there was a conscious decision made to ignore the Walker preference? And if so, shouldn't he explain more as to why rather than just say "my bad"?

Steve, being from the consulting industry, I too find it hard to believe that the type of analysis conducted by Blair Humphreys is not one of the most elemental steps in this process that would never be overlooked by an able practicioner. However, I can't (and don't want to) for the life of me believe that such shenanigans are being carried out in the light of day if the motivations are as nefarious as critics suspect.

I've only been in OKC for five years and I've tried to pay attention, but I'm likely missing a lot of background. I see sensible criticisms of things like the exclusion of Walker Blvd. from the this process and city's initial siting of the Convention Center that offer up a preferred alternative. Good stuff. However, recognizing that these officials can be less than forthcoming, news and discussions fail to explore possible motivations, good or bad, for the decisions and actions in question. Unless it is simply ignorant arrogance (i.e., "I know what I'm doing, I don't need your input"), I can't come up with a plausible motivation for public officials actions beyond blatant favor swapping for personal profit which should ultimately be easily exposed to the light of day resulting in political disaster. I really would hate to think that either is the case.

Can you help me out?

Here's the problem with consultants: no matter how smart, honest or good they may be, they still must compile what their employer wants. And that's where I'm skeptical. I don't buy that ignoring the preference for Walker was an "oops." Route maps aren't assembled like that. There was a conscious decision to ignore Walker, and I've got to still question whether McAnalley was being totally upfront in his explanation as to how that happened.
I've seen behind-the-scenes efforts by elected leaders and city staff to sway consultants' reports time and time again over the past 15 years. I've seen some consultants' reports killed all together (oh say, has anyone seen the Bricktown land use plan yet? How about the office marketing study commissioned four years ago by Downtown Oklahoma City Inc.?).
And there are people who feel that the Core to Shore plan was outright corrupted for political means.
So you've got to ask yourself this: what do you believe? Do you believe McAnalley and his crew did an "oops," are sloppy and either couldn't read survey responses right? Do you believe they traced the wrong line?
OR... do you believe there was a conscious decision made to ignore the Walker preference? And if so, shouldn't he explain more as to why rather than just say "my bad"?
Well, good friend, you were there with McAnelly asking him questions at the end of the meeting, even more questions than I did, and I didn't hear everything said between the two of you. With the concern that we evidently shared at that point in time, did you ask him questions along the lines you suggest above? If not, why not? If you did, what did he say?

You will have to rework/get rid of the roundabout at NW 10 & Walker. Not a huge deal but I'm sure some people will whine about it.

You would actually avoid the roundabout altogether because Tenth curves northward as it nears the roundabout, so you would get off the pavement for about 50 feet or so.

As an aside, for those who might be interested in a little Okc streetcar history, the map below, from When Oklahoma Took the Trolley by Allison Chandler and Stephen D. Maquire (Interurbans 1980) shows the city's routes ... I've color coded the map to show the types of routes involved: Red=early years' original tracks; Light Blue=later passenger or freight; Purple=freight only; and Green=interurban.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trolleys/whenoktooktrolley_map02x.jpg

Note that not all tracks/routes were in place at any given point in time ... routes would be added and/or discontinued ... and the map shows all that existed over time. You can read more about this here: Doug Dawgz Blog: Okc Trolleys Part 1 (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2007/09/okc-trolleys-part-1.html)

You would actually avoid the roundabout altogether because Tenth curves northward as it nears the roundabout, so you would get off the pavement for about 50 feet or so.

This is absolutely true given the current configuration, but the already funded extension of the Classen Drive diagonal SE to Hudson - 2007 GO Bond if I remember correctly - could limit are ability to do this. That said, I say if that is the route we want, we just redo the roundabout or cancel the plans for the extension of the diagonal.

Sometimes it is difficult, but we have to keep costs and benefits in perspective. For instance, while it seemingly makes sense to connect the streetcar to the Downtown Transit Center on 4th and Hudson, the benefits of doing so are minimal. According to demographia (http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa% 3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26ct%3Dres%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CB IQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.demographia. com%252Fdb-cbd2000.pdf%26ei%3Dq2oBTLvtHYzYNc6W9Ds%26usg%3DAFQ jCNEcMJP6Q6CGpghfwcjmytg7PqEVsw%26sig2%3Dsy3t_YDff kwKO6JieOy0pA), our bus system only carries 100 (or 0.9%) of our CBD commuter trips, so the number of riders that might transfer to the streetcar system is extremely low. And the Downtown Transit center is not a huge loss. It cost has been in use since August 2, 2004 and we have $6.2 million invested in its construction (source - pg5 (http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa% 3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26ct%3Dres%26cd%3D8%26ved%3D0CD QQFjAH%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.okc.gov%252F council%252Fcouncil_library%252Fpacket%252F070206% 252FVI%252520CC.pdf%26ei%3Dr2QBTNjNEo7ANu3vnTs%26u sg%3DAFQjCNFAqjVlmCImXPWIxhCUmX8ckbS6Mw%26sig2%3Dx Koz3ohu3Bq0ORzgRzrFUg)). By the time the MAPS 3 Streetcar is active, the center will have served (a few of) us for well over a decade. At $20 million per mile, we cannot afford to make route decisions based on flawed logic, nor can we afford to change the route based on comparatively inexpensive changes to existing infrastructure.

Following up, to sort of "flush out" the trust issue as to whether public input was actually significant in the Let's Talk Transit process, I've left the following comment in my May 27 blog article at Let's Talk Transit website (http://www.letstalktransit.com/loudenbackblog4) (not in my personal blog, but in the Let's Talk Transit blog):


I'll add my own comment:

After reaching the conclusion that I did following my conversation with Mike McAnelly (reported immediately above), some at OkcTalk remain skeptical that the omission of not including Walker on one of the 3 proforma scenarios was a mistake in one of two senses: (1) Merely an "opps" [sic - should have been "oops"] mistake, meaning that it really was intended to be included but because of inadvertence was not; or (2) a mistake for not including Walker given that 2/3 of the table participants in Session #2 thought it should be include [sic - should have been included] given that the stated aim is to represent public input.

It would do no harm, and would likely do some good, for someone from Let's Talk Transit to directly address the Walker omission from the 3 proformas, and I encourage that response, either in a comment here or in some other place in the Let's Talk Transit website.
It might be good for anyone who may be concerned about this issue (public input during the sessions as being meaningful) to add their own comments there (http://www.letstalktransit.com/loudenbackblog4) because that might help to get additional Let's Talk Transit input and responses to the matter. When all is said and done, I ultimately based my conclusion, "OK, I trust you," on the responses I got from Mike McAnelly following the meeting which conclusions were based upon my "gut" reaction to what he said to me (or if one is from more sophisticated environs, a "visceral" reaction ... when I was stationed in Washington D.C. on a military legal team in 1969-70, a member of that team was a Harvard law school graduate, and that is when I learned that, while we have "gut" reactions in Oklahoma, they have "visceral" reactions there). No harm done in pressing the point to gain clarification ... soooo ... press it in the Let's Talk Transit arena whereat some additional Let's Talk Transit response might be forthcoming since it would be a mistake to expect such clarification in this forum from Let's Talk Transit. I'll add this ... my gut responses, while valuable to me, are hardly worth betting the farm on and I'm interested in hearing any additional comments that Let's Talk Transit may care to make, just as all of us are.

So, go for it. In the end, I'm much more interested in the truth being stated and/or confirmed more than I am in having my fat belly's instincts being vindicated ... though that would be OK, as well. My belly needs a nice rub now and then.

This is absolutely true given the current configuration, but the already funded extension of the Classen Drive diagonal SE to Hudson - 2007 GO Bond if I remember correctly - could limit are ability to do this. That said, I say if that is the route we want, we just redo the roundabout or cancel the plans for the extension of the diagonal.

Sometimes it is difficult, but we have to keep costs and benefits in perspective. For instance, while it seemingly makes sense to connect the streetcar to the Downtown Transit Center on 4th and Hudson, the benefits of doing so are minimal. According to demographia (http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa% 3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26ct%3Dres%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CB IQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.demographia. com%252Fdb-cbd2000.pdf%26ei%3Dq2oBTLvtHYzYNc6W9Ds%26usg%3DAFQ jCNEcMJP6Q6CGpghfwcjmytg7PqEVsw%26sig2%3Dsy3t_YDff kwKO6JieOy0pA), our bus system only carries 100 (or 0.9%) of our CBD commuter trips, so the number of riders that might transfer to the streetcar system is extremely low. And the Downtown Transit center is not a huge loss. It cost has been in use since August 2, 2004 and we have $6.2 million invested in its construction (source - pg5 (http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa% 3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26ct%3Dres%26cd%3D8%26ved%3D0CD QQFjAH%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.okc.gov%252F council%252Fcouncil_library%252Fpacket%252F070206% 252FVI%252520CC.pdf%26ei%3Dr2QBTNjNEo7ANu3vnTs%26u sg%3DAFQjCNFAqjVlmCImXPWIxhCUmX8ckbS6Mw%26sig2%3Dx Koz3ohu3Bq0ORzgRzrFUg)). By the time the MAPS 3 Streetcar is active, the center will have served (a few of) us for well over a decade. At $20 million per mile, we cannot afford to make route decisions based on flawed logic, nor can we afford to change the route based on comparatively inexpensive changes to existing infrastructure.

I forgot about the Classen extension. It would seem like a lot more information needs to come to the surface on this topic. I just don't see how we can move forward discussion any potential downtown capital investment without knowing more about the planned traffic circles, and my personal opinion as a design student is that we need more traffic circles, so the traffic circles NEED to go in there--but I am certain there is some way we can get a streetcar route through a roundabout as well.

There have to be some solutions within our financial reach that can get a streetcar line through a traffic circle safely. Considering how streetcars are overwhelmingly a Euro thing at this point, I am sure they have encountered this problem, although I know they are taking out traffic circles as well, there are tons that they're keeping. This issue has also come up in DC, which is considering streetcar, and also well-known for its iconic traffic circles that have defined urban neighborhoods such as Dupont Circle.

Here is a vintage photo of Thomas Circle in DC with a streetcar in it, granted, Thomas Circle has a much wider turning radius.
DC on the Move: Historic Streetcar Photos | ReadysetDC (http://readysetdc.com/2009/10/dc-on-the-move-historic-streetcar-photos/)

Perhaps a solution for OKC could be just slicing right through the traffic circle and installing flashing stopping lights at each of the ingress points for traffic as the streetcar approaches the traffic circle. It would work very similarly to stopping lights at a crosswalk. The bottom line though is that we need to tackle the traffic circle issue first because, with traffic circles planned at 9th and Hudson and 8th and Harvey, there is virtually no way to connect MidTown (within a 6-7 mile starter system) until we figure that out.

_______________________________________________
Oh and Doug, I'm not ignoring your posts. Just responding to Blair's direct post, and when I get more of a chance, I'll read your posts. (I'm not trying to create a side discussion or get people to ignore your analysis.)

Not a problem, Spartan.

Following up further, I've added the following to the end of my personal blog post on Session #5 (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/03/blogging-rail-at-letstalktransit.html#session5):


Session 5 Postscript: Some at OkcTalk.com are questioning whether I've been too generous in giving a pass to Let's Talk Transit's sincerity in being devoted to giving public input to the location of streetcar lines downtown. There, Larry OKC (http://www.okctalk.com/333590-post757.html) says,


I appreciate your analysis but one question remains. If they used the meetings and the routes generated from those meetings, how in the blazes did they overlook or make a mistake and leave Walker out? Especially when it was chosen by 2/3 of the participants. I am afraid that I can't share your optimism on this. How do you know that "a majority favor Walker will be shown as a public preference"? How prominently will this be emphasized? Are they going to redo the maps reflecting Walker or is that going to be a throw away line buried in the report? As you said trust is earned and so far I think the jury is still out on this one.
And Steve Lackmeyer (http://www.okctalk.com/333616-post760.html) adds,


Here's the problem with consultants: no matter how smart, honest or good they may be, they still must compile what their employer wants. And that's where I'm skeptical. I don't buy that ignoring the preference for Walker was an "oops." Route maps aren't assembled like that. There was a conscious decision to ignore Walker, and I've got to still question whether McAnelly was being totally upfront in his explanation as to how that happened.

I've seen behind-the-scenes efforts by elected leaders and city staff to sway consultants' reports time and time again over the past 15 years. I've seen some consultants' reports killed all together (oh say, has anyone seen the Bricktown land use plan yet? How about the office marketing study commissioned four years ago by Downtown Oklahoma City Inc.?).

And there are people who feel that the Core to Shore plan was outright corrupted for political means.

So you've got to ask yourself this: what do you believe? Do you believe McAnelly and his crew did an "oops," are sloppy and either couldn't read survey responses right? Do you believe they traced the wrong line?

OR... do you believe there was a conscious decision made to ignore the Walker preference? And if so, shouldn't he explain more as to why rather than just say "my bad"?
To get clarification on the matter, I've left this comment to my own blog article at the Let's Talk Transit website (http://www.letstalktransit.com/loudenbackblog4):


I'll add my own comment:

After reaching the conclusion that I did following my conversation with Mike McAnelly (reported immediately above), some at OkcTalk.com remain skeptical that the omission of not including Walker on one of the 3 proforma scenarios was a mistake in one of two senses: (1) Merely an "oops" mistake, meaning that it really was intended to be included but because of inadvertence was not; or (2) a mistake for not including Walker given that 2/3 of the table participants in Session #2 thought it should be include, given that the stated aim is to represent public input.

It would do no harm, and would likely do some good, for someone from Let's Talk Transit to directly address the Walker omission from the 3 proformas, and I encourage that response, either in a comment here or in some other place in the Let's Talk Transit website.
All I'm looking for and wanting to do here is present is the truth. So, if my gut reaction when speaking with McAnelly was mistakenly taken for the truth, I stand, and want to be, corrected. Why not post your own queries or comments at at the end of my blog article at Let's Talk Transit (http://www.letstalktransit.com/loudenbackblog4) and perhaps Let's Talk Transit people will respond and get the matter clarified, once and for all.

Another side of the coin is this: If Let's Talk Transit DOES NOT present Walker as a public-preferred route-of-choice to the MAPS3 oversight committee, my "gut" reaction will be obviously have been proven to be erroneous, and all of what I've said above about believing that Let's Talk Transit was sincere in obtaining and putting forward public input will have been badly mistaken. I still hope, and trust, that is not the case.
So, if the gut reaction in my original blogpost is misplaced, I've presented you guys, as well as Let's Talk Transit, both a place and the opportunity of getting the truth out, one way or another, at Let's Talk Transit (http://www.letstalktransit.com/loudenbackblog4). Given the quotes that I've already made from here, there is no need to be shy.

Let the truth hang out.

By the way, Steve, still waiting on your response to my above post (http://www.okctalk.com/333646-post766.html) directed to you. To make your reply more convenient here, I asked you:


Well, good friend, you were there with McAnelly asking him questions at the end of the meeting, even more questions than I did, and I didn't hear everything said between the two of you. With the concern that we evidently shared at that point in time, did you ask him questions along the lines you suggest above? If not, why not? If you did, what did he say?
Signed: Sleepless in Okc ...

I asked how it happened - his response was it was a mistake and they shouldn't have done it. Now, I could have twisted his arm, but being surrounded by a group of people as I asked questions, I didn't want witnesses in court...

Oh, fine. You're willing to plug him with and/or attribute theoretical assumptions or queries now, but not do the real deal when you had the opportunity to ask him first-hand? Sorry, my man, but that ain't fair play.

Portland has had success with single track with one line going down street A and another going the other way down street B a block away. That way new development is spread over several blocks instead of being concentrated on one street.

BUT... in Portland one block apart is about 250'... in OKC one block is about 550'. Then try to do like some have suggested and space each track two blocks about.... that's 1100 feet... half a block shy of a quarter mile. double track is OKC best option.

Oh, fine. You're willing to plug him with and/or attribute theoretical assumptions or queries now, but not do the real deal when you had the opportunity to ask him first-hand? Sorry, my man, but that ain't fair play.

Doug, I asked him how it happened. I asked twice. The only answer he would offer was that it was a mistake. I don't see the lack of "fair play." If you think you can get a better answer, go for it.

BUT... in Portland one block apart is about 250'... in OKC one block is about 550'. Then try to do like some have suggested and space each track two blocks about.... that's 1100 feet... half a block shy of a quarter mile. double track is OKC best option.

The problem I see with double track is that we can only afford six miles of track. Double track allows us to only cover 3 miles. And, while you're right, two blocks is a significant number of feet, there's a problem with a double track. Let's imagine we have a double track running down Broadway. While people who are near Broadway won't have to walk very far to go the opposite direction, people who are over on Walker will have to walk four blocks to go either direction. That's 2200 feet. I still think we're better off having single track, which will cover more distance, and making it equitable for people regardless of where they are downtown. All things being equal, double track would be nice, but I'd rather have more area covered and have single track, personally.

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/5981/53088949.jpg

If we go with something like this, we are okay after the revelation that OKC blocks are further apart than blocks in virtually any other city.

I forgot yours had double track, Spartan. That does help, but is it only 6 miles of track? Regardless, it's still possible people will have to walk four blocks.....two to get to the line and potentially a couple to get to a stop. As I've said, we walk a lot farther than that in Chicago to get to a bus stop, and they have more inclement weather than we do, although I think it might be easier to walk six blocks in the cold than four in the heat.

BUT... in Portland one block apart is about 250'... in OKC one block is about 550'. Then try to do like some have suggested and space each track two blocks about.... that's 1100 feet... half a block shy of a quarter mile. double track is OKC best option.

If Google Maps is accurate, the blocks in downtown Portland are indeed about half as long as those in downtown OKC. But if you go east and west between Walker and Broadway most of the blocks are significantly less than 550'.

I'd be for single track if we got rid of the loops.

We can make this work better if we have single tracks with free-return. In theory, we can have 6 spokes all being 1 mile long. And you could wait on the outbound/inbound depending on where you were going, instead of riding the loop all the way around.

6.2 miles of track, could probably cut .2 miles off of the south extension for now, and get it even at 6.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5923/okctrans3.jpg

Hits most every district I think.

Doesn't allow for much side to side travel, but connects the dots while avoiding a loop. The black line is "common use" track at the "hub", a .2 mile double track segment (totaling .4 miles) to keep trains organized entering and leaving the "hub". All other track is single width.

I think we should avoid the loop method unless it's double tracked, but using the spoke and hub system with single tracks and free return (same track as inbound and outbound), personally is most desirable.

I'm no planner, I am just tossing ideas of what can be done so people WILL THINK. People with better understanding hopefully might see something from this. I don't know.

It's actually roughly 28 miles.. (27.961 when I mapped it). I might have accidentally gone over the common line along Sheridan once more than I needed to.

It's 14 with single tracks, but you don't want single tracks for extremely long spokes, which is pretty much all of them except the green line that goes to RSK/Lee,and the purple route, which looks to be closer to .5 or at least .4 miles (7 blocks) than .2 miles.

I can definitely see that you REALLY like EKG, too.