I don't think Midtown is very arbitrary at all.. It is a pretty clear destination to me as the the most developed urban district outside of CBD-DD-BT, and it's within reasonable range. It also has advantages because it is ripe for infill- significantly, there is very little NIMBY potential between 9th and 12th because it's already just parking lots and commercial buildings in varying states of repair.

Interesting read. It was certainly implied/inferred what ever you want to call it that P180 had a definite requirement by the terms of the deal with Devon that it ALL be completed or substaintially so, by the opening of their tower (not just immediately adjacent, although understandable).

One of the inherent "challenges" with this slate of MAPS projects, is many are co-dependent. Hard to proceed with some until you know where other things are located and especially in the case of transit, one of the goals was to connect all the dots (and would think the primary dots would include as many of the MAPS 3 projects as possible). Chicken and egg???

9 out of 10 of us think we have enough information and professional advice to proceed with "1A" recommendations. "1B" is recommendations for how 1A connects to hub 1st, 2nd convention center.

Many of us attend ALL the meetings or have informants.

We are completely comfortable proceeding ahead to answer some of the other questions in the article such as real cost
analysis.

Well, that should get people talking.

I'm going to write a few things here, and probably others will have thoughts to add. I speak only for myself, as my interpretation may be different from others.

All discussions/decisions made by the committee have occurred with open meetings, which everyone has been invited to attend. All meetings have been opened to comments from visitors, many of whom have a great deal of knowledge and whose input was appreciated and added to the decision-making process. We very carefully considered the Alternatives Analysis committee recommendations, and, variations on this route, at least, were discussed with them in Committee, as several of the Streetcar Subcommittee members also serve on the Alternatives Analysis Committee.

As has been discussed here, we had two options: Work with Project 180 and potentially save a great deal of time and money or wait and redestroy brand new streets, costing time and money and probably irritating every person who has suffered through Project 180. It was our understanding that the second phase of Project 180 would be put out for bids later this spring. We have $130 million dollars, we hope, and every dollar we save by working with Project 180 is another dollar that we can use for construction of the actual streetcar.

We know what the three hub options are, and the streetcar can connect to them regardless. The southern portion of the preferred loop is primarily dotted lines and those dotted lines only indicate where we think/hope the streetcar may be able to go. I believe that it is really important to connect with the convention center, but how close that connection can be is in part determined by engineering considerations. Because that route is not determined, we have a lot of flexibility if the convention center is placed in a location not previously discussed. The route as outlined, even including dotted lines through Bricktown, is four miles. As Eric Wenger said, this can be altered, including shortened, either north or south, depending on budget constraints, which we cannot determine until we've had engineering cost estimates. We theoretically have an additional two miles of track and could have even more if federal funding is obtained.

We were charged by several city council members to make this more than a downtown loop, to try to reach out to area/s outside of downtown, and many of us felt quite comfortable with the Midtown choice. As I've said, it is close, but creates a destination for riders, which I also think is important. It opens up 11th and 13th Streets for development, could serve as a "Park and Ride" portion of the route, allows access to St. Anthony Hospital and Midtown shops and restaurants. It travels directly south of Heritage Hills and Mesta Park and offers the opportunity for people from those neighborhoods to access the streetcar, thereby increasing ridership far above a downtown circulator. It has the potential to extend north to neighborhoods like Jefferson Park and the Paseo, up to 23rd St., up Classen to the Asian District or thence over to the Plaza District. South, it has the potential to go over the Robinson Bridge to Capitol Hill. It could go to the capitol or the Health Sciences Center. Including those options was a big part of the decision-making process.

There's a "chicken and egg" or "Catch-22" issue inherent in our decisions. To determine costs per mile of the streetcar, we have to engage engineers. To engage them, we have to have a route for them to study. If there are problems, such as passing by the Colcord Hotel or going under the Sheridan Bridge into Bricktown, it is engineers, not us, who will determine that it is an insurmountable. So, were we to wait for the full 7 years of MAPS collections, we would still have to have a route before we could determine how much it would cost. Costs for everything, including engineers will rise. We already know that it takes three years for a streetcar to be constructed, so we are probably 4 to 5 years away from a line in the ground anyway. We felt it would be useful to have cost information as soon as possible. One of the companies who will likely be bidding on the system has both a usual catenary system and a catenary free system, both of which it could potentially bid. It should be noted that these are the only current and probably future systems available. There are no CNG streetcars, nor am I aware of any plans for them by any of the streetcar manufacturers.

As it is outlined, the dots connected by the streetcar include: St. Anthony Hospital, Heritage Hills and Mesta Park, Midtown, Automobile Alley, the Ford Center, the new downtown park, the Skirvin and Colcord Hotels, the Memorial. We will connect to the hub and the Convention Center, regardless. There has been discussion here about whether we can access Bricktown via the Sheridan or Reno bridges, and that question remains to be answered with interactions with engineers and the BNSF railroad. What we do know is that we can access Bricktown via the boulevard, as that bridge has yet to be constructed and will absolutely be constructed to handle streetcar traffic in both directions. So, worst case scenario, there is the potential to go there via the boulevard, with many options thereafter. So, we will make every effort to also give access to the Bricktown Ballpark and, of course, the canal.

Again, I think it needs to be emphasized that at best over the next few months, we will have engineers doing extremely preliminary assessments. There will be a convention center site selected by this summer and we will look at, within engineering constraints, how best to access it. But when Project 180's second phase starts up this summer, they have information available from us that should save the city and taxpayers money.

Urban, is one of the primary dots, Union Station and by inclusion the length of the Park? Would be nice if the train station could be utilized for rail somehow instead of a pretty relic. Will personally be disappointed if it is left out but i understand that no matter what happens, it isn't going to make 100% of the people happy.

I'm going to add that while I love the idea of the streetcar going by the new school, I don't love it enough to create a "crazy quilt" route. I think that mass transit needs to be as simple as possible and that ridership, especially for visitors, is dependent on having an easily understandable route. There is still enough flexibility in route additions to possibly incorporate stopping at the school, but it will have to be logical. Perhaps the person in charge of choosing the school location will consider the route as outlined.

Also, with all due respect, I have a "beef" with the end of your article, Steve.


Confused? Still curious as to “why the rush?” Veterans of the original MAPS program can at least testify they're not surprised — welcome to what they refer to as “the butchering of the steer.” Hopefully a nice steak dinner will follow.

My reading of this is that you think we're pushing ahead to make a money grab. But, because of the time constraints on the ordering of rails and cars, there is no way we can be anywhere but the middle of the pack, at best, as far as funding goes. In addition, the order of projects is going to be pre-set independent of us. This really was an attempt to save the city money and enable us to build as long a line as possible and had nothing to do with trying to get funding before other projects.

Quick answer. Deep Deuce is dealt with in a potential later scenerio depending on the council or it is picked up on the "federal line" on the way to Health Sciences.

Same goes for the west side.

Sounds reasonable. I guess we can let the Deep Deuce thing go now!


I don't think Midtown is very arbitrary at all.. It is a pretty clear destination to me as the the most developed urban district outside of CBD-DD-BT, and it's within reasonable range. It also has advantages because it is ripe for infill- significantly, there is very little NIMBY potential between 9th and 12th because it's already just parking lots and commercial buildings in varying states of repair.

Have you met Rick Dowell? He's not between 9th and 12th, but close... personally I think anyone who is NIMBY on streetcar going near their property needs to have their head examined.


9 out of 10 of us think we have enough information and professional advice to proceed with "1A" recommendations. "1B" is recommendations for how 1A connects to hub 1st, 2nd convention center.

Many of us attend ALL the meetings or have informants.

We are completely comfortable proceeding ahead to answer some of the other questions in the article such as real cost
analysis.

I think I can imagine who this is directed toward...

Sounds reasonable. I guess we can let the Deep Deuce thing go now!



Have you met Rick Dowell? He's not between 9th and 12th, but close... personally I think anyone who is NIMBY on streetcar going near their property needs to have their head examined.



I think I can imagine who this is directed toward...

just an FYI .. but Rick dowell doesn't have any property in MIDTOWN

Rick Dowell owns property in an area some refer to as Rick Dowell land.
(read into that what you want)
As for Project 180 and Devon, the company has told me repeatedly they do NOT require Project 180 to be done within two years. I've not heard of any reason for the city to stick with seeking phase 2 bids this spring.

Steve,

If that is indeed the case (that only the streets immediately around the Devon Tower need to be completed), there needs to be an immediate moratorium on all other Project 180 work until locations of certain MAPS 3 projects are set in stone.

I attended the MAPS Convention Center meeting yesterday. No new locations arose since the last presentation. The consultants and the committee are comfortable with where we ended our Phase 1A recommendation. We discussed what was going on with MAPS Transit and it's implications in Phase 1B at length.

I'm going to add that while I love the idea of the streetcar going by the new school, I don't love it enough to create a "crazy quilt" route. I think that mass transit needs to be as simple as possible and that ridership, especially for visitors, is dependent on having an easily understandable route. There is still enough flexibility in route additions to possibly incorporate stopping at the school, but it will have to be logical. Perhaps the person in charge of choosing the school location will consider the route as outlined.

Also, with all due respect, I have a "beef" with the end of your article, Steve.



My reading of this is that you think we're pushing ahead to make a money grab. But, because of the time constraints on the ordering of rails and cars, there is no way we can be anywhere but the middle of the pack, at best, as far as funding goes. In addition, the order of projects is going to be pre-set independent of us. This really was an attempt to save the city money and enable us to build as long a line as possible and had nothing to do with trying to get funding before other projects.

You might be reading it that way. But you're reading it wrong - especially since I never wrote or spoke such words. It's this simple: Those who were around during the first MAPS witnessed similar debates, struggles, and it's not always pretty. But at least in the end for MAPS 1, the "butchering of the steer" was followed by a "nice steak meal." Isn't that what everyone hopes for in the end?

Now, that having been said, I had another obligation to be at yesterday, but I've gotten the presentation, I've talked to multiple people at the meeting, and clearly at least one new configuration was brought up, so the idea that the list is finite, done, and awaiting to be narrowed... that's not what I'm hearing.
I've not heard any fact-based logic for deciding routes at this time.

Steve, how would you do a formula for deciding routes at this time or at any time?

I don't know.
But I've still not heard an explanation based in fact (city can't say they have to rush Project 180 because of Devon, because Devon says there isn't a rush) on picking preferred routes before knowing cost per mile, options for which rail and car system will be used, location of major venues, and scheduling of this project vs. others. Jeff seems to think he knows where the convention center will be located, or at least where the finalist sites will be. I can't for the life of me understand how he comes to that conclusion. I've not heard how waiting three months for some of these questions to be answered would be detrimental to the streetcar project.
I've learned to be extra suspicious when I see something being rushed when it comes to downtown development and public investment.

I've gotten the presentation, I've talked to multiple people at the meeting, and clearly at least one new configuration was brought up, so the idea that the list is finite, done, and awaiting to be narrowed... that's not what I'm hearing.

A new configuration is not a new site. I asked the committee point blank if they thought there would be new sites (north) of where we decided to "cut-off" our recommendations. The members indicated that they hadn't thought of any and the consultant vigorously shook his head no.

The CC committee seemed to understand that the connection will be made in 1B scenario. Not only can it be made with where we positioned our 1A routes, but we are relying on them and their consultant, Populous, to tell us how integrated they want the connection to be.

I'm going to keep asking why the rush... why don't you want to know where venues will be first, what the cost per mile will be first, what kind of system you want to use first... Don't tell me it's because Devon is requiring Project 180 to be completed in two years, because that's not true.

I've not heard any fact-based logic for deciding routes at this time.

It is our understanding that the city is contractually obligated to finish Project 180 on a deadline. If Devon as a company is ok with a moratorium, then that is between them, the city council, and the lawyers to modify whatever the actual agreement is to accommodate a delay.

All we know is that to meet the current P180 engineering schedule to be integrated into the late phases of the project, we have to decide the routes that we agree on now.

Fortunately, 9 out of 10 of us agree on the main route in the "greater" part of the P180 area. We also happen to agree on Midtown. So, we are recommending on what we agree while leaving a reasonable distance to make appropriate connections to the convention center areas being focused on.

The hub location is formally down to three sites. Informally, the committee is orienting to one due to rail-based inflexibility at one, and vehicular access to another. In any case, we feel that we can easily make connections to any of the three.

The question is why the city is wanting to expedite Project 180. The streetcar committee can't do anything about that. So Steve, I just think you're pressuring the wrong people with questions on that...

Get Laura Story on the phone.

City officials long ago acknowledged they were mis-spoken on the Devon deadline. Are you telling me that a city official has formally informed your committee that there is a deadline to get Project 180 done by the time Devon tower is done and occupied? If so, tell me who it is.

Why don't you want to know where venues will be first?

Answered above.

What the cost per mile will be first?

The only way to figure this out is to hire an engineer, give them a preliminary route, engineer a design, and cost it out through prelims or actual bidding. We have done all that we can with the professionals at our disposal. And the planners hired are really for the AA to have the set-up for Federal Funds.

What kind of system you want to use first?

The majority of the streetcar system (even proposed technology) run on the same rail in the ground. The infrastructure that P180 could integrate into their project will be flexible enough to provide access for all kinds of unknowns. And Betts covered this exceptionally well in her earlier post. Moving utilities doesn't completely have to do with electrolysis, corrosion, interference issues with utilities.

Rail is rail. Even if CNG were developed. The damn thing is still going to run on rail embedded into the pavement. Cost savings through as much integration as we can muster mean millions in taxpayer saving and stretching the MAPS dollar.

Don't tell me it's because Devon is requiring Project 180 to be completed in two years, because that's not true.

If you don't believe it, then that's for you to expose. We can only abide by the information that we have.

why don't you want to know where venues will be first?

answered above.
Not really
what the cost per mile will be first?

the only way to figure this out is to hire an engineer, give them a preliminary route, engineer a design, and cost it out through prelims or actual bidding. We have done all that we can with the professionals at our disposal. And the planners hired are really for the aa to have the set-up for federal funds.
I'll ask this question of people who are experts on transit
what kind of system you want to use first?

the majority of the streetcar system (even proposed technology) run on the same rail in the ground. The infrastructure that p180 could integrate into their project will be flexible enough to provide access for all kinds of unknowns. And betts covered this exceptionally well in her earlier post. Moving utilities doesn't completely have to do with electrolysis, corrosion, interference issues with utilities.

Rail is rail. Even if cng were developed. The damn thing is still going to run on rail embedded into the pavement. Cost savings through as much integration as we can muster mean millions in taxpayer saving and stretching the maps dollar.

I'll be posing this question to transit experts
don't tell me it's because devon is requiring project 180 to be completed in two years, because that's not true.

if you don't believe it, then that's for you to expose. We can only abide by the information that we have.
I'm not so sure I am going to take your answers as gospel. I'll pose them to transit experts.
As for the rush ... you can't tell me which city official has instructed your committee that project 180 can not be slowed down? You say you have information. Ok. Tell me who provided it.

City officials long ago acknowledged they were mis-spoken on the Devon deadline. Are you telling me that a city official has formally informed your committee that there is a deadline to get Project 180 done by the time Devon tower is done and occupied? If so, tell me who it is.

Multiple city staff have provided us with time-lines for Project 180 in several different departments and at multiple levels. Since 9 out of 10 members feel comfortable with our route recommendation, who care's? That's why we were appointed. To make majority recommendations. Unanimous decisions are great, but this one wasn't. Most of us felt if it helps them integrate and we meet their schedule "wherever it comes from", then we should make our recommendations.

Besides, the council wants us to "stretch" the system out to areas outside of downtown. We can't do it unless we have engineering and "real" numbers to justify further recommendations.

Also, not having drawings has plagued our preliminary ability to obtain estimates on some of the new technologies that so many want us to explore.

You keep saying city staff gave you a time line that is expedited due to a Project 180 deadline, I'm asking you to tell me who it is. Or are you asking me to take your word that this is so?

I'm not so sure I am going to take your answers as gospel. I'll pose them to transit experts.
As for the rush ... you can't tell me which city official has instructed your committee that project 180 can not be slowed down? You say you have information. Ok. Tell me who provided it.

I sure that you can find any kind of answer that you want Steve. There are lots of "experts" out there.

Regarding city officials, if you attended our earlier meetings, you would have seen us press them on Project 180 in public. We want to save taxpayer money, stretch as many miles as we can get out of the project through cost savings. We also want to minimize the disruption to the many downtown property owners, workers, tenants, and residents that I know you care about just as much as I do.

You won't name the person who imposed this deadline that is the reason you cite over and over again for the time line you are following.
I encounter this from time to time. That's fine. You're within your right not to answer my question. Just know that when a person refuses to answer a question like this, I just dig deeper....
Have a good evening sir.

You keep saying city staff gave you a time line that is expedited due to a Project 180 deadline, I'm asking you to tell me who it is. Or are you asking me to take your word that this is so?

I am telling you that they have provided us a window in which our "basic" requirements can be factored into the drawings for their next phases. They have told us when the next phases are scheduled to begin. What obligations they have to Devon or within their own structure is unknown to us.

A formal Project 180 presentation was given by city staff and it has been repeatedly discussed since we first began to meet.

WHO IS "THEY" Jeff? Betts, can you tell me who "they" might be?

You won't name the person who imposed this deadline that is the reason you cite over and over again for the time line you are following.
I encounter this from time to time. That's fine. You're within your right not to answer my question. Just know that when a person refuses to answer a question like this, I just dig deeper....
Have a good evening sir.

No singular person imposed a deadline. We have ongoing presentations of information from city staff at each of our meetings. Where their schedules come from are beyond us.

Plus, if there was a reason to be demanding a delay, you would here most of us yelling. If we could not come to consensus on a route for example, we would probably be yelling. But we have come to consensus. So what's the point?

WHO IS "THEY" Jeff? Betts, can you tell me who "they" might be?

City staff who are present at our meetings

So a voice from God told you there was a deadline? Did some mysteriously glue a poster to the wall telling you there was a deadline for Project 180? Come on...

City staff present at the meeting.
Was it Eric Wenger?
Was it Jim Thompson?
Was it Rick Cain?

Sid, I just want a straight answer as to WHO is telling the committee there is still a Project 180 deadline. Why is that an unreasonable question? You are for openness ... so let's open up.

There is a big difference between being told "this is the schedule" and "Project 180 must be done in two years." Why am I being unreasonable in asking which city staffer is saying there is a deadline to get Project 180 done in two years?

So a voice from God told you there was a deadline? Did some mysteriously glue a poster to the wall telling you there was a deadline for Project 180? Come on...

No, it was actually a small glowing parrot who flew into my bedroom one night and squawked "Torn up streets!" "Torn up streets!" "What would your mother say?!!" "tisch, tisch"..... "such a waste".... "such a waste"... "tisch tisch"

Steve, since I didn't really know who anyone is and am bad at names, I can't tell you. And, since we've had six meetings, with multiple presentations from various groups, I really cannot remember. I do very clearly remember being told that the second phase of Project 180 will be going out for bids either late this spring or early this summer (can't remember it either). I think we were told that several times. As has been said, we can only deal with the information we are given. It's not up to us to winkle out whether what we are being told is factual or not. Even if Devon doesn't have a timeline, perhaps the city has imposed one. I'm not sure why that is a problem, really. After spending the last six months trying to negotiate downtown on a daily basis, I'm all for a timeline. Get this done and give me streets I can drive on and walk on.

Regardless, I and others pushed very hard for a simple route with very few jogs. We talked at length about couplets versus having both lines on the same street and we all felt as though the couplet system was best, for all the reasons outlined here over and over. I spent hours in my car driving around, spent hours walking around and saw that Robinson made an excellent spine, since it has a boulevard stretching all the way up to 30th street and goes to Capitol Hill. Other people mentioned Robinson as a possible spine too....the meetings have seemed incredibly organic, which to me means routes we've discussed are somewhat intuitive. I am old-time mass transit user and so I tried to think of what made sense to me, and we've had the input of multiple people who have traveled to look at other streetcars and mass transit routes.

If you decide Robinson makes sense and you all agree that the couplet system makes sense, then there are only two streets as options. I personally think Broadway is terribly important, and I was certainly one of the people pushing for it. There's our system, simple, oft discussed and, as Jeff and I have said, needing input from engineers to make sure its workable. If it's not, how much better to know now than 3 years from now?

Midtown, to me was simple as well. Again, I thought 13th St. was terribly important and 11th seemed very logical. Not quite a couplet, but close and walkable. I thought Midtown as a destination was important as well.

As for the rest, it's a bunch of dotted lines. Dotted lines means we don't know what will work, but it gives the engineers something to work with to help us begin to figure costs. Since the dotted lines are in the general area of the discussed convention center locations, once we know, we'll try to fill in the dots, based on what the engineers tell us we can and cannot do.

Preferred route. It means that's what we would like to see, all things being equal. Until the engineers tell us what we can do, it cannot be any more definitive than that. To be honest with you, I remember in one of the many presentations we've sat through, being told that we are a interdisciplinary group, and that the convention committee was as interested in what we thought was a good route as we should be in where they locate the convention center.

Thanks Sid. So you've not heard any city staffer saying that some of the Project 180 construction bids couldn't be delayed to give your committee more time to gather information for deciding routes?

City staff present at the meeting.
Was it Eric Wenger?
Was it Jim Thompson?
Was it Rick Cain?

Yep! They were all there... huddled in the corner whispering. Then they collectively turned around and yelled at us that we better get busy!

Alrighty Jeff. Not going to bother asking you about this anymore - clearly you don't want to answer.
To Betts and Sid - do you think the committee would be making decisions in the current order if Project 180 weren't a consideration?

clearly you don't want to answer.

I gave you an answer. Multiple city staff at various public meetings.

And you won't name a single one. That's fine.

Going to game. Reply later.

Enjoy it Betts. Please realize, this is not meant to cause you guys any discomfort. I realize you guys are donating your time without any compensation whatsoever for all that you do.

And you won't name a single one. That's fine.

To be honest, I don't remember who and when. We had one meeting that was almost entirely about the potential conflict with P180. Laura Story gave the P180 overview.

Why don't you look at the minutes of the meetings?

Alright. Was that so hard? So what you're saying is you're on the fast track because a city staffer, you don't remember who, told you that there's a deadline for Project 180 and it couldn't be slowed down.

Nope. I am saying we were told "here is the Project 180 schedule". There is time to integrate the two projects easily if you happen to come to consensus.

This knowledge excited us and we put the time in to discover if there was consensus. There was. Getting AA off of "high center" by sending them feedback on their conclusions was also a major factor.

There was no practical reason not for us to put extra time in to figure it out.

We have recommended everything we feel comfortable recommending and are awaiting the hub and convention center decisions to make the rest of our recommendations in a 1B scenerio.

Now we're making progress. So a schedule was given. But no hard and fast deadline. No one said "you must pick some preferred routes before the other venues are chosen" because Project 180 can't be slowed down to incorporate the streetcars...?

How is that any different than what has been told to you. Progress??? You predicated an article on ONE person's concerns when 9 other people were comfortable with their decision.

You suggested there was/is a potential conflict. We wouldn't have made a recommendation if we thought we might do the city a disservice.

Your article called into question the majority rationality of our volunteers and their decisions. This was based on 1/2 of a meeting you attended while there had been many meetings before that went unreported and seemingly a non-factor in your piece.

I realize you care about downtown, but I do not know what to make of the article's persuasion and the "conspiracy oriented" comments on this thread.

There is a big difference between being told "this is the schedule" and "Project 180 must be done in two years." Why am I being unreasonable in asking which city staffer is saying there is a deadline to get Project 180 done in two years?

This is just ridiculous badgering of the wrong people. You seem to have an agenda. Why don't you dig around City Hall and find out what the Project 180 deadlines are. It's apparently only a secret to you.

Sooner, there's a reason for my questioning... and it all goes back to an original set of questions I also never got answered.
Stay tuned.

Sooner, there's a reason for my questioning... and it all goes back to an original set of questions I also never got answered.
Stay tuned.

Making our people and city staffers look like idiots to your readers endears you to no one but "anti-rail / let's put this off so that escalated costs prevent it from ever being done" crowd.

If you wanted to write about "persuasions" there are plenty of people who are actively advocating their own agendas with no regard to the potential costs and pitfalls to the streetcar project overall.


I would suggest to you to "stay tuned."

Not trying to make anyone look like idiots. I'm asking questions you don't like.
All I wanted to know was whether or not anyone put a hard and fast deadline on Project 180, and thus the streetcars.
Why is this so contentious?

I just reread Steve's article and I have a question: why do you take what Devon says as gospel? Do you really think a PR guy for Devon is going to let you in on what they're demanding behind the scenes? I know you're not so naive as to think that Devon and other major players in downtown don't push things they want and expect behind the scenes. Just ask Jane Jenkins, the holdout you feature in your article.

The maddening irony of your muckraking style is you are poking the eyes of the most transparent of all MAPS projects. At every turn, the public has been involved and invited to participate in the streetcar planning.

Why don't you pick on the people who are working behind the scenes to derail or slow down the streetcar project? I know you know enough people to know there is an effort out there to push it back ten years or more. Also, you seem to have a personal issue with Jeff.

I generally admire your work, but the Gazette has done a much better job reporting on the streetcar project, and without the weird personal implications.

Why should I stay tuned? I'm frankly not interested. There's no hidden agenda on the streetcar committee. The secrecy lies with the under-the-radar campaign to needlessly delay the project. Your tit-for-tat silliness on a public message board strikes me as unprofessional.

Sooner, I'm trying to understand why the rush. It's that simple. And so far, the answers don't seem to match up with each other.

Decreased costs...?

Here's what I just posted at OKC Central. I hope this settles your concerns about my questions:
On Tuesday I delved into the whole discussion of the streetcar and I’m still not sure I understand all that’s going on with the move by the MAPS 3 transit committee to pick a preferred route before they know route costs, schedules, venue locations, etc.

I’ve continued to delve into this on OKC Talk, and there are some folks not happy with my questions. I understand the frustration. There are a lot of good people donating their time, and they might feel as if I’m trying to insinuate something. But what I’m trying to figure out is what is driving this schedule, what’s at risk, and whether some options might be ruled out, or a system might be favored, by proceeding at the pace currently set.

It’s that simple.

I'm asking questions you don't like.

Don't like??? I would totally like them if the project was going to be in conflict. Instead, you ignore people reaching out to you to explain to you the rational of our decisions and instead descend into sensationalistic journalism that damages our relationship with the public.

Yeah your right. I don't like that.

Sooner, I'm trying to understand why the rush. It's that simple. And so far, the answers don't seem to match up with each other.

So you think they should just screw around for a few more years and watch their cost estimates blow up into the stratosphere? That's moronic. That may be your opinion, but it's your opinion, and it's weirdly obsessive.

Even if they determine a route, it's going to take years to get anything moving.

Is this really the most pressing news item for discovery? What I find weird is you seem to be advocating the "slow down" just as people are hearing about it on the street. What do you know about that and why aren't you reporting on it? Are you protecting some sources who are trying to push this project back? Is that your desire?

Frankly, as a citizen of this city, I would like to see some semblance of a transit-focused, urban, walkable environment before I'm dead or give up and move elsewhere where I can enjoy it before I'm dead.

And let's not forget that the streetcar was one of only two or three projects the voters even wanted. Just because the suits at the Chamber want the Convention Center post haste does not make that the best decision for the citizens.

Also, in your dustup, I find this point odd: "I’m still not sure I understand all that’s going on with the move by the MAPS 3 transit committee to pick a preferred route before they know route costs, schedules, venue locations, etc." Please, you must not be paying attention, as it has been stated no fewer than 50 times that final costs cannot be determined until engineers are able to study the routes. Therefore, the routes have to be decided -- not set in stone -- so the costs can be determined. Capiche? See, that wasn't so hard. Why you portray it to your readers otherwise I have no idea.

Sooner, I'm trying to understand why the rush. It's that simple. And so far, the answers don't seem to match up with each other.

what rush??? there have been months of AA meetings years since the fixed guide way study .. and hours and hours of subcommittee meetings and unofficial meeting discussing street car ... with public input the entire way .. you take the position of 1 of the 10 subcommittee members, that has missed some of the meetings fyi, as the center piece of your extremely slanted newspaper piece. you have been to what 1/3 of 1 meeting .. i am not even on the committee and have been to several of the meetings... the members 9-1 voted a portion of their preferred route, a section i will add that is very clear to anyone that has looked at the streetcar with any serious thought

so again i ask WHAT RUSH??

i will add .. the trails are using the master plan as a starting point .. the river has 2 projected already beginning .. are you asking whats the rush to them?

I'm not advocating a "slow down" and I am trying to figure out an answer to the questions Jane Jenkins has been asking. Why pick a preferred route before the venue sites are chosen later this spring? And no, there is no conspiracy involved here. I talked to Jeff and others last week. I wrote a column. There was a discussion that followed here at OKC Talk and I followed up with an explanation of my questions and an effort to see if any more insight could be gotten.
And believe it or not, I think I know more tonight than I did before. City staff didn't give a "deadline" - they only set out a schedule they said they were following for Project 180. Now the question is, will the city benefit, as you say, or stand to lose something by setting transit on the schedule it's on.
Jeff, if this got too intense, I apologize. Unfortunately online conversations get that way. But as I said, there are parts of this that just don't make sense.

Here's what I just posted at OKC Central. I hope this settles your concerns about my questions:
On Tuesday I delved into the whole discussion of the streetcar and I’m still not sure I understand all that’s going on with the move by the MAPS 3 transit committee to pick a preferred route before they know route costs, schedules, venue locations, etc.

I’ve continued to delve into this on OKC Talk, and there are some folks not happy with my questions. I understand the frustration. There are a lot of good people donating their time, and they might feel as if I’m trying to insinuate something. But what I’m trying to figure out is what is driving this schedule, what’s at risk, and whether some options might be ruled out, or a system might be favored, by proceeding at the pace currently set.

It’s that simple.

My comments will remain on the neutral and perfunctory level playing field of OKC Talk. I would suggest to everyone else that they do the same. I learned my lesson the last time I challenged Steve on his "playing field."