http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/mtpemail.jpg

If you want to sign up to the master email list just email info@mtpokc.com and they will add you. Also, don't forget about the Facebook page and twitter.

Wow! Very informative. My brain spilleth over with info. The only bummer is that I can't follow the links in the graphic.

Wow! Very informative. My brain spilleth over with info. The only bummer is that I can't follow the links in the graphic.

If you want, hit me up at jeff.bezdek@mtpokc.com and I will forward you the original email with working links. That is for anybody who needs it.

I think the North/South route should follow Hudson Ave. instead of Robinson Ave., just saying...a lot more potential for new development along Hudson Ave. than Robinson Ave.

A lot of people think that. It is not a bad option although conventional thinking is that we have to choose between a westside Walker/Hudson couplet (or double tracked Hudson) or the east side Robinson/Broadway couplet or a double tracked Robinson or Broadway.

So far, the east side has "won out" because of balancing ridership with economic development.

however all possibilities are being refreshed and reevaluated right now.

Maybe there is still hope for the obvious stop/connection to Union Station of the MAPS 3 Park!

Maybe there is still hope for the obvious stop/connection to Union Station of the MAPS 3 Park!

nope

Boulder: why not?? Urban said "all possibilities are being refreshed and reevaluated right now."

Connecting with Union Station is just as obvious as connecting with Santa Fe ... repurposing and utilizing what you have

Boulder: why not?? Urban said "all possibilities are being refreshed and reevaluated right now."

Connecting with Union Station is just as obvious as connecting with Santa Fe ... repurposing and utilizing what you have

I think that with connecting that deep into the park, you begin to take away from the park. You want people to walk through the park, and having a destination to walk to only helps to make that work. In other words, I don't believe we need to bypass the park right now.

Also there is no rail connection at Union Station, it's nothing more than a building now as far as functionality goes.

Boulder: why not?? Urban said "all possibilities are being refreshed and reevaluated right now."

Connecting with Union Station is just as obvious as connecting with Santa Fe ... repurposing and utilizing what you have

Sante fe is the intermodal hub. Union is a building. Plus the extra mile of track to get to union station would be a huge waste

I think the North/South route should follow Hudson Ave. instead of Robinson Ave., just saying...a lot more potential for new development along Hudson Ave. than Robinson Ave.

I agree. With stops being 2-3 blocks apart, I don't see why the main north/south routes have to be a block apart. Seems to me, people along Robinson should be able to choose between walking a block in either direction to access the line.


Boulder: why not?? Urban said "all possibilities are being refreshed and reevaluated right now."

Connecting with Union Station is just as obvious as connecting with Santa Fe ... repurposing and utilizing what you have

Union Station is not going to have a street running in front of it. It will be bounded by Hudson to the West which will have direct street access back out to Walker but otherwise would only be a corner stop if streetcar were to be involved with it. Robinson is two blocks away (a little too far for interaction with this station). I think you're thinking of commuter trains accessing the below grade track behind the station and not streetcar.

Maybe there is still hope for the obvious stop/connection to Union Station of the MAPS 3 Park!

Why is it obvious? It's a beautiful building in the middle of nowhere. There's nothing "obvious" about it as a transit stop.

Mass transit can bring a prosperous future » Opinion » The Edmond Sun (http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/x2056612674/Mass-transit-can-bring-a-prosperous-future)

A nice opinion piece in the Edmond Sun

Holy cow - oh the irony of that article running in a suburban newspaper. Maybe there is hope after all.

Mass transit can bring a prosperous future » Opinion » The Edmond Sun (http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/x2056612674/Mass-transit-can-bring-a-prosperous-future)

A nice opinion piece in the Edmond SunVery nice indeed.

I think that with connecting that deep into the park, you begin to take away from the park. You want people to walk through the park, and having a destination to walk to only helps to make that work. In other words, I don't believe we need to bypass the park right now.
What is the destination these people are walking too? Not everyone is wanting to or able to walk the length of the park. Why not give them a mass-trans option?


Also there is no rail connection at Union Station, it's nothing more than a building now as far as functionality goes.
I know a few of the rail lines were torn out for the new crosstown but reportedly rail lines still exist (but may not be the correct type for the streetcar). My point is use it for rail connection again. It was what the building was designed for.


Sante fe is the intermodal hub. Union is a building. Plus the extra mile of track to get to union station would be a huge waste
Why would it be a huge waste? It would be going where development doesn't exist and one of the purposes for the Streetcar is the return on investment. Package the Streetcar with the MAPS 3 Park and then….


...Union Station is not going to have a street running in front of it. It will be bounded by Hudson to the West which will have direct street access back out to Walker but otherwise would only be a corner stop if streetcar were to be involved with it. Robinson is two blocks away (a little too far for interaction with this station). I think you're thinking of commuter trains accessing the below grade track behind the station and not streetcar.
No, I am thinking of the Streetcar utilizing Union Station as an at grade stop. Not on a corner a block or two away. Have a small eating place inside the building (with a walkup window/platform dining area for Streetcar riders or Park participants). Can have a rental place for the paddle boats, rent bikes etc. Think of it as a MAPS 3 Park Intermodal Transit Hub. LOL


Why is it obvious? It's a beautiful building in the middle of nowhere. There's nothing "obvious" about it as a transit stop.
it is only in the middle of nowhere right now. That is one of the expressed purposes of putting in modern streetcars…the return on investment you get from the development. That return on investment is diminished if you put it in already developed areas. Some of the MAPS 3 projects are interdependent on each other. it only makes sense to make as many connections as you can.

Not connecting to Union Station is a wasted opportunity.

Not connecting to Union Station is a wasted opportunity.

so lets agree with that for a second ... going to union station from the BLVD would be around 4/5 of a mile of track give or take .. so what 15% of the system would you remove?

How about this?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8532/8473964911_b98e8205e4.jpg

The line could be all single track with a few passing stations like the McKinney Street streetcar in Dallas.

Using the measuring stick on Google Maps app, the total route would be 4.5 miles long.

When you make it single track scalability becomes really difficult.

How about this?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8532/8473964911_b98e8205e4.jpg



Effective streetcar systems are not designed based on widely-spread, one-way circulating loops. They either invole double-tracking of a primary transit corridor or use of one-block wide couplet designs involving two primary corridors or a combination of both.

The problem with widely-spread, one-way circulating loops is that they require users wishing to travel only a short distance in a direction opposite of the circulation pattern to ride the entire distance of the circulating loop to get to their destination. As a result, many people will simply not use the streetcar.

I'd remove any E/W deviation and just stretch it as far N/S as I could get it.

Based on what factors, function or purpose?

Effective streetcar systems are not designed based on widely-spread, one-way circulating loops. They either invole double-tracking of a primary transit corridor or use of one-block wide couplet designs involving two primary corridors or a combination of both.

The problem with widely-spread, one-way circulating loops is that they require users wishing to travel only a short distance in a direction opposite of the circulation pattern to ride the entire distance of the circulating loop to get to their destination. As a result, many people will simply not use the streetcar.

The current preferred route only has double tracking on EK Gaylord from Sheridan south and on the Boulevard to Robinson...that's all of what, half a mile?? So tell me what the big difference is.

The current preferred route only has double tracking on EK Gaylord from Sheridan south and on the Boulevard to Robinson...that's all of what, half a mile?? So tell me what the big difference is.

Note that Hutch said double tracking or use of one-block wide couplet design. Much of the route is a one-block wide couplet.

Note that Hutch said double tracking or use of one-block wide couplet design. Much of the route is a one-block wide couplet.

Gonna have to look these concepts up on YouTube since no one here can share their understanding of what we all think everyone else should already know.

The current preferred route only has double tracking on EK Gaylord from Sheridan south and on the Boulevard to Robinson...that's all of what, half a mile?? So tell me what the big difference is.

did you even read his response?


Gonna have to look these concepts up on YouTube since no one here can share their understanding of what we all think everyone else should already know.

or read this thread

Couplets are streetcar lines going opposite directions one block apart. The idea is that people will be willing to walk one block to get to the line going the other direction, but in Oklahoma City, walking 3 to 5 blocks to get to the line probably won't happen. That's the problem with a loop, as Boulder Sooner outlined. Walking the one block between the lines generates foot traffic for the street perpendicular to the route and so potentially will encourage development of the side streets. Since streetcars travel in the same lanes as cars, if you have double track, it potentially disrupts traffic more than a single track..

Regardless, the preliminary route is now being evaluated by Jacobs Engineering, and while your input at public meetings will be sought early this summer, I don't believe the final route plan that will go to Council for approval is far off. So, posting suggested routes on this thread or anywhere else is probably too late. If people want to talk about where or if the route should be extended, perhaps with MAPS 4 or some other funding source, that might be a better place to invest effort. However, until we know what the approved route will be, even talking about extensions will have to be limited to generalities.

I can totally understand Sid Burgess's and OKCisOK4me's differing perspectives.

A straight N/S line is much more legible on a map and easier to understand. Generally, a street like Robinson is such a "spine" you could develop a very efficient "light rail type" line all the way from Capitol Hill up to the Paseo. There is some real merit to that kind of legibility and intuitiveness.

OKCis OK4me's perspective is not all that different than what was actually initially proposed in the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study in which the streetcar was a "circulator". In that concept the idea was a giant loop trying to connect major destinations.

The problem is the initial starter budget. I personally believe that the importance of having two key dense "anchors" at the each end of this starter system are important. And what better anchors than two dense housing neighbors becoming even more denser with 24 hour hotels and even more apartments. In theory, that would give this starter system a wider potential ridership demographic with hours that start early morning and run late at night. At least, that is how I came to compromise the budget versus the ridership, versus the additional economic development infill that occurs along the way in my own mind in helping come up with some of the initial proposed routing.

However, there are strong proponents in the transit industry who say you could put a single track streetcar "loop" anywhere and it's mere presence will stimulate ridership and economic development. There are others that say that a straight line with clear defined legibility is "real transit" for people trying to get destinations more efficiently. They argue that spreading the line out is a disservice to daily riders.

As I stated in earlier posts, everything is under renewed review right now. As Betts stated, there will be additional public meetings to gather even more input and put proposals forward for feedback beyond the initial route proposed by the AA process and MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee.

It is interesting to observe the rise in level of interest in this project as more and more people realize that it will be actually coming into reality very, very shortly.

Thank you Betts for helping me try to understand the concept but I still can't quite grasp it without seeing a video of the whole process. UP, what key terms should I use in looking up a video on Google or Youtube to help me better understand these differences? My genuine thanks in advance! :Smiley199


did you even read his response?



or read this thread

Yeah, I read it, but there's other people out there like me that can't quite grasp a concept unless they see a picture or video of it. Just reading it, isn't going to help me become a genius overnight. Thanks.

Just going off what your saying, here are some trip scenarios off the top of my head that are not Deep Deuce based but system based as to where some justification for that route map came from under review.

1. Deep Deuce to new MAPS 3 Park
2. Bricktown/Hotels to new Convention Center
3. Santa-Fe Station future regional commuters to Central Business District Employment
4. Convention Center to OKC National Memorial
5. CBD workforce to Midtown Housing
6. Midtown Businesses to CBD services
7. Midtown Housing to Park/Bricktown/Hub

Other considerations would be City Arts Center, parking diversification, expansion to Plaza District.

Just off the top of my head anyways. There are probably many more trip scenarios discussed but undoubtedly, they are not entirely based on trips from the Deep Deuce to other parts of the system.

Politically, it was made clear that Bricktown had to be on the route by the Mayor, the idea for the Walnut street bridge direct connection was strongly encouraged by Councilman Ed Shadid and Council woman Meg Salyer. On the new OKC Boulevard by the MAPS 3 Park by the MAPS 3 Park Subcommittee. The connection to Midtown was encouraged by former Councilman Sam Bowman and at the time, reinforced by support by Councilman Pete White in an effort to "stretch" the line outside of the CBD and onward toward NW neighborhoods. And there has been strong consistent support by a diverse group of people on an Easterly N/S orientation to serve Auto Alley well over a Westerly N/S orientation such as Hudson or Walker.

Now, some of these people have perhaps have changed or tweaked their desires after the current route was conceptualized, but perhaps this helps explain how the current route under assessment came into being.

I do think that my involvement in that process and the majority of the subcommittee has been misinterpreted by some as a "directive" by the subcommittee on what should be done rather than recognizing we were exerting leadership in trying to mesh the desires of stakeholders/council/interested parties/economic development infill and trip generating ridership scenarios.

Hope that helps.

With all that stated, some much more meaningful and scientific data free from politics has come out of the Planning Department the past two months which should help inform the economic development assessment in all this.

Meesa appreciates your thoughts :) The history is there, under the BNSF bridge on NW 4th St. The old streetcar tracks are still in the concrete, lol. History repeats itself and even if it doesn't do it exactly, I'm with you, I just can't wait to see what the history of the future holds for OKC.

Maybe something like this?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8389/8475919651_d01accaa8f.jpg

good luck ever getting HH on board with the street car going through their neighborhood on the way to 23rd

good luck ever getting HH on board with the street car going through their neighborhood on the way to 23rd

Yeah, go ahead and scratch that whole idea then, lol.

Yeah, go ahead and scratch that whole idea then, lol.

you say that but it is reality

you say that but it is reality

I really wasn't being sarcastic. I've dealt with HH residents, working in their homes. It's a no go, I agree 100%

I really wasn't being sarcastic. I've dealt with HH residents, working in their homes. It's a no go, I agree 100%

my apologies then ...

my apologies then ...

It's all good. Sometimes it's hard to read what I type since most of the time I'm boastfully sarcastic, lol.

It's all good. Sometimes it's hard to read what I type since most of the time I'm boastfully sarcastic, lol.

lol

lol

FWIW, Robinson doesn't run through HH, it merely abuts it.

FWIW, Robinson doesn't run through HH, it merely abuts it.

the edge doesn't either and HH was all over it and the bar/restaurant/club that wanted to go in on broadway wasn't in HH either and they killed it

bar/restaurant/club that wanted to go in on broadway wasn't in HH either and they killed it

Strip club.

n/m

The most interesting aspect to me from last night's symposium is that Shadid stated that the reason OKC has not received federal funds matching what MAPS will raise for the streetcar route is because operational costs have not been allocated for the project. That said, where would this come from? Also, the bus system would cost $1.5 million to run on Sundays. Surely that was a yearly figure? That said, didn't the city have a rainy day fund of something like $60 million or was that a state fund?

Anyway, I have to ask you UP if the current proposed route (which was handed out on fliers last night) was one which was set up by just the Streetcar Committee or like Mr. Walker discussed where you have actively involved those along the route and if there was going to be a specific amount of their property tax going toward and in addition to the MAPS taxes collected for the project?

That said, didn't the city have a rainy day fund of something like $60 million or was that a state fund?

The state has one that is around 600 million, I have not heard about one for the city.

The most interesting aspect to me from last night's symposium is that Shadid stated that the reason OKC has not received federal funds matching what MAPS will raise for the streetcar route is because operational costs have not been allocated for the project. That said, where would this come from? Also, the bus system would cost $1.5 million to run on Sundays. Surely that was a yearly figure? That said, didn't the city have a rainy day fund of something like $60 million or was that a state fund?

Anyway, I have to ask you UP if the current proposed route (which was handed out on fliers last night) was one which was set up by just the Streetcar Committee or like Mr. Walker discussed where you have actively involved those along the route and if there was going to be a specific amount of their property tax going toward and in addition to the MAPS taxes collected for the project?

He might have said that but it is not close to the truth. As for the route. It is a slight variation of the AA route with adjustments for the park transit hub and convention center

He might have said that but it is not close to the truth. As for the route. It is a slight variation of the AA route with adjustments for the park transit hub and convention center

Please enlighten me at a time when it is not so late :cool:

The most interesting aspect to me from last night's symposium is that Shadid stated that the reason OKC has not received federal funds matching what MAPS will raise for the streetcar route is because operational costs have not been allocated for the project. That said, where would this come from? Also, the bus system would cost $1.5 million to run on Sundays. Surely that was a yearly figure? That said, didn't the city have a rainy day fund of something like $60 million or was that a state fund?

Operational costs have not been allocated for the project, because they don't need to be yet. The city budget is annual, and the O&M costs won't be allocated until they are needed. The streetcar will also be able to self-fund some of its O&M costs with advertising on trains and at stops. The potential for additional income from mixed use at the transit "barn" is also possible. No one in a position of authority has ever said publicly that O&M funding won't be available. Quite the contrary. Hearing that we weren't getting federal funding is a bit like getting a bad diagnosis from your doctor, in that once you hear it you don't hear anything else that was said afterwards. I don't precisely remember the reasons given for not getting federal funding, although you always wonder if the reasons you're given are the real reasons anyway. I believe, and may stand corrected, that the primary reason we were told we didn't get federal dollars to extend the streetcar was because we don't have an existing system in place. I remember thinking: "Salt Lake City got our original streetcar funds and, because they have an existing system, now they're getting the additional funding." If the lack of O&M funds would have been the primary reason, I'm sure I would have remembered that discussion. Either argument by the feds is a bit of a catch 22 regardless.


Anyway, I have to ask you UP if the current proposed route (which was handed out on fliers last night) was one which was set up by just the Streetcar Committee or like Mr. Walker discussed where you have actively involved those along the route and if there was going to be a specific amount of their property tax going toward and in addition to the MAPS taxes collected for the project?

The streetcar is a MAPS project and, like all MAPS projects, is funded by sales tax collection. The other funding method discussed by Mr. Walker is a funding source used in other cities. The city indirectly benefits from the streetcar, just like it has indirectly benefited from other MAPS projects, in that we have seen and can expect more development along the route, which raises sales tax and property tax revenues for the city.

Thank you Betts for the informative answer! Hopefully the streetcar advertising won't be like the bus route advertising as I was surprised to learn that 100% of those profits go back to the companies and none to the city to operate the bus routes.

It was nice to see you again and to meet Jeff. Having known that it is funded by MAPS, I didn't know if in addition to that kind of funding for the start up cost for the project, if there was an additional way to add money to it. Sometimes, the collections tend to come in a bit shy of what was projected, so I was hoping for an additional allocated funding source. :wink:

Saw this recently and thought it of interest to those on this thread:

Smart Choices, Less Traffic | Beyond Oil (http://content.sierraclub.org/beyondoil/content/smart-choices-less-traffic)

Sierra Club gives high marks to the redevelopment of the Santa Fe Station and it's transportation connections.

The most interesting aspect to me from last night's symposium is that Shadid stated that the reason OKC has not received federal funds matching what MAPS will raise for the streetcar route is because operational costs have not been allocated for the project.
I'll ask again the question I've asked before regarding this project, which seems dependent on federal funds for it to succeed: What happens if the federal funding never materializes? Given the federal budget woes once again made glaringly obvious with the sequester, should any transportation project move forward with so much uncertainty about what may or may not materialize in federal subsidies if that project is in fact dependent on federal assistance?

The MAPS 3 Streetcar and Transit Project is not dependent on Federal Funds for success. We were never guaranteed to win funds. The reason that Federal Funds were ever discussed is because of of our profound "local match", many thought our eligibility to receive matching Federal Funds would be significant. However there was a lack of understanding that our solution to streetcar annual O&M costs (proposed to be funded through the City's annual budget) was not considered a stable long-term solution in providing a commitment to the Federal Government that their potential investment in us would be assured daily operation.

Now we are looking at advertising, Santa-Fe Station space leasing, parking garage dedicated revenues, and discussing the merits of TIF's as more stable solutions to enhance our eligibility in upcoming Federal Funding opportunities to expand the route and effectiveness of the MAPS 3 streetcar system.

Such initiatives to do often require a legislative partner such as one of or Congressman or Senators to gain support as well. So that is also a factor. Also the overall availability (size) of the Federal Transit dollars.

But no, MAPS 3 stretecar success is not dependent on Federal Funding. Hope this helps.

Thank you Betts for the informative answer! Hopefully the streetcar advertising won't be like the bus route advertising as I was surprised to learn that 100% of those profits go back to the companies and none to the city to operate the bus routes.

It was nice to see you again and to meet Jeff. Having known that it is funded by MAPS, I didn't know if in addition to that kind of funding for the start up cost for the project, if there was an additional way to add money to it. Sometimes, the collections tend to come in a bit shy of what was projected, so I was hoping for an additional allocated funding source. :wink:

It was good to meet you too and please see the above post.

The MAPS 3 Streetcar and Transit Project is not dependent on Federal Funds for success. We were never guaranteed to win funds. The reason that Federal Funds were ever discussed is because of of our profound "local match", many thought our eligibility to receive matching Federal Funds would be significant. However there was a lack of understanding that our solution to streetcar annual O&M costs (proposed to be funded through the City's annual budget) was not considered a stable long-term solution in providing a commitment to the Federal Government that their potential investment in us would be assured daily operation.

Now we are looking at advertising, Santa-Fe Station space leasing, parking garage dedicated revenues, and discussing the merits of TIF's as more stable solutions to enhance our eligibility in upcoming Federal Funding opportunities to expand the route and effectiveness of the MAPS 3 streetcar system.

Such initiatives to do often require a legislative partner such as one of or Congressman or Senators to gain support as well. So that is also a factor. Also the overall availability (size) of the Federal Transit dollars.

But no, MAPS 3 stretecar success is not dependent on Federal Funding. Hope this helps.
Yes, that does help. Thank you.

I'll ask again the question I've asked before regarding this project, which seems dependent on federal funds for it to succeed: What happens if the federal funding never materializes? Given the federal budget woes once again made glaringly obvious with the sequester, should any transportation project move forward with so much uncertainty about what may or may not materialize in federal subsidies if that project is in fact dependent on federal assistance?

the maps 3 project doesn't "need" federal money to succeed (it would have been nice to build a bigger system right away) we have funding for a very good starter system .. and with the next maps vote coming very soon after the street car opens there will be a very good chance and voting for more money to expand the street car

Thank you Betts for the informative answer! Hopefully the streetcar advertising won't be like the bus route advertising as I was surprised to learn that 100% of those profits go back to the companies and none to the city to operate the bus routes.

It was nice to see you again and to meet Jeff. Having known that it is funded by MAPS, I didn't know if in addition to that kind of funding for the start up cost for the project, if there was an additional way to add money to it. Sometimes, the collections tend to come in a bit shy of what was projected, so I was hoping for an additional allocated funding source. :wink:

I'll try to further help clear up the misinformation that is being propogated by some claiming that the City doesn't have or know where it's going to get the necessary operational funds for the streetcar.

I attended Councilmember Ed Shadid's Transit Workshop on Monday. At the beginning of the meeting, the Councilman suggested that the streetcar may not even be built due to the fact that the City has no funding in place to pay for operation of the system. Later in the meeting, Councilman Shadid's hired bus consultant Jarrett Walker repeated the same misinformation, at which point Assistant City Manager Laura Johnson spoke up and set the record straight by saying that Oklahoma City's operational funding needs are allocated annually through the budget approval process, and since the streetcar system is not constructed yet and ready for operational funding, that item will not be included in the annual budget until the fiscal year in which the operational funding becomes necessary. It's not that the City doesn't have the funding to operate the system. It's that the City hasn't budgeted the operational funding yet because that's how the budget process works.

I then attended the Transit/Streetcar Subcommittee meeting on Wednesday. Near the end of the meeting, subcommittee member Jane Jenkins, who was also at the workshop on Monday and heard the same explanation, began raising the operational funding question again and suggested that the streetcar project shouldn't be built until operational funding is in place. Based on the way the budget process works, what she suggested would result in never building the streetcar because the City couldn't start construction until the operational funding was budgeted, but the City couldn't budget the operational funding until the streetcar was constructed and ready for operational funding. City Manager Jim Couch was also in attendance, and at that point he clearly decided it was time to put to rest all of the misinformation and nonsense being spread around about not being able to fund the operational costs of the streetcar. Mr. Couch stated in no uncertain terms that (1) he will have no problem allocating the necessary $3-4 million operational funding required for the streetcar out of the more than $400 million that is available for such expenses out of the annual budget and (2) he will not cut funding for the bus system in order to pay for the operational requirements of the streetcar, which is another false charge being propogated about the streetcar project along with accompanying accusations that the City will be sued for violating federal discriminatory laws if we build the streetcar system.

This all reminds me of the story of someone who doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand certain meteorological processes because they dislike the weather, and who walks outside on a very foggy morning and starts running up and down the street trying to convince his neighbors that the sky is falling.

We all sincerely care about developing a great transit system, both bus and rail. It does none of us any good if we allow the transit community to be spit into separate corners and pitted against ourselves based on misinformation and differing personal opinions about the various transit technologies.

well said Hutch

As someone who doesn't follow all of the intricate details, thanks for the update. There really does seem to be a lot of misinformation out there (including a lot on this board) so the real story without the bs is nice to hear.

At least "Couch says". I'm good now.

never mind not worth the time ....