I'll gladly post them and a full complimentary rebuttal. To be honest though, I think most of us would rather have this fabricated controversy die away. It's an incredible waste of time to debate assertions and inuendo made without proper context.

Its a huge waste of energy when everybody could be working together.

That's definitely the goal at least. If transit fractures into bus v. streetcar it's going to be a LOT easier for other interests to pick it off and accomplish their own goals a lot easier.

AND let's not say that there aren't interests that would love to see the transit activists fracture - suburban homebuilders, highway lobby, people who are legitimately afraid of public transit, and competing interests that need that funding for say, a convention center.

Right now the transit activists have more influence than most interests because they are paying attention the most, and for the most part, they're well-organized. We're also talking about elections that city-wide garner a few thousand voters at most, so it's not impossible to make change.

For the last few years there's been a LOT of good going around, and I'm really proud to have been a part of it. While I'm coming back home to roost as soon as I can (not that NE Ohio isn't awesome), but I just hate to see all of this years-long progress being damaged over high-profile personality conflicts while I'm away.

Sometimes you gotta suck it up and be diplomatic when an entire city's aspirations to evolve greater rest no your shoulders. Even worse, sometimes you gotta make friends with the "enemy" or better yet truly make the "enemy" change. That's an important part of the butchering of the steer.

I just hate to see all of this years-long progress being damaged over high-profile personality conflicts while I'm away.

Sometimes you gotta suck it up and be diplomatic when an entire city's aspirations to evolve greater rest no your shoulders. Even worse, sometimes you gotta make friends with the "enemy" or better yet truly make the "enemy" change. That's an important part of the butchering of the steer.

Who exactly are you suggesting this to?

The hand has been extended many times.

Suggesting that this is simply a personality conflict is condescending and completely not the case.

And since we're friends, just going to point out that I don't think your intentionally trying to be condescending. Your just late to the party trying to give Ed the benefit of the doubt.

A benefit extended to him numerous times by all of us... that he has squandered.

I am late to the party, this is true. I have been working 50-60 hours a week on a team opening a big downtown project in Akron and it's really taken a toll on me. I know it's really shocking to some that I may have had to put our downtown affairs on the back burner for the last few months. And it's summer already? Where did 2013 go?

Just keep in mind, at the end of the day, this is a message board. It's a testament to Pete's own dedication and drive to get to the bottom of OKC affairs that this message board is quite simply more pertinent than most.

Perhaps the hang up over Shadid will continue, but Couch is the real enemy. Maybe Greiner's election should serve as inspiration to some on this board and also serve to show that progress in the real world sometimes takes a back seat on this board. It would not be hard to coordinate the election of council members who would stand up to Couch.

Of course the more permanent and positive change would be to change the city charter. A huge petition requirement would have to be met though. While we're at it, we should gather signatures to reduce the signature requirements.

... It would not be hard to coordinate the election of council members who would stand up to Couch.

Four seats were recently up for grabs, and were known to be on the block for some time prior to the filing date. If city staff is the problem, that was a problem known long before this last election, and even before the election two years back (and two years before that, etc.) It's not like city staff is doing anything radically different in recent years.

So ... it would not be hard? Perhaps not, but it seems also it is an issue that is not of much interest to many folk in OKC.
That is not meant to be a defense of the status quo. It's simply an observation.

Actually much has changed in the last few years. The main negative change is that council leadership (some of whom have since been voted out) chose to take credit for the success of the Thunder rather than listen to their constituents. Another is that Couch has become more entrenched and defiant in recent years. The positive change is that millennials have advanced in their careers and earning power. Educated millennials are much more urban, transit-oriented, and active in civic life than previous generations. Also social networks have emerged as a democratizing force. So there are fewer excuses for apathy now than ever.

The City of OKC has been posting these on Facebook:

3705370637073708

I like where this is going. I have always said that we aren't trying anything new in OKC. We are only trying to rebuild what our grandparents built, and our parents tore down.

The City of OKC has been posting these on Facebook:

3705370637073708

Yep. These are my faves:

http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/459408_10151396374012312_1675466613_o.jpg

http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/902770_10151396373977312_1223638538_o.jpg

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/467169_10151396374167312_676307864_o.jpg

http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/902733_10151396374187312_1971040040_o.jpg


Source: Historic Oklahoma City Transit Photos | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151396374012312&set=a.10151396373892312.1073741825.53385692311&type=1&relevant_count=4)

I also don't ever recall hearing someone say we'd have the biggest system in the country. Maybe with Phase II? Internally, we all knew Federal funds were a wish, and that we'd have to build the first portion and make it somewhat successful before FTA would ever fund. It might not have been communicated as such, but the MAPS 3 funds for the streetcar were essentially a down payment to attract FTA funds down the road.

Will MAPS 3 Change Public Transportation in Oklahoma City? - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=11153223)

Will MAPS 3 Change Public Transportation in Oklahoma City? Sep 17, 2009


"This streetcar system we're proposing will be the largest in the country. A good transportation system is a big key to the success of our future. This is about Oklahoma City's future," Mayor Mick Cornett*said to*the crowd Thursday evening.*

I don't know if the Mayor was parroting what Urban had told him but his statement as reported wasn't even true at the time was it? 5 to 6 miles (2.5 to 3 if double tracked) sure doesn't sound like the largest anything. Unless he mis-spoke or was misquoted...maybe ours was the largest starter system...but even that seems...? This was discussed in another thread at the time...

If it was just a starter system and if federal funds were promised isn't true either, as the funds would be applied for. However, the Mayor did say that nothing was being put into MAPS 3 that we couldn't pay for ourselves (alluding to the failed Streetcar proposal in the original MAPS that did depend on federal funds). Of course the City said that the intermodal transit hub was only going to cost $10 million. Then after the vote it was revealed that the Hub is going to cost $128 million and will require other revenue sources. So take the Mayors words for what they are worth.

I like where this is going. I have always said that we aren't trying anything new in OKC. We are only trying to rebuild what our grandparents built, and our parents tore down.

Darn 'Like' button still won't work!!

Sid: it was in numerous campaign literature materials, the City's website etc, and most of the articles I read that mentioned the Transit cost...that the Hub would cost $10 million. Will try to find the revised $128 million article for you...

Sid: it was in numerous campaign literature materials, the City's website etc, and most of the articles I read that mentioned the Transit cost...that the Hub would cost $10 million. Will try to find the revised $128 million article for you...

there was 10mil for the hub and transit connections ... never did that say the hub would be finish out for all time

Folks, that was the implication. $10 million for the Hub... done & gone.


Santa Fe depot called a potential site for downtown OKC transit hub | News OK (http://newsok.com/santa-fe-depot-called-a-potential-site-for-downtown-okc-transit-hub/article/3560500)

Santa Fe depot called a potential site for downtown OKC transit hub (Oklahoman 4/21/11)


The MAPS 3 ballot approved by voters in 2009 includes an estimated $10 million for a transit hub to serve a new $120 million streetcar system.



The $10 million cost had risen to $26 million in this article and ultimately $127 million (even though the Mayor said nothing was being put into MAPS 3 that we couldn't pay for ourselves).
Oklahoma Gazette News: Alternate route (http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-14268-alternate-route.html)
Alternate route, Gazette, January 31st, 2012


The MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board voted Jan. 26 to recommend the City Council approve purchase of the Santa Fe Train Depot to serve as a convergence for several modes of transportation in the city, including car, rail, bicycle and possibly bus.
The city already set aside $10 million of the $127 million in MAPS 3 streetcar funding to pay for the acquisition and streetcar-related improvements to the station.*

But a setback came in late December, when the city learned its application was denied for $17 million from a federal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) III grant. That money was to constitute the majority of $26 million in funding for the city’s planned intermodal transportation hub.
…
The plan 
The three phases of hub construction were estimated to cost around $127 million, spread between federal and state funding, as well as among several cities participating in the regional transit plan.

The $26 million seems tied to Federal funding (in direct contradiction to the Mayor's statement about not putting anything into MAPS 3 that we couldn't pay for ourselves). I can't find any mention of multiple phases etc until after the vote passed.... This is similar to the Convention Center and its multiple phases (but they did let that slip out before the vote, but was barely mentioned.

"This streetcar system we're proposing will be the largest in the country. A good transportation system is a big key to the success of our future. This is about Oklahoma City's future," Mayor Mick Cornett*said to*the crowd Thursday evening.*

If I am not mistaking, at the time the Mayor made that comment that was 100% true. The proposed length was 6 to 8 miles at the time and only 2 modern street cars systems existed in the US - Portland and Seattle. 6 to 8 miles would have been longer than both of those - combined. Since then several other modern streetcar system have been initiated (Atlanta, KC, Cincinnati, Milwaukee) and the Portland system was expanded.

While we are busy talking about it, other cities are doing it.

that was never the implication ... and the 10mil never was raised ...

There is a very nice potential hub, the Santa Fe Station, that hopefully the city will be able to acquire for less than $10 million. It certainly can be intermodal. Then there's the drawing of a dream expansion of the intermodal Santa Fe Station for sometime in the future, when we also dream of commuter rail, possibly high speed rail, as well as streetcar and bus connections. If we don't have dreams for the future, then we're not thinking ahead, and really, what fun would that be? But again, I don't think anyone with a lick of sense thinks we can get the hub of the future for $10 million when people probably wouldn't blink an eye at paying $5 million for the existing one. I suspect you will have the opportunity to vote against the future hub expansion, Larry. People will have the chance to decide if they want a more extensive mass transit system at some point in the future. I'm hoping it's the near future, personally, but it won't happen without voter approval.

I was never under the impression that 10 million would cover the entire hub. I always understood it to be the acquisition and first phase of a multi-phase multi-modal hub.

I was never under the impression that 10 million would cover the entire hub. I always understood it to be the acquisition and first phase of a multi-phase multi-modal hub.

Maybe we can cut to the chase. Everyone who thought $10 million would build a fully functional multimodal transit hub raise your hand.

We have a whole bunch of people on this site who want champagne on beer budgets. They want everything fully developed at once at a grand scale, all for a fraction of what it would actually cost. And done FAST.

If you thought it was a starter hub or phase one, please post articles that led you to that conclusion.

that was never the implication ... and the 10mil never was raised ...
Yes it was...what more proof do you need? All along it was $10 million. Then $26 million. Then $127 million. Facts are facts folks

If I am not mistaking, at the time the Mayor made that comment that was 100% true. The proposed length was 6 to 8 miles at the time and only 2 modern street cars systems existed in the US - Portland and Seattle. 6 to 8 miles would have been longer than both of those - combined. Since then several other modern streetcar system have been initiated (Atlanta, KC, Cincinnati, Milwaukee) and the Portland system was expanded.

While we are busy talking about it, other cities are doing it.

You may be right but I don't recall a 6 to 8 miles ever being mentioned...the 5 to 6 miles is what is stuck up there...if it was 6 to 8, his statement was when MAPS 3 was announced, what caused it to be scaled back to the 5 to 6 miles mentioned during the campaign?

If you thought it was a starter hub or phase one, please post articles that led you to that conclusion.

Here you go.

Santa Fe depot called a potential site for downtown OKC transit hub | News OK (http://newsok.com/santa-fe-depot-called-a-potential-site-for-downtown-okc-transit-hub/article/3560500)


Consultants tasked with guiding site selection for a multimodal transit hub advised Wednesday that the Santa Fe Train Depot is the best fit for a streetcar system and could easily be expanded to accommodate regional commuter rail and national high-speed trains.

BTW - for those who haven't seen it, here is the Hub Study. Lot's of good info including train schedules.

http://www.acogok.org/Newsroom/Downloads11/hubreport.pdf

Maybe we can cut to the chase. Everyone who thought $10 million would build a fully functional multimodal transit hub raise your hand.

Not me - $10million was clearly for acquiring Santa Fe Station and for making some modifications to accomodate the streetcar and hopefully busses (with the hope for additional funds from federal grants and other sources.)

We have a whole bunch of people on this site who want champagne on beer budgets. They want everything fully developed at once at a grand scale, all for a fraction of what it would actually cost. And done FAST.

Champagne tastes, beer budget, but perfectly satisfied with Mad Dog 20/20..... we can, and should, expect better and higher standards of our municipal investments.

As Campaign Director during all of this, I can assure you that $10 mil was thought a reasonable number to buy Santa Fe Station, perform modest upgrades such as lighting, updated air conditioners, Muzak, curtains, signage, and bike racks. We thought the "control center" or "dispatch" might be located there for the streetcar.

No one ever dreamed beyond, maybe... just maybe, there would be enough left over to open up that hidden pedestrian tunnel into Bricktown.

And furthermore, I'd like to point out that the Hub Study wasn't even final at the time of the vote. Volunteers studying the situation were banking that Santa Fe would indeed be the chosen site.

And... that was the result of hundreds of volunteer hours debating schemes without a professional at hand. We were warned against proposing too hard that, that might be site just in case it didn't end up being chosen.

But we went with our instincts, and we were right.

Interesting to hear that these numbers were just "what we thought" and that was many years ago. Its apparent that these numbers where neither real and definitely are not real in todays numbers. Kansas city is spending $100+M on 2.2 Miles of Streetcar. Thats basically $50M/Mile. How are we supposed to get the hub purchased for $10M today as well as a streetcar for $30M less/mile than what KC is doing. These numbers don't work within the MAPS budget. Maybe it was left unsaid, but it seems the city manager was betting on the federal monies which have never happened and will ultimately put this project in jeopardy.

It depends on utilities on the route chosen. Kansas City is 2.2 miles double tracked. IE 4.4 miles of actual trackage. That also happens to be in a utility intense zone of a major street.

I have seen numbers of $3.5 million per mile to $32 million per mile depending on the conflicts.

Obviously, $20 million per mile is on the slightly higher side of the average.

Basicly, we need to price the route chosen. The consultants seem confident and the right people are involved who have done systems efficiently and accomplished the goals in the other cities. It is appropriate to wait for their presentation.

As for the "hub monies" of $10 million, we should be able to accomplish what we set out to do. Buy and preserve the facillity and make modest improvements to it. A Regional Transit Authority should be established to pursue the complete build out of thst facillity, with or without Federal Funds.

No one was or is counting on Federal Funds, then or now.

Kansas City is 2.2 route miles, track miles will be double that so basically $23M/Mile.

Interesting article. Especially the comments. Rail, streetcars or BRT? Transit isn?t one size fits all. - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rail-streetcars-or-brt-transit-isnt-one-size-fits-all/2013/05/03/d0f68784-b36c-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html)

Quick reminder regarding the meeting tonight. Also, we sent out a major email update that I will parse together and post here with clickable assets.

I think some of you may find the you tube videos interesting.

Streetcar and Bus Meetings, Major Railway Bill, TOD (http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Streetcar-and-Bus-Meetings--Major-Railway-Bill--TOD.html?soid=1102681734415&aid=yyacETNoLas)


Streetcar Meeting this Thursday, 6:00 PM, at Downtown Library

Learn all the basics about MAPS 3 Streetcar!


The public is invited to learn about the MAPS 3 Modern Streetcar, streetcar operations and how they are being used around the country by attending a Modern Streetcar 101 community meeting hosted by the City of Oklahoma City and Jacobs Engineering.

The meeting will be held at 6 p.m., Thursday, May 9 on the fourth floor of the Downtown Public Library, 300 Park Avenue. Participation is free and registration is not necessary.

The meeting will give attendees insight on how the MAPS 3 Modern Streetcar may function once it's built. The streetcar is expected to be a catalyst for development and continue the revitalization of downtown Oklahoma City.

Project Manager Mike McAnelly with Jacobs Engineering will discuss the basics of modern streetcars including average speed, turning radius, single and double track options, spacing between stops, and how the streetcars interact with traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists.

"There are many people in the region who have never boarded a modern streetcar and want to know what they can expect from ours," MAPS 3 Program Manager David Todd said. "We will also discuss streetcar systems that are in various stages of implementation in Portland, Seattle, Atlanta, Kansas City and Los Angeles."

Attendees will be presented with analysis from transit plans and studies conducted in Oklahoma City and the metropolitan area including the Fixed Guideway Study, Let's Talk Transit, the Greater Downtown OKC Circulator Alternatives Analysis and the Intermodal Transportation Hub Master Plan.

Funding for a $128.8 million Modern Streetcar project was approved by voters in 2009 as a part of MAPS 3 (Metropolitan Area Projects). The streetcar route is expected to be approved by City Council this summer and construction on the rail is expected to begin in 2014. The rail-based streetcar and a hub will serve downtown Oklahoma City and the number of miles of track constructed will be determined by funding.

The Modern Streetcar project is managed by the City of Oklahoma City's MAPS 3 office. A 10-person Modern Streetcar Subcommittee, made up of residents, provides input to City staff and to the MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board.

This situation is actually amazing. We have worked very hard on this relatively quietly.


OK Railway Commission Bill Gains Steam in House and Senate

House Bill 2180 and Senate Bill 584 have passed the Oklahoma State Legislature unanimously.

The legislation supported by both rail transit and freight railroad shippers alike, would extricate the Rail Division out of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and provide for a new agency with its own oversight board.

Legislators first debated the issue as a potential expansion of government, then determined via debate that such a new agency would actually increase efficiency through focusing ongoing rail management efforts into a more streamlined approach.

It was concluded by legislators that a separate agency would have a significant positive economic affect on the State of Oklahoma's economy through providing more competition and diversity through the private sector, whilst increasing State railroad revenues through seeding broader railroad operations across the State.


RAIL TRANSIT AND RAILROAD SUPPORTERS ENCOURAGED BY UNANIMOUS VOTES

Rail transit and railroad advocates have long argued that ODOT's main focus has been on highway construction.

In the last several decades, ODOT has sold critical right-of-way properties, formerly railroad corridors, to private entities with no oversight. The long term negative implications to the Oklahoma City and Tulsa Metros, short line, long distance line, and the Oil and Gas Industry are now being realized as the State's economy grows and greater accessibility is required.

With its primary focus on highway construction, rail properties have been sold. Critical connections to Tinker Air Force Base, NE Oklahoma, and many export access points for rural Oil and Gas Fields have been lost due to the lack of oversight.

The "highway only" ODOT policies continue as the Department considers further sales of even more extraordinary corridors. With no oversight, critical highway underpasses and overpasses in Oklahoma City, such as the new Kilpatrick Turnpike expansion, I-44/235 Interchange, NE 50th Street overpass, and the new OKC Boulevard Bridge are either completed or underway with no provisions providing for the necessary space for future commuter rail transit that the OKC Metro is considering. This will force the Metro to build these facilities at a premium cost to the taxpayer with every continued, short sighted decision made.


WHERE DO THE BILLS GO FROM HERE?

Both Bills are headed to the State Legislature's Conference Committee for minor revisions.

The final approved Bill is expected to potentially be before Governor Mary Fallin as early as next week.


WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Feel free to contact Governor Fallin and encourage her to sign the final bill for the Oklahoma Railways Commission.

https://www.ok.gov/governor/Contact_the_Governor/index.html#


charlie.joyner@okhouse.gov (405) 557-7314

schulz@oksenate.gov 580-482-0886

tw.shannon@okhouse.gov (405) 557-7374

Presentations on Potential MAPS 3 Streetcar Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

At the December 19, 2012 meeting of the MAPS 3 Transit/Modern Streetcar Subcommittee AJ Kirkpatrick gave two presentations on the potential for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) related to the MAPS 3 Streetcar. The streetcar can be expected to support TOD and in turn increased density will further support the streetcar.

AJ Kirkpatrick (who was with the City of OKC and is now at Downtown OKC) discussed the work he and his colleagues Brandon Melland and Phillip Walters did to dig deeper beyond the data the Planning Department had provided to Jacobs for the downtown streetcar Alternatives Analysis process in 2010 and 2011. They used innovative GIS heat mapping to rate the proximity to and clustering of geographic resources. For existing conditions they scored areas for employment, residential, hotels, retail activity, attraction attendance and major off-street parking. To evaluate areas for potential development they looked at underused land, building vacancies and by how much a lot could support denser development. Their resulting composite map (below) shows clear patterns where both existing and potential conditions would support strong TOD.

AJ's second presentation looked at the potential for increased densification in different parts of greater downtown and how to envisage what such development might look like. Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) is an effective measure of density. It relates the total built floor area to the total lot area, so for example the FAR in Heritage Hills is 0.25 whereas the Devon Energy Center has a FAR of 9.39. Recommend FAR's for TOD range from 0.75 to 1.0. AJ showed how this goal could be achieved in different downtown districts by relating the expected additional floor space to multiples of different types of existing new developments in those areas.

This important work by the City of OKC Planning department provides an objective quantification of the potential for Transit Oriented Development in different parts of downtown and will be a key factor in locating the streetcar route.

The presentations are spread across three separate videos at the OKCspan YouTube site:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itw0-6V2nUo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8lyU3Sg28I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1fWMc5vFZo

This has no chance of getting approved as currently conceived.

http://newsok.com/new-garage-underground-pedestrian-tunnel-extension-planned-for-bricktown/article/3808161?custom_click=pod_headline_financial-news

Has Bob Kemper heard about this?

Ooops. I see Tom Elmore is still around (over in the story link comments)

I agree it won't get approved as rendered. I just don't see them allowing such a modern thing sitting on top of a Bricktownesque lower portion. What about the underground tunnel? I know there are those that oppose any expansion that takes away from street level foot traffic/energy. Thoughts?

Three things: 1) Make sure there is room for future rail service along the existing corridor, 2) The space fronting Main should contain space for something other than parking, and 3) ditch the underground connection (there is nothing wrong with using the sidewalk and in fact, the sidewalk is the preferred route). Separating people on 2 plains should be discouraged at all costs.

This has no chance of getting approved as currently conceived.

New garage, underground pedestrian tunnel extension planned for Bricktown | News OK (http://newsok.com/new-garage-underground-pedestrian-tunnel-extension-planned-for-bricktown/article/3808161?custom_click=pod_headline_financial-news)

So did you talk to Don Karchmer, Cathy O'Connor and Rick Cain and did you do a thorough look at how this project is laid out and came to that conclusion?

So did you talk to Don Karchmer, Cathy O'Connor and Rick Cain and did you do a thorough look at how this project is laid out and came to that conclusion?

maybe he did ... or maybe he talked to the city manager or maybe he talked to several council members who did you talk to steve?

So did you talk to Don Karchmer, Cathy O'Connor and Rick Cain and did you do a thorough look at how this project is laid out and came to that conclusion?

So is it laid out differently from the graphic you used in your article?

So did you talk to Don Karchmer, Cathy O'Connor and Rick Cain and did you do a thorough look at how this project is laid out and came to that conclusion?

Conversations have been had.

Yes I looked at it thoroughly.

No one has called our hub engineer, and asked him anything. And no one, Karchmer, O'Connor, or otherwise has attended an RTD or MAPS 3 meeting to float this by the people actually working on this project.

It's a silly waste of everyone's time and there seems to be absolutely no leadership exerted about any of this on any level. I mean, where is Russell Claus (Planning Director) in these discussions?

I'm confused. Are you saying you talked to Karchmer, O'Connor and Cain about the garage project and had a thorough look at their plans and got to talk about your concerns? So you knew about this garage prior to today? How did Karchmer respond when you told him that you intended to take his land for future transit expansion?

I'm confused. Are you saying you talked to Karchmer, O'Connor and Cain about the garage project and had a thorough look at their plans and got to talk about your concerns? So you knew about this garage prior to today? How did Karchmer respond when you told him that you intended to take his land for future transit expansion?

his land ... you understand most of this land is city owned land right??

Nope. That's not right. Half the land is his; he has a 25-year lease for the remainder of the land.

Now back to my question:
Jeff, are you saying you talked to Karchmer, O'Connor and Cain about the garage project and had a thorough look at their plans and got to talk about your concerns? So you knew about this garage prior to today? How did Karchmer respond when you told him that you intended to take his land for future transit expansion?

Three things: 1) Make sure there is room for future rail service along the existing corridor, 2) The space fronting Main should contain space for something other than parking, and 3) ditch the underground connection (there is nothing wrong with using the sidewalk and in fact, the sidewalk is the preferred route). Separating people on 2 plains should be discouraged at all costs.

I agree with 1 and 2, but on 3, wouldn't it just connect under the railroad and another parking garage? It wouldn't really bypass any retail, restaurant or other enterprise would it? In theory I agree with you, but this seems like a no-harm situation. Everyone using it for the BT side would exit street level anyway.

Conversations have been had.

Yes I looked at it thoroughly.

No one has called our hub engineer, and asked him anything. And no one, Karchmer, O'Connor, or otherwise has attended an RTD or MAPS 3 meeting to float this by the people actually working on this project.

It's a silly waste of everyone's time and there seems to be absolutely no leadership exerted about any of this on any level. I mean, where is Russell Claus (Planning Director) in these discussions?

So you knew about the plans, but no one else did? You, nor anyone else having reviewed the plans raised objections? Having thoroughly reviewed the plans you didn't contact Russel Claus to let them know this is impossible?

Not only that, I think EKG is still going to be 6 lanes ?

Nope. That's not right. Half the land is his; he has a 25-year lease for the remainder of the land.

Now back to my question:
Jeff, are you saying you talked to Karchmer, O'Connor and Cain about the garage project and had a thorough look at their plans and got to talk about your concerns? So you knew about this garage prior to today? How did Karchmer respond when you told him that you intended to take his land for future transit expansion?

1. I said that conversations have been had. I'm not posting on a public forum with whom I have had conversations yet.

2. Its the city's land. I'm not taking his land.

3. I knew that a garage has been broadly discussed and conversations have been had about how those interested in building a garage would need to refer to the City and Regionally adopted Hub Study to inform them as to the constraints of the site.

4. Karchmer, O'Connor, and if there is anyone else, hasn't been to a single MAPS 3 Transit, ACOG, or RTD meeting to present or discuss what they would like to do at the site.

5. If the Oklahoman layout is properly proportional in the image, the conflicts with the turning radius are undeniable.

So you knew about the plans, but no one else did? You, nor anyone else having reviewed the plans raised objections? Having thoroughly reviewed the plans you didn't contact Russel Claus to let them know this is impossible?

I knew a garage was being discussed and both COTPA iand ACOG have been formally aware of our concerns.

1. I said that conversations have been had. I'm not posting on a public forum with whom I have had conversations yet.

2. It's the city's land. I'm not taking his land.

3. I knew that a garage has been broadly discussed and conversations have been had about how those iterested in building a garage would need to refer to the City and Regionally adopted Hub Study to inform them as to the constraints of the site.

4. Karchmer, O'Connor, and if there is anyone else, hasn't been to a single MAPS 3 Transit, ACOG, or RTD meeting to present or discuss what they would like to do at the site.

5. If the Oklahoman layout is properly proportional in the image, the conflicts wit the turning radius are undeniable.

Interesting....
Your original answer was worded in a way that indicated you might have talked to Karchmer and O'Connor. You haven't, have you?
Second. No, it's not all city land. Half of the land belongs to Karchmer. The other half he has a 25-year lease on.
Third, why haven't you guys talked to Karchmer if you had plans for his property? If you don't own it or have control over it (which is the case with both sets of property), how can you control what happens to it? How is a private property owner supposed to know what you want to do with his land unless you contact him? Did you invite him to one of your meetings?
Fourth, I ask again: how thorough of a look have you had the drawings and layouts?

Interesting....
Your original answer was worded in a way that indicated you might have talked to Karchmer and O'Connor. You haven't, have you?
Second. No, it's not all city land. Half of the land belongs to Karchmer. The other half he has a 25-year lease on.
Third, why haven't you guys talked to Karchmer if you had plans for his property? If you don't own it or have control over it (which is the case with both sets of property), how can you control what happens to it? How is a private property owner supposed to know what you want to do with his land unless you contact him? Did you invite him to one of your meetings?
Fourth, I ask again: how thorough of a look have you had the drawings and layouts?

First of all it is the city's plan they adopted the hub study/master plan

And????

1. Your original answer was worded in a way that indicated you might have talked to Karchmer and O'Connor. You haven't, have you?

You asked about three people. Not two.

2. No, it's not all city land. Half of the land belongs to Karchmer. The other half he has a 25-year lease on.

Exactly half? He owns some of it.

3. Third, why haven't you guys talked to Karchmer if you had plans for his property?

Why would we talk to Karchmer? He was partner in the failed attempt to propose this exact, very same site for the new MAPS 3 Convention Center as part of an expansion of the Skirvin. A site that wasn't chosen for the exact same rail related reasons that we are discussing today along with buried utilities. The question is, fully knowing the constraints of the site, why hasn't he approached us?

4. If you don't own it or have control over it (which is the case with both sets of property, how can you control what happens to it?

The City controls what happens to it. Whether that's through policy, the approval process, or an acquisition process you know they are very capable of pursuing.

5. Fourth, I ask again: how thorough of a look have you had the drawings and layouts?

I already answered this. Overlay the site plans, the proposal encroaches.

My answer also has to do with the conversations that I have had with others. It is being suggested by several involved (including Karchmer) that there are alternate ways of operating the rail system that will accommodate their development. Their not posturing to modify their building to accommodate the rail line as designed by the hub consultants. Their posturing that we should change to accommodate them Even if that creates a rail system as inefficient as our bus system, One requiring crazy back-up maneuvers and squealing wheels. But they don't understand those technicalities.

I can't believe we're debating this. Particularly after that Skirvin MAPS 3 Convention Center deal got nixed.

And there are actual decision makers In the city govt that still will follow that plan

And????

And.... It takes leadership and to stand up and say we want a rail system. Volunteers are just helping make sure that remains an option as long as possible.

Honesty is important.