Everyone’s Talking Transit, but is Anybody Listening?
Today’s guest blogger is Blair Humphreys, who ,has had a great influence on my understanding of urban planning over the past couple of years. I don’t pretend to know as much as Blair knows – but I’m often awed by his ability to beyond conventional thinking and to propose solutions not considered. Blair’s experience includes real world urban development, time spent with Hans Butzer, one of the city’s leading design professionals and professor of architecture at OU, an internship at the Oklahoma City Planning Department, and of course, a front row to seat to the city’s political scene. Blair, a national merit scholar at OU, won national recognition and honors while attending Massachusetts Institute of Technology, from which he graduated last year with a Master in City Planning and Urban Design Certificate. Blair is now an instructor and researcher at the University of Oklahoma, and has been following the Let’s Talk Transit far closer than I.
After seeing comments already made by respected Oklahoma City blogger Doug Loudenback questioning whether real public input was taking place with the downtown transit, I asked Blair to share his insights.
Hey Everyone,
It has been a while since I last blogged over at www.imaginativeamerica.com! I recently moved back to Oklahoma City and am enjoying being home. While a new job (and a new house, and new puppy, etc) have kept me from blogging lately, I believe this issue is extremely important and hope you will find the post worthwhile.
I will be at today’s Lets Talk Transit meeting at 11:30am – hope to see you there!
Best, Blair
—-
INTRODUCTION
The first Let’s Talk Transit meeting was held on March 29, 2010 and the process will finish on Thursday, May 27, with meetings at both 11:30am and 6:00pm. Let’s Talk Transit is the public’s opportunity to interject their thoughts into the decision-making process for the $120 million MAPS 3 streetcar system:
“This is why these meetings are being held so the public can have a voice about what is most important to them. The public’s opinion is vital in meeting the needs of those who work, live and visit downtown.”
- Rick Cain
I was able to attend the first meeting and have kept up with the process by completing surveys, watching videos of meetings, and reviewing the meeting agendas. In fact, Let’s Talk Transit has done a great job making information on the process available. All of the images and/or quotes in this post come from public documents available at: http://www.letstalktransit.com/meetings (#1 – see note). As I have watched and listened, I have developed my own opinions on the best routes for the MAPS 3 Streetcar, and have found myself in agreement with much of the public input to date, but now I am beginning to wonder whether the output of this “public process” will truly represent the input the public gave.
APRIL 13 MEETING
At the second meeting on April 13, 2010, members of the public worked in small groups to layout proposal for the new streetcar routes. There were six tables each of which was asked to take-on the perspective of a potential streetcar rider: resident, worker, and visitor. Figure 1 shows the various proposals that the citizen groups came up with. All of which were aggregated by the consultant to produce the frequency map shown in Figure 2.
Figure 1 – Routes Proposed by Citizens at April 13 Meeting
Figure 2 – Frequency of Routes Proposed by Citizens at April 13 Meeting
So what did the citizens say? What routes had some consensus?
Top routes selected by the citizens at the April 13 meeting:
- Broadway Avenue – 5 out of 6
- Sheridan Avenue – 5 out of 6
- Walker Avenue – 4 out of 6
- N. 10th Street – 3 out of 6
- Stiles Ave – 3 out of 6
Interestingly, if you take a closer look at the individual maps, you find that a majority – 4 out of 6 of the groups – selected both Broadway Avenue and Walker Avenue as a north-south pair with Sheridan Avenue and/or Reno Avenue serving the accompanying east-west connection (#2). In fact, most of the routes are also similar in their use of straight lines and few turns (#3). Given the number of possibilities, to have such a consensus on preferred routes is incredible. It certainly got my attention. But apparently did not impress the consulting team.
APRIL 29 MEETING
The consulting team returned at the next meeting and provided the meeting participants with north-south and east-west route options. There were six north-south route options presented by the consultant – see options – but the Broadway/Walker pair favored by a majority of citizen groups at the previous meeting was not included, and there does not appear to be any explanations as to why. The consultant presented these route options and then, once again, asked the citizens to work in groups to sketch out their own route proposals.
Figure 3 – Routes Proposed by Citizens at April 29 Meeting
Figure 4 - Frequency of Routes Proposed by Citizens at April 27 Meeting
Once again, the citizens showed a very clear consensus on routes with at least 5 out of 6 groups proposing a route that included Broadway, Walker and/or Sheridan. The bright red line – visible in Figure 4 – outlines the core of a simple system on which the majority of the public participants agreed (#4). When you combine the preferred routes from the April 13 meeting with these proposals from the April 27 meeting you get the following:
North-South Routes:
- Broadway Avenue – 10 out of 12
- Walker Avenue – 9 out of 12
- Lincoln Boulevard – 6 out of 12
- Walnut Avenue – 5 out of 12
- Hudson Avenue – 5 out of 12
- Stiles Avenue – 4 out of 12
- Robinson Avenue – 1 out of 12
East-West Routes:
- Sheridan Avenue – 11 out of 12
- N. 10th Street - 8 out of 12
- Harrison Ave – 6 out of 12 (#5)
- N. 4th Street – 5 out of 12
- N. 13th Street – 4 out of 12
- The Boulevard – 3 out of 12
So what is the public saying? The only routes shown on a majority of the citizen’s proposals were Broadway and Walker running north-south, and Sheridan and 10th Street running east-west. Also noteworthy is the strength of both Lincoln and Harrison, which speaks to a desire by the public to connect to the Health Sciences Center complex (#6). And once again I will point out the public’s consistency in producing simple systems made up of straight-lines and few turns.
MAY 11 MEETING
At the May 11 Meeting the consultants presented three “conceptual” alignments – see Figure 5 – that were “drawn based on input from past public meetings and the results’ of [the consultant's] analysis.”
Figure 5 - Consultants Conceptual Alignments Presented at May 11 Meeting
Of the three “options” presented, none include the Broadway/Walker north-south pair favored by the public. In fact, only one includes N. Broadway at all, despite the overwhelming support of the public for this route. And while Sheridan is partially included in all three options, none of the consultant’s three options use the straight route on Sheridan found in the majority of the proposals by the public. Also gone is the simplicity of the system favored by the public’s proposals, replaced by an ever-winding path of turns and loops reminiscent of our much maligned rubber-tire trolley system. Some of this winding is done in order to incorporate two options with a Boulevard route, even though this route had little support from the public. According to the meeting summary, Option #1 was the favorite of the citizens in attendance. However, the summary also mentions that a number of concerns were vocalized, including a plea for Broadway to be used instead of Robinson. Of course, this begs the question: how could the consultants take the input of the public which favored Broadway in 10/12 compared to Robinson in 1/12, and decide Robinson was the better choice? Surely the citizen’s input is worth more than that?
MAY 27 MEETING
It was my hope that the routes to be presented at the May 27 meeting would revert back to the public’s wishes and provide a simple system incorporating Broadway/Walker and Sheridan, but the newest “options” – see Figure 6 or download pdf – continue to stray from the input given by the citizens. While the exclusion of Broadway has been changed in 2 out of 3 of the options, the clean Broadway-10th-Walker connection favored by citizens is confused in a series of interconnected loops and bends. And the continuous east-west connection along Sheridan that was preferred by the citizen groups is forfeited, it would seem, so that two of the options can include a Boulevard route. There is no simplicity, few strong corridors, and very little evidence of citizen input.
Figure 6 - Consultants Final Options Presented at May 27 Meeting
CONCLUSION
These routes will be presented by the consultant today – Thursday, May 27 – in public meetings held at 11:30am and 6:00pm in the City Hall Council Chamber. While the consultant will no doubt claim that these routes were “created using the input received from citizen surveys, hands-on exercises and through open discussion,” all evidence points to the contrary. This is not an insignificant fact. The consultant’s “options” will be placed in the hands of decision-makers that select the final routes and they will be told this represents the public input received during the Let’s Talk Transit process. Mr. Cain stated at the beginning of the process that these meetings are being held so that “the public can have a voice,” but what good is a voice, if no one will listen (#7).
notes
- Give it up for the meeting planners and public relations team. Thank you!
- The April 13 groups that included Broadway & Walker for N-S, with Sheridan and/or Reno for E-S are: 1, 2, 3 & 5
- This typically provides a system with higher degrees of legibility for the user
- Once again, notice that the public recommends simple routes with few turns
- A Harrison line typically connects east-west via N. 4th Street or north-south via Walnut Ave.
- I have heard a lot of people say that even though the HSC has no housing or retail attractions, it makes sense because the workers will ride the trolley to lunch in Bricktown. Sounds great. However, it will take at least one mile of track – or $20 million – to connect to the HSC. And with a 127 passenger capacity and no better than 10 minute frequency between cars, you will not see more than 500 riders per day (or 500 x 250 work days = 125,000 riders per year). Even at municipal bond rates (5% per year on $20 million) this works out to a cost of $8 per rider per year in infrastructure investment (not including operating costs). And the likely routes feature comparitively very little in adjacent development opportunities
- Thank you to Steve for giving me the opportunity. And once again, I apologize for the length of my post(s).
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
Thanks Blair. That was very informative. I unfortunately had to miss all of the meetings and so your information was very helpful.
I work at the Health Sciences Center and live downtown. So, a line running from downtown to the Health Sciences Center would be great for me. I could easily ride to work. So, you would think I have a very strong interest in having a line there, and I would, if we had unlimited miles to work with.
Since we don’t, I completely agree that we don’t have the potential use to make it worth our limited number of miles available. Eliminating the Health Sciences line would allow us to extend elsewhere, and I think that should be to Union Station. I understand that we have nothing there right now, but we will, sooner rather than later, and I think we need to think ahead.
Great post Blair. I guess we’ll find out in the end.
I’m really surprised at how much the meetings have progressed since the beginning. I had my doubts in the beginning as the meetings seemed strictly informational but it definitely has taken a much more proactive approach.
Private interests will alwyas outweigh “public” input no matter how many meetings you have or how much input you collect. This is merely protocal for the city to be able to say “we already had a public input process now this is what we are going to do”
Great job, Blair! I often walk to Plaza Court or over east on 13th Street to Beatnix but rarely do I walk all the way downtown. I’d love to be able to hop on a street car at 13th and Walker or even 10th and Walker.
Do you think they’re ignoring the Walker input because the city bus goes up Walker?
Hey Everyone, attended the meeting this morning and while I was still disappointed with the final “options” presented, I will say that I am encouraged by the response of COTPA officials and the consultant team.
Had one question sent to me via email and wanted to take a stab at answering it here so as to contribute to the discussion:
“I was wondering if the consultants gave any specific explanation for the configuration their routes and for moving away from the public’s proposed routes?”
After talking it over with Mike McAnelly of Jacobs Engineering, I think the consultant let a few considerations override the public’s input.
First and foremost was the idea of doing a “coupled pair” on the N-S routes and making sure the N-S tracks were within two blocks of each other. Thus, in their minds, pairs like Broadway/Robinson, or Robinson/Hudson make sense while Broadway/Walker does not. While I appreciate the thinking (it worked for Portland), I do not think it was within the consultants purview to deviate so drastically from the public’s desired corridors. Even if a Broadway-10th-Walker loops is not advisable due to operational concerns, it is still quite possible and has some advantages. Also, just double-tracking Broadway, the citizen’s most preferred N-S route, could deliver both the system simplicity desired by the public and provide a density of activity that would promote the urban density necessary for future ridership.
The second reason the consultant ignored the public, it seems, was more concern was given for connecting destinations than for developing the public’s preferred corridors. This is what ultimately leads to the confused system with few significant linear segments that instead attempts to “touch” every destination.
Finally, the one deviation that I can not figure is the choice to ignore the public’s overwhelming support of Sheridan from Bricktown to Walker. I asked at the meeting why none of the “options” included the segment of Sheridan in front of Devon Tower, but failed to get a firm answer. I did learn after the meeting that Sheridan is being limited to having only one track due to complications stemming from Project180. If this is true, then unfortunately there is no chance for the double-tracked Sheridan route traveling from the new OCU Law building to Bricktown. This is an option I have heard favored by many and one that appears repeatedly in the citizen’s route maps. Of course, a Sheridan/Reno “coupled pair” is still possible, even likely, except for the fact that some unrecognizable force seems set on the Boulevard instead.
Hope that helps.
Thanks, Blair. I would think that beyond technical considerations, the most important thing is user-friendliness, and to me that means long, straight routes so that people can look 4 or 5 blocks down Broadway or Sheridan and see that the streetcar is approaching. I’ve also wondered about “coupled pairs” versus more loop-like system. I see the merit to the coupled pair but also really am drawn to Walker and Broadway.
It definitely would be disappointing if this is not a worthwhile public process- the public in this case understands how the streetcar would be used, by whom and to get where, better than a consulting firm. Looks like the consulting firm should be focusing more on meshing public input with technically possible routes.
Good points Shane.
I must say, that to some extent the consultant is between a rock and a hard place. Not sure who the “hard place” is, but we should remember not to kill the messenger.
There are just so many variables I don’t see how we are going to get informed input. Sure, we all have opinions as to where the line should go, and some of us (Blair) have a better idea as to the feasibility of those locations, but by and large I can’t see how most of the suggestions are not just guesses.
If you want me to pick a location, I would like to have some tools and data.
A project I would love to see is to have an online site where citizens can go and draw routes. Layer known data like residency, employment, traffic count, estimated costs etc, and then add some dynamic data like headway times based on the route chosen.
Then, I can draw map, get a guess as to how many residents, workers, and tourists I would be serving; know about how much it will cost; and know things like headway times.
This probably sounds like a bit much to ask the city to build but scenario software already exists. The hardest part would simply to make it online and give access to the public so they can “save” their route.
Perhaps even the best route wins some OKCBucks that can be cashed in for a ride around with the chief (Manor, Texas does this) or credit on your utility bill.
I am all for getting input but it needs to be informed input.
I’ve finished my own analysis of the final Let’s Talk Transit session … it is here. From comments by Mike McAnalley both during but most particularly after the evening session concluded, the omission of Walker in the 3 proforma routes was a mistake and he took the blame for it. I am now quite satisfied that Let’s Talk Transit was legit in its desire to (1) get public input and (2) use that input in forming the streetcar routes.
Whether those higher in the pecking order will do the same remains an open question, but hopefully the sincerity of the Let’s Talk Transit people will have a “trickle-up” effect. My article goes into much greater detail than I’ll present here.
But, in short, I give Let’s Talk Transit a 5-star rating … they did very well.
Looks like the consultants want a complicated route so the riders will get confused and lost if they are from out of town.
Very well done, Blair, as always. Your thoughts are an aide to answering the question I’ve had and have vocalized about this process from the get-go … I’ll reserve final judgment until after attending this evening’s meeting, but it does appear that the process of selecting routes has not been particularly, if at all, influenced by the March-May process. I’m not jumping up and down about that since I don’t think that I’m qualified to select the routes and I’m of the opinion that is best done by people who have the professional moxie to do so.
But, if the premise that the meetings are (and were from the outset) window dressing is correct, I do agree that it would have been better for Let’s Talk Transit to say so at the outset rather than leading those attending to think that all of our chart drawing, etc., really mattered, other than just having fun.