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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Do you think they’re ignoring the Walker input because the city bus goes up Walker?

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.

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.