More Reflections on the Oklahoma River
Virtually everything shown in this rendering is set to become reality within the next few years.
In today’s OKC Central column, I reflect on the possibility that we are witnessing the re-emergence of a 21st century Delmar Gardens along the Oklahoma River.
Look at the above rendering… and consider that everything you see, and more, is funded and will become a reality within the next few years.
Some of the improvements, including an extension of the river inlet through Regatta Park that will stop just short of the Bricktown Canal south terminus, is nearing completion (water began flowing back in through the dam last week).
The following photos were provided by an OKC Central contributor:
The above photo shows the river inlet extension as it goes under the new I-40 bridge just south of the Bricktown Canal.
The first section of the SandRidge Skytrail, meanwhile, is up and running:
It is not, however, quite done. Consider the full project, which will be built over this next year:
And then consider, also along boathouse row, we will have a whitewater rapids venue built as part of MAPS 3:
It is purely my fantasy, but one I think is worth considering, that the Boathouse Foundation or city buy the Santa Monica Pier Ferris Wheel from the Humphreys family, get architect Rand Elliott to design a great platform for it, and include it as a part of this 21st century Delmar Gardens:
The Santa Monica Pier Ferris Wheel, shown lit up at night before it was purchased by the Humphreys family for their once envisioned river development at the old downtown airpark.
Plans Advancing for Canal Extension
Nothing very controversial here from what I can see. The extension of the canal segment from the Oklahoma River would allow it to go under the new I-40 bridge and stop just south of the Bricktown Canal. It appears that the project also adds a pedestrian bridge over the river segment, and creates a series of water features, plazas and landscaping at the northern tip of the river segment to provide a better linkage and view for visitors. This items is up at Board of Adjustment Thursday for a variance on lighting heights.
Catching Up on OKC Central
Ah, the life of a newspaper guy in the multi-media world. Doing this job is like playing whack-a-mole. Get ahead on feeding the daily beast (the paper and NewsOK), and you get behind on doing the NewsOK videos. Master those two, and you get behind on either blogging or social media. Add in the challenge of meeting book deadlines, raising a family, well, it’s all quite the balancing act for us all, isn’t it?
So I’ve been remiss in posting the past couple of weeks, and I’ve got a terrible backlog. I’m trying to rectify that this morning.
First up: this wonderful video by Will Hider, documenting the progress on Devon Energy Center, the Skydance Bridge and the new I-40, the riverfront, and downtown in general. It’s long, but at least enjoy the first several minutes (including great footage of the new bridge).
New Skyline
A new skyline
Consider for a second that we will likely see at least one more mid-rise to high-rise added to this picture and two more boat houses.
History in the Eyes of the Beholder?
The Oklahoma River at Regatta Park - photo from www.dougdawg.blogspot.com
Apparently I’m being taken to task for writing last week that the Oklahoma River (then known as the North Canadian River) was an embarrassment to city residents before improvements were made as part of the original MAPS program.
An early day photo of a North Canadian River crossing south of downtown.
Except the river south of downtown was anything but a broad flood plain with seasonal water flow, nor was it in its native state in the years following World War II through the 1990s. A Corps of Engineers flood-control project in the 1950s ensured against that. The Corps straightened the river, lined it with rocks, and designed it to drain as quickly as possible.
Mark Klett (American, b. 1952) Canadian River near Wiley Post Park, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, July 1991 Gelatin silver print, image/sheet: 16 x 20 in. (40.64 x 50.8 cm) Oklahoma City Museum of Art. Purchase, 1991.065 © Mark Klett
The river, prior to MAPS, was frequently referred to as an embarrassment and a ditch. I’m sticking to my story.
Oklahoma River Cruisers: $155 Per Passenger
Every now and then I like to get updates on the finances of the Oklahoma River Cruisers, which are operated by Hornblower Marine on behalf of the city, the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority, and the Oklahoma Riverfront Redevelopment Trust.
The cruises are entering their third season, and it looks like the city is considering continuing its $700,000 annual subsidy of the operation.
In comparison, the city as of last year had a net PROFIT of $484,329.81 from a decade of operations of the canal water taxis. The water taxi’s exceed 100,000 passengers a year. The river cruisers carried a little over 19,000 passengers the first year – a number that plummeted last year – its second season. When you divide the $700,000 by 12 months, and divide that figure by the 397 passengers carried for April, the last available report for the river boats, you end up with the city spending $155 per passenger for a ride that was originally billed as public transit, but is now acknowledged to be a excursion cruise ride.
This $155 per passenger does not include capital costs paid for through federal taxpayer dollars. At yesterday’s city council meeting a budget for 2010/2011 was proposed that maintains current subsidies for the river boats but would cut bus service on routes that have seen increases in ridership.
Season 1:
What was the Operating budget?
FY 09 Budget – $2,019,264
Actual $1,033,090
How much of that came from private funding sources?
$100,000 for marketing efforts from Devon
What was the City’s subsidy?
$700,000
What was the Federal contribution? Were there any requirements for how this money had to be used?
None. Ferry Boat Discretionary Funds are for capital projects only.
What was the first season’s ending ridership for regular schedule?
19,397 plus charters
Season 2:
What was the Operating budget?
FY 10 Budget – $1,244,003
Since this fiscal year has not closed, we’re not able to calculate budget actuals at this time.
How much of that came from private funding sources?
None.
What was the City’s subsidy?
$700,000
What was the Federal contribution? Were there any requirements for how this money had to be used?
$200,000. Capital Cost of Contracting from Stimulus allows for a 40% recovery from the contracted operator expenditures.
Was there a service reduction? If so, how much and was there any savings due to the reduction?
Yes. 35% fewer trips. Savings were realized in crew costs and fuel.
What was the second season’s ending ridership?
11,979 plus charters
Season 3:
What was the Operating budget?
Proposed FY 2011 – $1,153,310
How much of that came from private funding sources?
None.
What was the City’s subsidy?
$700,000
What was the Federal contribution? Were there any requirements for how this money had to be used?
$280,000 budgeted. Capital Cost of Contracting from Stimulus allows for a 40% recovery from the contracted operators expenditures.
Was there a service reduction? If so, how much and was there any savings due to the reduction?
Yes. 21% fewer trips. Savings will be realized in crew costs and fuel.
What was the ridership up through May 31 of this season?
372 riders in April. Ridership from the operator for May has not yet been reported.
Checking in with the “Boathouse District”
Yep, that’s the name. New to me too, and it’s hard for me not to just call this area “boathouse row.” But check out the update on the Devon Boathouse. I’m adding http://boathousedistrictdevelopment.blogspot.com/ to my blog list.
Will You Have Your Say?
Last night while speaking at MidTown Rotary I was asked what will be on a MAPS 3 ballot. I will tell you what I told them: if you want the items on this ballot to be decided by this city’s top business and civic leaders, then stay quiet. If you want the council and mayor to reflect your wishes, then NOW is the time to let them know what they are.
To date we’ve heard the following items pushed for a MAPS 3 ballot:
- $450 million to $600 million for a new convention center (this one is almost a certainty being pushed by Mayor Cornett and the chamber).
- $79 million for a new State Fair Park exhibit hall (question: why can’t this be funded by the permanent hotel room tax?)
- Unspecified amount for river improvements (this one has strong momentum among the city’s civic leadership).
- Unspecified amount for a central park (which many say is Mayor Cornett’s desire for a “legacy”).
- Unspecified amount for an extension of the Bricktown Canal which would connect Bricktown with a new convention center, Ford Center and the Myriad Gardens. This one has been supported by Urban Neighbors, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the All Sports Association. But it has not gained a lot of visible support by the mayor or civic leaders.
- Transit. Many say a poor presentation by COTPA’s Rick Cain seriously hurt this proposal, but Cornett insists there will likely be a transit “component” on a MAPS 3 ballot. But what does this mean? Supporters are suspicious.
You can email Mayor Mick Cornett at mayor@okc.gov or call his office at 297-2424. Other council members’ contact info can be found at www.okc.gov.
You’ve been advised.
Shall A Canal Run Through It?
Online Surveys & Market Research
I’m still a bit bewildered as to why I’m hearing no discussions of a canal extension in connection to the planned Devon tower TIF or expansion of Ford Center. A canal extension ranked high with residents responding to a MAPS 3 survey – higher than improvements along the Oklahoma River, which do seem to be very much a priority for folks at City Hall.
So, here’s the first of a series of polls. The first poll asks if you want to see a canal extension that would take the waterway past Ford Center and to the Myriad Gardens.
My next poll will weigh interest in further improvements to the canal versus improvements to the river. My final poll will ask how many of you have visited the canal or taken a cruise on a canal taxi versus visiting the river or riding the river boats.
(Yes, I’m very well aware these questions might be unpopular with some folks. But I lost the Mr. Popularity vote a long time ago, so I’m OK with that).
Now You've Done It… You Just Had to Egg Me On
Former MetroTransit director Randy Hume, back when trolleys were shinny and new, and could be counted on to hit pretty much every corner of downtown every 10 minutes (and five minutes during the lunch hour). Sure, the map wasn’t easy to follow, but compare it to what’s out there today (if you can find it on COTPA’s web site).
Steve Newlon, a board member with Urban Neighbors, suggested we go a bit more in-depth on the blog with the group’s report on public transit. I couldn’t agree more. So let’s take a look at their actual report:
TASK- The UN Transportation Subcommittee has reviewed the Public Transportation options in the Downtown area. This review of current transportation ability was stimulated by concerns regarding the success and programming of the existing system.
ASSESMENT- Urban Neighbors has solicited input from its membership of downtown residents and workers as well as tourists and the general public. We have engaged in a fruitful dialogue with Metro Transit and we have reviewed available information and opinions to analyze the current situation.
FINDINGS- The subcommittee realizes that the current available transit service is faced with many challenges. The downtown areas use has changed dramatically over the past decade with new potential transit users and trip needs. The existing transit system is-
1. Poorly understood by the General Public (my comment: Urban Neighbors is being kind. How much time and money has been invested into educating the public about the Oklahoma Spirit trolleys compared to what has been spent on the new river cruisers?)
2. Faces low ridership on key routes (ah, but why? When the trolleys started, they had much better ridership. Numbers dropped as MetroTransit lengthened wait times, trimmed service and lengthened routes? Coincidence?)
3. Timings and actual arrivals at stops are inconsistent (Um, yeah)
4. Stops are poorly identified (Um, yeah)
5. Stops feature limited information (Route maps, schedule times and
actual arrivals) (Um, yeah)
6. Hours of service are limited and poorly advertised (um, yeah)
7. Onboard stop information is inconsistent or not available (um, yeah)
8. Existing system is not configured for 2008 and future ridership demographics in 2008 and the future (um, yeah)
(Come on folks, is all you’ve got? Other complaints I’ve heard include the “friendliness” of the drivers and the upkeep of the trolleys).
The primary existing downtown service is provided by the “trolley-like” bus vehicles funded through the MAPS I initiative. Some parts of this service have been discontinued due to low ridership or funding pressures since its inception. Some operational funding has been redirected from downtown to other areas at various times over the 10 years of operation. The existing system is poorly understood by the general public.
This confusion has caused poor ridership on routes that should exhibit higher ridership. Existing and new riders are often challenged by the inconsistent service delivery. In our assessment period, we received many complaints regarding late or no arrivals. While several stops are clearly identified at the Ford
Center, OKC National Memorial, and Bricktown, most stops are not clearly obvious.
Many stops appear undistinguishable from standard bus stops unless directly read by pedestrian traffic. These “regular” stops feature only limited signage and do not display running time, actual arrival time, and projected arrival time. Actual riders of the system have responded that the information regarding upcoming stops and or points of interest are not consistently conveyed by onboard signage or audible announcement.
(Interesting note here: way, way back when, back when the trolleys were launched a decade ago, I asked then MetroTransit director Randy Hume if they had thought about using exterior trolley signs like those used by similar shuttles in San Antonio that clearly identified major attractions along the route. Randy told me then they’d “think about it.” Here’s another question: how much would a half dozen or so signs cost compared to what’s being spent on advertising for the river cruisers? Yes, I’ll keep bringing up this comparison because the river cruisers were launched as a form of public transit. Should a city be ensuring existing transit is being well run and funded before launching into an entirely new and untested form of public transit?)
The most challenging aspect of the current system is that it does not efficiently serve the needs of the growing and diversified downtown community. Existing routes and stops are primarily configured for tourism. (Here’s another question: was the west route, the Orange route, based on need or political interests? Before the River Cruisers started up, the Orange Route was averaging 11 passengers a day).
New citizen demographics and needs have evolved with new residential, office, health care and medical research development. Diversified business growth, new neighborhood corridors, and continued entertainment development lead to increased demand for Public Transportation, especially as fuel costs rise.
SOLUTIONS
1. Conduct detailed analysis to establish new routes
2. Determine reprogramming operational costs
3. Reprogram system routes
4. Rehabilitate existing vehicles
5. Design and install distinctive stop locations
6. Improve and expand hours of service
7. Use current technology to improve user information of scheduled and actual arrivals
8. Embark on comprehensive marketing and information campaign
9. Improve onboard experience with automated and consistent stop announcements
10. New infrastructure should be designed for easy migration to a modern, ecological, customer friendly transit system The Transportation Subcommittee recommends that a detailed analysis should be conducted of potential new routes.
Public and private input must be solicited from business, residential, development, entertainment, and tourism stakeholders. The input gathered should identify routes that service these various demographics, in order to maintain good ridership levels during all operational hours.
Certain specific demographics may entice more direct routes, but stability and consistent ridership will help maintain the health of the system. Also, a diverse and eclectic ridership would justify a broadened daily operational period. Upon considering the data collected from stakeholders and available statistics, an optimal transit routing solution must be priced out. The system should be reprogrammed to the level of funds available and desired for further economic development.
The existing operational “trolley-like” vehicles should be rehabilitated cosmetically and functionally for their remaining three years before they are life-expired. They should be reprogrammed with new onboard features for their prospective new uses. Bins, shelving, cargo nets, and other storage amenities should be incorporated to assist with groceries and other physical goods.
Current technology should be incorporated for automated GPS activated audible and visual indicators regarding upcoming stops and tourist interest. The vehicle routes should be more clearly identified via vehicle colors or the reinstatement of the colored flag bumper indicators. Such enhancements will distinguish vehicles for pedestrian interaction. Distinctive, downtown-specific stop designators should be designed to incorporate operational information.
These designators should also include current technology with GPS displays or audible signal to indicate the actual arrival time of a vehicle. Such designators could also incorporate kiosk features with additional relevant information. They should also be designed for authorized removal and transfer to new locations for future system upgrades or re-alignment. A comprehensive public information and marketing campaign must be implemented to increase awareness and ridership of the reprogrammed system. Such marketing will reinforce the accessibility and utility of the system to all potential user demographics. In addition, the ridership experience should be improved with vehicle operators that are trained in enhanced customer service.
The personal interface between “trolley” operators and riders should follow the “Downtown Ambassador” model. Vehicle operators should be helpful in assisting customers with diverse knowledge of downtown, vehicle stops, points of interest, and available amenities. They should also assist downtown residents who have special needs including the proper stowage of physical items.
OTHER FINDINGS- The Urban Neighbors Transportation Subcommittee noted in its initial surveys and interaction with potential users that increased fares to cover enhanced services would be acceptable. The subcommittee emphasizes that the existing “trolley-like” bus vehicles have a limited life expectancy and encourages the benefits and experience of a re-programmed system to be migrated over to permanent future solutions. There is great desire for a modern transportation solution that can permanently service the downtown and central city where density levels increasingly significantly.
The success of improvements to the existing system should assist in the future development of transportation in all areas of the Oklahoma City metroplex.
(Final note: Don’t expect Urban Neighbors to be the only group to weigh in on the trolleys. Bricktown is next).
