Rock Star Thinks Illegal Advertising is OK?
Rock Star Energy Drinks seems to think it’s OK to hang up illegal advertisements like the one above in front of the Sheraton Hotel and below along Main Street, across from Stage Center.
And since they seem to want us to know more about their product, I figured I’d help out with the following links:
- Misleading ingredient labels and potentially deadly? Read here.
- Are energy drinks bad news for athletes? Read here.
- “It tasted terrible.” Read here.
- Severe stomach pain. Read here.
And finally…. “Caffeine-Stoked Energy Drinks Worry Doctors,”:
A University of Wisconsin study of 14 students found that two energy drink ingredients, caffeine and taurine, didn’t improve short-term memory but led to slower heart rates and higher blood pressure. Since some energy drink ingredients generally speed up heart rates, the researchers could only speculate on the cause.
Carol Ann Rinzler, author of “Nutrition for Dummies,” examined the labels of the top three energy drinks.
“The labels simply don’t deliver all the facts,” she said. “For example, while all list caffeine as an ingredient, and most tell you exactly how much caffeine is in the drink, they also list guarana, a caffeine source, as a separate ingredient but don’t tell how much caffeine one gets from the guarana.”
Rinzler said energy drinks also deliver a huge hit of sugar.
“Drink more than one and you get lots of sugar — 14 teaspoons in two cans, 21 teaspoons in three,” she said. Add in megadoses of some vitamins; unnecessary nutrients (taurine) and more caffeine than plain sodas and you get “a fast up-and-down sugar high and a really rough caffeine buzz,” she said. “And drinking two or three cans a day for a period of weeks or months might trigger some side effects from the vitamin megadoses.”
A Broken Ride?
The Oklahoma City Council will meet with trustees of the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority Tuesday. And a lot of folks downtown will be watching and listening.
They include:
- The Bricktown Association, which is asking that the Oklahoma Spirit Trolleys actually be a part of the solution to the district’s parking challenges.
- Urban Neighbors, the downtown residents association which feels the trolleys are not set up to encourage people to leave their cars at their downtown abodes.
As I’ve mentioned before, the Oklahoma Spirit trolleys have been quietly and consistently demoted as an afterthought by COTPA, even as it presumed that its failure to adequately run a a downtown circulator didn’t preclude it from attempting a river boat transit service that duplicated a rarely-used trolley link between downtown and the I-40/Meridian Avenue hotel corridor.
The hours were cut. The routes were cut. Wait times were extended. Even though COTPA officials were asked early on about providing signage outside the trolleys to better inform people about stops on a trolley’s route, they made no effort to do so (such signs are used on similar trolleys with great success in San Antonio).
The names of the people involved in this effort a decade ago are the same names making decisions today. Rick Cain. Larry Hopper. The only one no longer in the mix is former director Randy Hume, who resigned following a budgeting error that cost the city a couple million or so from the feds.
So, what should be done to address the concerns of the Bricktown Association and Urban Neighbors?
Why?
Today we start off with a new feature at OKC Central – Why?
I now know that this blog is getting read by an interesting mix of people throughout downtown. So why not use it to ask some really uncomfortable questions? And while we’re at it, let’s just send a photo to the appropriate people with just one question: “Why?”
So, the following photo is going out via email tomorrow to Planning Director Russell Claus, Mayor Mick Cornett, and the two people in charge of the city’s fire code inspections, Deputy Chief Bryan Heirston and District Chief Kellie Lee.
Let’s see if they respond. In the meantime, any of you readers care to take a shot at this same question?
The apparent junk yard at NW 10 and Harvey. Why?
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).
No More Crack Houses, No More Sex Offenders
Bert Belanger kept to his word and bulldozed a series of flop houses on Broadway Drive that have been an annoyance to downtowners for the past 20 years. There is something seriously wrong with a property when the arrival of sex offenders is considered an improvement over the previous tenants. The sex offenders were forced to move out earlier this year after neighbors complained they were to close to the Oklahoma School and Science and Math. It was then that Bert bought the properties from Hand Up Ministries.
Bert is to appear at Downtown Design Review Committee this week on plans to tear down the neighboring former nursing home, which has been empty for several years and is also a less than flattering image for passersby driving into Automobile Alley.
Another Eyesore About to be History
This beauty at 100 NE 8 has looked like this for quite some time. And until 2006, it was owned by the Corsair Cattle Co., which also owned the former Pat’s Lounge building on NW 10 now being renovated by Greg Banta.
The billboard is an interesting approach to zoning. This property is visible to thousands who travel I-235 into downtown.
The property was sold to the Triangle development group in 2006 for $353,000, and they are now seeking to have the building torn down.
History?
I can’t remember a time when these duplexes along Broadway Drive at NW 11 were anything but trouble for downtown. Several years ago they were well known crack houses. Hand Up Ministries bought them, fixed them up, and then turned them into halfway houses for sex offenders. The neighborhood didn’t like that either, and by last fall, authorities were responding to complaints that they were illegally within the prohibited range of a school (the Oklahoma School of Math and Sciences). Anyway, by winter, they were history.
They’ve quickly fallen into disrepair, extensively vandalized – likely by copper thieves. Anyway, Bert Belanger admits they are his now, and he is preparing to tear them down for an undisclosed future development.
Now, what would work well on this site (and realize his holdings will including the junk yard to the east on NW 11 and the boarded up nursing home across the street, which he also says will be cleared).
Read my story here.
UPDATE: Old Downtown Guy, a man definitely in the know about what’s happening in the city, comments on Bert’s past work and predicts that housing may be on the way for Broadway Drive. Read his comments here at www.okctalk.com.
For What It's Worth
DayPortPlayer.newPlayer({articleID:"37781",categoryID:"5",rootCategory:"83",domain:"kutv.dayport.com",playerInstanceID:"6079F2D7-64DE-7731-AEBE-0BBA248311D6"});
Eyesores
304 NE 3 – The heart of Deep Deuce and nominated for Worst Downtown Eyesore.
Let’s see now… it’s been boarded up since at least 2002, it has broken windows and the siding is peeling off. I know it was placed at least once on the city’s “long-term boarded-up buildings” list but not sure if any action followed.
Oklahoma County Assessor records show the building was built in 1915 and is owned by Melvin F. Luster.
The Eyesore List
A couple of weeks ago I posted the following question at www.okctalk.com: what are the worst downtown eyesores?
Here’s the list they compiled:
———————————-
Stage Center
Old Downtown Library
DEQ Building
AT&T campus
Former Stewart Metal buildings
304 NE 3 (Deep Deuce)
City Detox
Former Fox Collission Building
Bob Howard Ford
Union Bus Station
First National Arcade
Trigen
Garage at Kerr and Harvey
Park Harvey Building
Former nightclub at Main and Walker
Goodyear Tire store
Browns bakery
Dowell Center
Bricktown Parking Garage
U-Haul building in Bricktown
Cotton Coop
Finley building
Bass Pro
Century Center
Harkins Theater
So, what’s next? I’ve got a camera, and I’m preparing to take some photos of these “eyesores.” Then I’ll provide details on some of these properties, followed by a poll here at www.okccentral.com. The more of you who vote in this poll, the more likely it is you might nudge someone to make some improvements. Now, quiz time friends… which one of these “eyesores” is the only Oklahoma City property to win one of the highest architectural honors possible? Which property was deemed one of the city’s most significant architectural landmarks by a panel of architects and preservationists? Which building is owned by dedicated urban pioneers who have led in their district’s revival? And which building is closest to becoming history?
