Here's one place:

You have it exactly backwards. C2S was a City response to a highway project that was shoved down the throats of OKC by a state agency, ODOT. City officials at the time while generally supportive of replacement of the I-40 crosstown due to maintenance/safety issues were mostly against the alignment that now exists. They had very little say in any of it, and again the highway replacement happened at the behest of state and federal agencies to comply with modern federal highway standards and to stem the state cost in maintaining the crumbling crosstown.

This is very similar to the much-needed I-44 widening project in Tulsa, which you will likely never hear a single OKC resident grumble about.



Shoved down the throats? And you want to compare I-44 in Tulsa to I-40 in Oklahoma City? Really?

Read this article from February 1989 (yes, 1989, more than 23 years ago):
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?no=subj&articleid=41269

The I-44 widening project was started in 1984 when ODT hired an engineer to start planning the highway. 1984. The engineer was hired with plans to start construction in 12-18 months and be done in 5 years. This article from ’89 is complaining about yet another delay. The plan at the time of the article was to start the section west of Yale in 1990 with bids being put out in March 1989 and the section east of Yale in 1991 and be done in five years. The delay that is talked about would push back the start to around 1994 and the finished project in 1999.

Obviously that didn’t happen. The section west of Yale was started 15-20 years ago, but the last section wasn't completed until about 6 months ago. The more heavily traveled section east of Yale didn’t actually start roadwork until in 2008! And still isn’t done today. It won’t be done for at least two more years as the last section at Lewis STILL HASN’T EVEN BEEN PUT OUT FOR BID! 28 years after the project was started. 28 YEARS. The current projection is that it will be done in 2013, a mere 25 years late. I don't trust that date either. The bid is scheduled for June as of right now and that would give them 18 months at most to build a below grade interchange? Sure.

One very large delay was that I-40 in Oklahoma City got moved in front of I-44. Even though I-40 didn’t even decide on a route until 2002, which was a decade after I-44 was originally supposed to be completed. Today I-40 is now open and I-44 is still years from being done.

I-44 still won’t be done in 2013 anyway, this project is just one of three sections of the highway through Tulsa. The section east of the I-244 interchange is completely overwhelmed with traffic with twelve lanes of traffic from I-44 and I-244 being cut down to four lanes. At the other end, The Creek Turnpike/I-44, US-412 and US-66 also take it from 12 lanes to 4. Some of that project isn’t even projected to begin until the end of this decade. The Hard Rock Casino was so upset with the traffic at 193rd that they paid the state’s match for the widening at that intersection. The section of I-44 west of the river, built way back ’56 and completely disintegrating these days still has no plans for a rebuilt other than bridge work. That section of highway will be 60 years old at least before the state even starts to look at it.


The city of Oklahoma City had far more than “very little” input. It was certainly not "shoved down their throats". The I-40 alignment decision was “mutually agreed upon by ODOT, the city, and the project citizens advisory groups”
http://www.40forward.com/resources/html_versions/rod.aspx

The Core to Shore park, and pedestrian bridge were all planned from the very start:
“Additional enhancement features are planned for inclusion that will benefit the nearby communities including a park, pedestrian bridge and sound wall.”

And the OKC Chamber, and the City hand their hands in from the very start:
“ODOT and FHWA have been working with the City of Oklahoma City, the Greater Oklahoma
City Chamber of Commerce, and the general public since 1996 to come up with the best way
to handle the ever-growing I-40 traffic load with the least impact on the affected area.”
http://www.40forward.com/resources/html_versions/volume_ii.aspx

Another DP.

OK, I got double-DP'd. Doing a quick search for "DP," I found everything from double penetration to Dr. Pepper, but I don't think that MDot was offering me either. If given a choice, I'll take the latter, but in the meantime, what's a "DP?"

Read this article from February 1989 (yes, 1989, more than 23 years ago):
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic...rticleid=41269

Sounds like there was drainage problems the city wanted to address first. When did Tulsa pass that bond?

As for I-40, what was the estimate to repair and replace the bridge that was cheaper than what was built?

In the end, of course the city had a hand in it planning it and there were a lot of battles along the way, but it is no way like the city started with a plan for the core to shore area and then decided they needed to move a freeway that was perfectly fine as it was and then asked Tulsa to pay for it. They basically did what they had to do to mitigate the negative impact of replacing a federal interstate that needed to be replaced and, really, it's way to early to tell if that was even successful.

I can understand disappointment with the handling of I44 in Tulsa and its subsequent delays and the disdain it must cause Tulsa residents that it's not done and I-40 is open, but it's all still barely tangential to whether or not the AICC should be partially funded by the state. I can certainly buy a multitude of reasons of why it should not be funded by the state, but none of them have anything to do with whether the capitol complex needs fixing, Amtrak routes, or what road work was done first. Some of this may come down to Oklahoma City's leadership being more effective in the last ten years, but I haven't heard of any concerted efforts to undermine Tulsa projects for the betterment of Oklahoma City.

I-40 will always trump I-44 in funding and attention. It goes coast to coast (or at least Wilmington, NC to Barstow, CA) and is a multiple of 5, an interstate version of a snow route that is considered a higher priority. I-44 terminates in Wichita Falls and Saint Louis. Also, don't confuse politicians jumping on an inevitable bandwagon and making lemonade out of lemons with being in on early planning.

OK, I got double-DP'd. Doing a quick search for "DP," I found everything from double penetration to Dr. Pepper, but I don't think that MDot was offering me either. If given a choice, I'll take the latter, but in the meantime, what's a "DP?"

LOL, my bad, it means double post.

I was on my way to Tunica, MS and I was going through rural Arkansas and I was on my phone and had TERRIBLE reception while my phone was acting up.

How about a NEW THREAD for a discussion of C2S, P180, MAPS and everything else that has been brought up so that THIS THREAD can continue with its discussion of the American Indian Cultural Center?

Blasphemy, I know - asking for people to stay on-topic on the Interwebs.

Come on, people should be able to argue and debate about topics without it offending the common sensibility. I'd say the issue of state funding is relevant with C2S.

Shoved down the throats? And you want to compare I-44 in Tulsa to I-40 in Oklahoma City? Really?

Read this article from February 1989 (yes, 1989, more than 23 years ago):
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?no=subj&articleid=41269

The I-44 widening project was started in 1984 when ODT hired an engineer to start planning the highway. 1984. The engineer was hired with plans to start construction in 12-18 months and be done in 5 years. This article from ’89 is complaining about yet another delay. The plan at the time of the article was to start the section west of Yale in 1990 with bids being put out in March 1989 and the section east of Yale in 1991 and be done in five years. The delay that is talked about would push back the start to around 1994 and the finished project in 1999.

Obviously that didn’t happen. The section west of Yale was started 15-20 years ago, but the last section wasn't completed until about 6 months ago. The more heavily traveled section east of Yale didn’t actually start roadwork until in 2008! And still isn’t done today. It won’t be done for at least two more years as the last section at Lewis STILL HASN’T EVEN BEEN PUT OUT FOR BID! 28 years after the project was started. 28 YEARS. The current projection is that it will be done in 2013, a mere 25 years late. I don't trust that date either. The bid is scheduled for June as of right now and that would give them 18 months at most to build a below grade interchange? Sure.

One very large delay was that I-40 in Oklahoma City got moved in front of I-44. Even though I-40 didn’t even decide on a route until 2002, which was a decade after I-44 was originally supposed to be completed. Today I-40 is now open and I-44 is still years from being done.

I-44 still won’t be done in 2013 anyway, this project is just one of three sections of the highway through Tulsa. The section east of the I-244 interchange is completely overwhelmed with traffic with twelve lanes of traffic from I-44 and I-244 being cut down to four lanes. At the other end, The Creek Turnpike/I-44, US-412 and US-66 also take it from 12 lanes to 4. Some of that project isn’t even projected to begin until the end of this decade. The Hard Rock Casino was so upset with the traffic at 193rd that they paid the state’s match for the widening at that intersection. The section of I-44 west of the river, built way back ’56 and completely disintegrating these days still has no plans for a rebuilt other than bridge work. That section of highway will be 60 years old at least before the state even starts to look at it.


The city of Oklahoma City had far more than “very little” input. It was certainly not "shoved down their throats". The I-40 alignment decision was “mutually agreed upon by ODOT, the city, and the project citizens advisory groups”
http://www.40forward.com/resources/html_versions/rod.aspx

The Core to Shore park, and pedestrian bridge were all planned from the very start:
“Additional enhancement features are planned for inclusion that will benefit the nearby communities including a park, pedestrian bridge and sound wall.”

And the OKC Chamber, and the City hand their hands in from the very start:
“ODOT and FHWA have been working with the City of Oklahoma City, the Greater Oklahoma
City Chamber of Commerce, and the general public since 1996 to come up with the best way
to handle the ever-growing I-40 traffic load with the least impact on the affected area.”
http://www.40forward.com/resources/html_versions/volume_ii.aspx

tulsa also got the creek turnpike .. built and opened during this time ..

Some of the 'first' Federal stimulus package money went to Tulsa to completely rebuild the downtown inner dispersal loop (IDL) bridges. Don't remember how many but it was a bunch. This is the same tax money that has been paid into from the good folks on this side of the state......

Sounds like there was drainage problems the city wanted to address first. When did Tulsa pass that bond?

As for I-40, what was the estimate to repair and replace the bridge that was cheaper than what was built?

In the end, of course the city had a hand in it planning it and there were a lot of battles along the way, but it is no way like the city started with a plan for the core to shore area and then decided they needed to move a freeway that was perfectly fine as it was and then asked Tulsa to pay for it. They basically did what they had to do to mitigate the negative impact of replacing a federal interstate that needed to be replaced and, really, it's way to early to tell if that was even successful.

I can understand disappointment with the handling of I44 in Tulsa and its subsequent delays and the disdain it must cause Tulsa residents that it's not done and I-40 is open, but it's all still barely tangential to whether or not the AICC should be partially funded by the state. I can certainly buy a multitude of reasons of why it should not be funded by the state, but none of them have anything to do with whether the capitol complex needs fixing, Amtrak routes, or what road work was done first. Some of this may come down to Oklahoma City's leadership being more effective in the last ten years, but I haven't heard of any concerted efforts to undermine Tulsa projects for the betterment of Oklahoma City.

Tulsa’s flood control systems have been a model nationally since the early ‘90s. Tulsa started to pour money into flood control starting after the 1984 flood that damaged 7000 homes. Flood control was little if any of the delay. It was funding from the state, or rather, the lack of funding.

The old I-40 in downtown Oklahoma City is very similar to I-244 in Tulsa west of downtown. The two divided elevated highways were built about the same time and were a similar style. The major difference is that the eastern end of the I-244 bridges in Tulsa have a river under them, that and they were rated in even worse condition than the I-40 bridges. The new westbound bridge under construction today isn’t going to be similar; it’s going to be a double decked bridge with rail and pedestrian components. Those components are how Tulsa won the Federal grant to get it rebuilt because the state hadn’t directed any funding to replacing it yet.

But the eastbound bridge that’s slated to start construction when the westbound bridge is completed in 2013 (but not yet fully funded, go figure) is very similar. That bridge is going to be rebuilt in place of the old bridge and will be five lanes wide, just like the new I-40. The cost is $30 million for 3300 feet. Granted that’s just one direction, so two bridges would be $60 million for ten lanes of highway for just under a mile. Extrapolate that out for four miles and the cost to tear down and rebuild I-40 in place would have been about $400 million. Actually, probably less because there would have been no Arkansas river under I-40 to deal with.

Conservatively $270 million of the $670 million I-40 project went to move and beautify the I-40 corridor in downtown Oklahoma City. That was money spent to move the highway allowing for the new park, all that suddenly valuable developable land, great new pedestrian bridge and most of all to get rid of the ugly dividing line between downtown and Bricktown.

Tulsa’s flood control systems have been a model nationally since the early ‘90s. Tulsa started to pour money into flood control starting after the 1984 flood that damaged 7000 homes. Flood control was little if any of the delay. It was funding from the state, or rather, the lack of funding.

The old I-40 in downtown Oklahoma City is very similar to I-244 in Tulsa west of downtown. The two divided elevated highways were built about the same time and were a similar style. The major difference is that the eastern end of the I-244 bridges in Tulsa have a river under them, that and they were rated in even worse condition than the I-40 bridges. The new westbound bridge under construction today isn’t going to be similar; it’s going to be a double decked bridge with rail and pedestrian components. Those components are how Tulsa won the Federal grant to get it rebuilt because the state hadn’t directed any funding to replacing it yet.

But the eastbound bridge that’s slated to start construction when the westbound bridge is completed in 2013 (but not yet fully funded, go figure) is very similar. That bridge is going to be rebuilt in place of the old bridge and will be five lanes wide, just like the new I-40. The cost is $30 million for 3300 feet. Granted that’s just one direction, so two bridges would be $60 million for ten lanes of highway for just under a mile. Extrapolate that out for four miles and the cost to tear down and rebuild I-40 in place would have been about $400 million. Actually, probably less because there would have been no Arkansas river under I-40 to deal with.

Conservatively $270 million of the $670 million I-40 project went to move and beautify the I-40 corridor in downtown Oklahoma City. That was money spent to move the highway allowing for the new park, all that suddenly valuable developable land, great new pedestrian bridge and most of all to get rid of the ugly dividing line between downtown and Bricktown.

the pedestrian bridge would have just been a normal boring bridge ... except that OKC passed a bond issue that built the sculpture that makes in great and unique

and 270 mil went to beautify okc ... you are pulling that out of thin air

tulsa also got the creek turnpike .. built and opened during this time ..


The Creek Turnpike? Seriously? How exactly is that highway paid for? And is that in downtown Tulsa? How on earth is that relevant? What about the Kilpatrick?


If we are talking turnpikes, how about this? How many directions can your drive out of Oklahoma City on non-toll interstate type limited access highways? (four) How many directions can you do that in Tulsa? (zero) How many directions are toll for Oklahoma City? (two) and Tulsa? (five) Tulsa has less national highway access and every single access direction is a toll road.
So, Tulsa’s fuel taxes go to help pay for free interstate level highways to Oklahoma City, but anyone in Tulsa has to pay tolls to drive to and from the city on the national Interstate system. Tulsa pays for your highway access and gets nothing in return.
Turnpikes are a really bad example for you to try to show parity between funding levels for the two cities.

Some of the 'first' Federal stimulus package money went to Tulsa to completely rebuild the downtown inner dispersal loop (IDL) bridges. Don't remember how many but it was a bunch. This is the same tax money that has been paid into from the good folks on this side of the state......


The work on Tulsa’s IDL was highway maintenance that the state wasn’t doing. Just like the I-244 bridge. The other half of the IDL is still a complete mess and needs to be rebuilt now but that’s not slated to start until the end of this decade. Again, not really funded yet either. .

If you want to count maintenance dollars than the whole $670 million of the I-40 project should count as the state “improving” downtown Oklahoma City. The IDL project was $75 million and the first I-244 bridge is $78 million. So compare $153 million to $670 million.

So how bout that Cultural Center?

The crosstown project was funded with federal dollars.

I believe the state is paying for the new boulevard but at least some of that is being offset by re-using the steel from the old I-40.

I do find it a bit ironic that local politicians are acting like there must be some sort of corrupt conspiracy because the AICCM is over budget.

How about holding ODOT and the City of OKC to the same standards? The crosstown was way, way over budget and years behind schedule. Same can be said about Project 180 and just about any other government-managed construction project.

All this audit talk is just posturing by politicians to pander to the constituents: "Before they get another cent of your hard-earned tax dollars we are going to make darn sure they aren't wasting it!!" If they were really concerned about tax dollars, they'd focus on the billions mis-managed by the government they are supposed to be running.

Isn't there a MAPS tax exemption that can be applied for if by individuals that make less than a certain amount?


yes

There was a sales tax rebate with the original MAPS (admittedly to swing the senior vote). As far as I am aware, that rebate vanished with MAPS 4 Kids, Ford Center & MAPS 3. If someone has info to the contrary, please post.

The old I-40 in downtown Oklahoma City is very similar to I-244 in Tulsa west of downtown. The two divided elevated highways were built about the same time and were a similar style. The major difference is that the eastern end of the I-244 bridges in Tulsa have a river under them, that and they were rated in even worse condition than the I-40 bridges. The new westbound bridge under construction today isn’t going to be similar; it’s going to be a double decked bridge with rail and pedestrian components. Those components are how Tulsa won the Federal grant to get it rebuilt because the state hadn’t directed any funding to replacing it yet.

But the eastbound bridge that’s slated to start construction when the westbound bridge is completed in 2013 (but not yet fully funded, go figure) is very similar. That bridge is going to be rebuilt in place of the old bridge and will be five lanes wide, just like the new I-40. The cost is $30 million for 3300 feet. Granted that’s just one direction, so two bridges would be $60 million for ten lanes of highway for just under a mile. Extrapolate that out for four miles and the cost to tear down and rebuild I-40 in place would have been about $400 million. Actually, probably less because there would have been no Arkansas river under I-40 to deal with.

Ok, so your original statement was based on your taking a project in Tulsa and extrapolating it onto an idea you had for I-40 in Oklahoma City that you think would have been cheaper. You made it sound like some real study and estimate was generated. You could be correct, but there are so many factors involved that, without a real study, no one can say for sure. It's certainly not a very good method on which to base public policy or guide major transportation projects. It's good for rabble-rousing, but that's about it. I'm pretty sure that's not how the Department of Transportation does it.

As for the turnpike thing, I agree that sucks for Tulsa, but I don't know how that's Oklahoma City's fault and it is really reaching in terms of a reason why a project in Oklahoma City shouldn't be funded. I really have no idea why Oklahoma has so many turnpikes to begin with or what the guiding philosophies were that created the turnpike system here, but I doubt it was part of some effort to consciously implement an inequitable freeway system between Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Again, at lot of this is based on need and return on investment. It's not like the agencies sit around and say "ok, we just spent $500 million in Oklahoma City, now we need to find a way to spend that in Tulsa to be fair."

Again, I'm not saying that there may not be Tulsa funding issues or that the AICC should be funded by the state, but speciously comparing unrelated projects and using that to suggest there is some sort of favoritism or, even worse, intentional inequities in funding seems a bit misdirected, imo.

The work on Tulsa’s IDL was highway maintenance that the state wasn’t doing. Just like the I-244 bridge. The other half of the IDL is still a complete mess and needs to be rebuilt now but that’s not slated to start until the end of this decade. Again, not really funded yet either. .

If you want to count maintenance dollars than the whole $670 million of the I-40 project should count as the state “improving” downtown Oklahoma City. The IDL project was $75 million and the first I-244 bridge is $78 million. So compare $153 million to $670 million.

How about that big multi purpose bridge over the Arkansas...? Don't tell me Tulsa is funding that one on their own ?

So how bout that Cultural Center?

We're not talking about that any longer. This is a mashup of OKC v. Tulsa, taxation, OKC projects, Tulsa transportation, and news archives from 23 years ago.

How 'bout them Sooners?

Oklahoma City is the main powerhouse of the state right now. It only makes sense for the state to invest in it. It doesn't mean Tulsa should be/is neglected. OKC just holds more potential to keep driving the state's growth and economy. Tulsa is the second major powerhouse of the state, so it is also important. Tulsa needs to realize their place in this state. If Tulsa was the main center of growth right now in our state, I'd say keep investing in it and make it even stronger. Keep the momentum going. We can't discount the momentum OKC has and how much it is pulling our entire state right now, and we should keep the momentum rolling as much as we can right now.

Obviously I'm not saying abandon everyone else and spend all of the state's dollars in OKC..that's bad. But OKC provides enough economic benefit TO the state to justify higher investment FROM the state. Tulsa is more than welcome to follow OKC's lead and pass local fund-raising efforts (MAPs, or sell bonds) to improve their downtown. Bricktown wasn't a state investment, it was a local investment. Tulsa certainly has a ton of potential to grow and see a lot of the success we have seen, but they need to invest in themselves just as we have. The City of OKC and local private investment has spent more money to improve the city than the state or federal government has, and certainly more than Tulsa has spent in OKC.

OKC is first and Tulsa is second. Tulsa needs to understand that, until it does, there will still be these arguments. OKC is good and Tulsa is good. Both are important. Both don't have the same weight in economic potential.

If this project turns into an OKC vs. Tulsa pi$$ing match, nobody wins. NEITHER will get projects that will help them and ultimately the state if the legislators line up on opposite sides of the room and play dodge ball.

having grown up in northwest oklahoma, i love hearing tulsans complain about how they get no state money....

OKC is first and Tulsa is second. Tulsa needs to understand that, until it does, there will still be these arguments. OKC is good and Tulsa is good. Both are important. Both don't have the same weight in economic potential.

It's this type of attitude that will just further problems. What is happening in OKC is awesome, but OKCitians need to not let it go to their heads. Tulsa has a lot going for it. Have you asked yourself why OKC has to bribe, or just pray, that national companies who willingly go to Tulsa barely consider OKC? Tulsa has always had better urban districts with character (e.g., Cherry Street, Brookside, Blue Dome, Brady) and OKC is finally starting to catch up. Tulsans have higher incomes on the whole. Anyway, Oklahoma is a two horse show and OKCitians need to realize that (and most do) OKC's supposed superiority is miniscule at this point. Residents of the two cities should be supportive of each other's development, not spouting off that the need to "know their place." This type of arrogance is the source of many of silly squabbles that happen at the state level.

And this is all from someone who love BOTH Tulsa and OKC.

It's this type of attitude that will just further problems. What is happening in OKC is awesome, but OKCitians need to not let it go to their heads. Tulsa has a lot going for it. Have you asked yourself why OKC has to bribe, or just pray, that national companies who willingly go to Tulsa barely consider OKC? Tulsa has always had better urban districts with character (e.g., Cherry Street, Brookside, Blue Dome, Brady) and OKC is finally starting to catch up. Tulsans have higher incomes on the whole. Anyway, Oklahoma is a two horse show and OKCitians need to realize that (and most do) OKC's supposed superiority is miniscule at this point. Residents of the two cities should be supportive of each other's development, not spouting off that the need to "know their place." This type of arrogance is the source of many of silly squabbles that happen at the state level.

And this is all from someone who love BOTH Tulsa and OKC.

OKC land area is over 600 sq miles and Tulsa's less than 200. They have more concentrated areas of wealth, which is why stores locate there. They use buying power within a radius as a guideline. Tulsa wins that battle. However, with things concentrating in certain areas in OKC, we are starting to prove our economic clout.

Tulsa lost its place as king of Oklahoma 10-15 years ago and now is in denial. They finally are awakening to the fact that they need to improve themselves and not just look down their noses at OKC. Now that we are taller, it is harder to look down on us. But, Tulsa is finally responding and doing some nice things to help themselves. Hopefully, we have TWO great cities in this state for decades to come.

Hopefully, Tulsans will see that if they can help us with this project we will be willing to help them with theirs. We can both get what is best or use the scorched earth theory. I personally hope we work together.

It's this type of attitude that will just further problems. What is happening in OKC is awesome, but OKCitians need to not let it go to their heads. Tulsa has a lot going for it. Have you asked yourself why OKC has to bribe, or just pray, that national companies who willingly go to Tulsa barely consider OKC? Tulsa has always had better urban districts with character (e.g., Cherry Street, Brookside, Blue Dome, Brady) and OKC is finally starting to catch up. Tulsans have higher incomes on the whole. Anyway, Oklahoma is a two horse show and OKCitians need to realize that (and most do) OKC's supposed superiority is miniscule at this point. Residents of the two cities should be supportive of each other's development, not spouting off that the need to "know their place." This type of arrogance is the source of many of silly squabbles that happen at the state level.

And this is all from someone who love BOTH Tulsa and OKC.

While I agree with most of this The thought that Okc is only a minuscule ahead of Tulsa is a joke. Okc is leaps and bounds ahead of Tulsa. And the gap is getting bigger

Tulsa lost its place as king of Oklahoma 10-15 years ago and now is in denial. They finally are awakening to the fact that they need to improve themselves and not just look down their noses at OKC. Now that we are taller, it is harder to look down on us. But, Tulsa is finally responding and doing some nice things to help themselves. Hopefully, we have TWO great cities in this state for decades to come.

You don't get it. Tulsans are not doing things in response to OKC. They are doing things because they want to improve their own community. The two things are not related, except in your incredibly ethnocentric mind. In fact, Tulsa is doing things that OKC should be doing and is not. Look at the way they've financed living in their core and have two grocerie stores and other amenities. How can it be responsive if they are doing things before OKC? Lol. The world does not revolve around you and OKC.

I wonder if the new road they build to get to the new American Indian Cultural Center will be a toll road ?

None of this is about OKC vs. Tulsa, nor should it ever be. This museum has the potential to be a starting point to a whole state's worth of Native American heritage. I'm a little biased as a historian... of course I want this project finished. I understand the need to keep it financially sound and not become a never-ending black hole. The building is there and we need to finish this thing. It's right along I-40; having an abandoned, half-built building will only be an embarrassment for the city as we try to move forward.

I do hope that Tulsa gets the funding for the Pop museum. That would fit in great with their music scene and overall vibe as a city. Both museums have the potential to be amazing assets for the whole state and not just the cities in which they are built.

You don't get it. Tulsans are not doing things in response to OKC. They are doing things because they want to improve their own community. The two things are not related, except in your incredibly ethnocentric mind. In fact, Tulsa is doing things that OKC should be doing and is not. Look at the way they've financed living in their core and have two grocerie stores and other amenities. How can it be responsive if they are doing things before OKC? Lol. The world does not revolve around you and OKC.
Funny, because I was basically paraphrasing an article I read quoting your mayor. Sorry you have such myopia.

Hopefully, Tulsans will see that if they can help us with this project we will be willing to help them with theirs. We can both get what is best or use the scorched earth theory. I personally hope we work together.

Tulsa legislators are willing to support the AICC now, but only if their counterparts from Oklahoma City support the POP Museum now. Not later. Sen Tom Adelson from Tulsa said as much.


Sen. Tom Adelson, D-Tulsa, said: "There has been a long tension between the two urban areas with regards to fairness and parity in funding for projects like this. So I think it would only be fair that Tulsa receive due consideration for a project that will likewise be of great benefit to the state."

The ball is in OKCs court.

Sounds more like holding it hostage.

To Rover, I don't live in Tulsa. I just have an open mind and love all of Oklahoma.

I love the POP Museum idea. Let's do this. Great additions for both cities!

You don't get it. Tulsans are not doing things in response to OKC. They are doing things because they want to improve their own community. The two things are not related, except in your incredibly ethnocentric mind. In fact, Tulsa is doing things that OKC should be doing and is not. Look at the way they've financed living in their core and have two grocerie stores and other amenities. How can it be responsive if they are doing things before OKC? Lol. The world does not revolve around you and OKC.

Funny how you make a stab at the whole city of Oklahoma City just to defend yourself and Tulsa because you were offended by ONE PERSON'S OPINION. You're no different. Get on with yourself as well.

I love the idea of the POP museum too. And I like Tulsa...actually lived there for awhile. However, both projects should go through on their merits. Don't try to block one based on some tea party platitudes, and then say it is okay as long as I get my deal. That seems pretty disingenuous. Support it or not, but no tit for tat.

Funny how you make a stab at the whole city of Oklahoma City just to defend yourself and Tulsa because you were offended by ONE PERSON'S OPINION. You're no different. Get on with yourself as well.

Not sure how I was defending myself. Again, I don't live in Tulsa. My bad though. I did not intend to down OKC. I was just trying to provide Rover some evidence that Tulsa was not some third world city in comparison. My bad and moving on...

Oklahoma City should just find the guts to get people together who have the ability to fund and finish this thing.
Indian casinos can give a lot more than they have, period.
It is lunacy to go through all this.
If you want to be a respectable city, get this done.
Get it done now.

Oklahoma City should just find the guts to get people together who have the ability to fund and finish this thing.
Indian casinos can give a lot more than they have, period.
It is lunacy to go through all this.
If you want to be a respectable city, get this done.
Get it done now.
So, you are willing to pay more taxes for this? Or do you mean you want someone else to make it happen?

So, you are willing to pay more taxes for this? Or do you mean you want someone else to make it happen?

Yes. I would pay taxes to get this done.

It's this type of attitude that will just further problems. What is happening in OKC is awesome, but OKCitians need to not let it go to their heads. Tulsa has a lot going for it. Have you asked yourself why OKC has to bribe, or just pray, that national companies who willingly go to Tulsa barely consider OKC? Tulsa has always had better urban districts with character (e.g., Cherry Street, Brookside, Blue Dome, Brady) and OKC is finally starting to catch up. Tulsans have higher incomes on the whole. Anyway, Oklahoma is a two horse show and OKCitians need to realize that (and most do) OKC's supposed superiority is miniscule at this point. Residents of the two cities should be supportive of each other's development, not spouting off that the need to "know their place." This type of arrogance is the source of many of silly squabbles that happen at the state level.

And this is all from someone who love BOTH Tulsa and OKC.

Where did I say we should not support Tulsa? I said the level of investment from the state should not be the same as both have different economic potentials. Oklahoma City's job creation and economic output and outlook are greater than Tulsa's. We aren't equals and neither should the funding expectations be. Would you spend the same amount of state money in Lawton as is spent in Tulsa?

I think all of Oklahoma should be supported and loved equally, but we also have to spend our money wisely. You are confusing emotions and money: the two should never be mixed. Because I say Tulsa should receive less money than OKC, and Tulsa should receive more money than Lawton does not mean I hate Tulsa or Lawton. It's all a matter of investing money proportional to the economic output or return we can get from that investment.

Good grief, I don't even know where to start. So many absolutely wrong statements here...

...Even though I-40 didn’t even decide on a route until 2002...
You act like the idea for the I-40 realignment suddenly cropped up and *BAM* a couple of years later we had a new highway. The state began promoting the idea of a relocated I-40 in the early 90s, when chunks of the bridge started falling off and leaving holes in the deck. They pointed out that in their opinion it would cost more to continuously maintain the bridge than to replace it. Discussions began in earnest in 1996, when a "citizens' advisory panel" was formed.

The route was formally selected in 1998, not 2002. However, if you attended those meetings (I did), you will know that ODOT was pushing the selected alignment from the start. If you had private conversations with City officials during this period (I did) you would know that they felt the (now current) alignment was undesirable but inevitable, and that the City would have to put significant effort into mitigating the effects of the ODOT-driven project.


... The city of Oklahoma City had far more than “very little” input. It was certainly not "shoved down their throats". The I-40 alignment decision was “mutually agreed upon by ODOT, the city, and the project citizens advisory groups”
http://www.40forward.com/resources/html_versions/rod.aspx ...
Uh...you know you are quoting the tidy, revisionist, ODOT version of the way things happened, right? You trust them to instead say "we really, really wanted the selected alignment and applied pressure until all parties agreed?" The mayor at the time of the selection, Kirk Humphreys, had extreme misgivings about the route (as did just about anyone associated with downtown's fledgling redevelopment), and ODOT agreed to partially fund the future boulevard in part to placate those interests.

The City had very little choice here, and could really only advocate for as much mitigation as possible. As someone else mentioned, I-40 is a (the?) primary east-west corridor for the U.S., and much pressure was put on everyone to agree to a quick turnaround in the name of public safety and interstate commerce. The bridge also was the poster child at the top of the state's structurally deficient bridge list, and was a major black eye for the state, which was a large part of why they did their best to fast track the project. This was NOT driven by OKC in any way.

If you want a more impartial account of the timeline and maneuverings leading up to construction, you might try reading Steve's stories on the subject in The Oklahoman's archives.


...The Core to Shore park, and pedestrian bridge were all planned from the very start:
“Additional enhancement features are planned for inclusion that will benefit the nearby communities including a park, pedestrian bridge and sound wall.”...
Once again, your timeline is absolutely wrong. The planning that ultimately resulted in the Core to Shore plan (including the park and the pedestrian bridge, which itself was somewhat driven by federal highway requirements) began in 2006, TEN YEARS after planning started for the I-40 relocation. If I'm not mistaken, the continued into 2007, though I'm not going to take the time to look that up. Those plans were an OKC response to the reality that a new interstate would be ripping through our community and laying bare a lot of real estate we aren't particularly proud of. THEY WERE DRIVEN BY THE SET PLANS FOR I-40, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. If there were no I-40 relocation (driven by state and federal interests) none of the other stuff would have been necessary, or even envisioned.

Listen, I'm not going to waste a bunch more time arguing this. I'd suggest further research on your part. My point was not to debate the merits of or driving forces behind improvements I-40 and I-44; I was only saying that you would be hard pressed to find OKC residents who begrudged Tulsa for I-44 improvements and it would be relatively easy to find Tulsa folks who would gripe about I-40 (or anything else that involves public money spent in Oklahoma City), and that was indicative of how state funding of the American Indian Cultural Center would likely be viewed by Tulsans in general.

I think your posts have done an excellent job of making my point for me, and that I probably should have left it at "I rest my case."

Not sure how I was defending myself. Again, I don't live in Tulsa. My bad though. I did not intend to down OKC. I was just trying to provide Rover some evidence that Tulsa was not some third world city in comparison. My bad and moving on...

As if I need evidence. I used to live there and was involved in the downtown financial district in the securities business. I am highly aware of what the movers and shakers of Tulsa have historically thought of OKC. It was partly because of that propaganda that caused me to choose Tulsa over OKC at that time as I was offered a position in either office. Tulsa is like the employee that is smart but believes all they have to do is show up for work to get promoted because surely everyone sees how smart they are. Tulsa quit working at it and fell behind in so many ways to OKC. Meanwhile, OKC had to get rid of the huge chip on its shoulder. It teetered on total failure until it figured it out, and then came out swinging. Tulsa just continued to ride out its past glory. Now the momentum is mostly on OKC's side and it galls certain parts of Tulsa's society. Finally, they have swallowed some of their pride and put their nose down to start facing reality...they have to work hard to progress like the rest of the world, and they are better off when the work WITH OKC instead of AGAINST. This is an opportunity for them to actually do it though.

Geez, I've been on the sidelines for this particular discussion, but I never quite realized quite how BIG a chip apparently a good chunk of Tulsans have against OKC.

The entire AICCM project is an annoying debacle. Why on earth it was started with inadequate funding is probably a stupid question on my part, but I'd be curious what the answer is. If the tribal organizations it presumably is intended to serve are, at best, lukewarm to it as they work to construct their own kinds of cultural centers or other projects, it seems to me this project is on a high-speed path to boondoggledom....

Geez, I've been on the sidelines for this particular discussion, but I never quite realized quite how BIG a chip apparently a good chunk of Tulsans have against OKC.

I give up. I'm not sure where you guys come up with this, but I can assure you most Tulsans are not worried about OKC. Lol.

I give up. I'm not sure where you guys come up with this, but I can assure you most Tulsans are not worried about OKC. Lol.

It's flat out amazing to me to go to some of the boards and read when asked about the OKC Thunder how a huge number of people who live in Tulsa say - 'we could care less, as long as it says Oklahoma City on the jersey and not just Oklahoma'........ now that folks, is jealousy. I've read that so many times.

Geez, I've been on the sidelines for this particular discussion, but I never quite realized quite how BIG a chip apparently a good chunk of Tulsans have against OKC.

The entire AICCM project is an annoying debacle. Why on earth it was started with inadequate funding is probably a stupid question on my part, but I'd be curious what the answer is. If the tribal organizations it presumably is intended to serve are, at best, lukewarm to it as they work to construct their own kinds of cultural centers or other projects, it seems to me this project is on a high-speed path to boondoggledom....

it is not being built to serve the tribes ... it was to be built as a museum for all of oklahoma to share "our" heritage with tourists

Yes. I would pay taxes to get this done.

You are already paying taxes to pay for the millions of dollars we spend each year to pay off previous bonds for the project and fund its full time staff.

it is not being built to serve the tribes ... it was to be built as a museum for all of oklahoma to share "our" heritage with tourists

Afraid of that. Can't see why state funds should be provided for it.

As if I need evidence. I used to live there and was involved in the downtown financial district in the securities business. I am highly aware of what the movers and shakers of Tulsa have historically thought of OKC. It was partly because of that propaganda that caused me to choose Tulsa over OKC at that time as I was offered a position in either office. Tulsa is like the employee that is smart but believes all they have to do is show up for work to get promoted because surely everyone sees how smart they are. Tulsa quit working at it and fell behind in so many ways to OKC. Meanwhile, OKC had to get rid of the huge chip on its shoulder. It teetered on total failure until it figured it out, and then came out swinging. Tulsa just continued to ride out its past glory. Now the momentum is mostly on OKC's side and it galls certain parts of Tulsa's society. Finally, they have swallowed some of their pride and put their nose down to start facing reality...they have to work hard to progress like the rest of the world, and they are better off when the work WITH OKC instead of AGAINST. This is an opportunity for them to actually do it though.


Excellent description! You pegged it perfectly. (And I've lived in both cities as well)

I give up. I'm not sure where you guys come up with this, but I can assure you most Tulsans are not worried about OKC. Lol.

I agree. Most are not. There are some that post on these forums that are and I think that's what leads to the discussion, but, in general, they are focused on their own community. I will say, however, that many Tulsans have a dated view of Oklahoma City that is often used to form an unfounded negative view of the city which they will readily volunteer when the topic of Oklahoma City comes up. I feel like it's more a matter of that disconnect that comes off as jealousy or denial to many, when it really just is ignorance of the changes that have happened.

I give up. I'm not sure where you guys come up with this, but I can assure you most Tulsans are not worried about OKC. Lol.

Worried about it? No. But there is a competitiveness. And yes, if you have known many Tulsans you know they generally are dismissive about anything OKC. Not so much the last few years though. Although they do tend to think if something is better in OKC it is because we screwed them out of something. Lol.

As if I need evidence. I used to live there and was involved in the downtown financial district in the securities business. I am highly aware of what the movers and shakers of Tulsa have historically thought of OKC. It was partly because of that propaganda that caused me to choose Tulsa over OKC at that time as I was offered a position in either office. Tulsa is like the employee that is smart but believes all they have to do is show up for work to get promoted because surely everyone sees how smart they are. Tulsa quit working at it and fell behind in so many ways to OKC. Meanwhile, OKC had to get rid of the huge chip on its shoulder. It teetered on total failure until it figured it out, and then came out swinging. Tulsa just continued to ride out its past glory. Now the momentum is mostly on OKC's side and it galls certain parts of Tulsa's society. Finally, they have swallowed some of their pride and put their nose down to start facing reality...they have to work hard to progress like the rest of the world, and they are better off when the work WITH OKC instead of AGAINST. This is an opportunity for them to actually do it though.


How should Tulsa work with Oklahoma City when it comes to AICC?

Yeah, a lot of swake's remarks are very inaccurate as to the cooperation between City Hall and 23rd Street. Basically how this relationship actually works is that redneck legislators from all over the state come to OKC to legislate, being located smack dab in the middle and having no control over that ourselves, and they go to eat and hang out downtown during session and say, "Wow, what they've done around here is really cool." Then they go into their chambers and do every single thing possible to hamper urban progress, not just for OKC, but for every city in the entire state.

But beyond just that, I would question such a tenuous interpretation of OKC development events coming from someone in Tulsa.

Basically how this relationship actually works is that redneck legislators from all over the state come to OKC to legislate, being located smack dab in the middle and having no control over that ourselves, and they go to eat and hang out downtown during session and say, "Wow, what they've done around here is really cool." Then they go into their chambers and do every single thing possible to hamper urban progress, not just for OKC, but for every city in the entire state.

That mentality is not limited to the legislature; it describes a lot of people.

Will Legislature approve bond package for museum?
By M. Scott Carter
Journal Record
M. Scott Carter scott.carter@journalrecord.com / http://twitter.com/JRMScottCarter
Posted: 08:52 PM Tuesday, April 24, 2012

OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma lawmakers remain hesitant to approve a $40 million bond request for the American Indian Cultural Center and Museum, despite a successful effort to raise matching funds.

In a media release issued Monday, Native American Cultural and Educational Authority CEO J. Blake Wade said $40 million in private funds has been raised for the completion of the museum.

State officials say about $80 million is still needed to complete construction of the center. This year, lawmakers balked at approving additional bonds for the center, saying it previously had been poorly managed and gone over budget.

Earlier this month, Republican Gov. Mary Fallin asked for an audit of the museum. Lawmakers have also passed a measure that would move the museum under the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department.

Wade said he supported both moves.

“As the CEO of the Native American Cultural and Educational Authority, my number one priority is to see this project finished and deliver a high-quality facility and museum to Oklahoma taxpayers,” he said in a media statement. “I am excited that the Legislature has outlined a path forward and a realistic scenario under which the state can match the private dollars already raised in support of the center.”

Yet while the center announced it had raised its share needed to complete the project, the budget chairman of the House of Representatives said the bond language – originally found in Senate Joint Resolution 86 – may have a difficult time clearing the Legislature.

“As of this day, I’m not sure there are the votes on the floor for it to pass,” state Rep. Earl Sears, R-Bartlesville, said. “Many members are hesitant about adding any new debt to the state.”

Still, despite some lawmakers’ hesitancy to endorse the center’s bond request, Sears said the Legislature’s joint budget committee would hear the bill for the bond funds.

“If they send us a bill, we will hear the bill,” Sears said. “I can’t say it will pass. But I can promise that it will get a hearing.”

Wade said he thought that a bond issue for the center would pass if it got to the floor of the House of Representatives.

“If we can get it to the floor, I think we can get it through,” he said. “I believe it will pass.”

He said the fact that the center was able to generate $40 million demonstrates strong support for finishing the museum.

“We are extremely grateful,” he said. “To complete this project, the center now requires a matching contribution from the state. I’m very hopeful the Legislature will work with Gov. Fallin to deliver these funds and complete the facility.”

While she called for an audit of the authority constructing the museum, Fallin also said she supported the project.

On Tuesday, her spokesman, Alex Weintz, said the governor continues to support funding to complete the center.

“Gov. Fallin supports funding the completion of the center, and would support a bond issue as a mechanism for providing that funding,” Weintz said in an emailed statement. “She has communicated that support to legislative leaders.”

Yet getting that support could prove difficult.

“I think it has a lot to do with all the debt on the national level,” Sears said. “Many members are reluctant to vote for any more debt, period.”

Lawmakers have until May 25 to approve a bond package for the museum.

Interesting that funding for Tulsa's Pop Music Museum has now been approved.

http://newsok.com/bond-issues-for-capitol-tulsa-museum-win-legislative-panels-approval/article/3677867?custom_click=pod_headline_politics

It's not looking good for the OKC museum

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-senate-opponents-of-bond-for-indian-museum-lose-support/article/3677855?custom_click=pod_headline_politics

I thought that the Tulsa museum was a package deal, to placate the Tulsa legislators who were rightfully complaining about getting the shaft if more funding is committed to the AICC.

I agree that this needs to be transfered to the Department of Tourism. That is common sense. Creating a separate state agency to oversee this project is ludicrous and wreaks.

Holy crap, did I just agree with the State Capitol GOP on something??

Interesting that funding for Tulsa's Pop Music Museum has now been approved.

http://newsok.com/bond-issues-for-capitol-tulsa-museum-win-legislative-panels-approval/article/3677867?custom_click=pod_headline_politics

It's not looking good for the OKC museum

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-senate-opponents-of-bond-for-indian-museum-lose-support/article/3677855?custom_click=pod_headline_politics

I read that quite differently, as indicating the odds are looking up for completing the cultural center, notwithstanding a couple of senators being mad about it. We'll know by Friday, but I see a speck of light down the tunnel.

Holy crap, did I just agree with the State Capitol GOP on something??

It must be late and past your bedtime Spartan. LOL (and excuse me for using LOL)

I rather enjoyed seeing the commercial on TV with Brad Henry in it saying that it was monumental for the AICC to be completed.

I'm sorry, but that Ok Pop Museum just sounds lame. A downtown devlopment project in search of a mission.