I concur that the streetcar does have an economic impact, but also agree that that impact is shifting money around. For example, a development built elsewhere in the city, might locate closer to the streetcar system. The same money (or very close to) will be spent with or without it, the difference being it will be spent at Point B rather than Point A. On paper, for the entire city, the economic impact is probably close to neutral, probably slightly higher than neutral. On a downtown basis, the impact will be tremendous.

Convention Center will bring money into the economy that otherwise would not have been spent in the economy. So, it is true that it would have both a greater impact on the city, and since it is also downtown, will also have an impact positively on the downtown "economy."

Fairgrounds...hit or miss. I guess if they are increasing exhibition space, etc. it would also have a positive impact on the city economy by possibly attracting larger shows/events.

Whitewater Facility, also, really how many people per year will this attract to OKC that normally would have not visited. I would like to see some data for this as well, as I genuinely am curious.

So, with all that said, it is true that the convention center will have a greater city-wide impact on the economy than the streetcar. While I am 100% in favor of the streetcar, it will not bring in money from outside our economy in the amount as the convention center.

I think the streetcar will have the greatest impact on downtown as a unit, though.

All of these projects are good. They all work with each other. As someone pointed out, without the convention center, the streetcar will not have as many users, without the streetcar, the convention center won't be as attractive, without the park, downtown housing won't be as desirable as suburban living. The whitewater facility will continue to bring guests down to the river, and hopefully act as a catalyst for more development on that front.

I am in favor of all of the MAPS3 projects, so I am very hesitant to say "kill this project" and make MAPS3 a fight for money. The projects will all eventually get built. In the grand scheme of things, the timing isn't THAT important. Downtown is growing at a very steady pace, and having certain projects take a little longer won't kill the private investment that is being poured into downtown.

As soon as most of the preliminary plans are drawn up and locations for everything begins to be firm. Private development will build around it before everything is 100% complete.

For example, knowing the streetcar route, might be enough to spur some development now along the streetcar route, before a single track is down.

Would be interested in hearing Urban & Betts take on it.

I watched it and towards the end, the head of the Oversight Committee made statements that I found troubling. He noted that among the "experts", that the ranking put the Whitewater Rafting, State Fair & Convention Center as the top 3 "by any measurement you want to give that are going to have the most economic impact". No mention by him at all of Transit when it came to economic impact. He went on to say that Transit needs more study.

That's because he was right. He was reffering to "direct economic impact" based on job creation and sales tax generation that could be projected by the consultants and described at the joint meeting earlier this month.

But the consultant went out of her way and ADG reaffirmed that they did not even attemp to rank transit against the other projects because they didn't have enough time, final route, and hub location information. So even in the meeting today, it was reaffirmed by Chairman McDaniels that it needed more study. Subcommittee Chair Nathaniel Harding stressed the indirect return observed in other cities.

We had more prepped on this subject to speak on but it was obvious they wanted to get the vote over with while they had a quorum.

Proposed schedule "Option #1" approved and moves forward to council. Streetcar schedule safe and reasonably timed.

Whew...

Many thanks to those who came out and to our Chair and Co Chair of the MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee.

Very good news UP!

You all have mass support from China!!!

I would expect that the transit system will definitely spur development along its route, but probably is a shifting of development areas, not necessarily a net gain for the city for awhile. On the other hand, the ones mentioned, the cc, white water rafting and fairgrounds all tend to bring in money from the outside and more immediately. I am sure that is the thinking.

Rover, I politely and respectfully disagree with a portion of your statement. You mentioned that the transit system probably will shift development areas and therefore will not necessarily be a net gain for the city as a whole. I disagree with this.

If there streetcar results in ANY new/additional residential/commercial/retail space that is built along its route or in downtown (within the stated access of its route), then it is a net gain for the city because nothing is there now. For it to not be a net gain, then something would need to be torn down outside of downtown and something built along the route of the streetcar. Also, the development along the streetcar will most likely be URBAN in nature and nothing like it exists outside of the current downtown districts - again, nothing suburban is compromised for streetcar development.

I think this is what many are failing to realize/see, that the streetcar will/should have an impact on the city far greater and more tangible than any other project. It also has an immediate and tangible benefit to the citizens of the central city. The cc will have an impact, but OKC must still compete with other cities and unless we build a Tier I convention center, I don't see there being a huge increase in business given the competition. I am not anti-cc, I am anti-cc instead of more popular/promising projects like streetcar and the park.

Back to the streetcar/'transit': I thought MAPS III was the START of a regional transportation system, beginning with a streetcar network for the immediate downtown area - so for those who keep complaining of the small segment being served by Maps III; realize this is a start and it is appropriate to build at the most dense section of your city then move out. If any of the suburbs already had plans for CR, then that too could be realizes, but I think it might be unrealistic at this point given the relative lack of critical mass commuting to downtown for work. 3-5 years from now, that probably will change and we should be implementing CR or at least Commuter Bus.

Again, this transit is a process and there is no reason for any other part of OKC to get rail right now other than downtown and parts of the inner city, due to the critical mass that does (or very soon will) exist and will use the system daily. The streetcar will be much more than a tourist circulator, it is the start of OKC's transit network.

Look for Maps 4 to expand on transit - with transit center, expanded city/regional bus, and commuter rail as highlights; and MAPS probably becoming a true "metropolitan area" initiative.

Back to the streetcar/'transit': I thought MAPS III was the START of a regional transportation system, beginning with a streetcar network for the immediate downtown area - so for those who keep complaining of the small segment being served by Maps III; realize this is a start and it is appropriate to build at the most dense section of your city then move out. If any of the suburbs already had plans for CR, then that too could be realizes, but I think it might be unrealistic at this point given the relative lack of critical mass commuting to downtown for work. 3-5 years from now, that probably will change and we should be implementing CR or at least Commuter Bus.

While I have hope for the downtown streetcar, I have little expectation for a regional system. With major construction from the primary routes from Yukon/Mustang/El Reno, Norman, soon Edmond, a gas price spike and little alternatives choice of vehicle power available; now is as good as you are going to get with people being open to mass transit anytime soon with suburbs if it where available. In 4/5 years only Edmond should have the main freeway blocked but they have two paths around, plus outside of significant reduction in fuel costs their should be more CNG and electric options as well.

When people say that the streetcar only redirects existing future development I have to scratch my head because I don't even know what that means. However, lets look at the current Mercy Hospital site. 6 groups are trying to building on this site. Why are these 6 groups fighting over this site and where would they have been built if this site wasn't available? 5 of these groups are going to lose, are they going to build somewhere else or just put their plans in a file cabinet? The Streetcar is going to change the economics that makes projects viable that otherwise would not be viable, and would never be built anywhere in OKC.

That's because he was right. He was reffering to "direct economic impact" based on job creation and sales tax generation that could be projected by the consultants and described at the joint meeting earlier this month.

But the consultant went out of her way and ADG reaffirmed that they did not even attemp to rank transit against the other projects because they didn't have enough time, final route, and hub location information. So even in the meeting today, it was reaffirmed by Chairman McDaniels that it needed more study. Subcommittee Chair Nathaniel Harding stressed the indirect return observed in other cities.

We had more prepped on this subject to speak on but it was obvious they wanted to get the vote over with while they had a quorum.

There is no question that the OKC modern streetcar system will generate very significant economic development activity, potentially greater than all other MAPS 3 projects when all economic impact data is considered. Economic impact studies from existing and proposed streetcar systems confirm that fact. The results of those studies report real and projected economic impacts from streetcar systems beyond the economic development that would occur without those systems.

Here are the numbers:

Real Economic Impact Data from Studies of Streetcar Systems in Operation

Portland:
Modern Streetcar
4.0-mile alignment - $103 million capital cost
$3.5 billion in economic development within 2 blocks of alignment
10,200 new residential units within 2 blocks of alignment
5.4 million square feet of new commercial and retail development within 2 blocks of alignment

Seattle:
Modern Streetcar
1.3-mile alignment - $52 million capital cost
$2.5 billion in new economic development within 3 blocks of alignment
6,100 new residential units within 3 blocks of alignment
3.3 million square feet of new commercial and retail development within 3 blocks of alignment

Tampa:
Heritage Streetcar
2.4-mile alignment - $53 million capital cost
$1 billion in new economic development within 3 blocks of alignment
2,740 new residential units within 3 blocks of alignment

Little Rock:
Heritage Streetcar
3.5-mile alignment - $27 million capital cost
$400 million in new economic development within 2 blocks of alignment
600 new residential units within 2 blocks of alignment

Projected Economic Impact Data from Studies of Proposed Streetcar Systems

Milwaukee
Modern Streetcar
3.55-mile alignment - $95.8 million capital cost
$3.35 billion in new economic develoment
9,000 new residential units
13,500 new residents
5 million square feet of new commercial and retail development
20,500 new jobs

Los Angeles
Modern Streetcar
4.75-mile alignment - $110 million capital cost
$1.1 billion in new develoment
$24.5 million in new retail, hotel, restaurant, entertainment annually
$47 million in cumulative new city tax revenues
2,600 new residential units
3,600 new residents
675,000 square feet of new and renovated office space
7,200 new construction jobs providing $500 million in total compensation
2,100 new permanent office, retail, entertainment, hotel jobs providing $120 million annual compenstation
5,800 new hotel room nights annually

Cincinnati
Modern Streetcar
4.9-mile alignment - $102 million capital cost
$1.4 billion in new economic development within 3 blocks of alignment

First, I said it wouldn't be a net gain "for awhile". I am a huge proponent of the streetcar and regional mass transit systems and the sooner we start on it the better. My only point was that there is X amount of demand for housing and retail in OKC. The streetcar system will increase demand of people living and working nearby, shifting those dollars from somewhere else in the city. A developer will look at all location options and pick the site that is most economically advantaged. But, people won't necessarily move to the Oklahoma City AREA because we have a few miles of streetcars. Let's be real. As the whole downtown evolves though, that might be enough to persuade a few businesses and residents who might be choosing between taking jobs or locating in OKC vs Austin or Milwaukee or Kansas City to settle here. Is it a huge boost to downtown...yes...both short and long term. Is it a boost to OKC....yes, but longer term.

The "experts" looking at all this have all the data from throughout the US and will or will have put it in perspective against the backdrop of our peer cities. It will be looked at objectively and thats how it should be done. We tend to look at it emotionally and using limited data we quickly find on a few sites we Google. We hope they are factual and we can sit back and be opinionated. Best we can do with our emotions, opinions and voices is to make sure they have pressure to look at ALL the angles and data before committing us in directions which will affect our citizens for decades.

There is no question that the OKC modern streetcar system will generate very significant economic development activity, potentially greater than all other MAPS 3 projects when all economic impact data is considered. Economic impact studies from existing and proposed streetcar systems confirm that fact. The results of those studies report real and projected economic impacts from streetcar systems beyond the economic development that would occur without those systems.

Here are the numbers:

Real Economic Impact Data from Studies of Streetcar Systems in Operation

Portland:
Modern Streetcar
4.0-mile alignment - $103 million capital cost
$3.5 billion in economic development within 2 blocks of alignment
10,200 new residential units within 2 blocks of alignment
5.4 million square feet of new commercial and retail development within 2 blocks of alignment

Seattle:
Modern Streetcar
1.3-mile alignment - $52 million capital cost
$2.5 billion in new economic development within 3 blocks of alignment
6,100 new residential units within 3 blocks of alignment
3.3 million square feet of new commercial and retail development within 3 blocks of alignment

Tampa:
Heritage Streetcar
2.4-mile alignment - $53 million capital cost
$1 billion in new economic development within 3 blocks of alignment
2,740 new residential units within 3 blocks of alignment

Little Rock:
Heritage Streetcar
3.5-mile alignment - $27 million capital cost
$400 million in new economic development within 2 blocks of alignment
600 new residential units within 2 blocks of alignment

Projected Economic Impact Data from Studies of Proposed Streetcar Systems

Milwaukee
Modern Streetcar
3.55-mile alignment - $95.8 million capital cost
$3.35 billion in new economic develoment
9,000 new residential units
13,500 new residents
5 million square feet of new commercial and retail development
20,500 new jobs

Los Angeles
Modern Streetcar
4.75-mile alignment - $110 million capital cost
$1.1 billion in new develoment
$24.5 million in new retail, hotel, restaurant, entertainment annually
$47 million in cumulative new city tax revenues
2,600 new residential units
3,600 new residents
675,000 square feet of new and renovated office space
7,200 new construction jobs providing $500 million in total compensation
2,100 new permanent office, retail, entertainment, hotel jobs providing $120 million annual compenstation
5,800 new hotel room nights annually

Cincinnati
Modern Streetcar
4.9-mile alignment - $102 million capital cost
$1.4 billion in new economic development within 3 blocks of alignment

Have to be careful with assigning cause and effect. I could present data that shows that the Bricktown Canal was responsible for the $3 Billion in development around it since it went in. That would be absurd. We don't know from the numbers you show what the NET affect in the CITY was. We only know from that info that there was great investment apparently in the area around the tracks. While many people have a fever when they die, they don't die from the fever.

In an article I read about the potential Tuscon streetcar, opponents said that most of the surrounding development occurs because of tax incentives. Any thoughts about that?

Maybe if we called it the American Indian Cultural Train Ride and said it would generate $3.8 billion in NEW economic activity Rover would understand it better.

I have always questioned the numbers relating to economic impact touted by streetcar proponets, but now I think I am getting a clearer picture. If anything is built near a streetcar line, then the proponets will claim it as being because of the streetcars. It is too bad that the streetcar was not in place two years ago. Had it been, proponets could claim the devon tower, project 180, the new I-40 replacement, the new convention center and central park and anything else that happens, even if it had nothing to do with the street car. Those projects add to what? Two billion? Just think how other streetcar proponents in other cities could point to OKC as a shining example of the impact streetcars have had in the southern plains. I guess since streetcars have been proposed for a while it might be possible to claim those numbers anyway.
.

popsy, the claim is not for the entire route per se, but new PRIVATE development that was a direct result of the streetcar and typically within a 2-3 block radius of stops (also known as TOD-Transit Oriented Development).

If the streetcar was already running and there was a stop within 2-3 blocks of the brand new Devon, then yes we could claim it just like Seattle Streetcar claims the Vulcan developments in South Lake Union (Paul Allen). It likely would NOT include projects that were already planned before the streetcar and likely would not include the I-40 relocation since it is nowhere near any of the 'current' routing. It likely also would not include project 180/convention center/central park since like I-40 they are not private developments.

Portland, for sure, is absolutely positively streetcar development - I have visited PDX numerous times before the Pearl District was developed and after - it is NIGHT AND DAY, unbelievable!!! and ALL due to the streetcar.

Maybe if we called it the American Indian Cultural Train Ride and said it would generate $3.8 billion in NEW economic activity Rover would understand it better.

I understand perfectly...that people want simple answers to complex problems. That everyone is an expert. That many think opinion is the same as fact. That many perspectives are myopic. That prejudices exist.

popsy, the claim is not for the entire route per se, but new PRIVATE development that was a direct result of the streetcar and typically within a 2-3 block radius of stops (also known as TOD-Transit Oriented Development).

If the streetcar was already running and there was a stop within 2-3 blocks of the brand new Devon, then yes we could claim it just like Seattle Streetcar claims the Vulcan developments in South Lake Union (Paul Allen). It likely would NOT include projects that were already planned before the streetcar and likely would not include the I-40 relocation since it is nowhere near any of the 'current' routing. It likely also would not include project 180/convention center/central park since like I-40 they are not private developments.

Portland, for sure, is absolutely positively streetcar development - I have visited PDX numerous times before the Pearl District was developed and after - it is NIGHT AND DAY, unbelievable!!! and ALL due to the streetcar.

Hot Rod,

Aren't you helping me make my point by saying the Devon Tower could be claimed? There would no valid relationship between the two. If proponents of streetcars want to claim an economic impact it should be because whatever was built was only built near that stop because of the streetcar. I don't know if Portland and OKC are comparable in anyway, but it seems to me if there was really demand due to the OKC streetcar, land speculators would be out buying properties along the route to get ready for the onslaught of demand.

if the streetcar were already built, then YES - devon tower could be claimed. and rightfully so.

... but it seems to me if there was really demand due to the OKC streetcar, land speculators would be out buying properties along the route to get ready for the onslaught of demand.

What makes you think they aren't doing that?

if the streetcar were already built, then YES - devon tower could be claimed. and rightfully so.

Pardon, but my brain cannot grasp "rightfully so". When proponents claim economic impact due to construction of the line that is saying that it would not have happened without the line, which in the example given would be very disingenious. Please explain.

What makes you think they aren't doing that?

I read the list of properties sold in the Saturday Oklahoman every week and have not noticed any recent purchases in the area. Perhaps you could prove me wrong, providing you have the time to do so, which it appears you might.

I read the list of properties sold in the Saturday Oklahoman every week and have not noticed any recent purchases in the area. Perhaps you could prove me wrong, providing you have the time to do so, which it appears you might.

I'll tell you what - send me a map showing where the streetcar is going to be built and I'll take a look.

(that is a trick request - we don't the exact route yet or when it will open)

Pardon, but my brain cannot grasp "rightfully so". When proponents claim economic impact due to construction of the line that is saying that it would not have happened without the line, which in the example given would be very disingenious. Please explain.

How about this then. Put together a quick list of all the future development that will take place around OKC and after the streetcar is built, anything that gets constructed along the route that was on your list we won't credit to the streetcar. That should be fair.

The route hasn't even gone through environmental analysis and if problems are found there may be changes, so anyone who doesn't already own property would be foolish to purchase now. It's going to be 3 to 5 years before the streetcar line is completed, so certainly anyone wanting to rent to capitalize on the route would be foolish to do so now as well. It's simply too early. Economic development will occur over time regardless, it won't simply mushroom in a month or two.

How about this then. Put together a quick list of all the future development that will take place around OKC and after the streetcar is built, anything that gets constructed along the route that was on your list we won't credit to the streetcar. That should be fair.

I think I will just wait and if something is built along the line I will go ask them if they located there because of the streetcar and get back to the forum with what I found out.

There's a lot of open land along Robinson and on cross streets between Broadway and Robinson that has not been developed, as well as a lot of open land near 11th St. Perhaps we can watch these areas once the final route is officially announced and see what happens. One could also argue that anything sold prior to the official route announcement is buying for speculation as well, but for that you will have to ask.

I wouldn't claim the Devon Tower regardless, nor would I claim anything that had been in the planning stages for years. I will tell you that retailers who are going to be on or near the proposed route are thrilled at the prospect. Midtown will suddenly be accessible to visitors staying in Bricktown or downtown hotels, and people living in Mesta Park and Heritage Hills will have easy access to Bricktown and downtown. Those are probably distances requiring driving for all but the most intrepid casual walkers.

In an article I read about the potential Tuscon streetcar, opponents said that most of the surrounding development occurs because of tax incentives. Any thoughts about that?

Well actually, that's not true. I don't know where you saw that, but in many cases, it's actually the opposite. To fund streetcar expansions, often what happens in Portland and Seattle is they levy a tax district that raises property taxes on the TOD impact area, issues bonds, and then repays the bonds over time with the new property taxes on the infill area.

I want to make a few essential comments about the concept of economic development regarding the streetcar. First, there is a difference between the streetcar attracting investment to the greater metropolitan area and attracting demand to the greater metropolitan area. Of course the streetcar improves quality of life in Oklahoma City and makes our downtown much more attractive, and that will interest many prospective new residents, but the potential for it to actually grow regional housing demand isn't really relevant. But it does attract investment that otherwise would not come to OKC. That is because people are right, that it does shift demand from one area (suburbs) to another area (downtown). It does this in a natural way that doesn't involve leveraging taxes to make life unpleasant for suburbanites.

There are investment opportunities that exist with urban development that don't hardly exist with suburban developments. If they decide to let MAPS3 pay for a FULL downtown streetcar system, as voters expected, then there will be a lot of investment from OUTSIDE of OKC that would go into OKC real estate. Obviously this is not the case with suburban development. Furthermore, just compare the cost differential between suburban housing and urban housing. Which do you think is better for the economy?

Then regarding convention center economic development potential, I think that is an argument of the 1990s. It was very true then. Now? It seems to be proving a lot less true. I think streetcar economic development is the trend of the future. How ironic that OKC always seems 10-20 years behind, and then we wonder why? This is why. We are so convinced by looking at old data and old arguments, and we refuse to believe new data and new arguments until 10-20 years too late. That is what we are seeing with the convention center v. streetcar.

But even if you want to go above trends, which I believe is needed (there is no point in just "keeping up with trends" regardless of what economic development argument someone gives you), then it should come down to livability and quality of life. Which the convention center does nothing for, as a black hole in our downtown that doesn't interact with people at all.

I think I will just wait and if something is built along the line I will go ask them if they located there because of the streetcar and get back to the forum with what I found out.

I would just recommend everyone puts a particular poster on ignore...

Spartan, you make a great case. I am not sure about CC's being dead, but I do know the current trends are away from big conventions. I suspect that the more expensive travel is and the more opportunities in mass electronic communication grow we will see some diminishing of conventions. However, I think there will always be needs for group meetings and a competitive facility is needed. As to it being a "black hole", it doesn't have to be. That said, I have spent a lot of time in Europe and am a HUGE proponent of urban mass transit systems. I go to Paris quite a bit and never rent a car except to go travel the country. Even in Lyon where I have worked quite a bit, and is a city very comparably sized, etc. to OKC, they have a good transit system. So, I totally agree with the need on many levels.

Choosing between these two is like choosing between your daughter and son. You love them both.

I would just recommend everyone puts a particular poster on ignore...

Why is that Sparky? Does your lack of maturity not allow you to read a different view than your own? No need to answer either of those questions because I already know.

I'm laughing here because I just told one of my co-workers about the plan to move the Convention Center forward. She's the kind of person who votes for MAPS but then doesn't pay a lot of attention. Her comment was: "Why? There's not enough to do downtown right now to attract bigger conventions. People will be saying, 'I don't want to go to a convention there because there's nothing to do' or after attending 'That convention was lame'."

That was precisely my argument to the committee yesterday. We need time to develop our downtown and downtown transit more. We can build a bigger, fancier space but unless there's more to do than attend the convention, the only ones we'll attract are conventions where no one brings their family and no one wants to do anything but meet. We run the risk of bad reviews that could hurt us attract better conventions even when our downtown is more developed.

Compared to Orland or Chicago, you are right. Compared to Columbus or Omaha, not so much. Coming in from Wichita or Gotebo we have tons of entertainment.

I'm laughing here because I just told one of my co-workers about the plan to move the Convention Center forward. She's the kind of person who votes for MAPS but then doesn't pay a lot of attention. Her comment was: "Why? There's not enough to do downtown right now to attract bigger conventions. People will be saying, 'I don't want to go to a convention there because there's nothing to do' or after attending 'That convention was lame'."

That was precisely my argument to the committee yesterday. We need time to develop our downtown and downtown transit more. We can build a bigger, fancier space but unless there's more to do than attend the convention, the only ones we'll attract are conventions where no one brings their family and no one wants to do anything but meet. We run the risk of bad reviews that could hurt us attract better conventions even when our downtown is more developed.

Not to mention that nobody wants to go to a convention in a city designed around a convention center..

Actually, Omaha may be a better place, or at least no worse, to go to a convention than OKC. I was pretty shocked when I was there this year. And my sister goes to a fair number of conventions. She lives in a town of 5,000 and she wants to go to San Diego and Boston just like I do. Now, if the Adventure line were functioning or we had some downtown retail of significance that might be different. I'm certainly going to no conventions where I have to rent a car to get around a convention city. If there's no mass trans I'm not going.

Actually, Omaha may be a better place, or at least no worse, to go to a convention than OKC. I was pretty shocked when I was there this year. And my sister goes to a fair number of conventions. She lives in a town of 5,000 and she wants to go to San Diego and Boston just like I do. Now, if the Adventure line were functioning or we had some downtown retail of significance that might be different. I'm certainly going to no conventions where I have to rent a car to get around a convention city. If there's no mass trans I'm not going.

So how did you get around in Omaha? Just wondering. (smiley emoticon)

I walked. Got a ride downtown and then never left. I'm not really saying Omaha should be a convention destination, but I'm not really sure it has less to offer than OKC. And they've got some retail downtown.

Have to be careful with assigning cause and effect. I could present data that shows that the Bricktown Canal was responsible for the $3 Billion in development around it since it went in. That would be absurd. We don't know from the numbers you show what the NET affect in the CITY was. We only know from that info that there was great investment apparently in the area around the tracks. While many people have a fever when they die, they don't die from the fever.

I agree. I'm sure there are economic values included in those figures that would have occured with or without the streetcar. The studies were, however, prepared by qualified consultants who understand transit oriented development and have experience separating out economic impacts that are primarily driven by streetcar system development versus those that would have occurred otherwise.

Anyone familiar with TOD and the various streetcar and other rail transit systems throughout the country knows that there is substantial economic development directly related to development of those systems. You can discount the figures provided with any hocus-pocus factor you choose...20%...30%...even 50%...and they are still very significant.

The point of posting those wasn't to argue their specificity. It was meant only to generally demonstrate the significant economic development potential of the MAPS 3 streetcar system. Will it create $3.5 billion in economic development. I doubt it. Will it generate hundreds of millions? Probably.

I have always questioned the numbers relating to economic impact touted by streetcar proponets, but now I think I am getting a clearer picture. If anything is built near a streetcar line, then the proponets will claim it as being because of the streetcars. It is too bad that the streetcar was not in place two years ago. Had it been, proponets could claim the devon tower, project 180, the new I-40 replacement, the new convention center and central park and anything else that happens, even if it had nothing to do with the street car. Those projects add to what? Two billion? Just think how other streetcar proponents in other cities could point to OKC as a shining example of the impact streetcars have had in the southern plains. I guess since streetcars have been proposed for a while it might be possible to claim those numbers anyway.
.

Which is exactly what the Chamber did with their economic impact of MAPS "study". They included anything and everything that fell within a certain boundary that happened after the MAPS vote passed. Including the I-40 relocation and the Memorial.

Which is exactly what the Chamber did with their economic impact of MAPS "study". They included anything and everything that fell within a certain boundary that happened after the MAPS vote passed. Including the I-40 relocation and the Memorial.

That's exactly what I was going to say. So it's ok to attribute this to the "OKC renaissance" (aka a convention center and a sports team) but to attribute these sorts of spin-off investments to a so-called "liberal" idea like public transit, that's obscene! lol

It's already been decided.....the street car is going to be located along Memorial Rd, between MacArthur and Western.

This week the MAPS 3 committee is considering changing the timing and some other elements of the various projects.

Interestingly in Option 1, they are proposing doing exactly what has been discussed here regarding Central Park:

Revised Project Order Option 1
• Convention Center moves up 30 months
• Phase 4 of the River, the Lower Park design and construction,
and Phase 2 of Transit are moved back two years
• Last three Wellness Centers and the later phases of Trails are
extended
• Upper Park is divided into two phases:
*****First phase early in the program – basic amenities
*****Completion phase later in the program
• Fairgrounds project moves up one year
• River - Whitewater project moves up 6 months
• Transit has an added Investigation and Standards phase

Revised Project Order Option 2
• Convention Center moves up 21 months
• Phase 4 of the River, the Lower Park design and construction,
and Phase 2 of Transit are moved back two years
• Last three Wellness Centers and the later phases of Trails are
extended
• Upper Park is completed by the end of 2014
• Fairgrounds project moves up one year
• River - Whitewater project moves up 6 months
• Transit has an added Investigation and Standards phase

Interesting that heavy hitters got their way, such as Clay Bennett getting his unpopular Fairgrounds project moved up a year. Also, the whitewater rapids deal (probably Aubrey's) is getting moved up.

This will probably be the last MAPS campaign ever for this city. The backroom politics has been downright nasty, some of which I'm not at liberty to discuss. But make no mistake, there are some really important people in this town who have actively tried to destroy the streetcar. They will have to continue to be watched once the thing is actually built.

It's easy to say that now, but if the projects are completed successfully and prove to be popular then all this will be forgotten.

These projects are generally more amorphous and longer-term (not to mention larger scope and budget) than the previous iterations of MAPS, which leaves room for lots of varying opinions and priorities.

Way, way more planning and collaboration is going into all this than with the other MAPS projects and that's not only required, it's probably a good thing. But it also means tough decisions are having to be made and not everyone that participates in the process is going to get their way.

At yesterday's council meeting, as part of but expanding beyond discussion of the Skydance Bridge status (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=14083&p=440836#post440836), the following discussion occurred, largely observations by Pete White concerning MAPS 3 specificity (or lack thereof). Good stuff.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSiPby_VB-o&feature=player_profilepage

I haven't met Pete White, but I already like how he seems to be as confused with things as me or any average Joe and has to ask these basic questions. I can't imagine how hard it is to plan all the huge amount of things going on in the city at once right now. I can't follow all these council meetings religiously, but it seems to me that people aren't all on the same page, or somebody fell asleep during a presentation one day. The "bridge to nowhere" and the power substation relocation thing are examples. When people say things like "we never agreed on that" or people have assumptions on what's going to happen and then they don't it makes people wonder about the whole thing.

Oh, then there's the original timeline of events that were in place when MAPS 3 was voted on, with the mass transit thing being the linchpin, that gets swept under a rug and pushed back and suddenly it's the convention center we need now instead. Now the idea of a central park is even questioned, with the bridge to it suddenly in this limbo. Seems like there was some other agenda behind the scenes with all the projects getting shuffled around.

I haven't met Pete White, but I already like how he seems to be as confused with things as me or any average Joe and has to ask these basic questions. I can't imagine how hard it is to plan all the huge amount of things going on in the city at once right now. I can't follow all these council meetings religiously, but it seems to me that people aren't all on the same page, or somebody fell asleep during a presentation one day. The "bridge to nowhere" and the power substation relocation thing are examples. When people say things like "we never agreed on that" or people have assumptions on what's going to happen and then they don't it makes people wonder about the whole thing.

Oh, then there's the original timeline of events that were in place when MAPS 3 was voted on, with the mass transit thing being the linchpin, that gets swept under a rug and pushed back and suddenly it's the convention center we need now instead. Now the idea of a central park is even questioned, with the bridge to it suddenly in this limbo. Seems like there was some other agenda behind the scenes with all the projects getting shuffled around.

I don't recall the timeline being part of the promotion of Maps3. Perhaps someone can post something showing how the various project timelines were used to sell the ideas to the public. Was the mass trans promoted as the first to happen? Maybe I just missed that part.

Oh, and there are always agendas. Many of them good, some bad. The biggest and best agenda is serving our citizens. How that is done best is a matter of opinion.

I don't recall the timeline being part of the promotion of Maps3. Perhaps someone can post something showing how the various project timelines were used to sell the ideas to the public. Was the mass trans promoted as the first to happen? Maybe I just missed that part.

Oh, and there are always agendas. Many of them good, some bad. The biggest and best agenda is serving our citizens. How that is done best is a matter of opinion.

Their was a few statement about the convention center being at the end.

Their was a few statement about the convention center being at the end.

By who? Where was it said? In what context?

rover, Im not sure if you're playing devils advocate or are the big interests 'boy' sometimes. I often agree with some points of what you say (usually about conspiracies) but Unforsaken brought up some very valid points and I also noticed that your posts always have a common theme - that these power brokers (Nickles, Bennett, etc all) know what they're doing - they run big businesses and that the citizens don't know the real deal or should otherwise trust what has happened.

Yet, how can people trust when things have consistently changed and it has been ONE group leading that change. You asked about the original MAPS III timeline, you would HAVE to believe there was one since MULTIPLE PEOPLE on here have consistently cited it and are asking why should we change it so the ford site becomes favourable for the convention centre. Rover, this is a fact and nobody is dreaming it and YOU are the one in the dark or being the cc's boy.

Second, it is very clear that transit was the #1 by far project the citizens voted on, yet you (and the cc people) have tried to push that aside and say it is the CC that is the centrepiece of MAPS III. Many of us beg to differ and would like the system that was set up to be used (and not changed so that Ford Site 'works').

Again, I am not picking on you or anything and most of the time I agree with at least some of your points, but when I look objectively at your posts and some of the things others are saying - I can't help but think that you are defending the cc people and trying to justify their actions with their business titles. As someone on the forum said, Larry should stick to running oil/gas companies because bullying your way through civic projects is NOT the way to go. As I said in the cc thread, it is plainly obvious that the cc committee didn't even use their own criteria in selecting the cc site, since Ford site was the LOWEST scored and needed significant modifications to MAPS III in order for it to even come close to being acceptable along the lines of the other sites.

So this has to make somebody wonder - why did the cc committee not follow their own rules/process, and instead chose an all around (per their own survey) inferiour site? Why is it that transit, the #1 by far project this city wants, has to be pushed back 2 years so that the Ford Site Convention Center WORKS and Clay Bennett supported Fairgrounds get pushed up 1 year?

Again, there was an original timeline, otherwise - why are people *me, forum members, these committees, the council* why are we all saying this should move 30 months, this back 2 years, so on. Come on, ... There was an original schedule and you are proving more and more that you are just supporting the cc and that perhaps there MAY BE some sort of conspiracy by Bennett, Nichols, and the cc committee members. ....

By who? Where was it said? In what context?

Cornett said it. However, I'm not sure that was prior to the vote. I believe it may have been fairly soon after MAPS 3 passed. I don't recall hearing anything about a timeline prior to the vote.

The best argument for the first timeline is that it was ADG's opinion, theoretically idependent of outside influence. The timeline was not changed until a change was requested by one committee. It doesn't bother me that the convention center committee wanted to move up. I understand that completely. It was that they wanted to move to the front of the line, and they basically leaned on ADG to change their timeline, without any discussion of quality of life issues, without any discussion of how that timeline would affect other projects. It was basically....."This is what we want." and it was quite clear in the meeting they intended to get it. ADG didn't help, because they threw out that the three projects with the most economic impact would be the convention center, the fairgrounds and the whitewater facility. There was absolutely no data presented to back up this assertion, and when asked after the meeting why the economic impact of the streetcar hadn't been factored in to the discussion, it was stated that that economic benefit had been discussed at the joint meeting and that "information had been adequately discussed." ???????? Then, ADG changed the timeline to move up the convention center, the fairgrounds and the whitewater facility. I've yet to see any hard data about the potential economic impact of any of them.

I am certainly not in the business to support the "big boys", are not their friend, and have no financial interest in them, at all. Nor do I think they are infallible, far from it. I also do not believe that they are experts on urban development. HOWEVER, when there are differences of opinion, all too often certain people on this board are way too eager to look for a boogey man. There seems to be a theme of resentment of successful people in general. The conversation gets pretty aggressive in its portrayal of many civic leaders and their motives or "agendas". I happen to think that we should question their decisions, but unless we have pretty good evidence, we should avoid assigning motives. In fact, very few on here know their motives or why they think like they think. I believe that many of the people who are attacked hardest (Like Larry Nichols) actually have huge amounts of skin in the game and want downtown OKC to be the best it can be. That he may have a different opinion of what that is and is working to convince others of his point of view does not automatically make him a crook as some have intimated without evidence.

I will always vigorously defend the right and value of good honest discourse, but feel like the personal attacks, regardless of the target, is unnecessary and do not help us find good and solid common understanding and new ideas.

I think there is solid reasoning behind the Ford site, as there is for other sites as well. In the end, there are difficult and controversial decisions to be made. Consensus is not easy. Whether it is priority of projects or how they are done, if there are multiple choices there will be multiple viewpoints and many enemies of decisions which will be made. But it doesn't mean the people making the decisions are bad, or stupid, or ill intentioned. And if we don't like how it is done, then we need to vote the people responsible out. But we put people in office to make decisions and they are making them. Elect new people if you want new decisions.

As for the "power brokers", the reason they keep popping up is that our leaders always ask them to be on these committees and to lead initiatives. It is because they have proven over and over that they can actually get things done at a high level. That, and their contacts with other people who can get things done is huge. Nobody asks failures and novices to lead initiatives to spend millions of dollars, particularly public money. It is no secret why the same people are involved. USUALLY, but not always, there is a reason why they have been successful and it isn't because they are shrinking violets. Oh, and most of them really know their way around financial information, project planning, working with consultants, knowing who to believe and who not to believe, and have large staffs capable of helping them get to the bottom of most issues. They usually know how to navigate trick politics and how to work with groups to gain common ground. They generally are also good at knowing good risks from bad on many types of issues.

That said, I totally agree that this is a citizens' initiative and we all need to voice our opinions and be heard in the process, and to be vocal when we are not.

I am certainly not in the business to support the "big boys", are not their friend, and have no financial interest in them, at all. Nor do I think they are infallible, far from it. I also do not believe that they are experts on urban development. HOWEVER, when there are differences of opinion, all too often certain people on this board are way too eager to look for a boogey man. There seems to be a theme of resentment of successful people in general. The conversation gets pretty aggressive in its portrayal of many civic leaders and their motives or "agendas". I happen to think that we should question their decisions, but unless we have pretty good evidence, we should avoid assigning motives. In fact, very few on here know their motives or why they think like they think. I believe that many of the people who are attacked hardest (Like Larry Nichols) actually have huge amounts of skin in the game and want downtown OKC to be the best it can be. That he may have a different opinion of what that is and is working to convince others of his point of view does not automatically make him a crook as some have intimated without evidence.

I will always vigorously defend the right and value of good honest discourse, but feel like the personal attacks, regardless of the target, is unnecessary and do not help us find good and solid common understanding and new ideas.

I think there is solid reasoning behind the Ford site, as there is for other sites as well. In the end, there are difficult and controversial decisions to be made. Consensus is not easy. Whether it is priority of projects or how they are done, if there are multiple choices there will be multiple viewpoints and many enemies of decisions which will be made. But it doesn't mean the people making the decisions are bad, or stupid, or ill intentioned. And if we don't like how it is done, then we need to vote the people responsible out. But we put people in office to make decisions and they are making them. Elect new people if you want new decisions.

As for the "power brokers", the reason they keep popping up is that our leaders always ask them to be on these committees and to lead initiatives. It is because they have proven over and over that they can actually get things done at a high level. That, and their contacts with other people who can get things done is huge. Nobody asks failures and novices to lead initiatives to spend millions of dollars, particularly public money. It is no secret why the same people are involved. USUALLY, but not always, there is a reason why they have been successful and it isn't because they are shrinking violets. Oh, and most of them really know their way around financial information, project planning, working with consultants, knowing who to believe and who not to believe, and have large staffs capable of helping them get to the bottom of most issues. They usually know how to navigate trick politics and how to work with groups to gain common ground. They generally are also good at knowing good risks from bad on many types of issues.

That said, I totally agree that this is a citizens' initiative and we all need to voice our opinions and be heard in the process, and to be vocal when we are not.

I really appreciate your comment. Thanks.

I don't recall the timeline being part of the promotion of Maps3. Perhaps someone can post something showing how the various project timelines were used to sell the ideas to the public. Was the mass trans promoted as the first to happen? Maybe I just missed that part. ...

Their was a few statement about the convention center being at the end.

By who? Where was it said? In what context?

Cornett said it. However, I'm not sure that was prior to the vote. I believe it may have been fairly soon after MAPS 3 passed. I don't recall hearing anything about a timeline prior to the vote. ...
Betts is correct, it was the Mayor (pre-vote).
From the Mayor's January 2009 State of the City speech:

The park and the boulevard are the lynchpins, and they serve as the catalyst for future retail, housing, and a potential Convention Center, which I’ll discuss in a moment. ... The timeline is doable. Keep in mind, the interstate should be relocated in 2012. The resulting boulevard that will be built along the current interstate alignment should be in place by 2014. The park, ideally, needs to be ready at the same time, roughly five years from now.

If we decided to vote on a MAPS 3 initiative in the next year or two, it would most likely be at least ten years from now before that convention center would open.

Q&A with Cornet (Oklahoman, 3/11/2009):

It’s important to remember that a new convention center may not open until nearly 2020, even if funding were approved this year.

MAPS convention center plans discussed (Oklahoman, 11/22/09)

Cornett said the city hasn’t decided which projects will be built first and will make those decisions with the help of a citizen’s oversight committee. But he expects the park will be toward the front of the line.

"The convention center will probably be 10 years out, maybe nine,” Cornett said.

Somewhere Cornett used the phrase "staged last" when talking about his preference for the timing of the C.C., but can't locate it right now...


All of that being said, the underlying premise/rationale of the Park/Boulevard was a direct response to the relocation of I-40 and the opportunity that presented the City to redevelop/redesign it's downtown. The Council has declared the Core to Shore area as being "blighted" and the intention of getting the Park completed as one of the 1st projects is giving the people that are exiting off those new I-40 ramps into downtown, won't be driving through block after block of unsightly "blight" (the same rational used for the Boulevard or "Gateway" into downtown). If the park is pushed back towards the end of the timeline, that means people are going to be looking at various degrees of that blight for the next 10 years. Do we really want that?

I agree with the Mayor, that the Park needs to be completed (blight removed and construction finished) sooner rather than later.

So park before transit? Park before senior centers?

By the time Cornett gets the senior centers built, the seniors that will have paid for them will be dead.

By the time Cornett gets the senior centers built, the seniors that will have paid for them will be dead.

Since I fit in that category, I'm planning on proving you wrong. LOL

ljbab728:

I hear what you are saying. While I don't currently qualify, by the time they get built, I will (if they follow the age criteria of the Arkansas one they were using as the template pre-vote).

By the time Cornett gets the senior centers built, the seniors that will have paid for them will be dead.

That's the way it goes when you pay as you go (or before you go). On the other hand, we of this generation get the advantage of those who paid before us. This is our responsibility to succeeding generations. We should be doing these things for the "future" of OKC and our kid and grandkids. This is not about being just self serving and selfish, but in preparing OKC for the long haul. Too often we look at supporting these things based only on what WE want RIGHT NOW an only for our own use. If we are to be a great city and a great citizenry we must give up our selfish interests and be willing to look more at the future.

By the time Cornett gets the senior centers built, the seniors that will have paid for them will be dead.

While their will be a some that will not get a chance to use them, it is not like it is a targeted tax on seniors, the vast majority of people who pay for them (even if you just include senior population today) will get an option to use one unless they end up having to be closed.

That's the way it goes when you pay as you go (or before you go). On the other hand, we of this generation get the advantage of those who paid before us. This is our responsibility to succeeding generations. We should be doing these things for the "future" of OKC and our kid and grandkids. This is not about being just self serving and selfish, but in preparing OKC for the long haul. Too often we look at supporting these things based only on what WE want RIGHT NOW an only for our own use. If we are to be a great city and a great citizenry we must give up our selfish interests and be willing to look more at the future.

I am not disagreeing with most of what you are saying, but you do realize that including the Senior Aquatic Centers was a deliberate, calculated political decision to get the Senior vote? Just as the Senior sales tax exemption was used in the original MAPS? MAPS 4 kids is a much better example of what you were talking about. On the other hand, I know of very few voters that vote for purely unselfish reasons. There is nearly always "something in it for them". Thus the wide range of projects. Not interested in a Convention Center? Fine, maybe you want Streetcars, Trails and Sidewalks.

I am not disagreeing with most of what you are saying, but you do realize that including the Senior Aquatic Centers was a deliberate, calculated political decision to get the Senior vote? Just as the Senior sales tax exemption was used in the original MAPS? MAPS 4 kids is a much better example of what you were talking about. On the other hand, I know of very few voters that vote for purely unselfish reasons. There is nearly always "something in it for them". Thus the wide range of projects. Not interested in a Convention Center? Fine, maybe you want Streetcars, Trails and Sidewalks.

If you consider over 50 as Senior, then maybe there were votes by those wanting to use those centers in a few years. However, no time frames were ever given on building them and it has always been that projects are not started until money is there to pay for it. So I doubt the true seniors were voting on it hoping to use it in the next 5 years or so.