If OKC is serious about being a player for corporations and conventions and continuing the dream of being an 'elite' city (and I believe everyone on this board is), OKC NEEDS convention facilities and not just a mediocre one.

Here we are in the catch 22 position again. The chamber says 2/3 of convention center visitors are local. If the goal is to expand the other 1/3 then we aren't going to do it with the convention center proposed. We need to spend way more than $250 million. Of course, the Chamber already knows this and called the MAPS III CC a phase 1, with a phase 2 to come later? Where do they plan on building this phase 2 by selecting a land-locked location for phase 1?

I am all for the convention center (I can't seem to repeat this enough), I just wish they would move it from the current location to a place that would allow for contiguous expansion while reserving prime space for private development. MBG is supposed to be a driver of private development but how can that be accomplished if the City keeps building publicly funded projects around it? I don't know why that doesn't make sense.

Call me cynical if you must, but yeah .... if you are rabid about , or even mildly interested in, the streetcar coming to life, it would be good to be even more vigilant than ever before. That mess contains questions that were pretty much already answered (my opinion) but as the answers are not appreciated, it seems the tactic is to just ask all over again. But, who will be getting asked if that happens?

That PDF was like watching a high school student project created the night before it was due. The language was atrocious. There was very little information given that could not be assumed from the body of information known to the general public. Even worse, this half baked "study" claimed that the street car route needed an additional "study". Do they expect to be paid by the city to author the needed streetcar study?

That PDF was like watching a high school student project created the night before it was due. The language was atrocious. There was very little information given that could not be assumed from the body of information known to the general public. Even worse, this half baked "study" claimed that the street car route needed an additional "study". Do they expect to be paid by the city to author the needed streetcar study?

That particular question is a tough one for me as I personally don't like the route selected nor the use of couplets, but I resigned myself to the fact that the decision had already been made so I stopped bring it up. A question about the route doesn't concern me near as much as questions about whether we should have a system at all.

Here we are in the catch 22 position again. The chamber says 2/3 of convention center visitors are local. If the goal is to expand the other 1/3 then we aren't going to do it with the convention center proposed. We need to spend way more than $250 million. Of course, the Chamber already knows this and called the MAPS III CC a phase 1, with a phase 2 to come later? Where do they plan on building this phase 2 by selecting a land-locked location for phase 1?

I am all for the convention center (I can't seem to repeat this enough), I just wish they would move it from the current location to a place that would allow for contiguous expansion while reserving prime space for private development. MBG is supposed to be a driver of private development but how can that be accomplished if the City keeps building publicly funded projects around it? I don't know why that doesn't make sense.
Exactly!

My biggest concern is what I perceive to be laying the groundwork for doing away with the streetcar, or at least delaying it or scaling it back. Look at these questions from the report. These are all questions I've seen repeatedly addressed by Urban Pioneer and others. So why are they making a re-appearance as if these issues are just now coming up?

Modern Streetcar

Findings:
• There was general concern among stakeholders interviewed that the
transit component of the MAPS 3 program needs additional study and
planning. Questions that were raised include:
- What is the market for transit?
- What is the demand?
- How will it connect employment centers and housing?
- What is the rider profile? Who is this transit serving?
- How can transit in Oklahoma City be leveraged to spur high
quality development?
• There was concern among interviewed stakeholders about possible
streetscape clutter created by an overhead wire system.

There are very simple and obvious answers to the majority of those questions....which leads me to question the breadth of knowledge and sophistication of the questioners.

Here we are in the catch 22 position again. The chamber says 2/3 of convention center visitors are local. If the goal is to expand the other 1/3 then we aren't going to do it with the convention center proposed. We need to spend way more than $250 million. Of course, the Chamber already knows this and called the MAPS III CC a phase 1, with a phase 2 to come later? Where do they plan on building this phase 2 by selecting a land-locked location for phase 1?

I am all for the convention center (I can't seem to repeat this enough), I just wish they would move it from the current location to a place that would allow for contiguous expansion while reserving prime space for private development. MBG is supposed to be a driver of private development but how can that be accomplished if the City keeps building publicly funded projects around it? I don't know why that doesn't make sense.

The biggest critics of the cc on this board think there will be no need for expansion as they believe it is a dying business. If they are right, then all the hand wringing about expansion is baseless. If indeed they are wrong, the current Cox site is the most logical or the south of the Chesapeake arena. And, before everyone gets uptight about it being across the blvd, go see Orlando. It has multiple halls separated by a huge blvd. Doesn't seem to hurt their business. Chances are the expanded space will be for multiple events with conflicting dates, not so much for one huge event (we aren't likely to get those anyway).

Secondly, while the MBG is supposed to drive private development, that doesn't have to mean that it is driving only development for a person or two who already happens to own property adjacent. If you are looking at it in a micro sense, I guess the objection stands, but if you are looking at it as improving the whole of the downtown core and thereby attracting private development to the core, then it is a weaker objection. I do not believe the huge investment in the garden was just to make ONE parcel more valuable. The validity of the logic just depends on how you want to frame the argument. Each has its point.

Has there ever been a top priority Maps project that did not get built?

I know we are waiting on a downtown school, but that is moving along and will be built.

The biggest critics of the cc on this board think there will be no need for expansion as they believe it is a dying business.

I think you mean critic - singular.

Have you ever walked around the outside of Orange County Convention Center? It is deadsville. International Drive is one of the busiest streets in Orlando with more shopping (albeit tacky shopping) than you can shake a stick at - until you get the convention center area, then all sidewalk life ceases to exist. Even the convention centers inside Disney World are put at the backs of the hotels out of site because no one wants to walk next to 900 linear feet of walls (or in the case of the Orange Count CC - a half mile of blank walls).

No one wants to turn Oklahoma Blvd into this section of International Drive. The only pedestrians are the taxi drivers.

http://2010.ieee-rfid.org/files/2011/12/RFID-01-Orlando-Ctr.jpg

Downtown Orlando (sans convention center) however, is booming.

Has there ever been a top priority Maps project that did not get built?

Yes, the rail system in MAPS I. It was supposed to link downtown with the hotels along Meridian with a stop at the fairgrounds.

No one wants to turn Oklahoma Blvd into this section of International Drive. The only pedestrians are the taxi drivers.
http://2010.ieee-rfid.org/files/2011/12/RFID-01-Orlando-Ctr.jpg


My personal experience has been similar, As I have traveled the past two years for my org I have noticed that most convention sites are dead majority of the time and avoided by locals (including the Cox).
It would be helpful to me if someone could give me an example of a convention site built correctly that draws tourist and locals.

Yes, the rail system in MAPS I. It was supposed to link downtown with the hotels along Meridian with a stop at the fairgrounds.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not 100% sure (maybe 85-90%), but I'm pretty sure the light rail system was only talked about in the early stages of the development... By the time MAPS went to a vote, the idea had been replaced with the Spirit Trolleys which DO link downtown with those hotels (although not the fairgrounds). So, since it was just an early concept that was never voted on as a part of the first MAPS, it cannot be considered something that did not get built as a part of MAPS because it WASN'T a part of MAPS.

I would think there would be mixed-used places around the new CC

It would be helpful to me if someone could give me an example of a convention site built correctly that draws tourist and locals.

Off the top of my head I can think of a couple: Vancouver and Columbus were both very busy outside when I was there recently. Also New Orleans. But there were conventions going on then, too. Calgary, which is repeatedly pointed out as an example, has theirs right downtown also and is surrounded by a lot of activity.

I don't think by their nature CCs are tourist draws. If we are trying to draw tourists to downtown maybe we could skip the CC and put mini Magic Mountain there.

Things that benefit from locating close to CCs: business services, tour businesses, shipping services, hotels, restaurants, coffee shops, art galleries, entertainment venues, etc. It doesn't have to kill business.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not 100% sure (maybe 85-90%), but I'm pretty sure the light rail system was only talked about in the early stages of the development... By the time MAPS went to a vote, the idea had been replaced with the Spirit Trolleys which DO link downtown with those hotels (although not the fairgrounds). So, since it was just an early concept that was never voted on as a part of the first MAPS, it cannot be considered something that did not get built as a part of MAPS because it WASN'T a part of MAPS.

At the time MAPS I passed it was supposed to be a rail system. It wasn't until about 2 years after the vote that the federal matching grant was denide and it was switched to rubber tire trolley. The people voted on a train and the City didn't deliver a train.

Off the top of my head I can think of a couple: Vancouver and Columbus were both very busy outside when I was there recently. Also New Orleans. But there were conventions going on then, too. Calgary, which is repeatedly pointed out as an example, has theirs right downtown also and is surrounded by a lot of activity.

I don't think by their nature CCs are tourist draws. If we are trying to draw tourists to downtown maybe we could skip the CC and put mini Magic Mountain there.

Things that benefit from locating close to CCs: business services, tour businesses, shipping services, hotels, restaurants, coffee shops, art galleries, entertainment venues, etc. It doesn't have to kill business.

I was in Columbus a few months back and it was very busy outside. From my observation it was one of the few places in Columbus that had people around it.

My biggest concern is what I perceive to be laying the groundwork for doing away with the streetcar, or at least delaying it or scaling it back. Look at these questions from the report. These are all questions I've seen repeatedly addressed by Urban Pioneer and others. So why are they making a re-appearance as if these issues are just now coming up?

Modern Streetcar

Findings:
• There was general concern among stakeholders interviewed that the
transit component of the MAPS 3 program needs additional study and
planning. Questions that were raised include:
- What is the market for transit?
- What is the demand?
- How will it connect employment centers and housing?
- What is the rider profile? Who is this transit serving?
- How can transit in Oklahoma City be leveraged to spur high
quality development?
• There was concern among interviewed stakeholders about possible
streetscape clutter created by an overhead wire system.


You really do have to wonder exactly who they "interviewed." Surely not anyone on the Modern Streetcar Alternatives Analysis Steering Committee? They met multiple times from May 2010 to May 2011 and specifically reviewed professional studies that answered these questions.

Here's the list of members of the AA Steering Committee:
http://www.letstalktransit.com/Websites/letstalktransit/Images/Documents/AA/AA%20Steering%20Committee%20Roster-October%202010.pdf

Seems like a very comprehensive representation of downtown stakeholders.

nm - that was the AA committee not a MAPS III committee.

At the time MAPS I passed it was supposed to be a rail system. It wasn't until about 2 years after the vote that the federal matching grant was denide and it was switched to rubber tire trolley. The people voted on a train and the City didn't deliver a train.

Why don't you tell the whole story if you are going to use this as your example. Why did the "City" not deliver?

At the time MAPS I passed it was supposed to be a rail system. It wasn't until about 2 years after the vote that the federal matching grant was denide and it was switched to rubber tire trolley. The people voted on a train and the City didn't deliver a train.
Actually former Congressman Ernest Istook made it impossible, and City officials were privately (and in some cases not so privately) furious. The people voted to fund a small percentage of the overall cost of the trolley plan - contingent on receiving federal funding, which should have been a cinch, based on the politics of the time.

Istook was on the House Appropriations subcommittee, and chaired Appropriation's Transportation subcommittee. He was a noted opponent of nearly all rail initiatives, and he intervened (against protocol, in some respect) in the funding of the trolley, which was actually not even in his district. He buried the trolley funding, and at the same time steered already-dedicated transportation dollars away from Oklahoma in another controversial move. Killing the trolley didn't save U.S. taxpayers, a penny; it just reallocated money already identified as transportation dollars.

It's really not fair to say that the "City didn't deliver a train," because while technically correct, they did everything within their power and were denied by the feds in a way that at the time qualified as highly unusual and unexpected. The rubber tire trolleys were a compromise that made nobody happy, save Ernest.

However, more than a few people today will tell you (quietly) that it might have been a good thing we were denied then, because at the time downtown redevelopment was in its infancy and any route chosen would have been a total crapshoot, likely to not mesh with current or future development patterns.

It's really not fair to say that the "City didn't deliver a train," because while technically correct, they did everything within their power and were denied by the feds in a way that at the time qualified as highly unusual and unexpected. The rubber tire trolleys were a compromise that made nobody happy, save Ernest.

However, more than a few people today will tell you (quietly) that it might have been a good thing we were denied then, because at the time downtown redevelopment was in its infancy and any route chosen would have been a total crapshoot, likely to not mesh with current or future development patterns.

I was just trying to keep it simple to answer the question. Count me as one of the people who is glad it never got built. It would have destroyed ANY chance of rail in OKC for three more generations. It was only going to Meridian to get the support of the hotel operators who were threatening to fight MAPS. It was being designed and built for all the wrong reasons.

However, more than a few people today will tell you (quietly) that it might have been a good thing we were denied then, because at the time downtown redevelopment was in its infancy and any route chosen would have been a total crapshoot, likely to not mesh with current or future development patterns.

This is a very good point I've never thought of before. The only thing I can think of that could be better than what we're getting now is that it might have led to downtown residential taking off sooner and faster.

I thought development will follow rail. If so, why would the route matter so much? We would have had a head start and building on it now because it would have generated billions in investment. We wouldn't be arguing location of the cc as it could have been on all that vacant land by the fairgrounds. A win-win, huh?

I thought development will follow rail. If so, why would the route matter so much? We would have had a head start and building on it now because it would have generated billions in investment. We wouldn't be arguing location of the cc as it could have been on all that vacant land by the fairgrounds. A win-win, huh?

You are going to have to clarify if you are being sarcastic or not first.

You are going to have to clarify if you are being sarcastic or not first.

Only semi sarcastic. Here's the point. It seems as if everyone worried about the city deceiving us and that there is no future in CCs, it seems an odd argument then to argue we shouldn't have one because the site is too small for expansion. If they are so sure it will not be used, then certainly an expansion won't be necessary.

As for the rail, okay I was being sarcastic. The argument for it seems to have been that it will stimulate all this development along the route. Others argue the route must follow current demand and usage patterns. I argue that itis somewhere in between. My response was to the same people saying they were glad we didn't do it years ago because it was destined to go towards the Meridian area. My cynical response was, "so what". It would have just driven development that way and now we are years down the road with lost opportunity.

Only semi sarcastic. Here's the point. It seems as if everyone worried about the city deceiving us and that there is no future in CCs, it seems an odd argument then to argue we shouldn't have one because the site is too small for expansion. If they are so sure it will not be used, then certainly an expansion won't be necessary.

As for the rail, okay I was being sarcastic. The argument for it seems to have been that it will stimulate all this development along the route. Others argue the route must follow current demand and usage patterns. I argue that itis somewhere in between. My response was to the same people saying they were glad we didn't do it years ago because it was destined to go towards the Meridian area. My cynical response was, "so what". It would have just driven development that way and now we are years down the road with lost opportunity.
The trolley that was killed by Istook was a rail circulator in downtown. It was anticipated that perhaps down the road there might be a way to leverage an I-40/Meridian rail connection, but the trolley that voters approved in 1993 was to be an old-fashioned trolley (much like what runs in Memphis or NOLA), that made a loop around downtown, nothing more.

The trolley that was killed by Istook was a rail circulator in downtown. It was anticipated that perhaps down the road there might be a way to leverage an I-40/Meridian rail connection, but the trolley that voters approved in 1993 was to be an old-fashioned trolley (much like what runs in Memphis or NOLA), that made a loop around downtown, nothing more.

No, it was planned to use the existing rail to Meridian. No new track was part of it.

No, it was planned to use the existing rail to Meridian. No new track was part of it.
Wow. You're right. Just read the 1993 ballot language again for the first time in years. I had forgotten the I-40 connection led the transit discussion at election time. I can promise you though, by the time the actual planning/defining came around (much like where we are currently with MAPS 3), the discussion had moved strongly in the direction of a trolley circulator in downtown. I guess that is very similar to how the canal took on a life of its own. On the ballot it was an afterthought mentioned in passing on the river improvements subsection. By the time it came to implementation it had become a cornerstone project.

JTF, here is an article from The Oklahoman's archives (http://newsok.com/article/2552045) on Sept 11, 1996 (with apologies to SOPA Steve):


Istook Stance May Kill Plan, Officials Say

Charolette Aiken
Published: September 11, 1996

While a downtown light rail system is critical to the success of the $297 million MAPS plan, city officials said Tuesday, Oklahoma City taxpayers may not be able to afford it if Rep. Ernest Istook blocks federal funding.

"We would have to come up with a plan outside of MAPS and I don't know yet how we would do that. We can't (afford) the $13 million or $15 million that it's going to take to do it," Mayor Ron Norick said.

City officials may have to consider a capital bond project to pay for the transportation link, he added. His comments came during a break in Tuesday's city council meeting.

Istook, R-Warr Acres, strongly opposes a plan now under consideration by a House-Senate Appropriations conference committee. That proposal could provide up to $13 million this year for the transportation project.

A day earlier, Istook told the chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on transportation that the project is economically unsound.

City Councilman Jack Cornett on Tuesday termed Istook's attitude "totally negative" and urged the Congressman to reconsider his stance and "take a look at the city area he represents."

Istook criticized the MAPS fixed-rail trolley loop saying it would be "high in cost but low in passengers."

He opposes pork projects, he said.

In a statement released on Tuesday, Istook said the city transportation plan "is not a proper use of federal taxpayers money under the guise of mass transit."

At stake is a 2.7 mile track that would be laid on downtown streets as part of the Metropolitan Area Projects plan. The light rail system is expected to cost $16 million. Nine stops would be included in the downtown loop. The city has set aside $3 million in local tax revenue and wants Congress to appropriate the rest.

Mayor Norick said Istook has relied on outdated information.

"He does not have certain revenue streams projected to help cover operating costs. We have (about) 8,000 parking places operated by the city in the downtown area that we need to (use) better. If we can provide a very good circulator system that will allow people to park on special event nights, we are going to increase revenue on those parking garages," Norick said.

An estimated $300,000 operating cost for the rail system would be "substantially reduced by increased revenues from parking garages. We are trying to make the downtown friendlier to tourists and visitors. As we open up our new convention facility, as new hotels open, we (need) to have a way people unfamiliar with our downtown streets ... can get on a system that makes frequent runs," Norick said.

"I don't think it's a pork project," Norick said. "The voters approved it as part of the MAPS referendum that we would fund some part of the transportation link. I think it makes a lot of sense. The citizens are putting in their money. We've got $3 million allocated and I would suspect as time goes on we'll put more in that project to make sure it's done right," the mayor said.

"I'm really working now through Sen. (Don) Nickles office. He is very supportive of this project and is trying to see if we can get it through the conference committee."

The project would improve the viability of MAPS , Norick said.

City planners touted the transportation link to private investors along Interstate 40 and Meridian Avenue as a way for conventioneers to get to downtown sites from hotels and motels near the fairgrounds.

In 1993, voters approved a five-year, 1-cent sales tax to fund nine major sports and entertainment facilities as part of MAPS.

"I think the citizens would like to see it done this way (with federal funding), and I would too. I plan to use it. I think what we would like to do is get this basic (link) in and when we get toward the end (of the project) maybe we can add amenities and expand it if it becomes more popular," Norick said.

Read more: http://newsok.com/istook-stance-may-kill-plan-officials-say/article/2552045#ixzz1kW5LaRxN

Thanks for posting that story. I love it when everyone gets to be right. They mentioned 9 stops on the downtown loop; did they ever make a route public? If so, does anyone know what that route was?

Ok, I apologize for my previous comment, I really thought the light rail to spirit trolley change happened earlier in the process. Eh, whatever. The trolleys have worked out pretty well. And I like thier versatility. Seems to me that as the Convention Center and park come online, trolley stops can be made at these destinations, whereas if we had a light rail system we would have had to develop AROUND it (not that it would have been all that bad of an idea) because you can't just move the light rail.

Speaking of the Spirit Trolleys, any information on their longevity?

Ok, I apologize for my previous comment, I really thought the light rail to spirit trolley change happened earlier in the process. Eh, whatever. The trolleys have worked out pretty well. And I like thier versatility. Seems to me that as the Convention Center and park come online, trolley stops can be made at these destinations, whereas if we had a light rail system we would have had to develop AROUND it (not that it would have been all that bad of an idea) because you can't just move the light rail.

Speaking of the Spirit Trolleys, any information on their longevity?

Not to LOL, but LOL! The Spirit trolley were a disaster by every measurable standard.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2008/12/21/how-the-trolleys-cost-downtown/

They were so serious about the downtown circulator idea that when they rebuilt Walnut/Mickey Mantle between the ballpark and the canal (both physically and chronologically) I'm pretty sure they did it in such a way that there was a roadbed for rail under the brick. Not sure of the 9 identified trolley stops.

In the defense of the City, as others have correctly pointed out, it wasn't their fault that the rail type streetcars didn't get built. I don't have the article handy but it stated that they already had track delivered and it was staged to begin laying said track. Then at the proverbial last minute federal funding was cut. If that article was correct, obviously the route had been determined by that point (but I don't ever recall a specific path, other than the general DT to the Fairgrounds to the Meridian hotel corridor).

While many projects in the original MAPS Ballot were general (but all were listed), some were fairly specific (especially for a Ballot, am sure the actual Ordinance 20,045 had more specifics but don't have access to it). As far as the ballot language goes, the Streetcars were very general. In fact the type of "transportation system" isn't mentioned at all. Most discussion seemed to be centered on the rail-bound streetcar idea but this was mentioned in an Oklahoman sidebar:

Tranportation Link: The city council could choose light rail, monorail or another mass transit system to link downtown with the interstate 40 and Meridian hotel area.

From the 1993 MAPS Ballot (Provided courtesy of Doug on the 1st page of the "New info on MAPS 3" thread):


Subsection

(B)(8) All or part of a transportation system and/or related facilities to provide access between Interstate Highway 40 and Meridian Avenue and downtown Oklahoma City; provided, said system and/or facilities shall be funded only if a Federal grant covering not less than 50% of applicable costs is obtained.

The ballot had a few supplemental projects listed if funding didn't run out on the main ones:

(C)(2) All or part of a transportation system and/or related facilities to provide access between downtown Oklahoma City and the vicinity of Remington Park, provided said system and/or facilities shall be funded only if a Federal grant covering not less than 50% of applicable costs is obtained.
So it was very clear, even on the ballot that this was dependent on Federal funding coming through (which the City clearly expected to be a given). Interesting to note that this was remembered this time around with MAPS 3 as the Mayor stated that they didn't want to include anything that was dependent on outside funding to get built. We would do it on our own and there would be sufficient funding for cost over runs built in. Can't locate the particular article at the moment, but this one has similar sentiment:
http://www.newsok.com/article/3400807
MAPS 3 proposals almost ready for Oklahoma voters (Oklahoman, 9/14/09)

"We are very mindful of doing everything we can to make sure we have enough money to do the projects at the level that the people are going to expect.”

Thanks Larry, that is great information.

As far as the Spirit Trolleys go... Look, I'm sorry that someone whom I personaly respect a great deal had a horrible experience three years ago, but when I said they worked out pretty well, the "measurable standard" that I was using was what I see everyday, and working where I work, I DO see them used on a daily basis, especially durring the main tourist season, and even in the offseason.

NOW back to what I was TRYING to ask. As far as Core To Shore goes... Is it possible that Trolley stops could be made at some of the new attractions (Park, CC, and any other associated development), or will that over extend the Trolley "fleet?" And IF Trolley stops will be added to these new attractions, how long will the aging "fleet" remain serviceable?

Fantastic: You're welcome. While I am sure they do get used, their impact could be so much greater if they fixed many of the problems discussed here and I think mentioned in the recent blog link (havent checked it). Same with the River Cruise boats. These are the same folks that are presumably going to be running the MAPS 3 Streetcars...

From 2010. Is the downtown trolley still free? How is the ridership?

http://www.acogok.org/Newsroom/Downloads11/20112013.pdf


Route 51 (Orange Line Trolley) was reduced to operate only on Fridays and Saturdays from 2:30 pm until 10:30 pm. Route 51 serves the Stockyards district and the Meridian Hotel area. COTPA operated this route using a 29’ Opus bus with a “Stagecoach” style of exterior graphic wrap, not a heritage trolley-look bus after August 1.

Route 52 (Red Line Trolley) was eliminated in February. It used to run in the Downtown-Bricktown area during weekdays.

From July 1, downtown trolleys (Blue Line Trolley) were offered free to ride for one year. Platt College is sponsoring this free fare.

One cut, one scaled back, and one free.

In the defense of the City, ...
Then at the proverbial last minute federal funding was cut. If that article was correct, obviously the route had been determined by that point (but I don't ever recall a specific path, other than the general DT to the Fairgrounds to the Meridian hotel corridor).


The reality is that federal funding was never a real possibility.
Here are the basic reasons I know of that a pet project would get federal funding:
-The President repays a state for their loyalty by using his political capital to push through a project.
-The President, with an eye toward reelection, pushes for federal funding in a swing state.
-A state delegate in Congress uses his seniority on a certain committee/subcommittee to get some funding sent home(e.g. Istook with the crosstown).
-A state delegate in Congress feels reelection heat and pushes through funding back to his constituency.

None of these situations applied to Oklahoma/OKC in the 90s. The question of federal funding was a smokescreen, it wasn't politically viable. I'm convinced the streetcar will end up being the legacy of all the MAPS projects and probably Cornett because it was the most popular line item on a ballot that barely passed. Whether the whole thing was a sham or an unqualified success depends on how the streetcar gets built.

NOW back to what I was TRYING to ask. As far as Core To Shore goes... Is it possible that Trolley stops could be made at some of the new attractions (Park, CC, and any other associated development), or will that over extend the Trolley "fleet?" And IF Trolley stops will be added to these new attractions, how long will the aging "fleet" remain serviceable?

The whole point of the rails embedded in the street is that they can't move, therefore, leading to private and public development along the tracks. Would Oklahoma City be here today if AT&SF and SL&SF decided on other routes? No, I don't think so. You underestimate the value of any kind of iron rail.

For what it's worth, MTP has a full audio recording of the entire MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee meeting that will be posted for podcast streaming once the levels are mastered.

The whole point of the rails embedded in the street is that they can't move, therefore, leading to private and public development along the tracks. Would Oklahoma City be here today if AT&SF and SL&SF decided on other routes? No, I don't think so. You underestimate the value of any kind of iron rail.

Yes, I understand this, and no I do not underestimate rail... quite the opposite, all I said was that I liked the versatility of the Spririt Trolley... NEVER did I say that I didn't like light rail, as a matter of fact in my original question, I said it would not be a bad thing to develop around a light rail system


And I like thier versatility. Seems to me that as the Convention Center and park come online, trolley stops can be made at these destinations, whereas if we had a light rail system we would have had to develop AROUND it (not that it would have been all that bad of an idea) because you can't just move the light rail.


I truely appologize if my stance on light rail was misunderstood, I was simply trying to address some of the positive aspects of the trolleys, not undermine light rail.

For what it's worth, MTP has a full audio recording of the entire MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee meeting that will be posted for podcast streaming once the levels are mastered.

http://soundcloud.com/moderntransitproject-okc/01-jan-25-2012-maps-3-transit

Is there an updated Core to Shore map somewhere?

Ok, I apologize for my previous comment, I really thought the light rail to spirit trolley change happened earlier in the process. Eh, whatever. The trolleys have worked out pretty well. And I like thier versatility. Seems to me that as the Convention Center and park come online, trolley stops can be made at these destinations, whereas if we had a light rail system we would have had to develop AROUND it (not that it would have been all that bad of an idea) because you can't just move the light rail.

Speaking of the Spirit Trolleys, any information on their longevity?

Well, rubber-tire trolleys became popular in the 90s and quickly got debunked. There does need to be a certain degree of permanence in order for a transit solution to result in ridership, infill, and functionality.

Urbanized, never heard that nickname used in reference to me before.
I'll be visiting your store in the morning for free "samples" of your First Rate historic photos, DVDs, CDs and art work. I'm sure you won't mind, seeing as you're such a proponent of ensuring we have the right to enjoy the fruits of folks' creative efforts for free.
With that response to your nickname done with, I'd also advise caution in assuming anything written under the byline of the story you posted is completely accurate.

The whole point of the rails embedded in the street is that they can't move, therefore, leading to private and public development along the tracks. Would Oklahoma City be here today if AT&SF and SL&SF decided on other routes? No, I don't think so. You underestimate the value of any kind of iron rail.

That is why towns built along railroads still exist and towns built on stage coach lines are called ghost towns today.

Oddly enough, it was also rails that enabled the first suburban sprawl.

That is why towns built along railroads still exist and towns built on stage coach lines are called ghost towns today.

And towns that set up before the railroads picked their routes and were missed by even a few miles, went quietly into the night.

Well, rubber-tire trolleys became popular in the 90s and quickly got debunked. There does need to be a certain degree of permanence in order for a transit solution to result in ridership, infill, and functionality.

*facepalm* How many times do I have to say this. I'm NOT against light rail. JTF, Spartan, and OKCisOK4me have all misunderstood my point. I specifically noted in that post that developing around a permanent rail line would NOT HAVE BEEN A BAD IDEA... I even quoted myself later and made that part bold so you guys would understand. I even apologized for not being clear about it. So let me once again try to clear this up.

I see people use the trolleys everyday. So you can't tell me that they are a disaster. I SEE THEM BEING USED CONSTANTLY. That does not mean that I think they are more effective than rail. Rail will encourage development, the trolleys will not. But one positive to the trolleys is that they are more versitile and pick up and drop off points can be changed as needed... So for the last time... pointing out the positive aspects of the trolleys does NOT mean that someone is against rail, or that that person does not see the benefits of rail.

All I want to know is if trolley stops will be added near new attractions, and how much longer the trolleys will operate.

I guess it comes down to what you think the purpose of a transportation system is. A lot of people think it is just a means to get from point A to point B and leave it at that. If you look at the bigger picture, transportation determines the locations of point A and B and can influence development patterns for generations. The more permanent the transportation infrastructure is the more influence it exerts.

Do 100 people ride the downtown trolley? Probably. Is anyone going to build a $30 million apartment building because it is on the trolley route? Nope. I am more interested in driving development for generations.

*facepalm*
All I want to know is if trolley stops will be added near new attractions, and how much longer the trolleys will operate.

Good question. Folks, stop badgering the man! The "life span" of the existing trolley units is approximately 12 - 13 years before you can get rid of them. That is an FTA mandate since there are federal monies involved. Some of them have been refurbished. Some of them have not seen 12 - 13 years of continuous use as some were rotated "back-ups."

I would suspect that they will continue to run downtown until the streetcar system is running. If they are kept by COTPA, it would probably be for special event use and to reach areas not covered by the new streetcar system. Because the maintenance on them is somewhat intensive, I would suspect that new types of buses might replace hem ultimately.

Folks, people hate it when you subvert the thread. Back to topic which is C2S. There is a great deal of info out there now.

Thanks Urban Pioneer, that's exactly what I wanted to know.

...I'd also advise caution in assuming anything written under the byline of the story you posted is completely accurate.
While I understand your point, during that time frame I can tell you I was involved in a number of meetings, lunches and whatnot with people who were close to the matter (many of them people you know well also), who were very clear on the subject. The focus of the "transportation" project switched almost exclusively to discussion of a trolley circulator, with only lip service and loose "phase two" discussion of the I-40/Meridian link. The plan was to put rail in the streets downtown, have rubber tire service to I-40/Meridian, and (hopefully) eventually expand rail service to that location and elsewhere. You and I have a mutual friend who I'm sure would privately corroborate this.

Also, the thread has moved off-topic. Sorry for my role in the threadjack.

http://soundcloud.com/moderntransitproject-okc/01-jan-25-2012-maps-3-transit

Bullet points for the beginning and end because I skipped the convention center mess:
-Consultants proposed a Bricktown parking garage referred to as the U-haul site. Because Continental is moving in and also because of Thunder games, a north downtown garage became higher priority. Sites considered are 6th and Robinson, 9th/10th and Robinson, and another further west. The Bricktown garage is still under consideration supposedly.
-5-6 miles of streetcar were promised at $20 million a mile. 3-4 are currently being planned.
-Sante Fe depot got purchase approval.
-A city garage was sold to Sandridge for $8.6 million, which was used to pay all? outstanding bonds. This puts them in a position to get "back into debt"

Edit: Thanks for the fact checking Pete, somebody's paying attention! At 1.30 in the clip, they say they go from $45 m in debt to no debt, so I thought the parking garage covered the whole amount.

Bullet points for the beginning and end because I skipped the convention center mess:
-Consultants proposed a Bricktown parking garage referred to as the U-haul site. Because Continental is moving in and also because of Thunder games, a north downtown garage became higher priority. Sites considered are 6th and Robinson, 9th/10th and Robinson, and another further west. The Bricktown garage is still under consideration supposedly.
-5-6 miles of streetcar were promised at $20 million a mile. 3-4 are currently being planned.
-Sante Fe depot got purchase approval.
-A city garage was sold to Sandridge for $45 million, which was used to pay all? outstanding bonds. This puts them in a position to get "back into debt"

I'd say the most interesting thing about this particular meeting is that it gives some "context" to what a great many "movers and shakers" are thinking in the C2S area.

I do have a problem with a great many of the opinions put forth expressed as if they constitute a "study." It was a survey with some respected planing firms giving the survey more weight.

Several of us have talked to several of the people interviewed, and even as a survey, it was completely unscientific with different questions asked of different people and no uniform context.

The thing that this "study" does illustrate is that many good ideas are sticking, many "mistakes" will be carried through, and there are still many uneducated people in urban design who are thrown into the middle of this plan. OKC is growing up, and is finally culminating the precursor to the final vision for the Park, Blvd, and CC site.

-A city garage was sold to Sandridge for $45 million, which was used to pay all? outstanding bonds. This puts them in a position to get "back into debt"

The Broadway-Kerr Garage was sold by COPTA to SandRidge for $8.6 million.

Not sure where that $45 million figure came from, but it's obviously way off.

The Broadway-Kerr Garage was sold by COPTA to SandRidge for $8.6 million.

Not sure where that $45 million figure came from, but it's obviously way off.

I am not sure if this may be the case, but there was a discussion about selling multiple garages at city council what seems like a few months ago, it is possible the 45 million figure was the estimated sale prices of all the possible garages that may be sold combined.

The only garages sold other than Broadway-Kerr are the two City Center Garages, but that was a couple of years ago.

They have said they are negotiating to sell the Century Center garage but that hasn't happened yet.

Listening to this podcast, the whole idea of the survey presented in the meeting seems misguided.

Basically, they went to a bunch of downtown power players and asked for opinions of the streetcar (among other things) and you can tell that many of them are either completely uninformed or out-right against the system. They came back with comments "What is the need for this system? What is the projected ridership? What is the profile of the riders? What is the economic impact?"

All these questions are completely silly at this point. MAPS 3 has long been approved and the streetcar was the most popular part of it. Why even go out and solicit such questions at this point? It just puts negative rhetoric out to the public which in turn causes more negativity.

I don't blame the subcommittee for implying their years of work has been disrespected. I'd also argue that soliciting that sort of input at this stage is completely counter-productive.

This "survey" -- being incorrectly presented as a study -- was not very well thought out or executed. It's also clear that several powerful people downtown are working against the streetcar.