I’d bet if you line itemized the following, that all would fail.

1) Streetcar/Transit expansion
2) Stadium
3) new City animal shelter (I’ve heard a group is lobbying hard for this)
4) Sidewalks and trails
5) citywide trees/beautification

The beauty of maps is that I get what I want and you get what you want, it’s all about working together. With a big city you are going to have a lot of different interests and a citywide vote on each individual interest would mean little or nothing would ever get passed.

I'm not suggesting a line item vote on transit infrastructure. I'm suggesting leaving 1/2-cent to fund traditional MAPS infrastructure and allowing the other 1/2-cent to be voted on as part of a regional transit system funding initiative. It's been discussed for a number of years. It's doable and likely the only way you'll get passage of a dedicated funding source for transit anytime in the near future.

We already have stadiums for those things. Bricktown Ballpark, Taft, Speegle, plus nice stadiums at Putnam City (getting ready to have 3 in that district; each of the Edmond schools are getting one as well).

What would a soccer stadium give the city -- other than a soccer stadium -- that we don't already have?

What would you like to see in maps 4. And or do you think there should be a maps4?

What would you like to see in maps 4. And or do you think there should be a maps4?

1. Streetcar expansion / more public transit
2. Recreation / trails / sidewalks

I disagree. A 1 cent permanent multi city tax is needed for a RTA to work. That needs to pas or fail on its own separate from the MAPS brand. Continued okc specific transit can continue to happen within MAPS

One-cent would be great, but it's not a necessity based on current studies. Dallas is funded with one-cent, and we're nowhere near the size of Dallas. Salt Lake City funds their entire system on a little more than one-half cent. And it's extremely unlikely that we'd ever be able to to pass a one-cent permanent transit tax on top of a one-cent MAPS tax. Further, as OKC has no dedicated transit tax to fund Embark and the Streetcar, those operations are paid for out of the city's general fund. The COTPA budget is already stretched just trying to pay for the limited bus service and new streetcar system. MAPS may be able to pay for new transit projects, like streetcar extensions, but covering the operational costs of those new services will be difficult. That's why we're at the point of needing the RTA and a dedicated funding source.

I'm not suggesting a line item vote on transit infrastructure. I'm suggesting leaving 1/2-cent to fund traditional MAPS infrastructure and allowing the other 1/2-cent to be voted on as part of a regional transit system funding initiative. It's been discussed for a number of years. It's doable and likely the only way you'll get passage of a dedicated funding source for transit anytime in the near future.

I would 100% be in favor of this. Doing it this way brings in transit expansion as well as other capital improvements like more sidewalks, perhaps a stadium, etc. Best of both worlds. The big question in my mind is, you've stated elsewhere that a 1/2 cent tax would be the minimum needed to properly fund the RTA; if that's the minimum funding level, how badly would that limit transit expansion?

Taft Stadium:


The Energy also recognizes that Taft Stadium is not viable long-term because it does not meet United States Soccer Federation standards. Taft is only 67 yards wide, three yards short of the minimum USSF standard. Funk Jr. confirmed that the club is unable to host U.S. Open Cup games at Taft because the pitch is too narrow.--OKlahoman: https://newsok.com/article/5555634/okc-energy-moving-forward-with-major-league-soccer-stadium-plans-after-co-op-acquisition-falls-through

One-cent would be great, but it's not a necessity based on current studies. Dallas is funded with one-cent, and we're nowhere near the size of Dallas. Salt Lake City funds their entire system on a little more than one-half cent. And it's extremely unlikely that we'd ever be able to to pass a one-cent permanent transit tax on top of a one-cent MAPS tax. Further, as OKC has no dedicated transit tax to fund Embark and the Streetcar, those operations are paid for out of the city's general fund. The COTPA budget is already stretched just trying to pay for the limited bus service and new streetcar system. MAPS may be able to pay for new transit projects, like streetcar extensions, but covering the operational costs of those new services will be difficult. That's why we're at the point of needing the RTA and a dedicated funding source.

I would be supportive of either. However even with maps OKC sales tax is less than most of the metro. So if a transit .5 would not pass here with the maps tax included. How will it pass in Midwest city Norman moore edmond and del city. Because my understanding is that with out the funding passing everywhere the rta wouldn’t start ?

Also I think we just saw the OKC citizens separate maps from the permant police/fire increase and both passed

Maps imho should stay separate from any other tax initiatives

I'm not suggesting a line item vote on transit infrastructure. I'm suggesting leaving 1/2-cent to fund traditional MAPS infrastructure and allowing the other 1/2-cent to be voted on as part of a regional transit system funding initiative. It's been discussed for a number of years. It's doable and likely the only way you'll get passage of a dedicated funding source for transit anytime in the near future.

We posted about the same time, I was responding to the discussion ahead of your post.

David Holt wants us to think BIG--stop half the half steps where we fall short. He recognizes what it will take to move OKC to the next level; we are on course...

As for the stadium; there will be other events (Think outside the box) a stadium will be able to lure and use for gatherings & spectaculars. Pro-soccer will be the primary anchor tenant--partner with the Funks to fund this project.

OKC loses out on events b/c when we don't plan to be a long term competitor; instead we cater to the average or status-quo.


Well, I think one of the advantages of MAPS is that we've operated very efficiently and targeted a lot of low-hanging fruit. We built the Chesapeake Arena for less than half the cost of, say, the American Airlines Center in Dallas. A proposed project doesn't have to have a "world class" price tag to function as a significant improvement for our city. In fact, the more small developments we have, the broader our overall improvements. So I think our proposals need to be reasonable and keep that in mind.

All that said... if I'm going to THINK BIG, and if cost were no object... I want an Oklahoma City Museum of Natural History, with neoclassical architecture. I want dinosaur skeletons and woolly mammoths. We'll make it look like the Chicago Field Museum, and we can put it on the land where Stage Center used to be. Use both the north and south pieces of land, taking up the entire western border of the Myriad Gardens, and we could have a museum about 2/3 the size of Chicago's.

If I had my dream, that's what we'd build.

Well, I think one of the advantages of MAPS is that we've operated very efficiently and targeted a lot of low-hanging fruit. We built the Chesapeake Arena for less than half the cost of, say, the American Airlines Center in Dallas. A proposed project doesn't have to have a "world class" price tag to function as a significant improvement for our city. In fact, the more small developments we have, the broader our overall improvements. So I think our proposals need to be reasonable and keep that in mind.

All that said... if I'm going to THINK BIG, and if cost were no object... I want an Oklahoma City Museum of Natural History, with neoclassical architecture. I want dinosaur skeletons and woolly mammoths. We'll make it look like the Chicago Field Museum, and we can put it on the land where Stage Center used to be. Use both the north and south pieces of land, taking up the entire western border of the Myriad Gardens, and we could have a museum about 2/3 the size of Chicago's.

If I had my dream, that's what we'd build.

so you want to move the Sam Nobel Museum from Norman to OKC?

so you want to move the Sam Nobel Museum from Norman to OKC?

No I want one for OKC, bigger and better.

The museum in Chicago is roughly 10 times the size of the one in Norman. I want something truly impressive here.

No I want one for OKC, bigger and better.

The museum in Chicago is roughly 10 times the size of the one in Norman. I want something truly impressive here.

I would support a downtown Weather/Natural Sciences Museum but not duplicating something already done successfully in Norman.

I would support a downtown Weather/Natural Sciences Museum but not duplicating something already done successfully in Norman.

my sentiments as well. and while Norman has a weather musuem... it's in a small building and isn't what it could be... something like this i would support... but not duplicating something that is already good in norman but only bigger

I am with most other people on here. A regional transit system from suburbs to core OKC. This would really help with I-35 traffic and be a game changer for people seeking better employment.

And by that I mean some sort of commuter train/tram/light rail whatever.

Ultimately we need a master plan for the streetcar that services much of the I-44/I-240/I-35 inner loop of OKC, and that complements the RTA. Right now they should have a working design of how this is all going to fit together. If we're going to have a line that goes out to the zoo, we need to know how that ties into a potential OUHSC line. Each phase of the system needs to both make sense on its own, as well as function as a part of a larger system.

For Maps 4, we should include one phase of a streetcar extension. It should be a part of the proposed projects, but not anywhere near the majority. As baralheia said above, if we make this "Maps 4 Transit", then we probably seriously harm the chances of the RTA being passed when it comes up in a few years. It will create confusion, with many voters thinking they already voted on it. So we should have an extension that is somewhere around $100M,

So let's say the next logical steps for the streetcar all branch off from the downtown line. We could go down Robinson for a Capitol Hill extension. We could go down Reno and then Exchange for a Stockyards City expansion (I'm not sure how you'd incorporate that with the mess that is the Boulevard though). You could go over to the HSC, you could go up Western to a 23rd street line, and possibly all the way up to 63rd. I think you could even go all the way down Western for a line that just services the south side. But we can't do more than one of these extensions with Maps 4. I think we pick one and go with it. My preference would be Capitol Hill, but if people are pushing for an I-235 cap, then there'll probably be pressure for it to be a HSC extension.

The 2005 Fixed Guideway study is the master plan being worked against currently and that should not vary with MAPS.

One-cent would be great, but it's not a necessity based on current studies. Dallas is funded with one-cent, and we're nowhere near the size of Dallas. Salt Lake City funds their entire system on a little more than one-half cent. And it's extremely unlikely that we'd ever be able to to pass a one-cent permanent transit tax on top of a one-cent MAPS tax. Further, as OKC has no dedicated transit tax to fund Embark and the Streetcar, those operations are paid for out of the city's general fund. The COTPA budget is already stretched just trying to pay for the limited bus service and new streetcar system. MAPS may be able to pay for new transit projects, like streetcar extensions, but covering the operational costs of those new services will be difficult. That's why we're at the point of needing the RTA and a dedicated funding source.
Dallas also doesn't have that great of a transit system either. A one cent dedicated sales tax would fund a great transit system in OKC.

We built a very nice museum, the Donald W. Reynolds' Oklahoma City Museum of Arts; although it didn't receive any MAPS funds it was funded through private donations--none the less, It has the most comprehensive collection of Chihuly glass in the world.

More focus should be given to the AICCM which we have yet to complete. Oklahoma has a rich Native American-Indian heritage. It will be a Smithsonian with world class pieces just waiting to be shipped to OKC upon completion--the Chickasaw Nation has agreed to finish this project in exchange for the 100 acres of prime land development that will be given to them in exchange for completion and kick starting the museum.

That's why IMO a nice observation tower would enhance the area and spur more development around the museum.

I agree about AICCM, but will it being city owned but Chicasaw operated complicate things, regarding receiving MAPS funds? Asking as I don't know.

I would 100% be in favor of this. Doing it this way brings in transit expansion as well as other capital improvements like more sidewalks, perhaps a stadium, etc. Best of both worlds. The big question in my mind is, you've stated elsewhere that a 1/2 cent tax would be the minimum needed to properly fund the RTA; if that's the minimum funding level, how badly would that limit transit expansion?
Why not like Kansas City, and put a property tax dedicated to the streetcar, along the streetcar right of way. Those properties a getting the value of being on the street car route, they could have a tax like KC’s to operate and maintain the streetcar

I'll post some more specific details later, but I think I'd like to see these items:

*transforming the Deep Fork Creek into a giant linear park with trails and white water rapids(in some areas/ kayaking venue that stretches from Belle Isle to the city limits(connect to Lake Arcadia if Edmond would invest).

*river improvements. Replacing the white rock along the river to a stone straight wall with side paths on each side

*boathouse improvements. More infrastructure around the boathouse(parking garage, more event venues like indoor surfing, Velodome etc.)

*AICC funds provides a little bit of money for the AICC

*Convention center expansion. Expands the newly built CC

*Fairgrounds funds. Restores the fair grounds, replaces the monorail, rehabs the space needle, adds a parking garage and more paved parking areas, beautifies the existing fairgrounds, and builds an arena comparable or better than the recently built one in Fort Worth(yes I know how much that one cost).

*Light-rail: funds light rail to the airport, adventure rail line, a LRT line to Campus Corner and OU, and one down Classen to NW Expressway perhaps to MacArhtur BLVD. I would be supportive of short streetcar expansions to Capitol Hill, Plaza District, Paseo, and Innovation District/capitol area as its already built. Light-rail and commuter rail is the way to go though for a real.

*Canal extension. Extends the canal into the old COOP site and rehabilitates the grounds to allow for development(depending on whether the current deal falls through or not).

*typical trails extensions: builds new trails for the west and east sides of the city as well as a trail in NW and SW parts of the city.

*I-35 HOV lanes: provides partial funding to expand I-35 to Norman(OKC city limits) for HOV lanes.

*Eastside Gathering Place: builds a park similar to Tulsa's Gathering place somewhere along the Canadian river on the east side. I'm thinking maybe somewhere around NE 23rd St.

*MLK Boulevard improvements. Expands MLK to 3 lanes with two regular lanes and on BRT lane each way from AICC to either Remington Casino or Memorial RD. Also adds a massive statue of MLK in the middle of roundabout at NE 23rd. and a Civil Rights Museum adjacent. The road would have wide 12 ft. sidewalks
with bike lanes and plaza at each mile or half mile or 1/4 mile from Reno to NW 23rd as timeline markers that each have statues and plazas exhibiting important eras of the civil rights movements for all human rights.

Downtown rail road improvements: adds a trench around AA and rehabilitates the viaduct to hollow out certain areas and add store fronts inside of the viaduct. pays for the capital costs of building a rail extension east and provides for a rail tunnel or elevated bridge through Bricktown.

Boulevard Improvement project: pays for major improvements to the boulevard to make it a more attractive and unique street.

235 improvement project: fully funds a complete or large partial cap over I-235 where possible, works with OkDOT to provide capacity or easily expand when warranted, allows for more streets to connect to each other by Lincoln Terrace and Innovation District, fully pays to fix the mess where Harrison and Walnut(among various other streets) intersect by considering a range of alternatives, and partially funds a reconstruction of the I-235, I-40, and I-35 mixmaster. The mixmaster project whenever needed will be multi billion dollar project, more than likely. Though I think jump starting it with some funds from the city could work. This would advantageous for the city not only for improved traffic flow and corrected decencies, but could allow for the opportunity to reconfigure I-235 from I-40 to NE 8th. It could allow for a cut and cover tunnel and better connectivity to the east. Combining this into one giant project could be transformative for the area and would show potential investors that the city is serious about the district.
I'll go more into detail with each one, but in addition to whatever is chosen, I'd like to see more money funded into capital projects for the bus network(more buses, more protected bus stops etc.), more sidewalks, improvements to existing trails(specifically where they intersect with roads).

Why not like Kansas City, and put a property tax dedicated to the streetcar, along the streetcar right of way. Those properties a getting the value of being on the street car route, they could have a tax like KC’s to operate and maintain the streetcar

Thanks to MAPS III, Oklahoma City's streetcar is debt free. Kansas City has a million more residents in its MSA than OKC; that's the boost for their downtown streetcar expansion. Our streetcar will have an advantage over KCs, it already covers 2 more miles even with KC's proposed expansion; also there's expansion talk albeit it doesn't go into operation until December 2019.

I'd always wanted a solid aquarium.

That's why IMO a nice observation tower would enhance the area and spur more development around the museum.

I like this idea, make it a unique landmark in the vein of the Seattle Space Needle, St Louis' Gateway Arch, something that everyone would recognize as OKC. At the intersection of I-40 & I-35 you couldn't ask for a more visually advantageous location.

How about sidewalks and streetlights in the urban core? Though much of the inner city has come back, the infrastructure in many places still looks straight out of the worst days of the early 90s. Two prime examples are the Paseo and SoSA. Eventually the infrastructure in those areas is going to need to be updated.

How about some money for the Adventure District so it can actually look like an adventure district. It's quite sad as it is. Nothing about it screams adventure.

I think it will be difficult to pass Maps 4 unless there are significant projects outside of the core.

Canal extension into the Scissortail Park lake, sidewalks everywhere, trees everywhere,

I'd always wanted a solid aquarium.

I think liquid would be better.

I'd like to see the tax put in place last year for roads, sidewalks, and trails be made permanent. That way there's always money for improvements. As for MAPS 4, I'd like to see further recreation at Lakes Hefner and Overholser, beautification projects such as trees and median improvements, streetcar expansion if deemed viable, and something for the south side of the city.

I'd always wanted a solid aquarium.

A first class aquarium is a fantastic idea and would be a huge success

my sentiments as well. and while Norman has a weather musuem... it's in a small building and isn't what it could be... something like this i would support... but not duplicating something that is already good in norman but only bigger

Well I don't like any of your ideas either, then. :cuss2:

Thanks to MAPS III, Oklahoma City's streetcar is debt free. Kansas City has a million more residents in its MSA than OKC; that's the boost for their downtown streetcar expansion. Our streetcar will have an advantage over KCs, it already covers 2 more miles even with KC's proposed expansion; also there's expansion talk albeit it doesn't go into operation until December 2019.

more like 800K

KC Metro Area: (2015) 2,159,159
OKC Metro Area: (2015) 1,358,452

more like 800K

KC Metro Area: (2015) 2,159,159
OKC Metro Area: (2015) 1,358,452

You're correct (2017 estimates are similar):

KC Metro Area: 2,128,912
KC Central/Urban: 488,943 (2016 Density 1,528/sq m) difference - 154,705 - OKC advantage

OKC Metro Area: 1,383,737 difference - 745,175 - KC advantage
OKC Central/Urban: 643,648 (2016 Density 1,053/sq mi)

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

I have three themes of ideas...

Maps 4 OKC
- Some showcase project that people identify with the city. I'm envisioning something that when you Google or Wiki Oklahoma City, this shows up. Recent examples of cities adding showcase attractions are the London Eye or the High Line in NYC. It would need to be original or unique, not just a replica of a different city.
- Go all in on the Native American Center on the river - perhaps add the tower attraction discussed already there.

Maps 4 Transit
- Continued bus improvements including potential dedicated lanes
- Begin Light Rail. Streetcars are great for the urban core, but are not a long distance option. I think of Phoenix's street level light rail being a good option for OKC. The initial route could be a Classen Ave on the north side since there is already too much traffic capacity and connecting along Reno since the new blvd will be in place, and then running south down Walker since it is not part of the mile grid. Obviously, this is just a global vision and details would have to be determined, but it would be important for transit to access many different demographic and income levels.

Maps 4 Community
- Significant investment in beautification. NYC did a million tree initiative, with over 220,000 being planted along streets.
- Re-envision existing libraries as community centers - add more amenities. Unfortunately libraries (and book stores) are a dying breed, but the facilities can still be hugely valuable for both books and other purposes.
- Community park updates - invest further to have marquee parks in each quadrant of the city (i.e. Schilling, Syl Goldman, Martin, JFK)
- Continue updates at the fairgrounds

I'd love to see more investment in the Zoo. I love the aquarium ideas. It'd be smart to build something different from the Jenks Aquarium.

I'd love to see more investment in the Zoo. I love the aquarium ideas. It'd be smart to build something different from the Jenks Aquarium.

The Zoo has had millions and millions in upgrades over the last few years, with more coming.

And there is a dedicated sales tax that goes directly to them for capital improvements.

I sorta worry about investing in the zoo too much over the long term. I could see zoo’s going away one day if the political winds keep going the way they are. Already seeing it with sea world and the circus. I don’t think we should pull all funding and stop, but maybe not double down on it either.

^

A good idea would be to continue to improve the outdoor / event / picnic areas.

I live in Warr Acres so my tax dollars mostly go to OKC but I don't get to vote.....

However, I would like to see:
FIX THE DAMN STREETLIGHTS!

Our Zoo has managed their 1/8 cent capital improvements money wisely. Funds to upgrade an Aquarium; you'll see some different exhibits as our zoo has undergone a total rebuild; hope our Zoo answers the Jenks Aquarium with their own renovation. Remember the Dolphins; they can't survive this far inland and OKC's elevation 1,201' above sea level limits what survives in an Aquarium.

This thread has many posters involved with good ideas; hope many of these are submitted to the Mayor Holt. Several ideas are under the umbrella of agencies like ODOT and various other government services & capital improvements; so there's no need to duplicate capital improvements.

Stay involved with the process; we will lay & renew the groundwork for OKC when MAPS III comes up for an extension vote. Especially appreciate the ideas from posters who don't reside in the OKC voter district.

I sorta worry about investing in the zoo too much over the long term. I could see zoo’s going away one day if the political winds keep going the way they are. Already seeing it with sea world and the circus. I don’t think we should pull all funding and stop, but maybe not double down on it either.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-bz-seaworld-attendance-jump-20180806-story.html

I'm not sure SeaWorld is in much danger. They hit a rough patch, but I can attest that when we went in July, it was a great experience and it was PACKED.

While anti-zoo activists are loud, I don't think many people care very much about what they have to say. Right now, the OKC Zoo seems very disjointed and either there is not a great master plan in place or there is a master plan which isn't all that well-executed. The new exhibits are decent. The new elephant area is a world class facility. It has a great deal of potential.

Pete, the picnic areas were just renovated. They also added a large indoor dining area in the Asia exhibit. I can't recommend the kimchi pizza though.

Right now, the OKC Zoo seems very disjointed and either there is not a great master plan in place or there is a master plan which isn't all that well-executed.
What makes you say this? I haven’t been to the zoo recently and am curious.

What makes you say this? I haven’t been to the zoo recently and am curious.

The zoo is made up of four types of areas. Those which are abandoned and not being currently redeveloped, like the NE area of the zoo, including the former aquariums (shut down) and all of the former displays there, which appear to be in the process of being abandoned, those which appear to soon be abandoned, like the reptiles, islands exhibits, then the new(ish) areas like the cat exhibits and the great escape, and then the state of the art areas like the Oklahoma Trails, the elephant exhibit and Asia, the later of which was kind of disappointing in terms of the number of exhibits vs. concession space (it seems the lion's share [get it?] of the redevelopment went to a new concessions/banquet facility).

I think the Zoo Trust knows what it's doing for sure and does a good job with what it has, but with a massive cash infusion allowing them to basically redo everything up to current standards all at once, we could have a real treasure on our hands.

The 2005 Fixed Guideway study is the master plan being worked against currently and that should not vary with MAPS.

The streetcar plans have already changed from what is shown in the 2005 study. If we're talking about additional streetcar lines, it will change further. But we need to make sure that any additions are well planned for future expansions.

For instance, if we're going to expand to the OUHSC, it's probably easiest to just connect to the downtown system and then loop back. Cross at NE 4th, or maybe go across on Harrison to 8th, do a loop around the hospital complex and then go back. It's probably easiest, but I don't think that's the best Phase 2 path as it relates to a Phase 3 extension. We would want to provide access to the Health Science Center, while also serving as a branching off point for future service to the northeast side of town. It may be a better idea to have a double track line that runs all the way up and down Lincoln Blvd instead.

I think we need a revised "streetcar master plan" that takes into account real barriers and real opportunities, factors for risk, and presents a staged plan for growth that serves the needs of the city.

The Wheeler District has an enormous amount of potential, but right now it's an empty field. I'm sure streetcar access would be highly desirable (both for the people who will live there, and for the city in general), once everything is underway. But that's still some time in the future. How much should a line down to Capitol Hill take into account that the Wheeler District might be really cool one day? Do we focus on serving Capitol Hill the best we can, or do we make a more general "southside loop" that runs down Robinson and then goes up Western? That's a tough question and I don't have the answer to it. I don't think we should wait until Wheeler is humming along before we get around to serving the south side.

The most important thing is that we need to know what we're doing from the beginning, so we have a system that functions and makes sense, both as we expand, and when it's completed.

My understanding is the very first thing that will happen once the RTA is stood up is a revised study will be done.

That's fine. I just think each step of the streetcar needs to make sense on its own, in case future expansions don't pass. But it also has to work with future expansions, in case they do. We want it to connect to destinations, but also to serve existing populations.

https://newsok.com/article/5611669/okc-civic-life-for-monday-oct-15-2018


Could MAPS 4 include arena?

Mayor David Holt kicked off MAPS 4 on Thursday, emphasizing the "transformational" nature of MAPS projects and their contribution to Oklahoma City's renaissance, exemplified most clearly by the "big-league city" status conferred by the arrival of the NBA's Thunder. As it happened, Roy Williams of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber had reported two days earlier on September's fact-finding visit to Sacramento, California. He said Sacramento's new NBA arena, the Golden 1 Center, and a planned soccer stadium were "breathing a lot of new life into their downtown." Williams said the Chamber leads the annual visits by business and civic leaders to explore best practices, tour new developments and "to hear very candid discussions about peer city successes and failures."

Perhaps something we should look at for MAPS 4 is installing shared autonomous vehicle infrastructure (sensors, computers, perhaps even cars) in the urban core so that we would be ahead of the game in terms of SAV transit. Ideally, SAVs would be "smart" and talk to all other modes of transit you might need to use: streetcar, uber, Amtrak, bus, etc so that you would never have to wait to hop on and would be a great "last mile" optio as it would take you right to the door of where you needed to go. These vehicles would be shared of course, but would be smart enough to only pick people up who are going to areas near you, or who are going somewhere that would be efficiently on the way. I heard Dan Dixon from Stantec talk about SAVs last year and he really sold me on the potential of these things to revolutionize transit and planning for the better if used correctly. SAVs would, according to Dixon, encourage more people to live within range of SAV use and would in turn only help our efforts building a walkable, less car dependent area of the city.

Has the thunder even asked for help to build a new arena? I’m not necessarily opposed to it, but there won’t be any added economic benefit. The benefit comes when the team first moves to town (remember 15 multi millionaires plus a massive organization moved in) not when you replace an arena with another.

Perhaps something we should look at for MAPS 4 is installing shared autonomous vehicle infrastructure (sensors, computers, perhaps even cars) in the urban core so that we would be ahead of the game in terms of SAV transit. Ideally, SAVs would be "smart" and talk to all other modes of transit you might need to use: streetcar, uber, Amtrak, bus, etc so that you would never have to wait to hop on and would be a great "last mile" optio as it would take you right to the door of where you needed to go. These vehicles would be shared of course, but would be smart enough to only pick people up who are going to areas near you, or who are going somewhere that would be efficiently on the way. I heard Dan Dixon from Stantec talk about SAVs last year and he really sold me on the potential of these things to revolutionize transit and planning for the better if used correctly. SAVs would, according to Dixon, encourage more people to live within range of SAV use and would in turn only help our efforts building a walkable, less car dependent area of the city.

It’s not a bad idea but it could very very easily wind up being a colossal waste of money. That technology is going to change and evolve at an insane pace.

It’d be like investing heavily in AOL so everyone could have internet access.

It’s not a bad idea but it could very very easily wind up being a colossal waste of money. That technology is going to change and evolve at an insane pace.

It’d be like investing heavily in AOL so everyone could have internet access.

Perhaps, but did you wait on gigabit internet before you logged on for the first time? I think this form of transit could be a g-word (gamechager) for our city due to it's lack of density. It would be an answer to so many folks who need a reliable and cheap last mile option for transit. If we get ahead of the game favoring SAVs over private AVs (which is no different than our current path) we could be a model for how to do transit in cities like ours and really serve a greater range of the population very efficiently.

Perhaps, but did you wait on gigabit internet before you logged on for the first time? I think this form of transit could be a g-word (gamechager) for our city due to it's lack of density. It would be an answer to so many folks who need a reliable and cheap last mile option for transit. If we get ahead of the game favoring SAVs over private AVs (which is no different than our current path) we could be a model for how to do transit in cities like ours and really serve a greater range of the population very efficiently.

No, but I also didn't spend 10s of millions of dollars on a technology that was outdated in 5 years.

My point is simply there's a huge risk in spending at least a $100 million on a technology that might be outdated by the time it gets built and up and running. Same reason Google Fiber pulled out.

It's a good idea, but the risk the technology winds change is going to prevent it from ever being a reality.

It's a good idea, but the risk the technology winds change is going to prevent it from ever being a reality.

I'd like to know more as to why you think that this will never be a reality due to changing technology. Is this just speculation or do you have a source to support your claims? As far as ageing tech goes, we just built a streetcar, which were invented over 100 years ago and we continue to build huge highways which could become obsolete in 100 years (not saying they will, but who knows, they could..) At any rate, I think this idea should be looked at rather than just dismissed because "the winds of tech are changing". Maybe we could account for that while planning?

I'd like to know more as to why you think that this will never be a reality due to changing technology. Is this just speculation or do you have a source to support your claims? As far as ageing tech goes, we just built a streetcar, which were invented over 100 years ago and we continue to build huge highways which could become obsolete in 100 years (not saying they will, but who knows, they could..) At any rate, I think this idea should be looked at rather than just dismissed because "the winds of tech are changing". Maybe we could account for that while planning?

the tech behind autonomous vehicles that are not run on tracks with specific parameters and interact in an environment where they deal with pedestrians and other non-autonomous vehicles is still at least a decade off if not more... Uber wasn't even doing their testing for a year before the realized some design flaws and had to scale back significantly on testing... this idea is a long way off, and we would be investing into tech that is unproven and will change rather than proven tech such as a streetcar

I'd like to know more as to why you think that this will never be a reality due to changing technology. Is this just speculation or do you have a source to support your claims? As far as ageing tech goes, we just built a streetcar, which were invented over 100 years ago and we continue to build huge highways which could become obsolete in 100 years (not saying they will, but who knows, they could..) At any rate, I think this idea should be looked at rather than just dismissed because "the winds of tech are changing". Maybe we could account for that while planning?

Lol. No one can account for changing technology, that's the entire point.

Google is one of the smartest tech companies in the world, they spent billions building out a fiber network then less than a decade later they've halted all plans because of the possibility of city wide wifi.

OKC could spend 100s of millions building out a SAV infrastructure, and then a $50 device comes along and does the same thing faster.

It would be wiser to let someone else prove out which technology works, let it mature, and then follow their lead. Or we can lead the charge like we did with the Pei Plan. ( OKC doesn't have the amount of tech talent we'd need to even have a prayer of being successful.)

It's not that it's not a reality, it's that it's too early in the life cycle of SAVs to commit to something specific. Let it play out. There's a million ways to skin that SAV cat. There's a risk we back AOL and Yahoo instead of Google and Apple.

Thanks ^^ I appreciate the input.

It would be wiser to let someone else prove out which technology works, let it mature, and then follow their lead. Or we can lead the charge like we did with the Pei Plan. ( OKC doesn't have the amount of tech talent we'd need to even have a prayer of being successful.) .
The Pei Plan was never fully implemented and it's debatable that it would have been successful if it was.

I agree with your main point, but this wasn't a very good comparison.

The Pei Plan was never fully implemented and it's debatable that it would have been successful if it was.

I agree with your main point, but this wasn't a very good comparison.

True. And it's not like you'd have to tear anything down to implement SAVs. I see the point in waiting to see how the tech changes but I still think it wouldn't hurt to take a look at including SAVs in an overall transit master plan. What if SAVs do become the future and we end up spending millions on something else that eventually becomes obsolete instead of looking towards the future? It's entirely possible that private companies may want to build in the infrastructure as well to run their own private services - which would be fine, but we as a city would need to be proactive enough to force those companies to work through a centralized network that connects to all forms of publicly available transit, public and private to reap the efficiency benefits of having a fully connected transit system.

The Pei Plan was never fully implemented and it's debatable that it would have been successful if it was.

I agree with your main point, but this wasn't a very good comparison.

Fair enough, it was mostly just to illustrate sometimes jumping on the "next huge thing" can be very stupid in retrospect. Whereas patience would have been better.

(Not that SAVs are stupid that's not what I'm saying)

Why not like Kansas City, and put a property tax dedicated to the streetcar, along the streetcar right of way. Those properties a getting the value of being on the street car route, they could have a tax like KC’s to operate and maintain the streetcar

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't believe Oklahoma state law would allow for that. I believe only sales taxes can be used to fund City things like this. I know for a fact when the RTA starts up, they are limited to sales taxes as a funding source as well.