Why doesn't streetcar committee submit its own timeline recommendation?

[Spartan]

I was wondering about this timeline submitted by the convention center subcommittee and all of the attention it has been getting. Why doesn't the streetcar subcommittee do the same, and try and get just as much attention? It will be a good opportunity to point out that streetcar carried the vote, that the timeline is necessary for federal matching funds, and to get other arguments out there in the open. The fact of the matter is that the convention center people have taken their fight to the media, now you guys should too, or you might just get pushed aside by the convention center interests.

[kevinpate]

Not doubting the assertion, but were there actually independent, i.e., non-street car fanatic sponsored polling, that clearly showed the street car was what made the difference for the yes vote? Wasn't the Y/N percentage about the same in all the various maps votes?

[Spartan]

The assertion is based on pre-polling and especially exit polling. There was a News9 exit poll that was especially conclusive that voters were highly receptive to the streetcar proposal, whereas they were also highly turned off by the convention center.

[CaptDave]

I think the City's own poll on its MAPS website would show street car / mass transit being the most desirable MAPS project and the CC being far down the list ahead of only fairgrounds improvements.

[Spartan]

I think more people wanted fairgrounds improvements....

[ljbab728]

This wasn't a scientific poll but was the survey conducted on the website. The results were very clear.

http://okc.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/X...org/index.html

[Kerry]

This wasn't a scientific poll but was the survey conducted on the website. The results were very clear.

http://okc.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/X...org/index.html

Here are the results of that survey in order of most requested to least requested.

Transit (light rail, streetcars, etc.) 668
Infrastructure, Including Streets 188
Trails 140
General Parks Improvement/Expansion 123
Beautification (includes trees, streetscapes) 117
Sidewalks 100
Education 77
Downtown Retail 69
Football or Soccer Stadium 65
Ford Center Improvements 41
New Convention Center 40
Major League Sports/NBA Practice Facility 40
Downtown "Central Park" 36
Senior Citizen Centers 36
Free Downtown Parking 33
Transit (light rail, streetcars, etc.) 668
Infrastructure, Including Streets 188
Trails 140
General Parks Improvement/Expansion 123
Beautification (includes trees, streetscapes) 117
Sidewalks 100
Education 77
Downtown Retail 69
Football or Soccer Stadium 65
Ford Center Improvements 41
New Convention Center 40
Major League Sports/NBA Practice Facility 40
Downtown "Central Park" 36
Senior Citizen Centers 36
Free Downtown Parking 33
Lengthen Bricktown Canal 29
Police 29
Visual Icon 28
Outdoor Amphitheater 27
Homeless 27
Senior Citizen Housing 25
Youth Athletic Facility 23
Citywide Wireless Internet 23
Fairgrounds 22
Amusement Parks 20
Community Centers 20
Downtown General Improvements 20
Economic Development 20
Old Neighborhood Restoration 17
Opportunity Fund 16
New Skyscraper 16
Health Care 15
Aquarium 13
Arts Funding 13
More Retail in General 13
Gateways to City 12
More Museums 12
Cox Center Improvements 11
Fire Department 11
Omniplex 11
Public Art 11
Downtown Housing 10
More Outdoor Lighting 10
Ensure Future Water Supply 10

[kevinpate]

I recalled a survey where transit blew everything else out of the water. Couldn't recall if it was controlled polling or American idol type polling.
In another thread a poster commented on the cc trying to move to front of the line in order to not be the project needing help if there is a finish M3 right type vote. Not an invalid concern for someone whose focus is the cc (or any project other than transit for that matter).

[Spartan]

It's not just that. There was a Gazette-News9 poll that I remember well that came out a few weeks before the election, there was also chamber polling that was actually buried until after the election, and then there were the exit polls. A whole number of polling sources, I just wish I could still find some of them.

It was quite obvious that the convention center project was going to fail if it was on its own. I'm glad it didn't, but I'm more than happy to pile onto the convention center interests if they're going to start pitting one project against another like this. There comes a point where you have to be lucky for your lot, and the convention center people need to be lucky that they have some funding for a new convention center at all, now they just need to fulfill their end of the agreement with voters and wait till the end of the line until after we put in the people-oriented civic improvements. Then they can have a corporate meeting palace, and I'm all for that.

[kevinpate]

But Spartan, when did the cc crowd, or indeed anyone, ever actually agree with voters the cc would be last in line? I recall a lot of suggestion, but no specific promises or commitments at all.

Based on reading here, at Doug's blog and the press, I never saw any firm agreement with the voters on anything other than the length of time the temp tax would be in place. The rest was fluff and hope and campaigning, perhaps unfortunately so.

[Larry OKC]

But Spartan, when did the cc crowd, or indeed anyone, ever actually agree with voters the cc would be last in line? I recall a lot of suggestion, but no specific promises or commitments at all.

Based on reading here, at Doug's blog and the press, I never saw any firm agreement with the voters on anything other than the length of time the temp tax would be in place. The rest was fluff and hope and campaigning, perhaps unfortunately so.

Nothing firm in the sense of being on the Ballot or the Ordinance. Heck, the projects themselves aren't "firm", much less the timing. But it was Mayor Cornett that stated more than once that it was his preference that the C.C. be "staged last". In many a speech he put the construction of the C.C. in the 10 year time frame. The only other "commitment" on timing was getting the Park/Boulevard done first as soon as they could get the Crosstown out of the way. All other major projects, somewhere in between.

[kevinpate]

Nothing firm in the sense of being on the Ballot or the Ordinance. Heck, the projects themselves aren't "firm", much less the timing. But it was Mayor Cornett that stated more than once that it was his preference that the C.C. be "staged last". In many a speech he put the construction of the C.C. in the 10 year time frame. The only other "commitment" on timing was getting the Park/Boulevard done first as soon as they could get the Crosstown out of the way. All other major projects, somewhere in between.

I get that, and I'm not amongst those who think the cc ought to be first, not even close. But as for okc's mayor, it was also he who was/is espousing that 30 mil for substation relocation as a given, and no one is taking that at face value it now seems. So any reliance on the mayor said so seems to be of minimum weight.

I hope the timeline plan as laid out earlier, with the cc last, stays in place myself. I worry if it will, but I do remain hopeful

[Larry OKC]

I get that, and I'm not amongst those who think the cc ought to be first, not even close. But as for okc's mayor, it was also he who was/is espousing that 30 mil for substation relocation as a given, and no one is taking that at face value it now seems. So any reliance on the mayor said so seems to be of minimum weight.

I hope the timeline plan as laid out earlier, with the cc last, stays in place myself. I worry if it will, but I do remain hopeful

The distinction (possibly without a difference) is that the $30M seems to have been with conversations with himself as no on the Council remembers any such discussion or agreement. No one, even the Mayor, has produced a link, blurb or excerpt of any speech he gave where he claims he talked about the $30M. The first the general public became aware of it was at the first MAPS 3 Oversight Committee.

On the other hand, he mentioned the timing of the Park/Boulevard and Convention Center many times that have been published in the paper etc.

But you are correct, just because the Mayor said it doesn't mean it is "firm". Any more than when he promised the Use Tax for Public Safety (promising that positions would NOT be cut but actually added). For anything to be "firm", it needs to be on the Ballot/Ordinance (legally binding) or action taken by the Council (more than resolutions of intent, which aren't binding).

[Urban Pioneer]

I was wondering about this timeline submitted by the convention center subcommittee and all of the attention it has been getting. Why doesn't the streetcar subcommittee do the same, and try and get just as much attention? It will be a good opportunity to point out that streetcar carried the vote, that the timeline is necessary for federal matching funds, and to get other arguments out there in the open. The fact of the matter is that the convention center people have taken their fight to the media, now you guys should too, or you might just get pushed aside by the convention center interests.

Well first of all, we support the original timeline proposed by Architectural Design Group, the city's MAPS timeline and programming consultant.

Second of all, we have not been offered the opportunity to coordinate a committee meeting, of which has to be public via published notification before this proposed CC Committee timeline goes before the MAPS Oversight Board.

Third, the most scientific polling data that I have seen is owned by the Chamber/MAPS Campaign entity and it does confirm the strongest support for streetcar along with sidewalks and trails. I have seen it myself, but it has not been made available to the public.

Fourth, if the CC Committee has decided to embark on a media campaign, that is their business. The responsibility to make prudent decisions on this matter ultimately relies with the City Council. They are fully aware of the issues regarding proper integration with Project 180, the opportunity for Federal Funds within the original timeline proposed, and the fact that the streetcar has significant economic impact that has not been quantified by the consultants as of yet and therefore it cannot be ranked if that is the basis of the CC Committee's argument.

If you feel strongly about these matters and are upset that they are proposing a timeline that affects not just the streetcar, but would impose issues on the park and potentially other projects, then feel free to speak directly at the MAPS Oversight Board meeting on Thursday, May 26th at City Hall in the morning.

I would assume that whatever recommendation comes from the MAPS Oversight Board about the timeline will go before the City Council the following Tuesday on May 31st.

[CaptDave]

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts on the issue Urban Pioneer. I hope the transit committee taking the figurative high road and presenting the project on its merits and taking into account the wishes of the people who are funding it works out for the best in the end.

My gut tells me the influential squeaky wheels on the CC Committee are not going to quit until they get their way though.......or they will hold their breath until they turn blue!!! (That was a joke people....the breath holding part at least)

[CaptDave]

668 - 40 is a pretty serious butt kicking by any standard....

[Spartan]

Well first of all, we support the original timeline proposed by Architectural Design Group, the city's MAPS timeline and programming consultant.

Second of all, we have not been offered the opportunity to coordinate a committee meeting, of which has to be public via published notification before this proposed CC Committee timeline goes before the MAPS Oversight Board.

Third, the most scientific polling data that I have seen is owned by the Chamber/MAPS Campaign entity and it does confirm the strongest support for streetcar along with sidewalks and trails. I have seen it myself, but it has not been made available to the public.

Fourth, if the CC Committee has decided to embark on a media campaign, that is their business. The responsibility to make prudent decisions on this matter ultimately relies with the City Council. They are fully aware of the issues regarding proper integration with Project 180, the opportunity for Federal Funds within the original timeline proposed, and the fact that the streetcar has significant economic impact that has not been quantified by the consultants as of yet and therefore it cannot be ranked if that is the basis of the CC Committee's argument.

If you feel strongly about these matters and are upset that they are proposing a timeline that affects not just the streetcar, but would impose issues on the park and potentially other projects, then feel free to speak directly at the MAPS Oversight Board meeting on Thursday, May 26th at City Hall in the morning.

I would assume that whatever recommendation comes from the MAPS Oversight Board about the timeline will go before the City Council the following Tuesday on May 31st.

Alright, thanks for the response UP.. Just two more questions.

1. Do you feel like the streetcar project could really lose out?
2. To what extent do you feel the subcommittee has included the chamber in the planning process?

[Urban Pioneer]

Alright, thanks for the response UP.. Just two more questions.

1. Do you feel like the streetcar project could really lose out?
2. To what extent do you feel the subcommittee has included the chamber in the planning process?

1. Of course it could "lose out." Obviously, there are leaders in this community who simply don't "get it" and can have influence. There are some leaders in the community who are so profound in their ignorance about transit issues in general and convey a general unwillingness to educate themselves and observe what has happened in other communities.

Some of those same leaders who are also in our business leadership baffle me, literally baffle me, with the post Richard Florida visit rhetoric. How many times have some of these people said, "We want to stop the brain drain. We want to retain young people. We want a hip city where young people want to move to and create the jobs of tomorrow."

Yet you hear current and potential citizens (particularly the young people they say they want to target) say over and over again, good paying jobs are great, but we want to live in a "real" city with "real" transit options. Over and over again, you see people blog or comment who we've never heard of before, "I wish OKC had a real transit system." It is simply part of a real urban experience and atmosphere. Having the option get somewhere else without using a car for absolutely everything.

And yet, as this is said over and over again by people of all ages, key business leaders center nearly all of their MAPS obsession around 1950's era economic development thinking, a new, bigger, better Convention Center.

Now personally, I do not oppose the CC. It is undeniably potentially an economic development tool and important exposure mechanism to providing an potentially positive experience to visitors.

Pitting the streetcar against the CC or vice-versa does nothing for anyone in this community except generate controversy, unnecessary division and denigrate the "MAPS Brand."

The originally proposed (1st) ADG schedule was professionally created and prioritizes the streetcar at the appropriate times to maximize the tax payer dollar. It is as simple as that. The people pushing the CC Center predicate their argument almost entirely on Economic Development. As has been laboriously explained in other posts, a proper, professional assessment as to the overall economic impact that the streetcar could have has not been done as the ADG consultant does not have enough data on our project yet. So therefore, my argument is leave us alone until you can compare economic impacts properly if that is your predication. What we do know is the kind of return per dollar that has happened in other cities implementing such a system (between $8 and $14 dollars per tax payer dollar returned in private development along the lines.)

Back to your question, yes it could "lose out" in the scheduling. If this concerns you, then go to the MAPS Oversight Board Meeting and tell them that.


2. The Chamber has representatives officially involved at different levels in regional transit discussions.

As for the MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee specifically involving the chamber in the "planning process", how would we? If they send a rep to our public meetings, then obviously they might be "aware" of what is going on, but specifically engaging them in the design of the system is something that I think they would probably prefer that we do without interference from them and from anyone else for that matter.

The committee is made up of the absolute best people we have in this community for streetcar and transit hub recommendations. Those that aren't on the committee specifically are involved on other committees at other levels. Many of them are Chamber members. We are constantly on the "look out" for new people who want to be involved as well.

The Chamber as a formal organization is pro-streetcar, pro-transit, generally speaking.