Ideas 4 MAPS

[TheSteveHunt]

Understand you have some frustration as evident in your post. You can begin by getting involved in the process. Steve, seriously, what would you like to see--be specific.

Gimme some time, I'll post something good.

[Pete]

That would be a solid waste of both the persons money and cost the taxpayers money. Because there is little doubt that the last maps ballot was completely legal.

That's for a court to decide and these things get successfully challenged all the time. While technically legal, the last ballot absolutely violated the spirit of previous court decisions.


How about just insisting that individual projects receive an individual vote?

Why should citizens be forced to make an all-or-nothing choice?

[Plutonic Panda]

Because the convention center probably would have failed and we needed a new convention center. It’s about compromise, IMO. Not everyone knows what’s good for them. But that logic has its limits, I’d in favor of an all or nothing vote so as long as the public has its input on what is included in the final package.

[Hutch]

Dream Big? What does Dallas, Denver, Houston, Salt Lake City, Portland, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Oakland and Sacramento have that OKC doesn't? Here's a hint...it's not an NBA Western Division Team.

The one great thing that those cities have that Oklahoma City doesn't have is a regional transit system. If we're looking for something transformational, we won't find a better project to invest our tax dollars in than a comprehensive bus, bus rapid transit, commuter rail, light rail and streetcar system to serve the growing transportation demands of our booming city. If we want to invest in something that is sure to create jobs, spur economic growth and improve the quality of life for all, we need to invest in a regional transit system.

We've worked hard since 2005 to do the planning and studies. We've secured and restored Santa Fe Station as our intermodal hub. We're ready to cut the ribbon on a modern streetcar that will serve as downtown's last-mile distribution mode. And we're about to create a new regional transit authority to manage and operate the regional transit system. There's only one thing left to do. We need to fund the development and operation of the system. At a minimum, that will require a permanent, dedicated 1/2-cent sales tax from all of the participating cities.

Regional transit systems and the RTAs that operate them are funded by sales tax. And history shows that passing a new sales tax initiative is always a challenge, no matter for what the purpose. If MAPS 4 is approved at the full one-cent, it will be extremely difficult to pass an additional 1/2-cent sales tax initiative dedicated to a regional transit system...likely delaying development of that system for at least another decade.

There's probably no better way to continue OKC’s momentum and ensure that it is felt by all than by finding a way to utilize one-half of the MAPS tax to permanently fund OKC's share of a regional transit system. By doing so, we have the opportunity for streetcar extensions to Capital Hill and the Health Sciences Center and up Classen to 63rd...and Commuter Rail between OKC, Edmond, Norman, Midwest City/Tinker, Mustang/Yukon, Fairgrounds, Will Rogers and Adventure District...and BRT or Rapid Streetcar or LIght Rail up Northwest Expressway and Hefner Boulevard...and an expansive new bus system to service the entire metro area.

Now that's thinking Dreaming Big!

[catch22]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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

[dankrutka]

A soccer stadium would not be my preference, but is worth pointing out that a 10,000 to 20,000 seat stadium could be used for lots of things besides soccer, including concerts, high school sports, etc. I still don't like it, but it doesn't have to be imagined as exclusively Energy, right? Or are soccer specific stadiums not conducive to other uses?

[Pete]

A soccer stadium would not be my preference, but is worth pointing out that a 10,000 to 20,000 seat stadium could be used for lots of things besides soccer, including concerts, high school sports, etc. I still don't like it, but it doesn't have to be imagined as exclusively Energy, right? Or are soccer specific stadiums not conducive to other uses?

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?

[BoulderSooner]

Keep in mind the Sacramento republic built their 12k stadium for a little over 3 mil. For 5 mil okc could build a very nice short term facility for the energy. And I would support that amount of money in maps 4

[Laramie]

Pete, agree 100%.

They're capital improvements as one project vs. individual piecemeal projects within an initiative. That was the MAPS theme once the projects were under the umbrella of projects on a Capital Improvement Initiative--all or nothing.

Recall the late 60s when OKC attempted to get the convention center approved thru individual bond issue voting as separate initiatives--everything failed. The Myriad was approved after we lost the NFR to Las Vegas. Even then it was downsized b/c $23 million budgeted for the convention center was initially structured as a 15,000 seat arena with 100,000 sq. ft exhibit hall and some smaller meeting areas. OKC's Myriad could seat 14,005 for basketball at max.

We didn't have the hotels to accommodate luring any significant conventions; plus our dreams for the NCAA Final 4 became less competitive after cities like Greensboro had expanded their venues to accommodate 23,000, some cities like Louisville's 18,000 seat Freedom Hall could present a better package to the NCAA tourney committee. Now you need a dome to host the NCAA Final 4 because the interest & commercial benefits are staggering.

We did better with the downtown arena; initially planned to accommodate 19,555 for basketball; later downsized to 18,203, it almost got scrapped by Mayor Kirk Humphreys b/c we didn't budget enough in MAPS I to complete all projects w/o an extension. Mayor Humphreys commented that we couldn't fill the Myriad; why do we need a 19,555 seat arena; he did eventually convinced voters pass the extension.

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 help fund 50% of this project.

Pete, Taft was a nice historical restoration project; it doesn't meet the current requirements for USL soccer.

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.

Please forget the long-winded comments.

[Hutch]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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?

[Pete]

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

[Hutch]

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.

[baralheia]

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?

[Laramie]

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/o...-falls-through

[BoulderSooner]

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

[catch22]

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.

[hoya]

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.

[jedicurt]

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?

[hoya]

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.

[BG918]

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.

[jedicurt]

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

[FighttheGoodFight]

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.

[shawnw]

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.