Ideas 4 MAPS

[OKC Guy]

I'm divided on streetcars as I wish the money would be sunk into a grade separated transit system that would likely induce more riders than a streetcar. I am also very skeptical the streetcar has spurred a single penny in private development. That said, I think in order for the streetcar to be successful it needs an expansion to nearby neighborhoods. Capitol Hill, Paseo, Innovation District, Wheeler District, Linwood, OCU, NW 23rd, Plaza, Deep Deuce, Film Row, and MLK Boulevard are all good candidates for a streetcar extension. This would help boost ridership.

Very respectful reply. I do agree it should have been raised and then you still keep traffic ability for other methods (cars/bus/bike/taxi/uber).

Where I disagree is expansion. If the current “last mile” as we’ve been sold cannot sustain itself then why would we spend 9 digits to expand it? Then you end up going in several directions and its “just one more extension and I promise it will work”. And then you fail to improve the “outer” miles systems like buses. No matter how many extensions you make the system fails once it gets to the last mile because its a circular and not efficient people mover. If it had only north/south and east/west routes then its faster and can actually move more and faster. So any extension would just dump people into a flawed system (circular).

I think the SC’s calling is Convention Center, OMNI and events. I do not see it as a fast people mover. Imagine if it went north as an extension. So you ride it down and get off about 1/3 into existing system. When done you have to ride existing system the other 2/3rds (after waiting to get one) to then go back to north extension. Its never gonna work as currently built.

[Urban Pioneer]

Obviously, you've made your mind about this. But for everybody else, it's important to point out OKC Streetcar isn't a circular system per se. What could be a double track on a single street is spread out. To catch the opposite way simply requires walking to the other line. Some people are willing to do it, others are not. To adequately cover all of downtown with dual tracks on single streets really would have involved at least two spines to keep things within walking distance. To say it is flawed is your opinion.

To me, the big flaws at the current time involve the 15 remaining potential red traffic lights that slow streetcar service down and failure to communicate unanticipated delays at pylons. When one gets out of the downtown system, presumably extensions would be double-tracked to other areas.

[OKC Guy]

Obviously, you've made your mind about this. But for everybody else, it's important to point out OKC Streetcar isn't a circular system per se. What could be a double track on a single street is spread out. To catch the opposite way simply requires walking to the other line. Some people are willing to do it, others are not. To adequately cover all of downtown with dual tracks on single streets really would have involved at least two spines to keep things within walking distance. To say its flawed is your opinion. To me, the big flaws at the current time involve red lights and failure to communicate delays at pylons. When one gets out of the downtown system, presumably extensions would be double-tracked to other areas.

The flaw is once you get out of downtown “other” transit systems take over. SC is not a fast high speed system its a local people mover. We have the other infrastructure to fix like bus service and higher speed rail that is supposed to deliver folks downtown to then use SC.

Once you get out of downtown then you get into territory fights. You say go north but other areas say go east or go west or go south. And once you try to do all to please all its now a 10 digit expense. And you then clog up more roads for other traffic like bus or car traffic. Its a bottomless pit.

Had the system been designed as only going north/south and east/west you mitigate all the turning problems. It would flow with traffic more easily.

I first want to see how it works over 2-3 years. Any vote including SC I will vote no even if it has other projects I agree with.

Keep in mind over 99.9% of people movement is still by car citywide. We have to spend our money where we get get most bang for buck. We spent major money on SC and now need to focus on other projects that more of public or visitors will use. Lets see how well SC does over time before we spend more on it. The wellness centers are doing great and were good spend of money. The Peake is a good spend as its used year around by citizens all over city. Fairgrounds are also ised by many. I would say SC is least used by most citizens compared to other venues.

I also feel we missed maximizing the SC by making it circular. If a person has to walk blocks to catch a return then why did we make it a circular route? For example had we made it two way we could have included many more close to downtown workers. Had 10th street been east/west it could have went over into medical district. So of we had a n/s Broadway route and e/w 10st route a medical worker could take it over to broadway and then down to an eating place. Right now no medical worker will use SC due to not timely and not on their side. This is the biggest “next” to downtown block of workers who quote a few drive over to BT to eat. They have zero chance to use SC due to design and timing. We missed a golden chance to include them and increase ridership. If a n/s and e/w system can make faster trips then you can actually get more users and easily expand it without worry of how it changes circular route. Think of it as a tic tac toe design and you can cover all of downtown plus limited extensions.

For now we need to not dump more money into it until we see how it wirks with OMNI and Convention center. Tourists will like it as they have flexible time. Workers don’t because unless you in direct route its not timely.

[BoulderSooner]

The flaw is once you get out of downtown “other” transit systems take over. SC is not a fast high speed system its a local people mover. We have the other infrastructure to fix like bus service and higher speed rail that is supposed to deliver folks downtown to then use SC.

Once you get out of downtown then you get into territory fights. You say go north but other areas say go east or go west or go south. And once you try to do all to please all its now a 10 digit expense. And you then clog up more roads for other traffic like bus or car traffic. Its a bottomless pit.

Had the system been designed as only going north/south and east/west you mitigate all the turning problems. It would flow with traffic more easily.

I first want to see how it works over 2-3 years. Any vote including SC I will vote no even if it has other projects I agree with.

Keep in mind over 99.9% of people movement is still by car citywide. We have to spend our money where we get get most bang for buck. We spent major money on SC and now need to focus on other projects that more of public or visitors will use. Lets see how well SC does over time before we spend more on it. The wellness centers are doing great and were good spend of money. The Peake is a good spend as its used year around by citizens all over city. Fairgrounds are also ised by many. I would say SC is least used by most citizens compared to other venues.

I also feel we missed maximizing the SC by making it circular. If a person has to walk blocks to catch a return then why did we make it a circular route? For example had we made it two way we could have included many more close to downtown workers. Had 10th street been east/west it could have went over into medical district. So of we had a n/s Broadway route and e/w 10st route a medical worker could take it over to broadway and then down to an eating place. Right now no medical worker will use SC due to not timely and not on their side. This is the biggest “next” to downtown block of workers who quote a few drive over to BT to eat. They have zero chance to use SC due to design and timing. We missed a golden chance to include them and increase ridership. If a n/s and e/w system can make faster trips then you can actually get more users and easily expand it without worry of how it changes circular route. Think of it as a tic tac toe design and you can cover all of downtown plus limited extensions.

For now we need to not dump more money into it until we see how it wirks with OMNI and Convention center. Tourists will like it as they have flexible time. Workers don’t because unless you in direct route its not timely.

This really shows that you have no idea what you are talking about

[OKC Guy]

This really shows that you have no idea what you are talking about

Thanks for a well thought out retort (sarcasm)

[TheSteveHunt]

Anyone else see Holt go on Twitter about MAPS4? Seems to me he really lets some of the comments on this site and others get to him. He’s getting as bad as Trump on Twitter.

hahah yah he's a clown

[checkthat]

Anyone else see Holt go on Twitter about MAPS4? Seems to me he really lets some of the comments on this site and others get to him. He’s getting as bad as Trump on Twitter.

This is objectively false. Holt is much worse. Two spaces after a period? Is he tweeting from a typewriter??? Absolute madness.

[Midtowner]

hahah yah he's a clown

Isn't it ironic?

Don't you think?

[hoya]

hahah yah he's a clown

...

This is like that Twilight Zone episode where the monsters are going to perform plastic surgery on the pretty lady.

[Plutonic Panda]

To me, this discussion/debate would be more accurately framed around density, pedestrian accessibility, and our built environment. PluPan, I think that saying it has or hasn't spurred development is a technical unknown. Presumably, The Oklahoma Contemporary would have been built somewhere. What the streetcar has done is to give developers confidence about lots and sites that are more inconvenient to access on foot from where most people currently are. If we think about parking garages, garage locations, land use, and improved public transit overall, it's easy to see the streetcar as a catalyst to a much broader downtown and with the potential to be built in a much more sensitive and efficient way.

PluPan, I think that saying it has or hasn't spurred development is a technical unknown.

Thank you! I completely agree with this. I was strongly wording my post the way I did to provide contrast to the notion that the streetcar is spurring all of the development along its route. I would much rather see statements like this.

After working on this for many years, I think any expansion should be very carefully considered and be directly related to better land use. The question is, what are the measures that qualify as success? Is it just land use and more densification? Is it ridership? I personally think that ideally, it is both. In a city as suburban as ours, I think there are very few corridors in which we would see success in both metrics for streetcar expansion. Any expansion should directly involve the Planning Department and incorporate redevelopment mechanisms to maximize the impact.

My opinion to classify it as a success is have people look at for it what it should be and that's a piece of infrastructure to better the life of the city's citizens. Any tourist that use is just added benefit. Higher ridership will surely justify more transit expansion through the rest of the city. I do NOT see a streetcar as a first/last mile solution in way shape or form.

What I see as giving better quality of life is reducing congestion(something mass transit does NOT do), giving people alternative ways to get around, and enabling alternative lifestyles such as a car free one.

Being honest, the OKC streetcar has made me become less anti-streetcar than I used to be though I still think this money could have been better spent. At this point, I want to see its success and I've ridden it many times since I've been here in the last few weeks and showed many in Edmond how to use it. Most of them didn't even know what is was. I want it to be expanded and I agree with you that any expansion should be carefully considered. I do hope you are on the board of any future expansion as I do not question your dedication or expertise on this matter and I believe you are among the best for the job!

Come on Panda, you can have this as an opinion but saying it as an absolute statement of fact is nonsensical. You don't know this, you just think it.

My apologies but I yes, it is my opinion only. I think we don't know and Urban Pioneer described it perfectly.

[dankrutka]

I think it’s bizarre you can’t see some similarities.

So agree to disagree.

Are you willing to provide examples of tweets you see as similar? Thanks in advance.

[Urban Pioneer]

Thank you! I completely agree with this. I was strongly wording my post the way I did to provide contrast to the notion that the streetcar is spurring all of the development along its route. I would much rather see statements like this.

My opinion to classify it as a success is have people look at for it what it should be and that's a piece of infrastructure to better the life of the city's citizens. Any tourist that use is just added benefit. Higher ridership will surely justify more transit expansion through the rest of the city. I do NOT see a streetcar as a first/last mile solution in way shape or form.

What I see as giving better quality of life is reducing congestion(something mass transit does NOT do), giving people alternative ways to get around, and enabling alternative lifestyles such as a car free one.

Being honest, the OKC streetcar has made me become less anti-streetcar than I used to be though I still think this money could have been better spent. At this point, I want to see its success and I've ridden it many times since I've been here in the last few weeks and showed many in Edmond how to use it. Most of them didn't even know what is was. I want it to be expanded and I agree with you that any expansion should be carefully considered. I do hope you are on the board of any future expansion as I do not question your dedication or expertise on this matter and I believe you are among the best for the job!



My apologies but I yes, it is my opinion only. I think we don't know and Urban Pioneer described it perfectly.

No problem! I think it is important for all of us to look at these things objectively. I do think that the streetcar has done is to help reinforce the energy that these various projects are creating. Energy creates more energy. The ability to create synergies between districts/projects is what helps maximize the impact and thus create a higher quality of life. Undoubtedly, there is probably an additional economic gain both to business, large and small alike. Subsequently, the system probably helps generate additional sales tax revenue. So I do believe that there is a positive impact. But you are right to state that streetcar by itself probably wouldn't affect whether some company is going to make a move. It just might affect where they move.

[Laramie]

There will be multiple projects on MAPS IV:

Here are two projects envisioned so far:

New State Fair Arena:



Flexibility would allow for the easy configuration for equestrian/rodeo with a capacity of 5,500 to basketball, circus, ice shows and concerts that could host over 9,000 attendees.

MAPS 4 Stadium



The outdoor venue would be sized in accordance with USL, MLS, U.S. Rugby, Major League Lacrosse as well as Oklahoma Secondary School Field regulations and seat between 8,500 – 10,000 people for sporting events and 16,500 to 18,000 for outdoor concerts. It would be designed to allow for renovation to expand capacity, much like the Ford Center which later became Chesapeake Arena.

Join the discussion on the Development Thread of this forum: https://www.okctalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=145

[BoulderSooner]

the Peake was NOT designed to allow for expanded capacity

[OKCRT]

the Peake was NOT designed to allow for expanded capacity

Correct. It was built bare bones that could be upgraded,not expand capacity. In fact I think they lost some capacity after the upgrades.

[Laramie]

Correct. It was built bare bones that could be upgraded,not expand capacity. In fact I think they lost some capacity after the upgrades.

You are correct...

The original design for The Peake was to seat 19,599 for basketball and slightly over 17,000 for ice hockey. NHL bypassed OKC because they said we couldn't build an arena on an $89 million budget.

Yes I recall the complaints about the seats being too small and the cup holder debacle; truth be known, The Peake seats were 22" wide vs the smaller 19" wide at the Myriad (Cox Convention Center).

They also didn't account for the media and TV cameras needed for nationally televised games.

Again, probably had more to do with the planning or the amount we budgeted for The Peake or a combination of the two. What about those original four large party suites? Just want to say the proposed arena plan was 19,599; OKC now has an arena that seats considerably less at 18,203.

The Peake is functional for NBA basketball and NHL ice hockey for which it was originally designed.

[Laramie]

Just want to note that the new arena would need an ice plant and dasher boards; the City built their own dasher boards for the Myriad's Great Arena.

The new State Fair Arena's 5,500 permanent seats would barely accommodate the average crowds Tulsa (5,470) & Wichita (5,,520) now enjoy--imagine a heated Turnpike blood thirsty rivalry between Oklahoma's two largest cities or a rival between the Wichita Thunder and an ECHL OKC franchise.

Just get the impression that ice-hockey will never resurface in Oklahoma City. The current State Fair Arena (9,750 capacity for ice hockey); the last three Blazers games moved there from the Myriad sold out. The Cox CC is the only facility available right now; its days are numbered once the new convention center opens.

New State Fair Arena 2019 design:



New State Fair Arena 2016 design:



There are NO plans to accommodate minor league ice hockey in any shape, form or fashion--this is IMHO by design, rumored the Thunder don't want ice hockey in The Peake or the city. It's no accident that minor league ice hockey will not be in the future cards for our city.

Please correct me if I'm wrong; the new State Fair Arena can accommodate concerts with floor seating, hence the 9,000 capacity. There is no room for risers as with the 2019 design vs. the 2016 rendering.

[Laramie]

.
Oklahoma City's NBA success story rooted in NHL failure: https://newsok.com/article/3683005/o...in-nhl-failure

[OKCRT]

Just want to note that the new arena would need an ice plant and dasher boards; the City built their own dasher boards for the Myriad's Great Arena.

The new State Fair Arena's 5,500 permanent seats would barely accommodate the average crowds Tulsa (5,470) & Wichita (5,,520) now enjoy--imagine a heated Turnpike blood thirsty rivalry between Oklahoma's two largest cities or a rival between the Wichita Thunder and an ECHL OKC franchise.

Just get the impression that ice-hockey will never resurface in Oklahoma City. The current State Fair Arena (9,750 capacity for ice hockey); the last three Blazers games moved there from the Myriad sold out. The Cox CC is the only facility available right now; its days are numbered once the new convention center opens.

New State Fair Arena 2019 design:



New State Fair Arena 2016 design:



There are NO plans to accommodate minor league ice hockey in any shape, form or fashion--this is IMHO by design, rumored the Thunder don't want ice hockey in The Peake or the city. It's no accident that minor league ice hockey will not be in the future cards for our city.

Please correct me if I'm wrong; the new State Fair Arena can accommodate concerts with floor seating, hence the 9,000 capacity. There is no room for risers as with the 2019 design vs. the 2016 rendering.

Seems to me if they are going to build one they should build it bigger than 5k seats. That is pretty small but I assume it's going to be for the horse shows and that is prob. all they need. Hockey fans can forget about there ever being games in there. Fair Grounds is all about horse shows it seems. But if the Thunder are against hockey then there's prob. no chance it's coming back. I would assume that OU would be against any kind of Pro Football in the city also. That's sad because there are tons of football fans that are not OU football fans. Could be wrong about that but I haven't heard anyone stepping up and making noise for the XFL in the city.

[Jersey Boss]

Current XFL business model is to limit teams to NFL cities, with St. Louis the exception. However St. Louis has had 3 NFL teams in the past, most recently the Rams and Cards. OKC does not meet the criteria and that is why there is no mention of OKC.

[Laramie]

Current XFL business model is to limit teams to NFL cities, with St. Louis the exception. However St. Louis has had 3 NFL teams in the past, most recently the Rams and Cards. OKC does not meet the criteria and that is why there is no mention of OKC.

Correct, the XFL plans to compete head on with 7 cities in current NFL markets & St. Louis. Probably has more to do with TV households and available stadiums.

San Diego & San Antonio are potential relocation/expansion cities on the XFL's radar.

[Zuplar]

Correct, the XFL plans to compete head on with 7 cities in current NFL markets & St. Louis. Probably has more to do with TV households and available stadiums.

San Diego & San Antonio are potential relocation/expansion cities on the XFL's radar.

Which would be a good reason the AAF might decide to merge with the XFL.

[Jersey Boss]

Which would be a good reason the AAF might decide to merge with the XFL.

Two different models. One is a developmental league with ties to the NFL. Players in AAF can play in NFL under this agreement, XFL is competing against NFL so those players will probably not have this same benefit. You also will get into anti trust issues as well. More likely than not, both will be out of business inside of 3 years. The NFL will exert pressure on any entity that threatens its status as only major league.

[OKCRT]

Two different models. One is a developmental league with ties to the NFL. Players in AAF can play in NFL under this agreement, XFL is competing against NFL so those players will probably not have this same benefit. You also will get into anti trust issues as well. More likely than not, both will be out of business inside of 3 years. The NFL will exert pressure on any entity that threatens its status as only major league.

It would be nice to see another league rival the NFL. If the XFL can secure decent TV deals they might have a chance. They have access to money and being in the larger markets they have a better chance making it IMO. If they can sign some good QBs like what's been talked about they will have a huge advantage over the AAF. I think they will be targeting some NFL practice squad players and some last cut nfl type players. It should def. be a better brand of football over the AAF.

[Zuplar]

Two different models. One is a developmental league with ties to the NFL. Players in AAF can play in NFL under this agreement, XFL is competing against NFL so those players will probably not have this same benefit. You also will get into anti trust issues as well. More likely than not, both will be out of business inside of 3 years. The NFL will exert pressure on any entity that threatens its status as only major league.

Sorry to tell you but XFL already went head to head with NFL and lost. They aren’t trying to compete. They may not want to be a “developmental” league but more an alternative during the spring league. My guess is whoever survives may get some teams from whoever fails. San Diego and San Antonio AAF teams have had by far the best following and attendance so I could absolutely see them jumping ship to XFL if AAF fails.