Core to Shore

[Just the facts]

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

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

[Jchaser405]

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

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

[Fantastic]

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

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

[skanaly]

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

[Rover]

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

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

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

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

[Just the facts]

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

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

[MDot]

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

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

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

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

[Tier2City]

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

Modern Streetcar

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

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

Here's the list of members of the AA Steering Committee:
http://www.letstalktransit.com/Websi...ber%202010.pdf

Seems like a very comprehensive representation of downtown stakeholders.

[Just the facts]

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

[RodH]

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

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

[Urbanized]

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

Actually former Congressman Ernest Istook made it impossible, and City officials were privately (and in some cases not so privately) furious. The people voted to fund a small percentage of the overall cost of the trolley plan - contingent on receiving federal funding, which should have been a cinch, based on the politics of the time.

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

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

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

[Just the facts]

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

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

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

[mcca7596]

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

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

[Rover]

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

[Just the facts]

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

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

[Rover]

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

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

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

[Urbanized]

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

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

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

[Just the facts]

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

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

[Urbanized]

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

Wow. You're right. Just read the 1993 ballot language again for the first time in years. I had forgotten the I-40 connection led the transit discussion at election time. I can promise you though, by the time the actual planning/defining came around (much like where we are currently with MAPS 3), the discussion had moved strongly in the direction of a trolley circulator in downtown. I guess that is very similar to how the canal took on a life of its own. On the ballot it was an afterthought mentioned in passing on the river improvements subsection. By the time it came to implementation it had become a cornerstone project.

[Urbanized]

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

Istook Stance May Kill Plan, Officials Say

Charolette Aiken
Published: September 11, 1996

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He opposes pork projects, he said.

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

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

Mayor Norick said Istook has relied on outdated information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more: http://newsok.com/istook-stance-may-...#ixzz1kW5LaRxN

[Just the facts]

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

[Fantastic]

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

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

[Just the facts]

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

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

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

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/20...cost-downtown/

[Urbanized]

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

[Larry OKC]

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

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

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

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

Subsection

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

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

(C)(2) All or part of a transportation system and/or related facilities to provide access between downtown Oklahoma City and the vicinity of Remington Park, provided said system and/or facilities shall be funded only if a Federal grant covering not less than 50% of applicable costs is obtained.

So it was very clear, even on the ballot that this was dependent on Federal funding coming through (which the City clearly expected to be a given). Interesting to note that this was remembered this time around with MAPS 3 as the Mayor stated that they didn't want to include anything that was dependent on outside funding to get built. We would do it on our own and there would be sufficient funding for cost over runs built in. Can't locate the particular article at the moment, but this one has similar sentiment:
http://www.newsok.com/article/3400807
MAPS 3 proposals almost ready for Oklahoma voters (Oklahoman, 9/14/09)

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