View Full Version : Citizens subcommittee let's the Mayor know what the plan is!



Mikemarsh51
05-12-2011, 08:07 AM
If you read today's DOK, the citizens subcommitte has shown the Mayor that he is wrong about the convention center. Check out the story and the editorial! Not to mention the shenanigans going on with electrical substation.

BoulderSooner
05-12-2011, 10:02 AM
the spot they picked is worse than the spot he picked i will not be suprised if the council picks the other location

Kerry
05-12-2011, 11:19 AM
If you read today's DOK, the citizens subcommitte has shown the Mayor that he is wrong about the convention center.

...by being wronger (that is a word I just made up).

Mikemarsh51
05-12-2011, 12:03 PM
I'm just thrilled that it's not a rubber stamp kinda deal.

Spartan
05-12-2011, 01:14 PM
It is turning into a project v. project kind of deal however, because the powerful convention center interests are turning it into that. Clearly there is still a lack of respect for the streetcar, which is what carried the ballot.

Mikemarsh51
05-12-2011, 02:59 PM
Spartan, that election was about nothing more than the convention center. The other projects were added to get the votes. I am still waiting to see how "we" are going to be asked to pay for a 50 million dollar hotel that will be fit for a grand convention center.

betts
05-12-2011, 03:16 PM
It does kind of poke a hole in the paranoia-laden "rich man's club" theory regarding MAPS though, doesn't it? Ah well, can't make everybody happy.

Doug Loudenback
05-12-2011, 05:33 PM
It does kind of poke a hole in the paranoia-laden "rich man's club" theory?

You think? While it's not likely to occur, it would be kinda cool, Betts, to see the rich people get into a tussle, public or private but especially public, and compete with one another, but this item presents no evidence of that. If it did, we really might have some fun tonight. But, the only potential "split" that I can see, based on publications, is that the Oklahoman's owners have aligned with Nichols (in his various capacities) (and the greater Chamber and others) versus Mayor Cornett's preference ... if not about the $30 million issue on the OGE substation, which is still kinda murky from what I've read.

Anyway, big money appears to be tight and hanging together with only the mayor on the outside of this one, if I'm reading this correctly. I don't think that Mayor Mick is a member of the rich-man's magic circle.

Mikemarsh51
05-12-2011, 09:31 PM
Well said Doug!

betts
05-13-2011, 12:12 AM
And, having attended the meeting, I don't think this location choice is related to anything but the fact that the people on the subcommittee see the convention center as worthy of a prominent location, coupled with reasonable proximity to Bricktown and existing hotels and room for a convention hotel and expansion. I disagree that a convention center should be prominent, but think that conviction is sincere.

Doug Loudenback
05-13-2011, 05:13 AM
That's quite possibly true, Betts, and I'm not complaining about the selection or anything else. I was just saying that I see no evidence to support the convention center location preference pokes a hole in the "rich man's club" theory, be it based on paranoia, reality, or a combo of both. How do you see it differently?

pinlifter
05-13-2011, 05:37 AM
It looks as if a new OG&E substation site has been selected, 600yrds east of NE1 st and Kelly.

soonerguru
05-13-2011, 10:32 AM
While I understand the many well-thought-out arguments against the proposed location by Kerry and others, I am personally OK with the proposed site.

I am not, however, pleased about the convention center subcommittee's bullying tactics to try to push their project to the fore to the detriment and risk of other projects. That must be stopped dead in its tracks and should be the focus of our narrow online community.

People power and the Internet helped get Shadid elected and we can stop this power grab by the CC subcommittee, too.

Of Sound Mind
05-13-2011, 11:50 AM
What's wrong with the convention center being moved up? Projects that are revenue-generating should be completed first so that they can help generate additional revenue for the latter projects. Additionally, the longer you delay the construction of the $280 million project, the more likely the cost estimates will be insufficient as the cost of goods and services for construction will undoubtedly increase over time.

Mikemarsh51
05-13-2011, 02:29 PM
What's wrong with it being moved up? That is not what was proposed to the voters to get it passed. I remember some group opposing this because there were no clear directives about how projects would be completed.

soonerguru
05-13-2011, 05:22 PM
What's wrong with the convention center being moved up? Projects that are revenue-generating should be completed first so that they can help generate additional revenue for the latter projects. Additionally, the longer you delay the construction of the $280 million project, the more likely the cost estimates will be insufficient as the cost of goods and services for construction will undoubtedly increase over time.

You obviously haven't spent much time on this board.

1. Listen to ADG, which said that moving it up will literally mean we can do nothing for two years waiting for tax allocations.
2. It's going to be more revenue neutral than revenue generating. It will not lead to any development, except a hotel we are going to have to end up subsidizing.
3. If the streetcar is pushed back, it could literally cost OKC tens of millions of dollars in federal matching funds.

Before you start trumpeting the "revenue generating" crap, you should analyze the economic impact of convention centers in other midsized and large cities; in most cases, they never pay for themselves.

Conversely, cities that have build modern streetcar have seen their investments return at a rate of 10 to 1 by all of the transit-oriented development.

Popsy
05-13-2011, 06:47 PM
Every one in this forum seems to accept and promote the theory that the streetcars will have a huge economic impact. I read a piece ahwile back where a representative of the Cato Institute said they had studied these claims and found the proponents extensively under sold the final cost and overly sold the economic impact. I have no idea about the costs that have been mentioned, but I have a hard time accepting an economic benefit at a ten to one ratio. Looking at the proposed routes I don't see a lot of development sites available to have much of an impact. I can see where it would be more likely in a more dense urban setting, but not in OKC.

I was for the streetcars when they were promoted for downtown. I thought routes would be spaced out where they would cover about every other block east-west and north-south. This made sense if you had existing rail lines that could be used by commuters coming in from Norman, Edmond and Midwest City, but just recently we are informed by Urban that the rail companies will not allow that to happen. So we are left with spending sixty plus million dollars to upgrade the Midwest City track and who knows how much to rehab the adventure district line. Furthermore the proposed route for the street cars now run north into a residential area, which was not a part of the MAPIII proposal.

These are my opinions and do not feel I need to be attacked by the propontets just because I have a different opinion than yours. Thanks for allowing me to state my opinions.

betts
05-13-2011, 10:23 PM
I think you're confused popsy. No one has said we won't have commuter rail lines from Edmond, Norman and Midwest City. It's going to take awhile, but we'll get them eventually. And, there aren't a lot of people who can't/won't walk a couple of blocks to catch a ride. We need to get away from the Oklahoma idea that walking should only be done for less than the length of a parking lot. It's healthier to walk a little. As far as development along the streetcar line is concerned, there's actually a fair amount of undeveloped buildings and land along the proposed route. Obviously there are differing points of view. I am a big fan of mass transit, so for me it is exciting to finally be talking about trying to catch up to some of the other slightly larger and simuilarly-sized cities as far as mass transit is concerned.

Larry OKC
05-13-2011, 10:25 PM
The number I recall seeing touted was 18 to 1

Popsy
05-14-2011, 11:12 AM
I think you're confused popsy. No one has said we won't have commuter rail lines from Edmond, Norman and Midwest City. It's going to take awhile, but we'll get them eventually. And, there aren't a lot of people who can't/won't walk a couple of blocks to catch a ride. We need to get away from the Oklahoma idea that walking should only be done for less than the length of a parking lot. It's healthier to walk a little. As far as development along the streetcar line is concerned, there's actually a fair amount of undeveloped buildings and land along the proposed route. Obviously there are differing points of view. I am a big fan of mass transit, so for me it is exciting to finally be talking about trying to catch up to some of the other slightly larger and simuilarly-sized cities as far as mass transit is concerned.

The only thing I think I am confused about is why you think I am confused. Am I confused about Urban saying the railroad company has no interest in sharing their line for commuter rail and the use of that line being a big part of what has been promoted by rail enthusiasts for implementing commuter rail? Were streetcars not promoted as a requirement for implementing commuter rail? Am I confused and unaware that you know of funds that are guaranteed to be available that will fund tracks from the suburbs to our intermodal hub? Am I so confused that you think I don't know there aren't a lot of people who can't/won't walk a couple of blocks to catch a ride and that it is healthier to walk a little, especially after I said I thought the routes would be only two blocks apart? Am I confused about which type of business would go in just because a street car is present and could describe what a fair amount of undeveloped buildings and land might be? I am exited for you that you are excited to be finally talking about catching up with those that have mass transit, but try to remember that I did volunteer work for MAPS III through Urban and I am not a mass transit hater.

Urban Pioneer
05-14-2011, 12:32 PM
The only thing I think I am confused about is why you think I am confused. Am I confused about Urban saying the railroad company has no interest in sharing their line for commuter rail and the use of that line being a big part of what has been promoted by rail enthusiasts for implementing commuter rail? Were streetcars not promoted as a requirement for implementing commuter rail? Am I confused and unaware that you know of funds that are guaranteed to be available that will fund tracks from the suburbs to our intermodal hub? Am I so confused that you think I don't know there aren't a lot of people who can't/won't walk a couple of blocks to catch a ride and that it is healthier to walk a little, especially after I said I thought the routes would be only two blocks apart? Am I confused about which type of business would go in just because a street car is present and could describe what a fair amount of undeveloped buildings and land might be? I am exited for you that you are excited to be finally talking about catching up with those that have mass transit, but try to remember that I did volunteer work for MAPS III through Urban and I am not a mass transit hater.

And thanks for volunteering. I remember meeting you downtown.

Regarding commuter rail lines: MAPS streetcar is a steeping stone to a regional transit system by proving the local "distributor/collector" for the densest part of the city. The hub is also part of establishing that system. OKC has always been the "big elephant" in the room and every other city has been waiting for us to out our foot forward and actually do something, particularly Midwest City/Del City.

Regarding railroads such a BNSF and Union Pacific. The rule of thumb regarding what they will/won't do has to due with impact on their freight operations. If there is an existing line that they own that we want to run commuter trains on, it can be done not unlike Amtrak currently does via radio dispatch if the line is not heavily used and the railroad agrees to "lease time and space" on the line. Obviously, if they think they can make money and it is enough for them to assume the liability, then its often worked out.

However, the system becomes dependent on them and totally repsonsive to their needs. Therefore, that is why we either want to own as much of the actual rail in that way we are not require to abide by their schedules and the liability is minimized. Edmond to Norman for example would be better if it was "double tracked."

Midwest City/Del City/Adventure Line is one of those rare opportunities where could actually potentially own and existing series of line that teh railroads do not really need. These lines need about $80 million in upgrades but we would own them. The reason why MAPS money can't be used for all of the the MWC/Del City Line is because it is obviously inter-jurisdictional and we need to set up the Regional Transit Authority to make progress. MAPS Streetcar and hub shows the region that were serious and we will in probability begin actually pursuing the RTA formally in the near future.

It think a few of my comments Popsy that you are referring to is modifications such as the bridges in Bricktown. If the BNSF or UP think that we might impact their freight business by making a physical change to their existing infrastructure, they respond cautiously and negotiate usually over lengthy periods of time.