rcjunkie and PennyQuilts apparently haven't gotten the memo that MAPS was passed by voters in 2009 and includes $120 million for the streetcar. Why are we arguing this now? I must ask them: do you agree with Larry Nichols and others that apparently think the will of the voters should be ignored and we should dump the streetcar? I ask this because the polls showed the streetcar to be one of only three items in the MAPS slate that would have passed if it were run independently.

I am not saying it should be dumped. I am aware it has been voted. Where I come down is that I am highly skeptical that it will work. I hope it does but when you have a community like ours, I fail to see why it would. There is absolutely nothing inherent about this city that would suggest people would give up their cars in favor of streetcars. They fight tooth and nail against patronizing the buses and have all kinds of excuses as to why they won't even consider it. Most people feel exactly the same way about any public transportation in this part of the world. I hope it encourages business (which is a totally different, even opposite argument than the one that insists that these systems aren't meant to "turn a profit.") If it doesn't, I think it is just a waste of money because the only people who are going to use them are people who want to. There is no need.

We should just admit it now; the government should get out of street car, train, road and air transportation subsidization; the future of transportation is the Segway. http://www.smileystar.com/smileys/emotions/rolling%20smile.gif

No one said that. No one even hinted at that. But if we did, wouldn't that make an easy argument to knock down? Maybe that is why you suggested that was what we're saying?

Why is their an argument in this thread about the need/profitability/whatever for the streetcar? It is going to happen.

This thread exists to talk about progress with the Modern Streetcar. Nobody wants to wade through this crap to find relevant information.

Go start your own thread called, "Concerns About the Need and Profitability of Modern Transit."

Agreed!

No one said that. No one even hinted at that. But if we did, wouldn't that make an easy argument to knock down? Maybe that is why you suggested that was what we're saying?

In case you missed the smiley face or tongue in cheek tone, it was joking about if several of the posts above it were all followed we would not be investing to facilitate any types of modern transportation.

Most disabled people and elderly people are going to have a difficult time waiting for a streetcar. It wouldn't be much different than waiting for a bus. Even with sidewalks and covered stops, they would be more exposed to the elements and have to move further than they typically would if they were going from their home to the car. Most would still need assistance. It is hard being disabled/frail. I imagine it will be many, many years before streetcars ever expands out of the targeted area, if ever.

Penny, not all old people are either frail or disabled and incapable of walking or waiting outdoors. Not being able to drive a car or wanting to drive a car applies to a large demographic of people.

Without propagating this further I would say that our collective experience with the way we have designed our city for the last 60 years with sprawl mantra as our savior does not mean that we have to charge forward with the same mindset.

With regard to success or not success, why don't we just wait and see? lol In all my research I have not found a streetcar system that wasn't successful in the United States, both the "modern type" and the "heritage type." But obviously "success" is in the eye of the beholder.

Obviously, supporters weigh success just like roadway or other infrastructure construction. The idea that any such public infrastructure project is supposed to generate profitable direct revenue generation is laughable. It is the environment and the people that any such project supports that are the beneficiaries and to extent of such with.

Insightful article by Steve in tomorrow's paper:

http://newsok.com/could-the-maps-3-streetcar-system-and-convention-center-in-oklahoma-city-have-more-in-common-than-advocates-might-think/article/3580851

Most disabled people and elderly people are going to have a difficult time waiting for a streetcar. It wouldn't be much different than waiting for a bus. Even with sidewalks and covered stops, they would be more exposed to the elements and have to move further than they typically would if they were going from their home to the car. Most would still need assistance. It is hard being disabled/frail. I imagine it will be many, many years before streetcars ever expands out of the targeted area, if ever.

Streetcars will run much more frequently than buses, and will have covered stops so they will be less exposed to the elements than when waiting for a bus. Since streetcars have a low floor, there aren't steps to climb to get into one. Also, if a disabled or elderly person cannot drive a car, using one for transportation is only an option if you know someone who is willing to drive you.

- what does everyone think of a tax increase to cover transit specifically for the ACOG OKC Metro area? You could choose between something like a 0.55% sales tax increase or some increment to the gas/diesel tax (say 3 cents per gallon?). Either or both of these scenarios could add millions of dollars for transit yet would barely be noticable to the majority of citizens.

would sales tax or gas (or small increment to both) be the best (most revenue) way to go?

I would vote for it. I pay taxes and user fees now for transportation, and a system with public transit as well as streets and highways would be more resilient, serve a greater portion of the metro's population, and use less fossil fuel than streets and highways only. A robust transit system would delay or prevent the need for new lane-miles of highway. I think this tax needs to be levied over the entire metro area in order to distribute the costs and deliver the benefits more widely. I don't know if an increase in sales tax, gas/diesel tax, or property tax would be the fairest method.

A sales tax would be the best way to go because it automatically adjusts for inflation.

. . . but when you have a community like ours, I fail to see why it would. There is absolutely nothing inherent about this city that would suggest people would give up their cars in favor of streetcars. They fight tooth and nail against patronizing the buses and have all kinds of excuses as to why they won't even consider it. Most people feel exactly the same way about any public transportation in this part of the world. I hope it encourages business (which is a totally different, even opposite argument than the one that insists that these systems aren't meant to "turn a profit.") If it doesn't, I think it is just a waste of money because the only people who are going to use them are people who want to. There is no need.

I don't believe Oklahoma City people are any more wedded to their cars than are the folks in Dallas, Denver, or Los Angeles. All three are sprawling, western cities whose citizens took to their cars when gas was cheap, and left behind whatever transit systems they had in place. Now, all three have growing transit systems, in much demand by the citizens and their local officials. Ridership for each new increment exceeds the initial projections. If you want to make the argument that Oklahoma City would be any different, you will have to explain why we love our cars more than they do in LA, Big D, or Denver (or other medium and large cities across the West that have built new transit systems in the last 15-20 years). I've looked at density figures; Dallas is denser than OKC, but only by about three times. Dallas' density is much closer to ours than it is to the legacy transit cities such as Chicago, NYC, and Philly.

Saying that transit systems aren't meant to turn a profit is a part of the education process, not a primary reason for investing in transit. Enabling efficient movement of people and goods is a function of government, although some sectors are actually profitable and handled by the private sector (i.e., rail freight). Determining the best way to provide this movement is, or should be, based on financial efficiency, energy efficiency, capacity, impact on the rest of the economy, provision of this public good to the widest number of citizens, provision of a choice of methods to people, and similar factors, not on whether I like trains or you prefer your car.

I would vote for it.

Depends on how it is structured. I can see paying a gasoline tax to go towards the roads that I am driving on, but not to support another form of transit that is designed to get me off the same roads (plus, if I am using another form of transit, I am not buying the gas and not contributing to that transit form). That becomes a self defeating tax. Similar to the tax on tobacco products. They claimed that for every cent in tax increase, it lead to a set decline in the number of smokers. If that is a constant equation (it isn't), then as smokers decrease, the tax collected decreases. The tax gets used for other purposes and once government gets their hands in your pocket, they don't like taking it out again. Just like the feds have pushed for more fuel efficiency and conservation. The surprise, tax revenue plummets and they have a funding shortfall to take care of existing needs. have to raise taxes or come up with a new tax to add to the existing (like a per mile driven tax). I understand the desire for a broader tax base to pull funds from, but think the funds need to come from those that utilize the service. Like a user fee, surcharge or toll. Not that I am a huge fan of those either, but I understand the rationale behind it. I am admittedly conflicted. LOL

I have the answer!!!! We can put up toll booth gates at all streets entering into downtown OKC. Motorists who enter have to pay a daily fee (yes, on top of parking and everything else) and then there can be a one penny surcharge in the sales tax until the time they start the streetcar construction. Haha!

No No No, what do you think this is New York City? The surcharge would be placed on the Streetcars once they are up and running to cover costs and expansion. The initial startup costs are covered in MAPS 3 already so don't need to collect it years in advance. (I kid, sort of)

Are streetcar riders going to get a refund on taxes that pay for roads they don't use? Does OKC even have a gasoline tax? Maybe the city should put a registration fee on bicycles to pay for maintenance and upkeep on the bicycle trails - the tax could be collected at the point of sale.

See how crazy that line of thinking can get.

People get to drive on the streets for free, they should get to ride city buses and streetcars for free.

Are streetcar riders going to get a refund on taxes that pay for roads they don't use? Does OKC even have a gasoline tax? Maybe the city should put a registration fee on bicycles to pay for maintenance and upkeep on the bicycle trails - the tax could be collected at the point of sale.

See how crazy that line of thinking can get.

People get to drive on the streets for free, they should get to ride city buses and streetcars for free.

None of which are free in any case and even with a streetcar or bus system you still need road. Implementing a pikepass like system has been something thrown around as a concept for city streets in other cites, which is far more likely than an entire cities transit system going 'free'.

Snowman - name one city street in OKC that you pay to drive on. I didn't say they were free to construct - I said they were free to drive on.

I know what you are trying to get at, but even though there isn't a direct charge that the city collects the roads are hardly "free" to drive on (unless someone else is paying for your car, the gas to drive it, tires, oil etc etc). Thats why I am against an additional "miles driven" tax that is being bandied about on the federal level. We already have that, it is the gasoline tax. You pay it in every time you fill up the tank. Effectively paying your miles driven in advance of doing so. While there isn't a City imposed gasoline tax, the feds and state collects them and if not mistaken a portion of the state tax is returned to counties/cities. Part of the federal tax we get back with interstate construction (the new I-40). Not sure if there is a bicycle fee or not. The City has all sorts of various fees (fishing etc) so I don't know about that one.

Not sure if there is a bicycle fee or not.

Their was years ago, but it was stopped some time ago.

Sid, that is true. Had read for years (decades) that Oklahoma was considered a "donor" state (getting back less than we sent). But recall reading recently that it had changed in our favor (but probably just for that year or maybe 10 year span and not getting back the decades worth of negatives).

:sofa:
Personally think that all taxes combined shouldn't exceed 10% (not 10% to each governing entity). God only asks for the tithe, so who is government to ask for more than God? :LolLolLol

Sid, point me to the thread you want to go to and I will follow you to it.

I know it passed, and therfeore it will and should be built, it's still a money pit and always will be.

Find and post where Mr. Nicholsa said the street car should be dumped and a steak dinner for you and your better half is on me.

Thanks for the offer (as unserious as it may be), but I cannot imagine anything more stultifying than having to endure an evening of your harebrained negativity -- even if you're paying for the steaks.

I am not saying it should be dumped. I am aware it has been voted. Where I come down is that I am highly skeptical that it will work. I hope it does but when you have a community like ours, I fail to see why it would. There is absolutely nothing inherent about this city that would suggest people would give up their cars in favor of streetcars. They fight tooth and nail against patronizing the buses and have all kinds of excuses as to why they won't even consider it. Most people feel exactly the same way about any public transportation in this part of the world. I hope it encourages business (which is a totally different, even opposite argument than the one that insists that these systems aren't meant to "turn a profit.") If it doesn't, I think it is just a waste of money because the only people who are going to use them are people who want to. There is no need.

Why would people have to choose between riding the streetcar and "giving up their cars?" That is a false choice. The world isn't so black and white Penny. People will be able to drive cars AND ride the streetcar when it is preferable, much like people in other cities with transit offerings do. Geez.

Why would people have to choose between riding the streetcar and "giving up their cars?" That is a false choice. The world isn't so black and white Penny. People will be able to drive cars AND ride the streetcar when it is preferable, much like people in other cities with transit offerings do. Geez.

SooonerGuru, just who do you think is going to ride this thing? Seriously? Consistently? And my second question is, why would they, consistently?

It is one thing when people are in a congested area and driving their own vehicle is a major headache, if not impossible.

It is one thing when you have a public transportation system that is expansive enough to encompass the better part of a city so that it is actually useful to more than a small group.

It is one thing to have a city that is so tourist oriented that you can build a system with the tourist area in the center with spokes to the airport or similar locations.

I am not being black and white about giving up a vehicle. But I am saying we don't have any of the things that contribute to encouraging people to want to use it or need to use it. What we have is a neat idea that will be nice for the people who want to use it but what I don't see is that people actually will use it because once the novelty wears off, it's just a bus. And cars are a lot more convenient and since we aren't giving them up, anyway, that is what will end up being used.

When people already own a car and there is plenty of parking and for most, they'd have to commute to get to a streetcar, park their personal vehicle and either pay someone to watch it or leave it for vandals, etc., why wouldn't they just drive on to work or where ever?

Look, you and I don't agree on this and neither of us is going to change the other person's mind. We are both entitled to our opinion and I have given my reasoning several times for why I believe what I do. Okay, so you don't come to the same conclusion. That's fine. But I can tell you, to save you the trouble, that you aren't going to convince me that OKC is going to use the streetcars the way they have been sold. I will believe it when I see it. Since we are spending the money, I hope it happens. But I just don't see the elements in place that would lead me to conclude that the city is going to change its mind towards this sort of thing.

Maybe we should just wait and see what happens since predicting by laymen is notoriously unpredictable. We've got four to five years until we know who's right, so it's kind of a waste of effort to discuss it at this point in time. Jacobs engineering is estimating 1200 riders a day when it starts up and they say they think the ridership numbers could increase rapidly. I think a line to the Health Sciences Center would definitely increase ridership dramatically, and also encourage people working at the HSC to live downtown. Parking there is expensive, even for employees.

Maybe we should just wait and see what happens since predicting by laymen is notoriously unpredictable. We've got four to five years until we know who's right, so it's kind of a waste of effort to discuss it at this point in time. Jacobs engineering is estimating 1200 riders a day when it starts up and they say they think the ridership numbers could increase rapidly. I think a line to the Health Sciences Center would definitely increase ridership dramatically, and also encourage people working at the HSC to live downtown. Parking there is expensive, even for employees.

I don't think this needs to be tabled as a discussion. I realize people are excited about it and I am just giving my opinion. I've given it so unless someone wants to ask me about it, I don't need to get into it much more. You're right, time will tell. And I think lines to the HSC are a good idea. Anyplace where there are expensive parking fees, IMO, are your best bets for a successful enterprise.

Jacobs engineering is estimating 1200 riders a day when it starts up and they say they think the ridership numbers could increase rapidly.

Is that from the hub studies? It sounds encouraging, I just didn't think a formal engineering study had started yet. Has the streetcar subcommittee entered into a formal engineering contract yet?

SooonerGuru, just who do you think is going to ride this thing? Seriously? Consistently? And my second question is, why would they, consistently?

It is one thing when people are in a congested area and driving their own vehicle is a major headache, if not impossible.

It is one thing when you have a public transportation system that is expansive enough to encompass the better part of a city so that it is actually useful to more than a small group.

It is one thing to have a city that is so tourist oriented that you can build a system with the tourist area in the center with spokes to the airport or similar locations.

I am not being black and white about giving up a vehicle. But I am saying we don't have any of the things that contribute to encouraging people to want to use it or need to use it. What we have is a neat idea that will be nice for the people who want to use it but what I don't see is that people actually will use it because once the novelty wears off, it's just a bus. And cars are a lot more convenient and since we aren't giving them up, anyway, that is what will end up being used.

When people already own a car and there is plenty of parking and for most, they'd have to commute to get to a streetcar, park their personal vehicle and either pay someone to watch it or leave it for vandals, etc., why wouldn't they just drive on to work or where ever?

Look, you and I don't agree on this and neither of us is going to change the other person's mind. We are both entitled to our opinion and I have given my reasoning several times for why I believe what I do. Okay, so you don't come to the same conclusion. That's fine. But I can tell you, to save you the trouble, that you aren't going to convince me that OKC is going to use the streetcars the way they have been sold. I will believe it when I see it. Since we are spending the money, I hope it happens. But I just don't see the elements in place that would lead me to conclude that the city is going to change its mind towards this sort of thing.

Why do you say "we don't agree on this?" Earlier in the thread you said you hoped the streetcar would work. If so, you and I agree on that. Perhaps you don't really believe in the streetcar, but hope it somehow works, in which case we partially agree. But based on what you say it's not clear we completely disagree.

I do disagree with you, however, on your central argument that the streetcar should somehow be held to a higher standard of "paying for itself," a standard which no other transportation medium -- most of all roads and highways -- meets.

Please clarify if I'm wrong or if you indeed "hope" the streetcar works.

Also, please explain the fiduciary sanity of continuing to build, maintain -- and widen -- roads all the way to Piedmont.

Thanks for the offer (as unserious as it may be), but I cannot imagine anything more stultifying than having to endure an evening of your harebrained negativity -- even if you're paying for the steaks.

The only negativity is on you, unless you consider me proving you wrong as being negative. Thanks for taking a pass on the steak dinner, I was able to order the 24 oz instead of th 16 oz, was deinately your loss. (steak and company).

The only negativity is on you, unless you consider me proving you wrong as being negative. Thanks for taking a pass on the steak dinner, I was able to order the 24 oz instead of th 16 oz, was deinately your loss. (steak and company).

You've proven nothing other than the fact that you're simply unwilling to consider the evidence of multiple cities seeing a bonanza of private investment, or transit oriented development, along their streetcar lines.

Your central thesis has been proven wrong from Salt Lake to Tucson, but you cling to it still. Sorry, since you're obviously impervious to facts and logic on this subject, I don't know what else can be said, other than the plea: Please stop ****tting on this thread.

You've proven nothing other than the fact that you're simply unwilling to consider the evidence of multiple cities seeing a bonanza of private investment, or transit oriented development, along their streetcar lines.

Your central thesis has been proven wrong from Salt Lake to Tucson, but you cling to it still. Sorry, since you're obviously impervious to facts and logic on this subject, I don't know what else can be said, other than the plea: Please stop ****tting on this thread.

It's an open forum, one where everyone is entitled to their opinion. You have yours, I have mine, lets talk in a few years and see who gets to say 'gotcha".

Why do you say "we don't agree on this?" Earlier in the thread you said you hoped the streetcar would work. If so, you and I agree on that. Perhaps you don't really believe in the streetcar, but hope it somehow works, in which case we partially agree. But based on what you say it's not clear we completely disagree.

I do disagree with you, however, on your central argument that the streetcar should somehow be held to a higher standard of "paying for itself," a standard which no other transportation medium -- most of all roads and highways -- meets.

Please clarify if I'm wrong or if you indeed "hope" the streetcar works.

Also, please explain the fiduciary sanity of continuing to build, maintain -- and widen -- roads all the way to Piedmont.

Yes, of course I hope it will work. Why in the world would anyone be against sucess? This is not a religious or moral issue, after all. I am not against streetcars in principal, whatsoever. I am simply highly sceptical that it will work in oKC and would hate to see the streetcar system turn into something just like our bus system - we bought it, we're stuck with it, no one uses it but it still costs money. If it works, great. I just don't see that we have a situation that, absent significant changes in driving habits, attitudes or costs, would make that a good bet.

I'm not getting into the propriety of building roads to Piedmont because I don't know enough about the area to comment. Last I checked, it was a growing area but I couldn't begin to discuss how the area is changing or what its needs are likely to be in the next 20 years.

Again, if we assume things and/or people cannot change, they definitely won't. We've seen some great changes in this city and the way people think already. Let's not sell ourselves short.

If you have any doubt, any doubt what-so-ever, about the potential for the streetcar, visit downtown Memphis. The streetcar will not just redirect development from other parts of the city as some claim (althought that will happen), it will change the economics of the situtation and projects that were never before viable (in any part of the city) will become viable. This will happen in a greater magnitude than most of you will ever dare to imagine. The beauty of a country as large as ours is that we can see examples from others and decide what does and doesn't work. Building streetcars to attract development and improve the quality of life for people that choose to use it - works. Is it a 100% can't miss type of deal? Nope, but it is about as close as you will ever get to one.

Is that from the hub studies? It sounds encouraging, I just didn't think a formal engineering study had started yet. Has the streetcar subcommittee entered into a formal engineering contract yet?

That is from the streetcar AA study. We haven't been able to pursue a design engineer as of yet as the MAPS office is awaiting the City Council to approve the MAPS 3 project schedule.

They will be voting on it now, within the next couple of hours.

The environmental analysis contract was approved last Friday morning. So that will be starting almost immediately.

Thanks for the info as always Urban Pioneer!

Just rename the streetcar the Convention Center Transportation Component and start work immediately.

So no streetcar until 2021. 10 freaking years from now. I'm done with this crap. Peace out and have nice life.

So no streetcar until 2021. 10 freaking years from now. I'm done with this crap. Peace out and have nice life.

What? Where are you reading that?

So no streetcar until 2021. 10 freaking years from now. I'm done with this crap. Peace out and have nice life.

Actual streetcar construction is 3-4 years out with some degree of service potentially start within 4-5 years.

I think there is a great deal of confusion in the public about the timeline. Some key streetcar advocates protested. But it is important to know what it was that they were protesting.

Most of the protest was directed at the process, not the timeline.

The "Phase 2" of transit is delayed by two years, I don't hold much credence to the timeline overall that far out. The "Investigations and standards Phase" has been subsequently clarified and most of us are reasonably comfortable with it.

In the end, my only real concern about fiddling with the timeline is whether it could threaten our chances of getting federal money. So far it sounds like that hasn't happened, am I correct in that?

The timeline shouldn't affect federal funding. In fact, because we now have an official timeline, we can actually move forward. I was more worried about federal funding affecting future MAPS funding. But even that is idle speculation, and it's way too early to worry about something like that.

The timeline shouldn't affect federal funding. In fact, because we now have an official timeline, we can actually move forward. I was more worried about federal funding affecting future MAPS funding. But even that is idle speculation, and it's way too early to worry about something like that.

Well I'm not sure if well be able to get federal funding with how the debt situation is going. But hopefully we will be able to get funding.

This may be the case, there was a very recent article in the paper saying that the relocated I-40 crosstown is possibly in limbo again!

When people use the phrase "married to their car" when talking about people who refuse to give up their cars, this is the type of person they must be talking about. This quote is from an article about the State of California temporarily closing a portion of the 405 freeway in LA.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/15/MNRG1KA982.DTL



"My fiance and I have been making plans to not go anywhere that we can't get to on our bikes or by foot," said Anne Chang, a 31-year-old attorney who lives in Santa Monica. "I'm not planning to get in my car all weekend." And that would be a big change for the couple.

"We're kind of looking forward to it but we don't plan on making it a habit," she said. "We don't want to confine ourselves."

I find the "We don't want to confine ourselves" to be a very interesting take on the subject. It will be interesting to see if they still feel confined after walking everywhere for 2 days. If they live in a subdivision like me, walking (or even biking) is flat out not an option. The nearest business from my home is almost 2 miles. The nearest grocery store is 4 miles. This is why I want to move to an area where I am literally not confined - to my car.

So no streetcar until 2021. 10 freaking years from now. I'm done with this crap. Peace out and have nice life.

I know it's frustrating, but nothing has ever arrived on a silver platter. OKC has never been advertised as anything other than a work in progress anyway, and that certainly has its appeal, also. It is what it is, you know.

Welcome back Spartan!

Welcome back Spartan!

Not completely, but Tuesday.. and thanks Larry!

I know it's frustrating, but nothing has ever arrived on a silver platter. OKC has never been advertised as anything other than a work in progress anyway, and that certainly has its appeal, also. It is what it is, you know.

Spartan, I realize you haven't been here for awhile. But it's incorrect to say we won't have a streetcar before 2021. There will be a second phase to the streetcar that could add an additional two miles to an existing four mile route or, if we get federal funding, the second phase would add an additional 2 miles (approximately) to an approximately six mile existing route. That second phase is what has an estimated completion date of 2021. Most of the articles that have been written about the timeline are too simplistic and don't discuss the phases as scheduled.

Betts - under the adopted timeline, what is the soonest a line will be open, how long will it be, and where will it go?

Spartan, I realize you haven't been here for awhile. But it's incorrect to say we won't have a streetcar before 2021. There will be a second phase to the streetcar that could add an additional two miles to an existing four mile route or, if we get federal funding, the second phase would add an additional 2 miles (approximately) to an approximately six mile existing route. That second phase is what has an estimated completion date of 2021. Most of the articles that have been written about the timeline are too simplistic and don't discuss the phases as scheduled.

Betts, I know it's been a while, and I know recently I've only been able to get my information from what news outlets and this forum put out, BUT please remind me where I said we won't have streetcar until 2021.

When it comes to how frustrating progress in OKC can be, I don't think the streetcar is the lone issue. I was just suggesting to accept the idea that progress on these issues has to be fought for, won't just be handed on a silver platter.

Betts - under the adopted timeline, what is the soonest a line will be open, how long will it be, and where will it go?

The Santa Fe Station to Midtown is presumably the first segment with the absolute fastest being 4 years out but more likely 5.

The Santa Fe Station to Midtown is presumably the first segment with the absolute fastest being 4 years out but more likely 5.

Thanks UP. That time line puts us at 2016. The convention center will not be on the first line that opens?

Thanks UP. That time line puts us at 2016. The convention center will not be on the first line that opens?

That's a whole new can of worms, timing-wise, that I am hoping dust has not yet settled on.

The Convention Center, as well as Bricktown, will be on the first 4-mile segment "Phase 1" that is fully funded by MAPS 3.

Not sure about the heart of Bricktown in the first segment. It depends on the bridges and the committee's street selection. Santa Fe almost definitely yes. At the "front door" of Bricktown.

Using mileage to describe phases is a bit elementary. It has to do with $$$, not miles.

The CC will be on the first segment going past it northbound on Robinson.

So 4 year old concrete is gonna be getting torn up? Cool.

So 4 year old concrete is gonna be getting torn up? Cool.

I thought Urban Pioneer had said something before about techniques that just tear up the space needed for the track, but regardless, it is frustrating.