After checking, just found out that it will be, the details just haven't been turned in yet. That schedule is a living document; updated each month.

Thanks for the update!

Just anxious to see the 600-plus room conference hotel proposals by Omni vs. Marcus-Mortenson.

This was a good move by Marcus-Mortenson to combine forces & resources to bid on a luxury conference hotel; this would divide the expense and risk by both groups. Below are some of their most high profile brands:


Marcus portfolio - Hilton, Starwood, IHG, Westin & Marriott
Mortenson - Hyatt Recency, Hilton, Ritz-Carlton & Marriott

Could a Hilton be what Marcus & Mortenson propose for OKC; both have Hilton & Marriott brands?



Recently (2016) constructed downtown Hilton in Cleveland.
http://news.hilton.com/assets/HILT/properties/America/HiltonClevelandDowntown/Exterior_Daylight_FP.jpg
374 ft., high - 600 room Hilton, downtown Cleveland - 4 story base, tower has 28 stories (32 floors) connected to the Huntington Convention Center of Cleveland.

That would do the trick for OKC.

Marriott is about to close on their acquisition of Starwood as well which includes Westin, W, Sheraton, et al.

That Hilton was a $270 million project, more expensive than the new BOK/Devon tower. It's also a major reason for Cuyahoga County's $1 billion debt that was just tallied up today. I think it's a great project, and honestly I think cities can just do hotels like these without dropping a billion on a convention center itself.

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2016/09/cuyahoga_county_hindered_by_1_billion_in_debt_repo rt_says.html


Where was this discussed? Do you have a link?

http://kfor.com/2013/12/17/study-downtown-okc-hotel-may-cost-200-million-partly-funded-by-the-city/

http://www.reddirtreport.com/red-dirt-news/visiting-prof-and-convention-center-expert-address-folly-building-convention-center

http://newsok.com/article/3732572

"A panel convened by the Urban Land Institute the next year said the city faced a minimum subsidy of $60 million to build a hotel."

“A convention center hotel is something we will need,” Couch said Tuesday. “And yes, most convention center hotels do need some sort of subsidy.”

(Not sure, do the fanatic boosters still not trust Steve's reporting?)

I don't think there is any way that the pending subsidy for this project hasn't been universally understood. We only don't know the exact subsidy dollar amount just because we don't know how large and how nice it will be. Even when Ed Shadid makes otherwise solid points about the CC hotel, he is still wrong about the transparency of this pending subsidy issue, which has been completely public knowledge ever since MAPS3 was a proposal.

Even back when mixed-use was still proposed to shield the park from the CC (the first time Cornett proposed a CC on this site).

All we're really doing is beating a dead horse over a period of years and trying to pretend it's news.

That Hilton was a $270 million project . . .

The downtown Hilton in Cleveland was built


Situated on the site of the former Cuyahoga County Administration Building, the $272 million project is expected to employ 2,800 workers during the construction and 450 full-time jobs at the hotel. The new Hilton Cleveland Downtown is scheduled to open by 2016...

My question, how much of the Cleveland Hilton's $272 million is related to the fact that this hotel was built atop (retrofitted) an existing facility vs. planned construction from the ground up.


"A panel convened by the Urban Land Institute the next year said the city faced a minimum subsidy of $60 million to build a hotel."


If Marcus-Mortenson are selected; how much of this shared costs associated with construction will the city have to bear. You're probably talking about a $200 - $225 million conference hotel with OKC's share being 30% - 40% - 45% ($60 - $80 - $100 million) with a combined bid by Marcus-Mortenson. How much would TIF generate?

Either we are going to compete or maintain the status quo.

...All we're really doing is beating a dead horse over a period of years and trying to pretend it's news.
Welcome back; please refrain from putting words into my mouth as long as you're here. Never once did I suggest subsidy isn't likely or expected. What I questioned was your matter-of-fact assertion that the City has said "half" of the cost of the hotel would be subsidy. I defy you to find a link that says this.

Subsidy can come in many forms, some of which are much more friendly to the City's bottom line than others. Would you consider the Skirvin renovation subsidized? If so, would you say it was a good or a bad use of public resources?

The fact of the matter is that the City WANTS to be a financial partner in the CC hotel, because it gives them a say in room rates. This allows the CVB access to room blocks at discounted, competitive rates even when the market occupancy and rates for other downtown rooms is relatively high. I've explained this a number of times in this very thread. Ignoring that reasoning and sticking to half-truths and speculative hyperbole is the only thing here that amounts to "beating a dead horse over a period of years."

[QUOTE=Laramie;966512]The downtown Hilton in Cleveland was built

My question, how much of the Cleveland Hilton's $272 million is related to the fact that this hotel was built atop (retrofitted) an existing facility vs. planned construction from the ground up.



The Cleveland Hilton was built from the ground up. It was not retrofitted. The Cuyahoga County building was demolished.

[QUOTE=Laramie;966512]The downtown Hilton in Cleveland was built

My question, how much of the Cleveland Hilton's $272 million is related to the fact that this hotel was built atop (retrofitted) an existing facility vs. planned construction from the ground up.



The Cleveland Hilton was built from the ground up. It was not retrofitted. The Cuyahoga County building was demolished.

Thanks for the correction!

So, a fraction of that $272 million is related to demolition costs. Our convention center budget clears the site for the whole convention center complex. Land acquisition & utilities will be set in place for the conference hotel.

Just anxious to see the bids & designs from the two developers that remain.

Do we have any idea of when the bids and designs will be made public?

OG&E substation move to begin soon
By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record September 8, 2016 0

OKLAHOMA CITY – Details of the new OG&E substation are being finalized, meaning construction will start soon, said Randy Lewis, community affairs manager.

The substation will be at 48 SE 10th St., north of the Oklahoma River and east of the Pull-A-Part auto yard. The city of Oklahoma City previously used the lot for river sand and dirt storage.

The new substation is a result of a land swap between the city and OG&E. The swap allows the company to get the 10th Street site when it closes down the substation at 500 S. Robinson Ave., just south of the Chesapeake Energy Arena. The City Council approved the land swap in June.

The S. Robinson substation won’t close until the 10th Street station is running, Lewis said. The Riverfront Design Committee approved the 10th Street station at its Sept. 1 meeting. The Downtown Design Review Committee will review the S. Robinson’s station removal at its Sept. 15 meeting.

From opening the 10th Street station to tearing down the S. Robinson station, the process will take 18 to 24 months, Lewis said. The station has to be removed to make way for a new downtown convention center, promised as part of the MAPS 3 sales tax initiative.

MAPS 3 Project Manager David Todd said the city expects the project to start in 18 months, with a convention center groundbreaking scheduled for January 2018.

When the substation is dismantled, the tallest beams will remain on the site the longest because they are distributing power. The transformers will be removed, updated, and reused at another site. The steel and wire will be recycled. The oil in the transformers will be recycled as well.

There is some underground infrastructure that will have to be moved, but those details are still being evaluated. The lines could run under the railroad tracks to connect to the 10th Street station, but that hasn’t been finalized.

“We do our best to recycle and repurpose as much of it as we can,” Lewis said. “Throughout our whole service territory, we’ll reuse this equipment.”

The S. Robinson station is one of a few that serve downtown. OG&E has several in the area, though the S. Robinson station does provide the backup to others if one should fail. The station was upgraded when the arena was updated for the Oklahoma City Thunder.

The convention center construction will start in 2018 and its completion is scheduled for 2020. The center will have a 200,000-square-foot exhibit hall, 45,00

This was Mayor Mick Cornett's original plan to move the substation. Many of us didn't like the steep $30 million price tag it would take to move the substation.

Now, with the success of MAPS, the valuation of many properties in the core are primed parcels. Once we get the street car & convention center complex completed; we (OKC) will be priced out of the market for building in this area.

We should be ready to move on to other unique districts of the our city like Stockyard City, Paseo, Asian, Northeast & Capitol Hill with projects to spur development in those districts.

Welcome back; please refrain from putting words into my mouth as long as you're here. Never once did I suggest subsidy isn't likely or expected. What I questioned was your matter-of-fact assertion that the City has said "half" of the cost of the hotel would be subsidy. I defy you to find a link that says this.

Subsidy can come in many forms, some of which are much more friendly to the City's bottom line than others. Would you consider the Skirvin renovation subsidized? If so, would you say it was a good or a bad use of public resources?

The fact of the matter is that the City WANTS to be a financial partner in the CC hotel, because it gives them a say in room rates. This allows the CVB access to room blocks at discounted, competitive rates even when the market occupancy and rates for other downtown rooms is relatively high. I've explained this a number of times in this very thread. Ignoring that reasoning and sticking to half-truths and speculative hyperbole is the only thing here that amounts to "beating a dead horse over a period of years."

Lol what?

The Skirvin was a $50 million project, of which the city subsidized merely $18 million. My personal approval means nothing, but I think that was a pretty good deal. There's also something to be said about design - I'm not sure that $100 million of subsidy for this hotel will deliver half as much design as the $18 million Skirvin subsidy did. The catalytic impact of the Skirvin greased the wheel for development of tens of new hotels, most of them without any development subsidy. I just don't see other dominoes coming after a CC hotel that justify the likely cost.

Why the hostility?

[QUOTE=RodH;966530]

Thanks for the correction!

So, a fraction of that $272 million is related to demolition costs. Our convention center budget clears the site for the whole convention center complex. Land acquisition & utilities will be set in place for the conference hotel.

Just anxious to see the bids & designs from the two developers that remain.

Cuyahoga County's bldg was a mere 90' tall (the former height limit, or "cornice line," on that site), and was already falling in on itself lol.

New renderings:



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc092016.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc092016a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc092016b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc092016c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc092016d.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc092016e.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc092016f.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc092016g.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc092016h.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc092016i.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc092016j.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc092016k.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc092016l.jpg

My favorite perspective:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs1P5TSVIAEyV1B.jpg

Love the architecture.

Yes the architecture is quite nice. The proposed materials they're using is also important. Now the hotel facade can be made from glass or stone with either blending in seamlessly.

I agree, it's sharp.

I like how they've broken up the monolithic nature of the structure with different materials and angles.

^ Agreed, I was afraid it was going to be monolithic but it's looking awesome!

Looks like a building in Portland's South Waterfront district. It's part of the hospital in that area. This is primarily a sport medicine and wellness building if I remember correctly

https://www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/centers-institutes/institute-on-development-and-disability/about/images/CLSB-building-photo.gif



I really like the design, agree with others was holding breath it would not be monolithic and a noose on walkability. It looks very good and the angles break it up to look like different buildings in a way.

I guess I'm going to be in the minority here, but I think it's fairly ugly. Very choppy and a design that will look dated in 10 years. Too modern, should have gone for a sleeker, cleaner look.

My only complaint, as someone who's organized dozens of conventions/exhibitor halls, are all the pillars/columns in the exhibition hall. It really limits layout options and flexibility. The Reed center in Midwest City has the same problem (as well as weirdly shaped walls). I don't believe it's not possible to layout an exhibit hall without columns. And there needs to be electrical outlets on the floor spaced out all over the hall, something they always tend to skip. The other concern is the high ceiling. This is bad for acoustics, and it's extremely hard to keep a busy exhibit hall cool in the summer. This won't help. I know the design is still a work in process so maybe the end result will be different.

My only complaint, as someone who's organized dozens of conventions/exhibitor halls, are all the pillars/columns in the exhibition hall. It really limits layout options and flexibility. The Reed center in Midwest City has the same problem (as well as weirdly shaped walls). I don't believe it's not possible to layout an exhibit hall without columns. And there needs to be electrical outlets on the floor spaced out all over the hall, something they always tend to skip. The other concern is the high ceiling. This is bad for acoustics, and it's extremely hard to keep a busy exhibit hall cool in the summer. This won't help. I know the design is still a work in process so maybe the end result will be different.

Very good points. I was thinking about the all the columns as well. Really going to limit the layout possibilities if they remain.

While I don't dislike it per se, the architecture is highly derivative. Still, it beats the Myriad or the State Fair Arena.

Steve's update along with an extensive interview with Adam Paulitsch, who is the project architect with Populous. He gives a lot of insight into the thought process going into the design.

http://m.newsok.com/article/5519040

IN PROCESS, INTERIOR MATERIALS IN DEVELOPMENT [STILL UPDATING]


Looks sleek, blends in with the surrounding area structures.

The exterior lends itself to what you see in the current design trends with many of the expanded convention centers (Anaheim, Nashville, Phoenix & San Diego) .

Anxious to see the final designs and the completed project; especially how the convention center hotel complements the whole complex.

The best part is no signs of skybridges!

For some reason it reminds me of the Stage Center. Maybe all the boxiness.

I might be in the minority here...but I think it's super ugly and will look outdated and old really fast. The street level still feels like an afterthought here especially on the most important NW corner of the convention center. The building itself, I think, will feel really imposing when standing next to it and not at all inviting. Swing and a miss in my book.

I might be in the minority here...but I think it's super ugly and will look outdated and old really fast. The street level still feels like an afterthought here especially on the most important NW corner of the convention center. The building itself, I think, will feel really imposing when standing next to it and not at all inviting. Swing and a miss in my book.

I agree with you about the outdated part. I think it's going to look incredibly outdated really quickly and I don't love the sharp angles. They feel like something thrown up just to throw up. I do like that it doesn't appear to be one building along the street, but it's going to lose its luster quickly.

I like the contemporary design with traditional materials. I am sure there are others who like the faux old look, but I see most progressive urban areas employing pretty contemporary looks for their public buildings. I like how it isn't just a monolithic looking building. For its use, the renderings make the street level interaction look pretty good.

I agree with you about the outdated part. I think it's going to look incredibly outdated really quickly and I don't love the sharp angles. They feel like something thrown up just to throw up. I do like that it doesn't appear to be one building along the street, but it's going to lose its luster quickly.

100% agree about the sharp angles. That's what really turns me off about it. Overall just seems like a trendy design, and IMO trendy designs never stand the test of time.

I like the contemporary design with traditional materials. I am sure there are others who like the faux old look, but I see most progressive urban areas employing pretty contemporary looks for their public buildings. I like how it isn't just a monolithic looking building. For its use, the renderings make the street level interaction look pretty good.

Good contemporary design and traditional materials translates to, what looks like, large concrete walls and orange tin siding. To me, it looks like the Dallas City Hall, which as you can tell by the picture below, is just bursting at the seams with street life.

13079

Good contemporary design and traditional materials translates to, what looks like, large concrete walls and orange tin siding. To me, it looks like the Dallas City Hall, which as you can tell by the picture below, is just bursting at the seams with street life.

13079

That reminds of launch command at KSC.

When I first started reading comments after the latest renderings, I thought it was sarcasm about the design looking dated. Now after another handful of posts saying similar things, I am blown away that there are people thinking this is a poor design.

This will easily be one of the most modern structures downtown.

Guess some of you really wanted the spilled crayon box design from MAPs.

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r960-284d6e65154afe42256a32b5a0d3185e.jpg

I do agree it has the potential to look dated -- but really there are very few architectural styles that remain compatible with future architectural trends. There will be a time Devon, BOK Park Building, and the Sandridge building will look very out of style. It is modern day architecture and is unlikely those will also remain at the forefront of architecture style.

The good thing is, exterior design can be relatively easily modified in future years. A good example is the airport -- it's still the same 1970's main terminal building underneath the glass and stone facade and modern interior design and finishes.

When I first started reading comments after the latest renderings, I thought it was sarcasm about the design looking dated. Now after another handful of posts saying similar things, I am blown away that there are people thinking this is a poor design.

This will easily be one of the most modern structures downtown.

Guess some of you really wanted the spilled crayon box design from MAPs.

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r960-284d6e65154afe42256a32b5a0d3185e.jpg

Thinking back to some of the original MAPs renderings, do you recall the Rose Rock design? I remember that particular idea looking good. I can't find the rendering I remember to share with you though...

When I first started reading comments after the latest renderings, I thought it was sarcasm about the design looking dated. Now after another handful of posts saying similar things, I am blown away that there are people thinking this is a poor design.

This will easily be one of the most modern structures downtown.

Guess some of you really wanted the spilled crayon box design from MAPs.

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r960-284d6e65154afe42256a32b5a0d3185e.jpg

See, to me this is exactly where the problem lays. Modern for the sake of modern doesn't necessarily equal good design.

I do agree it has the potential to look dated -- but really there are very few architectural styles that remain compatible with future architectural trends. There will be a time Devon, BOK Park Building, and the Sandridge building will look very out of style. It is modern day architecture and is unlikely those will also remain at the forefront of architecture style.

The good thing is, exterior design can be relatively easily modified in future years. A good example is the airport -- it's still the same 1970's main terminal building underneath the glass and stone facade and modern interior design and finishes.

The clean look of the Devon tower is exactly why, IMO, I think it will look good for many more decades than the convention center design.

A lot of this is taste. I'm more of a simple guy. I like a clean, sleek look. I don't mind modern, if it's done right. The convention center has a much more complex, over-bearing design IMO.

I do think they need to move the signage that reads "Oklahoma City Convention Center" so that it faces "Oklahoma City Boulevard". Wouldn't want people getting lost.

What do you want exactly? Modern and futuristic is what is trendy (and likely will be for a long time). Otherwise we are just rebuilding the CCC with a glass facade, how boring.

Your realistic options are either the style most recently rendered, or the same style with curved elements instead:

http://www.nileguide.com/destination/blog/puerto-rico/files/2011/02/Screen-shot-2011-02-16-at-10.09.41-PM.png

Thinking back to some of the original MAPs renderings, do you recall the Rose Rock design? I remember that particular idea looking good. I can't find the rendering I remember to share with you though...

Here it is:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_L3gtvb8usg4/SyVaBIkppMI/AAAAAAAAARA/1vPnxKkMEo8/s320/rose+rock+center.jpg

See, to me this is exactly where the problem lays. Modern for the sake of modern doesn't necessarily equal good design.

Exactly. Modern does not equal good design.

Here it is:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_L3gtvb8usg4/SyVaBIkppMI/AAAAAAAAARA/1vPnxKkMEo8/s320/rose+rock+center.jpg

Thanks KayneMo!

What do you want exactly? Modern and futuristic is what is trendy (and likely will be for a long time). Otherwise we are just rebuilding the CCC with a glass facade, how boring.

Your realistic options are either the style most recently rendered, or the same style with curved elements instead:

http://www.nileguide.com/destination/blog/puerto-rico/files/2011/02/Screen-shot-2011-02-16-at-10.09.41-PM.png

Honestly, I like this better. Ties more into the styling of the Boathouses. I'm sure I could search around and find something that in my opinion would be better, but I have a sneaking suspicion it would be considered boring.

When I first started reading comments after the latest renderings, I thought it was sarcasm about the design looking dated. Now after another handful of posts saying similar things, I am blown away that there are people thinking this is a poor design.

This will easily be one of the most modern structures downtown.

Guess some of you really wanted the spilled crayon box design from MAPs.

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r960-284d6e65154afe42256a32b5a0d3185e.jpg

This looks like an airport drop off lane.

Not to go against the grain, but I like it. I think with these projects you make the exterior something showy, and the interior should be timeless and basic or else it will be outdated in 5 years.

What I see here is not bad per se. It's not the rose rock design floated in the election, but we had to know something as amazing as that just isn't possible within this budget.

I still wish that eastern park-side wasn't just ALL convention center. It wouldn't involve much to screen the surface parking lot with a small outparcel building and then the expansion phase can just drop back behind that. That will save money on design, make money on selling the land or rents generated, and that's just if the city doesn't even care about the design/vitality of a large civic building on the park (which I don't think they do).

I think actually the best small "outparcel" could be a small boutique hotel with narrow floor plates. Solves the challenge of who would want to "reside" in a convention center and gets some mixed-use and after-five action on that east side, which I can't stress the importance of enough.

Good contemporary design and traditional materials translates to, what looks like, large concrete walls and orange tin siding. To me, it looks like the Dallas City Hall, which as you can tell by the picture below, is just bursting at the seams with street life.

13079

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/ba/55/d2/ba55d282a86240c4ee9d9d813c077b68.jpg
Similar to the OU Asthma & Allergy Clinic at OUHSC

If you wondered how they were going to pay for parking for the convention center parking, this suddenly is on the agenda today for the MAPS 3 Board:


Recommend Resolution Allocating $10,000,000 of Oklahoma City Capital Improvement Sales Tax Funds for New Parking Facilities to Provide Public Parking for the Development in the North Core to Shore area, Including But Not Limited to the MAPS 3 Convention Center, MAPS 3 Park, the Potential Convention Center Hotel, and the Chesapeake Arena

Believe this just comes out of the regular OKC budget that is used for all capital improvements in the city.

Not sure what the MAPS 3 Board is voting on this. Ultimate approval would have to be provided by City Council.

See, to me this is exactly where the problem lays. Modern for the sake of modern doesn't necessarily equal good design.

This simplistic analysis could be said of ANY design style. NO design would satisfy everyone, especially those who want to be critical just to be so.

This simplistic analysis could be said of ANY design style. NO design would satisfy everyone, especially those who want to be critical just to be so.

Agree 100%

Some critics will critique everything proposed. Just not sure what we want for the future of Oklahoma City. We're criticized for a city of our size for not having enough; especially when Tulsa has more to offer in quality retail.

If we proposed something on the larger scale, you hear that it's not going to work here because it's too big.

Examples: When we proposed the Chesapeake Energy Arena; the cricket chirping sounded off that we couldn't fill the Myriad; why do we need a 19,599-seat arena. The Peake was downsized from 19,136 to 18,203 to make room for comfortable seating (removal of cup holders) as well as a configuration to accommodate equipment for national & local TV telecasts.

Critics claim that the seats in the Myriad were larger than in the Peake. Fact is the Peake seats were "22 wide vs. those in the Cox Arena at "19 wide.

Solves the challenge of who would want to "reside" in a convention center and gets some mixed-use and after-five action on that east side, which I can't stress the importance of enough.

Spartan, can you expound on this?

Spartan, can you expound on this?

Sounds like he is saying if they did wrap the exterior in "housing" like has been discussed in the past, that it would be better to make the rooms boutique hotel rooms instead of residential -- would be easier to sell rooms by the night than it would be to lease to residents. Many people may not want to share walls with convention center traffic. I can see his point, but I think it is moot because it does not seem that it is being seriously discussed anyhow (wrapping CC in residential).

They could easily bring back plans to involve some kind of private venture built into the site. Especially seeing as they apparently don't have enough funding to implement their full vision.

The CC and fairgrounds were pushed ahead of transit as a priority bc they supposedly catalyze more economic development (which is false). They should have to leverage the value of all that development to fund their vision just like transit has to. I think if people put their money where their mouth is, especially city governments, then great urbanism just happens.

I really think east of the park is a bad place for any sort of dwelling. It really needs restaurant/retail more than it needs beds. It's never going to be a high traffic area past 5, not because of the deadness of a convention center, but because of the barriers on 3 sides and a massive park on the other. It's one of the reasons many were adamant about the East park site for the convention center, because how else do you fill that monstrous hole? I know there was a hotel planned, and I know things would obviously be built, but 15 years down the line, we'll be looking at that area and saying, thank God it gets filled with conventioneers, because it's a pain in the ass to access and would be underperforming otherwise.

I guess I just don't view park-front real estate as a massive hole. I think it could have been a really great little pocket. See the types of slender urban nodes that Denver has carved out of the Platte River Valley.

The commuter rail will also enter downtown behind this site if they use the BNSF tracks. Or has that future possibility also been dropped in favor of CC parking and fairgrounds arena?

This park does not have to have a "dead side," just as we don't have to have a new fairgrounds arena. (We prob do really need CC parking, but is it wise to drain nearly all of what's left of contingency? I mean good lord..)

The commuter rail will also enter downtown behind this site if they use the BNSF tracks. Or has that future possibility also been dropped in favor of CC parking and fairgrounds arena?

The elevated BNSF rail viaduct behind this site won't be going anywhere; when the Regional Transit Authority finally gets off the ground, the eventual plan is to use that BNSF line for the north-south commuter rail line from Edmond to Norman. That isn't (and likely won't be) a MAPS project - funding will almost certainly be the responsibility of the RTA - and, unfortunately, commuter rail probably won't happen for another 5 years or more. Those rails are still used by a ton of freight rail traffic, as well as Amtrak's Heartland Flyer.

The fairgrounds arena is not going to be funded by MAPS 3 and has already been said several times it cannot wait until a MAPS 4. This will come from a different funding source as the arena is needed to replace the existing one.

Commuter rail (not counting the street car) was not a part of MAPS 3 so no it would not be "dropped" in favor of CC Parking either.