Wow 3-4 years before we even see a funding vote? I mean I guess at this point it seems reasonable given they haven’t had one yet but that seems to mean we won’t see any large projects merely break ground before the end of this decade at best. Back in the early part of the last decade I thought they had planned to basically have commuter rail up and running by now or in a couple years.

I'm a little surprised that they're starting to talk about the commuter stuff now. MWC/DC just ripped out yet another crossing of the line they would use. I mean i guess they would have had to re-do it anyway and the right of way is really the "win" on that line. But it just seems odd to be bringing up these conversations at the same time the burbs that will be served are pulling up the lines.

I wasn't aware of that issue. Can you provide some more detail on where the tracks have been removed. I'm assuming you're referring to them being taken out where they cross certain city streets.

Wow 3-4 years before we even see a funding vote? I mean I guess at this point it seems reasonable given they haven’t had one yet but that seems to mean we won’t see any large projects merely break ground before the end of this decade at best. Back in the early part of the last decade I thought they had planned to basically have commuter rail up and running by now or in a couple years.

Just because the funding vote is that far out doesn't mean there won't be funding before then. They talked about getting federal funds and grants and such first. I suspect they're just putting space between tax votes to make it more palatable.

I'm a little surprised that they're starting to talk about the commuter stuff now. MWC/DC just ripped out yet another crossing of the line they would use. I mean i guess they would have had to re-do it anyway and the right of way is really the "win" on that line. But it just seems odd to be bringing up these conversations at the same time the burbs that will be served are pulling up the lines.

I thought they just paved over it?

But also, it's possible the existing line was not 100% good to go, there may have needed to be some degree of refurbishment or replacement on portions of the line regardless. Those points being where tons of vehicles have traveled on top of over the years seems like a reasonable possibilty.

But I'm no expert and I don't play one on TV.

Wow 3-4 years before we even see a funding vote? I mean I guess at this point it seems reasonable given they havenÂ’t had one yet but that seems to mean we wonÂ’t see any large projects merely break ground before the end of this decade at best. Back in the early part of the last decade I thought they had planned to basically have commuter rail up and running by now or in a couple years.

When the RTA completes the current system plan and commuter corridors study update by the end of this year, we'll be technically prepared from a planning perspective to apply for federal funding and enter the development pipeline. However, beyond the planning documents, the FTA needs to see that the RTA has a dedicated funding source. That requires a regional vote on a dedicated sales tax, and the decision of when to move forward with a vote is up to the leadership of the six member cities. More than anything else, that decision will determine when development begins and the system becomes operational.

Getting all six cities to agree to create the RTA and fund its preliminary governance and planning work was the easy part. Getting all six cities to agree on when to hold a regional sales tax vote to fund the RTA will be more challenging. The one thing that will help get us there sooner rather than later will be a strong show of support from the citizens in each of the member cities for funding and building a regional transit system.

^^^ Just curious, but can a single city hold everything up? Let’s say all cities except one agree on the tax, what happens?

^^^ Just curious, but can a single city hold everything up? LetÂ’s say all cities except one agree on the tax, what happens?

When the referendum discussions seriously begin, if a particular city decides it does not support a tax vote, they would leave the RTA and the remaining cities would move forward without them. If the referendum passed and system development began, that city would not receive stations or service. Hopefully, that won't happen.

Do you anticipate any serious talks starting this year?

Just because the funding vote is that far out doesn't mean there won't be funding before then. They talked about getting federal funds and grants and such first. I suspect they're just putting space between tax votes to make it more palatable.
Unless I’m misinterpreting Hutch’s post, the RTA can’t get federal funding until stable dedicated revenue source is present. Maybe I misunderstood.

Even if this is the case, I wonder if they can at least apply and get provisional funding earmarked for when the time comes they can use it.

Unless I’m misinterpreting Hutch’s post, the RTA can’t get federal funding until stable dedicated revenue source is present. Maybe I misunderstood.

Even if this is the case, I wonder if they can at least apply and get provisional funding earmarked for when the time comes they can use it.

The FTA grant process requires submission of detailed, long-term financial plans, including documentation of revenue streams.

Transit system grant funding is often scarce and the demand is high. We won't get a placeholder. We'll have to prove we're ready to go.

The FTA grant process requires submission of detailed, long-term financial plans, including documentation of revenue streams.

Transit system grant funding is often scarce and the demand is high. We won't get a placeholder. We'll have to prove we're ready to go.
Historically speaking though. You don’t think that will change under Biden’s leadership? Personally, as someone who loves his cars and freeways, I am worried about the future of large, multi billion dollar freeways projects getting much federal funding. But for trains and mass transit, I see funding for it going way up with new leadership.

Historically speaking though. You donÂ’t think that will change under BidenÂ’s leadership? Personally, as someone who loves his cars and freeways, I am worried about the future of large, multi billion dollar freeways projects getting much federal funding. But for trains and mass transit, I see funding for it going way up with new leadership.

I agree that federal funding for local transit systems and inter-city passenger rail, including high-speed rail, will likely see a significant increase under the new administration. However, existing systems are facing serious shortfalls and there are numerous existing unfunded projects that are ready to go. Even with a large increase in federal funding, those dollars will still be in high demand, and we'll have to be very competitive if we hope to get our share.

Hutch, qq about funding source(s). So far you've only mentioned sales tax increase in the member cities; are they open to other/additional options?

I personally think Sales Tax should not be the only component and IMO shouldn't even be used for operations at all but instead for capital expenditures (like a separate 'MAPS for Transit') to rapidly accelerate the system.

We should have a variety of sources including property tax, gas tax, vehicle tax, and perhaps funds from the county(ies) and state. When you consider ALL of these sources are historically low, a very small increase for regional (and local) transit shouldn't be that big of a bite when compared to the higher sales tax (that is used for city operations ..).

Imagine a 1/8% property tax assessment for Oklahoma and Cleveland counties (in member city boundaries), a $0.25 cent per gallon, $20 RTA vehicle license, and some level of county/state contribution - should bring in a lot of $$M annually for the system while only costing the average person $100 a year or less. I'd also do similarly for Embark in general, making it for the city (and inner suburbs) only.

We need to get on the ball with transit as a city/metro area; having a variety of funds reduces the burden overall while providing steady streams that are much more reliable than sales tax. I'd keep the sales tax for one-time transit capital funding but implement the other sources for sustaining maintenance and operations...

Taking revenue from cars to fund mass transit will quickly result in me and I’m sure many others opposing this entirely.

Now I do agree there should be other ways of funding the system than just a sales tax.

Taking revenue from cars to fund mass transit will quickly result in me and I’m sure many others opposing this entirely.

Why? Taking people off the road through mass transit delays the need for road maintenance and improves traffic flow. All good things for cars. Think of it as a demand side management tool rather than a supply side (building new roads) tool.

Why? Taking people off the road through mass transit delays the need for road maintenance and improves traffic flow. All good things for cars. Think of it as a demand side management tool rather than a supply side (building new roads) tool.
Because roads need all the funding they can get. They are underfunded as is. We have a serious issue in this country about people not wanting to spend the amount of money it takes to have good infrastructure as well as other things.

I’m all for the RTA getting a wide variety of taxes(I believe that’s how measure M in LA is funded) but I don’t support taking it from cars. All taxes paid from car drivers as a result of driving should go directly to roads and roads only.

We have a serious issue in this country about people not wanting to spend the amount of money it takes to have good infrastructure as well as other things.
100% this.

Because roads need all the funding they can get. They are underfunded as is. We have a serious issue in this country about people not wanting to spend the amount of money it takes to have good infrastructure as well as other things.

I’m all for the RTA getting a wide variety of taxes(I believe that’s how measure M in LA is funded) but I don’t support taking it from cars. All taxes paid from car drivers as a result of driving should go directly to roads and roads only.

All taxes going to roads should be funded by taxes paid from car drivers and car drivers only.

Take the billions of dollars that are currently funding roads that aren't paid for by vehicle users and give some to transit. Everybody wins.

All taxes going to roads should be funded by taxes paid from car drivers and car drivers only.

Take the billions of dollars that are currently funding roads that aren't paid for by vehicle users and give some to transit. Everybody wins.
Okay and apply that same logic to subways and Amtrak and watch how high the price of a ticket gets. That’s ridiculous.

Okay and apply that same logic to subways and Amtrak and watch how high the price of a ticket gets. That’s ridiculous.

And the turnpike between OKC and Tulsa would be 80 dollars one way.

The point is, the vast majority of funds currently going to road construction isn't funded by vehicle users. Taking a portion away to fund transit wouldn't be "taking" anything from cars. No taxes paid by car users would be diverted at all.

And the turnpike between OKC and Tulsa would be 80 dollars one way.

The point is, the vast majority of funds currently going to road construction isn't funded by vehicle users. Taking a portion away to fund transit wouldn't be "taking" anything from cars. No taxes paid by car users would be diverted at all.

Ah yes, whataboutism at its finest. But given the fact you just completely dodged my point and contradicted yourself while doing says a lot. I’m also very curious how you came to that $80 figure but it’s quite irrelevant anyways.

Yes, the vast majority of road construction is funded by users as most people in America drive and they pay the taxes that fund roads even if indirectly.

But I wasn’t making that claim when I said I opposed direct user fees solely to support a mode of transportation taken away for another mode. You are trying to twist my words and do what you love to do which is argue with anything I say if is supports cars.

Once again, I would bet any proposal that takes gas taxes or any other vehicle user fees and gives it mass transit is likely a no go. This isn’t NYC.

Taking revenue from cars to fund mass transit will quickly result in me and I’m sure many others opposing this entirely.

Plu, it's not taking anything from cars. It's adding a tax to cars for the purpose of transit funding. This is the mechanism used nationwide (such as Seattle and likely your LA as well) to fund local and regional transit, along with property tax, due to it's stability and very low marginal increase necessary.

It's not saying, hey - we bring in this amount for cars now lets take away this from the car to move to transit. It's saying hey we bring in this amount for cars - keep that the same but ADD a small increase to fund transit. ..

Ah yes, whataboutism at its finest. But given the fact you just completely dodged my point and contradicted yourself while doing says a lot. I’m also very curious how you came to that $80 figure but it’s quite irrelevant anyways.

Yes, the vast majority of road construction is funded by users as most people in America drive and they pay the taxes that fund roads even if indirectly.

But I wasn’t making that claim when I said I opposed direct user fees solely to support a mode of transportation taken away for another mode. You are trying to twist my words and do what you love to do which is argue with anything I say if is supports cars.

Once again, I would bet any proposal that takes gas taxes or any other vehicle user fees and gives it mass transit is likely a no go. This isn’t NYC.

Im telling you the majority of road construction is not funded by user fees. It’s subsidized from general taxes (income tax, sales tax etc) and federal debt. If you took some income tax revenue that currently goes to road construction and gave it to transit you wouldn’t be stealing anything from drivers because drivers didn’t pay for it to begin with.

I read a comment on a news article (first mistake) about a new roundabout going in in town, and it basically went: "i won't vote for any new funding increase for roads; we already voted for a pothole repair tax; and they are spending that money on repaving roads instead of filling in potholes". IDK man, I would rather have a fresh surface instead of a pothole that will be filled 50 times in the next 2 years.

People will oppose any increase in funding for infrastructure; but bitch all day long about the bad roads. And when they do spend money fixing roads, they aren't doing it the right way.

Im telling you the majority of road construction is not funded by user fees. It’s subsidized from general taxes (income tax, sales tax etc) and federal debt. If you took some income tax revenue that currently goes to road construction and gave it to transit you wouldn’t be stealing anything from drivers because drivers didn’t pay for it to begin with.
And never once did I claim it was. Direct user fees are a completely different animal. I’m against that and if I were for it than it would be almost unaffordable for the average American to drive or take a train. Subterranean HRT is costing north of a billion per mile.

The proposal of taking user fees would be no different than taking fare money collected and giving it to cars. That’s a proper comparison. It’s something I also don’t support.

I have no clue where you are getting the idea that drivers don’t pay for roads. The money doesn’t grow on trees. It comes from tax money most of taxpayers drive cars.

Plu, it's not taking anything from cars. It's adding a tax to cars for the purpose of transit funding. This is the mechanism used nationwide (such as Seattle and likely your LA as well) to fund local and regional transit, along with property tax, due to it's stability and very low marginal increase necessary.

It's not saying, hey - we bring in this amount for cars now lets take away this from the car to move to transit. It's saying hey we bring in this amount for cars - keep that the same but ADD a small increase to fund transit. ..
Measure M pulls from a variety of sources one of which I do believe is a gas tax or registration fee— I’m opposed to that but it is what it is. Apart from supporting it or not, I don’t think it would go over well in OKC but hey I’ve been wrong before.

And never once did I claim it was. Direct user fees are a completely different animal. I’m against that and if I were for it than it would be almost unaffordable for the average American to drive or take a train. Subterranean HRT is costing north of a billion per mile.

The proposal of taking user fees would be no different than taking fare money collected and giving it to cars. That’s a proper comparison. It’s something I also don’t support.

I have no clue where you are getting the idea that drivers don’t pay for roads. The money doesn’t grow on trees. It comes from tax money most of taxpayers drive cars.

Drivers don’t pay for the roads. Drivers are subsidized to drive on the roads.

Gas tax, registration fees, tolls, tags, sales tax on cars, none of that comes close to paying for roads. That’s what I’m saying. You can’t take something from drivers that they never had to begin with.

On a slightly different note the federal funds do in fact come out of nowhere. The money doesn’t even have to grow on trees. It’s just strokes on a keyboard. It literally doesn’t have to come from anywhere. Waiting for it to grow on trees would be way less efficient.

I think you'll be surprised plu - esp once people see how little of an increase is needed.

Even just an add to the gas tax (which is and still would be the lowest in the region) would go a long way to funding the entire operations. Add in a small fraction of a percent per year property tax assessment and maybe balance it with marginal 'vehicle sin-taxes' like $25 vehicle license, $1 per toll, $75 special transit license plate, etc and you get a fully funded operation. Now we still will likely need a temporary Maps-type sales tax for the vehicles, rail/station construction, and contingency but even that shouldn't be more than $100M or so to get us going. Add in federal (and state) funds, and we have a system with fares people can digest.

The problem we have done here in Seattle is we created sound transit bonds but use all the aforementioned to pay them back. Including interest on those bonds - and of course we're over budget so they keep coming back every couple of years with new bonds. . On and on. OKC doesn't need to go down this path: sales tax for capital, other minimal tax adds (maybe gas being the biggest) for ops/maintenance. There you go.

Hutch - any thoughts?

A transit license plate would be cool. Regardless how I feel I just see OKC going for it given how prominent the car culture is there. Even if it were $5 extra a month I think tons of people would oppose in principle but who knows.

If the leaders in this metro were smart, they’d really get on the ball with pumping money into a true mass transit network including real BRT(not that enhanced bus service on NWE), light rail, and commuter rail. This current administration is probably one of the most rail and bus friendly we’ve had in awhile and assuming Biden is re-elected, if leaders started getting these projects ready now they could be shovel ready for Biden’s next term.

In the mean time they should be trying to expand as many freeways and roads as possible working with OkDOT to get this underway. I-35 on the southside needs a major expansion with the 10 lane treatment to be proactive.

If there’s no commuter rail from at least Edmond to Norman in 6 years, that’s a big failure.

If there’s no commuter rail from at least Edmond to Norman in 6 years, that’s a big failure.
I could have sworn that 10 years ago we were told it would be operating by the early 2020s. I was complaining about even that timeline. Now I just wished it were true lol

Second Virtual Town Hall – March 31 2021 @ 6:30pm

Zoom link: https://bit.ly/2OPAtNh


The second Virtual Town Hall will be to present draft concepts and highlights of the Transit System Plan for review. After the Transit System Plan is complete, a multi-year process to begin an Alternatives Analysis will being. The Alternatives Analysis will evaluate corridors, types of transit, and station locations.


In addition, https://engagekh.com/rtamoves is now up-and-running and they are soliciting feedback for ranking transit corridor options.

Here is the draft presented tonight of the Transit System Plan that is up for adoption on April 21 by the RTA. Not exactly a ton of detail but it at least gives an idea of the prioritized corridors (including the airport!).

16805

An Airport route ONLY works if it has FEW stops if any stops along the way or is augmented with an express bus that has few if any stops.

the reason the Airport bus failed were two main reasons - 1) the bus did not run late enough for airport employees/students to commute via it, and 2) the bus had WAY too many stops along the way for the traveling public to justify using it.

Easy solution: have two Airport bus routes - 1 that's express from Downtown to the Airport along the freeways with the Possible single stop at the Fairgrounds or something thereabouts, 2 that's "local" from Downtown to the Airport along local streets, many stops along the way including to/through the FAA Academy; and runs late.

The express airport route would run during airport business hours while the local airport route would be most of the day if not 24 hour. the local route could also provide transfers for folks in S OKC area.

Charge more for the express airport bus but it better be a nice one (near BRT: Articulated or double deck with luggage area).

IMO we don't need a rail line to the airport, decent bus service serving the two audiences is more than necessary. BTW, this is exactly what we do here yet we have routes from Tacoma, Bellevue, and Seattle to the airport. OKC may eventually want that too for Norman and possibly NW OKC/West to the airport.

IMO currently the best bus route to the airport would simply go to the car rental center, which has free shuttles to the terminal. Saves a bunch of time/trouble for the bus itself. If you make the effort to get the bus to the terminal you risk route timing delays/reliability issues, depending on time of day.

Main issue with trying to service the FAA with bus is that the lowest hanging fruit for the buses would be the academy students that are here for six months at a time. If all the students were centrally located downtown or something, this would be a no-brainer. But, instead there are a half dozen or more contracted apartments all over town, and the students are split up. There are shuttles the FAA pays for to take the students between their apartments and MMAC every single morning and evening, five days a week. You'd need the FAA's full buy-in here and that won't be easy. When I worked at MMAC I tried really hard to find someone to talk to that gave a darn about such an effort. Even just a bus to the visitor center that wouldn't create a security issue. No one cared or wanted to listen. Granted that was five plus years ago. But it would still be a challenge IMO. Don't get me wrong, I WANT this. There are 7K+ people working there, it makes sense.

RTA Approves Regional Transit System Plan (https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2021/04/24/rta-takes-major-step-toward-establishing-commuter-rail-network-okc/7333394002/)

16831

16832

Um, what's up with that dotted line beyond the NW BRT? Legend says dotted line means initiatives by others under study.

I am still waiting for it to be named the Greater Oklahoma City (or County/Central) Area Rapid Transit system.

GOCART 2021!

16832

Um, what's up with that dotted line beyond the NW BRT? Legend says dotted line means initiatives by others under study.
Wouldn’t it be likely to indicate consideration by EMBARK (others) to extend the BRT further up the same corridor? That’s how I read the same dashed line down Shields and also up the NE corridor; BRT under consideration by EMBARK.

That would be so awesome for OKC!

It would be nice to plan an orbital transit line around the metro as well.

It would be nice to plan an orbital transit line around the metro as well.

Yeah, if we ever want someone to take public transit from Yukon to Edmond, I'd think this makes sense - but I will say that we absolutely have to have quality local system usage first (i.e. ridership in and around Edmond has to be high and ridership in and around Yukon needs to be high independent of each other). Otherwise, it will all just have to route through Santa Fe Station even if it makes the journey so very long. Can't be running a bus around Kilpatrick to funnel only a dozen passengers per hour.

This is a great first, solid step.

Now what will really make transit a success - we need to stop saying it's for the "working class". This is one of my big beefs with Slackmeyer and his otherwise nice articles is he always has to segment or segregate things into an us vs them scenario; makes me think he's promoting the idea to get the 'low' and 'working class' into transit options so the upper and rich can drive in less traffic.

Transit is NOT just for the working class, it is for the entire community. Its a service just like Will Rogers World Airport, Lake Hefner, Wellness Center or Scissortail Park - it's a civic infrasture that happens to help folks navigate. Now we don't go walking around saying those other services are JUST for a segment of folks now do we? We need to promote transit as a way to capitalize on the success of our city. Take transit into town instead of parking. Take transit to work. Take transit to shop.

It needs to be everybody, otherwise - we already have a system for the working class. We need a 21st Century transit network for the city/region.

I understand (and hope) that highlighting transit options for the working class shows OKC is a modern city. But we need more than JUST the working class to use it. We need soccer moms, kids, students, office workers, tourists, executives - anybody and everybody to use and patronize the system for transit in OKC to be a success.

Also to reiterate - I wouldn't do the WRWA train unless is rapid transit. You can't have that type of train stop here there and everywhere, implement local bus to the airport and FAA for that (and make it run 24/7 so employees can use it).

In all honesty, I don't think OKC has the need for a rail line to WRWA. I'd start with express bus to/from downtown particularly during the rush and day times AND have a local bus to/from downtown to WRWA terminal and the FAA campus. Build that ridership THEN start thinking about an express train to/from downtown.

Peer cities (and larger) had bus to the airport LONG before they got rail. Ask Seattle (just got Link light rail a few years ago, still also has some local bus), Denver (long had bus just got rail), Portland (sort of an exception but still had bus long before rail). New Orleans, Memphis, Indy, and Milwaukee still don't have rail but do have bus to their airport that's USED.

Nice to see it on OKC's map but let's not kid ourselves that a train to WRWA is a priority when we dont even have a bus (let alone express bus) currently. ..

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2021/04/24/rta-takes-major-step-toward-establishing-commuter-rail-network-okc/7333394002/


The four corridors identified in the plan and OK'd for further study and eventual implementation are:

• The North-South Corridor connecting Edmond, Oklahoma City, Moore and Norman.

• The East Corridor from Tinker Air Force Base through Midwest City and Del City to downtown.

• The West Corridor from the Yukon area to downtown and serving fast-growing suburban neighborhoods in western Oklahoma County and Canadian County.

• The Airport Corridor from Will Rogers World Airport to downtown.

https://www.velocityokc.com/blog/policy/future-of-rapid-transit-in-okc-metro-one-step-closer-following-bill-passage/?utm_source=VeloCityEmail&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=IntOKLeg&utm_content=RapidTransit5_18_21

Plans advancing for a proposed passenger rail to link OKC with surrounding towns and cities
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2021/08/09/passenger-rail-link-oklahoma-city-surrounding-towns-and-cities/8035633002/

Promising update. That would be tremendous to have BNSF operate the line. They operate the Chicago Metra line. It would definitely allow for a seamless operation on their road.

The old study, she said, assumed more stations than what will likely be needed. And the authority has thrown out an assumption that a streetcar similar to the one downtown would be the best option for linking downtown and Tinker Air Force Base for an east route.

...Kimley Horn is starting over with studies of the east corridor with options being either a light rail or bus rapid transit.

Unlike the other corridors, the east corridor does not provide an existing freight or passenger rail that can be shared by a commuter service so anything along that corridor likely will be built from scratch.

That bit was surprising to me.

That bit was surprising to me.

that is really a miss characterization of what the east line was supposed to be

it was "rapid street car" using the existing rail (unused) rail corridor which is basically a light rail vehicle ..

Right, agree, that was the surprise for me.

Big update to ACOGs long range plan gets finalized with a forum tomorrow:

https://twitter.com/okcchamber/status/1450862047806304266?s=21

Edit: actually I think it’s today as the chamber Twitter is giving live updates.

They’re talking about the dedicated transit funding tax so maybe they’ll reveal a plan.

In what seems like terrible news, MWC is pulling out of the RTA

https://www.centraloklahomaweeklies.com/2021/12/16/midwest-city-pulls-out-of-regional-transportation-authority/

The mayor of MWC is completely wrong about it not benefitting Tinker AFB IMO. Lots of service members live in my building. They could benefit.


“You can’t just drop people off at the main gate. It ticks me off that Tinker has intentionally or unintentionally not been at the table,” Dukes said. “To exclude the largest employer in the state out of something like this is crazy.”

As far as this quote goes, it's entirely possible the RTA reached out and were simply ignored. I tried to get people on the phone regarding transit to both Tinker and MMAC when I worked at those places and it was mostly crickets. I got someone at MMAC to tell me there was just no interest in it, but I doubt they did any kind of employee survey.

My take about dropping them off at the main gate is... Tinker has a circulator bus on-base, that's an air force run thing. Get them to tweak that route to pick up folks. I know it would involve more than that, but there are building blocks to work with is all I'm saying.

Can the RTA still build rail through the city?

Honestly not the biggest problem. The three biggest cities Edmond, OKC, and Norman should be focused on first.

Edit: I also don't understand the Mayors position here. Even if he feels as if the current plan won't serve Tinker adequately why pull out of the whole thing altogether?

Smells like an excuse.

Can the RTA still build rail through the city?

Honestly not the biggest problem. The three biggest cities Edmond, OKC, and Norman should be focused on first.

Edit: I also don't understand the Mayors position here. Even if he feels as if the current plan won't serve Tinker adequately why pull out of the whole thing altogether?
Politics with some monied interests threatened is my guess.