Two facts that are know to all mankind - but denied by some.

1. Union Station is in the wrong location for a central multimodal hub.
2. Seattle doesn't have an NBA quality arena.

Again, we're talking heavy rail at union station, folks. If you want light rail, it's going to have to be added. Why not put light rail where people want it to go, and avoid all the buses? I don't want to wait for a train, then sit on that train for 20 minutes, and then wait for a bus that will take me where I really want to go. You've heard the horror stories about the trollies? Imagine having a train ride precede your wait for the second mode of transportation you will have to take.

^ For any transit system to work, buses are essential. Especially in the radial hub and spoke system required for Oklahoma City. As residential patterns change, so too can bus routes. Many people across the country utilize two-mode commuting, whether its kiss n' rides, park n' rides, bus and train, or heavy and light.

Heavy rail is not an option for Oklahoma City, the cost is too substantial. Commuter, BRT, or LRT is the appropriate choice.

BTW, since I don't have the time to read every post in this thread, what are some alternative locations for a inter-modal hub?

Heavy rail is the only thing that exists at Union Station. That's my point. I think we need light rail, and it would have to be added there. I think it's an out of the way location. If we were going to do a hub, I would think it should be at the intersection of a north-south line and an east west line. That's the most logical place for it, IMO. I've heard suggestions that the north-south line follow I-35, although I'd love to see a way for it to go down either the Broadway extension or Classen. I'd like to see an intermodal hub just south of Bricktown or the Ford Center, closer to downtown, so that people could get off closer to their destination. Also, since we're going to have a boulevard there (I hope), that's an ideal location for east-west light rail, IMO.

I know its a little off topic but does someone have an indebth plan of the crosstown relocation. and where does union station fit into that plan?

I was driving on I40 eastbound the other day and they had numerous support beams going up just before you get to the 235 interchange.

Heavy rail is the only thing that exists at Union Station. That's my point. I think we need light rail, and it would have to be added there. I think it's an out of the way location. If we were going to do a hub, I would think it should be at the intersection of a north-south line and an east west line. That's the most logical place for it, IMO. I've heard suggestions that the north-south line follow I-35, although I'd love to see a way for it to go down either the Broadway extension or Classen. I'd like to see an intermodal hub just south of Bricktown or the Ford Center, closer to downtown, so that people could get off closer to their destination. Also, since we're going to have a boulevard there (I hope), that's an ideal location for east-west light rail, IMO.


Ideally, light rail can be placed within exsiting heavy rail right of ways for part or all of its length. BDP has proposed a very good rail system recently. A good central location for a multi-modal hub is along the BNSF right of way south of Santa Fe station. As an added advantage, it can adjoin the station and link local light rail with interstate amtrak rail.

I know this may sound to easy but why not construct a new station just south of the existing one maybe just to the west or southwest of the ford center when I-40is replaced?

Betts,

I guess I'm not understanding your definition of "Heavy Rail". The term is generally interpreted as this (http://www.heritagetrolley.org/defHeavyRail.htm). Track gauge or size has nothing to do with mode. HRT and LRT distinguish themselves, by ROW, capacity, train length, speed, and cost. Examples of Heavy Rail systems are NYC's subway and Chicago's El. Marta and Bart were the last Heavy rail systems built.

Light Rail track would have to be added no matter where the hub was located. For safety reasons, Light Rail cannot run on track shared with freight (cars are too small and would be crushed). Therefore during this part of the line, it must have its own ROW.

As for location and getting people to their downtown destination, that's where a circulator would make the most sense. Patrons could ride a commuter train into Union Station and transfer to the modern streetcar circulator to get to downtown, midtown, and Bricktown. If the money isn't there, buses could do the same job.

If you want to see an Intermodal Hub in the design and build stage, check out Denver's Union Station (http://www.denverunionstation.org/).

http://www.continuumpartners.com/images/projects/dus_4.jpg

Source: Continuum Partners (http://www.continuumpartners.com/projects/)

Light Rail track would have to be added no matter where the hub was located. For safety reasons, Light Rail cannot run on track shared with freight (cars are too small and would be crushed). Therefore during this part of the line, it must have its own ROW.

As for location and getting people to their downtown destination, that's where a circulator would make the most sense. Patrons could ride a commuter train into Union Station and transfer to the modern streetcar circulator to get to downtown, midtown, and Bricktown. If the money isn't there, buses could do the same job.


That's actually my point. Since light rail would have to be added, why not add it in a more logical location? If it ran down the new boulevard in an east-west direction, it would be much easier for people to get off and walk to the CBD, and be able to avoid a second mode of transportation. Personally, I'm more interested in north-south anyway, since I virtually never go east-west.

And I moved here from Denver:) I've been in Denver's Union Station more times than I can count.

Why don't we just use Santa Fe Station in Shawnee for the central hub? It is old and neat. Before you start telling me all of the reasons why the station in Shawnee is a bid idea let me warn you that those exact same reasons can be used to disqualify Union Station.

Union Station is in the wrong location and is way too small.

jpeace... there is a southern anchor for C2S, the oklahoma river. there is all kinds of retail and residential planned... so you need not worry about development.

i went again and checked / walked the rails at union.... there is only one rail that is connected to anything. everything else has been pulled up

Why don't we just use Santa Fe Station in Shawnee for the central hub? It is old and neat. Before you start telling me all of the reasons why the station in Shawnee is a bid idea let me warn you that those exact same reasons can be used to disqualify Union Station.

Union Station is in the wrong location and is way too small.

What does size have to do with anything? Remodel the main terminal and expand it to accommodate commuter, light rail, modern street-car, and bus. Hell, throw in a ferry terminal if you want. Location is pretty decent, obviously there are better locales, but none are in the position this location is. C2S may have some grand plan but nothing is set in stone and I doubt most of the planned office and residential will come to fruition for quite sometime. This puts the station in a unique position to not only be an inter-modal hub but also a TOD... on a grand scale. What a perfect catalyst for the area. Thousands of people could pass through.


That's actually my point. Since light rail would have to be added, why not add it in a more logical location? If it ran down the new boulevard in an east-west direction, it would be much easier for people to get off and walk to the CBD, and be able to avoid a second mode of transportation. Personally, I'm more interested in north-south anyway, since I virtually never go east-west.

And I moved here from Denver I've been in Denver's Union Station more times than I can count.

Well, then you should know that the new Union Station brings together all modes, puts some of them underground and requires connection via multiple modes. DT Denver is quite a bit larger than OKC so people frequently use the Free Mall Shuttle to get to SE DT, Cap. Hill and GT. As it stands now you have to take the CPV spur just to get to Union Station (unless you walk or take the shuttle) Same idea could be applied here.

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
1600 Blake Street
Denver, Colorado* 80202-1399
304 628 9000

March 4, 2004

Tom Elmore, Executive Director
North American Transportation Institute
PO Box 6617
Oklahoma City, OK* 73153-0617

Dear Mr. Elmore:

This is in response to information we have received regarding construction plans that could preclude future passenger rail access to the Oklahoma City Union Station. Based on our experiences here in Denver, we believe that would be a very unfortunate and short-sighted move.

A consortium of agencies partnered to purchase Denver Union Station to preserve it as the future hub of multiple transportation modes. The Regional Transportation District, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the City and County of Denver, and the Colorado Department of Transportation all participated in the funding of that key purchase, accessing a combination of local, state and federal funding sources. This move will preserve Union Station as the transportation hub for all types of future transportation improvements, including local passenger rail, Amtrak, local transit buses, long-distance buses like Greyhound, taxis, bicycles and other modes.

A group of elected officials and business leaders from Salt Lake City made a presentation last year in Denver on their highly successful transit system and how it worked flawlessly during the 2002 Winter Olympics. The single, irreversible mistake they acknowledged making was in not preserving their historical Union Station as their transportation center.

Many years ago, Denver Union Station was purchased by a private sector group, but plans for the station languished and it was in danger of falling into major disrepair. Beginning in 2000, RTD pulled together a group of agencies to purchase the station, and RTD closed on the station purchase transaction a year later. This solidified Denver Union Station's status once again as the crown jewel of transportation access to the entire Denver metro area, just as it was envisioned when it was built over a hundred years ago.

Equally important, the purchase of Denver Union Station will jump start private development plans for the multiple acres of land surrounding the station, which has an estimated value totaling over $100 million. This economic generator aspect was another important factor in the decision by elected officials, local and state agencies, and business and community leaders to secure the future of this wonderful historic landmark for another one hundred years.

We are now well into the Master Plan process, which will detail the short and long range development of Denver Union Station and the surrounding property. The full story of the Master Plan can be viewed at Denver Union Station: Environmental Impact Statement (http://www.DenverUnionStation.org) , which gives a glimpse into the exciting prospects for this beautiful link to our past and portal to our future.

The experiences of Denver and other cities prove that it would be a true shame for the residents of Oklahoma City and the surrounding communities if construction plans precluded the proper preservation and future development of your Union Station as a passenger rail transportation center. Once that decision has been made, there may be little - if anything - that can be done to properly utilize that historic and functional facility.

Please let me know if I can provide any additional information or answer any questions.

Sincerely,
(signed)
Scott Reed
Director of Public Affairs
Regional Transportation District

So you feed some mis-information to someone in Colorado and he responds to it, big deal. I would rather read the wit and wisdom of Lester Munson from ESPN.com.

2-10-04

OPINION ON ODOT’S “NEW I-40 CROSSTOWN PLAN” FROM INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ECONOMIST MALISE C. DICK

"The New I-40 Crosstown"

As a transport economist who has been involved with highway and railroad projects in many parts of the world, I would like to offer my views on the proposed New I-40 Crosstown, (N I 40) based on the most recent information available to me, and discussions I had while in Norman in 1998-99. *There are a number of different elements to this, most of which have been noted by other observers, but they deserve consideration in an integrated fashion.

First, the construction cost difference between the proposal and the real alternative, which has never been given substantive consideration, which is rebuilding the existing four mile section, (of which only 1.7 miles, which pose somewhat greater but not insurmountable maintenance problems than at ground level)*appear to be widening as time passes. Current estimates for the proposal are $ 360m (probably an underestimate) which is substantially more than forecast only four years ago. Probably not more than 10% of the increase can be attributed to inflation, which has been nationally, locally and sectorally very low. * The alternative, in terms of typical reconstruction costs, would probably not cost more than $ 50 million. *Regardless of funding sources, justification for the difference has never been satisfactorily presented.

What could the justification be? *It is estimated that the existing Crosstown has a theoretical capacity of 72,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and the actual volume is about 113,000vpd. *The proposed NI40 would have a 10 lanes (as compared to 6 existing) and a capacity of *140,000 vpd. *In terms of theoretical capacity, the increase (approx 100%) may seem large, but with reasonable growth in traffic, some induced by the initial easing of congestion, capacity constraints could again be felt in 10 years or so - perhaps only five years after construction is completed! It might also be asked how the additional capacity over a short distance (4 miles) will be used and what the effect on feeder roads will be; I have not seen this discussed.

What would be a better solution? It may not appeal to believers that the underutilized automobile (which causes most congestion)*or 18 wheelers (which cause most highway damage and contribute perhaps as little as 20% to attributable costs) should have any constraints placed on their movement, but there is little doubt that where there is marked differences in congestion levels between different highways, traffic restrictions are often the most economical way of addressing the problem. Implicitly, Oklahoma City (OKC) could be suitable for such an approach which, as far as I am aware, has not been attempted. *Crosstown is used extensively by short-distance auto traffic which could be readily handled by non-Interstate roads. *Equally, trucks which are transiting Oklahoma City, of which there a substantial number and proportion of Crosstown traffic (when consideration is taken of the road space occupied by 18 wheelers) could be directed to use less congested peripheral roads. Given the sophistication of electronic monitoring systems, Crosstown access could be varied according to the level of potential congestion. *Thus, the effective capacity of existing Crosstown for appropriate traffic, could be significantly increased.

The argument is advanced that reconstructing Crosstown would be logistically difficult. *This seems based on the assumption that all existing traffic would have to be accommodated during that time. *However, again, there are plenty of roads parallel to Crosstown which, with some modification to access, could handle much more traffic. *Congestion in any part of the OKC highway system is low compared with, say, the Washington DC metropolitan area!

A further problem with the proposed NI40 is the impact on rail facilities.*It is clear that the Union Station, not the Santa Fe, is the most suitable as a hub for interurban, commuter rail and local bus interchange. *However, the NI40 proposal would effectively eliminate that possibility. *It can be argued that the OKC population density is too low to make suburban rail economically viable, but this ignores the fact that (eg) the I 35 corridor from Norman to OKC does in fact have quite a high density of traffic and*in sections was considered highly congested even in 1999. *Also, light rail systems in other cities with quite low densities, such as Dallas, are proving successful and have rapidly expanding ridership. *It is much better to keep options open in terms of rail passenger facilities than to pre-empt them for unnecessary highway re-routing!

Finally, air quality in OKC is not as good as one might expect in a low-density city. *A significant increase in city center traffic (which might be induced by NI40) as compared to a more dispersed pattern, will probably increase vehicle generated atmospheric pollutants. *Studies (of Los Angeles in particular) have shown that health costs generated by exposure to vehicle-induced atmospheric pollution, can be considerable. *This is certainly something which should be taken into consideration, but, so far, has not been.

In conclusion the NI40 proposal should be seriously reconsidered.

Malise C. Dick,
Transport and Economic Research and Analysis (TERA), Adjunct (Finance) and Affiliate ("Smart Growth") University of Maryland

Union Station: bad location.

If we have to add light rail anyway, let's get over this obsession with a poorly located building simply because it used to be a train station. It would make a perfectly lovely restaurant. Let's build a modern station in a good location. One might notice that the I-35 corridor is nowhere near Union Station.

I would like to go on record and say that the closure of the downtown airpark has ruined any chances of OKC getting nonstop flights to Europe.

I would like to go on record and say that the closure of the downtown airpark has ruined any chances of OKC getting nonstop flights to Europe.

LOL...

Okay, now how about this. Granted, I'm no whiz but I am a railfan and yet I say 'to hell with Union Station'. Let it be a centerpiece to the grand Central Park of Oklahoma City. Like I said, I'm not a master but here's my rendering:

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r170/OkStateBBall78/GreatStuff.jpg

Feedback would be fantastic!

The only thing I see is that the new station should be underground. You can't have East/West and North/South line crossing in the same horizontal plane. One will have to go over the top of the other or run parallel for some distance.

The blue line & the purple line is Boulevard ground level. The red line runs on the same right-of-way viaduct as BNSF. Notice the spur south of transportation center that circles around it. These HRT sets will have an engine on each end like the Heartland Flyer (which will still use the Santa Fe station) so there will be no worrying regarding them having to be turned around anywhere they go. The Amtrak route only has specific times that a train departs for regional travel so it won't matter that a rider will have to get off at the transportation hub from anywhere any of the other lines come from, cross the LRT's and load on the Streetcars to get to Amtrak's station (considering that in this rendering the line runs right past the south end of the docks).

Of note: the brackets over the 'to-be' new boulevard indicate the elevated bridge that will have to be put in place at this point. There should be a large median in the new boulevard that is wide enough for LRT. Then the Streetcar lines can obviously be built within the street at the time they build it. To think that this is at all, no less than 5-6 years away, so I'd hope that this commuter rail survey (if it isn't already done) could be completed by then. Cause it would be stupid if a boulevard line did happen and they had to tear all of that back out again a few years down the line after it is initially constructed.

Union Station: bad location.

If we have to add light rail anyway, let's get over this obsession with a poorly located building simply because it used to be a train station. It would make a perfectly lovely restaurant. Let's build a modern station in a good location. One might notice that the I-35 corridor is nowhere near Union Station.

I still don't know what you mean by "add light rail". Do you mean track for light rail? Like as in the actual rails themselves? If so, all modes use the same basic track, some may have a "third rail" or cantilever for electrification, but it's essentially the same. Most LRT systems use double tracking to accommodate bi-directional and high capacity trains with shorter headways. I guess I just don't see your argument of having to "add light right" no matter where the hub is located.



Why can't the current Union Station location be modernized? Have you seen what they are doing to Denver's Union Station? You say you are from there, but it seems as if you have little knowledge of exactly what is transpiring there. This is a model for the entire country, you should take notice.

Look, I'm trying to play devil's advocate here, and I'm trying to understand both sides of the issue. But from what I've seen of the station (walking by) it seems like a huge mistake not to take advantage of this facility and its ROW.



BTW, I was reading a post you made toward the beginning of this thread about there not being much value to the station except the ROW and how we could get ROW somewhere else or just cut and cover below the new boulevard.

I must ask, do you have an idea about the cost associated with cut and cover? Do you have any idea about the cost and time associated with ROW acquisition? If not, ask Reno. They are finishing up a project to cut and cover the freight lines through DT, at a substantial cost. Or, ask Denver, and the time and money they spent for the West line ROW.

I still don't know what you mean by "add light rail". Do you mean track for light rail? Like as in the actual rails themselves?

Yes that's what he means. If you Google Earth Dallas near their Union Station or, say, near the American Airlines Center, you will see that there are several sets of tracks.

For example the TRE (Trinity Rail Express) uses existing rail (freight rail) for their double-stack passenger cars/engine sets. You will see north of the AA Center where the TRE line separates from the DART lines.

DART uses a WHOLE other set of rail that was laid down with probably some lighter rail--something like 80lbs., as opposed to 130lbs.--for their lighter cars and they also in the process used concrete ties, which of course are more expensive than wooden ties but also more durable. The DART lines also either used old rail lines and purchased the ROW from the former owner and thus installing their lines.

Basically, if you take a gander, you will easily notice the lines and be able to distinguish between them with clarity.

I still don't know what you mean by "add light rail". Do you mean track for light rail? Like as in the actual rails themselves? If so, all modes use the same basic track, some may have a "third rail" or cantilever for electrification, but it's essentially the same. Most LRT systems use double tracking to accommodate bi-directional and high capacity trains with shorter headways. I guess I just don't see your argument of having to "add light right" no matter where the hub is located. .

We are clearly miscommunicating. I am not a rail expert, but I have opinions about transportation. It is my understanding that to have light rail, we would have to add track. It is my opinion that the east-west line is of less importance than the north-south line, and so it is my opinion that our station should be located on the north-south line, and it does not seem possible to run the north-south line directly to Union Station because it is directly south of the CBD and I think it would be difficult to run the line through there.


Why can't the current Union Station location be modernized? Have you seen what they are doing to Denver's Union Station? You say you are from there, but it seems as if you have little knowledge of exactly what is transpiring there. This is a model for the entire country, you should take notice. .

Union Station is on 17th and Wynkoop. It is four blocks from Larimer Square. It is within easy walking distance of a lot of the downtown. It is close to the Pepsi Center. IMO, Union Station is much more closely aligned with the CBD in Denver than our Union Station is. I understand what they are doing there. I have no problem with trying to do something like that here. I'm just confused as to why people are focusing on the building, rather than trying to optimize location. It is my personal experience that if you make things difficult or complicated, people tend not to use them. Why not put light rail where people want to go? Just because Denver is using their Union Station doesn't mean we have to. Again, how about a modern station that is optimally designed for what it is used for? We can do something different, and it might be better.


Look, I'm trying to play devil's advocate here, and I'm trying to understand both sides of the issue. But from what I've seen of the station (walking by) it seems like a huge mistake not to take advantage of this facility and its ROW. .

Why not make Union Station a restaurant and gathering place in the center of a beautiful iconic downtown park? No one is talking about not utilizing the structure, just questioning how practical it's use as a station is.


BTW, I was reading a post you made toward the beginning of this thread about there not being much value to the station except the ROW and how we could get ROW somewhere else or just cut and cover below the new boulevard. .

You have me confused with someone else. I would run light rail on the boulevard, not underneath it. It is clearly right of way owned by the city, and it's a far better location for getting to Bricktown and the CBD. It was my understanding that right of way is the key issue here. And I'm not interested in ROW at Union Station, as we've got east-west ROW on the Boulevard. But again, I'm far more interested in the north-south line, than an east-west line. I'd concentrate on it first, and as I said, I'd put my station directly on the north-south line to take advantage of Norman and Edmond commuters. I'm not sure where we're getting money for light rail anyway, but if we get it, it's my belief that we should start spending our money on the north-south line first.

LOL...

Okay, now how about this. Granted, I'm no whiz but I am a railfan and yet I say 'to hell with Union Station'. Let it be a centerpiece to the grand Central Park of Oklahoma City. Like I said, I'm not a master but here's my rendering:

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r170/OkStateBBall78/GreatStuff.jpg

Feedback would be fantastic!

I think this is great. I've not looked closely at anything other than the north-sout and east-west line locations, but they are precisely where I'd envisioned, and the hub location is right where I thought it should be.

betts, I'm pretty sure the I-40 ROW belongs to ODOT, not the city. I also think they are still having trouble pursuing ROW for some properties along the existing I-40 or the future boulevard. Either way unfortunately I think we are 10-15 years away from any kind of rail.

I think more realistically and soon would be a downtown circulator street car and perhaps a better bus/trolley system. This is where mass transit will start in this city.

PROGRESSIVE RAILROADING: "Son of Istook...."

From: Tom Elmore, NATI

To: mayor@okc.gov, david.holt@okc.gov, ward1@okc.gov, Ward2@okc.gov, ward3@okc.gov, ward4@okc.gov, ward5@okc.gov, ward6@okc.gov, ward7@okc.gov, ward8@okc.gov, guyliebmann@okhouse.gov, russell.claus@okc.gov

As we've noted regarding prospects for Federal Transit funding, the story below, from PROGRESSIVE RAILROADING, outlines significant funding boosts for Utah Transit, Washington's "Sound Transit," and New Jersey Transit.

While Oklahoma City mayors and council people hard-headedly sat on their hands over the last 20 years, Congressman Ernest J. Istook was funding far-sighted alternative transportation development in his "true sponsor state" of Utah.

It's reasonable to believe that cities like Salt Lake -- that have bucked the "highways only" forces to establish successful transit systems -- will be those that get any immediate Federal Transit funding boosts.

That leaves "all the rest."

Only one thing separates Oklahoma City from the long line of "completely unprepared" cities across the nation -- and that is the amazing railway network centered on OKC Union Station at 300 SW 7th.

Without Union Station's amazing rail yard, OKC goes "to the back of the line," empty cup in hand.

With an intact Union Station, the OKC metro has a fighting chance.

There is little doubt that Neal McCaleb and his "highways only" forces long planned the destruction of the Union Station rail yard and the rapidly and economically-available transit options it so clearly embodies. But they did so with the assistance of OKC government -- serving not the people of the city, who in the 1999 20 Year Plan Update demanded preservation and development of the facility, but "certain special interests" who continue to benefit from the automobile monopoly.

Will OKC government now stand up and do the right thing with OKC Union Station -- or will it continue to insist on the long held "better to rule in hell than serve in heaven" paradigm?

It's a question that goes directly to the heart of the integrity of all elected and appointed OKC officials.

TOM ELMORE

_________________________________________________

7/14/2008 Federal Funding

Senate committee allocates funds for three transit agencies
Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee signed off on a fiscal-year 2009 Department of Transportation appropriations bill that included millions of dollars for two transit agencies.

The bill earmarks more than $100 million for Utah transit and economic development projects, including $81.6 million to the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) to begin preliminary design and environmental work to extend the FrontRunner commuter-rail line to Payson and Brigham City. The bill also would include $10 million to extend the Mid-Jordan light-rail line 10 miles west from the 6400 South TRAX station through Murray, Midvale, West Jordan and South Jordan.

In addition, the committee earmarked $5 million to UTA to extend TRAX light-rail service form the current Arena Station in downtown Salt Lake City to the Gateway Intermodal Hub — enabling FrontRunner passengers to transfer to TRAX lines — continue environmental design for the West Valley City Intermodal Hub, and purchase land for hubs in Orem and Provo.

The committee also appropriated $128.8 million for Sound Transit's light-rail projects. The bill would provide $100 million for the 3.2-mile downtown Seattle-to-University of Washington University Link, and $28.8 million to complete the initial Link light-rail system, which is scheduled to open next year.

Meanwhile, Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) secured a $75 million appropriation for New Jersey Transit's Access to the Region's Core project, which the agency will use to continue engineering for the two new rail tunnels to be built under the Hudson River. The project also includes building a new station beneath 34th Street in Manhattan, and completing signal and track improvements along the Northeast Corridor.

Alert Trammel! Conspiracy nut at large.


Congressman Ernest J. Istook was funding far-sighted alternative transportation development in his "true sponsor state" of Utah.

Are you sure there are no other cities in America that don't have a rail station at 300 SW 7th, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma?


Only one thing separates Oklahoma City from the long line of "completely unprepared" cities across the nation -- and that is the amazing railway network centered on OKC Union Station at 300 SW 7th.

Tom - any rail project in OKC that uses Union Station as its main hub is doomed to failure from lack of ridership. The main reason Istook didn't support the MAPS rail link is because it didn't follow traffic patterns. Look at the Oklahoma Spirt trolly today and I think you will have to agree Istook was correct. No one is wanting to go to the Union Station vacinity now. Creating a rail network that doesn't go where the people want to go is a non-starter.

some guy on ktok said that rail does not pay for itself and has to be subsidised by the goverment.

No interstate in America pays for itself. In fact the road that goes in front of my house doesn't pay for itself. I drive on it for free.

yeah.. i see what you're saying. i know in japan the rail is privatized and it cost me 30 bux a day to ride into tokyo from narita and back. that's about a 45 minute ride one way. these were not high speed trains either.

2-10-04

OPINION ON ODOT’S “NEW I-40 CROSSTOWN PLAN” FROM INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ECONOMIST MALISE C. DICK



Finally, air quality in OKC is not as good as one might expect in a low-density city. *A significant increase in city center traffic (which might be induced by NI40) as compared to a more dispersed pattern, will probably increase vehicle generated atmospheric pollutants. *Studies (of Los Angeles in particular) have shown that health costs generated by exposure to vehicle-induced atmospheric pollution, can be considerable. *This is certainly something which should be taken into consideration, but, so far, has not been.

In conclusion the NI40 proposal should be seriously reconsidered.

Malise C. Dick,
Transport and Economic Research and Analysis (TERA), Adjunct (Finance) and Affiliate ("Smart Growth") University of Maryland


air quality really ...

this guy shows that he has no clue ...

OKC was just recognized for having very good air quality

and 1 on the reasons that smog will never be an issue here is our topography and our wind. LA is stuck between the coast and the mountains ... denver is against the mountains on the edge of the plains ..

this is why they have so much smog ..

we will never have a smog issue ..

guys guys guys.

Union Station may not be in the most ideal of locations, but there is no RULE which states that your intermodal hub has to be in the downtown CBD. In fact, I would hate to waste space in the core on parking and such *which an intermodal facility will need, when it should be used on office towers, hotels, and buildings.

again, you dont have to have your intermodal in the centre of town. In fact, most intermodal facilities I know of are on the edge of downtown (Chicago - Union Station is on the edge of the loop, Denver - Union Station is on the edge of LoDo, Vancouver - Waterfront Station is on the edge of downtown, Osaka - Osaka/Umeda Stations are on the edge of Umeda downtown and Namba Stations are on the edge of Minami downtown, Nagoya - Nagoya Station is on the edge of Sakae downtown).

The reason intermodal facilities are on the edge and not centre of a CBD is due to the footprint required for such a facility. A true intermodal facility ties in Heavy Rail-Interstate, Heavy Rail-Commuter, Light Rail, Streetcar/Tram, and Bus. Do you really think Santa Fe could accomodate this? NO

The BEST location for a TRUE intermodal facility IS Oklahoma City's Union Station. And like was said earlier, the Downtown Streetcar, local bus, and taxis could feed from Union Station into the CBD and other parts of downtown. We could even move the InterCity Bus service to Union Station and redevelop the Union Bus Station since it should become extermely valuable in a year or two.

Eventually Light Rail could feed from Union Station into other parts of the inner city, once densities and TOD's develop. You;d never be able to accommodate all of these modes in a skycraper downtown CBD. The ONLY way you could have an intermodal facility in the core downtown area is if it is underground. Vancouver's Waterfront facility is mostly underground even though it is on the edge of downtown. All of Osaka's intermodal facilities are underground. Chicago's intermodal is also underground.

I don't think OKC should abandon Union Station and build an intermodal facility at NW 5th and Robinson underground - as that is the ONLY way you could get one up in the core area. I envision Union Station being the intermodal facility for Heavy Commuter Rail, Commuter Bus, and the Downtown Streetcar for starters, adding in light rail as the system evolves.

By the way, Commuter Rail is Heavy Rail - it resides on dedicated ROW and has limited stops (almost all of which are park n rides). This is NOT expensive to build and OKC could do this now on the Guthrie to downtown to Norman corridor.

The ONLY difference from Commuter Rail and 'typical' Heavy Rail systems *aka subway* is that they Heavy Rail uses 3rd rail and is even more ROW restricted and typically has longer trainsets and platforms (although this is not always the case). Commuter Rail are typically diesel or electric overhead catenary and share the same ROW as Freight Trains.

A great example of these two technologies and their differences can be found in Chicago. The El is a subway system which uses Heavy Rail in dedicated ROW - either subway in downtown or elevated (downtown also has the elevated loop). The El uses 3rd rail and is typical of subway systems.

On the other hand, Metra Rail is the Commuter Rail line in Chicago that uses Heavy Rail cars but they are not in a dedicated ROW per se (it is separate from cars/pedestrians but it mixes with freight). Metra uses diesel and also has an electric line (via overhead catenary). This is typical of CR, but in Chicago Metra runs both ways throughout the day [essentially making it an additional 'subway' network of sorts for the city].

Im not advocating OKC to implement a heavy rail subway (it would be prohibitively expensive and OKC will probably never have the density to justify it) BUT I am advocating OKC to implement Commuter Rail!

OKC could do it NOW! The corridor already exists, and the two lines could be as follows:

* Guthrie Line - Guthrie Santa Fe station, S. Guthrie/N. Edmond PnR, Edmond Santa Fe station, S. Edmond PnR, NW 63rd PnR, *Santa Fe Station-Amtrak/CBD*, Union Station.

* Norman Line - Purcell (eventually), S. Norman PnR/OU, Norman Santa Fe, Crossroads Mall, Union Station.


The ONLY thing that would be needed would be
1) two CR trainsets, maybe 3 if you want one on reserve/mtc
2) Platforms at the PnRs (maybe also platform upgrades at some of the stations)
3) track upgrades? (this might be true but I doubt it since BNSF already runs freight on it. Perhaps we might want to double track certain areas though.
4) station upgrades/updates - to prepare for pax traffic 'again' some stations might need updating with amenities

Those 4 things and we'd have a commuter rail network in Oklahoma City. The most expensive item being the trainsets.

Notice, this is Commuter Rail - so there's not very many stops, making it convenient for commuters. You'd ride the bus or your car to the PnR or station then hop on the CR to downtown.

Notice I omitted Santa Fe Amtrak station but it could be a stop prior to Union Station. The key is, Union would be the intermodal station - where you could transfer to busses, the downtown Streetcar/tram, or a train going away from downtown. For example, in this idea - somebody living in Guthrie could commute to Norman to work/go to school at OU and back home without driving.

And since this requires a regional approach - I'd hope ACOG would take this on and partner with Oklahoma City, Norman, Edmond, and Guthrie, and the state to make it happen. It should be less than $100M to implement, most if not half of that cost being the trainset(s).

OKC itself would be concerned with the Downtown Streetcar (for MAPS 3) and perhaps it's portion of the CR network.

Tom, can you run with this idea?

In Dallas / Ft. Worth, the Trinity Railway Express began service with 13 refurbished, former Canadian Rail Diesel Cars, but now generally handle today's much heavier demand with double-deck commuter coaches drawn by conventional diesel-electric locomotives. TRE, as far as I know, continues to be nominally mixed-traffic line, which is to say the commuter trains sometimes share track with freight trains.

In the NE Corridor, between, for instance, Boston and Washington DC, the very-reasonably priced MARC Commuter trains share that fast corridor with Amtrak's Metroliners and Acela Express HSR services.

Maybe we should lease some of the Trinity Railway Express Rail Diesel Cars for "all stops, near-regional services."

A "little further up the technology scale," Amtrak / Bombardier's unique, active-tilt technology Acela trainsets could reportedly be drawn by lightweight, dedicated gas-turbine / electric locomotives -- allowing impressive speeds on the very "curvy" track characterizing the Northesast -- and Oklahoma lines like ODOT's "Sooner Subdivision," the former BNSF / former Frisco line to Tulsa. Similar results are achieved with Amtrak / Washington DOT's "Cascades" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak_Cascades using Spanish TALGO car sets mated to fast, streamlined US-manufactured diesel-electrics.

At-grade rail crossings would be an immediate, but solvable problem. Lines like this would be interesting territory for some of the new GPS-related "Absolute Train Separation" signaling and train control technology. The basic elegance and efficiency of rail respond powerfully and synergistically to digital and satellite managment. Why not make our state the technological center for development and manaufacturing?

Some rather fabulous regional services could be had here with a determined effort.

What would it mean to Oklahoma's image (not to mention Oklahomans' mobility) to have the first Acela-technology trains in the nation operating in non-electrified territory on limited-stops regional services here? (And "why not?")

Nashville's Music City Star, Utah's Front Runner, New Mexico's Rail Runner and Seattle's Sound Transit trains closely mirror TRE's more recent commuter coach / diesel-electric locomotive sets running conventional rail lines.

Commuter trains, much like typical intercity trains, are, generally, mixed-traffic compatible passenger trains minus some of the comforts and decoration of long-distance intercity trains.

So -- sure -- if we had the will, we could be running any number of commuter rail services virtually tomorrow. This is arguably easier done on more lightly used mainlines -- which is why I would argue OKC to Tulsa, OKC to Lawton / Altus, OKC to El Reno, OKC to Shawnee would be easier to implement immediately than imposing more traffic on the very congested north-south BNSF Red Rock Line.

However, it's noteworthy that the construction cost of Utah's Front Runner line -- reportedly all-new track laid in part of the longstanding Union Pacific right of way --was 80% paid-for by the Federal Railroad Administration, so perhaps some similar arrangement could be worked out with BNSF on the heavily-used north-south mainline. There's money to be had -- but local leadership has to have a plan and "go for it." (Standard railway rights of way are typically 100-feet wide, offering potential for several tracks and tremendous train capacity.)

A successful start on less-heavily-used lines would certainly boost support for more expensive projects.

By the way -- if I understand the reports, at least some of Utah Transit's FRONT RUNNER commuter coaches were purchased "second hand."

It's important to get a start.

From what I hear, two or three OKC Council people really got after Mayor Cornett at yesterday's meeting, pursuant to questions about his apparent lack of progress on transport alternatives.

TOM ELMORE

BoulderSooner and others: Yes, the region's air quality status is better than most, but alas, we are a major league city in air pollution, as well.

Ozone in fact, is and will continue to be a problem for us.

Ozone readings this year already put the region in unofficial non-compliance mode. Next spring, the EPA will affirm this, and we will likely be considered a "moderate non-attainment" region, meaning that we have dirty air.

That will start a whole slew of modeling and data work that may not impact the public immediately, but will impact the transportation planning process. Essentially, it bogs things down and makes planning projects more difficult and time-consuming.

Seriously people...don't post the same thing in different threads.

I have to agree with Hot Rod.

Expansion of rail Edmond service supported | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/expansion-of-rail-edmond-service-supported/article/3270471/?tm=1216162423)

EDMOND RESOLUTION SUPPORTS URGENT HEARTLAND FLYER EXPANSION

July 16, 2008

By Diana Baldwin, Staff Writer

OKLAHOMAN

EDMOND — City council members jumped on board this week in support of expanding passenger rail service from Oklahoma City to Kansas.
They approved a resolution supporting expansion of Heartland Flyer service through Edmond and on to Kansas City.

Edmond joins a list of about 30 cities and towns in Oklahoma and Kansas that have endorsed a plan to expand passenger rail service to the north, said Evan Stairs, executive director of Northern Flyer Alliance. Norman and Oklahoma City already have taken action in support of the expansion plan. Kansas cities, including Wichita and Newton, also have endorsed the plan.

The alliance, a grassroots organization seeking support from cities along the route, wants support for launching passenger rail service between Oklahoma City and Kansas, a move they say would make Amtrak's existing Heartland Flyer services between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth, Texas, a more effective transportation option.

Edmond Assistant City Manager Steve Commons said, "As fuel prices continue to rise, alternative methods of transportation need to be considered and Edmond is fortunate to have good rail access to be a part of this transportation system.”

If the expansion program is adopted, Commons said, Edmond would have to commit to build a station and provide long-term parking to serve passengers. Tracks are already in place. Stairs estimates it could cost $5 million to upgrade the track infrastructure and up to $10 million more to purchase another train.

Last week, Gov. Brad Henry was given a letter signed by the mayors of Edmond, Norman, Oklahoma City, Purcell, Pauls Valley, Ardmore, Ponca City, Perry and Guthrie, asking him to expedite the process because of rapidly rising gasoline prices, said Bob Kemper, the alliance legislative liaison.

"The airline industry is cutting services and raising fares in order to address $140 per barrel oil,” the mayors said in the letter. "The decline in intercity bus transportation is resulting in the increasing isolation of small town Oklahoma.”

Thanks Tom for not signing your name 3x in each post.

Acid Sludge and the Crosstown
by: Bob Sands, OETA News
Acid Sludge and the Crosstown (http://blog.oeta.tv/onr/index.php/2008/08/08/acid-sludge-and-the-crosstown) (Read and Comment)
8-8-08

The discovery four years ago of a 25,000 square foot pit of acid sludge right in the path of construction on the new I-40 Crosstown expressway is raising questions about what other hazards were missed when the Oklahoma Department of Transportation conducted an Environmental Impact Study for the project.

The pit was discovered by a work crew that was conducting preliminary borings for one of the new railroad bridges that has to be built in conjunction with the most expensive highway project in state history.

The Department of Environmental Quality says it conducted a survey of the area near the Oklahoma River several years ago and noted that pit which was originally part of the Choate Oil Refinery but since there was no indication on the surface of a problem, DEQ did not list the site on its registry of refinery sites.

ODOT has hired a company that is now pouring a special concrete into bore holes for a series of seven support pillars that will be placed in the pit of acid sludge. That concrete, according to ODOT, contains an acid neutralizing agent. Once the concrete hardens a test bore is made to determine if the acid sludge is still present. So far two of the bore holes have been treated and one has reportedly tested as clean.

ODOT also had to dig a 25 foot trench to capture acid sludge that is oozing to the surface now because of the drilling operation. The sludge is a by-product of a process that combines sulfuric acid with crude oil to remove the impurities. The acid sludge pit was apparently buried when the old refinery was closed decades ago. ODOT and DEQ officials insist it is no threat to ground water or the nearby Oklahoma River.

Speedbump!

It is a shame that the old sludge pit was left there, but the sooner it is found and fixed the better. A serendipitous byproduct of the crosstown relocation is being able to fix this problem now without further delay and greater risk. For the highway itself, it represents one of those speedbumps which always complicate a major project.

ODOT to move all rail lines out of the Union Station corridor?

I-40 Update (http://blog.oeta.tv/onr/index.php/2008/07/30/i-40-update)

OETA News I-40 Update Report, 7-30-08

Engineers with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation now say another rail line will have to be moved for the most expensive highway project in state history to go forward.

In a briefing to the Oklahoma City, City Council, ODOT Project Engineer John Bowman explained that Pennsylvania Avenue, a major north south street, will remain closed until a re-alignment issue is resolved with the Union Pacific railroad.
ODOT Project Engineer John Bowman told members of the City Council that a timetable for opening Pennsylvania Avenue remains up in the air.

“That varies greatly depending upon a realignment of the Union Pacific. We’re currently working with them to reconfigure their line out in that vicinity”, said Bowman.

Bowman went on to explain that plans call for this Union Pacific rail line to be moved to the south of its current location.

What he did not make clear is that may mean another rail line will have to be added to those already being built by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad on the south side of the Oklahoma River.

If that happens it would add to the number of lines that motorists will have to cross at-grade, which is the most dangerous type of rail line crossing.
ODOT did not bring up to the City Council, the fact their plans to rip out the BNSF lines that run behind Union Station still remain stalled after three years, before the Federal Surface Transportation Board in Washington D.C.

ODOT to move all rail lines out of the Union Station corridor?

I-40 Update (http://blog.oeta.tv/onr/index.php/2008/07/30/i-40-update)

OETA News I-40 Update Report, 7-30-08

Engineers with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation now say another rail line will have to be moved for the most expensive highway project in state history to go forward.

In a briefing to the Oklahoma City, City Council, ODOT Project Engineer John Bowman explained that Pennsylvania Avenue, a major north south street, will remain closed until a re-alignment issue is resolved with the Union Pacific railroad.
ODOT Project Engineer John Bowman told members of the City Council that a timetable for opening Pennsylvania Avenue remains up in the air.

“That varies greatly depending upon a realignment of the Union Pacific. We’re currently working with them to reconfigure their line out in that vicinity”, said Bowman.

Bowman went on to explain that plans call for this Union Pacific rail line to be moved to the south of its current location.

What he did not make clear is that may mean another rail line will have to be added to those already being built by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad on the south side of the Oklahoma River.

If that happens it would add to the number of lines that motorists will have to cross at-grade, which is the most dangerous type of rail line crossing.
ODOT did not bring up to the City Council, the fact their plans to rip out the BNSF lines that run behind Union Station still remain stalled after three years, before the Federal Surface Transportation Board in Washington D.C.


OH MY GOD, they are so freaking retarded!!! They only plan on moving the line, if not, more than a 100 yards away from where it is. It will still run along the northern edge of the freeway alignment. Do some research OETA!

You can't run the UP line down over near the BNSF/Stillwater Central line because then they would have to front millions of more dollars to build way more miles then they intend to. They would not be able to realign a route south of the river without having to acquire new right-of-way to get back to their main line out on the western fringes of OKC.

People are making way too big a deal out of this...

Yes, indeed. Those brilliant thinkers, those careful planners, those moral paragons -- who charged our unborn offspring to create such "triumphs" as the Belle Isle Bridge, the Fort Smith Junction and the Webbers Falls I-40 bridge-with-no-upstream-barge-strike bumpers -- not to mention the "fracture-critical bridge-on-the-current-Crosstown" -- are now sinking bridge piers into a buried lake of corrosive sludge.

After all -- the last one they built, they say, is "about to fall down."

But -- that's OK.

They figure they'll be comfortably "retired" before the latest mess they've made becomes critically apparent -- especially if other agencies help them "keep it quiet."

Yep. You sure wouldn't wanna "make too much" of something like that.

TOM ELMORE

I don't know, it sounds like a pretty big deal to me. Anytime I hear, "Oh, it's no threat to the river or water supply," I wait for the admission - sometimes years later - just how big a threat it actually was and how many documents were shredded to keep it quiet.

Solitude - can you give us an example?

http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/6084f194b67ca1c4852567d9005751dc/621c0065f3033eeb8525749b007698f6/$FILE/223086.pdf

http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/6084f194b67ca1c4852567d9005751dc/2d868ac4424ab4368525749c00557aff/$FILE/223105.PDF

Boardman is not being represented well by the OKC chamber of commerce!

Mr Elmore, does dr Kessler intend to acquire the tracks? I didnt understand those references.

When will the STB announce the next ruling?

Thx

Oh god I can't wait for this thing to finally blow up.

These morons that are 'begging' for a new highway simply are running off their fears than actually using a brain.

A retired ODOT bridge engineer stated we can redeck the CURRENT crosstown for $50 million. That's why ODOT allows maximum weight trucks to run over it at free will. Otherwise they would've rerouted them onto I-240 years ago.

The people who've fought the crosstown should be commended. They understood the facts and used all their resources to bring this fraud to light. If you're scared of the current crosstown, beat ODOT into submission and redeck it and it'll last another 40 years.

Utah's rated as having one of the best roads in the nation. Why? Because they 'maintain' their current infrastructure. What Oklahoma does is beyond me. They wait for it to dilapidate so bad to the point of no return so they can build a new road 'ELSEWHERE'. Why? Because those are the most expensive projects. This is a corporate welfare state. Hardly anybody in office isn't a federal leech. But the bridge isn't to that condition 'yet'. If ODOT keeps putting Oklahomans' lives in danger like this and not maintain that bridge like they should, we'll eventually get there.

Oklahoma, one of the fews places where they'll sell their grand babies souls for a buck and still claim to be Christian.

Sure, just redeck the current crosstown, and then it will need it again in 20 years and we'll still have a blighted neighborhood just south of downtown. Good plan.

I'm not sure the growth of American cities is driven by transit, either automobile or train, anymore. If we want Oklahoma City to move beyond it's ugly, midwestern image, we've got to reinvent our downtown, and we've got the land to do it......if we move the Crosstown. This is about more than a highway or a train track. It's about changing the way we and the rest of the country see our city. It's as jbrown says, about getting rid of a blighted area immediately adjacent to our downtown, making room for residential growth downtown, which gives us precisely the kind of density we need to get rid of the automobile in the immediate area of the CBD. Density is one of the major impediments to mass transit in OKC, so I'm not sure why people are opposed to plans that will increase density, rather than making it easier for people to live out in the suburbs, which is what light and heavy rail does. Resurfacing a highway is shortsighted, and we need vision.

Again, moving the crosstown leaves us with a light rail right of way, right down the boulevard. I'm still thinking we need to concentrate on north-south before we spend any money on east-west transit, but the right of way will exist and will belong to the city if we need it.

To address your questions, blangtang:

Dr. Kessler's willingness to intervene, as he has, in this matter should speak for itself. It's reasonable to believe that he has not done so lightly. Somebody needed to do the right thing -- and as the letters from Ridley, Cornett and Schirf indicate, it certainly wasn't going to be any of them.

Our nation and our state need every inch of their valuable railway infrastructure. Oklahoma needs its businesses. Its businesses need rail service for mobility of all kinds. Plainly, incontrovertibly, the loss of rail access for industries like those being threatened today ensures (1) Higher trucking rates to captive shippers, and, (2) Substantial loss of commercial property value.

The willingness of ODOT and OKC leadership to offhandedly force such a situation on long standing local business already fighting for every possible competitive advantage in the world marketplace would seem to demand explanation.

As to a timeframe for further STB action, only the STB can say.

TOM ELMORE

These morons that are 'begging' for a new highway simply are running off their fears than actually using a brain.


Oklahoma, one of the fews places where they'll sell their grand babies souls for a buck and still claim to be Christian.

hey, since you are bringing up christianity... you do realize that by calling someone a moron you are committing a sin.
matthew 5:22
But I say to you, That whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

but yeah, call me a moron... cuz i say eff the union rail yard and bring on C2S!!! woooh hooooh!



btw, is anyone else glad TOM'S fifteen minutes is almost up??

btw, is anyone else glad TOM'S fifteen minutes is almost up??

http://sundayschoolmaterial.net/raising%20hands.gif

City, state officials beseech federal board to eliminate rail lines | OKG News.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/2420/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

---from Tom Elmore

God forbid one company has to pay more for shipping...

Tell it to the 70+ Oklahomans who make their living at BOARDMAN, Inc.

Explain to them that, while Chinese industrial fabricators are reportedly able to ship to the US West Coast cheaper than many US companies, "certain folks" here in Oklahoma City are much more interested in "four miles of redundant urban expressway" and whatever they imagine they, themselves, might get out of it.

Ask the downtown "party boys" who's gonna support their "party" when Oklahoma workers' "disposable income" disappears.

Blind self interest is not just ugly. It's inevitably also counterproductive.

TOM ELMORE