Since when does lack of expertise keep people from offering opinions?:rolleyes: On the other hand, many of us have experience with using mass transit, and so we do have expertise to offer on what makes a transit system appealing, location being a key variable.

It's good to know that we have so many rail transit experts available to make comments on this forum. I feel so much better now.

Since you want to lay down a challenge: I'll put my knowledge of intermodal transportation planning against you, the Norman City Council, Tom Elmore and any other community outside of Oklahoma City anytime. Day or night.

I am still amazed there is a 14 page thread arguing over something that has been decided for years now. Not to mention that the thread started out a very nice tribute by Pete to show what it CAN be once the crappy tracks that are not used are gone. Internet forums never cease to amaze me...

But, if you imagine bus stalls and parking in front of Union Station, as well as rail lines and an expressway south of it, you will also realize that using Union Station as our multimodal station would significantly decrease the size of the park, and effectively bisect it to the point that it would be distinctly pedestrian unfriendly.

Why not put the busses on the side of Union Station or south of it with the rails? South of the station, we could build dedicated bus only exit-entry to the new I-40 whichi would make a seamless commuter route. Im not sure why you keep saying that making union station multimodal means getting rid of the new central park. The ONLY thing that should be in front of the new Union Station, besides the central park, is the downtown streetcar trolley - which would funnel people to and from the EXISTING cbd (see Denver for example!)



As far as light rail is concerned, I don't think anyone here is anti light rail, or there aren't many anti-light rail people speaking up. But, what people need to realize is that light rail and commercial rail are mutually exclusive, and that to have light rail, we'd have to add lines anyway. That's why I'd like to see them run down the boulevard, closer to the CBD, with a multimodal station at the point that the north-south east-west line intersect, with the north-south line being constructed first, to see what kind of use we get with it.


I think what you and others need to understand is we aren't talking about light rail with Union Station, we're talking about COMMUTER RAIL!!!

Remember the post where I contrasted the two, well, let me refresh your memory:

1) Commuter Rail: uses heavy rail cars and often uses existing freight track. Commuter Rail is powered by diesel electric locomotives OR electric cars via overhead catenary. Commuter rail relies on high capacity but infrequent stops. So the obvious choice here would be to build park n rides in the suburbs and have heavy rail cars going to Union Station. This is what Seattle does, Chicago, New York, LA, Vancouver, Toronto, Tokyo, Osaka, ... does. COMMUTER RAIL IS NOT LIGHT RAIL, and nobody said Union Station would be a light rail terminus, it would be a commuter rail multimodal. See Chicago's METRA RAIL (Union Station) or Vancouver's West Coast Express (Waterfront Station) for great CommuterRail (multimodal terminus) examples.

2) Light Rail: uses light rail cars and often has EXCLUSIVE track on it's own right of way or shared with vehicular traffic. Light Rail typically is powered by electric cars via overhead catenary although there are some examples of diesel light rail. Light rail has more stops and frequency than commuter rail but has nowhere near the capacity.

3) Rail Trolley/Tram: uses modern "low-floor" or heritage streetcar or trams and has exclusive track that is typically mixed with auto traffic, although it can run in its own row (of course). Trams have NUMEROUS STOPS but have very low capacity by comparison. OKC has plans already for the downtown streetcar, which will be this method.

So, for the umteenth time - those who are advocating Union Station as the multimodal are mostly supporting it for a Commuter Rail (and even perhaps AMTRAK or a state interurban). In any case, this would be HEAVY RAIL (NOT LIGHT RAIL!!!!!), and would use the existing infrastructure; which is HEAVY RAIL!!! The multimodal use would come from adding bus transfer to the Union Station building; I suggest either on the side (where the docs are) or the other side of the tracks; where we could build in dedicated bus rapid transit to and from the new I-40. The new downtown streetcar could run infront of union staion (circling the new central park) and would funnel people into the cbd, bricktown, and other downtown districts.

Again, multimodal stations serve to provide MULTIPLE transit uses, not JUST one like a light rail hub would. In fact, most light rail lines dont even have a hub (since it's not necessary) due to the lower capacity compared to commuter rail.

I know it has been mentioned that Union is far removed from the cbd today, but it is only 7 blocks MAX and with the downtown streetcar and new Core 2 Shore projects coming on board, Union would anchor the south end of downtown and would be ala Denver's Union Station (which is also multimodal with their Amtrak, light rail, commuter bus and downtown shuttle bus). Multimodals are almost always removed from the central business district (if they are in the cbd, they're underground! and expensive!!!)

I don't think OKC is ready for light rail yet, but we could do commuter rail TODAY (as was envisioned with the Shawnee post), also Norman and Edmond/Guthrie - and create a REAL Metropolitan Area.

Commuter rail is Uuuuuuuuuugly. Sorry, can't go for it ruining Core to Shore. Especially since we're talking east-west and I want north-south. Commuter rail can run south of the river if we don't care if people have to ride buses to get to the CBD.

if Union is too small, expand it.

bytheway, intermodal hubs dont have to be huge. Union Station would work just fine as one.

Hoya, to be fair - DC metro is a subway network (which is HEAVY RAIL!!!). Sure, I'd love for OKC to have a subway too, but that aint ever gonna happen (and Union Station wouldn't work for a subway anyways....)

By the way, isnt Union Station bigger than Sante Fe? Yet, Santa Fe is the Amtrak depot. ...

I agree, TODAY, Union is far from the CBD - but downtown is going to expand to the south; and Union Station would be like every body elses intermodal hub (on the edge of downtown).

If downtown is going to expand south, then south of the river will be just fine for commuter rail.

if Union is too small, expand it.

The C2S park is already too small. It's tiny compared to other major urban parks in "big league cities" and it's smaller than Will Rogers and Lincoln Parks. By the time you add on to Union Station so it can accomodate a hub, then add bus ramps, a trolley platform, and all this other stuff you mention, the park is not only going to be EVEN SMALLER, but is going to be completely ruined by all this traffic. You don't see the NYC Port Authority Terminal right next to Central Park or any park for that matter. There's a reason for that.

I don't see the point in going to all that trouble just because there is a building there that was historically a train station. It wasn't even a regional hub. The interurbans of the past hubbed at SANTA FE, not UNION. Union Station was only cross-country and freight rail.

The C2S park is already too small. It's tiny compared to other major urban parks in "big league cities" and it's smaller than Will Rogers and Lincoln Parks. By the time you add on to Union Station so it can accomodate a hub, then add bus ramps, a trolley platform, and all this other stuff you mention, the park is not only going to be EVEN SMALLER, but is going to be completely ruined by all this traffic. You don't see the NYC Port Authority Terminal right next to Central Park or any park for that matter. There's a reason for that.

I don't see the point in going to all that trouble just because there is a building there that was historically a train station. It wasn't even a regional hub. The interurbans of the past hubbed at SANTA FE, not UNION. Union Station was only cross-country and freight rail.

Not only would the park be too small, but it would be bisected by the rail lines, bus ramps, etc, in a way that would make pedestrian traffic routes from the north side park to the south side park totally unaesthetic and so complicated that it would never happen.

With as much that needs to be built, I don't know why HOT ROD and others are holding on to having Union Station as the intermodal hub. It makes much more sense to build a station at the intersection of E/W and N/S lines just east of there, which is where it is planned under C2S.

It's good to know that we have so many rail transit experts available to make comments on this forum. I feel so much better now.

Yeah and since when did you become an expert on the things you comment on? This is a forum...it's a place for people to express their opinions. Even when they are sarcastic and pointless like yours.:tiphat:

With as much that needs to be built, I don't know why HOT ROD and others are holding on to having Union Station as the intermodal hub. It makes much more sense to build a station at the intersection of E/W and N/S lines just east of there, which is where it is planned under C2S.

We can do everything we need to do with Santa Fe. No need for Union Station to be anything more than a landmark. The airport/MWC line can spur up to Santa Fe. The most important line, Edmond/Norman, would use Santa Fe...

Just like Union Station, Santa Fe is way to small for a modern facility. You guys are thinking way way way to small. A new cenral transit facility is going to be way larger than many of you imagine. Some of you (not singling anyone out here) are of the mind set that we need to rebuild what OKC once had. We need to build for the next 100 years, not the last 100 years.

Just like Union Station, Santa Fe is way to small for a modern facility. You guys are thinking way way way to small. A new cenral transit facility is going to be way larger than many of you imagine. Some of you (not singling anyone out here) are of the mind set that we need to rebuild what OKC once had. We need to build for the next 100 years, not the last 100 years.

I realize Santa Fe would not work as is. It would have to be expanded and could potentially span from Sheridan all the way to the blvd. Part of it may even have to go underground. No one has done a true study of what it would take that I know of other than the OU architecture students, and all of their plans were massive and all of them involved Santa Fe NOT Union Station.

Thanks for the clarification BG918. My concern is that some people are over simplifying what it takes to run a rail system. Command and control, marketing, finance, legal, transit police, customer service, route scheduling, employee training, and on and on and on needs to be housed somewhere. The ideal place would be at the downtown transit station and not out on Memorial Road. Then there are connecting systems like commuter rail, lightrail, Amtrak, bus, taxi, electric trolley, walking, and even horse draw coaches that need space. It is going to take a large facility with multiple floors (some of which will need to be underground) to house all of that.

From the JR:

Officials debate cost of losing rail yard versus altering Crosstown plan
by Janice Francis-Smith
The Journal Record September 23, 2008

OKLAHOMA CITY – Everyone asked to speak to state Senate members on Monday had opinions about what the state should do regarding the fate of the rail yard for Oklahoma City’s Union Station. What they didn’t have was an estimated cost to attach to their opinions.

Whatever it costs to alter the alignment of the Crosstown Expressway project will be a savings compared to what will be lost if the Crosstown project ruins Union Station’s yard, said Garl B. Latham, president of Latham Railway Services. Moving the proposed alignment for the new Crosstown just 300 feet would allow the new highway to avoid cutting through Union Station’s rail yard, taking out some of the tracks leading to the station.

Oklahoma Department of Transportation Director Gary Ridley disagreed. Delaying the Crosstown realignment project for the sake of again reworking the alignment is a dangerous proposition, he said, as the existing Crosstown structure should have been replaced years ago.

Latham worked for years for Dallas’ DART passenger rail system. Officials for Amtrak and the city of Dallas greatly underestimated how much room they would need to build a multi-modal transportation hub out of that city’s Union Station. The Dallas facility is close to the Hyatt hotel, which had sought to expand by purchasing more of the station’s property. Now the city would like to expand the train facility, but there is no more room.

“I would encourage anything that could be done,” said Latham. “It would be of no small significance to lose this asset.” A multi-modal hub would not only carry passengers, but would allow goods to be transferred from train to truck and vice versa – a feature impossible to build at Oklahoma City’s far-above-street-level Santa Fe Station. The Santa Fe Station lacks the land, the parking space, and many other amenities already in place at the Union Station.

Latham encouraged lawmakers to consider what future generations will need, as the price of gasoline is making train projects ever more attractive. Times have changed in the last 10 years, said state Rep. Wallace Collins, D-Norman.

“Back when gas was a dollar-something a gallon, well, who cares?” Collins said of the proposal to run the highway through Union Station’s yard. “We had a different outlook then.”

The future might require Oklahoma to build an intrastate passenger rail system; if and when that day comes, it would cost much more to rebuild a facility like Union Station’s than it would cost to preserve the station’s yard.

Marion Hutchison, of a citizens’ group calling itself OnTrac, or Oklahomans for New Transportation Alternatives Coalition, brought excerpts from a letter by former Dallas DART official Marvin Monaghan. In his letter, Monaghan wrote, “it would be unfortunate for them (Oklahoma City) to make the same mistake.”
Hutchison and Latham could not say how much it would cost to alter the alignment of the new Crosstown, or how much it would cost to upgrade existing tracks to make them suitable for passenger rail. Depending on the route chosen, how many miles of track are planned, and the extent of the project, the price could vary widely. But the state could today start with passenger trains that run at between 60 and 70 miles per hour on existing track for little money, Hutchison said.

Ridley said he could not estimate how much it would cost to realign the project at this stage. So far, $315 million has been committed to the project, which is expected to require another $180 million to complete. ODOT officials just spent an unexpected $1.4 million dealing with an unexpected environmental problem – an acid pit left over from a turn-of-the-century factory discovered right where some structural pillar supports must be built.

In 2005, the 4.5-mile Crosstown realignment project was expected to cost $360 million, but the price rises ever higher the longer the project takes.

Former state Sen. Dave Herbert said a proposal to build a brand-new high-speed rail line from Oklahoma City to Tulsa, capable of carrying trains moving at 180 mph, was estimated at $880 million. Oklahoma’s only passenger rail service, the Heartland Flyer, makes one trip to and from Fort Worth each day, and that service is subsidized by Oklahoma and Texas at $2 million each. Herbert pointed out that all public transportation systems are subsidized by the government.

“You could run that for 30 years before coming close to what we provided for an NBA team,” Herbert said.

http://journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=92296

Again this argument barely holds water because it assumes that Union Station will be our Intermodal Hub. They are right that it doesn't work at Santa Fe, but it doesn't work at Union either, because it will be right in the middle of the park. The station will have to be built from scratch somewhere on the N-S line.

It sounds like this Dallas guy is really just talking about land for a future rail yard. Unlike ELMORE, he is not arguing that some invaluable infrastructure exists. It does not. So if this isn't going to be our hub anyway, then it doesn't matter.

There's no infrastructure at OKC Union Station?

An 8-block-long, 200-foot-wide terminal facility grade-separated at arterial streets by beautiful, functional, traffic and pedestrian-friendly underpasses -- yet at-grade to access streets is "not infrastructure?"

I guess the three passenger platforms and their underground access tunnels are "not infrastructure," as well?

...and, by the way -- what color are the "Emperor's new clothes" today?

TOM ELMORE

The platforms are cracked, overgrown, and crumbling. There is only one set of tracks left. And who knows what shape the tunnels are in? What's there is not worth (1) further delaying the new Crosstown, and (2) completely throwing away the C2S plans and our chance at an iconic urban park.

I would encourage anything that could be done,” said Latham. “It would be of no small significance to lose this asset.” A multi-modal hub would not only carry passengers, but would allow goods to be transferred from train to truck and vice versa – a feature impossible to build at Oklahoma City’s far-above-street-level Santa Fe Station. The Santa Fe Station lacks the land, the parking space, and many other amenities already in place at the Union Station.

WTF is this clown talking about. Does he realize we are talking about a passenger rail system and not an intermodal freight facility. What an ass-clown.

P.S. Earth to Ass-clown Latham - this entire operation is going to be in the middle of a city park.

I'm guessing that he recognizes what a self-supporting passenger rail system requires -- Mail and Express Freight handling capability -- and understands why two-thirds of the floor space at the OKC Union Station terminal building is "Mail and Express handling facility..."

...and, by the way, it's not just functional, it's actually "iconic." Like the Biltmore Hotel and the Criterion Theatre -- obvious "icons" that became "targets" of Oklahoma City's "thoughtful leadership."

Things actually have to "be around for a while" to become "icons." Union Station is such a thing -- including its terminal facility, the Robinson and Walker Underpasses, etc.

As I was asking previously -- what color are the "Emperor's new clothes today" -- and how many "clowns" does he employ?

...or hadn't you noticed?

TOM ELMORE

Save it. God forbid we might have a functional railyard right in the heart of what will be Oklahoma City in 50 years. Once it's gone, it's gone for good and I wouldn't count on anyone rebuilding it in the near future.

Move the crosstown a bit. This strikes me as something that would be a ballsy, forward thinking move for the city.

Did I wake up in Bazzaro world? Now the supporters of Union Station are advocating that Union Station return to the days of freight processing in the freaking middle of a city park. There are so many thing wrong with the comments of Tom, the ass-clown from DART, and WSUcougz I don't know where to begin.

First of all, the rail facility at Union Station hasn't existed for 50 years so it is already gone.

Second, the City is not going to support a freight process facility in the MIDDLE OF A CITY PARK!!!!!!! Show me one city America that has even advocated such a thing.

Third, Tom cites the 3 bridges that carry the tracks around Union Station as an asset. Who gives a rats ass, the North/South line at Santa Fe station doesn't have an at-grade crossing for about 2 miles. But that doesn't matter anyhow because the city isn't going to support a freight facility in the heart of downtown.

Fourth, the railroad that owns the property doesn't want a rail facility there. Maybe some of you over looked this little nugget but the railroad is trying to get rid of the land, not build a useless rail yard on it.

In my head right now I am reliving the scene from Christmas Vacation when Clarks snaps after getting his Fruit of the Month Club membership.

I'm guessing that he recognizes what a self-supporting passenger rail system requires -- Mail and Express Freight handling capability -- and understands why two-thirds of the floor space at the OKC Union Station terminal building is "Mail and Express handling facility..."

...and, by the way, it's not just functional, it's actually "iconic." Like the Biltmore Hotel and the Criterion Theatre -- obvious "icons" that became "targets" of Oklahoma City's "thoughtful leadership."

Things actually have to "be around for a while" to become "icons." Union Station is such a thing -- including its terminal facility, the Robinson and Walker Underpasses, etc.

As I was asking previously -- what color are the "Emperor's new clothes today" -- and how many "clowns" does he employ?

...or hadn't you noticed?

TOM ELMORE


Ok Tom, enough with the quotation marks! There I said it! It's been driving me crazy FOREVER!!! You use quotation marks where they aren't needed in in seemingly every sentence you type!!!

I just want a light rail system. If the Union Station thing is such a hassle, I say build I-40 as planned. But if it is possible to build a light rail then let's use Union Station. Maybe they could build above ground tunnels through through the park for the tracks.

Ok Tom, enough with the quotation marks! There I said it! It's been driving me crazy FOREVER!!! You use quotation marks where they aren't needed in in seemingly every sentence you type!!!


"TOM" loves to hear "TOM" talk.

WTF is this clown talking about. Does he realize we are talking about a passenger rail system and not an intermodal freight facility. What an ass-clown.

P.S. Earth to Ass-clown Latham - this entire operation is going to be in the middle of a city park.


They don't care about or want a city park. And, there will be no city park, or at least no usable city park. We'll have another Will Rogers park at best......a lovely park that no one goes to because it's in a location where no one wants to be or live.

Surely there is some compromise to this problem. Like I said earlier, can't we elevate the tracks and put a tunnel around then, decorate it with a mural, and still have the park? Just have underpasses under the track. Or bury the lines and make it a metro?

Surely there is some compromise to this problem. Like I said earlier, can't we elevate the tracks and put a tunnel around then, decorate it with a mural, and still have the park? Just have underpasses under the track. Or bury the lines and make it a metro?

The problem is, it's not just raillines bisecting the park. First there's a multi-lane interstate. It's less of a problem because it was going to be built below grade, and walkers would have the lovely scissortail bridge to cross to get to the south park. But, if you add rail lines, bus lanes, trucking facilities and parking, which would occupy two to three blocks, at least, you've essentially created a tiny northern park, and a southern park that would require crossing several blocks of completely inhospitable infrastructure to reach the southern park. Then, you've essentially ruined the area for family living. Would you want to live by a rail station, a bus station, a trucking station and an interstate highway? And you've cut the CBD off from the river very effectively.

Now, there are raillines south of the river, and I believe a railyard. I don't know why that couldn't be used for commercial and heavy commuter rail. If passengers are going to have to take buses to the CBD anyway, they might as well site it where the structure doesn't blight the whole Core to Shore area. There can't be north-south rail running into Union Station anyway, because the CBD is north of union station and effectively blocks a direct route into the station. So, it's a lousy location for any of us who would want to travel north or south anyway.

Surely there is some compromise to this problem. Like I said earlier, can't we elevate the tracks and put a tunnel around then, decorate it with a mural, and still have the park? Just have underpasses under the track. Or bury the lines and make it a metro?
why go to all that trouble when we can just make a nice new one south of bricktown when they tear those horrid grain bins down.

Did I wake up in Bazzaro world? Now the supporters of Union Station are advocating that Union Station return to the days of freight processing in the freaking middle of a city park. There are so many thing wrong with the comments of Tom, the ass-clown from DART, and WSUcougz I don't know where to begin.

First of all, the rail facility at Union Station hasn't existed for 50 years so it is already gone.



I don't really see freight processing happening. I'm supportive of commuter rail and agree that heavy rail is probably not a great idea for the area unless it can be buried or something.

You say the rail facility hasn't existed for 50 years, which, whether true or not doesn't address the most important thing which is that the right-of-way is there. I can't imagine such a thing being very easy to recreate somewhere else without a ton of cash.

Sorry, but my bs meter goes off when people start talking about destroying a potentially useful asset because it can just somehow be plopped down somewhere else. This is pure fantasyland talk - who's going to write the check in 5 years when the city is running a deficit? Further, this is a fantastic location for commuter rail into and out of OKC. What's bad about being dropped off at a historic, mission style station at a central park equidistant from downtown and the riverfront?

why go to all that trouble when we can just make a nice new one south of bricktown when they tear those horrid grain bins down.

I'm 32 and I'll be dead by the time that happens.

I don't really see freight processing happening. I'm supportive of commuter rail and agree that heavy rail is probably not a great idea for the area unless it can be buried or something.

You say the rail facility hasn't existed for 50 years, which, whether true or not doesn't address the most important thing which is that the right-of-way is there. I can't imagine such a thing being very easy to recreate somewhere else without a ton of cash.

Sorry, but my bs meter goes off when people start talking about destroying a potentially useful asset because it can just somehow be plopped down somewhere else. This is pure fantasyland talk - who's going to write the check in 5 years when the city is running a deficit? Further, this is a fantastic location for commuter rail into and out of OKC. What's bad about being dropped off at a historic, mission style station at a central park equidistant from downtown and the riverfront?

The thing is, we're not talking about light rail at Union Station. It's heavy rail that is there. We've got a better right of way for light rail that's basically free: all the land vacated when the old I-40 is taken down. And again, it might be OK to be dropped off at Union Station if you're traveling east to west, but do we honestly know how many people want to travel east to west? If you're traveling north to south, there's no way to run the line to Union Station. So, you'd have to be dropped off at another station somewhere either east or west of Union Station, and then you'd have to transfer to the east west line to go to Union Station to catch your bus to go somewhere else. So, many of us ask why it wouldn't be logical to put a multimodal station at the intersection of north-south and east-west routes? A station that could be built to precise requirements, that would have the space necessary for buses, parking, etc, and that wouldn't require transferring lines. How many Oklahomans do you know who would be willing to ride a train from Edmond, get off east of Bricktown most likely, transfer to a east-west train, get off the train and wait for a bus to take them where they want to go? How many people will even be going downtown from Edmond, Norman, Yukon or Shawnee? Do we even know what the utililzation might be?

Until a couple of months ago, Atlanta had a nice light rail system that very few people used. They all sat in their cars on I-85 rather than inconvenience themselves to take MARTA. When gas prices went high enough, a few of them got out of their cars. If we start driving hybrids or electric cars, people will use them rather than rail. Count on it. We need a large number of people working, living or recreating downtown to justify a rail system. And you won't have people moving downtown to live near a commercial rail station. Core to Shore will not be a significant residential area if Union Station stays a station, mark my words.

"Then, you've essentially ruined the area for family living. Would you want to live by a rail station, a bus station, a trucking station and an interstate highway? And you've cut the CBD off from the river very effectively."

I'm guessing you've not spent much time in a "big" city. lol

Just wondering if anyone has looked at what it take to make the site ADA accessible(building and property), and to bring the site up to current building standards.

why go to all that trouble when we can just make a nice new one south of bricktown when they tear those horrid grain bins down.

Those "horrid grain bins" are part of a multi-multimillion dollar business that has been in operation there since 1944. Producers Cooperative Oil Mills is one of the biggest in the nation. They are not going anywhere. In fact, Producers Cooperative Oil Mill has storage for 125,000 tons of whole cottonseed; PCOM can now process as much as 1000 tons of whole cotton seed daily. The ability to crush more seed required more cottonseed than was being supplied by Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas members, so in 1999 PCOM purchased Osceola Products Company. Through this purchase, locations in Osceola, Arkansas; and Kennett, Missouri were acquired with storage capacity for about 200,000 tons of whole cottonseed. In the year 2000, PCOM bought land at Covington, Tennessee and has built 60,000 tons of cottonseed storage at that location. The acquisition of these facilities resulted in the formation of Producers Mid-South Company (PMSC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Producers Cooperative Oil Mill. Locations at PMSC are used for cottonseed acquisitions and storage only. Cottonseed from these facilities needed to supplement the crush in Oklahoma City is transported there and additional seed is sold into the whole seed market.

They aren't going anywhere. They will be here when we are all long gone. So get used to those "horrid grain bins".

Glad they have use. Assumed they did.

But that doesn't change the fact they look like crap in their present location.

"Then, you've essentially ruined the area for family living. Would you want to live by a rail station, a bus station, a trucking station and an interstate highway? And you've cut the CBD off from the river very effectively."

I'm guessing you've not spent much time in a "big" city. lol

It doesn't really matter where I've lived. Actually I have lived in "big" cities. What matters is what people who already live in Oklahoma City consider reasonable options for living. As the only person I know who is moving from Nichols Hills to downtown, I can tell you that there aren't a lot of families I know who are even that interested in moving to the Triangle/Deep Deuce area. If you put a "Central Park" downtown, and put residential development near it, people will move downtown. A huge park like that would be a big draw. If you try to put a significant amount of residential living near a interstate highway/train/truck/bus station in Oklahoma City, you will lose your shirt.

"If you try to put a significant amount of residential living near a interstate highway/train/truck/bus station in Oklahoma City, you will lose your shirt."

You should check out Mockingbird Station in Dallas. Just sayin'...

Mockingbird Station has lofts and apartments. It's a lifestyle center. Contrast that with what's available along Central Park. Families live along Central Park. Dallas is just about the only city I've been in that's uglier than Oklahoma City. I love this place, but I don't really know why.

Central Park
Boston Public Garden
Millenium Park, Chicago
No park, Dallas

Which of those four cities doesn't have something that speaks to its' residents and visitors?

Glad they have use. Assumed they did.

But that doesn't change the fact they look like crap in their present location.

Maybe so, but they aren't going anywhere. The cost of relocating that infrastructure would be so enormous that they will be there for many years to come. But hey...they may look like crap to some, but to others, they look like "money". Economic benefit. Tax dollars. etc.

yukong - you need to learn about opportunity costs. Those silos will be gone in 10 years. The land below them will become more valuable than what is being stored on the land. At that point the land will be sold and the industrial use will be transfer to less valuable land.

Opportunity cost - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost)

I think we can all agree that OKC needs both a central park and a reliable transit system. If a large population is going to live downtown they are going to want to be able to hop on a bus, metro, or railcar to get from point A to B. Driving a car 100% of the time is not viable. The Rack Up bicycle program was a good step to encourage alternative transportation.

On the flip side, it's going to be pretty boring if Core to Shore is nothing but buildings. OKC lacks a major park for concert venues, events, and day to day gatherings. All of our parks are spread out over the city, which is great but it's time for us to have another gem to the city. Think of what Centennial Park is to Atlanta.

So my point is we need both. If Union Station is going to demoralize a nice, urban park then the park should win out. If it at all possible find an alternative to accommodate both. I'm with those too who think it would be nice to see Union Station return to a functional use.

To be honest with you, although I was a big proponent of light rail, I've completely flipflopped on the issue. My daughters moved to Chicago, and this is what I hear from them and have noticed when I visit. The bus system is far more flexible and useable than the El. The El is great is you live with in six blocks of it and don't mind the walk. The bus gets you where you want to go as fast and with less changes, if you factor in the fact that you have to walk farther to find an El stop. Bus routes can be changed very quickly to reflect changes in usage. Buses can be added or subtracted based on need. Trollies are equally flexible. A good bus system has to run frequently and reliably and cover a lot of routes. But if it does so, it's great transportation. I'm pretty sure buses can run on natural gas.

I think we're glorifying an old set of tracks and a building that can be used for a lot of different things in our community, and not thinking clearly about convenience. Convenience, besides cost, probably, is the most important factor in coming up with a transit system people will actually use. Especially people who are used to getting in their cars and driving directly to where they want to go.

We're not thinking enough about aesthetics, which has been a big problem in Oklahoma City. I've said it before, but perhaps it bears repeating. When I moved here from Denver (having also lived in Chicago and my husband growing up outside of and spending a lot of time in NYC), our very first thought was "Where are the big community park/s?" Where do people gather on a Sunday afternoon when the weather is good? People here gather at the mall. That needs to be changed. Go to Millennium Park on a weekend and it is thronged with people. Go to a concert there or stop by one of the museums on the periphery. It's a place the community goes to spend leisure time, and we need one of those. Badly.

Where do people gather on a Sunday afternoon when the weather is good? People here gather at the mall. That needs to be changed. Go to Millennium Park on a weekend and it is thronged with people. Go to a concert there or stop by one of the museums on the periphery. It's a place the community goes to spend leisure time, and we need one of those. Badly.

A "living room" for the city.

betts, another thing to consider is WHY people throng to these parks in massive cities like NYC or Chicago (to escape the concrete village for a few hours). Most people in OKC have their own "park" if you will and have a front AND back yard. Very few people have a yard period in Chicago or NYC. The park is their escape from their 1000 sq. ft apartment and they don't have their own green space. Don't get me wrong, I'm ALL FOR OUR CENTRAL PARK (and have been behind the scenes working on it with various committees, etc.) but we have to figure in behavioral patterns as well. Just something to think about. FYI....the Mayor and others have always been touting a BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) system more than any other form of transit (i.e. light rail). I wouldn't be surprised if that's what we get and it runs on CNG. In fact, the new Downtown Boulevard was designed with BRT in mind.

Betts - buses are great to serve already developed areas but buses do zero to help develop areas like Core to Shore. One of the primary advantages with a fixed guide way system is it ensure transit options will be available in the future. This is why cities see tons of transit oriented development around train stations but zero around bus stops.

ssandedoc - In a future Core to Shore world there will be a stop at Union Station on a rail system of some type. Whether it will be on a heavy commuter rail line to the airport (probably not), a lightrail stop (maybe), or an electric trolley that connects downton to the river (most likely) remains to be seen. What Union Station will not be is a hub that connects high speed rail to Tulsa, Amtrak, buses, electric trollies, the airport, taxis, rental cars, and commuter rail. There simply is not enough room at Union Station, freeway or no freeway.

Just look at Dallas that Tom Elmore and others keep promoting. They used their "old" station for the "future" and now they are out of room and might need to build a new station somewhere else. They wasted $500 million on old station that is now too small.

There have already been discussions between the city and the cottonseed oil mill involving the future of that location. The ultimate goal is for that business to move somewhere else. However, there isn't currently any demand for that area. We just don't have anything to put there right now. So both sides are in a bit of a waiting game.

Union Station is a beautiful building, but its just in the wrong spot to be really useful. I lived in Washington DC for several years. People there use mass transit because driving takes forever. Here, I can drive from one side of the city to the other in 15 or 20 minutes, unless there is a traffic jam. In DC, there's a traffic jam virtually all the time. There's heavier traffic at 3 in the morning than there is at noon in OKC. If you want people to use mass transit here, you need to make it so incredibly convenient that people just can't pass it up. Union Station is not, and will not be, convenient.

SAVE THE RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE
Published by League of Women Voters of Norman, September 10, 2008

While other metropolitan areas in the west and southwest are reaping the economic and social benefits of multi-modal transportation systems in various stages of development, central Oklahoma is tying it's future to asphalt, concrete and the automobile.

The LWV of Norman has a strong position on the need for improved public transportation in the Norman area, as well as for a system that would efficiently connect Norman with other communities in Oklahoma. Public transportation is essential to a healthy economic future and a vibrant modern metropolitan community that provides for the well-being and quality of life of its citizens. A multimodal approach--utilizing commuter rail, light rail, circulator buses and/or trolleys--must be centered on rail transit to achieve fuel-efficient, modern public transportation.

Essential to a modern transit system is the preservation of existing rail infrastructure and the development of a rail hub that provides connections for rail routes (both conventional and light rail), as well as rail to bus and trolley routes. For central Oklahoma this means preserving the OKC Union Station and its multiple-track rail yard. Preserving existing rail lines leading out of Oklahoma City in all directions is vitally important to communities throughout the state.

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) plans to destroy all except one rail line through the Union Station terminal facility. If this plan goes forward, surrounding communities will no longer be connected to a nationwide rail system at Union Station. Leaving only one track would forever eliminate the functionality of Union Station and preclude the development of a modern public transit system.

Cities that have revitalized their core areas by providing modern public transportation through capitalizing on their Union Stations and/or existing rail infrastructures include Denver, Salt Lake City, Albuquerque and Dallas. These cities have also greatly expanded their economic opportunities and the quality of life of their citizens. Oklahoma City's Union Station is ideally situated to complement the on going Core-To-Shore development project in Oklahoma City and to enhance access to modern public transportation in the surrounding communities, as well as in Oklahoma City.

The Governor of Oklahoma should declare a moratorium on any further work on relocation of the Crosstown Expressway through the Union Station rail yard and its associated rail lines. The Governor should also appoint a Special Commission of citizens, public officials, and transportation experts to consider alternative routing for the Crosstown Expressway that preserves the functionality of the Union Station rail yard and its associated rail lines. The commission should report its findings forthwith to the Governor and to the public.

For more information on this issue visit OnTrac (http://www.OnTracOK.org), Oklahomans for New Transportation Alternatives Coalition, an Oklahoma-based non-profit public interest organization whose mission is to ensure the future of multimodal and intermodal transportation opportunities for the citizens of Oklahoma.

I would love to see Union Station used again for historical reasons and additions could be made to bring the facility into the 21st century. But, If they are truly going to do this then some major bust ass needs to happen.

Those "horrid grain bins" are part of a multi-multimillion dollar business that has been in operation there since 1944. how long is this guy gonna go on about these facking ugly @ss cotton bins.... They are not going anywhere. In fact, Producers Cooperative Oil Mill has storage for 125,000 tons of whole cottonseed; PCOM can now process as much as 1000 tons of whole cotton seed daily. more boring bullsh*t, blah, blah, blah... locations in Osceola, Arkansas; and Kennett, Missouri were acquired with storage capacity for about 200,000 tons of whole cottonseed. wow, this guy is all about some cotton manufacturing and what not, is he ever gonna shut up??? In the year 2000, PCOM bought land at Covington, Tennessee and has built 60,000 tons of cottonseed storage at blah blah blah

They aren't going anywhere. They will be here when we are all long gone. So get used to those "horrid grain bins".

thank you, farmboy, for the exciting and very stimulating lecture about those horrid grain bins.... they're still uber ugly. anyways, on okmet, we were under the impression that they were gonna be torn down as part of C2S. sorry to get your panties all in a wad.

In the Core 2 Shore planning documents that facility does not exist anymore. Once again I refer you to Opportunity Costs. At some point the land will be worth more with housing/retail/public use on it then it is as a cottonseed processing facility. At that point the use will switch. This is why people don't graze cattle on central business district lots.

Goodness...I'm not the one with my panties in a wad. Just pointing out that these were more than just old grain bins. And Kerry I do understand the principles of opportunity costs. But this is a bigger operation than just some cattle grazing on an empty lot. It's more than the cost of what is being stored. There are a few buildings there, and machinery and whatnot. I mean,come on...have you really looked at how huge is that operation? It is going to cost someone considerably more to move that operation than one might think. Just because some core to shore documents show it gone doesn't mean much. And this is not an operation than can be plucked up and plopped down anywhere. It is crucial to this operation to have major rail access. Now...how many of those places exist at this point? Not many. And a place with the space large enough to replicate this infrastructure will most likely not have the proper rail access. That too will then have to be built...thus increasing greatly the cost. So just saying this land is worth more as residential, retail...etc assumes the cost feasibility of replicating the infrastructure at todays construction costs with the addition of rail access. That would seem to make the opportunity cost gap all the more great and lean in favor of it staying where it is currently located. Especially considering there are other, yet utilized options currently available. Not to mention the fact of how attractive is that area going to be right there close to the junction of the yet finished I-40 relocation.

I don't question that at some point that right price point may occur....I just don't see it happening for many years.
A lot of more cost feasible property will have to be used up before that opportunity cost point is met.

"If you try to put a significant amount of residential living near a interstate highway/train/truck/bus station in Oklahoma City, you will lose your shirt."

You should check out Mockingbird Station in Dallas. Just sayin'...

Mockingbird Station is LIGHT RAIL, not HEAVY/FREIGHT RAIL that "Elmore" advocates.

Ask yourself this: Would you rather live across the street from Central Park, or NYC's Port Authority Terminal? Which land is more valuable?

http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/Central_Park_aerial_v-1297.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1124/758479523_bd62c9872c.jpg

THIS is a multi-modal station, and there is a reason it's not across the street from Central Park.
http://www.nypress.com/images/350px-Port-authority-terminal.jpg
http://www.kachwaha.com/archives/images/IMG_2975_1015.jpg

You mean that last photo could be our new park. I love it! (sarcasm inserted)

I heart concrete barriers and endless pavement!:rolleyes:

THIS is a multi-modal station, and there is a reason it's not across the street from Central Park.
http://www.nypress.com/images/350px-Port-authority-terminal.jpg
http://www.kachwaha.com/archives/images/IMG_2975_1015.jpg

Or right in the middle of it.... Imgaine a pedestrian on a stroll in the park trying to traverse that, rail lines, bus lanes, parking for trucks AND I-40 to try and get to the south part of the park. Wouldn't happen. Save taxpayer money. There's no reason to spend it on a park if we end up with Union Station as a multimodal one.

Amen

Well...

After reading the nearly 400 comments this thread has generated so far, I'm not quite sure where (or how) to begin a proper response!

Perhaps a good way to start would be to consider a few of the issues Kerry raised in post #363:


I. "...the supporters of Union Station are advocating that Union Station return to the days of freight processing..."

That's true only if one is to consider U.S. Mail, express shipments and the like to be "freight." Certainly, there is ample precedent for such activity at major downtown railroad passenger terminals - business which can help pay the bills and make the depots even more useful. Historically, intercity operations have thrived upon such traffic.


II. "...in the freaking middle of a city park."

I have to admit: I'm at a loss to understand the problem! First of all, technically, even though Union Station lies roughly within the middle of the Core to Shore development area, the central park itself begins at the Station and continues north from that point. So, instead of commanding a centre position, the structure actually sits along the park's southernmost edge.

Secondly, we're not discussing a multi-track freight yard. Rather, everything which has been mentioned to date revolves around conventional North American _passenger_ operating practices and equipment.

Finally, since, by definition, a multiple lane controlled access freeway is to be constructed in the same general location, completely bisecting the C2S district, I can't see how a _train_ station - of ANY size - could POSSIBLY make things worse!


III. "...the rail facility at Union Station hasn't existed for 50 years so it is already gone."

Actually, it's been more like 40 years; but, that's not the point. It's the LAND, the extant concourse tunnels and the various interconnections with Oklahoma City's railroad lines which help make the facility invaluable. Due to various A.D.A. requirements and F.R.A. regulations, the platforms would need to be rebuilt anyway - and, in an instance like this, the station's track infrastructure itself is one of the least of our worries!


IV. "...the City is not going to support a freight process facility in the MIDDLE OF A CITY PARK!!!!!!!"

See above.


V. "Show me one city America that has even advocated such a thing."

I wish I could show you just one city, or state, or federal agency, which truly understands what an expanded and revitalised intercity passenger train system would mean for the citizens of these United States! When we find one of those, we'll surely find an example of a location able to comprehend why true intermodalism includes ALL aspects of proven railway technology.

Might Oklahoma City be found standing at the forefront?!


VI. "...3 bridges...carry the tracks around Union Station...[whereas] the North/South line at Santa Fe station doesn't have an at-grade crossing for about 2 miles."

Understood; however, the entire railroad is elevated along the Santa Fe line. Union Station's platforms, et al, are all at grade level. That makes a tremendous difference when planning for intermodal activity.


VII. "...the railroad that owns the property doesn't want a rail facility there."

Perhaps that's because the railroads who own the property aren't in the passenger business anymore and can see a quick buck (or two) to be made from the land sale. I feel certain that if a prospective buyer wanted to construct a rail facility instead of a highway, the companies would still be interested in selling!


VIII. "...the railroad is trying to get rid of the land, not build a useless rail yard on it."

But, a passenger railroad facility would in no way be "useless" - at least not to all those it would serve!

I'm afraid many people seem to be unclear as to the precise function of a modern intermodal terminal. Basically, it's a singular location where interconnections can easily be made between various services. Union Station wouldn't be a destination, per se (although its presence would make the C2S district MORE valuable, not less). Instead, it would be a logical place for a passenger to (for example) arrive from Edmond and change for the next train to Will Rogers, or to come in from Norman then catch a streetcar for the Capitol building.

Since connections play such an important role in the proper functioning of a railroad/intermodal passenger terminal, its physical location in regard to existing railroad lines becomes even more important.


I can't honestly say I appreciate being called an "ass-clown"! Nonetheless, I CAN appreciate the emotions generated by a vital civic matter such as this. I've been concerned from the outset that many folks in Oklahoma might not appreciate someone from Texas sticking his nose into their business! Yet, I promise my desire to assist with these issues is sincere, my opinions are based upon years of study and practical experience, and my hope for your future is heartfelt.

You know, no matter how it may seem at times, the debate concerning Oklahoma City Union Station is NOT simply of local importance. What happens to your railroads and their support facilities is of legitimate concern to outlying areas within the metropolitan region, as well as the entire state. In fact, considering how vital Oklahoma is to the nation, I believe the final decisions regarding Union Station will eventually cause waves - be they positive or negative - throughout the entire continent.

My fondest regards to you all.

Garl B. Latham
Dallas, Texas

II. "...in the freaking middle of a city park."

I have to admit: I'm at a loss to understand the problem! First of all, technically, even though Union Station lies roughly within the middle of the Core to Shore development area, the central park itself begins at the Station and continues north from that point. So, instead of commanding a centre position, the structure actually sits along the park's southernmost edge.


The park does not end at Union Station. It continues all the way to the river, with an iconic pedestrian bridge connecting the two sections over the depressed interstate. Your version of Union Station would NOT be depressed, and it would add 300 feet of ugly infrastructure that would bisect the park.

In order to have the mail processing facilities, and to have streetcars and buses and parking for the intermodal facility you describe, it would ruin this park, even if it were just on the border, which it is not.

You say yourself that the rails and the platforms would all need to be rebuilt.

Answer me this: if it's really just about R.O.W. (which is not going away), why can't our intermodal hub be built elsewhere, in a location closer to the CBD and Bricktown that does not border or bisect a park?