The thing that cracks me up about all of this push for mass transit is that more than anything else, mass transit is a pain. If you have small children (strollers) or have to transport any kind of grocery, bulky purchase, etc. it's next to impossible to do so on any mass transit vehicle.

Seriously, who is going to use this? You might get people to travel around on the weekends but where are they going to go once they reach their destination? Norman to Bricktown is fun and all but after a couple of weekends the novelty wears off.

I was talking with a guy who lived in Europe for a couple of decades and took mass transit everywhere he went. He was laughing at the idea of mass transit working in OKC. He pointed out (rightly so) that the cost to travel a couple of miles in Stuttgart Germany where he lived was about $4.00 one way. The cost to keep it up and running was immense and was only feasible in compact cities planned around things to do with in walking distance.

American cities have been designed around the car. Why not push for greater fuel efficiency in cars if the environment really matters? Mass transit is an EXTREMELY costly solution to what will likely be, at best, a convenient novelty.

What I have always found is that the people that love mass transit are the people who ride it casually they are never people who depend on it a soul source of transportation.

I have to depend on it back in the 90's in my military days. It sucked.

You enjoy a lovely ride with the all the low lifes of society that hate thier life or want to tell you their sob story in hopes you will lend them a few bucks. Then you have the parents who let their kids turn the train car/bus into a playground. You cannot forget that one person that wants to hold the bus up 20 minutes while they make a descision. Lastly and my personal favorite are the incompent staff mass transit employees.

I would pay $20 a gallon for gas before I would even think of riding a bus.

The only cities that have good mass transit are cities like NYC where the grocery store, restaurant, movie theater etc. a short walking distance from home.

If your a single guy like most are in OKC, you can forget about getting a date when your transportation is mass transit. Even the tree hugger chicks want a guy with car.

No one is forcing anyone to use mass transit.

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.

Thank you for your response, but I would invite you to re-peruse the Core to Shore plans. The park as planned would stretch from a block south of Reno all the way to the River, which is at about SW 15th street. Union Station is at SW 5th street, so there are four blocks north of Union Station which were to be designated park, and ten blocks south of it. So, no, the structure would very neatly bisect the park.


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!

I believe you misunderstand our problems with this plan. No one wants Union Station to go away. In an ideal world, there wouldn't be a six lane freeway bisecting the park. I would prefer that it be south of the river, but can accept it as planned. As planned, the highway would be six feet below grade, as would one rail line. There is a beautiful pedestrian bridge already designed to allow traffic to cross said highway. It's the combination of a station being used for commercial freight, multiple lanes of track AND a six lane highway that would destroy the park for pedestrian use.....a highway is bad enough, but combining it with a commercial rail station and lines would be a aesthetic disaster.

Today I drove down I-35 to Norman. What I saw south of the river were multiple rail lines running east and west. There are plenty of lines there to accomodate freight. There are probably lines there that could accomodate passenger rail, should we ever get to the point that they are used. I haven't heard talk of running passenger rail to Denver or Little Rock. Are we going to sit on lines for 20 years, ruining our potential for improving our city, because some day someone might want to take a train to Denver and they HAVE to be able to leave from Union Station? They can't pick that train up somwhere else? The BNSF doesn't even want the line south of Union Station. So, we're going to sit on it in case some rail line does want it? To me, this is valuing rail for rail's sake, not for what it can do for us and how it can be used. I am firmly in favor of remaking our city to become a place I'm proud of, a place I want to live and show off to visitors. You live in Dallas. Dallas needs to look at Chicago, New York and Boston,cities that value their public spaces, and learn something.

jbrown84:

True...in most of the developer renderings, a swath of open land extends south of the freeway to the river; however, the central park itself most certainly lies north of Interstate 40, covering an 8 city block area beginning right across the street from Union Station.

The central park land being purchased in advance by the city (in order to protect it from inappropriate development) falls entirely within this location. That space, along with two additional tracts immediately adjacent to either side of the depot building, are the only parcels your city wishes to acquire - at least according to official maps displayed during the Oklahoma City city council meeting this past Tuesday morning.

Before taking artist's conceptions to heart, I'd ask my elected officials if there is anything being done to legally restrain construction along tracts south of the freeway!

You insist that passenger railway infrastructure is "ugly" and that its very presence would "ruin" any park-like setting. I vehemently disagree - and challenge you to visit Dallas' Union Terminal, or any other modern facility of your choice, then report back to the forum.

If the Oklahoma Department of Transportation is successful in carrying out its plan, the Union Station right-of-way IS "going away" - at least insofar as railroad applications are concerned. Let's not fool ourselves!

A comparably-sized footprint in some other location wouldn't come with the same access to existing railroad lines.


veritas:

To you, mass transit is a pain. To me, living in an auto-centric society is a pain. Still, I've never asked anyone to give up his precious automobile! All I'm asking for are a few viable alternatives - the very things we used to have!

I'll challenge you, too: come to Big D and see all the mothers and children - with strollers, yet - using the [gasp, shock] TRAIN to travel from their suburban homes to the zoo, or to the mall, or to the museums downtown. DART's Red Line, southbound from Plano and Richardson, any fair-weather weekday, mid-morning. Be there or be square! <grin>

The ability to successfully reach one's final destination through the use of mass transit is precisely where the importance of a comprehensive system with convenient connections comes in.

The creation of compact cityscapes blessed with pedestrian-friendly layouts is one of the primary goals behind the Transit Oriented Development movement.

Yes, most southern and western U.S. cities "have been designed around the car" - since World War II. It wasn't the case before...and shouldn't be the case in the future! Why stubbornly continue down the same path?! Sure, more fuel-efficient vehicles would be a good thing, since the environment really DOES matter (is there some question in your mind?); but, we can't stop there. Even if cars were designed to use non-potable water as fuel and emit nothing but pure oxygen, we'd STILL be stuck with the myriad congestion, land use, safety and quality of life issues inherent in our blind over-dependence upon motor vehicles for passenger transport.

You believe mass transit is "EXTREMELY costly"; but, what is the ultimate cost of our feeble attempts to maintain status quo?!

Preparing for tomorrow is the main goal behind the preservation of Union Station.


Garl B. Latham
Dallas, Texas

What I have always found is that the people that love mass transit are the people who ride it casually they are never people who depend on it a soul source of transportation.

I have to depend on it back in the 90's in my military days. It sucked.

You enjoy a lovely ride with the all the low lifes of society that hate thier life or want to tell you their sob story in hopes you will lend them a few bucks. Then you have the parents who let their kids turn the train car/bus into a playground. You cannot forget that one person that wants to hold the bus up 20 minutes while they make a descision. Lastly and my personal favorite are the incompent staff mass transit employees.

I would pay $20 a gallon for gas before I would even think of riding a bus.

The only cities that have good mass transit are cities like NYC where the grocery store, restaurant, movie theater etc. a short walking distance from home.

If your a single guy like most are in OKC, you can forget about getting a date when your transportation is mass transit. Even the tree hugger chicks want a guy with car.

Holy crap, throw a few more stereotypes in there. Don't ride it then. I think the point whole point of planning mass transit NOW is to be ahead of the curve. Then in 10 years when the OKC freeways are parking lots we'll already have an alternative. I've used many different mass transit systems. I love them compared to driving around those huge cities.

If it's done right it will be great. If it's done half-assed it will be setup for failure.

I'm usually content to just lurk, but this is just getting silly.

Mass transit is as good or as bad as it's implementation, like any other big project. Are there ugly, under used, poorly designed wastes of money? Anyone who has seen the People Mover in Detroit or the LA subway knows that there are. Are there efficient, pleasant, and well designed systems? Absolutely, and many are in cities not much bigger than OKC.

The real question is: What do we want OKC to look like in 15 years?

Do we want more people living and working downtown and in the surrounding areas?
Do we want to make the city center more accessible from all points in the city?
Do we want to spur development in parts of the city that are near the core, but not within walking distance?
Do we want visitors to see all of our city, or just the area around their hotel?

I believe that these are all worthwhile goals and that a well designed mass transit initiative can accomplish this. The great insight of MAPS was that without a healthy core, the whole city suffers. I feel that an important part of keeping that core healthy and continuing the progress we've made is to give visitors and commuters the choice to leave their cars at home when they go downtown, to give business owners the choice to build up instead of out, and to give residents the choice to not drive at all if they don't want to or can't afford to.

Some people are just nuts for trains, and that's fine. I think the union station rail yard could and probably will go to the great depot in the sky without forever dooming all hope of real mass transit. I also believe that I 40 needs to get built and it needs to get built sooner rather than later, seeing as how chunks of it keep falling off.

That said, we will have mass transit in this city, probably in the next 16 years and probably at great public cost. It could be rail, it could be bus lanes, it could be something we haven't even thought of yet. There is simply no avoiding it. The way cities were built in the 1970s and 1980s doesn't work. We know that from experience and observation, and we had the wisdom to start building one of the first truly 21st century cities almost 20 years ago.

We can't afford to stop now.

jbrown84:

True...in most of the developer renderings, a swath of open land extends south of the freeway to the river; however, the central park itself most certainly lies north of Interstate 40, covering an 8 city block area beginning right across the street from Union Station.

Here is where you give yourself away. What is a "swath of land" but a park? It is a swath of green space, a place where people recreate. Does every square inch of park have to have a pavilion or created feature on it to be a park? I give you Central Park in NYC, which is mostly open land. What you also fail to realize is that it is the entire swath of green that connects the CBD to the river. The river is a great addition to our city. By connecting the CBD to the river, we say that our downtown is a place where people live, work and play. Dallas is an example of a city that does not invite people to relax and recreate downtown, unless it means going to a restaurant or club. There's where Dallas has made its' great mistake. It's ugly, and it's only notable feature is its' buildings. When people say "Dallas is a big Oklahoma City, it's not a complement to either." I would never want to live in Dallas if I could live in places with great parks like Chicago, New York or Boston.

Tell me how many people find Dallas a walkable city? Isn't walking as important, if not more important, than mass transit? I would say so. Mass transit keeps people inactive. It may save energy, but in the long run, it's no better for the downtown as a living, breathing entity. What's great about the great cities is that they have places in which it is not only easy to walk, but also places where it's enjoyable to walk.


You insist that passenger railway infrastructure is "ugly" and that its very presence would "ruin" any park-like setting. I vehemently disagree - and challenge you to visit Dallas' Union Terminal, or any other modern facility of your choice, then report back to the forum.

If the Oklahoma Department of Transportation is successful in carrying out its plan, the Union Station right-of-way IS "going away" - at least insofar as railroad applications are concerned. Let's not fool ourselves!

And why is it so important that Union Station be a train station? Bricktown is full of buildings that used to be warehouses. The Montgtomery, a great apartment building, used to be a department store. Our old public library is going to be condos. I haven't seen anyone screaming that they be used for what they were intended. Some of the most charming cities use all kinds of buildings for things other than they were intended. I don't understand this feeling that using Union Station for something other than a station would "destroy" it. Bricktown doesn't look destroyed, nor does the Montgomery.

Union Station is in a terrible location for a mutimodal station. It's located away from our CBD and Bricktown, the two hearts of our downtown. The people who oppose using Union Station as a multimodal station aren't necessarily anti-mass transit at all. In fact, if you'd really bothered to read all of our posts, you'd find that most of us want a multi-modal station where we have the best chance of people using it. Convenience is one of the best ways of getting people to use public transit. Union Station is not convenient to our hotels, our restaurants or our businesses.




You believe mass transit is "EXTREMELY costly"; but, what is the ultimate cost of our feeble attempts to maintain status quo?!

Preparing for tomorrow is the main goal behind the preservation of Union Station.


Garl B. Latham
Dallas, Texas

And, thank you for talking down to us and showing us that you are more closely aligned with Tom Elmore than a dispassionate bystander who only wants what is best for Oklahoma City. You have failed to realize that most of us aren't "feebly" trying to maintain the status quo. Our vision for Oklahoma City is different from yours, but it doesn't mean we don't have a vision. It doesn't mean that vision doesn't include mass transit. In fact, since we actually DO live in Oklahoma City, perhaps our vision is one that has better chance of success.....to be something that is used, rather than using taxpayer money and running half-empty. Rail is not noble in and of itself. It has to contain people, or it becomes a joke. Ask anyone in Atlanta what MARTA stands for. And then ask them if they ever ride it.

Excellent words, betts!

Union Station is in a terrible location for a mutimodal station. It's located away from our CBD and Bricktown, the two hearts of our downtown.

If you look at other major cities, their main train stations are generally further from the middle of their CBD's than Union Station, which is about .6 miles south of the core of downtown.

Denver, Seattle, Kansas City, even Chicago and Milwaukee (in addition to the previously mentioned cities in California)... All their Amtrak / commuter rail stations are further from the middle of their CBD's. They merely link them with buses or light rail.

Development tends to spread from the CBD's towards the stations and that's exactly what we're hoping to happen with Core to Shore.

I went by the station as well, its a beautiful building.
I'm not sure if we can save the land area but we must find a way to keep it.

The building is not in jeopardy.

Holy crap, throw a few more stereotypes in there. Don't ride it then. I think the point whole point of planning mass transit NOW is to be ahead of the curve. Then in 10 years when the OKC freeways are parking lots we'll already have an alternative. I've used many different mass transit systems. I love them compared to driving around those huge cities.

If it's done right it will be great. If it's done half-assed it will be setup for failure.

It's not only a matter of not riding it. It's also a matter of paying for it. Take the time, effort, and resources that would be spent subsidizing mass transit and plow that back in to your highway system.

There's a reason that malls aren't being built in the United States anymore. Like it or not, the big box store is here to stay and it's all because of one reason; easy access. Americans love to pull up, load up, and get on down the road. You're kidding yourself if you think this is going to change in the next 50 years.

Rather than spend money towards expensive non-solutions, I say invest in highway infrastructure. It's not a popular thing but popularity and reality don't always mix.

veritas, to be fair, we're discussing having the OPTION of adding rail service back to this location rather than destroying that forever.

And the whole point is that it would be way more cost effective to use the existing infrastructure than to have to try and recreate it later.

I agree with many of your points about the reality of rail service in OKC in the near term, but things have a way of changing and the best you can do is leave all your options open.

veritas said: "Rather than spend money towards expensive non-solutions, I say invest in highway infrastructure."


Well, I have to admit - it's nice to know precisely where people stand on the issues!

If only betts would be as candid!


GBL

betts,

Your post may be filled with "excellent words"; but, you gave yourself away (as it were) with your comment about the meaning of MARTA.

Dallas is closer to Oklahma City than Atlanta, Georgia. Just come on down here and ask a few of the frightened ones what the acronymn DART really means!

Look, y'all don't really want to discuss transportation logic - and that's okay. Life's too short to force the issue.

I'll leave you with one bit of sound advice, however: be careful when you place your trust in the artist renderings of developers. Be _especially_ leery when those plans aren't supported by ordinance or legislation. Today's undeveloped "park" land has an interesting way of becoming tomorrow's building site!


Garl


P.S. You may also be interested in Dallas' Trinity River Parkway proposal: a central park, downtown...with a controlled-access roadway running right through the middle of it.

GBL

I thought we were discussing transportation logic. If you consider logic agreement with your point of view only, then so be it.

I'm all about logical plans for transportation, and the use of Union Station is illogical to me. If you've got use studies for Oklahoma City that support your proposal, then I'd love to see them.

Oklahoma City is NOT Dallas, and I don't want it to become Dallas, one of my least admired cities in the US.

It was my understanding that the city council was going to zone land to support the Core to Shore plans. Were it to be zoned otherwise, I would oppose it as vehemently as I oppose illogical mass transit plans.

If Dallas finally has plans for a Central Park, hurrah. I'm in favor of parks. I'm not in favor of proposals that are attempting to jettison plans for open green space in our downtown.

veritas, to be fair, we're discussing having the OPTION of adding rail service back to this location rather than destroying that forever.

And the whole point is that it would be way more cost effective to use the existing infrastructure than to have to try and recreate it later.

I agree with many of your points about the reality of rail service in OKC in the near term, but things have a way of changing and the best you can do is leave all your options open.

Come on Pete - destroyed forever? Two lines will still serve the station. Here is the thing though. The pro-Union Station crowd are try to force a 21st century rail systems into exsting infrastructure that was put in place 70 years ago. Myself and many others on here would prefer to build a 21st century rail system based on the needs of the 21st century.

Quality transit in the 21st Century requires precisely what was required in the 20th Century. Any design for an optimum multimodal center would look a lot like OKC Union Station. Union Station, however, is available without "taking property."

Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake and other leaders and transit officials have all spoken quite clearly about the value of OKC Union Station. They know what they're talking about.

TOM ELMORE

I'm usually content to just lurk, but this is just getting silly.

Mass transit is as good or as bad as it's implementation, like any other big project. Are there ugly, under used, poorly designed wastes of money? Anyone who has seen the People Mover in Detroit or the LA subway knows that there are. Are there efficient, pleasant, and well designed systems? Absolutely, and many are in cities not much bigger than OKC.

The real question is: What do we want OKC to look like in 15 years?

Do we want more people living and working downtown and in the surrounding areas?
Do we want to make the city center more accessible from all points in the city?
Do we want to spur development in parts of the city that are near the core, but not within walking distance?
Do we want visitors to see all of our city, or just the area around their hotel?

I believe that these are all worthwhile goals and that a well designed mass transit initiative can accomplish this. The great insight of MAPS was that without a healthy core, the whole city suffers. I feel that an important part of keeping that core healthy and continuing the progress we've made is to give visitors and commuters the choice to leave their cars at home when they go downtown, to give business owners the choice to build up instead of out, and to give residents the choice to not drive at all if they don't want to or can't afford to.

Some people are just nuts for trains, and that's fine. I think the union station rail yard could and probably will go to the great depot in the sky without forever dooming all hope of real mass transit. I also believe that I 40 needs to get built and it needs to get built sooner rather than later, seeing as how chunks of it keep falling off.

That said, we will have mass transit in this city, probably in the next 16 years and probably at great public cost. It could be rail, it could be bus lanes, it could be something we haven't even thought of yet. There is simply no avoiding it. The way cities were built in the 1970s and 1980s doesn't work. We know that from experience and observation, and we had the wisdom to start building one of the first truly 21st century cities almost 20 years ago.

We can't afford to stop now.

Great post. Mass transit is coming, whether those that don't agree with it like it or not. It will be a good alternative to what we have now, both trains and buses. Not everyone will use it, but lots of people will IF we plan it right. That is why it is so important to start planning for it NOW.

Quality transit in the 21st Century requires precisely what was required in the 20th Century. Any design for an optimum multimodal center would look a lot like OKC Union Station. Union Station, however, is available without "taking property."

Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake and other leaders and transit officials have all spoken quite clearly about the value of OKC Union Station. They know what they're talking about.

TOM ELMORE

Every city is different. They're saying what you want to hear, so you assume they know what they're talking about. Ever heard "location, location, location"? Union Station = lousy location, especially for commercial freight, which we know you want there. It will ruin our Core to Shore, which, in the rebirth of Oklahoma City, is far more important than one poorly located, old train station. There is plenty of track for commercial traffic south of the Oklahoma River, and Oklahoma City will never be a hub for east-west interstate passenger train travel. We're not in the right location, so it's a waste of time to consider. And trust me, if we become some massive hub for east-west train travel in 20 years, Union Station will be woefully inadequate for what we would need. I've lived here over 20 years, and we've been talking about starting up train travel to Kansas City the entire time. It still hasn't happened. The Sante Fe Station is fine for north-south travel, which is all that we need at this point in time.

Is this about the station or the tracks, anyway? The station isn't going anywhere, regardless of what we do. Let's leave Union Station out of the conversation, because all we're talking about removing is the tracks.

Union Station is actually in a perfect location for commuter rail transit, betts. Have you even looked at commuter rail systems in other cities? The Union Station railyard is closer to the CBD in OKC than is so with systems in other cities....Denver, for example. Every commuter rail system I can think of has their multi-modal rail yard located outside of the CBD. That's just something that takes up a lot of space, and you don't really want located right in the heart of a CBD. What you do, is connect the rail yard to the CBD with a light rail feeder line. That's how almost every other city that has a decent commuter rail service does it. The positives about the Union Station railyard is that the infrastructure is already there, and it's already tied in with existing rail lines. Laying down new rail line is expensive. Building new infrastructure for a rail yard would be expensive. All of that's already there at Union Station. All we'd have to do is lay down a few tracks to redevelop the rail yard. The tunnels are already dug and the right of way is there, and the connections are there with an east to west route on site (Shawnee to El Reno), and it connects in with the BNSF north south line.

Union Station is actually in a perfect location for commuter rail transit, betts. Have you even looked at commuter rail systems in other cities? The Union Station railyard is closer to the CBD in OKC than is so with systems in other cities....Denver, for example. Every commuter rail system I can think of has their multi-modal rail yard located outside of the CBD. That's just something that takes up a lot of space, and you don't really want located right in the heart of a CBD. What you do, is connect the rail yard to the CBD with a light rail feeder line. That's how almost every other city that has a decent commuter rail service does it. The positives about the Union Station railyard is that the infrastructure is already there, and it's already tied in with existing rail lines. Laying down new rail line is expensive. Building new infrastructure for a rail yard would be expensive. All of that's already there at Union Station. All we'd have to do is lay down a few tracks to redevelop the rail yard. The tunnels are already dug and the right of way is there, and the connections are there with an east to west route on site (Shawnee to El Reno), and it connects in with the BNSF north south line.

I've lived in Denver. But, Union Station in Denver is not it immediately adjacent to an iconic park they've constructed. The CBD east (may have my directions mixed up) of it was also completely developed, giving them no choice but to use Union Station. No one is arguing with a east-west location for the line (although I don't think there's enough density that it will be used enough to justify the expenditure in anywhere near the immediate future). The "we're just going to add a few lines" means we're going to destroy the area for attractive future development. It also means we're going to throw in the bus lanes, and if the rail nuts have their way, we'll get all the commercial rail and trucking in there too. The light feeder line......where is it going? Right through the park? Right through the planned residential areas next to the park? If we need a feeder line, it means the line isn't in the right place to begin with. Again, no one going north-south is going to want to get off their north-south train, transfer to an east-west train, then transfer to a feeder route to get to the CBD. If the majority of our users have to make two transfers to get where they want to go, then the line isn't in the right place, and we have dramatically altered the practicality of the transit. Inconvenience means loss of ridership. A lot of other cities have had to use what they already have, because they didn't have closer open areas that could be used. We're pulling down a interstate highway, and the city owns that right of way. IMO, that's the perfect place to put light rail, if we think we need it. Other cities haven't had convenienct land like that for their use. Then, we've got land south and east of the Ford Center that would be a great location for a multi-modal station, and we could put it where it met the north-south line, elminating two transfers for north-south travelers and one for east-west travelers. Ridership will increase as convenience increases.

What we have to do is decide how we want that area to develop. If we want it to be a transit and trucking location, it's not going to be our great iconic green space, and it's not going to be a place people want to live. My opinion is that spaces with the potential for redevelopment like that don't come along very often in cities.

Alternatively, we've already got a rail yard south of the river. If we're "just going to add a few lines", let's do it there, especially since it can handle the commercial trucking with ease. If we're going to run a feeder line to the CBD anyway, we can run it from there east of the new Core to Shore area, and it will actually distribute people between Bricktown and the CBD. But, I think we need to worry about a north-south line first anyway, and see what kind of traffic we get there before spending billions to build a line we may not have the density to need.

Again, who's done the studies? Where are the data that shows that we've got enough population east and west who come into OKC on a regular basis to support this? I don't want rail so that we can be cool like other cities. I want mass transit that works for people, that gives them what they want, so that they're willing to use it.

The thing that cracks me up about all of this push for mass transit is that more than anything else, mass transit is a pain. If you have small children (strollers) or have to transport any kind of grocery, bulky purchase, etc. it's next to impossible to do so on any mass transit vehicle.

Seriously, who is going to use this? You might get people to travel around on the weekends but where are they going to go once they reach their destination? Norman to Bricktown is fun and all but after a couple of weekends the novelty wears off.

I was talking with a guy who lived in Europe for a couple of decades and took mass transit everywhere he went. He was laughing at the idea of mass transit working in OKC. He pointed out (rightly so) that the cost to travel a couple of miles in Stuttgart Germany where he lived was about $4.00 one way. The cost to keep it up and running was immense and was only feasible in compact cities planned around things to do with in walking distance.

American cities have been designed around the car. Why not push for greater fuel efficiency in cars if the environment really matters? Mass transit is an EXTREMELY costly solution to what will likely be, at best, a convenient novelty.

I think there is a very reasonable chance you are right. We could spend billions of dollars and end with with a train people take to the OU games in Norman......six weekends a year. We might get lucky with 41 nights a year for basketball fans if we charge enough for parking near the Ford Center. You can't get to Quail Springs or Penn Square Mall on a train, even with lines as planned. You can't get to most of the restaurants in OKC either.

Even in places like Chicago, most people who aren't commuting to work from a place directly on the El to a place directly on it take the bus, because the El doesn't go where they want to go. I think we need to push for development of a massive bus route, comfortable natural gas-run buses with Wi-Fi, great bus stops and short waiting times for buses. That gives us the flexibility that we need, as well as allowing us to determine who uses mass transit, where they go and when. It would give us a better way to determine what kind of ridership we might expect when we were ready to spend our billions on mass transit.

I agree with everything that Betts says on this subject and she says it much better than I could.

Why did Union Station become obsolete? Why did the train service that utilized it go out of business? What has changed that now makes it viable?

Please don't tell me that gas prices will soon be so high that people will HAVE to use mass transit because that's an empty threat. High gas prices will just drive the market for more fuel efficient vehicles and alternative fuels.

I'm for light rail in the downtown area to facilitate building density in our urban core to serve those who want to live an urban existance but trains to Shawnee, Wheatland, Mustang etc. makes no sense to me and sounds like a huge waste of money.

I made my first trip to NY recently and relied strictly on public transportation while I was there. The traffic and parking there make mass transit make sense. It couldn't be more different here and although I enjoyed visiting NY, I would never trade my lifestyle here for one in Manhattan.

Don't bother building a train route to far south OKC because I can promise you that we won't use it and there really isn't much reason to run buses out this far because we don't use those either. I see empty buses go by, all the time.

Concentrate bus service in the poorer area's where it does make sense.

......and aren't the emperor's clothes particularly lovely today?

No. Wait. There are no clothes.

No "iconic park," either.

But there is a Union Station -- last such facility in the West with all its original yard space intact.

A bird in the hand is still worth two in the bush -- and a facility like Union Station? Still irreplaceable.

TOM ELMORE

Whatever.

We need an underground system ie subway, what are we going to do with an above ground rail in the ice storms, high winds, etc? Tom can't you see how utilizing Union Station screws up Core 2 Shore?

We need an underground system ie subway, what are we going to do with an above ground rail in the ice storms, high winds, etc? Tom can't you see how utilizing Union Station screws up Core 2 Shore?

He doesn't care, that's obvious.

......and aren't the emperor's clothes particularly lovely today?

No. Wait. There are no clothes.

TOM ELMORE

Are you referring to the fact that there is no plan or proposal to return rail service to Union Station? or....

Are you referring to the fact that the city just spent over 6 million dollars building the new METRO transit bus facility several miles from Union Station? or....

Are you referring to the fact that the Postal Service just built a new 815,000-square-foot processing and distribution center several miles from Union Station and sold the old facility that was across the street from Union Station? or....

Are you referring to the fact that Union Station is several blocks from and not connected to the north-south tracks that are currently carrying passenger trains and are critical to any plan for expanding rail service going forward?

I'd strongly reemphasize that Union Station exists today. It is considerably more intact than Dallas Union Station was before it was transformed into the multimodal center it is today.

It is in precisely the right place to be central Oklahoma's transportation hub. Its location could not conceivably be better.

The power of such transportation centers to draw development and redevelopment is immense -- clearly indicating that this would be a tremendous centerpiece for desired upgrading of the area south of the present Crosstown.

It's a logical absurdity to talk about the Union Station yard being "a good place for a 10-lane expressway" and/or "a good place for a central park" -- but a "bad place for a multimodal transportation center."

If "Core to Shore" -- which, to date, is just a concept that could easily, amidst current financial realities, go the way of the ill-fated IM Pei Galleria and any number of more recent plans-gone-dead-after-lots-of-opening-hoopla -- is used as some kind of vague excuse to destroy the extant capacity of Union Station, then Core-to-Shore is crippling Union Station, not vice versa. This would be precisely tantamount to what was done to old downtown -- in favor of "something better" that never arrived. In short, Core to Shore planners would be destroying the most powerful tool available to bring their vision, or something like it, to reality.

Healthy, market driven development will follow lines of efficient transportation -- without massive infusions of public money to "certain special interests." Competition -- not deliberate restraint of competition -- will create that development. Sustainable transportation is clearly, incontrovertibly the first logical consideration -- despite the way this vital matter has been stalled, starved, belittled, dismissed, staved off and ultimately, historically ignored by previous Oklahoma City leadership.

Union Station, however, is more than just a transportation center. It's proven to be a fine "Competency Test," a "reality check" for leaders and transportation officials. Those who preemptively assigned Union Station a value of "zero" in transportation thinking and planning over the last 20 years were actually rating themselves and their own analytical powers -- even as planners in competing cities were increasingly overjoyed to find whatever-was-left of their own, similar facilities still available.

Today's "fuel price crisis" is actually in large measure a transportation technology problem -- which we will never solve by pretending it's somehow still 1955. Lead times in establishing comprehensive regional transit systems are well understood most places -- which is exactly why transit officials in other US cities just shake their heads when the subject of Oklahoma City and its Union Station arises.

This state desperately needs to move its transportation system ahead, and, ironically, is in a very strong position to do so -- unless we blindly allow the deficit-financed, highways-only thinking of the past to overcome and destroy obvious answers that we hold in our hands today.

TOM ELMORE

It is in precisely the right place to be central Oklahoma's transportation hub. Its location could not conceivably be better.

I beg to differ. The best place for a transportation hub is at the intersection of two lines, especially since the north-south line (if we're talking about light rail, which is what most people here care about) is probably more important than an east-west line.


It's a logical absurdity to talk about the Union Station yard being "a good place for a 10-lane expressway" and/or "a good place for a central park" -- but a "bad place for a multimodal transportation center."

Who said it was a "good place for a 10-lane expressway"? Not me. It's the route that someone other than me decided upon, and at this point, I don't think it's going away. What is a great place for a Central Park? A swath of inexpensive, blighted land relatively close to the CBD, with space for residential areas. It's a bad place for a multimodal transportation center, because anyone riding north or south would have to transfer twice to get where they want to go.


If "Core to Shore" -- which is just a concept that could easily go the way of the ill-fated IM Pei Galleria and any number of more recent plans that have gone dead after lots of opening hoopla -- is used as some kind of excuse to destroy the extant capacity of Union Station, then Core-to-Shore is crippling Union Station, not vice versa. This would be precisely tantamount to what was done to old downtown -- in favor of "something better" that never arrived.



Funny, I was thinking precisely the same thing about our "multi-modal station". How long will we wait for it while the land around it stays blighted, only to later decide that it's not a great location for a station because it's nowhere near our north-south line?

The answer is very simple: Make Union Station the transportation center it is so well suited to become -- and it will make a truly accessible, mobile, modern and dynamic area of all downtown Oklahoma City as well as the rest of the metro.

As McKinney Avenue Transit's John Landrum has said about the MATA Trolleys -- "What we've found is, figure out where you want development and put trolley tracks there. Once the service is in place, you won't be able to keep development away."

DART and other regional multimodal transit systems have only extended the statement -- proving that the principle John expressed is not just sound, but nearly unbelievably powerful.

TOM ELMORE

I've been thinking about it. What do I hate more than anything when I take mass trans, which I do a lot, because I travel a lot and I like mass trans? Transferring lines, or transferring from a train to a bus. Hate it, hate it, hate it. I'll do just about anything to avoid transferring, including walking, taking a cab or driving. Unless we can figure out a way to make a north-south line come straight to Union Station, there's no way it's going to be the real hub regardless of what we call it. And the only way to do that is to build a subway under the CBD. Think that'll cost more money than building a new multi-modal hub where east-west lines intersect???? If the north-south line runs east of Bricktown, people will get off there and they'll take a bus or a cab or walk to the CBD or Bricktown. If it runs west of the CBD, the same thing will happen. No one is going to change trains just so they can go to Union Station, and I believe the north-south line is the key line. It's the only one that will have any stops of significance on it.

And there are different kinds of development. I want more open space and residential space in downtown. That's not trolley-tracks development. That's surrounding park development.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this topic, clearly.

Is it really worth $500 million to reroute and redesign a portion of I-40? That's money that could build a state of the art hub center elsewhere. Or $500 mil on some other important project.

A good hub location would be near Bass Pro Shop in Bricktown. There's ample supply of parking and open areas, plus tracks are already laid near the area. The plan to turn Union Station into a rail hub will dominate that area with parking lots, rail, trains, etc. Not the most beautiful thing, plus there's not a north/south rail. And how much money will have to spend in addition to $500 million to make Union Station a rail hub? A lot my friends. The building is better off left as a relic of the past that can be converted into a multiuse function.

Can someone take away the "Caps Lock" button on Tom's computer?

This is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

The fact is, I-40 needs to be replaced. Badly. And it needs to be replaced yesterday. Fact #2 is that there is not currently any plan to make use of Union Station as a rail center. No one has a plan. Not the city, not Tom Elmore, nobody.

Okay Tom, here's your chance. If you've got a plan, show us. I don't want to see a copy and paste from some news article about Denver or St Louis or Dallas. I want to see a map with existing rail lines, with future rail lines drawn in, showing the location of Union Station, the location of a new I-40, bus routes, and all that crap. Show me your plan. It's put up or shut up time.

cricket cricket cricket

What's that? Oh. You don't have any schematics. You don't have a real plan. You just think it'd be cool to have Union Station operable again. But neither you nor any of your mass transit loving buddies have gone so far as to draw up a proposed layout of that area.

I don't want to stop work on I-40 just so that we can sit around and scratch ourselves and immediately move forward with not having a plan on a rail system.

I think it would be great if we had a subway in OKC. And maybe I think that the best place for a subway stop would be directly between the Myriad Gardens and the OKC library. In fact, that location is perfect. I think we should stop Devon from building its new skyscraper so that we can start planning for a subway system to run under the city. If you disagree then you have no vision.

the simple fact is that union station wiill still be serviced by one line with enough room to add another. anyone with sense would put a huge hub south of upper bricktown where it's the epicenter of where everyone wants to go.

the simple fact is that union station wiill still be serviced by one line with enough room to add another. anyone with sense would put a huge hub south of upper bricktown where it's the epicenter of where everyone wants to go.

Which I would be reasonably fine with. I'd still rather see the line run along the boulevard, especially if it's going to be light rail (th entire line of which we'd have to install south of Union Station anyway), but I could live with one line. If we're going to spend money anyway, let's do it sensibly. I agree with your choice of location for a hub, edcrunk.

Mr. Elmore, please answer some direct questions.

1) How many rail lines do you believe are absolutely necessary at Union Station?

2) What types of transportation do you want there besides passenger rail? Taxis, buses, trolley, park & ride, light freight, heavy freight?

3) Are you willing to compromise by having some rail lines AND I-40 south of U.S.?

Which I would be reasonably fine with. I'd still rather see the line run along the boulevard, especially if it's going to be light rail (th entire line of which we'd have to install south of Union Station anyway), but I could live with one line. If we're going to spend money anyway, let's do it sensibly. I agree with your choice of location for a hub, edcrunk.
heh, that's just where it was placed in the latest core 2 shore diagrams i've studied... makes sense to me.

......and aren't the emperor's clothes particularly lovely today?

No. Wait. There are no clothes.

No "iconic park," either.

But there is a Union Station -- last such facility in the West with all its original yard space intact.

A bird in the hand is still worth two in the bush -- and a facility like Union Station? Still irreplaceable.

TOM ELMORE

the park is already alomst 100$ funded .. and over 1/4 the land has already been purchased ..
I-40 is well on its way to being relocated .. .. maybe you don't see this from norman


and union station .. will be a nice event space / restaurant in the south edge of the central park ..



and to those that say "bigger cities populatin wise have great mass transit" ..

they are not bigger space wise .. which is one of the big reasons why mass transit will have a very very hard time working in oklahoma in the near future ...

Ol Tom must be working on some sketches. He sure has been silent today. Or maybe he's looking up bible verses to compare Union Station to.

There is no reason for people to get personal on this or any topic.

Stick to debating the topic please and stop with the jabs and sarcasm, otherwise this thread will be closed.

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular -- just the general tone of this whole discussion.

Thanks.

Dear Pete:

I appreciate your desire to keep things civil. I only wish you had intervened earlier. The vitriol has been a bit thick.

In fact, since attempting to join in on this conversation, my industry and its technology, my home town, the sincerity of my feelings...they've all been targets of attack. I've even been personally insulted!

I suppose it's not a big deal; but, such things do tend to reduce the possibility of constructive dialogue.

I've already made a few comments within this thread - and some of my Oklahoma City work is available on the internet. We'll just leave it at that.

Thanks to everybody for your time.

Garl B. Latham
Dallas, Texas

does anyone else feel that gas has peaked... i think it found it's tipping point.

does anyone else feel that gas has peaked... i think it found it's tipping point.

At least for now. It may go back up again this winter when the east is using heating oil, especially if it's a cold winter.

What I fear, if prices drop somewhat, is that what happened in the 70s after the embargo ended will happen. As gas prices ease, people head back to their giant SUVs and pickup trucks.

We're not Europe. We don't have the teeny streets and the extremely high gas prices. We don't have cities and attractions close together. We are a much bigger and more spread out country. So, transportation that makes sense for Europeans doesn't necessarily do so here. We've also got more of a "car culture" that has promoted sprawl. We've not going to be able to fix that overnight.

But, what I sincerely hope, is that this current gas crisis forces people to rethink their car purchases. How many people truly need an SUV? An SUV without the third back seat hauls no more people than a sedan. It barely hauls any more gear than a hatchback sedan. How many people who need a pickup truck really need one of the giant gas guzzlers? A smaller pickup usually has a bed not that different in size than one of the giant ones. People say safety is one of the reasons they buy bigger cars, but almost all of the SUVS are a far bigger rollover risk, and that negates a lot of the safety. There are very safe, stable small cars on the market. We need to force the car manufacturers to produce affordable hybrids, electric cars and work on natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell cars. Our selections for purchase seem to be the only message they understand. If we keep buying gas guzzlers, they'll keep cranking them out.

Then, we need to look at other transportation options. Because of how spread out our cities are, rail will not be the best option for anything other than inner city, commuter or long distance traffic for a long time. Someone on here was just complaining that DART in Dallas doesn't go to any of the malls. Rail here wouldn't either. We need great bus systems, and we need to rid buses of the stigma they have. Using natural gas for fuel, fitting them with WiFi and televisions and having routes that go where people really want to go in style and comfort frequently and reliably would do a lot to erase the negative image of buses.

It's not that we don't need alternates to our cars. But we need better cars, because they're never going to go away completely, and in most of the US, most people are still going to predominantly use automobiles for transportation in the forseeable future. We need flexible, convenient mass transit options, that truly get people where they want to go, if we hope to get them out of their cars even a little.

well, i am retiring my RL and going with the smaller TL

Tomlinson / ODOT leave Shawnee council meeting empty handed.

Rail proposal gets another look - Shawnee, OK - The Shawnee News-Star (http://www.news-star.com/localnews/x635406324/Rail-proposal-gets-another-look)

“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”

— from the Ralph M. Brown Act, 1953

Ralph M. Brown was a member of the California State Assembly 1943–1961 and author of California's first sunshine law enacted in 1953.

This issue is so dead.

This issue is so dead.

It is because they can't argue with the 4 undeniable facts:

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station.
Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed.
Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down.

How much is Shawnee willing to pay to fix up the rail? Or is someone else supposed to do it? They're interested in rail so people will go to their casinos, and so people from Shawnee can go to Tinker by rail to work, so their businesses can have access to rail.

I didn't hear one word about them being interested in commuter rail to Oklahoma City so people can spend time in the CBD and Bricktown. This has NOTHING to do with Union Station.

"Residents said their concerns aren’t about creating a statewide transit system. 'This is about the city of Shawnee as far as I’m concerned,' said Shawna Turner.

Yup.

Commissioner Carl Holt said Shawnee residents don’t want anything to happen to the rail access to the community and Shawnee fall by the way side. He said there are industries in Shawnee that rely on freight rail.

Somehow Chuck Mills and the Shawnee council have allowed ONTRAC to decieve them into thinking that this has ANYTHING to do with freight rail in and out of Shawnee. Freight from Shawnee to OKC and beyond is not going through Union Station, so I don't know why they are getting involved.

Commuter rail in general is a whole other discussion and if they want it so bad they are going to have to pony up.

Someone send them the 4 undeniable truths.

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station.
Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed.
Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down.

BTW - nice job ONTRAC. Way to play the fear factor card. Pretty low. Did you also tell the Shawnee City Council that Union Station was the key to world peace?

From Progressive Railroading

10/21/2008

UTA set to start construction on airport light-rail line

Tomorrow, the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) will launch construction on the Airport TRAX line, one of five rail corridors included in the agency's $2.8 billion FrontLines 2015 program.

The six-mile, five-station light-rail line will run from downtown Salt Lake City to Salt Lake International Airport. Construction is scheduled to be complete by 2015.

So, there's an idea Tom, just move to SLC.

I get the impression that you'd be much happier there.

If we had a light rail line from downtown to the airport, who would use it? How many people live downtown? Probably enough that one to five people a day might be going to the airport, on a good day. Perhaps if we had a line from Edmond to the airport, we'd see some use. Norman to the airport.... Enought to justify the cost? Who knows? No one has done a study, as far as I can tell. Downtown to the airport, not so much. We don't need a study for that one.

"If we had a light rail line from downtown to the airport, who would use it?"

Maybe all those out of towners coming for conferences and staying in downtown hotels during their stay...nah!

Dear Pete:

I appreciate your desire to keep things civil. I only wish you had intervened earlier. The vitriol has been a bit thick.

In fact, since attempting to join in on this conversation, my industry and its technology, my home town, the sincerity of my feelings...they've all been targets of attack. I've even been personally insulted!

I suppose it's not a big deal; but, such things do tend to reduce the possibility of constructive dialogue.

I've already made a few comments within this thread - and some of my Oklahoma City work is available on the internet. We'll just leave it at that.

Thanks to everybody for your time.

Garl B. Latham
Dallas, Texas

That's regrettable, Garl. Thanks for your good work from this Oklahoman!
Best,
Walt

I've been thinking about it. What do I hate more than anything when I take mass trans, which I do a lot, because I travel a lot and I like mass trans? Transferring lines, or transferring from a train to a bus. Hate it, hate it, hate it. I'll do just about anything to avoid transferring, including walking, taking a cab or driving. Unless we can figure out a way to make a north-south line come straight to Union Station, there's no way it's going to be the real hub regardless of what we call it. And the only way to do that is to build a subway under the CBD. Think that'll cost more money than building a new multi-modal hub where east-west lines intersect???? If the north-south line runs east of Bricktown, people will get off there and they'll take a bus or a cab or walk to the CBD or Bricktown. If it runs west of the CBD, the same thing will happen. No one is going to change trains just so they can go to Union Station, and I believe the north-south line is the key line. It's the only one that will have any stops of significance on it.

And there are different kinds of development. I want more open space and residential space in downtown. That's not trolley-tracks development. That's surrounding park development.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this topic, clearly.

Here's the solution. If you're coming in from north or south, you'll use the BNSF line to the Santa Fe station, and either walk or transfer to a trolley. If you're coming from the east or west, you'll go to the Union Station and either walk (you'll then be in the middle of the new Core to Shore redevelopment, as big as today's downtown) or transfer to the same trolley line that serves the Santa Fe station. The trolley is the key to making it work. The Santa Fe station is too small to service the entire downtown; splitting the duties makes it workable.