The present rail lines from Guthrie to Purcell will always give priority to freight traffic. Trying to use them for commuter passenger traffic is not feasible unless we lay new rails dedicated for passenger use. The cost for this is much larger than the estimate given above. OKC will depend on private autos for many years into the future, and we need the new interstate in the worst way. Build the highway!

I hate to ask this question again, but how does Union Station work for north-south traffic anyway, which I still believe is the direction of most importance for rail travel? There is no way to get through the CBD via rail to connect with Union Station. So, do we have commuters change trains to get to Union Station, so they can pick up their trolley or bus somewhere? Again, we're talking about a building. A building that is poorly located. I do not see why we're elevating Union Station to the holy grail level when it comes to a station, simply because it once was a station. It's a beautiful piece of architecture, but that doesn't mean it HAS to be a train station. There are far more convenient places to locate a multi-modal station, and the new station can be built to accomodate whatever types of transit we're interested in. When we're ready for them. I was a huge proponent of light rail, but the more I think about it, the more I think we need our bus and trolley system working well first, running frequently and conveniently....that that's where we need to concentrate our energies, while we carefully plan for and find the money for light rail.

Yes, Yes, Yes!!

I have to agree with Betts. In looking at the satellite photos, I don't see how Union Station would work for the north/south lines and the east/west lines don't go to heavily populated areas. I have a very hard time seeing where a critical mass of riders for those routes will ever be there.

This horse has been beat to death and the decision on the route of the new Crosstown has been made and work is under way.

I'm against any delay of that project.

NO ONE IS ADVOCATING DELAYING THE PROJECT.

FYI.

Thank you.

right, no one is advocating delaying;

1) as for the N-S from Union Station - there is a transfer to the N-S alignment.

2) As for the freight priority, I understand that. We wouldn't be running Commuter Rail that frequently anyways.

It all could EASILY be scheduled, so that freight and pax rail can be accomodated.

We would probably only need to add in a few bypass tracks at certain bottlenecks or chokepoints, and that may already exist.

3) One more time. Im advocating moving or constructing the crosstown realignment so that the rail yard of Union Station can be saved. Everyone wins!

4) ONE MORE TIME BETTS (in particular) - the city of Oklahoma City is already planning on building a Streetcar Trolley line for Downtown Oklahoma City! This will eventually include the Core 2 Shore area, which will easily solve your dilemna regarding the multimodal Union Station being nearly a mile away from the current CBD centre. Once C2S develops, Union Station will be akin to Denver's or Seattle's Union Station, right on the edge of downtown and the Downtown Streetcar from Maps III will serve as the equivalent people mover (as I had hghlighted in a prior post).

This solves all of your concerns Betts, 1) Union Station does have N-S transfers 2) the Downtown Streetcar (already a plan for MAPS III) will shuttle pax into the downtown core 3) side track probably already exists or if it doesn't it could easily be implemented in short sections [chicago does this as Metra Rail uses existing Freight ROWs and they are WAY WAY more busy of a rail centre than OKC]. {Betts, sorry for singling you out - but you keep asking the same questions and I answered you but you still asked the same question again}

dont be pessimistic guys. I can understand general questions and/or concerns, but I honestly don't see any. the ONLY question is - how best to keep the rail yard?

Would it require much time/cost to redesign the portion near the rail yard?
Could we just lower a portion of the new crosstown which can go under the suspended rail yard?
Could we stack I-40 during the portion that approaches the rail yard?
Does it need to be 12 lanes the entire length?

It comes down to the same argument Im making about our Seattle LRT proposal - where they want to add a line that crosses Lake Washington, from Downtown Seattle to Downtown Bellevue. The current proposal states to take OUT the I-90 Express Lanes and put in LRT tracks yet the cost is not reduced even though I-90 exists (I could see some validity if the cost of using the Xpress Lanes significantly lowered the cost but it doesn't for some reason). The other cookie in this Seattle issue, is the state is already going to build another 520 bridge (which also crosses Lake Washington to Bellevue a few miles North of the I-90 bridge in question), so why not Keep the I-90 Express Lanes and put the LRT track on the new 520 bridge. Plus, they could make the UW a transfer station since the North route would go there, the Bellevue route could spit off from there - saving Billions of dollars as well as the FUNCTIONAL I-90 Express Lanes.

In other words, in both cities' cases - why destroy something that works (or could work in OKC's case)? Why not compromise.

Oh one more thing,

I mentioned the low cost of running/implementing Commuter Rail in Oklahoma City because it was noted recently in the paper that Oklahoma City already has track in the N-S alignment in great condition such that adding Amtrak to Newton KS would only cost the state $2M in track upgrades (presumably these would be outside of OKC or might be to dual track chokepoints perhaps - it didn't say what the $2M would do).

so, given that statement - Im assuming that the same track is suitable for Commuter Rail. Again, these trains would run hourly during rush hours and maybe one or two runs during lunch. We're only talking about one train per line (two lines: North route [Edmond,Guthrie] and South route [Norman, Purcell]). It's not going to interfere with Freight traffic.

Here in Seattle, we have the Sounder Commuter Rail - it resides on the same track as freight (and here we're restricted in where rail track exists due to geography) - and there's no problems. I anticipate OKC's lines would be a Seattle like scenario at most.

If it works here, it should definitely work there (you'd just need to focus on ridership - we had to too prior to high gas prices, now the trains are pretty full).

So, I got my $30M figure mostly from the cost of buying two CR trainsets (or we could be cheap and get a used one from Chicago), station and platform upgrades [stations exist but need upgrades at Purcell, Edmond, Guthrie, and Union Station; platforms need to be built at Crossroads, N. 63rd, and S. Edmond], and the occasional dual tracking. Might even have enough for initial operating costs.

I envision, there'd be a 5:00 am train from Guthrie (get downtown by 6:00am), then a train at 7:00 am. We could have another train that does Edmond only starting at 5:00am as well, continuing on to Norman then back then down again. That would give enough service for the Morning Rush hour to start (given current commuter patterns). The reverse could be done for the Evening Rush.

c2s places the intermodal station just south east of the ford center. right next to where the convention center is gonna be. i think that betts and i are saying that it makes sense to have it there since it is close to the CBD, bricktown, ford center, hotels and a big ass convention center. they're gonna be clearing all that land i don't see why anyone with a working brain doesn't see that as the epicenter of downtown activity (which makes perfect sense to put the station).

however, this is really a mute point since.... that's what is gonna happen.

whatever happens to the Union Station and yard, it would seem either acquiring new land for the rerouted crosstown, or living with delay must happen, railyard or no railyard.

The thought of trying to avoid delay and avoid reroute means accepting it would make sense to replace a damaged crosstown by sinking the piers along part of the new crosstown in a sulfuric acid laced oil sludge pit that somehow nobody in all their wonderous planning ever found before.

Someone noted we need the new road in the worst way. Right now I can't think of a worst way than proceeding as though there is no issue on the current route, unless of course there's more than the one overlooked acid laced sludge pit found along the route. I suppose finding another another one or three would be worse.

Oh,before anyone says that won't happen, well, this part of the new route was thought to be a-ok as well. either that, or it was covered up on purpose, and I'd prefer to believe that kind of coverup did not happen.

we need the new interstate in the worst way

c2s places the intermodal station just south east of the ford center. right next to where the convention center is gonna be. i think that betts and i are saying that it makes sense to have it there since it is close to the CBD, bricktown, ford center, hotels and a big ass convention center. they're gonna be clearing all that land i don't see why anyone with a working brain doesn't see that as the epicenter of downtown activity (which makes perfect sense to put the station).

Precisely. My point is, why make things so inconvenient if you don't have to? Remember, to get people to ride mass trans, you've either got to make it so easy anyone would want to do it, or so cheap people are willing to put up with the inconvenience. Why make people take a north-south train, transfer to an east-west train, so they can get to a building where they can take a bus or trolley? Why not put the station where the north-south/east-west lines intersect? We're talking about using Union Station as the station, simply because it was a station. That's what I don't understand. Why not, if we're going to have north-south/east-west transit, put the station in a more logical place to make it easier on commuters?

We've always had so little in the way of traffic problems here, that it's going to take really high gas prices to get people out of their cars. They're not going to be happy with their commute taking two to three times as long as usual if we make it a pain in the neck to use mass trans, so it's going to take REALLY high gas prices to get them to do it.

Several things:

HOT ROD, there is no State Fair monorail, it was torn down and auctioned off several years ago.

Betts: E/W line would work, TINKER the states largest single site employer is on an E/W line as well as many large employers in the west metro, say Hobby Lobby and other very large warehouses and manufacturers (Goodyear, Firestone, etc were too), as well as the new outlet mall that will break ground this fall at Council Rd. and I-40. That and the fact many people live in Yukon and commute in would justify a few park and ride locations going E/W. Furthermore, Meridian Ave. Corridor (airport/convention guests) frequently stay in this area as well as the State Fairgrounds could have a stop and then have a bus transfer into the actual fairgrounds. I agree though N/S makes a little more sense, but E/W would definitely have some traffic. FYI, our city makes a ton of money from all the events at the fairgrounds, of which most of these guests stay on Meridian Ave.

Metro Transit Trolleys - stay tuned very soon, there will be new info after today's city council meeting. Look for progress by next summer hopefully. That's all I can say for now.

I am getting sick and tired or you dolts that still favor a central hub at Union Station. I consider many of you to be my on-line friends so I use the term 'dolt' affectionately, but your proposal isn't even making sense.

When OKC does get a rail system in place I want all of you Union Station supporters to make sure you get off the train at Union Station and walk, transfer to a bus, or whatever, the rest of the way to downtown. While you are waiting for the electric trolley, bus, walking, riding your bike, catching a cab, riding in a rickshaw, your fellow co-workers or event goers will already be in their seat at said office/event.

I can't believe your really think that riding a train 20 miles in from the suburbs, and then stopping 6 blocks from your ultimate destination in order to switch to a different mode of transportation is a good idea. It sounds stupid just typing it let alone advocating it for a transit system to be designed that way on purpose.

Yeah, heaven forbid we walk 6 blocks. Most cities you have to walk at least 5 blocks to a mass transit stop.

Where I think that the old Union Station has some historical significance, it really should have no part of commuter rail service in OKC.

If they divert the commuter rail to the center lane of the new blvd that will take the place of the old crosstown, it brings it closer to where activity will be taking place.

If you have to have a central station, build a new one on the east side of the current N/S track, which can be used for the N/S commuter traffic.

The old Union Station can be use for any number of things, visitors center, or small conference areas, just to name two.

Yeah, heaven forbid we walk 6 blocks. Most cities you have to walk at least 5 blocks to a mass transit stop.

But again, why do it if you don't have to? And why have people change trains (if they're going north-south) and then walk five blocks? But, my biggest objection is the loss of a downtown park. When we moved to Oklahoma City (I from Denver and my husband via NYC and Boston), our first question was, "Where are the parks?" This city would be so improved by a beautiful downtown park, and I hate to lose it to a poorly located building just so we can use an old train station as a train station, when I'd like to see a train station in a more convenient location. There were no places in Denver closer than Union Station that could have been used, but we have blighted land further east closer to where I presume any north-south lines would run that could be used.

NO ONE IS ADVOCATING DELAYING THE PROJECT.

FYI.

Thank you.

Mr. Elmore certainly is.

But again, why do it if you don't have to? And why have people change trains (if they're going north-south) and then walk five blocks? But, my biggest objection is the loss of a downtown park. When we moved to Oklahoma City (I from Denver and my husband via NYC and Boston), our first question was, "Where are the parks?" This city would be so improved by a beautiful downtown park, and I hate to lose it to a poorly located building just so we can use an old train station as a train station, when I'd like to see a train station in a more convenient location.

I'm totally with you on this, betts.

As am I. I have been reading your last few posts and I agree with you completely.

Several things:

HOT ROD, there is no State Fair monorail, it was torn down and auctioned off several years ago.



there is a state fair monorail.

It's still there, I took a picture of it when I was in OKC in May 2008.

On another point,

There is a reason why multimodal facilities tend to be on the outskirts of respective downtowns: two reasons - 1) cost and 2) congestion.

1) cost - obviously, OKC already has a rail yard at Union Station. Therefore, it would take minimal and I mean minimal cost to implement a Commuter Rail system using it as the hub. There obviously would need to be 1M or so in renovations to the facility, but most if not all of the cost would be for buying the trainsets. This is where OKC has a leg up on other metros - an existing facility that can EASILY become a CR facility.

2)congestion - those of you (Kerry, Im calling you out) who keep saying that it needs to be where the action is - think about it again. There IS a reason why MASS TRANSIT tends to exist in grade separated ROW. And that is because of congestion of not only cars but PEOPLE. If you were to have the multimodal facility in the same location of the epicentre of downtown OKC (with the new Convention Centre, Ford Centre, Central Retail Shopping District, CBD very close nearby, ect) then think of how very difficult it will be to drive much less WALK with light rail trains coming and going in front of you. This gets EVEN WORSE if the light rail travels on the new boulevard as you guys keep wishing.

Im all in favor of increasing density and pedestrianism in downtown OKC, but not at the expense of potential lives and safety with running trains on the boulevard or centre of the city for the sake of it. Especially when we have an alternative in Commuter Rail at Union Station.

Someone mentioned that C2S shows a multimodal facility south of the Santa Fe station, watch that plan get redesigned - because how the heck can you fit all of the busses, commuter trains, and Amtrak (not to mention the existing freight corridor) in the same small parcel right next to all of the density coming at Robinson/EK Gaylord and the new Boulevard? This would surely drive up the cost of said facility and make it impractical given OKC's auto crazy design.

And you forgot to mention that the city is going to build the downtown streetcar trolley as part of MAPS III, which is way before C2S see's any of it's plan come to fruition. So, why not extend the trolley six blocks down, following either side of the new downtown central park, making a stop at Union Station, before making the return to the CBD on the other side of the new park?

As for transfers, I suppose you guys who said that haven't been to big cities. There is NO mass transit system which drops you off exactly where you desire to be. Mass Transit's point is to move as many people as quickly as possible to as few points as possible (hence why there are HUBS). Commuter Rail creates pedestrian density, and the trolley and local busses could funnel it out from the multimodal Union Station hub. Or, you could walk down the new central park.

When I take Metra or the Chicago El into downtown Chicago, I always have to walk a few blocks (which Chicago blocks are superblocks by the way) to my destination or take another mode of transit/cab.

You just can NOT put Mass Transit exactly where the centre of the action is, UNLESS you bury it or elevate it. And, those are Nil options for OKC, IMO so is Light Rail (Portland MAX style) given OKC's low density and lack of metropolitan centre.

We need to use what we have. All of you who think the C2S idea of transit hub (using the SantaFe ROW) or light rail using the boulevard are going to hit the fan when you find out the cost of building such a system. And that could KILL rail transit in OKC.

Why not start with what you have in Union Station, build a reliable Commuter Rail system to funnel suburbanites into downtown - then worry about how to get them around downtown (and the streetcar trolley will solve that) and other modes of transit for the inner loop as CR begins to JUSTIFY the cost of such expansions.

Case closed, and only cost us $30M MAX (3/4+ths of that being the Commuter Rail trainsets!).

[QUOTE=HOT ROD;161466]there is a state fair monorail.

It's still there, I took a picture of it when I was in OKC in May 2008.

QUOTE]

You're hallucinating... it was torn down several years ago. I think there may be a length of it still standing with a train on top as something to look at.... but if you are talking about that you would have noticed it isn't functional.

there is a state fair monorail.

It's still there, I took a picture of it when I was in OKC in May 2008.



You're hallucinating... it was torn down several years ago. I think there may be a length of it still standing with a train on top as something to look at.... but if you are talking about that you would have noticed it isn't functional.

Hot Rod, you may have seen the rail but the Monorail train was taken down in 2005. It was in sad shape.....

MONORAIL ENGINE FROM OKLAHOMA STATE FAIR (http://www.oldride.com/community/galleries/498218292.html)

The present rail lines from Guthrie to Purcell will always give priority to freight traffic. Trying to use them for commuter passenger traffic is not feasible unless we lay new rails dedicated for passenger use. The cost for this is much larger than the estimate given above. OKC will depend on private autos for many years into the future, and we need the new interstate in the worst way. Build the highway!

I think if we're smart, we can build the highway AND save the railyard. It involves moving the highway a little south of the rail tracks.

You guys just don't understand. Dallas spent over $500 million to build their railyard for DART. We already have a railyard similar to Dallas' in place. We're about to destroy a $500 million asset.

Hot Rod is right on all of this.

You're hallucinating... it was torn down several years ago. I think there may be a length of it still standing with a train on top as something to look at.... but if you are talking about that you would have noticed it isn't functional.

Give the guy a break. He's a former OKC resident, now living in Seattle.

Can any of you give us a sample overlay on an aerial view of the metro to show how your preferred plan would work? I think it would really be helpful to us trying to follow..

There is a reason why multimodal facilities tend to be on the outskirts of respective downtowns: two reasons - 1) cost and 2) congestion.

congestion - those of you (Kerry, Im calling you out) who keep saying that it needs to be where the action is - think about it again. There IS a reason why MASS TRANSIT tends to exist in grade separated ROW. And that is because of congestion of not only cars but PEOPLE. If you were to have the multimodal facility in the same location of the epicentre of downtown OKC (with the new Convention Centre, Ford Centre, Central Retail Shopping District, CBD very close nearby, ect) then think of how very difficult it will be to drive much less WALK with light rail trains coming and going in front of you. This gets EVEN WORSE if the light rail travels on the new boulevard as you guys keep wishing.!).

I'd like to see the hub at an intersection of north and south lines, not immediately south of the Santa Fe station. That would make it much more convenient for anyone traveling north and south, and no less convenient for people going east to west. There's all sorts of blighted land south of Reno extending virtually from I-35 to Villa. A station could easily be put where the north-south line intersects the east-west line in that locale. As far as light rail running on the boulevard, if I remember correctly, that's precisely where it runs in San Diego. Pedestrian bridges or undergrounds could be constructed fairly simply and cheaply at high traffic areas.


And you forgot to mention that the city is going to build the downtown streetcar trolley as part of MAPS III, which is way before C2S see's any of it's plan come to fruition. So, why not extend the trolley six blocks down, following either side of the new downtown central park, making a stop at Union Station, before making the return to the CBD on the other side of the new park?!).

Rod, using your plan, there will be no new park, nor will there be a boulevard. Where is I-40 going to run, and how can there be a park, when the majority of it will be occupied by a railyard and station? Once you make Union Station multimodal, it's going to take at least another block to build drives, parking and access for buses and trolleys.


As for transfers, I suppose you guys who said that haven't been to big cities. There is NO mass transit system which drops you off exactly where you desire to be. Mass Transit's point is to move as many people as quickly as possible to as few points as possible (hence why there are HUBS). Commuter Rail creates pedestrian density, and the trolley and local busses could funnel it out from the multimodal Union Station hub. Or, you could walk down the new central park.

Again, there will be no new central park. Any park would be bisected by a very large, ugly and difficult to cross multimodal station, parking lots or garages and railyard.



When I take Metra or the Chicago El into downtown Chicago, I always have to walk a few blocks (which Chicago blocks are superblocks by the way) to my destination or take another mode of transit/cab.

I don't think it's the walking that's the problem. I think it's the train transferring that is going to turn people off of mass transit. If you make it too complicated, no one here will use it. We're too accustomed to cars. Unless it is prohibitively expensive to drive, no one is going to park at the train station in Edmond, wait for the train, get on the train, ride it to someplace east of Union Station, get off the train, transfer to an east-west train to go to Union Station, then get off the train and wait for a bus or trolley.



You just can NOT put Mass Transit exactly where the centre of the action is, UNLESS you bury it or elevate it. And, those are Nil options for OKC, IMO so is Light Rail (Portland MAX style) given OKC's low density and lack of metropolitan centre. We need to use what we have. All of you who think the C2S idea of transit hub (using the SantaFe ROW) or light rail using the boulevard are going to hit the fan when you find out the cost of building such a system. And that could KILL rail transit in OKC.

What is it going to cost to move I-40 somewhere else? That's the question I haven't had answered. Do we have another right of way that's owned by the city and won't cost us far more to acquire than a new multimodal station in a more convenient location would?



Why not start with what you have in Union Station, build a reliable Commuter Rail system to funnel suburbanites into downtown - then worry about how to get them around downtown (and the streetcar trolley will solve that) and other modes of transit for the inner loop as CR begins to JUSTIFY the cost of such expansions.

Case closed, and only cost us $30M MAX (3/4+ths of that being the Commuter Rail trainsets!).

I don't know if you're going to get the suburbanites to take the train you've proposed. It's going to cost way more than $30 million to build a north-south line, and do we have studies showing the demographics will support heavy suburban use of an east-west line? I'm not sure that is the case.

Again, light rail is sexy and trendy, but before we spend what I think could be billions to develop it properly, I'd like to know where we really need it, who would use it, etc. Again, I think it's crazy to make a transit system that is impractically located our only option. We're better off finding out how much it would really cost to build a transit hub in a better location, versus how much it would cost to relocate I-40, and what having the station there would do to the Core to Shore plans. It's a lot easier to get people who are not used to living downtown to move there to live on the edge of a beautiful new Central Park, as opposed to living across the street from a train station and railyard. We might end up with a rail system no one uses, and the blight in the area unresolved.

allow me to show you our "500 million dollar asset"

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b61/edcrunk/okc/sddownload1006.jpg

there used to be 3 sets of tracks. one has been completely removed (which is to the right of where i'm standing to take the pic) and another only goes for a couple blocks and has also been ripped up.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b61/edcrunk/okc/sddownload1005.jpg

these next two are where the 3rd set of tracks were

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b61/edcrunk/okc/sddownload1003.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b61/edcrunk/okc/sddownload1002.jpg

i'm wondering just how much it would cost to repair all of this

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b61/edcrunk/okc/sddownload1001.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b61/edcrunk/okc/sddownload1004.jpg

oh and there are tons of rail road spikes laying around... i grabbed a bang of them for sentimental reasons.

i'm wondering just how much it would cost to repair all of this.

To turn that area into a modern multi-modal facility would cost about $30 million and when it was done it would still be in the middle of nowhere.

To turn that area into a modern multi-modal facility would cost about $30 million and when it was done it would still be in the middle of nowhere.

Not for long.

OCURA could give all of that nearby land away to developers who would promise the moon and then fall drastically short of their unrealistic plans.

So it won't be in the middle of nowhere, but you will be able to see it from there.

PATRICK - thanks for the support (you're a true longtime friend forumer - we've known each other since what? 1995?); I can hold my own on this one tho. lol.

====

All of you who said I am hallucinating, how much you want to bet there is still a monorail at the state fairgrounds?

Put your money where your mouth is. OKC took my NBA team, so I could use some of you guys money to refresh my lack of oldest team in my adopted city (lol).

It IS still there. And I can prove it, but it will cost you (since you guys don't wanna go there and check it out for yourself). ......

====

the central park runs N-S, whereas the new (and existing) crosstown runs E-W, how does moving it a few FEET to avoid the rail yard remove the central park and new boulevard?

If we can't get suburbanites to take the train - then OKC will NEVER get rail transit. That IS the purpose of MASS TRANSIT, to move large numbers of people from point to a destination. OKC doesn't have the density (nor will it ever) to support Light Rail in the city limits.

Guys, we/Seattle can BARELY and I mean BARELY support Light Rail, and we are 10 times as dense as OKC! On our new Sound Transit Seattle Link to the airport, they are projecting ONLY 30,000 passengers per day.

Just for example, Vancouver's subway - known as SkyTrain - has capacity at 30,000 passengers per day per hour (that means 30,000 X 18 hours = 540,000 passengers per day). And it has 2 lines, the 3rd line will open next year. So total capacity is 540K X 3 = 1.62M passengers per day. Seattle will NEVER see these numbers, will OKC ever?

And that is due to Vancouver being ULTRA DENSE and the system is set up to bring people downtown from the SUBURBS!!!! In addition to the SkyTrain metro network, Vancouver also has a Commuter Rail (known as West Coast Express - which funnels even more work commuters into downtown from the suburbs).

EVERY Commuter Rail system I know of, moves suburbanites into Downtown; and EVERY CR system I know of has it's multimodal facility on the edge of it's respective downtown OR underground.

Seattle also has Commuter Rail, what little it is - and it goes from Everett (where I live) to downtown Seattle then on to downtown Tacoma. It was prohibitively inexpensive to get this running - basically the cost of the trainsets, that's it. I assume similar will be the case for OKC. Any of you ever been to Seattle and wondered why there were SO MANY people downtown - the Sounder Commuter Rail is a big part of it (also all of the commuter busses from SoundTransit) bringing people in from the suburbs.

sometimes, I think you guys in OKC are drinking WAY TOO MUCH Cool-Aide from the Daily Dissapointment (or dont get out much).

We just had a thread on DC's metro rail network, and GUESS WHAT - it funnels suburbanites INTO DOWNTOWN DC! And it's multimodal facility - Union Train Station - is on the edge of downtown DC (and the tracks are underground).

Now, tell me how it makes sence to have the transfer tracks in the centre of downtown again?????? Does ANYBODY do this?

allow me to show you our "500 million dollar asset"

i'm wondering just how much it would cost to repair all of this




probably only $1m or so. OKC owns the ROW and I believe the track and station. That's half the battle. Rebuilding the track and u/g passageways is very inexpensive on stations that already exist.

how much was it to reopen the Sante Fe train station? Let me clue you in... It wasn't much (and most of the cost was to the STATION itself, since it was left dilapidated; the platform area saw almost no significant cost.


Honestly, I think you guys are confusing Light Rail and Commuter Rail. I agree, Light Rail is prohibitively expensive and therefore OKC will NEVER see the type of system that Betts is proposing (with it all in the street in the new blvd). It doesn't make sense, financially or from a planning prospective. OKC doesn't have enough inner city density far from downtown to justify having three stops away from downtown. The ONLY density area that exists is downtown, so that's why a streetcar makes sense there. Not a light rail. We/Seattle BARELY have the justification for it (and guess how much our NEW light rail line from downtown to the airport costs? planned $2.5B (actual double that) for a 14 mile line, ONE LINE!!!!..

Does OKC have $2.5B sitting around for ONE FREAKING LINE of LIGHT RAIL????? Even such a line in OKC would still be about $2B or so. Does that make sense for OKC? Or does $50M MAX for 2 routes of commuter rail, and another $50M or so for the downtown and inner city Streetcar network.... which do you prefer, and makes the most sense.

And you guys missed it, but I said Commuter Rail CREATES CRITICAL MASS, by making suburbanites drive or take bus to the park n ride and the CR funnels everyone into downtown/Union Station. That's critical mass, that's mass transit - that IS what CR does.

We will NEVER have the pax per day per hour to justify having a Portland MAX type Light Rail system in OKC, there just are NO inner city density focal points to pool people from (nor are there any plans,

other than downtown and the immediate areas within 2 miles of it [OCU/Asia district/Paseo, Uptown 23rd, Capital Hill, Capitol district/OU Med Center, Midtown and the downtown districts (C2S,DeepDeuce,Bricktown,Film Row, AAlley, Flatiron/Triangle, West Downtown] <- those are the density planned areas, within 2 miles of downtown.

- that's not enough for a light rail guys, streetcar/tram (that's already proposed for MAPS III)? - YES, light rail? - NO).

The other beauty of Commuter Rail, is you get suburbanites to pay for it; since they will be the main ones riding it. So, you get critical mass into downtown for work and events (I hear Bricktown happy!!!!) and you get suburbanites to pay for MOST of the Operations (I hear city taxpayers happy). You'll still get your light rail streetcar where it's needed - IN DOWNTOWN.

When OKC densifies outside of downtown, then I think we could start talking about a MAX type light rail line (probably not in my lifetime - I got at least 40 years left by the way).

Now, tell me how it makes sence to have the transfer tracks in the centre of downtown again?????? Does ANYBODY do this?

San Francisco, New York City, London, Atlanta just to name a few off the top of my head. BTW, Metro Center Station in Washington D.C. is 2 blocks from the White House. How much more in the center of the action does it need to be? From that station you can transfer to no less than 21 bus routes and can transfer between the Red, Blue, and Orange lines on the metro.

Until the World Trade Center was destroyed, commuters from New Jersey (PATH Trains) transfered to the New York City subway system in the basement. I think the World Trade Center site classified as the heart of downtown New York City

Hot Rod, no one is saying moving I-40 would ruin the Central Park. But, look at where Union Station is sited in the Core to Shore Plans. It is right in the Center of the park. Now, imagine I-40 AND a multimodal hub, all the parking lots or garages required, all the bus and trolley lanes between El Reno and the River, occupying at least four of those blocks, and creating an impassable stretch of transit rails, parking lots and highway. Again, it would render the concept of a Central Park moot, and would completely block any ability to move between the CBD and the river. It would effectively bifurcate the two areas left over for park and make them esthetically uninteresting and virtually impassable for pedestrians. Then, you have the question of what kind of development would occur around the parking lots and/or garages, station, rail lines and highway. I wouldn't live there, and I don't know who else would. I believe it would destroy the plans for higher density residential living in the immediate area. I think we would end up with industrial blight surrounding a rail station almost no one uses. How many people in OKC really want to travel between El Reno and Midwest City? Just my opinion.

There was an article in The New York Times a couple of days ago about streetcars returning to downtowns across the country.

I found this part very interesting.....

Cincinnati officials are assembling financing for a $132 million system that would connect the city’s riverfront stadiums, downtown business district and Uptown neighborhoods, which include six hospitals and the University of Cincinnati, in a six- to eight-mile loop. Depending on the final financing package, fares may be free, 50 cents or $1.

The city plans to pay for the system with existing tax revenue and $30 million in private investment. The plan requires the approval of Mayor Mark Mallory, a proponent, and the City Council.

At least 40 other cities are exploring streetcar plans to spur economic development, ease traffic congestion and draw young professionals and empty-nest baby boomers back from the suburbs, according to the Community Streetcar Coalition, which includes city officials, transit authorities and engineers who advocate streetcar construction.

You can read the rest here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/us/14streetcar.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/us/14streetcar.html)

Solitude - good find. This is exectly how OKC needs to start out. Start in the urban core and build out. It is the only way to encourage higher density downtown. A commuter rail system from Norman and Edmond is useless if you can't move around once you are downtown.

A system like this could connect the downtown districts, St. Anthony, OU medical, and the Capitol Complex. Make it free and you would have to be the riders off with a stick.

And you forgot to mention that the city is going to build the downtown streetcar trolley as part of MAPS III, which is way before C2S see's any of it's plan come to fruition.

Why do you keep bringing this up? MAPS III has not been announced. You do not know that.

Can any of you give us a sample overlay on an aerial view of the metro to show how your preferred plan would work? I think it would really be helpful to us trying to follow..

Platemaker has a good one that is based on using former interurban ROW (medians) in the inner city and using Portland Streetcar-style cars. I don't know if he's posted it. He should.

All of you who said I am hallucinating, how much you want to bet there is still a monorail at the state fairgrounds?

What, so there's a miniature one on display somewhere or something? I don't get it.


the central park runs N-S, whereas the new (and existing) crosstown runs E-W, how does moving it a few FEET to avoid the rail yard remove the central park and new boulevard?


betts already said it, and I will reiterate. The park would be destroyed by having to build a multi-modal station in/around Union Station, regardless of where I-40 goes. And I disagree that we are only talking $1 million to upgrade the rail yard. HOW ON EARTH are we getting a $500 million figure for Dallas to build a railyard and only $1 million to upgrade our dilapidated yard? As ed points out with his pictures, I just don't see how we can be that far ahead of Dallas' building from scratch.

I'm fine with commuter rail if Edmond and Norman want to help pick up the tab, but it should come after or coincide with an inner-city modern streetcar like Portland Streetcar that covers DT, BT, MT, Capitol Complex, Medical District, OCU, and the neighborhoods in between. Connecting to Western, Penn Square, and Nichols Hills Plaza would be nice too.

Kerry: All the cities you mentioned not only use Heavy Rail subway but also have their downtown stations underground. You clearly ignored my question (which was "are there any examples of a city with a multimodal station in the centre of its downtown that isn't underground").

Are you advocating that OKC build underground stations? The examples you identified are underground because the space above is too expensive to waste on a station and would be horrible having trains mixing with cars.

by the way, you forgot to mention that in ALL of the cities you listed - their multimodal facility(ies) lie on the edge of downtown; which was my whole point.

White House is not the central business district of dc, The stations of METRO near the white house are not multimodal and are u/g (in case you didn't notice) {my mom works across the street from the white house, as a US attorney by the way}. The multimodal ones are L'Enfant Plaza and Union Station (which is the busiest in the system btw).

Also, just so you know - white house and the capitol is not considered the business district of DC (much in the same way that OK Capitol Campus is separate from downtown OKC), there is a 'downtown' section commercial with dense low and mid rise office buildings just to the N and W of the white house and it is served by McPherson Square station, again underground and not multimodal.

WTC station is multimodal, for the reasons you mentioned (PATH, NYC subway) but it is underground - hence my point.

Betts: Im assuming you are thinking that in order to create a multimodal area at Union that it needs to be in the front (which is where the central park will be). Have you instead considered, that there's plenty of room on the West side of the station for the bus platform area or that we could extend the passenger concourses past the current train platform and have the busses come in from the south? Neither of which would interfere with Central Park (and it would be stupid anyways to destroy the front of Union station putting busses there).

The front would remain a dropoff point and WOULD integrate with the Central Park (I could see a significant landmark/waterfountain tying the two). The streetcar would run streetside and have a stop in front, but that also does not destroy the Central Park.

Dallas spent so much because they didn't have a rail yard available so close to downtown like OKC does. This is the whole point that Tom Elmore, Patrick, myself, and others - are arguing in the first place. Dallas, and other cities, had to start from scratch. Ask Denver how much $$ they SAVED by keeping Union Station where it is and making it multimodal.

As for the monorail, Go to the Fairgrounds and go to the Gateway Arch - the full-scale monorail is right there. I have pics of all of it. Enough said!

I'm in Chicago this week, and I spent a lot of time at Milennium Park yesterday. What I saw was a beatiful, restful place where the community comes together to spend their leisure time. Then, in my mind I thought about how Union Station could be part of a wonderful Central Park, as a place like Tavern on the Green, how the Rose Garden in front of it and the Ampitheatre on the river could be a place people could walk to and gather. But, with Union Station used as a train station, even if you put all the bus and parking on the west, you would still have a two to three block unwalkable area that would completely keep people from walking from the park in front of Union Station through the parking lot, across the train tracks, across the highway (ugly and uninviting) to the park beyond. It would effectively ruin the effect, and lose us the chance of developing a magnificent, iconic park that could be a gathering place for our community, and effectively destroy it as an area around which people would be excited about living. All this, again, for train tracks that don't go where most people in OKC want to go, simply because there are tracks. It's a terrible waste of a chance to create something beautiful and impressive in OKC in favor of a commuter station that again, would be poorly located. Rod, you live in Seattle, which has a lot of natural beauty, and perhaps youve forgotten how ugly most of downtown OKC is. People like to live in places that are aesthetically appealing, which is why Seattle is a more popular place to live than OKC. By destroying our chance to create beauty out of ugliness in downtown OKC, we lose our chance to compete with other cities with more natural appeal.

Im not so sure why the animosity and hostile posts are aimed at me. Im only suggesting what will be the least expensive and most easy/likely method(s) to implement for OKC.

You guys seem to be IGNORING the cost of building a Portland MAX style Light Rail line (did you hear me when I said our/Seattle's new line is 14 miles and will cost over $3B)??? That's $214M per mile!! And all of the downtown stations already existed (see Seattle Bus Tunnel).

Most experts quote light rail costs of $50M per square mile (that's streetside and NOT grade separated). NOT GRADE SEPARATED, in order to make it work cost wise, you'd need lengthy trains - which tie up traffic, and defeat the purpose. Grade separate it, and you run into Seattle-type costs.

So, given this - why do you guys keep fantasizing about this?

do you even realize how easy it iwll be to implement commuter rail? We did it here, and it was basically the cost of the trainsets (since we're still using the same stations as Amtrak). Im sure OKC would be similar - throw in a few PnR platforms.

I NEVER said that CR should be funded solely by OKC - it is a Metrowide issue (at least Edmond/OKC/Norman/Guthrie/Purcell/maybe Moore to start but do you realize that Norman and Purcell already have Amtrak stations, as does Edmond and Guthrie I believe.

Im telling you, we could spend $15M on three heavy rail trainsets and have two CR lines up and running by year end. And it would be in the 'commuter corridor' of Oklahoma City; I've never said we should do a E-W route, at this time. Commuter Rail is the quickest and cheapest mode of mass-transit (aside from buying busses) that OKC could implement, and that is due to Union Station.

(Santa Fe doesn't have the platforms, it only has one - which is Amtrak style. It would cost too much to expand it, since the tracks are in an overhead viaduct. Union Square's are surface, with underground pax concourses connecting the platformS to the terminal. Sure, this would need to be upgraded - but isn't it cheaper to use the existing infrastructure, since it does exist and is not in too bad shape. Im not sure what the cost would be, but I am certain it would be cheaper than starting from scratch; plus we have the added bonus with Union of making it multimodal (since there is space to the WEST and SOUTH of it), a point that Santa Fe doesn't have. Making Union multimodal increases it's worth and makes it so that you really could facilitate mass transit efficiently. It would be very similar in nature to Union Station in Denver (Amtrak, CR, LR, bus, 16th street shuttle bus). OKC is lucky to have AMTRAK righ in the CBD, but it would cost way too much to expand it and make it multimodal.

As for the downtown Streetcar, this is already a plan for METRO and was supported by the mayor to be part of MAPS III (that's why I keep saying it JBrown). Although MAPS III hasn't been formally announced, one should assume that some component of the Streetcar would exist - since it is an OKC transit issue and since OKC residents overwhelmingly listed light rail/tranist as a concern.

Therefore, why keep talking about the streetcar as the only mode of transit? It is not grade separated, costs $10M+ per mile, and IS already being planned for downtown, that we likely wont see up and running until 2012. ....

Why dont we talk about something we can get running like end of this year (definitely by next year) with near negligable relative cost!! Commuter Rail is the way to start.

I'm in Chicago this week, and I spent a lot of time at Milennium Park yesterday. What I saw was a beatiful, restful place where the community comes together to spend their leisure time. Then, in my mind I thought about how Union Station could be part of a wonderful Central Park, as a place like Tavern on the Green, how the Rose Garden in front of it and the Ampitheatre on the river could be a place people could walk to and gather. But, with Union Station used as a train station, even if you put all the bus and parking on the west, you would still have a two to three block unwalkable area that would completely keep people from walking from the park in front of Union Station through the parking lot, across the train tracks, across the highway (ugly and uninviting) to the park beyond. It would effectively ruin the effect, and lose us the chance of developing a magnificent, iconic park that could be a gathering place for our community, and effectively destroy it as an area around which people would be excited about living. All this, again, for train tracks that don't go where most people in OKC want to go, simply because there are tracks. It's a terrible waste of a chance to create something beautiful and impressive in OKC in favor of a commuter station that again, would be poorly located. Rod, you live in Seattle, which has a lot of natural beauty, and perhaps youve forgotten how ugly most of downtown OKC is. People like to live in places that are aesthetically appealing, which is why Seattle is a more popular place to live than OKC. By destroying our chance to create beauty out of ugliness in downtown OKC, we lose our chance to compete with other cities with more natural appeal.

Betts, Union station's tracks connect to the N-S corridor. And, the west or south sides of Union station are not in the plan for the Central Park to my recallection.

I don't see how it will be a waste, in fact - I see how using Union station as a multimodal facility will HELP downtown and the Core-2-Shore, especially the urban vibe of the Central Park; given the scores of suburbanites who would be coming in through it, walking down the park or taking the downtown streetcar, and patronizing the goods and services that downtown has/and will have to offer.

It seems as though you would like Union Station to be an empty building or a focal point, similar to shed planetarium in Grant Park, Chicago. I think that is a waste, when OKC desires mass transit and has the infrastructure.

Here is an ironic point - Millennium Park and Grant Park in Chicago, both sit above rail yards and were former LARGE industrial transfer yards themselves. But, most of Chicago's multimodal facilities lie on the near west side of the loop (although a few CR stations still exist UNDER the park corridor.

Betts, I hear what you're saying - and I was just in OKC in May, so I know how fugly the existing C2S area is (I drove through there, dreaming of the changes). I agree, OKC's central park will be magnificent and should echo both Grant and Millennium park (I think OKC used Chicago as a focal for it's C2S park design). Having a beautiful multimodal facility at the end of it; I see it as a significant plus.

Anyone that has the time and the inclination should replay last week's City Council meeting and see how the political winds are starting to shift toward improving the entire OKC transit system. It was a very interesting discussion. I'm really pleased with the actions of the Downtown Neighborhood Association. Their message has been received at City Hall and added significient weight to the growing pro-mass-transit and get on with it now argument.

City of Oklahoma City | City Council Archive (http://okc.gov/council/council_library/forms/CouncilMeetings.aspx?MeetingID=169)

It seems as though you would like Union Station to be an empty building or a focal point, similar to shed planetarium in Grant Park, Chicago. I think that is a waste, when OKC desires mass transit and has the infrastructure.

Here is an ironic point - Millennium Park and Grant Park in Chicago, both sit above rail yards and were former LARGE industrial transfer yards themselves. But, most of Chicago's multimodal facilities lie on the near west side of the loop (although a few CR stations still exist UNDER the park corridor.

Betts, I hear what you're saying - and I was just in OKC in May, so I know how fugly the existing C2S area is (I drove through there, dreaming of the changes). I agree, OKC's central park will be magnificent and should echo both Grant and Millennium park (I think OKC used Chicago as a focal for it's C2S park design). Having a beautiful multimodal facility at the end of it; I see it as a significant plus.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. If the facility were at the north end of the park (which it can't be....it's in the middle of the space, then I'd be fine. If it were on Reno, I'd be just fine, although I still think it's a poor location, being nowhere near any space that could be used for north-south, which is what I think is the important line, and I see east-west as fairly superfluous. A station would absolutely block any CBD access to the river, making any park south of it more connected to the southside of OKC than the north and the CBD. See what Chicago has done with what was an ugly railyard. They use Michigan Avenue as their mass transit street, a place that already has city character and is no real connection to the park spaces. Also, the area west of Union Station was designated higher density residential, and I don't know too many people who will want to live immediately adjacent to an ugly railyard AND a national highway.

No, I want Union Station to be a restaurant, a space that can be used for parties and events.....perhaps art shows, wedding receptions, galas, etc.....a space that belongs to the people, and that is a showplace. That is my dream for the space....as the focal point of a park that stretched from the CBD to the river. I hate the idea of it being wasted for transit that may not be wanted or used.

I want transit, but I want it in places that are logical and practical, because that is how you get people who are unused to using mass transit to use it. If we make it complicated and impractical, we keep it ugly, but the benefits may be far outweighed by what we will have lost.....the chance to create a beautiful community space in downtown Oklahoma City.

. . . . No, I want Union Station to be a restaurant, a space that can be used for parties and events.....perhaps art shows, wedding receptions, galas, etc.....a space that belongs to the people, and that is a showplace. That is my dream for the space....as the focal point of a park that stretched from the CBD to the river. I hate the idea of it being wasted for transit that may not be wanted or used.

Fortunately, you (nor I for that matter) get to personally make these decisions . . . they involve politics, economics and, occassionally, genuine public need.

Hotrod - yes I am proposing that OKC has an underground downtown station. Using cut and cover method on the boulevard makes 100% sense. An undergoud station would connect to street level trolleys with direct access to the Conncourse, Ford Center, and new convention center.


If you take a look at Google Earth, the rail line from Tinker passes just under the I-40/I-35/I-240 interchange. Instead of that track following the future path of I-40, it could just make a slight right turn and go under the new Blvd. It would join the original rail right of way just west of downtown near Reno and I-40. A tunnel could be cut under the river or a fly over to connect to the exisiting right of way that heads to the airport.

Basically it is just a process of I-40 and rail changing positions for 4 miles with both being below grade.

I'm still not buying that we are SO FAR ahead of Dallas and their $500 million to build from scratch.

We've got a station that would need an extensive remodel to be used for that purpose again. We've got a dilapidated rail yard/platform with one working set of tracks. So that covers $499 million of Dallas' cost???

Dallas built the rails out of solid gold. It was a black ops bid run by a shadow corporation setup by Halliburton and the tri-lateral commission. Somehow the Mormons were also involved. The whole thing was really a front perpetrated by the special interest highway construction companies. Rumor has it the whole operation is run like a parrot organization that reaches the highest levels of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. If the Dallas rail yard had been built out of steel the whole place would have cost $29.99

Don't forget the Illuminati!

Don't forget the Illuminati!

Well, that was so obvious I didn't think I needed to point it out. I did leave out one thing though. I stayed up late last night and saw a Billy Mays info-mercial and he was selling train station 2 for the price of 1.

Hotrod - yes I am proposing that OKC has an underground downtown station. Using cut and cover method on the boulevard makes 100% sense. An undergoud station would connect to street level trolleys with direct access to the Conncourse, Ford Center, and new convention center.


If you take a look at Google Earth, the rail line from Tinker passes just under the I-40/I-35/I-240 interchange. Instead of that track following the future path of I-40, it could just make a slight right turn and go under the new Blvd. It would join the original rail right of way just west of downtown near Reno and I-40. A tunnel could be cut under the river or a fly over to connect to the exisiting right of way that heads to the airport.

Basically it is just a process of I-40 and rail changing positions for 4 miles with both being below grade.

I still don't see any reason why it couldn't run on top of the boulevard, which would save even more money. But, I also think the east-west line can wait for a while....until we see if the north-south line works well and is used.

Betts - the trolley would run at grade but something like lightrail or commuter rail needs to avoid street level crossing as much as possible. Underground the train could run at 50 to 55 MPH entering and leaving downtown. At street level it would run at 25 mph through the entire downtown area. That would be too slow to be functional.

25 mph not functional in downtown OKC?

Heck..NYC subways don't move much faster than that.

25 mph not functional in downtown OKC?

Heck..NYC subways don't move much faster than that.

Try standing next to the platform when an express goes by. NYC subway trains have a top speed of 48 mph. How fast do you think they could go if they were at street grade? MARTA runs at 52 MPH under downtown Atlanta.

But w're talking about DT OKC. At 25 MPH it would take about a minute to go from bricktown to the west side of the CBD.

Current day downtown OKC yes - but what about 2028 or 2038 downtown OKC. We have a chance to do it right the first time.

5 minutes then.

You must be assuming like one train per hour. If you have one train every 15 minutes that is 8 trains per hour (2 directions). A train running through downtown OKC on a city street every 7.5 minutes would cut the city in half. Slow the train down to 25 miles per hour for a 4 mile stretch, plus the stop at the station and you don't leave much time for traffic to cross the tracks.