Since I am a very visual person I am having trouble understanding what the On-Trac group is wanting and if they are totally against the Core to Shore plan?
I am with Betts on this one that this is our chance to transform this city in a way that may never come along again. I think we have to have a reason for people to come to the center of town in the first place, an attraction if you will. I envision a grand public space that will spur development along the river which will in turn give people a reason to use the rail in the first place. I understand the On-Trac's vision as well that the right of ways are here and will be much easier to use now before they are plowed under. I am just confused how their plans will affect the park or if it is their goal to not even have the park.

I'd be happy if any of them would even address the park issue. Every request I've made to comment on the park, their interest in even having one, and how they think the two to three block bisection of the park (virtually impossible to avoid) would give it any chance of being user friendly has been completely ignored.

I encourage people who haven't done so to go down to the area, drive down Walker from Reno to the River, go past Union Station and envision it surrounded by parking lots or garages, truck and bus bays and warehouses, multiple lines of track behind it, then an interstate and envision how strollers in the park could get to the park south of the complex and the river easily. If you've never done it, it also behooves you to look at the Core to Shore concept and drive the area.

That is what I thought. I have poured over the plans for C2S. Hell, it is what brought me to OKCTalk in the first place. But I have seen now conceptual plans for what the rail people are talking about. Do any exist? I have seen you ask Tom Elmore that question point blank many times with no answer. My question is won't it cost as much or more money to refurbish Union Station as to build a new one a mile east at the junction of the north south route. I am not trying to be a smart ass, just trying to get answers. And I am not all too pleased with the way the On Trac people are advocating their position to the smaller towns in OK. I understand the need to connect them with the city but it seems they are being a bit one sided and trying to make us feel guilty about wanting a central park that does not include 6 lanes of heavy rail going through it.

That is what I thought. I have poured over the plans for C2S. Hell, it is what brought me to OKCTalk in the first place. But I have seen now conceptual plans for what the rail people are talking about. Do any exist? I have seen you ask Tom Elmore that question point blank many times with no answer. My question is won't it cost as much or more money to refurbish Union Station as to build a new one a mile east at the junction of the north south route. I am not trying to be a smart ass, just trying to get answers. And I am not all too pleased with the way the On Trac people are advocating their position to the smaller towns in OK. I understand the need to connect them with the city but it seems they are being a bit one sided and trying to make us feel guilty about wanting a central park that does not include 6 lanes of heavy rail going through it.

The other question is, "Are there other rail lines that could be used to bring people from small towns into Oklahoma City? And, how many people from small towns are actually going to take the train into Oklahoma City? We don't even have shopping downtown. What is going to be the lure to get them to take the train to downtown Oklahoma City, when most of them want to go to Quail Springs or Penn Square Mall and the surrounding restaurants. Bricktown? Spend a day in Bricktown? I doubt it. Should we sacrifice our vision for Oklahoma City to the few people from Checotah or wherever who might take the train to OKC once a year, if at all? Half the people taking the train would be using a north-south route anyway, which could easily stop at the Santa Fe Station. At least it's close to Bricktown and adjacent hotels. Couldn't lines south of the river be used just as easily to bring these imaginary passengers to Oklahoma City? If they're advocating building four new lines, why not build them south of the river?

betts, i totally am behind you one hundred percent about C2S and having a park that will be the heart of downtown.... but i disagree that okc is boring and flavorless. perhaps with you currently living in nichols hills and not running in the same circles as i... you may feel that way, but my friends and i are killing it and providing a nightlife that is only available on the coasts or in europe. so, the debater in me and the thousands of dollars and hours i've poured into okc can't let that comment pass by without some form of objection, but i do understand where you're coming from.

betts, i totally am behind you one hundred percent about C2S and having a park that will be the heart of downtown.... but i disagree that okc is boring and flavorless. perhaps with you currently living in nichols hills and not running in the same circles as i... you may feel that way, but my friends and i are killing it and providing a nightlife that is only available on the coasts or in europe. so, the debater in me and the thousands of dollars and hours i've poured into okc can't let that comment pass by without some form of objection, but i do understand where you're coming from.

Where do I have to go for that nightlife? I live in downtown okc and feel out in the middle of the sticks...

Where do I have to go for that nightlife? I live in downtown okc and feel out in the middle of the sticks...

Are you kidding me? Of course, your post was at 2:23AM and you didn't say if you were just getting home, just heading out or just woke up after falling asleep on the couch during the ten o'clock news. . . . But, if your definitiion of nightlife includes friends, food, art and entertainment and you hit the streets around six or seven, there are plenty of bars and restaurants to meet up and hang out in . . . and there is more entertainment than you can get to . . . music, theater, art shows abound. Downtown (Arts District), Automobile Alley, Midtown (Plaza Court area), Western Avenue (from NW 36th to NW 50th), The Paseo and Bricktown. And with the Prohibition Room now open at the Gold Dome seven days a week until 2AM, there's no need to go home early. . . . If you don't get off work until 2AM, you're out of luck . . . Try turning off the TV and picking up a Gazette.

Sorry, this is so off topic.

Nice try Tom but you realize Colorado Rail Car has only sold one DMU and it was 5 years ago. The web site you linked to is now a shadow of its former self and has not been updated since May 2005. I once had hopes for Colorado Rail Car (if you do a search of OKCTalk you can see I was pushing them along time ago) but their model is flawed for some reason. Just for fun check out Skytran. It is another rail idea that never took off. Maybe you can try pushing it on OKC also.

Unimodal, Inc (http://www.unimodal.com/)



Hey Detroit has a version of that, really resembles the old monorail of the state fair.

betts, i totally am behind you one hundred percent about C2S and having a park that will be the heart of downtown.... but i disagree that okc is boring and flavorless. perhaps with you currently living in nichols hills and not running in the same circles as i... you may feel that way, but my friends and i are killing it and providing a nightlife that is only available on the coasts or in europe. so, the debater in me and the thousands of dollars and hours i've poured into okc can't let that comment pass by without some form of objection, but i do understand where you're coming from.

Sorry, edcrunk. I should have explained myself more. I didn't mean from an entertainment standpoint. I means aesthetically. Visually, the city is boring and flavorless. That's why Core to Shore is so exciting. The group who worked on it had a vision of how to help Oklahoma City look unique, and more aesthetically pleasing, a way to impress visitors and us. When I first saw it, I couldn't believe how visionary it was, and it is incredibly distressing to me to see that concept thrown out for a couple of unused rail lines that have alternatives elsewhere, or because people cannot imagine a building being used for something other than what it was built for.

Imagine how people in New York or Boston would react if you tried to put a multi-modal station in the middle of Central Park or the Boston Public Garden, bisecting it in two. We don't have that park, but we have the concept of that park, and in my mind it already existed. It's one of the most exciting things I've seen planned since MAPS. It breaks my heart to think of losing it, as, we would lose it. Whether built or not, the park would be completely ruined and rendered almost unuseable by the presence of a station that eccompasses several blocks and the entire width of the park.

ONTRAC - Old Nincompoops Trying to Retire Action on the Core

or something like that ;)

Would it be possible to "bury" the lines, parking garages and anything else that Union Station would need to become a multi-modal transit hub? I know it would cost more but I think it's possible and the location is excellent near the CBD, our new park, river, etc. If we could bury these needed amenities, we could still have the park on top of all it. Basically the new I-40 was going to be below grade, but now is at grade (although you don't hear anyone outcrying about that to ODOT). Maybe the at grade highway is ruining the view from the park compared to it was going to be below grade before.......Are we going to stare at the highway and sound walls now from the park? Or if the lines, etc. can't be built below grade, how about we build an elevated platform above them and then plant dirt, grass, trees, etc. on top of it so it becomes an "elevated park" at that section, but still looks like a continuous park, has usability, but hides the buses, railcars, taxi's, etc. Just some thoughts. Again, C2S won't be built exactly as shown no matter what although I believe regardless of outcome, it will still be a world class park.

I thought the new highway was going to be six feet below grade, whereas it was originally planned to be 20 feet below grade. If we're going to have light rail, I'm still confused as to why we can't run it on the Boulevard. That would be far more more practical from a location standpoint, and if we're thinking about burying the lines, parking garages, etc, wouldn't it be just as cheap to build a new multimodal station in a far more convenient location? East of the park and the planned convention center south of Reno is land that has no plan, from what I can tell. That would allow you to build a station that meets current codes, could have all the above ground parking and bus lanes, etc that you would want, would be closer to Bricktown, the Triangle and the CBD and would not affect the planned park at all.

Bottom line is that we need to decide what we really want to spend money on. Do we want light rail, or do we want heavy rail, both or neither? Who will use it? How many people need to be using it for it to be cost effective? How many people work in a place that will make light rail convenient enough that they will actually use it? I don't want light rail just so our mayor can go to meetings with other mayors and puff out his chest about us being a cool city, or that we can go to other cities' message boards and talk about how cool we are because we have light rail. I want light rail only if people will really use it, and we're not spending millions to billions of our taxpayer dollars subsidizing a few thousand riders.

I think a lot of people don't really have a good concept of where this place is. Here are a couple of google map images to give folks an idea.

The broad view...
http://www.geocities.com/bombermwc/map.bmp

Up close...
http://www.geocities.com/bombermwc/unionstation.bmp

Now, where the highway will go, courtesy of 40forward....
http://www.geocities.com/bombermwc/realign.bmp

Now, here's where the real debate comes into all of this. Is this station really close enough to where the action is to be functional as an intermodal station? There is enough land around the facility to have it be one. The building would have to be added on to for that to work though. Right now its a single use facility.

My arguement is No, that the facility is not close enough to function well. If light rail comes to OKC, you're going to have to hop on a bus to leave the station to get anywhere. Check out how far you would have to walk if you were headed to bricktown or the Ford Center. Most people aren't going to be willing to do that here. It's not New York City folks. OKC'ers would rather drive their own car than take twice as long to get there because of changing modes and then walking still.

A truly functional intermodal station needs to be more central to the area. Santa Fe would have been perfect for it's location, but there's no way the facility would have been functionally adequate.

You can see in the maps that the station is staying no matter what...the only thing that is going is a few BLOCKS of freight line. So I have to ask again, why are we fighting a mulit-hundred million dollar project that benefits 100K+ people EVERYDAY for a few blocks of un-used (and no plans to use) rail? Why do the masses of people that use the road have to stop everything so a few people (that drive their cars too) can make a big fuss.

We are NOT talking about millions of dollars worth of lines like Mr. Elmore would have you believe. His study after study from other cities don't apply to our situation and his "facts" are unsubstantiated. There are so many things that would have to be done for these lines to even be available for light rail, but do they ever talk about those facts, No.

The whole idea behind C2S is to be able to build the grand vision the way we want it. That means we put things where we want them without being tied to where they currently are. Union Station is a perfect example of this. It's not in the location we want it to be for C2S. We don't even know if light rail is going to exist here.....from what the city is saying, they are probably going to go with CNG busses or trollies instead anyway.

--------------

Let me also offer up a little bit of info from 40forward on this very question...It shows how they are going to still have active lines, they are simply moving where trains access them. Again, contrary to Mr. Elmore's group, we are NOT losing rail, just access to the building from it....big whoopie.

Question - Why do you have to destroy Union Station to build the new Crosstown?

Answer - This is a common misconception. Construction of the new Crosstown is not destroying Union station.

In fact, there are currently two active rail lines located just south of the Union Station. The remainder of the former Union Station yard is currently unusable due to the fact that the railroad companies have removed many of the tracks and any other remaining tracks are unserviceable.

The northernmost of the two active lines is operated by the Union Pacific (UP). This line will be depressed, along with the roadway, from approximately Santa Fe Ave. to approximately Western Ave. and maintain somewhat the current alignment. The UP line will be far enough to the south to allow for a second track to be installed in the future in the event that passenger rail activities ever return to Union Station.

Just to the south of the UP line is an east-west line belonging to the BNSF Railroad. This line will be removed and the trains diverted to the south of the North Canadian River onto an existing east-west line referred to as the Packingtown Lead, which ODOT is updating. Utilization of this line and the existing north-south BNSF mainline in conjunction with improvements to the Flynn Yard will ensure continued service for the area. This work will improve the connectivity from the area of Will Rogers World Airport to the Santa Fe Station, which is the chosen Oklahoma City passenger rail facility.

Thank you, bomber. That is an excellent explanation. I did not know the name of the Packingtown Lead, but it is clearly the line the BNSF wants to use, since they've virtually abandoned the line immediately south of Union Station.

I have disrespected no one here jbrown,

You have done just that by implying that only those crusaders on your side have Oklahoma's best interest in mind. You also continue to imply that we are ODOT apologists. That is hardly the case. You believe that Union Station should be an intermodal hub. We believe that it should be built elsewhere because (1) Union Station is a poor location, and (2) Union Station as a hub would destroy our chance at a successful urban park.


I also don't think that anybody has mentioned that in the CURRENT ODOT plan, they are re-routing one line, and two lines behind Union station will remain. The ON-TRAC folk are wanting the space reserved for 6+ lines. I have climbed around the tracks back there, and 2 lines are generous, the other rail lines back there are a mess, and will need significant investment to make them more than the class D lines they are now. The current set of active tracks are Class B and only rated for 50(ish) mph. The other issue is that if they do manage to persuade ODOT to shift the crosstown south, it will almost certainly mean that ODOT will have to absorb Little Flower Church and many other historic buildings to make way for the overpasses for the new I40.

I'm so happy to see some logical thinking here.


Would it be possible to "bury" the lines, parking garages and anything else that Union Station would need to become a multi-modal transit hub?

That completely defeats the purpose of "saving the valuable existing infrastructure." Why go to all that trouble when you can just build the station in a better location?

I think a lot of people don't really have a good concept of where this place is. Here are a couple of google map images to give folks an idea.

The broad view...
http://www.geocities.com/bombermwc/map.bmp

Up close...
http://www.geocities.com/bombermwc/unionstation.bmp

Now, where the highway will go, courtesy of 40forward....
http://www.geocities.com/bombermwc/realign.bmp


My arguement is No, that the facility is not close enough to function well. If light rail comes to OKC, you're going to have to hop on a bus to leave the station to get anywhere. Check out how far you would have to walk if you were headed to bricktown or the Ford Center. Most people aren't going to be willing to do that here. It's not New York City folks. OKC'ers would rather drive their own car than take twice as long to get there because of changing modes and then walking still.




See, this map really does it for me. Do you guys realize it's about a ten block walk to Main Street?!? That's nearly 3/4 of a mile, no one is going to want to walk from the main transportation hub fifteen minutes to get to the heart of downtown OKC. It's about the same walk to get to Bricktown. Imagine trying to get to the Memorial, that's well over sixteen blocks.

Verdict: Keep Union Station, keep the current I-40 plans, revisit light rail later.

Just because some of us are in favor of Union Station does NOT mean it will derail Core 2 Shore.

This is the same scare tactic that your president George W Bush likes to use with regard to the Axes of Evil, terrorism, and anything differing from his right wing Christian agenda; "if you're against me then you must want the whole thing to fail"

Nope, those fascist views are not reality. Im sure everyone on here, including Tom, are in favor of Core 2 Shore. But, many of us are also in favor of Union Station's rail yard as well.

I don't see what the big deal is to adjust the alignment a few (50) feet to avoid it. Both sides would win - and OKC would RETAIN its EASIEST SHOT at implementing Commuter Rail!

You're right, it's not OKC ONLY SHOT but it IS the easiest and CHEAPEST! ODOT is a transportation agency, and last I checked Rail is a form of transit - that is green and could promote mass congregation in downtown!

And stop with the hypocracy that some of you keep trying to stir up (like the: put rail tracks through the Central Park - NOBODY has that plan, or Busses in front of Union Station instead of Central Park - again NOBODY has that plan either). In fact, most people are IN FAVOR of I-40 and are glad it's being built; just why does it HAVE TO impede on the rail yard???

Stop it with those scare tactics and stick to the facts: should we save the Union Station rail yard in the hopes for a Metro Commuter Rail or Statewide Interurban system OR should we get rid of it according to the current I-40 plan. THAT'S THE ISSUE - nothing more or less.

Anything else you people try to 'stick in there' is just hypocracy, propaganda, and 'mostly' lies!

Move I-40 the necessary feet to SAVE THE RAIL YARD!!!

SSANDEDOC - see now that's my point exactlly. It's location prevents it from being a viable solution to ANY intermodal situation. It's too far for people to walk from it....and they aren't going to want to pay to take a trolly up to Bricktown when they could have driven and paid the same for parking as they would for all the transportation changes. Especially when their car would have taken them when/where they wanted without being on someone else's schedule. I'm in my 20's and walk a lot, but I wouldn't walk that to go downtown. Personally I'd love to be able to hop on a train and run around town without a car (i hate driving around all the idiots), so don't ever claim that I am against rail. But this ISN'T the way to go.

Back to the point of the rail lines though. If you look at the maps, you'll note that the lines leading up to the yard are NOT being taken out by I-40. That means, should light rail be brought in, we still have plenty existing line to lead to a new station (assuming we even build an intermodal at all). So what we're looking at removing is 3 small BLOCKS of track....not miles of it.

Now, why can't I-40 be moved the 300 ft? Because the project has alraedy started. Land has been prepared on either side of the facility with a specific path in mind. We've known the potential path of the highway for YEARS now. The question is, why didn't the rail folks voice their opinion BEFORE construction started? And I'll say it again, if the city heard the complaint, and denied it, then move on. They have a larger vision in mind here and a VERY SMALL area of rail does NOT mean that we're out millions upon millions of dollars for a new facility. You guys are acting like these lines are worth their weight in gold and would revolutionize OKC traffic. They will do no such thing friends. I-40 shows how we are increasing our use of cars and it will be several decades before any sort of public transportation can make a dent in that.

Now I never said the rail folks are opposed to C2S. What I said was that Union Station's lines don't fit into it's plans. WAAAAY different, so don't put words in my mouth.

And don't even try to compare this situation to Georgy and his idiot crew. And by making that comparison, it doesn't make you the good guy either.

Axes of Evil? Sounds like a Conan movie.

It's too far for people to walk from it....and they aren't going to want to pay to take a trolly up to Bricktown when they could have driven and paid the same for parking as they would for all the transportation changes.

I'd gladly walk 6 blocks to save the $7 I spend in gas every day PLUS parking. Granted, some park for free. And I think a train and/or trolley is going to be A LOT less than parking for 8 hrs downtown. I think you are exaggerating a bit here...

I think he on the money, so to speak.

Is it possible for anyone to do a mock rendering showing C2S incorporating Union Station as a multimodel?

I'm on it.


You're right, it's not OKC ONLY SHOT but it IS the easiest and CHEAPEST! ODOT is a transportation agency, and last I checked Rail is a form of transit - that is green and could promote mass congregation in downtown!

And stop with the hypocracy that some of you keep trying to stir up (like the: put rail tracks through the Central Park - NOBODY has that plan, or Busses in front of Union Station instead of Central Park - again NOBODY has that plan either). In fact, most people are IN FAVOR of I-40 and are glad it's being built; just why does it HAVE TO impede on the rail yard???

Move I-40 the necessary feet to SAVE THE RAIL YARD!!!


You come in here with all your caps lock and exclamation points and George Bush comparisons and accuse us of using scare tactics and propaganda??

Explain to me how a park that is supposed to be a link between the CBD and the river is not useless when you bisect it with a giant multimodal transit station that includes a 300 ft. wide rail yard.

You come in here with all your caps lock and exclamation points and George Bush comparisons and accuse us of using scare tactics and propaganda??



ROFL!111

[QUOTE=HOT ROD;172166]And stop with the hypocracy that some of you keep trying to stir up (like the: put rail tracks through the Central Park - NOBODY has that plan, or Busses in front of Union Station instead of Central Park - again NOBODY has that plan either). In fact, most people are IN FAVOR of I-40 and are glad it's being built; just why does it HAVE TO impede on the rail yard???QUOTE]

Hot Rod, if the rail tracks aren't going through the Central Park, where are they going? And, if Union Station is going to be multi-modal (and have truck traffic like the rail people are proposing......where do you think the tractor trailer trucks are going to pick up their piggy backs if not at Union Station?), how is it not going to have to have bus bays? Where do you think they're going to put the parking lots or parking garages? They've got the convention center planned for east of the park, and higher density residential housing planning west of the park (not that anyone is going to buy anything but cheap lofts right next to a place where trains are roaring by, cars and buses are doing the same and tractor trailers are pulling up at all hours of the night to pick up their piggy backs). It won't ruin all of Core to Shore, but it will surely ruin the park, and I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who will want to live by a bus/train/truck station instead of a park.

Hot Rod, you live in a city that is naturally beautiful. We have to create beauty. Beauty is one of the things that brings people to a city.....not the ability to take a train to Yukon or Shawnee (to do what?). I fwe don't build this park, we lose an amazing chance to transform our downtown. And we're sacrificing it for a rail line, when we've got multiple rail lines just a few blocks south of it that could be used for the same thing?

I'm on it.




You come in here with all your caps lock and exclamation points and George Bush comparisons and accuse us of using scare tactics and propaganda??

Explain to me how a park that is supposed to be a link between the CBD and the river is not useless when you bisect it with a giant multimodal transit station that includes a 300 ft. wide rail yard.

Perhaps I'm spacially challenged, but we're talking about moving the existing I-40 alignment a mere 300 feet to accommodate the full rail yard.

If we're talking about 300 little feet of park, with I-40 on the south border, how is anything bisected? the park will clearly stop at I-40. By keeping the rail yard, we're just asking that I-40 start 300 feet further south and the park be 300 feet shorter.

If it "bisects" as you say, the rail lines are running right through the middle, and clearly that's not the case, is it?

Interesting.

According to venture79 (in post #38), the "majority of new multi-modal hubs...are typically being constructed near or on grounds of existing airports."

Since this is both my business and my primary field of study, you'd think I'd know of ONE "multi-modal hub" - SOMEplace - which fits that description, wouldn't you?!

So...does anyone have an example?


Garl B. Latham
Dallas, Texas

I think he means that rail, bus, taxi, personal vehicle, and or course air travel can be accessed in one point. That is pretty typical in major cities. DFW even has a similar system in the works.

Generally, most hubs are in downtowns.


Midtowner, read the above posts as well as the one on "Union Staton"...they will answer your questions.

Perhaps I'm spacially challenged, but we're talking about moving the existing I-40 alignment a mere 300 feet to accommodate the full rail yard.

If we're talking about 300 little feet of park, with I-40 on the south border, how is anything bisected? the park will clearly stop at I-40. By keeping the rail yard, we're just asking that I-40 start 300 feet further south and the park be 300 feet shorter.

If it "bisects" as you say, the rail lines are running right through the middle, and clearly that's not the case, is it?

(1) Whether it will be considered a separate park south of I-40 or not does not change the fact that it is intended to be one continuous greenspace from the boulevard to the river. The railyard WOULD bisect this greenway.

(2) Moving I-40 300 feet south would mean the destruction of the Little Flower Church.

I'm on it.




You come in here with all your caps lock and exclamation points and George Bush comparisons and accuse us of using scare tactics and propaganda??

Explain to me how a park that is supposed to be a link between the CBD and the river is not useless when you bisect it with a giant multimodal transit station that includes a 300 ft. wide rail yard.

The park wont be bisected jbrown. The rail yard will stay where it is, behind Union Station.

I thought you were smarter than that.

Oh, Sorry you were scared by the caps and facts I posted; now you can go back into the closet.

Betts.

I hear what you're saying and I appreciate your opinion - but one thing I don't understand is why you keep saying that having a multimodal will destroy the central park.

The rail yard as it exists is in the back of the facility. So, surely it would remain there, not run in front. As for the busses, I would predict they would either run on the sides OR in back with the trains. there just isn't enough room to put them in front; and IMO it would be stupid to put them in-front anyways, since people need to be able to get in and out of the facility - through the front.

so, Im just not understanding how keeping the rail yard and turning union into a multimodal will mean the end to the new central park. If anything, having Union as a multimodal only enhances C2S and ensures the viability of the area. The plan also propells OKC into the 21st Century and gives the city a CHEAP option for mass transit.

I think this is something ODOT should have at least looked at and considered. I don't know why ODOT doesn't consider all modes of transit in it's plans. While it is too bad they didn't - it doesn't mean plans can't be altered to save the yard while also keeping an asset that the city has. Especially since this would be quite cheap to implement, and still move I-40 and create C2S - all of it can be done!

I agree that Seattle has lots of natural beauty because of our geography, but you guys in OKC aren't alone in creating it either! I understand what you want to do - and I am a very strong supporter of OKC and C2S/Central Park! But, I also am a strong supporter for mass transit in the city - and I would like for OKC to continue to invest wisely; don't make the same mistakes that other cities have.

Luckily for us in Seattle, we did keep our Union Station/aka International District Station and turned it into a multimodal (Sounder Commuter Rail, Sound Transit Light Rail (u/c), Sound Transit Commuter Bus, Metro Transit Bus (local/regional)). Amtrak is right across the street, at King Street Station.

There was once talk of removing Union Train Station here since King Street had Amtrak - but somebody had the vision of it being multimodal. This is what I (and others) have been saying about OKC's Union station. It doesn't have to be big (since there's no luggage facilities required for an intermodal) - you only need to have disembarking points for the modes of transit you will have and easy egress.

The vision I have, is Union Station abutting the new Central Park - with CR trains in the restored rail yard (people accessing it via the underground concourse) and Busses docking either on both sides of Union OR perhaps a concourse or two in the yard area devoted to busses. The front of the facility would be grand entrance and would overlook the lawn of Central Park. The downtown trolley, which would circle Central Park, would have a stop in front.

In this scenario, everyone wins!

Bisect: "to cut or divide into two equal or nearly equal parts." Technically, I am using an incorrect term because the two parts wouldn't be nearly equal, but the concept is the same. If the park starts just south of Reno and is supposed to run continuously south to the river (with a pedestrian bridge over I-40, then keeping rail lines, and having everything else associated with a multimodal station there, divides the park in half. Union Station would no longer be part of the park, as it would be in the current Core to Shore plans. It and the rails behind it would effectively divide the north part of the park from the south part and make it completely pedestrian unfriendly to walk from the north part of the park to the south part of the park. It would unequally bisect it. It would close off the river from the CBD for pedestrians. As has been said before, how many New Yorkers do you think would get all excited about putting a multimodal station in the middle of Central Park?

Hot Rod, a multimodal station would be noisy, it would be ugly, and it would completely ruin the aesthetics of Union Station. It's also a bad location. Sorry, I'm holding out for a multimodal station where the north (if we ever even build them) LIGHT rail lines bisect the east-west LIGHT rail lines (if we ever need them). I can easily see this stalling Core to Shore, ruining the park, and a use study (of which none exists from what I can tell) determining there isn't enough interest in or people to ride the line, so it never happens.

I've got a friend who's a big rail fan, and he says there isn't enough population in all of Shawnee, El Reno and Yukon to make an east-west line economically feasible. Do we know that he's wrong, from a scientific stand point?

Well I'm not sure anyone was really considering a line that far out of town in either direction. I think you're more likely to see from Yukon to MWC and that's it.

Back to Union - if it were intermodal, Union station isn't large enough, or even designed even close to accomodate anything but a few rail lines. Even IF it became an intermodal, the station would only be one part. Simply putting a bus stop on either side of the facility is stupid. It's not functional and it doesn't serve it's purpose well.

If we're going to have intermodal, then we need an environment that is covered from the elements and emcompasses all aspects of transportation. Union Station is ONLY a rail station. It does NOT include facilities to handle anything other than that and DOES NOT lend itself to expansion for other modes. It just wasn't built with anything like that in mind.

Now could it serve as a single rail station, sure. Intermodal, NO FREAKIN WAY. We're not talking Norman here where a platform with an little roof can call it done. We're talking downtown OKC. We should expect more than that.

Some of you Union Station people are clearly out of touch with reality. If you try to use Union Station as a freight facility please explain to me how that will even work if the train pulls up with 50 truck trailers on it. Do they unload the 50 trailers and hold them in a giant lot until the semi tractors shows up to drive them away, or do the 50 tractors queue up in the park and as the trailer is unloaded the next one in line drives up and takes it away. How long before the train shows up do the trucks start linning up? One hour? Two hours? 12 hours?

Is this train going to leave empty or will there be 50 other trucks waiting to put something on the now empty train. Where are these 50 others truck going to stage? Please Please go see how this type operation works and the vast amount of land that is needed just to stage the equipment (like the giant crane that unloads the trailers in the first place).

Well, as one for some reason very interested in this subject, and appreciative of all the input heretofore... looking at Google maps, I see where our rail lines in the city appear to converge at SW 8th and Santa Fe. Betts points out that (I think) that is where East and West meet North and South. Lets say we put our intermodal there - and I havn't visited the site to see what is there or if its possible or desireable. But if we did, wouldn't we still need to benefit from the ROW of our current EW line going behind Union Sta? Wouldn't we not want to lose what we've got there, even if we put the Intermodal at, say, 8th and Santa Fe?

I want the beautiful park, the aesthetics, the big league city - sort of. But I don't want to lose options for our future. I don't want to get left behind because we didn't plan well. It seems aesthetic growth (and we are on trak there)and the desired critical mass needs to go hand in hand with and be integrated with quality mass transit.

There are good points on both sides of this issue but I hate to see anything destroyed, as OKC as a community has learned the hard way too many times.

Union Station may or may not prove to be a viable location for rail but to destroy that possibility now seems very short-sighted. Who could foresee the value of all the buildings and infrastructure destroyed in the 60's? It took decades for us to realize what a terrible idea that was and the city is still trying to recover.

The simple truth is we won't know the best locations for rail and bus stations for a long time to come. I know people are anxious to get the new I-40 done but if it could be adjusted to allow for Union Station to still be viable as a transportation facility somewhere down the line, than I say it's worth it. Even if it's just one station as a part of a bigger system, that would be a great use for that building. It still could be used for events and the other things we have envisioned.

Also, I mentioned in another thread that I was just in the San Diego Santa Fe station which is remarkably similar to our Union Station. It handles Amtrak plus their streetcar system and also a hub for several bus lines very near their downtown. It's not a huge intermodal station but it has all the elements we are talking about here and is probably on a larger scale than anything OKC will see in our lifetimes.

And yet, it coexists nicely in a downtown area and does not cut off foot or car traffic between the CBD and the waterfront. The area with the tracks is nicely paved and landscaped and it's easy just to walk across the area with the aid of some signal lights. I think all of you would be surprised how low-key it all is, even in a much bigger city with much more traffic than we'd be likely to see.

At any given time, there are 2-3 buses on one side of the building, perhaps one Amtrak train coming/going and an occasional street car passing by at slow speeds.


Considering there will already be a huge freeway behind Union Station, I can't see where a few rail lines are going to make a big difference between people traversing the area, even if the lines are ground level.

Here's the station in SD (the Amtrak rails are furthest left, with the red street cars passing between them and the building and the buses on the other side, parked along the curb):

http://images40.fotki.com/v1334/photos/1/1131078/5453796/sdtrain-vi.jpg

I think some are confusing the terms intermodal and multimodal. Intermodal (to me) is the trailers and containers on flat cars and double stack cars. A multimodal station is where various forms of "people movers" converge and the passengers from the outlying areas served transfer to the "lighter" transit options in the downtown core.

So if Union Station was to be used as a multimodal facility, I think it could be done with two "heavy" rail tracks and two "light" rail tracks. The busses or street level trolleys could pull around to the south side of the station and have their loading platforms on the opposite side of the light and heavy rail platforms. The freight handling area on the south side of Union Station would need to be reduced in size but I don't think the volume would ever support that facility at its present size. The aesthetics of the Central Park facade of the station would be preserved because there would be no need for much more than a 100 slot parking area (to the west side of the station?)

The more important issue with using Union Station as a multimodal facility is how do the North - South commuter trains get there? I do not see an efficient way to do that. Those trains would need to be able to switch from the North-South BNSF line to the tracks behind Union Station without a bunch of reverse moves. I think the best arrangement would be a "Y" track from the BNSF tracks to the area behind Union Station - the trains would pull in to Union Station, then back out to continue on to Edmond or Norman - but I am not sure there is room to do so especially with the elevation change from the N-S tracks to the E-W tracks. This is also necessary for the Heartland Flyer to ever use Union Station.

I would love for OKC to get started building a world class transit system and I think the larger commuter trains would be the way to go for the Edmond - Norman and Shawnee - Will Rogers Airport - Yukon lines. The right of ways already exist and I think it would be less expensive to start with the commuter trains. Light rail would work well running between the various locations within OKC like the Capitol area, OUHSC, and the "Adventure District". The main problem is how to get them to efficiently interface.

I, too, want both - the Central Park in the C2S plan and a rail transit system for the OKC metro. I think multimodal is possible at Union Station. Intermodal with freight and trailers - no way. Intermodal would destroy the C2S Central Park as envisioned by many of us, but a multimodal facility could work there with minor adjustments

Even though freight will likely flow on those east/west lines, it doesn't need to be handled at Union Station. Lots of other places to build a freight facility.

As purely passenger-oriented, I just can't see where Union Station would have a negative impact on the area. And as previously mentioned, it would actually infuse lots of life and attract a lot of development, as apart from the park, there is still lots of space to be developed for C2S to reach it's potential.

After looking at an aerial photo of the area around the N-S BNSF tracks and Shields Ave - there may be room for a rail interchange after all but construction of it would probably require closing Shields for a while.

The photo of San Diego Union Station is more what I invision for OKC Union Station. If it is developed as a purely passenger facility, it could work. It could also be the impetus for more rapid development of the C2S area.

Another possible alternative would be to locate a new facility on the south side of the new Boulevard where the Producers Coop stands now. It would be a facility where all the heavy tracks dead end at the station (I've seen one like this before) and the bus and light rail tracks can be located on a separate level of the heavy rail at a "new" Union Station. The problem here is how to get East - West traffic to that location.

There will be compromises required for any viable rail transit system to be built in OKC. The hard part is predicting where it will need to connect to in the future and how to best preserve that capability while satisfying immediate goals (C2S).

Don't even start comparing this to Pei's Urban Renewal. This is nothing like that at all. So stop trying to use scare tactics because we're not buying them. We're not talking about taking out block after block of historical buildings. We're not even talking about taking out a building. What we're talking about is removing a few blocks of unused infrastructure that is in the way of something that stands to benefit many times over the even potential use of the facility.

You know it may be that Union station somehow can become a STATION at some point....but not intermodal or multimodal or anything more than a station. It's inadequate for any other use. The facility just doesn't work for anything else and any adaptation would take away from the architectural marvel of the building. And if it becomes a station, a single line can be utilized in a much better fashion and with less impact on the surroundings. You want to see a real rail yard, go check out the one on Sooner and 10th....FYI it's not on a google map because the map is too old. This is just ridiculous that we're wasting this much effort on this.

Looking at the San Diego shot pretty much makes that arguement for me. You see how many times larger that facility is than Union Station? Folks, you're over exaggerating the potential value of the facility.

I'm pretty tired of having to deal with this personally. This is an example of a few people causing the 100K+ a day that drive I-40 a nightmare. It would cost more to move I-40 now than the potential benefit out of the lines...hands down, no questions or possible arguement. This is something that should have been discussed 5 years ago, not in the middle of construction. The OKC population has been able to see the path for I-40 for YEARS. It's way past arguing time folks.

Union Station is very similar to SD's Santa Fe Station in size and layout. They were both built around the same time and for the same purpose.

Plus, Union Station has the added benefit of existing passenger tunnels that allow access to out-lying tracks without having to walk over others. If you were to go visit Union Station and walk through the whole place, you would realize it could easily handle any future rail traffic. It's way bigger than needed.

[QUOTE=CaptDave;172282]I think some are confusing the terms intermodal and multimodal. Intermodal (to me) is the trailers and containers on flat cars and double stack cars. A multimodal station is where various forms of "people movers" converge and the passengers from the outlying areas served transfer to the "lighter" transit options in the downtown core.

Yes, that would be me. Thanks for clarifying, I didn't know the difference and I did mean multimodal.

I'm sorry Pete, but that image of San Diego's Santa Fe station just says UGLY to me. Asphalt everywhere. Union Station is supposed to be IN the park, not across an ugly bus ramp or boulevard.



The park wont be bisected jbrown. The rail yard will stay where it is, behind Union Station.

Here's a rendering, because you clearly don't get it.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g320/martymcflyjb/Picture3.png

The park continues south of I-40, as part of a pedestrian axis from the Memorial all the way to the river. If we move I-40 south, that at least doubles the width of the divide, and makes it impossible to cross with one pedestrian bridge. Union Station is in the park, with just a small 2-lane drive in front of it. There is nowhere to put bus ramps and parking lots out of the view of the park. I understand your belief in mass transit for OKC, but why do you INSIST that it be at Union Station when better locations exist that still utilize existing infrastructure and ROW?


The more important issue with using Union Station as a multimodal facility is how do the North - South commuter trains get there? I do not see an efficient way to do that. Those trains would need to be able to switch from the North-South BNSF line to the tracks behind Union Station without a bunch of reverse moves. I think the best arrangement would be a "Y" track from the BNSF tracks to the area behind Union Station - the trains would pull in to Union Station, then back out to continue on to Edmond or Norman - but I am not sure there is room to do so especially with the elevation change from the N-S tracks to the E-W tracks. This is also necessary for the Heartland Flyer to ever use Union Station.

EXACTLY why it doesn't work in that location. It can be a single light rail stop, and should be, but that's it.

Do we really want this view from our central park. We can plan better than that.

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l74/Thaitransit/Bangkok%20Buses/P1000724a.jpg

jb, in the case of Union Station the tracks would be behind the station and border the interstate, not the park.

And the 2-3 buses at any given time could easily be routed to one of the sides of the station, as there are existing exits from the lobby both on the east and west sides with drives.

They would still be in view, just like that picture. Buses are noisy and stinky and fill the air with exhaust.

I realize the tracks would be behind the station, but leaving them would double the size of the separation of not just the greenspace, but all of the C2S neighborhood.

Here's an aerial that shows how a small area for buses just outside the west exit could be off of Hudson and could easily be screened by existing or new trees.

People are already going to have to walk across a pedestrian bridge to get to the area south of the interstate... Making it slightly longer is not going to have a huge impact IMO. And the whole idea is for people to move freely to the river shore, which would not be changed at all.

And if you look at the C2S plans, besides the park and convention center, the huge majority is housing. All east of the park and all south of the interstate -- we're talking about thousands of units. Having a major train station adjacent will make much more sense when all that is built out -- and in fact would greatly help in spurring those developments.


And finally, I used the San Diego example but I can think of many others as well -- especially Los Angeles -- where a main Amtrak/commuter station is quite removed from the CBD but connected through street cars, buses or in the case of L.A., a subway system. And the main station in San Francisco is well removed from the CBD as well, though connected through BART and buses. The area around the SF train station has exploded, with the addition of Pac Bell park and tons of condos.

In fact, can anyone name a city that has one of these elaborate, old train stations where they have completely cut off all rail service?

http://images40.fotki.com/v1338/photos/1/1131078/5453796/unionaerial2-vi.jpg

Again, though. San Diego hasn't put it's Union Station in the middle of a park. Does Los Angeles even have a park? The solution to the problem is to move I-40 south of the river (which I would have been in favor of from the beginning), move the park to the east, and let Union Station be a station. If you don't do that, as jbrown has said, there is no way to cross both the train lines AND the interstate to get to the river or the south side of the park. We will have effectively said that our downtown development ends at 5th Street, and the mile south of it will be lost to Core to Whatever you now want to call it. BECAUSE YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO GET FROM CORE TO THE SHORE!!!!! Sorry about the caps, but no one seems to be paying attention. It will be Core to Train. If that's fine with everyone, then fine. This is a democracy, after all. But, let's all be honest about what will happen.

You've already got a huge interstate running through this area, so I think the arguments of it being bisected and substantially downgraded due to adding a few rail lines to an existing transportation corridor is a bit over the top.

Especially since the park -- even without the interstate or the rail lines -- is not continuous anyway. Central Park will end just north Union Station... Parkland doesn't resume until the other side of the freeway, which is over a tenth of a mile of separation, even with just the interstate. This is not one park.

There is a continuous throughway along Harvey and that wouldn't need to change with the addition of rail service. And the access to the river won't change in any way... There'll still be a pedestrian bridge, it just will have to cross both the rail lines and roadway.

http://www.okc.gov/Planning/coretoshore/visuals/September07_Land_Use.jpg

Is the pedestrian bridge big enough to cross both the raillines and the roadway? Do we know this? And, as far as pedestrians go, looking at the original Core to Shore plans, there was to be a Rose Garden in front of Union Station, not a parking lot. Strolling through the Rose Garden, wending your way through a Union Station that is perhaps a restaurant and Art Gallery and then crossing the below grade highway on a beautiful bridge is not the same as walking through a parking lot, walking around Union Station and then through bus lanes, a parking garage or truck bays to find a bridge that crosses multiple grade level train tracks AND a highway to get to the other half of the park is not a comparable experience.

I'm willing to admit that I don't want raillines behind Union Station or Union Station used as a train station. Will the people who are in favor of Union Station being used as a multi-modal station please admit that it will effectively keep pedestrians from going to the park south of the station, tracks and highway, and that the river will NOTeffectively be a part of the CBD? I'd also like people to comment on whether they would like to live next to the bus/train/truck/highway area, and whether they think families would. Just asking for people to be honest about what they want, and whether they would be willing to live in that area.

When I heard about the park, I decided I'd never be able to afford the housing drawn in the Core to Shore plans, and I was a little sad. I know what it costs to live on Central Park in NYC. When I heard about plans to use Union Station, I knew I'd never make a bad investment on a home that I couldn't resell. I would never move there, that's for sure. And I'm probably the most adventurous of my friends. They all think I'm brave to move to Maywood Park. Who is going to live down there? We might get a nice lifestyle center, but how much classic residential architecture?

Maybe I'm wrong. I actually would hate to have to said, "I told you so", but I've been buying houses for a long time, and I don't think we'll get anyone but people who can barely afford to live downtown in that area. Maybe that's good, but it's not what I envisioned.

Is the pedestrian bridge big enough to cross both the raillines and the roadway?

At this point it's only a concept... There is no reason it couldn't be made a little longer.


there was to be a Rose Garden in front of Union Station, not a parking lot.

There is a street (7th) just north of Union Station that will not be closed in any scenario. And who said anything about adding parking in front of Union Station? there is a drive there now and that's shown as staying in all the renderings.


Will the people who are in favor of Union Station being used as a multi-modal station please admit that it will effectively keep pedestrians from going to the park south of the station, tracks and highway, and that the river will NOTeffectively be a part of the CBD?

Why would it change access to the river? And as previously stated, this is not a continuous park anyway... Even without the rail lines there will be over a tenth of a mile between where the park ends just north of 7th and where it resumes south of the interstate.

Access to the river will not be changed in any way and it's not being moved further from the CBD. In fact, if people want to claim that access from just north of the interstate to the river front would be easy and frequently done, you have to also acknowledge that Union Station is just as close to the CBD as it is the river.

St. Louis....how about that one Pete? That station was WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYU bigger and it's a hotel/restaurant space now. Do they miss it? Not one bit.

bomber... They are now building a new multi-modal facility right next door to it and still using all the same rail lines.

And like the previous examples, it's almost a mile from their CBD, which is farther than our Union Station.

It's not a mile from the CBD, it's right next door. Have you been there? I have.

The rail is a new facility built next door. They didn't even use the same building.


Oh and hey, take a look at the vastness of the rail lines there. There are miles and miles of lines, not 3 blocks. People walk back and fourth from downtown there because there is greenery connecting all the way from the arch, to the station.....which is part of a tourist area...not residences.

Yes I've been there several times. Union station and the new facility are .89 miles from the middle of the St. Louis CBD if you map it out on Google Earth.

And I understand they aren't using the same building but that's an example of giving up on a facility and then having to build an all-new, expensive one. They also didn't destroy the rail lines as is being proposed in the current situation in OKC, otherwise the cost would have been much, much higher.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. I think keeping Union Station a station is a bad, bad idea for all the reasons I've outlined multiple times. I think it's a mistake, and if we do it, I suspect it will sit there unused for years, at which point everyone will say, "Why didn't we ever do that Core to Shore development that everyone thought was so cool?" We don't need rail to El Reno, Yukon and Midwest City. We do desperately need a downtown with some aesthetics. It's not all about buildings. Green spaces are critically important when you've been called a dustbowl and wasteland for years. It's more than the dustbowl that has created that image. Oklahoma City is featureless, boring city. A railyard isn't going to change that image, but an iconic park might. San Diego may be using their Union Station, but San Diego has an ocean right behind it.

This interest in using Union Station as a railyard and train station is about paying the same kind of homage to the railroad in our building as we're criticizing Oklahoma City for doing with the automobile. We're elevating transportation over living spaces and creative building in our downtown. Transportation to places no one even wants to go.....

Why don't we make our city walkable and liveable? Why do we want to sacrifice that to making it easier to live out in the suburbs? What have the suburbs done for us?

Why don't we make our city walkable and liveable? Why do we want to sacrifice that to making it easier to live out in the suburbs? What have the suburbs done for us?

You are assuming the tyranny of the "or" versus the genius of the "and".

There are pretty simple ways of having everything you mention AND still leaving the rail option open at Union Station, as I've outlined.

These are very far from mutually exclusive concepts.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. I see the two as mutually exclusive.

I'd like to see east-west light rail, if we really need it, would use it and can pay for it, run down the Boulevard. I'd like all commercial traffic to run on all the lines south of the river, which already exist and are being used daily.

Pete, you act as if we are talking adding 10 feet to the side of the interstate. From everything I've heard from OnTrac, Elmore, and Latham, they want rows and rows and rows of tracks. This would at least double the width already taken by I-40. This would also require complete redesign of the pedestrian bridge because it is designed to go over a depressed roadway, not an at-grade railyard. I STILL have not seen a valid answer for why the multimodal station won't work better at the junction of the N-S and E-W lines.

Why don't we make our city walkable and liveable? Why do we want to sacrifice that to making it easier to live out in the suburbs? What have the suburbs done for us?

Then perhaps we would be better with no highway at all. In truth, rail and bus will do alot to create a walkable and liveable downtown, though the same cannot necessarily be said for 10-lane highways. If you really believe so strongly in the value of walkability over all other concerns then you should be outraged at the idea of adding a second highway while retaining the current alignment for cars (in the form of a "boulevard"). I am a big fan of walkability, but transit is an enabler if anything.

Further, I worked on the Core 2 Shore plan and going in to the process we had no choice but to accept both the alignment of the highway and the resulting effects on the station. The parks - plural - are meant to be a continuous system, a green path, of sorts, to the river; but they are definitely not one park. It has already been stated, but the highway bisects the park system so adding to this barrier will have some negative effect, but the biggest problem is the initial barrier created by the highway. The added detriment is negligible. In the end the pedestrian bridge is meant to continue the path, but it is clear that it cannot continue the park!

From everything I've heard from OnTrac, Elmore, and Latham, they want rows and rows and rows of tracks. This would at least double the width already taken by I-40.

I can't imagine why there would be the need for more than 3 sets of tracks -- basically what is there currently.


I STILL have not seen a valid answer for why the multimodal station won't work better at the junction of the N-S and E-W lines.

You could do that but it still leaves the same situation at Union Station. The building is staying and for what you propose to be viable, the rail yard would have to stay too -- otherwise there is no E/W line. And that's still far enough from U.S. that there would still need to be a stop there anyway.

We don't need to decide all that now... But what we DO have to decide is if we are going to tear out valuable rail infrastructure that would severely limit future options -- and likely cost much more than a more immediate work-around.


As far as the other considerations such as bridges (it wouldn't only be the pedestrian variety that would be affected) and Core to Shore design elements, the great news is that we haven't built any of that stuff yet -- which is why it's important to make necessary changes now.

Then perhaps we would be better with no highway at all. In truth, rail and bus will do alot to create a walkable and liveable downtown, though the same cannot necessarily be said for 10-lane highways. If you really believe so strongly in the value of walkability over all other concerns then you should be outraged at the idea of adding a second highway while retaining the current alignment for cars (in the form of a "boulevard"). I am a big fan of walkability, but transit is an enabler if anything.

I don't see that we have a choice regarding I-40. It has to exist. As far as the Boulevard is concerned, I don't know if "outraged" is an appropriate description of how I feel about it, but it is my least favorite part of the plan. I do think it's ridiculous that it has been lauded, and I'd be happy to see it go. I didn't know leaving it out was still an option, but if it is, then yes, I'll talk against it.


Further, I worked on the Core 2 Shore plan and going in to the process we had no choice but to accept both the alignment of the highway and the resulting effects on the station. The parks - plural - are meant to be a continuous system, a green path, of sorts, to the river; but they are definitely not one park. It has already been stated, but the highway bisects the park system so adding to this barrier will have some negative effect, but the biggest problem is the initial barrier created by the highway. The added detriment is negligible. In the end the pedestrian bridge is meant to continue the path, but it is clear that it cannot continue the park!

My objection is that it may be so detrimental and user unfriendly that that path isn't looked upon as continuous by pedestrians, and we effectively divide the river from the CBD. If Union Station were only a light rail station, it wouldn't be as terrible, but if it is a multi-modal station, as well as a station for commercial rail, then there will be multiple tracks. I've lived in cities with multi-track raillines, and they are distinctly unattractive and user unfriendly. No one would consider them aesthetic. If we aren't going to worry about aesthetics and user friendliness, so be it. But as a soon to be downtown resident, I am terribly disappointed that an area I thought would be a showpiece and a great residential location will be noisy, smelly,ugly and difficult to traverse. Just my opinion.