The airport would be perfect for freight. That's such a brilliant idea. I'd eschew the buses at Union Station in favor of only trolleys, as I think you'll find that to run them often enough to satisfy passengers, you're not going to have many people riding per vehicle. There wouldn't be much traffic exiting at Union Station throughout the day. I think, at least until the Core to Shore area is really developed, which is a probably a significant number of years in the future, you'll find that even most of the east-west passengers won't want to get off at Union Station, unless they happen to work immediately north of it, as Bricktown and the Ford Center area would be a more sensible stop. Trolleys require less space and are more attractive, more in keeping with "the look" of Union Station, IMO. I don't think buses would be necessary for the forseeable future. Otherwise, I love your ideas. It's a bit of a compromise for me, but the end result is good for Oklahoma City, I can see.

Two light rail lines below grade (same as the relocated Crosstown) would nicely interface with the tunnels at Union Station. People could then move from the light rail system up through the station building where they could walk out into the C2S Central Park or hop onto a modern street car to the CBD. The buses and street cars could run behind (south side) the station since the freight handling area is really not necessary.

I like this idea, but I agree with betts. No buses. Unfortunately Tom will not live with compromise, so he will prattle on.

I like this idea, but I agree with betts. No buses. Unfortunately Tom will not live with compromise, so he will prattle on.

Oh please. Can't we have a discussion without snide comments like this?

Those of us on the other side of the argument have been willing to compromise. He has not.

Yes I agree, but people a shot at Elmore everytime they get a chance. I don't agree with him either but I admire his effort.

There are snide comments coming from both sides of the argument. No one is an angel here.

The core (pardon the pun) is Tom and folks are interested in preserving intact all the land that is currently the railyard, in addition to the bldg and the adjoining tracks, for future use relating to rail. Others appear interested in the railyard becoming the C2S park.

It's not quite that simplistic, but with such opposite views on best use of the real estate, the lines are fairly sharp between what is seen as compromise. For the park folks, moving the new I-40 a short distance south is completely unacceptable because that allows railyard to remain a railyard. To the rail folks, killing off a railyard, when other cities struggle to reach a level of less availability than we are currently poised to thrash, doesn't seem anything beyond shortsighted.

And now, we return to another 20 pages of the thread :)

Intermodal freight rail yards consume a LOT of land. I think it would be a very bad idea to put something like that downtown. I agree 100% with the idea of locating that sort of thing near the airport. There's good highway access there too. We sure don't need lots of heavy semi-trucks pounding down the streets of downtown to reach an intermodal rail yard.

Most passenger rail stations in large cities are dedicated only to passenger rail service. I lived in New York City for 5 years and rode commuter trains out Penn Station and Grand Central frequently. If there was any kind of intermodal freight service happening at those stations I didn't see it. There's large rail yards elsewhere in metro NYC.

Here's another important thing to consider about Penn Station and Grand Central Station in NYC: much of their operations take place underground below street level. A major passenger rail station in OKC wouldn't have a dig and cover kind of construction.

Considering how ODOT spends more than $1 million per year on emergency repairs to the existing Crosstown Expressway, and considering the specter of a tragic bridge collapse like what happened on I-35W in Minneapolis, I believe it's a pretty urgent issue that the new I-40 Crosstown is completed as soon as possible.

If the Crosstown has to go back to the drawing board to be altered the project will be delayed for years to come. And that will be years of more chances for people to get injured or worse if a calamity happens with the old, crumbling existing freeway. New designs, a new EIS process and a reboot of construction plans does not happen fast at all.

I just went and walked/drove the entire Core to Shore area again, looked at Union Station, drove around behind the UHaul building and the cotton gins and had some thoughts:

1. Comercial rail has absolutely no place north of the river
2. There is no east-west line running through Oklahoma City and the entire state of Oklahoma that connects with lines in any other states, so it's ridiculous to think we could be part
of a national intercontinental passenger rail line without major track construction. Tulsa or Dallas is actually better situated for this.
3. Were there to be major track construction for something like a high speed rail line, it would be ridiculous not to route it through the airport for a rail/air link for passengers.
4. Before determining where a multimodal station should be located, we need firm plans regarding where we're going to run light rail
5. We already have passenger travel south, with a proposed route north, so it would be crazy not to put the multimodal station on the already existing
working passenger line.
6. There is a lot of land immediately east and west of the Amtrak line south, south of Reno (especially if it is true that the cotton gins are potentially purchaseable) that could
be used to build a multimodal station. A new station could be built to our precise specifications and needs, with plans for expansion. Then, if we determine we need light rail
east and west, we could use Union Station for a stop.