ODOT must not have any cousins who own land in the area of NW50th/Santa Fe.

Between this thread and the boulevard thread, I'm beginning to realize more and more why when I interviewed for a drafting position last summer at ODOT and mentioned being interested in projects incorporating multi-modal transit I got blank stares (of course the three gentlemen seemed somewhat sour and lethargic anyway) LOL

Alas, needless to say, I didn't get the job.

You should have mentioned your cousin-three-times-removed that used to work for ODOT in the 80s.

The City of Norman is in the process of completing a new grade separation between the BNSF rail lines (two tracks...one current mainline and one siding) and Robinson Street (4-lane arterial). Robinson is being completely re-constructed below-grade and beneath the BNSF right-of-way. When planning for the project began several years ago, the intention was to construct a double-track rail bridge to accomodate the current mainline and siding tracks. However, as the project moved forward, BNSF requested that the City of Norman build into the project the necessary grades and substructure to allow for easy future expansion of the bridge to accomodate an addtional mainline. Because of the importance to BNSF for their own future service, as well as the fact that the City of Norman understood a second mainline would be necessary for establishing commuter rail service from Norman to Oklaoma City, the City of Norman wisely modified the plans and spent the addtional money now to prepare for the future.

That's the kind of foresight, planning and investment we need from ODOT but which is so sorely lacking.

Only partially true. The new structure, while having abutments for a 3rd track, does not have the center pier for a third track, nor does it have its foundation.

I don't mean to be rude, but that is an absurd way to look at it.

Every highway and every overpass that is logistically identified in the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study should have at a minimum the base infrastructure and abutments to support future super-structures.

I am so tired of ODOT completely ignoring everything else that is going on and forcing us in a position where absolutely every segment of a future system will have to be built at the most premium price, a direct burden to the taxpayer.

To "wring our hands" and say "forget it, we're too late", when there are at least two projects coming up that haven't been built yet, is absurd. I'm not going to do it nobody else should either.

Where is the "premium price" for construction of the additional bridge? Grading will be in place as it would be along the alignment of the current structure. Abutment construction would be behind retaining walls, protected from highway traffic. Pier construction would be between highway railings, in a protected area. Building the parallel structure now, 10 years in the future, or 50 years in the future would entail the same logistics, same construction restrictions, the same everything.

As a minimum the abutments and fill for a future rail transit line could / should be done while construction is occurring. It baffles me that NO ONE in ODOT seems to have any foresight beyond the end of their nose or the next highway exit. This is so simple and obvious I cannot believe it hasn't been incorporated into the planning for future infrastructure requirements.

Ooooh, yeah, mean ole ODOT. Never thinking about rail.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110308_11_A1_CUTLIN874426

for the most part, you people need to settle down. Stop the nonsense.

Only partially true. The new structure, while having abutments for a 3rd track, does not have the center pier for a third track, nor does it have its foundation.

Grade, clearance and abutment planning and construction for future expansion is good enough for me. Is ODOT and OKC planning on doing the same for the BNSF Boulevard bridge and the 50th street bridge?

Grade, clearance and abutment planning and construction for future expansion is good enough for me. Is ODOT and OKC planning on doing the same for the BNSF Boulevard bridge and the 50th street bridge?

From what I've been told, yes. Pier locations and vertical clearances for the 50th street bridge over, as well as those for I 235 under, have been planned to accommodate the second track.

Grade, clearance and abutment planning and construction for future expansion is good enough for me. Is ODOT and OKC planning on doing the same for the BNSF Boulevard bridge and the 50th street bridge?

Not sure if the Boulevard underpass will accommodate 3 or 4 tracks above. i believe it's the same width as the current distance between the retaining walls on the current elevated track portion at S 3rd. Newer track spacing standards by the BNSF may limit that area to only 3 tracks, although 4 are currently present.

Ooooh, yeah, mean ole ODOT. Never thinking about rail.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110308_11_A1_CUTLIN874426

for the most part, you people need to settle down. Stop the nonsense.

Let's not kid ourselves. ODOT needed to replace the I-244 bridge. Additional federal money was availabe for bridge projects that involved rail components. It had little, if anything, to do with ODOT's interest in developing Oklahoma's rail transit infrastructure. It was simply another way to get new federal money to pay for a highway bridge that needed replacement.

Not sure if the Boulevard underpass will accommodate 3 or 4 tracks above. i believe it's the same width as the current distance between the retaining walls on the current elevated track portion at S 3rd. Newer track spacing standards by the BNSF may limit that area to only 3 tracks, although 4 are currently present.

Jacobs engineering has made it clear that 5 tracks will be needed on the Boulevard bridge for servicing BNSF freight needs and future expansion of Santa Fe's terminal area. They have estimated that would require expanding the Boulevard bridge to the east an additional 30 feet in the future. That however is based on the current 4-track facility. If BNSF has implemented new spacing requirements between tracks, then obviously to have 5 tracks in the future the Boulevard bridge would have to be widened further. Hopefully all involved are directly consulting with Jacobs on the matter.

Jacobs engineering has made it clear that 5 tracks will be needed on the Boulevard bridge for servicing BNSF freight needs and future expansion of Santa Fe's terminal area. They have estimated that would require expanding the Boulevard bridge to the east an additional 30 feet in the future. That however is based on the current 4-track facility. If BNSF has implemented new spacing requirements between tracks, then obviously to have 5 tracks in the future the Boulevard bridge would have to be widened further. Hopefully all involved are directly consulting with Jacobs on the matter.

I suppose this would require reconstruction of the east retaining wall from south of SE 4th north through bricktown to a point north of Main? Along with widening the existing structures at SE 4th, Reno, Main, and Sheridan? I hope it doesn't take out the buffalo corral. There'll be hell to pay if that happens.

Urban Pioneer "I don't mean to be rude, but that is an absurd way to look at it.

Every highway and every overpass that is logistically identified in the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study should have at a minimum the base infrastructure and abutments to support future super-structures.

I am so tired of ODOT completely ignoring everything else that is going on and forcing us in a position where absolutely every segment of a future system will have to be built at the most premium price, a direct burden to the taxpayer.

To "wring our hands" and say "forget it, we're too late", when there are at least two projects coming up that haven't been built yet, is absurd. I'm not going to do it nobody else should either."



Where is the "premium price" for construction of the additional bridge? Grading will be in place as it would be along the alignment of the current structure. Abutment construction would be behind retaining walls, protected from highway traffic. Pier construction would be between highway railings, in a protected area. Building the parallel structure now, 10 years in the future, or 50 years in the future would entail the same logistics, same construction restrictions, the same everything.


There is a huge difference in cost and public disruption that would be mitigated by installing the necessary substructure, abutments, and retaining walls in advance. They are often the cheapest items to install as part of adding a 2nd bridge or expansion of a new bridge.

Often the most expensive item is the span and bridge deck itself. Having your prep done means fewer lane closures and often simply "dropping in" the bridge and deck.

But obviously you must know this. Which department do you work in City Public Works, ODOT, or some other engineering subcontractor intent on defending the status quo?

[I]
There is a huge difference in cost and public disruption that would be mitigated by installing the necessary substructure, abutments, and retaining walls in advance. They are often the cheapest items to install as part of adding a 2nd bridge or expansion of a new bridge.

Often the most expensive item is the span and bridge deck itself. Having your prep done means fewer lane closures and often simply "dropping in" the bridge and deck.

But obviously you must know this. Which department do you work in City Public Works, ODOT, or some other engineering subcontractor intent on defending the status quo?

Contractor.

No difference in cost. Minimal traffic disruption.

Retaining walls will be in place. Abutment construction will take place above and behind the retaining walls. Pier construction would be behind 42" tall concrete median barrier.

We're just simply going to disagree on the cost/disruption debate. It does depend on which bridge you are talking about of course. But from what I have seen of the issues surrounding 50th street specifically, doing it now would be prudent.

But the real issue that I think is upsetting people is cultural. Whether you think it should be done now or later, that doesn't matter. The issue is that scenario, those options, are never being offered by ODOT to the municipalities that want to build a system. They are not the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, they are the Highway Department. It is that simple.

And I would add that they do a good job with that too. Their great highway builders.

We're just simply going to disagree on the cost/disruption debate. It does depend on which bridge you are talking about of course. But from what I have seen of the issues surrounding 50th street specifically, doing it now would be prudent.

But the real issue that I think is upsetting people is cultural. Whether you think it should be done now or later, that doesn't matter. The issue is that scenario, those options, are never being offered by ODOT to the municipalities that want to build a system. They are not the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, they are the Highway Department. It is that simple.

And I would add that they do a good job with that too. Their great highway builders.

Well, the Contractors are pretty good at their craft. And the ODOT and Consultant inspectors hold up their end of the bargain.

Is it possible to develop a regional rail system that just leaves ODOT, Union Pacific, and Santa Fe out of the loop completely? They can all go pound sand for all I care.

Maybe something like SEPTA (Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority) as an example.

I agree with Urban 1000% about building something that is guaranteed to happen now rather than later when costs will have increased and the disruption to existing won't be a factor. We made the same proactive builds on the I-40 relocation (one of the first relocation projects was to build the bridge over the non-existant Canal) and the Skydancer Pedestrian Bridge over I-40 before it was open to traffic. Yes, building a Canal bridge at that point may have looked like an example of building a bridge to nowhere and even the Skydancer bridge seems premature since the Park that it is connecting is several years down the road. But imagine the hassle in trying to build it even now. The Streetcar committee has tried to work with the City with Project 180 improvements so that we don't rip up new stretches of road to lay Streetcar track etc. Various government entities (or departments within the same entity) often don't know what the other is doing. Always a good thing when efficiencies can be maximized.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is it possible to develop a regional rail system that just leaves ODOT, Union Pacific, and Santa Fe out of the loop completely? They can all go pound sand for all I care.

Maybe something like SEPTA (Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority) as an example.

LOL. Why couldn't they have called that Pittsburgh Area or something? SEPTA sounds lovely..



I agree with Urban 1000% about building something that is guaranteed to happen now rather than later when costs will have increased and the disruption to existing won't be a factor. We made the same proactive builds on the I-40 relocation (one of the first relocation projects was to build the bridge over the non-existant Canal) and the Skydancer Pedestrian Bridge over I-40 before it was open to traffic. Yes, building a Canal bridge at that point may have looked like an example of building a bridge to nowhere and even the Skydancer bridge seems premature since the Park that it is connecting is several years down the road. But imagine the hassle in trying to build it even now. The Streetcar committee has tried to work with the City with Project 180 improvements so that we don't rip up new stretches of road to lay Streetcar track etc. Various government entities (or departments within the same entity) often don't know what the other is doing. Always a good thing when efficiencies can be maximized.
Th
What I'm wondering in hindsight is why P180 and the streetcar project weren't combined. The streetcar will be looking at holistic streetscapes on the blocks between Broadway and Robinson, for example, and creating signage and possibly footpaths several blocks from the tracks itself to lead people toward the streetcar.

Granted, while there would have been benefits, I would hate to see the P180 cost overruns come out of streetcar's budget.. (it could still end up that way if the city can't come up with extra money for EKG).

Didn't get the TIGER 4. So EK Gaylord is not going to happen that way.

LOL. Why couldn't they have called that Pittsburgh Area or something? SEPTA sounds lovely..



Perhaps because Pittsburgh is in SouthWEST Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia folks would probably have objected to naming their transit agency after Pittsburgh. ;-)

Didn't get the TIGER 4. So EK Gaylord is not going to happen that way.

UP - do you think that the transit mall can go down EKG without significant modifications (narrowing, streetscaping, lower speed limits, etc etc)? And if so, just for those 2 or 3 blocks that the route uses EKG, is the added cost for the additional responsibility of fixing EKG significant if the City can't find another funding source?

I will be willing to bet nobody knows just how enormous the dollar cost will be of relocating utilities buried beneath the roadway. It gives me a headache just thinking about it.

I always see videos on youtube of dumb drivers turning in front of street cars and what not. When these things are approaching intersections, will the street lights change automatically to keep traffic from colliding with the street cars? I'd hope that's the case, lol.

You're probably seeing the video of the LRT in Houston, which moves very fast alongside traffic that is moving very fast in some parts (along Fannin/S. Main) and very fast/very slow once it gets into DT. This will be a slower-moving streetcar (different from LRT) moving alongside slower moving traffic.

Plus have you witnessed or experienced Houston drivers/traffic? Yikes.. I agree the youtube videos are hilarious (and sad). Here is a link for anyone who is missing out. Putting onboard cameras on Houston's metro was the single-greatest innovation they incorporated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV2rdGX4JYc

I always see videos on youtube of dumb drivers turning in front of street cars and what not. When these things are approaching intersections, will the street lights change automatically to keep traffic from colliding with the street cars? I'd hope that's the case, lol.

There was some statements traffic lights would respond to favor the streetcar, now if it syncs together well in reality and people really do what they should at stoplights are not guaranteed. Unfortunately anything that runs that much in traffic, eventually someone will run into one.

There was some statements traffic lights would respond to favor the streetcar, now if it syncs together well in reality and people really do what they should at stoplights are not guaranteed. Unfortunately anything that runs that much in traffic, eventually someone will run into one.

Then, maybe not having a traffic circle would be a good thing...street cars and traffic circles just may confuse Oklahoma drivers way too much ;-)

The circle would actually either make a great western terminus, or a good entrance to downtown from the airport. I know streetcar to the airport is something a lot of people want.

The circle would actually either make a great western terminus, or a good entrance to downtown from the airport. I know streetcar to the airport is something a lot of people want.

Apparently they don't realize that the service times for the streetcar would then be as bad as the current bus service. With a high chance at being much more expensive to implement than servicing the airport with commuter rail.

Apparently they don't realize that the service times for the streetcar would then be as bad as the current bus service. With a high chance at being much more expensive to implement than servicing the airport with commuter rail.

correct there will never be street car to the airport ...... the airport will be served by commuter rail or light rail

Service to the airport should be on a non-stop commuter rail line to downtown. The downtown transit hub should have a ticket agent, airline self-check kiosk, and luggage check-in.

Service to the airport should be on a non-stop commuter rail line to downtown. The downtown transit hub should have a ticket agent, airline self-check kiosk, and luggage check-in.

not sure how much of a need a ticket agent would be but a sef check it would be a great idea when this rail line /LRT becomes a real thing

REMEMBER THESE NUMBERS:

Light Rail: $60-80 million per mile

Commuter Rail: $6-8 million per mile

Light Rail from Downtown out the Boulevard to Meridian to the Airport: 10 miles...$600-$800 million

Commuter Rail from Downtown to the Airport: 8 miles...$50-$65 million

Light Rail from Downtown to Midwest City/Tinker: 8 miles...$500-$700 million

Commuter Rail from Downtown to Midwest City/Tinker: 9 miles...$55-$75 million

Light Rail from Norman to OKC to Edmond: 30 miles...$1.8-2.4 billion

Commuter Rail Norman to OKC to Edmond: 30 miles...$180-$240 million

For the 1/2 the cost of building just the light rail from Downtown to Meridian to the Airport, you can essentially build the entire regional rail transit system, including the intermodal hub.

Sorry for being an idiot, but what is the difference between light rail and commuter rail ? Besides hundreds of millions of dollars.

The circle would actually either make a great western terminus, or a good entrance to downtown from the airport. I know streetcar to the airport is something a lot of people want.

I thought we wanted LRT to the airport?
Read all posts after quoting.

For Hutch... Why do you want to go down the boulevard and then out to Meridian? Use existing rails and right-of-way. Stillwater Central has a line that runs right down by the airport, thus slashing your estimates in half.

For Hutch... Why do you want to go down the boulevard and then out to Meridian? Use existing rails and right-of-way. Stillwater Central has a line that runs right down by the airport, thus slashing your estimates in half.

He was saying if it were light rail that would be the logical route. Commuter rail uses existing rails; light rail runs in medians of roads/streets and is different from streetcars in that it isn't actually in the lanes of automobile traffic usually, as far as I know.

I thought we wanted LRT to the airport?
Read all posts after quoting.

For Hutch... Why do you want to go down the boulevard and then out to Meridian? Use existing rails and right-of-way. Stillwater Central has a line that runs right down by the airport, thus slashing your estimates in half.

he doesn't ... that is why he quoted the price for commuter rail .. that would go south of the river then over to the airport

Yesterdays meeting audio...

http://soundcloud.com/moderntransitproject-okc/june-27-2012-maps-3-transit

he doesn't ... that is why he quoted the price for commuter rail .. that would go south of the river then over to the airport

Exactly...the point was to show how much more expensive Light Rail is than Commuter Rail. I used the Boulevard to Meridian to Airport example for Light Rail because there are a number of civic leaders and others who have and continue to promote this idea, most of whom have no idea of what the actual cost would be to develop.

Sorry for being an idiot, but what is the difference between light rail and commuter rail ? Besides hundreds of millions of dollars.

Commuter Rail refers to operating "heavier" diesel-electric locomotives with passenger coaches on existing "heavier" guage freight tracks, usually where existing rail right-of-ways and tracks already exist. The New Mexico Rail Runner in Albuquerque and the Trinity Rail Express between Ft. Worth and Dallas are typical Commuter Rail trains.

Light Rail refers to operating "lighter" electric passenger rail vehicles in their own separate right-of-way, which usually involves all new right-of-way acquisition and installation of new tracks and overhead electrical systems. The yellow DART electric trains in Dallas are typical of Light Rail.

he doesn't ... that is why he quoted the price for commuter rail .. that would go south of the river then over to the airport

Nm....

So why would commuter rail even need to be talked about when the people who use public transportation the most don't get decent service. Wouldn't it best to build light rail just for OKC and not for Edmond, Norman, etc. We all know there will be opposition if a commuter or light rail was proposed to Edmond. People think up crazy scenarios in there head about people taking a train to rob people's houses.

So why would commuter rail even need to be talked about when the people who use public transportation the most don't get decent service. Wouldn't it best to build light rail just for OKC and not for Edmond, Norman, etc. We all know there will be opposition if a commuter or light rail was proposed to Edmond. People think up crazy scenarios in there head about people taking a train to rob people's houses.

The term Commuter Rail is a misnomer of sorts. It is a term that is used in the transit world to describe diesel-electric passenger trains that run on existing tracks and provide both local and regional service. Commuter Rail does not mean that the trains only service commuters from the suburbs. A Commuter Rail system in Oklahoma City would have many stations within Oklahoma City itself and service many of those who need transportation to get around within the City and the metro area.

The biggest issue for Oklahoma City itself in providing comprehensive transit service for everyone is a lack of funds. OKC can't even fund and operate its own decent bus service. The idea that the City is somehow going to come up with a billion dollars on its own to build Light Rail is not a realistic one.

The way you get a full-blown effective transit system is through a Regional Transit Authority involving all of the municipalities in the metro area contributing to governing, funding and operating that system. That is normally done through an RTA and with a dedicated funding source...like a permanent 1/2 cent sales tax...that is collected within a Regional Transit District overlaying all of the area involved in the system. That's how Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake City and the others do it. That's how they can have a 600 vehicle bus system and commuter rail and light rail and pay for it all. That's the only way Oklahoma City is ever going to have an effective and comprehensive transit system.

There's always going to be opposition of some kind to developing a rail transit system, whether it's Light Rail or Commuter Rail or whether it operates only inside OKC city limits or serves other cities as well. That's the way it's been in every metropolitan area that has developed a regional transit system. But the answer isn't to limit the system based on those who make noise.

Edmond, Norman, Midwest City and others have been ready to move forward with developing a regional transit system for some time. They've just been waiting on OKC. It looks like we're finally getting to the point where everyone is ready to move forward together and build the system that all of us need. My advice to everyone who wants that is to get involved and communicate your support to our elected City officials.

OK...let's have some fun instead of listening to me talk about the technical issues of rail tansit or the legal repercussions of NEPA. Here's a Google Earth image showing our potential commuter rail system...

1885

Commuter rail in Philly is all electric, although I have seen diesel freight trains running on the same track, so there is no technical reason why electric passenger and diesel freight can't use the same track.

OK...let's have some fun instead of listening to me talk about the technical issues of rail tansit or the legal repercussions of NEPA. Here's a Google Earth image showing our potential commuter rail system...

1885

I feel like that's very northside focused. And while I, as a Northsider, believe in my inherent superiority over anyone south of Reno( ;) ), there's a big chunk of people that wouldn't be served by that layout.

That's the only layout that has ever been discussed and historically, its a redo of what was done in the early 1900s. Only difference is commuter oriented vs. street cars/interurbans.

I feel like that's very northside focused. And while I, as a Northsider, believe in my inherent superiority over anyone south of Reno( ;) ), there's a big chunk of people that wouldn't be served by that layout.

That is where we have existing rail lines, why it is our easiest to implement system in cost and has no/little need for eminent domain than alternatives, plus most of the south traffic will probably be coming from Moore and Norman which theoretical stops for them are not in the image. Given an unlimited budget and ability to place track on a whim several paths would look different but compared to a lot of cities our hub/core is still much more centrally located for even route times. There is no getting around with the population we have in an area this large there are going to be a lot of people not near it no matter what type it is.

I personally think we need a combination of simple commuter rail, enhanced streetcar, and LRT. I found it really intriguing just how cheap commuter rail could be, I didn't realize we could do it so cheaply. Edmond-Norman for $200 million (although the hub expansion will be a huge ticket) is fantastic and could easily be funded, probably with a 1-year participatory sales tax with just Edmond, OKC, Moore, and Norman...would likely generate the funding in just a year or so, esp if Big League City can generate $100 million in a year.

I still think the best mode to the airport is enhanced streetcar, and I like trying to do something with the boulevard to the fairgrounds, OR I also love the idea of enhanced streetcar branching out from Capitol Hill heading west across the inner south side. Remember enhanced streetcar is cost-efficient to build and can run up to 40 mph, we could probably do a dedicated lane in Grand Blvd which has a huge median or SW29th which has no underground utilities - hallelujah! lol.

I think LRT comes in with Classen-to-NW Expwy which would be very expensive, but also very justified with density and ridership. Even more expensive than simple LRT estimates because NW Expwy needs to be totally rebuilt to accommodate pedestrians, but that could be an incredible boon to that side of town. Think Peachtree in Atlanta..

So the key is to be open-minded, explore ALL potential fixed guideway rail models, and find the best option for each trip. I would also like to see us look at magnetic levitation, like the new trams in Bordeaux. Hopefully by the time this debate comes up for real, like the next 5-10 years, more cities will have tried it and we will have a lot more concrete info on that emerging form of fixed guideway that is actually very cost efficient. Watch Bordeaux..

I think LRT comes in with Classen-to-NW Expwy which would be very expensive, but also very justified with density and ridership. Even more expensive than simple LRT estimates because NW Expwy needs to be totally rebuilt to accommodate pedestrians, but that could be an incredible boon to that side of town. Think Peachtree in Atlanta..

I agree...LRT from the Hub to Classen and out NW Expwy and possibly Hefner Parkway will likely make sense at some point from a ridership, population, medical, retail, and traffic perspective. If you look at the Intermodal Hub Master Plan, Jacobs included that as a future potential LRT line.

I believe a huge key to ridership of any system is speed and frequency of service.

Since commuter rail is the cheapest and probably most realistic……
How long would it take to get from downtown OKC to OU?
How long would it take to get from Norman to the airport?

Commuter rail in Philly is all electric, although I have seen diesel freight trains running on the same track, so there is no technical reason why electric passenger and diesel freight can't use the same track.

Electrification is a large part of the costs of LRT and would increase the cost of a commuter rail system significantly. If the money is there to do it, that's fine. However, it's not necessary. The new MPXpress diesel-electric commuter rail locomotives manufactured by Motive Power in Idaho have been the engine of choice in the last number of years for the new commuter rail systems in Albuquere, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, SanFrancisco, Los Angeles, Toronto. They meet EPA Tier 2 emmissions standards and have significantly improved acceleration capabilities.

Check it out:

MPXpress (http://www.motivepower-wabtec.com/locomotives/commuter/mpxpress.php)

...and Norman which theoretical stops for them are not in the image.

Expanded View:

1888

The problem is that only Norman wants to do this to the max. The good news is that Edmond has been moderately supportive and Moore has recently gotten to that point (now that they have tax money to burn for amusement), but what they would help pay for is a cheaper HRT. I think these things will fall in the middle - perhaps Norman will take their zeal for rail to build a streetcar network of their own radiating out of their Amtrak station. The problem is that I think Norman is so much more interested in a rail connection to Downtown OKC because they so deeply underestimate their own urbanism, which imo is very promising.

I say this as a native of Norman and someone who is very fond of it, but Norman is clueless. It's astonishing how bad their urban planning seems to be.

Expanded View:

1888

It appears the Norman station is located at the current Main street Norman Amtrak station.

If the goal is to attract workers who commute to their jobs in OKC this is an extremely poor location and it will have very minimal ridership for commuters who work in OKC but live in Norman. Most Norman commuters to OKC live on the west side of town, central Norman is too congested for this to be practical for very many people.

In the time it takes me to drive to the main street train station from my location in Norman west of I-35 and Tecumseh I can drive and almost be parked in a downtown OKC location.

A park and ride facility with bus service needs to be built somewhere north of Robinson Street and maybe as far north as Tecumseh.
Otherwise this will not be a successful service to Norman and I would not support Norman’s participating in this venture.

I would be curious to know more about the proposed Sooner station.

It appears the Norman station is located at the current Main street Norman Amtrak station.

If the goal is to attract workers who commute to their jobs in OKC this is an extremely poor location and it will have very minimal ridership for commuters who work in OKC but live in Norman. Most Norman commuters to OKC live on the west side of town, central Norman is too congested for this to be practical for very many people.

In the time it takes me to drive to the main street train station from my location in Norman west of I-35 and Tecumseh I can drive and almost be parked in a downtown OKC location.

A park and ride facility with bus service needs to be built somewhere north of Robinson Street and maybe as far north as Tecumseh.
Otherwise this will not be a successful service to Norman and I would not support Norman’s participating in this venture.

I would be curious to know more about the proposed Sooner station.

Agreed...there would likely be a park and ride stop on the northside of Norman...maybe Robinson...more likely Tecumseh.

Those images are something that I threw together quickly for illustrative purposes of the system...not to say those are the exact locations of the stations.

URS Corporation will soon be undertaking a detailed and lengthy Alternatives Analysis evaluation of the potential commuter rail corridors between Norman, Edmond, Midwest City/Tinker AFB and OKC. One aspect of that study will be to determine the best location for stations along those lines. The AA will involve numerous public meetings to gather input prior to making final recommendations. Everyone who is interested in rail transit needs to watch the ACOG website for information as the study progresses, including dates and times for the public meetings.

Agreed...there would likely be a park and ride stop on the northside of Norman...maybe Robinson...more likely Tecumseh.

Those images are something that I through together quickly for illustrative purposes of the system...not to say those are the exact locations of the stations.

URS Corporation will soon be undertaking a detailed and lengthy Alternatives Analysis evaluation of the potential commuter rail corridors between Norman, Edmond, Midwest City/Tinker AFB and OKC. One aspect of that study will be to determine the best location for stations along those lines. The AA will involve numerous public meetings to gather input prior to making final recommendations. Everyone who is interested in rail transit needs to watch the ACOG website for information as the study progresses, including dates and times for the public meetings.

Ok, Thanks.
You had me a little concerned.
I will be interested in the public meetings.

Electrification is a large part of the costs of LRT and would increase the cost of a commuter rail system significantly. If the money is there to do it, that's fine. However, it's not necessary. The new MPXpress diesel-electric commuter rail locomotives manufactured by Motive Power in Idaho have been the engine of choice in the last number of years for the new commuter rail systems in Albuquere, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, SanFrancisco, Los Angeles, Toronto. They meet EPA Tier 2 emmissions standards and have significantly improved acceleration capabilities.

Check it out:

MPXpress (http://www.motivepower-wabtec.com/locomotives/commuter/mpxpress.php)

Thanks for the link. One question about this engine. Does it use a diesel engine to generate electricity to turn the drive wheels? If so, can it run without the diesel engine on or can it connect to alternative source of electricity (overhead lines). Not that it is planned but if it could run on electricity only that would allow for enclosed or even underground stations.

On a side note - commuter lots would be counter-productive for any transit system because it only makes urban sprawl easier. Mass transit should encourage higher densities, not making sprawl easier.

No the MPX is a standard diesel electric locomotive - the diesel engine turns generator(s) which power electric traction motors at the wheels. It is not "convertible" - which I think would be far less efficient than either type simply due to the additional weight of the unused power system when operating on the other. The VRE in northern VA /DC runs them.

Thanks CaptDave.