Hip - it is the difference between treating a patient that is bleeding and trying to prevent injuries in the first place. In OKC we plan ahead. That is not the case in Wasington D.C. and other parts of the country. OKC is putting in a streetcar system so we don't have to live through years of traffic congestion before we do it (like lots of other cities). The same can be said of high speed rail. There are many place that could have used high speed rail years ago so it only natural they get it before OKC. And don't underestimate that red state/blue state thing.

But how far ahead? LOL We have been trying to get downtown streetcars since the original MAPS 16 years ago! In those 16 years that have passed, do we need them now, or are we still planning for that sometime in the future? Perhaps we should have really planned ahead and never taken out the streetcars we had out to begin with. Think I remember reading that OKC had over 200 miles of streetcar and we are talking about 5 to 6 to start over again.

While I tend to agree about the regional approach to HSR, your math is a little funny.

Have to agree...

"The straight line distance between Dallas and Chicago is approximately 804 miles". Works out to be 2.6 hours if top speed of 300 mph is maintained and no stops.

Going Southwest with 1 plane change is as little as 3.25. Nonstop on American Airlines is 2 hours, 10 min.

Not too much difference time wise.

Have to agree...

"The straight line distance between Dallas and Chicago is approximately 804 miles". Works out to be 2.6 hours if top speed of 300 mph is maintained and no stops.

Going Southwest with 1 plane change is as little as 3.25. Nonstop on American Airlines is 2 hours, 10 min.

Not too much difference time wise.

Don't forget to add in the 30 minutes for pre-boarding and 30 minutes for checking in/getting through security. That adds an hour, so it would be 3 hours 10 min. for a non-stop flight.

However, we'll most likely not see speeds above 200 mph here, so that math is a bit off as well. More like 4.02 hours... I'd still take the convenience of HSR though - far fewer delays, more comfort...

You guys think a high speed train from Chicago to Dallasis going to go non-stop? No it won't. It will stop several times along the way plus it won't be able to run at top speed the whole way. And forget that straight line thing - there is no way a track doesn't turn a thousand times. Throw in a few hail storms, tornado warnings, and other other conditions and delays will be crazy. Anyone interested in going through a storm front at 200+ mph?

Regional is the only way this will work.

You guys think a high speed train from Chicago to Dallasis going to go non-stop? No it won't. It will stop several times along the way plus it won't be able to run at top speed the whole way. And forget that straight line thing - there is no way a track doesn't turn a thousand times. Throw in a few hail storms, tornado warnings, and other other conditions and delays will be crazy. Anyone interested in going through a storm front at 200+ mph?

Regional is the only way this will work.

Don't know why you'd suggest that a plane would be flying through that though...

Don't know why you'd suggest that a plane would be flying through that though...

Planes fly over or around bad weather. A high speed train only has one way it can go. And keep this in mind on the time thing. London to Paris is only 211 miles; closer than OKC is to Dallas and it takes EuroStar 2 hours 15 minutes to get there. Plus we still have the problem of how you get around most cities in America once you get there. There is a reason airports have huge rental car lots.

Planes fly over or around bad weather. A high speed train only has one way it can go. And keep this in mind on the time thing. London to Paris is only 211 miles; closer than OKC is to Dallas and it takes EuroStar 2 hours 15 minutes to get there. Plus we still have the problem of how you get around most cities in America once you get there. There is a reason airports have huge rental car lots.

Planes also fly over 15mi straigths of water and from one country to another. I understand that, but we're not talking costs associated with European transnational travel, no bridges or tunnels longer than a mile or so. All land and all owned by one country. And Dallas to OKC is a virtual strait shot. London to paris' route is more of a bow shaped route going toward Lille then Calais then across the straight to Dover and a hard Left to London. So, instead of it being 211 mi, it actually turns out to be 308 miles through many more populated areas and stops in those metro areas.
Here, there might be one in Ardmore,Winstar or Gainsville and Denton but thats it. If the train averages 120mph (Peaking at 180) (Heck even i might have averaged 85 or 90 on I35 at times) you would realistically be in dallas in far less than 2 hrs.
The thing is Plane tickets are based on a foreign, becomeing exhausted fuel and they use a TON of it! The tickets will continue to rise as barrels continue to rise. With new natural gas turbine engines, fuel costs and emissions will be a fraction.
Now, I make this trip at least 5 times a year. Tickets on discount sometimes get down to $200 but most of the time its around $300 per person round trip. Amtrak is $55!!. Even if the price doubles to $120 round trip, it would be a viable alternative to flying.
1hr and 15min longer than flying but up to $180 less per person.

Three more things...
1.the natural gas would come from OK
2.the Bullet train would have 2 or three trips a day instead of amtraks 1 a day.
3.And if you have ever ridden a train vs flying, do i need to bring up the comfort, room and amenities!

Kerry's point was that a Chicago to Dallas nonstop train would not be faster than flying and that's difficult to argue against. Taking a train from OKC to Dallas or even driving can take less time than flying sometimes depending on how early you have to be at the airport or how much time you have to spend on the taxiway. The train would be much less stressful, however.

If the ticket to Chicago would be $250 round trip, and only 6-8hrs, I would much rather take a high speed train from DFW.

But, i guess that is why France is doing what they are doing. They know mentality of americans. 'I've got the money, I want it NOW!
Ease of life will always win out over the environment in this country.
If drastic changes don't take place in the US and in China with huge emission reductions, the environment doesn't stand a chance. Intesified storms, UV poison and viral incubation will start taking us out in droves.
I feel like an environmental activist for posting this, but here ya go:


"Development is the first urgent task," said Qin Dahe, a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and co-chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
China's greenhouse gas emissions are dwarfed by those of the developed countries: Per capita discharge is only 61 percent of the world's average and 21 percent of that of OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.

Anyone who has visited an inland Chinese city knows how terrifyingly bad the air is. Chinese media are replete with horrifying statistics: An estimated 400,000 people die prematurely from respiratory diseases related to air pollution each year;
one-quarter of China's land is desert, and the desert is advancing at the rate of 1,900 square miles per year, producing tens of thousands of environmental migrants;
and in China's north and west, severe and growing water scarcity is impinging on economic growth, limiting agricultural and industrial output.

In late April the Chinese government is expected to release a national plan on global climate change.
From all accounts, the document will reinforce the government's commitment to energy efficiency and renewables while also setting forth prevention policies for natural disasters.
What it will not do, unsurprisingly, is embrace any targets or timetables for greenhouse gas emission reductions. For that to happen, two things are necessary.
First, the United States, preferably with Australia and India in tow, must agree to aggressive emission reductions, perhaps along the lines currently pursued by California.
Without a strong US commitment, the international community has no credibility in pressuring the Chinese.
Second, OECD countries will have to be far more generous and comprehensive in compensating China in its struggle to enforce tougher energy efficiency and renewable standards.
That can be done with both financial incentives and technology transfers. What finally brought the Chinese on board with Kyoto and previous international environmental agreements was the attraction of getting paid to do the right thing.
If the United States joins the fight against climate change--and if the price is right--there is every reason to believe that China can commit to doing the right thing again.
-China vs. Earth , The Nation Magazine, April 2007

The Chages would certainly include using untapped technology with cleaner natural gas fuel, and a Bullet Train system. That will call for us to forfeit some money, even though we may not use/choose it ourselves. I mean, i choose not to use the Toll road down here, but it doesn't matter, i still paid taxes for it.

China has already began a huge movement. Check out thier Highspeed Rail system, covering an area nearly as lage as the US.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/China_Railway_High-Speed_.png

Somehow, they think its a good idea. But, what do they know, right!

So they have it, Europe has the largest network of high speed rails, Japan has it. All of them are looking for cleaner alternatives for the environment.

The one in Israel is just about done:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/A1_railway.png


Sout Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Morocco, heck even Tangiers has one.
That leaves us and Australia and the rest of Africa. Hmmm, which one produces the most polution and should be the leader and most environmentally conciencious?
Just sayin...maybe we should catchup to the rest of the world, instead of annoying them with our 'right now' mentality, before its all built and owned by a foreign entity.

Respectfully,
The Misey

You guys think a high speed train from Chicago to Dallasis going to go non-stop? No it won't. It will stop several times along the way plus it won't be able to run at top speed the whole way. And forget that straight line thing - there is no way a track doesn't turn a thousand times. Throw in a few hail storms, tornado warnings, and other other conditions and delays will be crazy. Anyone interested in going through a storm front at 200+ mph?

Regional is the only way this will work.

Kerry, really wasn't trying to pick on you (that is why I responded to another person's response to your post) but it was in re: to your original post where you mentioned the 300 mph thing:


"Even at a top speed of300 mph that trip would take all day. An airplane can do it in two hours."

My response indicated that IF the top speed was maintained (and non-stop, like the airline flight), the time was comparable. Of course there are variables that you later mentioned and the time/security delays at airports that the other poster mentioned. When you throw in all of the variables of both modes of transportation, they may still be closer than farther. Then there are other considerations (cost, comfort etc).

If time is the deciding factor, absolutely, go with the shortest amount but you have to take in other factors such as the security and time to get a car rental etc. What is your total time spent from your doorstep to your final destination? My response was strictly travel time in an ideal situation.

Non stop airline can have delays and cancellations. My recent non-stop to Vegas had a delay that changed a 3+ hr flight into a 4.5 hr. one. Fortunately we were allowed to deplane and wander the airport instead of being stuck at the gate or tarmac. Had a similar delay coming back from Vegas (but before we boarded).

Personally, if I can get to where I want to go in about the same amount of time/cost, I would probably pick the train over air. Then there are those that hate/afraid of air travel. A minority, but they exist.

I travel on the high speed trains in Europe quite alot and would MUCH rather travel that way than by air. When you take into account the time to and from airports vs. where most train stations are located, it is very efficient time-wise. And, since you are usually ending in an urban station, local travel without a rental car is usually very easy.

For the record, I am huge rail supporter but I think cities have to put in local systems before we ever think about connecting cities with high speed rail.

Take Florida as an example. A few years ago we passed a constitutional amendment to put in a $20 billion system that would connect Miami, Orlando, Disney, Jacksonville, Tampa, and St. Petersburg. It would have been a huge waste of money. You can fly direct to everyone of those cities everyday with multiple flights per day on multiple airlines and no $20 billion investment needed. Hell, just pay the airlines the $20 billion in tax payer funds with the requirement that all Florida residents can fly from any Florida city to any other Florida city for $25. You would have more flights and options than you could shake a stick at.

Creating a local system that gets people to work everyday is a much better use of funds than competing with an existing airline industry.

For the record, I am huge rail supporter but I think cities have to put in local systems before we ever think about connecting cities with high speed rail. ... Creating a local system that gets people to work everyday is a much better use of funds than competing with an existing airline industry.

I agree. However, aren't we talking about 2 or more different animals here? The high speed rail concept is a Fed idea and the local system uses primarily local funds (at least that is the plan with MAPS 3, that the local funds would still produce the beginnings of local rail and hopefully spur Fed involvement). Shot down for now it looks like. Were we talking about using any City funds for the High Speed or would it be State/Federal funds?

I agree. However, aren't we talking about 2 or more different animals here? The high speed rail concept is a Fed idea and the local system uses primarily local funds (at least that is the plan with MAPS 3, that the local funds would still produce the beginnings of local rail and hopefully spur Fed involvement). Shot down for now it looks like. Were we talking about using any City funds for the High Speed or would it be State/Federal funds?

The States that won the recent Federal funding were the ones that had shown their willingness to share in the cost and move HSR forward. The states that haven't done much were the ones that last. A sudden willingness to submit a Federal funding request wasn't good enough... it had to be sustained past interest.

I think the Feds provide matching funds with some kind of ratio like 80-20. The Feds aren't just going to show up and put in a rail system - nor should they. I would only connect cities that had a local rail system in place. No local rail - not HSR stop. If an HSR went from St. Louis to OKC and passed right thru downtown Tulsa it wouldn't stop there until Tulsa put in a local rail system. "Rail System" being defined as a fixed guideway.

Getting a commitment for help means having a commitment to the concepts. Passing Maps3 and light rail is a good start, Oklahoma is not committed yet to rail travel and mass transit concepts. A workable rail to Tulsa and to Kansas, along with upgrading the rails to Dallas/Ft Worth would display a solid effort and likely get us included in future discussions. We just can come late to the party and expect to be a guest of honor.

I would only connect cities that had a local rail system in place. No local rail - not HSR stop.

Why? What does one have to do with the other? Betts posed a similar thought over at NewsOK.com and I just don't get it. She asked what are people supposed to do once they got to Tulsa with no local rail. Walk? Wouldn't they do the same thing they do now when they arrive in Tulsa by plane? You get a cab, taxi, hotel shuttle, bus etc. Not understanding what the difference is here.

Why? What does one have to do with the other? Betts posed a similar thought over at NewsOK.com and I just don't get it. She asked what are people supposed to do once they got to Tulsa with no local rail. Walk? Wouldn't they do the same thing they do now when they arrive in Tulsa by plane? You get a cab, taxi, hotel shuttle, bus etc. Not understanding what the difference is here.

Well - two reason. First, you would have to recreate the infrastructure of the airport at the train station. That means large parking garages (long term and short term), rental car counters (and parking), drop off areas, and everything else except runways. And don't argue that you could just make the rail station at the airport because then you could just fly and not have to spend billions on HSR. Second, it would force cities to develop local rail systems if they want to get on the HSR grid.

HSR has two problems to overcome (really 3 but I don't think it can ever overcome the third)

1. It has to be faster than an airplane
2. It has to be more convenient than your own car
3. With a multi-billion price tag it would just be cheaper to subsidize existing airlines using existing airports.

In the US it appears that HSR is currently only practical when traveling about 500 miles or less. For long distance routes air works better. That's where Europe and Japan have an advantage, their routes are always relatively short making them much more popular.

Well - two reason. First, you would have to recreate the infrastructure of the airport at the train station. That means large parking garages (long term and short term), rental car counters (and parking), drop off areas, and everything else except runways. And don't argue that you could just make the rail station at the airport because then you could just fly and not have to spend billions on HSR. Second, it would force cities to develop local rail systems if they want to get on the HSR grid.

I agree that putting the train station at the airport would be counter-productive. I presume that some of the infrastructure already exists (Tulsa and OKC have existing train stations don't they?) Don't know about Tulsa, but we have been told repeatedly in these threads that there isn't a parking problem in OKC. Aren't there existing drop-off points? So the only thing that really seems to be missing is the car rental lots (plenty of blighted open areas in downtown for that).

But given the cost, why bother with any of it at all? As you have pointed out we already have airports and roads, why create the competition for them? Why force cities to spend additional multi-hundreds of millions developing local rail systems?

But given the cost, why bother with any of it at all? As you have pointed out we already have airports and roads, why create the competition for them? Why force cities to spend additional multi-hundreds of millions developing local rail systems?

Force might have been a poor choice of words. No one would force them to do anything. I should have used the word 'encourage'.

In the world of transportation there are many ways to get around. Depending on the situation some are more economical than others. For example, it would be impossible for everyone in Manhattan to have a car. For that matter, if downtown OKC achieves the dream of 2,000 downtown housing units it would be very congested if everyone had a car. So what is the best way to encourage high density growth without creating traffic problems? The answer to that is rail.

However, if places like Tulsa don't want rail, so be it. They don't have to have it. They just don't get HSR.

Why? What does one have to do with the other? Betts posed a similar thought over at NewsOK.com and I just don't get it. She asked what are people supposed to do once they got to Tulsa with no local rail. Walk? Wouldn't they do the same thing they do now when they arrive in Tulsa by plane? You get a cab, taxi, hotel shuttle, bus etc. Not understanding what the difference is here.

With the new mayor in place, I hope Tulsa continues to pursue a streetcar of their own as promoted last year in their big city plan. It would be quite awesome to be able to visit their downtown in the future without the use of a car.

...So what is the best way to encourage high density growth without creating traffic problems? The answer to that is rail. ...

I don't disagree for the most part. Even though I like the idea, I am still a little fuzzy on the whole downtown streetcar thing (is it really going to solve traffic problems or contribute to them). Guess we will just have to wait and see how it is implemented.

Again, I see the streetcars as a totally separate issue as the HSR stuff and don't see why the connection was made previously (if they don't have local rail, they don't get a HSR stop...what does one have to do with the other?)

One of the things that I still find perplexing is the whole urban/high density concept. Some other cities have this out of necessity (i.e., New York, they build up rather than out because of geographic restraints...they have to put all of those people somewhere). I don't see Oklahoma City as ever having that problem and don't understand why some want that so badly. Maybe it is the grass-is-always-greener. If they have green space, they want density/concrete jungles/street walls etc (see Sandridge plans thread). If they have that they want plazas and green spaces.

Then there are those that don't think OKC has enough parks or green space and a "Central Park" (MAPS 3) is needed. I honestly don't get that either. I have never been and don't know of anyone that has ever visited a city because of their Park. Even New York, it is just one of the many things to see and do and we have all heard of Central Park. Same for Chicago, Boston or Houston.

I have never seen OKC as being an "urban" city and have never seen the attraction of those that are (New York, etc). "Urban" can have a lot of negative connotations with it and I don't ever want OKC to become that. I see OKC as being more of a rural city (yes, I know, technically that is a contradiction in terms). Even though I like visiting the Dallas Metroplex, am always glad when I get back home to OKC. Would only consider moving to an even more urban city like Chicago, New York etc, if my job demanded it. Is "High Density" even something that is desired? Justs means crowded to me. Instead of trying to change OKC into something it isn't, if that is something that is something that someone really likes, then by all means move there. Just as if certain geographic features (mountains, oceans), certain climates or anything else is your thing.

Larry, you are thinking about cities as they stand today. What it boils down to is developing an attractive choice for people. Not everyone wants to live in suburbia as evidenced by the "brain drain" of young people moving to more exciting and fast moving cities. OKC undoubtedly will be "suburban" in nature for probably the next 50 years.

Why do people want something different or the opportunity to minimize the suburban growth?

young people- good corporate jobs at corporate headquarters instead of 2nd/3rd tier satellite offices.

Middle aged- more efficient use of tax money and retaining a balanced civic budget without cuts to services.

Older people- retain independence without the use of an automobile and/or the reliance on others as individuals (particularly older baby boomers).

It was fascinating to me during live debates during the MAPS Campaign. I debated several police officers over their desire for more uniforms to cover extremely low density areas they found challenging to patrol/respond quicly to because of the sheer square miles in their district.

They opposed MAPS yet seemed unaware of the ramifications of their desires. Adding more personnel to handle our suburban expansion simply redistributes a further increased burden for the expensive subsidation of the suburban lifestyle.

It was fascinating to see rail and public transit glean the enthusiasm of the majority when gas prices rose highest in 2007 - 2008. People made the direct correlation between their lifestyle choice and their personal pocket book. If they only new what it really cost them they would be clamoring for even more density and efficient use of resources.

I am a pragmatist. I do not expect OKC to "re-densify" overnight. I do however expect people to truly have a choice in a few years. You will be absolutely astonished at how many people choose it.

Wanting more density makes more sense if you think about what goes along with density: walkability, less need for the automobile due to proximity of activities for leisure time and proximity to work. It makes me happy to not have to use my car. I love walking to dinner, to the Ford Center or over to the Myriad Gardens, and I like seeing people walking to work. The streetcar makes it easy to get a bit farther faster. I might ride my bike to Midtown in the summer, but I would probably not ride or walk there in the winter. I would be happy riding the streetcar under those circumstances.

Wanting a central park makes perfect sense if you're interested in density because you don't have a yard or much of a yard in that situation. The park serves as your yard, and it serves as a yard for multiple people. It's a nicer backyard than you can have on your own, without the need to personally maintain it.

And, while I don't go to cities specifically because of the park, I can never think of a time when I didn't visit their downtown park when I've gone to a city. I love Central Park, Millenium/Grant Park and the Boston Common and Public Garden and wouldn't consider a visit complete without spending time in them.

Placing this here for archival reference:

Secret architecture makes Santa Fe Station possible as Oklahoma City?s downtown transportation hub | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/5562/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

Why do people think the tunnel going out to the platform stairs is some kind of hidden secret? How did people think you got out there to the last platform, walk across the tracks?

Why do people think the tunnel going out to the platform stairs is some kind of hidden secret? How did people think you got out there to the last platform, walk across the tracks?

I think "secret" was just a catchy word used to attract attention to the article. While it' s certainly not well known to the public, I'm sure that it's never been forgotten.

Urban, the only way I see the density I keep reading about happening is if the City de-annexes all of the outlying areas, restricting OKC to within the boundaries of say, Grand Boulevard. Forcing those that want to live in OKC proper (and whatever benefits that entails). Of course, even if that was done, the de-annexed areas would probably be incorporated into one of the surrounding communities, people would still be living there (just as they live in the 'burbs now). Unless you can figure out some way of preventing people from living where they want.

I am not saying that there aren't advantages to mass transit, but there are disadvantages as well. Yeah, it's great if you can work/live within walking distance. But what about the practicality of something as basic as shopping? Not talking about picking up a loaf of bread and a carton of milk. What do you do with several bags of groceries or buying big/bulky items? Ran into that just a couple days ago with the ice storm. Instead of having a parking space within feet of my apartment, had to park across the street at the hospital and cross a major street (Portland). Distance of about a block all told. Had to limit my purchases to what I could easily carry. There is a significant convenience factor that the personal auto affords that most wouldn't be willing to give up.

As you pointed out, people aren't even going to seriously consider mass transit unless they are forced to (like when gas was approaching $4/gallon). Then you have the problems inherent with any sort of mass trans: does it come where I am at and does it go where I need to go? Most are not that willing to give up door-to-door availability.

I think "secret" was just a catchy word used to attract attention to the article. While it' s certainly not well known to the public, I'm sure that it's never been forgotten.

If I read the article correctly the hidden or secret tunnel is blocked and filled with sand and it sounds like it was forgotten until someone found the plans.

Why do people think the tunnel going out to the platform stairs is some kind of hidden secret? How did people think you got out there to the last platform, walk across the tracks?

I can't speak for the reporter/editor, but the reality is that the tunnel was sealed off an forgotten about. In the Fixed Guideway Study process, I was told by engineers that Santa Fe was generally evaluated, but somewhat overlooked- one main reason being the lack of pedestrian infrastructure to cross the said freight tracks.

I think part of the major appeal of this possibility is its location. Extending the mostly unknown about tunnel and punching through the retaining wall would provide a immediate pedestrian connection to Bricktown and future commuter transit.

One of the things that I still find perplexing is the whole urban/high density concept. Some other cities have this out of necessity (i.e., New York, they build up rather than out because of geographic restraints...they have to put all of those people somewhere). I don't see Oklahoma City as ever having that problem and don't understand why some want that so badly.

Larry, I think we have to get used to a new idea. Urban density is not something that happens out of pure necessity anymore - ie, geographic constraint (Manhattan is an island, Hong Kong is wedged between mountains and ocean...) New urban density is something that happens because it is demanded, so the ability to sprawl across mile after mile of plain does not negate that demand anymore. Many of the current generation of college grads are environmentally sensitive and find the social and lifestyle benefits (walking, entertainment, live/work/play, non-cookie cutter surroundings) of an urban center very appealing. If we don't develop that in the present, we don't compete in the future, and that's why it's important.

Besides, I would argue that we DO have a geographic necessity for urban density, even in OKC, because of the havoc we are wreaking on the open land, farmland, and wildlife habitat on the fringes of every metropolitan area in the world. Between 82 and 92, the US lost almost 50 acres every hour to sprawling development- that number was probably depressingly larger during the housing boom of the 2000s. Anyone can see that this is unsustainable, poor treatment of the Earth, and it can't go on forever, and it would be great if it would dramatically slow immediately. I grew up west of Edmond, and have watched houses, schools, strip malls, and gas stations take over ranches, farms, and woodlands for 20 years. It's really, really sad. There are better ways to grow.

I can't speak for the reporter/editor, but the reality is that the tunnel was sealed off an forgotten about. In the Fixed Guideway Study process, I was told by engineers that Santa Fe was generally evaluated, but somewhat overlooked- one main reason being the lack of pedestrian infrastructure to cross the said freight tracks.

I think part of the major appeal of this possibility is its location. Extending the mostly unknown about tunnel and punching through the retaining wall would provide a immediate pedestrian connection to Bricktown and future commuter transit.

Just where did people think these stairs went? Look, there people using the tunnel in this photo. They were in use as recently as the late 70's. I would have to question the qualification of any engineer that studied Sanata Fe station and didn't know there was a tunnel.

http://www.railpixs.com/amt3/platforms_OkCity_Dec76a.jpg

Precisely, Kerry. The idea that this had been totally forgotten is preposterous. Serious planners knew that train passengers were not asked to walk across tracks to get to their trains except perhaps in the very early days of the station. It didn't happen at Union Station and it didn't happen here.

Gentlemen, you guys are making a big deal out of nothing.

30 years has gone by and there are a great many new people that are cheerleading the transit movement. I can't speak for the transit engineers who were writing/developing the FGS, but I think it is easy to point out that at the time (in 2003-2005) the fight over Union Station was raging with some very vocal rail enthusiasts.

I can remember going to public meetings that literally ground to a halt because of these very vocal protesters. It is somewhat fair to assume that the HUB (being such a hot button issue) is something that very few people had the stomach to go into detail over at that time.

The point of the Hub Analysis Study today is to go into detail. It is probably a better time for it now that we can assess the impact of MAPS in this equation.

I think that any general awareness that we can bring to the study and information that people can give these engineers that has been hidden away is important material/dialogue for a thorough assessment.

Great picture by the way. If you have more of them please post them. If you have larger files, please email them to me so that they can be part of the process.

Sorry Urban, I pulled that photo off of Google images. As for Union Station, I love the building but it would have been a poor choice for a hub for multiple reasons. Anyhow, I-40 will soon be there so no point in discussing it. Whatever OKC comes up with it will be better than nothing (at least I hope).

I was and never have suggested that Union Station was/is a resolution to the hub. The context is to point out why a more thorough conversation about Sante Fe was not had.

I was and never have suggested that Union Station was/is a resolution to the hub.

I know that. I didn't mean for it to sound like I was lumping you in with Tom Elmore and crowd.

Great and thanks! I have huge respect for people who have cared enough to fight for what they believe is best for the community. However, I ardently try to take a more diplomatic approach and let "the public process" allow itself to move forward.

Many people ask me what my opinion is on the streetcar route and such. I do have one. I just would rather have it orient itself organically and not get too tied to one opinion or another. There is a remarkable future in store for transit in this city. People need to bring there ideas and information forward but be willing to come to consensus for the greater good as the best path forward avails itself.

At one point, the late Jim Brewer brought up the idea of opening that tunnel into Bricktown. I think it may have been during the construction of the canal, but perhaps it was earlier than that. If I recall, he was told at the time that there was a terrorism concern in doing so.

A lot of people will probably recall that immediately post-OKC bombing there was a kneejerk (over?)reaction nationwide against ANY buildings or infrastructure being constructed with unsecured public access beneath them, for instance public parking or drive-thrus beneath office buildings, etc. Maybe the discussion was closer time-wise to the Murrah bombing than the canal construction. Either way Steve or one of his colleagues/predecessors wrote about it. That was the last public discussion I can recall surrounding that tunnel.

For reference purposes, Amtrak service ended in that station in 1979, prior to its re-emergence in 1999 with the Heartland Flyer.

Possible bad news for getting the Streetcars anytime soon according to Assistant City Manager Cathy O’Connor and Assistant Public Works Director Laura Story

NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/criticism-confusion-arise-over-downtown-projects/article/3438050?custom_click=lead_story_title)

And with such tasks still ahead, O’Connor and Story say they don’t expect streetcar construction to begin until 2020 – six years after work is to be completed on Project 180.

That's beginning construction 10 years from now plus actual construction time of 2 or 3 years?

Yeah, I read that too. It doesn't make me very happy. I was hoping the streetcar would be one of the first, if not the first, project. I understand that we cannot talk about a definitive streetcar route until we know precisely where the convention center will be, but if we want to stimulate development, and I think we do, we need to come up with a route as soon as reasonably possible, without just slapping something together to say we've got a plan. I hope there's at least a tentative route, and that the ultility placement they're talking about makes sense for the addition of streetcars in that area.

Ah, here we go again. To those who don't understand why it can't all be done today, may I humbly suggest going to the library, checking out "OKC Second Time Around" and read the chapter titled "Butchering of the Steer."

“The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know” - Harry S. Truman

Could you maybe give a condensed version for those of us who won't be near the library anytime soon?

Yeah, I read that too. It doesn't make me very happy. I was hoping the streetcar would be one of the first, if not the first, project. I understand that we cannot talk about a definitive streetcar route until we know precisely where the convention center will be, but if we want to stimulate development, and I think we do, we need to come up with a route as soon as reasonably possible, without just slapping something together to say we've got a plan. I hope there's at least a tentative route, and that the ultility placement they're talking about makes sense for the addition of streetcars in that area.

Maybe before we can have TOD (Transit Oriented Development) we need FAOTD (Fixed Asset Oriented Transit Development). In other words, we can't put rails somewhere until we know where it needs to go.

I don't think the streetcar needs to or can be done today. However, 2020 is ten years from now, 3 years after the MAPS tax will end. That, coupled with statements by the mayor, imply that the streetcar and convention center msy be the last things to be completed, when it seems to me they should be the some of the first. Were I in charge, I would determine a location for the new convention center as soon as reasonably possible, as that too when announced will drive development. Following that, I would begin planning a streetcar route, which could be implemented either before or after the convention center. I do agree with Larry that the convention center is the one MAPS improvment that is likely to increase the amount of sales tax collected, thereby making more money available for other projects. I'm excited about a park, but I don't think it's more important than mass transit, which will help jump start an improved mass transit system for teh city.

I agree Betts - if it was me the first thing I would do is pick the location for the convention center - even if it is built last. The second thing I would do is purchase the land for the park even if it isn't built for a few years. The third thing I would do is put in the street car. Of all the MAPS III projects, the street car is the one that will drive private sector development the most and the sooner we get the private sector aboard the better.

I read that bit from Cathy O'Connor and I was astonished at how tone-deaf this all seems.

Let's not forget that the rail component was one of two initiatives that carried MAPS III past the finish line.

This city cannot afford to wait another decade to begin to develop transit alternatives. That would be a major, major mistake.

The whole point of the street car is that it was a modest first step and could be implemented relatively quickly. Not overnight, but relatively soon.

Waiting this long would kill the momentum for other transit improvements and fail to stimulate new development and transit-oriented development in the core.

This is a colossal disappointment that needs to be rectified very soon or there are going to be a bunch of angry, disillusioned folks.

Please tell me that Ms. O'Connor is simply speaking from the hip and really doesn't know what's happening.

Please tell me that Ms. O'Connor is simply speaking from the hip and really doesn't know what's happening.

She is. She even said no one will know anything until the MAPS III oversight committee is formed.

This is another reason that I will not be living here much longer. We take two steps forward and three steps back. I just can't deal with the poor planning of our city any longer!

This is another reason that I will not be living here much longer. We take two steps forward and three steps back. I just can't deal with the poor planning of our city any longer!

What do you consider poor planning? Surely there are bigger reasons to move than the sequence in which downtown streets are repaved.

This is another reason that I will not be living here much longer. We take two steps forward and three steps back. I just can't deal with the poor planning of our city any longer!


Sounds like we'll soon be free of at least one disgruntled citizen.
Goodbye and drive safe, I have several moving boxes if needed.

CURRENT MTP NEWSLETTER RELEASED

Thank you for your continuing support of the Modern Streetcar and Commuter Rail infrastructure outlined in the MAPS 3 ballot initiative. The MTP has been hard at work to make sure that the best possible use of funds is being considered for transit as plans move forward. With the campaign over, MTP is transitioning its primary goals from campaigning for MAPS to a primary educational format. We are collaborating with other grassroots transit organizations such as APT and OnTrac to ensure that community support is effectively directed to its best use. Expect to hear regular updates regarding the implementation of MAPS 3 transit and related transit events, speakers, and forums.

There will be opportunities for additional community input, volunteerism, and fun events throughout the year of 2010. We are currently working on bringing out-of-state experts in the transit field to Oklahoma City for further education. There is also an ongoing direct outreach to the burgeoning artist community in downtown Oklahoma City.

From the entire MTP committee and Advisory Board, our thanks for your support.


How Can Project 180 help with the MAPS 3 Streetcar?

Careful planning and coordination between Project 180 engineers and streetcar planners could save enormous amounts of taxpayer money and minimize disruption of downtown life.

At this time, only preliminary conversations have occurred between Project 180 engineers and MAPS streetcar planners. Project 180 promises to be one of the most significant public works projects in the United States with every street and sidewalk renovated in the central downtown area. At recent public meetings about the project, it has been suggested by project spokespersons that an earnest effort will be made to integrate the two projects as best possible while retaining the ambitious four year schedule to complete the entire downtown plan by the opening of the new Devon downtown skyscraper now under construction. Since no downtown route has been established for the streetcar, it is a safe assumption that year one of the streetscape project will not incorporate the actual laying of rail.

However, streetcar planners have suggested that there are improvements that can be done in preparation that will significantly positively impact the outcome of both projects.

IMPROVEMENTS BEING DISCUSSED

Environmental Assessment - As existing pavement is removed by Project 180 contractors, streetcar planners can inspect what concerns may lie in the path of streetcar rail bed.

Utility Relocation - Utilities could be relocated deeper into the earth or relocated entirely to minimize excavation at the time of rail construction. Such relocation is necessary for the rail foundation and to minimize the possibility of electromagnetic interference with telecommunication lines.

Lighting Pole Preparation for Overhead Power Wire - Street and Traffic light poles could be manufactured of the appropriate size and strength to handle the overhead wire (catenary wire) that typically powers a modern streetcar. Installing such poles will eliminate or minimize the need for additional poles on downtown sidewalks. Footings for the poles would be installed on reinforced base foundations to support the weight of the wire and counteract strong Oklahoma wind conditions.

Electrical Power Supply Conduits - Installation of power supply conduits will minimize the need for additional excavation to install streetcar wiring.

Streetcar Station Preparation - Such preparations would provide the appropriate curb and sidewalk requirements in areas where the streetcar may stop for passengers.

Pre-Scored Concrete Street Panels - If some Project 180 street renovation schedules are unable to incorporate the actual steel rail, streets can be scored at the appropriate places for easy concrete removal while maintaining the integrity of the surrounding street surfaces.


PROJECT MECHANISM

Assuming that consensus is developed between engineers and planners, the improvements above will be prescribed to the 180 project in official working drawings for the contractors. Since no preferred route has be determined, one mechanism being discussed is the use of "change outs" (internal management mechanisms that would provide the additional budget and staff controls to anticipate the streetcar on most streets until otherwise directed). In that manner, the pricing is built into the project for improvements and removed during the project duration with no negative conflict to the contractor and project budget.


What is the possible timing of the streetcar project?

Undoubtedly, the idea of a world class transit system in Oklahoma City has left a great many excited. The timing and efficiency of the project process is critical to ensuring the judicious use of taxpayer money. Project 180 offers a unique opportunity to stretch the transit dollar and cover many of the same expenses that would be normally be required for the streetcar project.


PROJECT OVERSIGHT

City officials are currently evaluating the dozens of resumes received for the Citizen's Oversight Board for MAPS 3. Ultimately, it will be the decision of this board and City Council members who will direct the time line of all MAPS Projects. The Oversight Board and Council will receive recommendations from the streetcar leadership committee. The speed at which this committee determines a preferred streetcar route/alignment would directly impact the potential speed at which some parts of the streetcar project could begin.

The final route determination will follow a public engagement campaign and the decisions as to where the Regional Transit Hub, Convention Center, and other MAPS Projects are placed.


MTP POSITION ON TIMING

MTP has regularly conveyed to the general public the accepted belief that "parts" of the streetcar system would be installed as appropriate during the entire MAPS construction/funding program. The prospect of Project 180 forces a serious consideration for the acceleration of streetcar construction in appropriate streets as long as the timeline and agreement with Devon Energy can be met.


FEDERAL FUNDING

Oklahoma City has the potential opportunity apply for Federal Funds in the relative near future as a new Transportation Bill is approved through congress this spring. Our eligibility to apply for these potential funds directly relies on the ability of the streetcar committee to establish a preferred route/alignment and successfully complete an effective Public Outreach and Engagement Campaign. Time is of the essence as this brightening Federal political environment may not persist.


APT to host winter Membership Meeting
Oklahoma Alliance for Public Transportation
March 18th at the Oklahoma City Community Foundation

Get ready to come out Thursday March 18th to a one hour meeting at noon. Members and non-members are welcome. APT is now a 501c3 transit support organization.

APT listened well to you in 2009, played a big role in the transit and walkability part of MAPS 3, and wants to do more. It needs you to improve its Board while maintaining the Board's broad balance of supporters: mainly bus, some rail, paratransit, walkability, and also passengers and mart growth supporters. An election will occur later in the spring.

BOX LUNCHES AVAILABLE

Box lunches cost only $9 (pay at the door).

REGISTER HERE- APT Winter Membership Meeting (http://events.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07e2q68z0w3dd063d4)

It is perfectly fine to simply brown bag if desired.

Thanks for the post Urbanpioneer! It is nice to know that there are more who are very aware of the critical nature and cost savings that could be realized if the two projects properly address each other and plan accordingly.

To see a electronic web page version of this news letter with photographs and links, please click here-

MAPS 3 Streetcar meets Project 180 (http://campaign.constantcontact.com/render?v=001-Z4x8hfwYW_Og6AbbxjWP7Ts8KDkA7w3cIrzVZ-cW1bFQjcvxZsWmdgWBbM9cUSPMPuXcc_U6Pn8b7F1z6lhzzy5Z KSFDSagt8LrFrigEd9zho5lJhkTSw%3D%3D)

Urban, thanks for the excellent info. All sounds reasonable. Now if only the City and the Project 180 folks are listening? But given recent news reports they seem to be oblivious.

Why has MAPS 3 been seen as operating in some sort of vacuum? There should have been alternative plans for Project 180 from the beginning (if MAPS 3 passed or not) as soon as MAPS 3 passed (Plan "A"), then you proceed ahead with it. Now since there doesn't appear to have been much planning if any with MAPS 3 the taxpayers are going to be paying the price. Both in money and delays. Remember Project 180 is all borrowed money (borrowed once from Devon in a pre-project deal and from my understanding of the TIF financing method, will be paid back with more borrowed money from the TIF after the Devon tower is completed). Will the 1st round of borrowed money be paid for before we rip up the streets again to put in the Streetcars?

Could you maybe give a condensed version for those of us who won't be near the library anytime soon?

With all due respect: No.
I'm not being flippant. But this is the problem - people don't want to spend the time necessary to understand just how complicated all this is. You want a simple chat board response that allows for "this is good, this is bad" interpretation and learning from history.
I won't do that for you. You deserve better.

With all due respect: No.
I'm not being flippant. But this is the problem - people don't want to spend the time necessary to understand just how complicated all this is. You want a simple chat board response that allows for "this is good, this is bad" interpretation and learning from history.
I won't do that for you. You deserve better.

Well said Steve.

In Monday's Oklahoman "Your Views"...thoughts?

NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/letters-to-the-editor-monday-february-15-2010/article/3439608?custom_click=headlines_widget)


A better way
“Criticism, confusion arise over downtown projects” (news story, Feb. 9) depicts “the worse traffic nightmare in decades with most streets to be torn up and rebuilt over the next four years.” Project 180, funded by future property taxes from Devon’s new tower, involves rebuilding all downtown streets, sidewalks, parks and public spaces. Construction, to start next May, will require relocation of underground utilities with some streets constricted to one lane for up to 18 months. Later, probably in 2020, some of the same streets will be torn up again to install the rails for the streetcar system funded by MAPS 3.

These disruptions of downtown traffic aren’t just an inconvenience; they’ll have a detrimental impact on business activities. If negotiations fail to integrate the streetscapes with the streetcars, alternative approaches should be considered. Instead of streetcars, a system of trolleybuses would be more appropriate because of lower installation costs and greater versatility. Trolleybuses look and ride like buses, they travel on regular tires, making it unnecessary the installation of rails, and they run on electricity; therefore, they’re as eco-friendly as the streetcars.

Since streetcars require installation of one overhead electric wire, the installation of a second wire (trolleybuses need two) shouldn’t pose significant problems. Furthermore, when the need for additional lines, or the abandonment of nonessential ones, arises, this could be done quite easily with trolleybus lines.

Raoul Carubelli, Oklahoma City

I think that's ridiculous they're going to completely re-do all the streets and sidewalks now and then tear them up again in 6-8 years to add the streetcar rails... How about this... figure out where you want to run the tracks NOW, install the tracks NOW, (during Project180) So that away redevelopment of the areas where the track will run can start NOW. Then in 7-8 years all you have to do is the small touch up stuff... add the streetcars ... and BAM!! we have streetcars in 7-8 years instead of 10-11 years