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=LwBkAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

It isn't near large enough. We had a pretty good discussion this in another thread and even had some crude drawings that incorporated the Myriad site into a large transit hub. I'll see if I can find it and post the link.

http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/20121-modern-streetcar-commuter-transit-project-maps-3-progresses-10.html

Start with post #246 on page 10. This is what OKC needs to build.

I like the idea of narrowing EK Gaylord to four lanes in that two block area from Sheridan to Reno. If you took out the median, you could expand the station the three east lanes. That would create space for the streetcars to pull through. Then use the parking area to the north of the station as the city bus pickup.

You guys are think way to small. This will be OKCs Grand Central Station. Closing a couple of lanes of EKG isn't going to cut it. OKC needs to build a Victoria Station type facility with retail, hotel, connecting ground transportation, an airport check-in, office space for rail operations and transit police, and tons of other stuff (Especially if this becomes a HSR stop someday).

http://kimbriggs.com/photos/england/london/victoria-station/victoria-station-0409-004.jpg

http://londondailyphoto.owenaj.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/london_victoria_station.jpg

Kerry, that would be very nice, but is that possible for $10 million?

From the article:

Cornett said the Santa Fe station isn’t the only possible location for the intermodal hub, which has a $10 million price tag.

I want to express that I echoed the mayor's cautionary sentiments about further study to the reporter. However, Santa Fe is an undeniable gem that should be specifically evaluated as part of the Hub Analysis study.

Regarding the size, we have $10 million for commuter infrastructure. We need to plan for the future and expansion possibilities. However we need to get something going in our lifetimes. The FGS outlines the needs for 30 years. Let's start using that as a base precedent and see how far we can plan into the future but get something going with the money we have.

Kerry, that would be very nice, but is that possible for $10 million?

From the article:

Cornett said the Santa Fe station isn’t the only possible location for the intermodal hub, which has a $10 million price tag.

No, you can't have that station for $10 million. However, with an 80/20 federal split you can get it for $50 million with a lot left over. If they went with the design mentioned in the thread I linked to there are two blocks that would be freed up that could be sold for millions more. They would make nice hotel and residential sites.

No, you can't have that station for $10 million. However, with an 80/20 federal split you can get it for $50 million with a lot left over. If they went with the design mentioned in the thread I linked to there are two blocks that would be freed up that could be sold for millions more. They would make nice hotel and residential sites.

So are you thinking close off EK Gaylord in that area (or make it depressed under a walkover) and renovate the CCC into the hub? My guess would be the western portion of the CCC off Robinson would be best for bus and streetcar pickup/drop off (making that street four lane instead of six with a median), the rail would obviously be to the east (by the rail lines) and in between the two would be the offices/retail/info, etc.

EKG could be reduce to two lanes each way and would go under a station built on the site of the current COX. As mentioned in the other thread two tracks would be inclosed in glass to make the platforms all-weather. The plan would also break up the super block and extend Broadway 2 block south and reopen California Street which would offer an awesome view of Santa Fe station from Myriad Gardens. With the new park it might be possible to see Santa Fe and Union stations from the same spot.

Bus and other ground transportation services could be housed in what is now the Myriad parking garage. Street car lines would run on right-of-way made available by the reduction of EKG to four lanes. This would allow people to transfer from commuter rail to street car without leaving the building.

a station built on the site of the current COX.

That is a good suggestion. I think you could even convert the current space to use as a hub. It'd be perfect location with great access to bricktown, the arena(s?), hotels, and the CBD. Might have to see where new convention center is going though to really know.

Kerry, there is no way the Feds will do an 80/20 split on a Transit Hub for OKC. While I appreciate the dreams, I think we also need to be realistic.

Also, I have noted that while many conservatives always talk about less government, it is surely interesting that there is no opposition to Federal spending that benefits them. If you're fiscal conservative at the Federal level (as many Oklahomans profess themselves to be), then I think it is only ethical that that same person be prepared not to receive federal funds for projects.

This is a BIG reason why I wish people would rethink the 'branding' of Oklahoma as a conservative state. There is no reason why OK shouldn't receive funding, but being conservative - it only seems rightfully so that funds don't get spent in OK. Take your own senator - Istook, who diverted federal funds that should have gone to OKC during MAPS I for a starter circular streetcar network and instead sent the money to SLC's (then) less ambitious but prohibitively more expensive by comparison Light Rail starter. He robbed Peter to pay Paul, and all the while REMINDED Oklahomans that you are fiscally conservative state and therefore would be stuck with only $10M from the feds for a rubber trolley tourist system. Oklahoma's political leaders continually sell out Oklahomans (while also taking 'donations' from other states/lobbyists) and make fools of themselves with all of this right wing idiot speak tying religion to everything, yet Oklahomans keep voting people like that in. What good did it do that Istook was chairman of the transportation committee? He did nothing for OK, other than make Oklahomans look stupid and pad his own pockets and SLC (and other city's) ambitions. .....

Have you had enough with the rhetoric? In my opinion, it is Oklahoma who shoots Oklahoma City's big league ambitions in the foot. I for one, am tired of it.

Sorry for the aside (but I think it needed to be stated);

Back to the topic at hand, I think the pictured intermodal station is a bit too ambitious for Oklahoma City at Santa Fe station. However, if such an intermodal was integrated next to the convention center or somehow possibly integrated near/with Union Station, I think it could work and be viable.

It all depends on Brewer - whether he will play ball or SELL SANTA FE to the city. Personally, I don't see what he has done - OKC has the WORST train support service for any major city; Santa Fe's service is laughable at best - cities on the Heartland Flyer route have better support than Brewers ABSENT Santa Fe.

While I applaud a local investor stepping in, it seems he's more interested in selling parking than utilizing his facility to the best interest (which might even draw more rail pax or side uses of Santa Fe facilities (via rental). This is another 'small time' way of doing things that I would love for OKC to purge itself.

going further with BDP's idea - I agree that perhaps we could (later) utilize the remodeled COX area for an intermodal facility and remove the arena portion (once we have a new arena built - to retain the 2 arena downtown theme). Basically, cut Cox in half (along what would be E-W California alignment).

We could keep the fancy North face (and many of the remodeled ballrooms near there), remove the arena, and run train elevated train tracks having them turn to the (now middle) of cox. With the arena removed, we could then have city bus and city bus on the surface of the 'new' south side and have commuter rail, Amtrak, and (future) light rail on elevated tracks on top of the building. We could have the streetcar run down Sheridan (which is the current plan anyways). That would make the new "cox" building a true (and already GRAND) intermodal facility. ...

Finally, we could reclaim the two city blocks the arena currently sits on - maybe selling that land for skyscraper development in the form of office, hotel, or residential or a combination. The proceeds of development might even help the city pay for all of this.

Then, we could redo the current elevated tracks a bit and remove the Santa Fe platforms. We then could turn Santa Fe into a world class museum or Federal courthouse or city hall/municipal court.

Just to simplify my suggestion:

1) remove the arena from the current Cox Convention Center building, AFTER we have a new convention center AND after we construct a new arena downtown - so that we keep the 2 arena theme and have a viable convention center

2) retain the north half of the current Cox Convention Center building, it would become the Intermodal Transit Hub with it's already grand entrance and already remodeled meeting and ballrooms (of course, we'd need to remodel it again once this future idea is materialized, but you get the idea)

2a) AMTRAK would run new elevated tracks from the existing N-S 'santa fe' alignment, having a turn at the 'california ave' alignment to the top of the new Intermodal Transit Hub building. Platforms would be build on top of the building

2b) Commuter Rail (and future light rail) would also have tracks elevated to the top of the building with platforms also on top (or you could go subway, more expensive). ...

2c) Intercity Bus (Greyhound, Trailways, MTO...) would have dedicated gates on the surface of the 'new' south side of the Intermodal building. Inside, there would be waiting areas and baggage

2d) City Bus would have dedicated gates and loading areas on the surface of the south (and maybe also the west or east side) of the building. The building would have inside waiting areas and transit offices near the gates and loading areas.

2e) the Downtown Streetcar would run along Sheridan (and Robinson) along the already 'current' alignment plan. Streetcars would stop along the main front entrance area (and also perhaps on Robinson)

2f) parking could be retained under the north half of the building (if it currently exists). This might also open up possible expansion for subway for future growth

3) retain many of the meeting and ballrooms and grand facilities in the 'current remodeled' north half of the current building. Those rooms could become fine restaurants, galleries, meeting rooms for rent, and transit/travel offices. There could also be some shopping by expanding a portion of the exterior not in a transit corridor with retail storefronts

4) finally, we could have rental car and other CVB related counters and interests at the new facility. It could be a one stop shoppe for all OKC related transit and rail/bus/rental car travel

5) once the Amtrak and Commuter rail tracks have been built to the new facility, the existing platforms at Santa Fe could be removed and the N-S alignment could be redesigned for better efficiency

6) Santa Fe station would no longer be a train station but instead would become a major downtown destination draw, such as a world class museum or US courthouse, or "new" city hall or municipal courthouse


We could call the new intermodal facility, the Myriad Transit Center - bringing the myriad name back. The city would own the facility and would receive rent from all transit and travel agencies, restaurants, and retail shoppes.

Anybody like?

I don't want to get sidetracked here but a few things abot your last post HOTROD.

1. Infrastructure is within the responsibility of the federal government so there is no contradiction from a conservative standpoint. Oklahoma is deemed a conservative state because it is so red you can see the color from space. Hell, the dirt is even red.

2. I think 80/20 is the current federal/local split.

3. If that starter line had been built back in '94 we wouldn't be talking about rail today, period. That starter line would have been a huge failure - and for the very reasons cited by Istook. It wasn't a loop, it was an out and back from downtown to the Meridian hotel area. If that line had been built the poor ridership would have doomed any discussion for a rail system in OKC. Not building that ill-conceived starter line might be the best thing that ever happened to rail in OKC. There is a reason that line was not being proposed in MAPS III.

4. By itself, Santa Fe is not big enough. Any facility would have to use the Cox site but it wold be far cheaper (and better) to tear down Cox and build a new facility.

The following isn't intended to be a "slam". Like it when people come up with ideas that sometimes go outside of the box. But there are timing and financial realities that have to be addressed. Most of what you are describing sounds wonderful but prohibitively expensive.


1) remove the arena from the current Cox Convention Center building, AFTER we have a new convention center AND after we construct a new arena downtown - so that we keep the 2 arena theme and have a viable convention center

Timing may be an issue as the Mayor has said repeatedly the new Convention Center will be "staged last" and is 10 years or so away. The Mayor has also stated that the remodeled Ford will last 10-15 years after the remodel is complete next year. Then you have to add in the time to tear down the Cox and build the new (similar issue with the Boulevard...can't build it until the Crosstown is removed and you can't remove the crosstown until the new I-40 is open).

The second issue is the cost of a replacement arena. The one Bennett wanted in Seattle had a $500M price tag. As stated above, have to adjust that cost for inflation etc, 10 to 15 years down the road.


2a) AMTRAK would run new elevated tracks from the existing N-S 'santa fe' alignment, having a turn at the 'california ave' alignment to the top of the new Intermodal Transit Hub building. Platforms would be build on top of the building

2b) Commuter Rail (and future light rail) would also have tracks elevated to the top of the building with platforms also on top (or you could go subway, more expensive). ...

Personally don't have an issue with elevated tracks, but some here certainly will. They argue that everything needs to be street level. That anything elevated presents the same "obstacle" the Crosstown currently presents.


5) once the Amtrak and Commuter rail tracks have been built to the new facility, the existing platforms at Santa Fe could be removed and the N-S alignment could be redesigned for better efficiency

6) Santa Fe station would no longer be a train station but instead would become a major downtown destination draw, such as a world class museum or US courthouse, or "new" city hall or municipal courthouse

Unless it simply can't be expanded seems wasteful to not utilize the existing station, rails etc., for the purpose they were intended. Can't imagine it is cheap to put in new rail lines or to "realign" them. Would imagine elevated would cost even more.

Would the Santa Fe station even be big enough for either of the courthouses (and major renovation costs) or even City Hall?


We could call the new intermodal facility, the Myriad Transit Center - bringing the myriad name back. The city would own the facility and would receive rent from all transit and travel agencies, restaurants, and retail shoppes.

While I like the idea of bringing the Myriad name back (and appropriate considering the number of transportation connections involved), the City is not going to give up the naming rights money (unless Mr. Bennett is somehow involved, as he was with the naming rights giveaway of the Bricktown Ballpark and the Ford). While the City may indeed retain ownership and collect rent, if recent approaches are maintained, they will be looking at just "breaking even" (from an operational standpoint, never recouping the cost to build). Am generally opposed to the City being a Landlord for privately owned, intended for-profit businesses (see Bass Pro and Thunder deals). Now if the City can approach it with a profit-sharing/making attitude and recoup the building cost in a reasonable time frame, then that would be a different discussion (see Hornets).

The name "Myriad" can always be included in a corporate name. ie "Rose Bowl by Citi"

Larry, thanks for your reply and I didn't take it as a slam at all :).

But I do want you to know, my ideas are out there in the future. With that in mind, it does calm a bit of your very relavent concerns based on today and the near future. But Im talking about, after the new convention center is built and we build a new arena - to then build this grand new intermodal by reusing a portion of the cox.

Im not sure of the timeline, (I hope could be soon rather than later) but I definitely recognize that the city will want the new convention center built and a new arena before considering redoing the Cox space.

As for the elevated tracks, Im just 'proposing' to spur from the existing alignment. It would only be one block (more or less) away from the existing Santa Fe N-S alignment, along what was the California Avenue alignment. There would just be a 'turn' that goes to the West onto the revised Myriad building (retrofitted where needed, of course).

I also think my idea would be quite cost effective and might even pay for itself and maybe other developments if done right. If the city likes the naming rights, they can have Cox put their name on the new convention center (or the new intimate sports arena).

As for replacing the arena, Im not even going to touch that issue right now - as I wasn't even thinking of a new NBA/NHL arena but rather a smaller one to be replacement for the Cox Arena (to support the revised myriad configuration [taking the north half and removing the south half/arena]). We could just build a 8,000-12,000 seat intimate arena maybe across the street from Ford Center (other side of Robinson). We could keep Ford Center, as once it's time to refurbish - the existing building is big enough to fit any new NBA model or could be added to *unlike Seattle's Key Arena. I know there may be people who might not like tearing out the Arena and building a new one BUT if the intermodal rebuild of the myriad is done right and the reclaimed land is developed; that and the rent the city will receive on the new facility could more than pay for all of it.

IMO, that's the ONLY way we would ever have an large intermodal facility (with any type of Grand Entrance) in the center of downtown. It is a way we can think big, achieve a facility in the middle of downtown, but also reuse an existing building (well, half of it) while also recreating retail and development in that part of downtown (with the potentially added storefronts, retail inside the myriad, and the reclaimed 'current' arena land). Can you imagine the current Cox north face as the Grand Entrance for the Myriad Intermodal Transit Center?...

Talk about speachless, once you go inside and have your choice at 1)Amtrak, 2)Commuter Rail, 3)Intercity Bus, 4)City Metro bus, 5)Streetcar, 6)light rail (eventually), 7)Rental cars, 8)restaurants, 9)shoppes, 10)meeting space and transit offices.

As for Santa Fe, those were just ideas I had. I would hate to see them tear it down, but in all honesty - the building isn't really big enough to be an intermodal facility and can't be expanded without considerable expense. But I do think there could be uses found for the building that would significantly add to downtown.

The thing I really like about my idea, besides giving OKC 'destination' status for urban transit development - is that it does this in the existing central core BUT ALSO BRINGS BACK SOME DENSITY to that area in which the Pei plan destroyed. And we would keep the 'nice' side of the myriad, but get rid of the eyesore (arena) and build a smaller, intimate one on the other side next to Ford.

Kerry, Im not sure if I agree with you (but I dont completely disagree either as you raised some very good points).

My most disagreement is where you agree with Istook about the rail plan. I disagree because the federal funds would have only been authorized in 1994, but we would have a rail system built later. And surely, somebody would have come in and worked with OKC to build a more sustainable system. I also disagree with you in that look at the development that has taken place without a circular. Now, look to Portland to see what could have BEEN developed WITH a streetcar - circular or spoke. Portland's Pearl district and waterfront were industrial wastelands worse than Core2Shore before 1995 - huge embarrassments. But the streetcar was built and look at it today. Sure, it didn't happen overnight, but the streetcar helped develop Pearl District (in particular). Today, Pearl looks like a mini Yaletown (which is an upscale skyscraper neighbourhood in downtown Vancouver). I remember seeing plans and flyers about Pearl developments and nearly every development referenced the Portland Streetcar. ....

Build it and they will come; and it would have happened to OKC if we had at least got the money.

One more thing, hindsight is 20/20 but can you imagine IF OKC had done streetcar in the mid-late 1990s/early 2000's? Given the gas issues, given the recession. OKC's streetcar would cost even less money then than it will today, as Im sure OKC's downtown land values have already increased.

as to your first point, again - I disagree somewhat. It is true the feds should be about infrastructure (Im a moderate/independent) but OKC's federal infrastructure already exists. There's no justification from a federal pov to invest in an OKC intermodal facility; particularly since OK is a fiscal conservative state. The ONLY reason why it worked for Salt Lake was Istook's support and SLC getting the olympics - so they needed some pet projects and got it (over OKC). I would not count on federal support for this type of infrastructure until OKC proves it has critical mass - like all other cities have needed to do before they received federal dollars for transit; and OK gets politicians that care for this state/city and drops the right wing holier than thou stance.

The name "Myriad" can always be included in a corporate name. ie "Rose Bowl by Citi"

I agree. That is the way to do it. I call it the Disney model of naming rights. Disney has mastered it as they have cross-promotional corporate tie-ins in just about every area of their parks. But they wisely didn't allow some other corporate entity to name the attraction. It isn't "Kodak's It's a Small World" the name of the attraction has remained the same through the decades: It's a Small World (sponsored by __________). Everyone wins, Disney keeps it's branding and unique identity, the corporate sponsor gets it's advertising and you don't have the potential for the name of a building changing several times over the years. How many different names has the Brick had now? Same company but the company kept changing its name (Southwestern Bell...SWB...AT&T).

Then councilman Cornett seemed to be thinking along these lines when he voted against the naming rights to the Arena (Ford Center). He said he didn't have anything against Ford, but he thought we should be promoting OKC and not some corporation. Wish he had kept that same attitude when he agreed to give away the naming rights to the Thunder.

... build a smaller, intimate one on the other side next to Ford.

I always have a hard time orienting myself downtown....where would that be, where the Ford dealership is now?

Also, when we build a new arena I don't see building it any smaller. That is one of the mistakes of the Ford remodel was we took out nearly 1,000 seats and we had already outgrown it (for concerts etc). The new arena will need to be bigger, probably in the 22K to 25K range and the Ford would be the "smaller. intimate one".

...One more thing, hindsight is 20/20 but can you imagine IF OKC had done streetcar in the mid-late 1990s/early 2000’s? Given the gas issues, given the recession. OKC’s streetcar would cost even less money then than it will today, as Im sure OKC’s downtown land values have already increased.

Absolutely, without a doubt!

Under the original MAPS the downtown streetcar with a link (not just a line to the Meridian hotel corridor/Airport as someone else suggested) cost significantly less than the current MAPS 3 proposed one (with no connecting line to Meridian/Airport).

The cost under the original MAPS? Originally pitched as a light rail system costing taxpayers a net $3M ($16M total cost with $13M to be in Federal funding). Under MAPS 3? $130M with no Federal funding expected and no line to the Airport area. Doesn’t mean Federal funding can’t happen, but the City isn't expecting it and considering the recent discussions about Oklahoma missing out on the HSR money in this round, seems unlikely.

This is why I was very disappointed when MAPS 3 was announced and we were told we were only getting the Downtown Streetcars (instead of the comprehensive mass trans plan the Mayor spoke of nearly every time MAPS 3 came up). Much cheaper to do it sooner rather than later and the remaining components of the comprehensive plan are now at least 7.75 years before they can even be considered.

The cost difference between MAPS & MAPS 3? $114M - $127M or roughly 8 times as much in just 16 years. The comprehensive plan was “only” going to cost $394M ($264M more). Applying a 4 times cost factor, that $264M will probably end up costing $1.06 Billion if done 8 years from now as part of MAPS 4?

Concerning the intermodal hub, as stated previously, if the Mayor is correct on the Convention Center being staged last, the hub will be built before it and that presents a problem with the reusing the Myriad space...

The cost under the original MAPS? Originally pitched as a light rail system costing taxpayers a net $3M ($16M total cost with $13M to be in Federal funding). Under MAPS 3? $130M with no Federal funding expected and no line to the Airport area. Doesn’t mean Federal funding can’t happen, but the City isn't expecting it and considering the recent discussions about Oklahoma missing out on the HSR money in this round, seems unlikely.


I think we have a good chance of getting Federal funding. HSR was looked at from a State commitment point of view. Federal funding for Transit, such as the New Starts program, is reviewed for local commitment. Thanks to Maps 3, we obviously have a local commitment, so the Feds would know we're planning on spending money.

Under the Bush administration, a local new start had to demonstrate certain financial benefits in order to qualify. That meant that streetcars were low on the list, because they don't carry as many far ranger passengers as light rail. The Obama administration recently changed this to place quality of life high on the list, so a streetcar has much better chance at this funding now. Walking the walk; New transit action puts livability criteria squarely into the mix - Welcome to the Fast Lane: The Official Blog of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/01/walking-the-walk-new-transit-action-puts-livability-criteria-squarely-into-the-mix.html)

The proposed 2011 funding for New Starts and Small Starts is $1.822 billion... Federal Transit Administration Unveils Capital Projects Recommended for Major Financing The Transport Politic (http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/02/02/federal-transit-administration-unveils-capital-projects-recommended-for-major-financing/)

This is just food for thought. It is an overview graphic that I posted weeks ago on the other, similar thread that points out possibilities for the Sante Fe station. Following what was said above, I think that this could and should all be done in stages, starting with renovation of the station itself to adapt it as a streetcar / bus junction. The changes and updates to the Cox could come at a later stage.

396

P.S. Maybe someone can tell me how to make the image bigger?

Take the link to your attachment, and turn it into an image using the [ img ] url-to-your-image [ /img ] tags without the spaces, like so:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/okc-metro-area-talk/396d1265289241-santa-fe-station-possible-okcs-intermodal-hub-okc-central-station.jpg

4. By itself, Santa Fe is not big enough. Any facility would have to use the Cox site but it wold be far cheaper (and better) to tear down Cox and build a new facility.

I am not sure where you are getting this from. We don't know that with certainty until the Hub Study is completed and this facility is assessed by engineers.

What I can tell you with some confidence is that the volunteer assessments that MTP has obtained is that the existing facility could easily handle the rail requirements in the Fixed Guideway Study. The question is more less how much space is needed for "rubber tired" infrastructure.

The political sentiment suggests that the fairly new Bus Station/Transfer Center at 4th/Hudson is not going anywhere anytime soon.

So then you are left with Streetcar, Bus Connector, BRT, Passenger Drop-Off Zone, Taxi, and possibly Greyhound.

The Project 180 street re-alignment/lane closures could provide more space and the Myriad facility/parking garage across the street offers great possibilities.

I will say it again though, I would like to see something going in my lifetime.

To not do a thorough engineering analysis on Santa Fe would be a irresponsible mistake. The question fundamentally becomes, how far ahead should we plan with the funding that we have available to us? What is scalable that provides service in the near term while providing expansion possibilities for the future?

Urban - when I said the downtown station would need to be on the Cox site, I meant that it would also incorporate the existing Santa Fe station. Sure the City needs to do due diligence but some stuff is so obvious I feel it is safe to assume. Can Santa Fe handle train traffic in its current configuration? Sure it can. Can it function as a modern intermodal facility? No way. Just look at other cities around the world and see if any of them have a primary facility as small as Santa Fe. There is a reason they don't.

And what part of the facility do you feel is too small? I mean, go ahead and itemize it so people know specifically what you are referring to.

And how far out into the future should we plan for? Just the FGS 30 Year needs or more?

The idea of putting a transit hub in the yet to be built convention center should not be overlooked. In Boston, the North Station MBTA station is integrated into the Fleet Center (or whatever it is called now), providing a gateway for subway and commuter rail. Now, the primary AMTRAK station and the other half of the commuter rail is still at South Station, but the model works nontheless.

I'm not sure why some of you are suggesting we build such a massive facility. You are pointing out transit centers in London and suggesting if we build anything smaller we are thinking "too small." The London metro area has 14 million people, England has 52 million, and Great Britain (including Scotland and Wales) has 60 million. All those 60 million people are in an area just slightly larger than Oklahoma. They have DENSITY. We will not have near the traffic any of London's terminals have (at least for quite some time). I think it would be a massive waste of money to build something the size of Victoria Station right off the bat. Last year more than 77 million people passed through Victoria Station.

What we should do is build a facility that can easily accommodate current and 10-20 year projected needs, that can be expanded further after that if the need is there. We need to see the results of the transportation hub study to know whether Santa Fe Station could support it.

One thing I have seen in my travels across Europe is train stations that incorporate the old building into a new, modern one. Some of them kind of run together at this point, but I think it is Edinburgh were the old building is completely inside the new, soaring train station. Perhaps that is an option with the Santa Fe. The great thing about Santa Fe Station is its location. We need to keep the following in mind: (1) needs for the next 1-2 decades, (2) needs to be centrally located, (3) needs to have growth options, (4) needs to be not overly expensive.

If the hub study says the Santa Fe is the most ideal, I would not be surprised. Some of the infrastructure is already in place. It is centrally located in the downtown area. It has room for expansion in the short term (MAPS3 and Project 180 money). We can plan for the Cox Center site like we may need the east 1/2 or 1/3 of it for future transit tying into the Santa Fe in 20 years or so. We shouldn't need expansion across the current EK Gaylord for transit until well after the new convention center is built and plans for the Cox Center demolition/re-use/etc. are further along.

We'll know more after the hub study is complete.

Brian - I am not proposing something the same size as victoria station. They have 19 sets of tracks but you do need space for retail, security, customer service, information, airport check-in, rail operations offices, command and control center, transit police, possible hotel, food service, bathrooms, medical, and on and on.

This isn't a stop on a line, it is the hub. Not everyone coming to the downtown station will be getting off downtown. They will transfer between trains, transfer to street car, and go to the airport. They will arrive and leave by foot, taxi, and drop-off/pick-up. You also have to enclose the passenger platforms. No one is going to wait in snow to transfer between trains. You have to account for all of this.

Brian - I am not proposing something the same size as victoria station. They have 19 sets of tracks but you do need space for retail, security, customer service, information, airport check-in, rail operations offices, command and control center, transit police, possible hotel, food service, bathrooms, medical, and on and on.



Airport check-in would be a very low priority in OKC for a downtown station. The usage for many years would be minimal and the airlines would not go to the expense of staffing a location there. I know this is very popular in Europe but for very good reasons there.

Airport check-in would be a very low priority in OKC for a downtown station. The usage for many years would be minimal and the airlines would not go to the expense of staffing a location there. I know this is very popular in Europe but for very good reasons there.

I think you are greatly mistaken. Airport kiosk check-in is very popular and some people can even do it on their cell phone (Delta in Atlanta for example). If this was available off-airport I am sure business people and downtown visitors would love it. Combine it with the opportunity to check baggage and conventions alone would keep it busy for a lot of the time.

The idea of putting a transit hub in the yet to be built convention center should not be overlooked. In Boston, the North Station MBTA station is integrated into the Fleet Center (or whatever it is called now), providing a gateway for subway and commuter rail. Now, the primary AMTRAK station and the other half of the commuter rail is still at South Station, but the model works nontheless.

This is a very good point. We have $285 million planned for the convention center and integration with if it is near the existing track righ-of-way is also due specific study and analysis.

The cotton seed mill is directly adjacent to that location and the proposed western location could employ a moving sidewalk and escalators to cross Shields.

I think you are greatly mistaken. Airport kiosk check-in is very popular and some people can even do it on their cell phone (Delta in Atlanta for example). If this was available off-airport I am sure business people and downtown visitors would love it. Combine it with the opportunity to check baggage and conventions alone would keep it busy for a lot of the time.

A check-in kiosk might work fine but as I said the airlines simply aren't going to the expense of staffing a location there with the financial pressures they are under. I've been in the travel business for many years and deal with these kind of things every day. There simply isn't enough demand here on a consistant basis to make it feasible. The airlines have had ticket offices in OKC before that weren't located at the airport and they have been closed. While that is different that what is suggested, the amount of business and expense doesn't justify it.

A check-in kiosk might work fine but as I said the airlines simply aren't going to the expense of staffing a location there with the financial pressures they are under. I've been in the travel business for many years and deal with these kind of things every day. There simply isn't enough demand here on a consistant basis to make it feasible. The airlines have had ticket offices in OKC before that weren't located at the airport and they have been closed. While that is different that what is suggested, the amount of business and expense doesn't justify it.I agree. Will Rogers isn't near busy enough to support something like this. Hub airports like ORD, LAX, DFW could support this kind of service.

Going back to my post a couple days ago, this is one of those things we should plan for in a future expansion but it is not needed now. The new transportation hub only needs the following services initially: (1) street car, (2) city buses, (3) Amtrak, (4) commuter rail (since that looks likely in the next decade), (5) intercity buses, (6) retail and other small services. In the future demand may cause (7) expansion of the above's tracks/slots, as well as new services like (8) HSR, (9) light rail, (10) car rentals, (11) airline check-in, and (12) a hotel. But I don't want to see this city, state, or any other government entity waste our tax dollars on a massive facility that will only be used at 15% capacity for 20 years. We should plan for these expansions like they will happen, but they simply will not be needed for quite some time with our current growth patterns.

And I would again reiterate that the new bus transfer center at 4th/Hudson is not likely to be going anywhere and resolves capacity for the bus aspects generaly speaking. Edmond and Norman are even running commuter buses through there.

really?

That's good to hear actually. I hope commuters will use the service because that will help justify commuter rail Guthrie-Downtown and Purcell-Downtown

My thoughts are, park n ride would be north of Guthrie and in Purcell, with city station stops in Guthrie downtown, Edmond downtown/central on the North route, and Norman downtown and maybe OU south campus on the south route. Crossroads Mall and 63rd would be urban park n ride/transit centers (maybe also S. Edmond).

In my opinion, we could get this up and running immediately, particularly if the existing commuter bus is working/gaining popularity. Santa Fe would be the downtown station until another one is built or it is upgraded.

my ideas for the north half of Cox are maybe 10-20 years out.

as for the "new" arena idea - yes, it would be at the Ford dealership; to tie into/anchor the new retail district that is proposed.

I think it should be an intimate arena to control costs. We are spending a lot of cash making Ford Center a top NBA arena and it is big enough to be completely remodeled on the inside and even expanded yet again on the outside - in the 25 years when such action will need to take place.

However, under my idea of using the North half of Cox as the new intermodal once we have our new Convention Center - we would also need a new arena for the idea to really work. This is why I think a simple, intimate $50M minor-league sports arena (think Bricktown Ballpark intimate/quality) to replace the Cox arena (in 10-20 years) would not only be plausable (in keeping the 2 arenas next to each other) but also would be cheap enough to pass.

And like I had said too, by reclaiming the Cox arena lands and letting developers do BIG CITY things with that land - it could pay for the new intimate arena as well as the demo and conversion of the north half into the intermodal.

Also - my idea of the north Cox into intermodal could also be phased as others have also alluded.

I like it because we reuse existing facilities while also rid ourselves of a white elephant (that is ONLY alive due to our sports facination/2 arenas). Plus - the north face and the 'current remodeled' meeting area gives us what is already a huge "wow" factor for a big city intermodal transit center. We'd only need to build out the transit facilities - which should be minimal cost once the arena is removed.

Airport check-in. I am not sure what staffing requirement you guys are talking about. Not every airline would need their own baggage service. A single person could take baggage for every airline, and that is assuming checked baggage would even be available. If given the choice of checking into my flight while waiting for a train or doing it at the airport I would pick doing it at the train station every time.

All you need is a couple of kiosks with paper in it, some video monitors showing WRWA flight status, and some velvet ropes to make a queue. If you do checked baggage then you would need a secured storage facility to put bags in while in transit – but that is easy enough to do.

Urban - when I said the downtown station would need to be on the Cox site, I meant that it would also incorporate the existing Santa Fe station. Sure the City needs to do due diligence but some stuff is so obvious I feel it is safe to assume. Can Santa Fe handle train traffic in its current configuration? Sure it can. Can it function as a modern intermodal facility? No way. Just look at other cities around the world and see if any of them have a primary facility as small as Santa Fe. There is a reason they don't.

SLC - 1" = 100'

Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.7638,-111.908782&spn=0.003019,0.004823&t=h&z=18)

For comparison: Santa Fe - 1"=100'

Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=35.465231,-97.512326&spn=0.003246,0.004823&t=h&z=18)

I get your point, but even at full build-out I wouldn't conclude that we need something as big as your suggesting. SLC does wonders with their quaint facility and they actually have transit that is used. Where bus transfers would take place, I don't know. Run 'em under the rail?

However, I do like the ideas being thrown around regarding a convention center/hub facility.

Why does OKC need two arenas again?

Seems like a massive waste of cash and plenty of places have 2 teams play in the same stadium.

Airport check-in. I am not sure what staffing requirement you guys are talking about. Not every airline would need their own baggage service. A single person could take baggage for every airline, and that is assuming checked baggage would even be available. If given the choice of checking into my flight while waiting for a train or doing it at the airport I would pick doing it at the train station every time.

All you need is a couple of kiosks with paper in it, some video monitors showing WRWA flight status, and some velvet ropes to make a queue. If you do checked baggage then you would need a secured storage facility to put bags in while in transit – but that is easy enough to do.

I'm not saying this is a terrible idea and that it wouldn't be used. There just isn't enough demand to justify it. You can check in for your flight from any computer, not just a kiosk. Someone would have to bear the expense of having someone to check baggage and that baggage also has to be transported to the airport by some means. It doesn't get there by itself. That requires more staff and expense. And I promise you the airlines won't pay for it.

There are a lot of security issues with offsite check-in. I remember they stopped doing it at Victoria Station after 9/11, and I don't know if they've resumed.

There are a lot of security issues with offsite check-in. I remember they stopped doing it at Victoria Station after 9/11, and I don't know if they've resumed.

Security issues are not that big a problem with offsite check-in as opposed to at the airport. It's no different than checking in at an airport kiosk. With the new government "Secure Flight" program all names are checked by computer against a government list of names of potential problem passengers. When they get to the airport if there is a problem that person is automatically flagged for more intense scrutiny. As we have seen with the recent problem with the flight to Detroit, there are holes in the system but offsite check-in isn't one of them.

Why does OKC need two arenas again?

Seems like a massive waste of cash and plenty of places have 2 teams play in the same stadium.

That was one of the big selling points in landing the Big 12 championships etc (we had side by side arenas within easy walking distance of each other, instead of across town). Shame to give that up if you don't have to.

...We are spending a lot of cash making Ford Center a top NBA arena and it is big enough to be completely remodeled on the inside and even expanded yet again on the outside - in the 25 years when such action will need to take place.

Do you have any links or info on that?

If you want to reply in a more appropriate thread and point me to it...in the mean time, returning to the subject of the thread....