Urban Pioneer
04-11-2011, 12:00 PM
As promised in the http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=25411 thread, here are some drawings outlining the current and proposed rail alignments that are in conflict with the Skirvin Partner’s current proposal for the MAPS 3 Convention Center site location.
837
838
The proposed “big box” is in direct conflict, severing efficient and economical rail connectivity to Tinker Air Force Base, Midwest City, Del City, and the “Adventure Line” which could connect the Remington Park/Zoo area directly to Bricktown.
The Intermodal Hub Committee and their professional transit consultants are currently assessing the existing historic Rock Island spur and the associated open land for an enhanced rail corridor. That enhancement would involve a large ramp descending from the elevated tracks Eastward through the parking lots and connecting to the existing spur or newly installed line.
While the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study showed a southern connection, this was deemed by several transit experts as too complicated and inefficient as it would involve a semi-circular ramp encircling the existing Cotton Seed Mill to ramp the Union Pacific rail alignment up to the elevated Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks running through Bricktown. Furthermore, Union Pacific has made it explicitly clear that it does not want passenger rail service running within its freight corridor.
The Rock Island spur and right-of-way provides the most cost effective and time efficient connectivity back to the planned MAPS 3 Transit Hub. In the next few months, the site location of the Hub facility will be determined. In all probability, it will be the existing Santa Fe facility paired with the Zio’s parking lot and possibly the U-Haul parking lot as well. The recommendation will be made shortly. The declining ramp is a critical component to connecting easily to any of the proposed hub locations along the BNSF line.
I personally attended two recent Convention Center subcommittee meetings. I politely explained at the first one the potential conflict with the N Bricktown parking lot proposal. I was very careful to express that the conflict does not mean that a Convention Center building could not go there. I expressed that I had seen buildings that were built “around” rail lines. It would involve a professional architect meeting with consulting engineers to assess the impact of the ramp. At the meeting I offered to try to get a copy of ODoT’s proposed ramp.
The committee liked the idea of obtaining the document and asked that I try to get it to Populous, the CC consultants. I contacted the state and obtained the document and forwarded it on to the MAPS office and Populous.
The ODoT document is for their ongoing High Speed Rail Applications that they are making to the Federal Government. While the possibility of HSR is doubtful in this current political and funding environment, the document establishes a currently available, professionally created reference as to what an appropriate curvature is for the trains and where the ramp would more than likely go.
In the same meeting, Skirvin Partners asked for a meeting with transit advocates to review the issues concerning the site. On March 10th, advocates that serve on both the MAPS Transit Committee and the Hub Committee met with them and went over the constraints. They were fully informed of the issues surrounding rail connectivity through the area.
At the next Convention Center meeting, the site selections were narrowed down to four that the committee kept on the table. The N Bricktown parking lots remained although they were “yellow flagged” due to the ongoing rail concerns.
I forwarded on the documents to the consultant and we informed the Skirvin Partners as best we could. I don’t think any of us are against density, urbanism, and reestablishing pedestrian connectivity. We are all for those things and think a efficient, reliable, convenient transit system is a way to continue such initiatives to further strengthen downtown and improve the quality of live for all citizens throughout the region.
The ideas behind the Skirvin Partner’s proposal are inspired and exciting. But they fall short thus far of even attempting to address our rail transit concerns. After being fully informed and the opportunity to coordinate made fully available, proposing a “big box” with loading docks sitting right on our transit line is an absurd proposal. Come back with something better.
837
838
The proposed “big box” is in direct conflict, severing efficient and economical rail connectivity to Tinker Air Force Base, Midwest City, Del City, and the “Adventure Line” which could connect the Remington Park/Zoo area directly to Bricktown.
The Intermodal Hub Committee and their professional transit consultants are currently assessing the existing historic Rock Island spur and the associated open land for an enhanced rail corridor. That enhancement would involve a large ramp descending from the elevated tracks Eastward through the parking lots and connecting to the existing spur or newly installed line.
While the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study showed a southern connection, this was deemed by several transit experts as too complicated and inefficient as it would involve a semi-circular ramp encircling the existing Cotton Seed Mill to ramp the Union Pacific rail alignment up to the elevated Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks running through Bricktown. Furthermore, Union Pacific has made it explicitly clear that it does not want passenger rail service running within its freight corridor.
The Rock Island spur and right-of-way provides the most cost effective and time efficient connectivity back to the planned MAPS 3 Transit Hub. In the next few months, the site location of the Hub facility will be determined. In all probability, it will be the existing Santa Fe facility paired with the Zio’s parking lot and possibly the U-Haul parking lot as well. The recommendation will be made shortly. The declining ramp is a critical component to connecting easily to any of the proposed hub locations along the BNSF line.
I personally attended two recent Convention Center subcommittee meetings. I politely explained at the first one the potential conflict with the N Bricktown parking lot proposal. I was very careful to express that the conflict does not mean that a Convention Center building could not go there. I expressed that I had seen buildings that were built “around” rail lines. It would involve a professional architect meeting with consulting engineers to assess the impact of the ramp. At the meeting I offered to try to get a copy of ODoT’s proposed ramp.
The committee liked the idea of obtaining the document and asked that I try to get it to Populous, the CC consultants. I contacted the state and obtained the document and forwarded it on to the MAPS office and Populous.
The ODoT document is for their ongoing High Speed Rail Applications that they are making to the Federal Government. While the possibility of HSR is doubtful in this current political and funding environment, the document establishes a currently available, professionally created reference as to what an appropriate curvature is for the trains and where the ramp would more than likely go.
In the same meeting, Skirvin Partners asked for a meeting with transit advocates to review the issues concerning the site. On March 10th, advocates that serve on both the MAPS Transit Committee and the Hub Committee met with them and went over the constraints. They were fully informed of the issues surrounding rail connectivity through the area.
At the next Convention Center meeting, the site selections were narrowed down to four that the committee kept on the table. The N Bricktown parking lots remained although they were “yellow flagged” due to the ongoing rail concerns.
I forwarded on the documents to the consultant and we informed the Skirvin Partners as best we could. I don’t think any of us are against density, urbanism, and reestablishing pedestrian connectivity. We are all for those things and think a efficient, reliable, convenient transit system is a way to continue such initiatives to further strengthen downtown and improve the quality of live for all citizens throughout the region.
The ideas behind the Skirvin Partner’s proposal are inspired and exciting. But they fall short thus far of even attempting to address our rail transit concerns. After being fully informed and the opportunity to coordinate made fully available, proposing a “big box” with loading docks sitting right on our transit line is an absurd proposal. Come back with something better.