A Model For OKC

[jbrown84]

VERY high speed.

[John]

The only way I would like to have an airport between the cities, would be if there was a high-speed rail link.

Regardless of an airport or not, I'd like to see high-speed rail between both cities. It would benefit both immeasurably and the state, as well.

[flintysooner]

Well if you did have an airport somewhere in between it would be a whole lot easier to justify some kind of higher speed rail. I don't think true high speed rail or whatever you all it would be practical because the distance isn't very great. If you did have some kind of hub there you might be able to eventually connect Stillwater and Shawnee and develop some kind of major technological industry resource. Assuming Norman was connected to OKC hub and Tulsa had other connections.

But this is all pipe dream stuff.

[BG918]

Atlanta's Atlantic Station, Portland's South Waterfront, Dallas' Victory, Denver's Riverfront Park, and Cincinatti's Banks projects should all be examples OKC uses with Core to Shore, and also with other redevelopment zones including midtown, Triangle, and the Arts District. I think the KEY to any development though is that it is TRANSIT-ORIENTED. That means when there's planning for C2S there needs to be planning for transit as well. And with the potential Edmond-Norman and airport commuter lines running right through there that opens up great possibilities if connected to a light rail system serving the rest of downtown and inner city neighborhoods to the north.

This possible route map shows how light rail could connect the rest of downtown to a potential retail/mixed-use corridor extending from the new blvd. down Walker to the river. The proposed 'central park' would be east of this dense corridor with another corridor around Shields to the east of that (with the N-S commuter rail running parallel next to it). Infill medium to high density residential would fill in the gaps in between the new blvd. and the Walker and Shields corridors north of the river.

A commuter rail stop on the Edmond-Norman line would be where the western airport line would connect (in the distant future), and this stop also has the potential to be a major stop for suburban commuters at C2S/Riverside because there would be dense development around it along Shields, access to the park to the west and river to the east at SW 7th, and near the main entrance of the possible new convention center just to the east of Shields and the tracks in lower Bricktown south of the blvd. I personally think the convention center here is a GREAT IDEA, and could integrate into an extension of Bricktown south of the blvd. with canal and river access as shown in Alternative B in the C2S plan.

[okclee]

I think that the airport rail should be the first priority.

Connecting the airport to a downtown would guarantee more and more conventions and that would equal money to the city.

[y_h]

I think that the airport rail should be the first priority.

Connecting the airport to a downtown would guarantee more and more conventions and that would equal money to the city.

It certainly couldn't hurt. I'd also toss in some sort of financial incentive to rehabilitate or develop areas along the route, especially at and around the stations where the trains will stop en route to and from downtown. Here in St. Louis we've had a light rail line connecting downtown to the airport for almost 14 years. It's certainly a cheap and efficient way to travel between the airport and downtown, however the route takes you through some of the worst parts of the region - abandoned and decaying old industrial districts and some fairly depressed residential neighborhoods bordering some of the highest crime areas in a city with a pretty bad reputation for violent crime as it is. Accordingly, first time visitors are not being treated to the brighter spots in our region. By the time visitors hit downtown they might actually be a bit more apprehensive to get out and about. That's a shame because the central downtown area - especially the convention district - has really cleaned up its act and is actually a very nice place to eat, drink and socialize.

Hopefully any proposal for a WRWA-Downtown connector will be a comprehensive plan that contemplates civic image promotion as well as convenient access to the CBD.

[jbrown84]

It will definitely be a problem connecting the airport to downtown without going through a lot of blighted areas.

[CuatrodeMayo]

If you have ever rode an amtrak train you will notice you get to see the butt-holes of every city you pass through. Most towns grow outward from the railroad tracks, resulting in the oldest and most decrepid nieghborhoods being close to the rails. When you hear someone say "the wrong side of the tracks," realize that BOTH sides are the wrong sides.

[jbrown84]

Yeah, I think most people understand that not every part of the city is going to look nice, and airports are often on the edge of town, so people are probably used to seeing the ugly on the way into downtown.

[okclee]

BG918.......have you submitted you rail map to the mayor's office and the city of Okc?

[Kerry]

One word - subway.

[BG918]

BG918.......have you submitted you rail map to the mayor's office and the city of Okc?

No but I might, still some different options I might add. I'd like to see the starter (red) line built first because it would go down the new blvd. and that planning needs to start ASAP. So theoretically when the city celebrates the 'grand opening' of the new blvd. that replaces I-40 it would also be the inaugural run of the light rail, and hopefully the Edmond-Norman commuter rail as well. According to their schedule, which most likely will change, this could all be as early as 2012. The subsequent lines would be built in the years following, hinging of course on the success of the starter line.

I think the Sheridan trolley is an interesting concept and could really enhance efforts to extend Bricktown to the east, build up the Arts District, and shuttle visitors to main (current) attractions and hotels in the downtown area.

[okclee]

I do notice that your proposed green line runs east / west on NW 10th. I am not sure that would work due to 10th street roundabout near St. Anthony hospital. I do think that the rail would easily run east / west on NW 13th.

Also ,in reference to the first commuter rail, don't you think that an Airport to downtown rail would be better used then an Edmond to Norman rail??

I do think that you should submitt your plan to the city and the Mayor's office.

[jbrown84]

I do notice that your proposed green line runs east / west on NW 10th. I am not sure that would work due to 10th street roundabout near St. Anthony hospital. I do think that the rail would easily run east / west on NW 13th.

Yeah, I noticed that as well.

[BG918]

Yeah, I noticed that as well.

Haha who needs a roundabout anyways? I was just thinking how much denser NW 10th is than NW 13th, and how many have said that 10th is the 'main street' for midtown where most retail will be concentrated. Plus it links the main part of OUHSC and the growing PHF research park, and the northern end of the Triangle development.

Remember Classen used to have streetcars, and is plenty wide enough for them now without sacrificing the landscaped median. Rail would go a long way in really revitalizing that VERY important corridor connecting downtown to the heavily populated north/northwest side of OKC. The neighborhoods on both sides of Classen are also the densest single family neighborhoods in the city, and south of NW 36th the density really increases because of all the older multi-family buildings. Rail would only strengthen those neighborhoods which have seen a big comeback in the past 5 years, just look at how NW 23rd and the Paseo area have changed.

Do you think making Walker such an important corridor is a good idea? I'm wondering that myself...

[jbrown84]

I agree with your reasoning for using 10th, it's just that it jogs right before Walker and then it's a traffic circle. It would just be complicated there.

[easternobserver]

I'm new to this website, but after reading for some time, a question has come to my mind....Why is it that everyone wants OKC to be like somewhere else.

I'm from the Boston area, and have lived in DC (urban and suburban), Syracuse, and rural New Hampshire. I picked Oklahoma City because it is what it is, not because someday it might be like Atlanta or Portland or Kansas City, and surely not because some day it can turn into a sprawling suburban wasteland like northern New Jersey.

Why not embrace what is here, rather than pine for what is somewhere else? No where else can an average person buy 10 acres of land within a 10 minute drive of downtown, build a dream house, and pay for it all on a real person's salary. In very few areas can you leave a downtown job at the end of the work day and still catch two or three hours out at the lake. Sure, I'd love to see a Chipotle down the street, but I wouldn't trade it for Cattlemans, even if they have an off night once in a while.

I'm not against development. What was done with MAPS was truly amazing. Clusters of retail and restaurants are wonderful. Seeing downtown go from completely sterile to having signs of life is a great thing for this generation and for the next.

My hope is that Oklahoma City continues to grow and develop in a way that retains its character, rather than paints over it with generic sprawl. Let Oklahoma City be Oklahoma City, and stop holding it up to other places in the country, all of which have thier own problems.

[CuatrodeMayo]

Great post!

[metro]

I'm new to this website, but after reading for some time, a question has come to my mind....Why is it that everyone wants OKC to be like somewhere else.

I'm from the Boston area, and have lived in DC (urban and suburban), Syracuse, and rural New Hampshire. I picked Oklahoma City because it is what it is, not because someday it might be like Atlanta or Portland or Kansas City, and surely not because some day it can turn into a sprawling suburban wasteland like northern New Jersey.

Why not embrace what is here, rather than pine for what is somewhere else? No where else can an average person buy 10 acres of land within a 10 minute drive of downtown, build a dream house, and pay for it all on a real person's salary. In very few areas can you leave a downtown job at the end of the work day and still catch two or three hours out at the lake. Sure, I'd love to see a Chipotle down the street, but I wouldn't trade it for Cattlemans, even if they have an off night once in a while.

I'm not against development. What was done with MAPS was truly amazing. Clusters of retail and restaurants are wonderful. Seeing downtown go from completely sterile to having signs of life is a great thing for this generation and for the next.

My hope is that Oklahoma City continues to grow and develop in a way that retains its character, rather than paints over it with generic sprawl. Let Oklahoma City be Oklahoma City, and stop holding it up to other places in the country, all of which have thier own problems.

I think many of us do what OKC to be it's own animal, but at the same time, we need to look for what good and bad happened in other cities, or we'd be foolish. As they say, those who fail to look at history, are doomed to repeat it. We don't want to repeat the bad things that have happened to other cities. If we can learn some good practices along the way so be it. The reason most of us are passionate about OKC is that it has it's own flavor. That's why I moved to Midtown/Downtown and love it and support the local businesses.