Officials debate saving railyards vs. altering I-40

[betts]

Of course, if they were to take the train from Norman, they'd have to transfer to get to Union Station, and then take a bus to wherever they want to go. Sounds good in theory, but how many of the councilmen would really do it?

[okctvnewsguy]

This has been the story I have been covering for the last 2 days here is a link to the stories...

Group wants i40 Moved to save railroad tracks.

Norman joins battle to save the Union rail station in OKC

[Midtowner]

In your interview, did the ODOT official ever explain the "why" as to why we can't stop and study?

I think his assertion that "they" are trying to stop the crosstown completely is ludicrous. This is potentially a pivotal moment in the city's growth -- when crude is $500/barrel, will we be glad that ODOT plowed our best shot at a multimodal hub under?

[Kerry]

...will we be glad that ODOT plowed our best shot at a multimodal hub under?

Union Station is not our best shot at a multimodal hub.

[bombermwc]

Midowner....yes we will be glad because as Kerry says, It's NOT the best option.

[proud2Bsooner]

It seems that the train lovers are not fully think this through----Maybe I'm wrong...

Realistically a metro rail system is a pipe dream that does not fit with this city. The people that think they would want a rail system would hardly use it, just as they also hardly ride buses.

OKC will never mitigate traffic on I40 by a rail system. Never. I40 is a major interstate highway..I don't need to explain that. Most damage on roads is caused by big rigs. Big rig traffic will only increase over the years.

Lastly, an area where trucks are off and on-loading to and from trains would be a dirty and noisy area (edit: this would INCREASE big rig traffic on I40), making expansion southward (C2S) a lot less attractive. So the area that is currently an armpit (as opposed to a "heartbeat", as someone stated), would essentially stay an armpit, further discouraging people from wanting to take trains at Union Station.

Am I off here????

[metro]

proud2besooner, no one takes the buses, because they were never designed effectively in the first place. lack of routes, poor routes, inconsistent and inconvenient stop times, poorly identified stops, stop times not advertised, transit system not advertised, super long wait times, the system was set up for failure before even being implemented. you can't take the cities approach saying that the bus system doesn't work because not enough people are riding it and sound educated on the topic. despite all the poor planning problems, I believe ridership is up 40% this year. Ironically, gas prices are/have been near all time highs, ironic?

[proud2Bsooner]

proud2besooner, no one takes the buses, because they were never designed effectively in the first place. lack of routes, poor routes, inconsistent and inconvenient stop times, poorly identified stops, stop times not advertised, transit system not advertised, super long wait times, the system was set up for failure before even being implemented. you can't take the cities approach saying that the bus system doesn't work because not enough people are riding it and sound educated on the topic. despite all the poor planning problems, I believe ridership is up 40% this year. Ironically, gas prices are/have been near all time highs, ironic?

Ok, let's say you guys are super pumped about the rail yard, and are itching to ride it. Then you realize it's a dirty noisy place, in a dirty noisy place (maybe crime ridden?) where big rigs are navigating through. You still want to ride?

Next, I40 gains all those new big rigs in addition to the millions it gets already. Traffic problems are often caused by big rigs trying to navigate on and off interstates, plus they tear up the roads.

I have yet to see it. Core to shore would open up a new urban life in OKC, and some of you want to kill it with this Union Station deal. C2S itself could get a lot of cars off the streets. We need the crosstown moved ASAP, and you want to stall it (endangering peoples' lives) for this Union Station deal. I just don't think some people are really thinking about things, and are living in a dream world imagining riding a train of some sort to work every day. Ain't gonna happen.

[Midtowner]

Midowner....yes we will be glad because as Kerry says, It's NOT the best option.

Well thank God someone cleared that up for me with another conclusory statement unaccompanied by a "why."

Kerry, you must do PR for ODOT on the side

[Midtowner]

proud2besooner, no one takes the buses, because they were never designed effectively in the first place. lack of routes, poor routes, inconsistent and inconvenient stop times, poorly identified stops, stop times not advertised, transit system not advertised, super long wait times, the system was set up for failure before even being implemented. you can't take the cities approach saying that the bus system doesn't work because not enough people are riding it and sound educated on the topic. despite all the poor planning problems, I believe ridership is up 40% this year. Ironically, gas prices are/have been near all time highs, ironic?

OKC is one of the consistently worst cities of its size in nation as far as public transportation goes.

Folks predicting the failure of ANY public trans project based upon the failure of our existing infrastructure have an extremely faulty premise -- that an inadequate and highly inconvenient mode of public transportation can predict the success/failure of an adequate and convenient mode.

[hoya]

OKC is one of the consistently worst cities of its size in nation as far as public transportation goes.

Folks predicting the failure of ANY public trans project based upon the failure of our existing infrastructure have an extremely faulty premise -- that an inadequate and highly inconvenient mode of public transportation can predict the success/failure of an adequate and convenient mode.

Yes, but people championing the cause of Union Station have a faulty premise as well -- that Union Station would be a convenient part of a greater mass transit system.

I would LOVE for this city to have a world class rail system. I miss riding the subway. It makes it possible to drink until you can't walk anymore and still get home safely and legally. But a system such as this will require massive planning on the order of the entire C2S plan. It is not something we can half-ass together, and it is not something that can be adequately served by pumping up Union Station.

Some here have correctly pointed out that building an entire new station and buying new right-of-ways will be incredibly expensive. Yes. Yes it will. If we want to do mass rail transit correctly, it will easily cost more than the I-40 relocation. Sinking money into Union Station to attempt to "save" mass transit is a loser plan. It will only continue the OKC tradition of ineffective, inconvenient, unused mass transit.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

Yes, but people championing the cause of Union Station have a faulty premise as well -- that Union Station would be a convenient part of a greater mass transit system. . . .

Those championing the Union Station hub plan have sited many examples of how other cities have used existing infrastructure to good advantage. Could you give us some similar examples that support your opinion?

[venture]

Majority of new multi-modal hubs, if that is what we are looking at here, are typically being constructed near or on grounds of existing airports. This way they can tie all manners of transportation together - air, bus, rail, etc. Last I checked you had a rail line that comes in on the west side of the airport next to Metrotech where there is a nice big empty plot of land. Yeah the rails and area will need some improvements, but negotiating passage on existing rails to downtown will provide a fairly quick link there.

Not everything has to be based downtown. Having this true multi-modal hub at WRWA, you open it up to developing the airport even more with freight. As far as I know, WRWA is the only FTZ in the metro area and that is something to exploit. Plus if you have light rail of whatever version running from the airport, people can get off their flights and to downtown in 20-30 minutes and be dropped off at the Santa Fe station or Union Station if they want to open that. Relocating Amtrak to WRWA may be an option in this, but it also may just be as easy as providing connecting opportunities between Santa Fe and WRWA.

[hoya]

Those championing the Union Station hub plan have sited many examples of how other cities have used existing infrastructure to good advantage. Could you give us some similar examples that support your opinion?

A link about Denver or some other city using a pre-existing structure really doesn't tell us anything about OKC. Yes, some cities have old infrastructure that is still in a good location. If Union Station was several blocks north and in amongst the downtown area, I'd say it could be something we could work with. Unfortunately, it is not.

Now, I went and saw the station. It is a beautiful building. It's just in a terrible area. No one outside of Robocop would want to get off of a train at Union Station with the area in its current condition. So before Union Station becomes anything remotely useful, people need a reason to go there.

Oklahoma City is wonderfully accessible by car. We can get around quickly and easily without resorting to mass transit. So mass transit in OKC needs to be similarly convenient.

Union Station has a number of disadvantages. First, it can't be the center of any major passenger system, because you can't run a north/south track through there. It's too far from downtown to be at all convenient. It also is in the heart of a major planned redevelopment area.

For Union Station to be a viable part of a mass transit system, you'll first have to have an actual planned mass transit system. Right now, that entire area is going to be bulldozed. You'll have to stop any reconstruction so you can figure out how many rail lines you want to run through the area. You'll also have to significantly alter the major freeway that is currently under construction. The problem is, there is no real plan in place. We'd be delaying two major projects in order to save one train station that currently has no proposed use.

[Kerry]

We'd be delaying two major projects in order to save one train station that currently has no proposed use.

The definition of obstructionism.

[jbrown84]

The small band of dedicated stalwarts that believe the future of Oklahoma...

Just because you've been around for a while or whatever does not mean you can disrespect me and other regular citizens on this board who disagree with you. I am not tied to big government or evil corporations or whoever you believe is against you. Time for a reality check, Mister!

[jbrown84]

Lastly, an area where trucks are off and on-loading to and from trains would be a dirty and noisy area (edit: this would INCREASE big rig traffic on I40), making expansion southward (C2S) a lot less attractive.

Am I off here????

No, you are dead on.

Well thank God someone cleared that up for me with another conclusory statement unaccompanied by a "why."

The why has been detailed over and over again in these threads.

[ssandedoc]

Okay, here's my conclusion build the new I-40. Preserve Union Station as a community center/museum/multi-purpose use. I like one of the posters idea turning Will Rogers World Airport into a main transportation hub. Keep the bus hub downtown, and add a light rail system connecting Bricktown, downtown, and WRWA. In the meantime build tracks from Edmond and Norman to the airport, maybe find a way to use the rails in place at Santa Fe.

Ugh, the only thing that bothers me is that downtown OKC needs a central hub station. I don't know of any city that turns the airport into the central hub, everyone is going to want to go downtown not to the airport. Maybe a central hub could be built east of Bricktown near the Steel alley.

[BoulderSooner]

Just because you've been around for a while or whatever does not mean you can disrespect me and other regular citizens on this board who disagree with you. I am not tied to big government or evil corporations or whoever you believe is against you. Time for a reality check, Mister!

thanks for this i 100% agree ..

and his "small band" .. are guy with at least as much if not more "agenda" then any "big business" ... they don't care about the future of OKC .. they care about rails and that is it ..

[jbrown84]

The hub is planned for the east end of Core 2 Shore where the E-W and N-S tracks meet. This STILL utilizes existing infrastructure but is in a much more logical place.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

If the I-40 realignment project were being designed today, taking into account all that we know today, the Union Station infrastructure would have a very good chance of being incorporated into the design. The project has had to be redesigned once due to the roadway being raised to nearly at grade rather than well below grade as the original plan was proposed to the public . . . there was no big outcry from ODOT about all that extra engineering, so taking the time to consider a most comprehensive transportation solution . . . one that best serves the public interest, rather than just stubbornly staying the present course, seems only prudent to me.

Of course, my personal assessment of this situation is quite biased due to the numerous bad City and State Government decisions I have witnessed over the fifty odd years I have been paying attention to what goes on around this city and state. Anyone willing to look around can see the results of the poor decisions and policies put in place over the past several decades. Many of these decisions are virtually irevocable and enormously far reaching.

* Annexing thousands of acres of farm land into OKC.
* Widening some downtown streets to resemble expressways.
* Tearing out sidewalks when arterial and neighborhood streets were widened.
* Not putting sidewalks in as a matter of course in new development.
* Tearing out the trolley and Interurban rail transit network.
* Not going forward using 100% MAPS funds with the small fixed rail trolley project that Ernest Istook scuttled.
* Having only minimum landscaping standards that are at the very bottom compared to comparable sized cities around the country.
* Having one of the most premissive and poorly written sign ordinances in the country.
* Changing downtown streets to one way for no real purpose.
* Urban Renewal's swath of destruction through downtown eliminating hundreds of buildings.
* Permitting thousands of unsightly billboards to be erected.
* Ignoring the obvious needs of Public Schools.

There are dozens more examples of equally thoughtless public works projects and policy decisions, often driven by interests not in concert with the public good, which have wrecked havoc on this community, stretched its resources to the breaking point and will adversly effect our overall quality of life for years to come. So, taking a harder look at the design of the I-40 realignment project in light of our present day needs and current conditions, doesn't seem to be an unreasonable thing to do . . . in my estimation.

[hoya]

OldDowntownGuy,

I'm not saying that everything this city has done has been perfect. Obviously, there have been mistakes made in the past (and even in the present) that affect this city to this day. I'm not even saying that something couldn't be done with Union Station to renew its rail service.

All I'm saying (and I think what the rest of the posters here are saying) is that there's nothing that can be done with it now. If the I-40 realignment were being planned today, and if the C2S plans were currently being drawn up, I'm sure Union Station might have a bigger piece other than as a tourist attraction.

But they aren't.

I-40 is being built right now. I drive on the shaky old Crosstown every day after work. Rather than pay attention to the road, I watch the construction crews out there. Any changes now will drive up the price enormously.

[jbrown84]

The issue at hand really is not whether or not to change the I-40 plans, but rather, should Union Station be our primary rail hub? The answer to that is what is really driving this thread. As the plans go (both I-40 and C2S), it can be a rail stop, it just can't be a major intermodal hub with freight rail, heavy commuter rail, buses, and extensive parking facilities.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

It appears to me that you are simply taking the small, narrow, short term view hoyasooner, but I'm sure you think otherwise. There are litterly stacks and stacks of documents related to this issue. I have been through a lot of it over the past few years and I doubt that you have done much research. You are entitled to your opinions and I appreciate your sharing them on this forum.

[Chicken In The Rough]

I too have witnessed a number of civic decisions that seem to have been made with just a touch of malice in mind. I believe that these decision makers think the best defense is a good offense. I question the logic of the location of the new crosstown. At best, it represents an absence of forethought and a disregard for civic assets. At worst, it was planned to eliminate the possibility of light rail service on these particular tracks. For what reason, I do not know.

As I remember, there was quite a lot of outcry from civic groups begging the planners of the crosstown to preserve the possibility of making Union Station a transit hub. Could they not have moved the freeway a few hundred feet to the south? Would that have driven the cost up so high?

OKC, as in every city in which I have lived, has a history of screwing its citizens to make a buck. I think this situation is no different. The railroad tactics (pun intended) used by the city to force this project ahead have a foul smell to me.