Streetcar

[Spartan]

No it's not..

[Kerry]

No it's not..

The the concept of an intermodal transit facility is going to be scaled way way back.

[Urban Pioneer]

Jeff, I agree with your assessment that the Cox isn't going anywhere and shouldn't go anywhere. With that said, what do you think of the possibility for integration between the two? Ignoring EKG which could be gotten rid of (and probably should be since it was never originally in the grid), what would you say about joining Santa Fe and the Cox into a combined structure by bridging the two, using the Cox parking as taxi bays, having the trains directly linked to the meeting rooms, and sort of experimenting with a prototype of convention center and transit hub in one type-structure. That would certainly be an interesting way to reposition the Cox Center in anticipation of it becoming OKC's #2 convention facility..

I was talking to some engineers this past week about all of this. As part of our study, we will look at the Eastern end of the Cox center to examine how it is designed. It really becomes a structural and "access/egress" issue.

Since we are talking about "rubber tire" being the main spacial concern, establishing what those parameters "loads" are, will be essential to determining the surface space.

EK Gaylord can potentially give us 30' additional feet via P180 in front of Santa Fe even with the street retained. There is a parking lot South of Reno sandwiched between the retaining wall and EK Gaylord that was apparently "reacquired" by the city. So, there is room in rectangular form as the site overall currently stands.

Another factor that is critical to establishing space is elevation changes on EK Gaylord as part of the new Boulevard.

So..... Let's let the engineers do their job, keep throwing interesting ideas out there, and see what mathematically lines up. I am going to go to the site this week and study it more closely "on foot" and maybe take some "ground level" pictures for posting.

[Urban Pioneer]

The the concept of an intermodal transit facility is going to be scaled way way back.

Not for a second. Jacobs is accomplished at designing true "inter-modal" facilities. Once our spacial parameters are firmly established, it will be what it will be.

This discussion regarding Santa Fe and the area around it is genuinely out of a desire to see something start quickly. But I can assure you that the people on the Hub Committee are looking at this long term and trying to establish what our real needs are.

It would however be very exciting if this beautiful old building could be incorporated as part of a "stepped" long term solution. The $10 million is undoubtedly not enough to build a brand new facility from scratch. But, it could potentially provide an exciting start via minor improvements to existing infrastructure to establish functionality while also obtaining the necessary space to "build out" the future overall facility as other funds become available.

It is just fun to even discuss these things as we now can actually start to do something.

[Kerry]

I am all for the phased approach and pay-as-you-go but the station that is at the end of that rainbow won't fit on the space available. Show me any central train station in the world that will. COX will need to come down, even if that is in 20 years.

[HOT ROD]

I agree that Cox will have to come down or be segmented off. I think we all can agree that we want it to remain until we have the new convention center (at least phase I) AND a replacement arena the same size or smaller than Cox, say 10,000 seats - for the minor league teams AND college indoor sports.

Once we have these two facets, Cox will be a white elephant and the land it is on is far too valuable to just let it sit because it is 'built'. My opinion is that we dont need to tear away all of it, but only the 'old' arena portion - and put that land to better uses while reusing the 'new' north face. But whatever the plan, I support the continued efforts to improve Oklahoma City and particularly making downtown the urban focal point of the state/region.

I agree with Urban that we should take the phased approach, he essentially restated what I had said - use the existing $10M to build a master plan and phase in what we can as funds become available. In this current Phase 0, I think we should be able to renovate the existing Santa Fe and the yard for Amtrak and Commuter Rail and have the streetcar have a stop in front of the station. That would be the least expensive thing, would give us our biggest bang for the buck as well as a SOLID plan for the future. I think we could also secure some funds for Phase 0 from the state and possibly also from the Feds since it has CR and intercity components.

I envision the CR component in Phase 0 to be 'demonstration' lines in the N-S corridor and E-W corridor. Which is first, depends on who steps up to the plate and what will be their demands. For example, if the Feds come in with some seed money, they may require it to connect to Tinker - thereby fast tracking the Choctaw/MWC-Downtown line. The feds might also help with Amtrak, which ODOT said they are basically already ready to go to Kansas anyways (I think we're basically waiting on Kansas). ... If the state and the metro cities step in, then there might be more weight going to the Purcell/Norman-Downtown line. If a local corporation or two steps in, then there might be more weight going to the Guthrie/Edmond-Downtown line. If we could get synergy with all parties then we could really realize the best bang for our MAPS III buck, $10M in city money getting us 3 demonstration Commuter Rail lines and a new Amtrak route to Kansas City via Wichita. ...

I think any and all of that is feasible within the scope of MAPS III and the immediate timeline. Again, it is just a matter of coming up with the best plan for the intermodal facility (as in design) and then piece it together in phases based on funding and other contingencies being met. And, if we could get the Feds to contribute for the Tinker CR and Amtrak, the state to contribute operating costs for Amtrak and the N-S CR routes, and the metro cities to contribute to their facilities; we could really get synergy behind all of this and have it up and running before Devon's Tower is complete. I believe that would make the intermodal the first 'completed' MAPS III project and would give MAPS as a whole majorly positive visibility and further credibility as a vehicle to implement civic infrastructure mega projects.

[OKCRT]

I just wish they would build a bullet train to St. Louis so I can go see the Sam the Ram more often.
Seriously though. You can fly in to St. Louis and catch the metro link right at the airport to the dome downtown without ever a need for a car/taxi. I think a system like the one in St. Louis would be perfect. I rode that metro link all over the city and it was CHEAP and on time. Trains coming and going all the time and very good ridership. I think that they have it figured out and it would do OKC good to take a hard look at their system.

[SkyWestOKC]

We could have light rail to the OKC airport. It would require about a total of 2.5 new miles of track, on land already owned by the airport/city. It could tie in to one of the parking garages, allowing for easy transfers via the moving walkways in the tunnel to/from the terminal. The track could tie into the rails that follow Newcastle Rd. just north of the airport.

But, the city probably has not looked into this, and probably won't. The advantages of this would be great. Instead of having shuttle buses run to the new employee parking lot (which is the proposed solution) and the new consolidated rental car facility. It could be all in one. Offer employee passes on the train to the new lot, and have passes to the new rental facility for passengers. Would end up saving money by not running buses back and forth between the 21 hours a day.Plus we'd have an alternate way to get downtown, take a train! The initial cost would be higher, but I would think benefits outweigh the cost.

Something like this:

[Spartan]

I was talking to some engineers this past week about all of this. As part of our study, we will look at the Eastern end of the Cox center to examine how it is designed. It really becomes a structural and "access/egress" issue.

Since we are talking about "rubber tire" being the main spacial concern, establishing what those parameters "loads" are, will be essential to determining the surface space.

EK Gaylord can potentially give us 30' additional feet via P180 in front of Santa Fe even with the street retained. There is a parking lot South of Reno sandwiched between the retaining wall and EK Gaylord that was apparently "reacquired" by the city. So, there is room in rectangular form as the site overall currently stands.

Another factor that is critical to establishing space is elevation changes on EK Gaylord as part of the new Boulevard.

So..... Let's let the engineers do their job, keep throwing interesting ideas out there, and see what mathematically lines up. I am going to go to the site this week and study it more closely "on foot" and maybe take some "ground level" pictures for posting.

Well what is evident is that EKG is a negative environment, it's a scar on downtown, and it's not a good place. I've always hated EKG and thought we need something revolutionary to redo it. It's causing a lot of harm because it's the rift tearing apart downtown from Bricktown, and it gives visitors a horrible impression of downtown proper. The big problem is that it is just an auto through-way wedged between a railroad retaining wall and some very ugly parking garages, so how do you "fix" that? Jeff Speck talked about it and provided illustrations of what it would look like if the parking garage facades were slightly improved, if there were plantings and street banners and if EKG was narrowed and to be honest, I was still underwhelmed. I can't help but think people like Jeff Speck don't have any idea how to fix such a huge blunder as that street was. Can we just take it out, remove it from our street grid? That would seem like almost as good a solution.

Also keep in mind the problems that EKG is causing in other areas, compiled with the problems it's causing for visitors, walkability/aesthetics, and Bricktown accessibility. The reason we get the Chamber proposal is because they had no idea how to address EKG frontage, and I think they addressed it the right way. The Chamber first wanted to straighten EKG and end it in front of the Downtown Y. The city engineers put the kibosh on that pretty quick. Why are we protecting this street, why do we need it so badly? Do people not realize that Broadway can go from the middle of downtown starting at Sheridan all the way up to the north side? EKG and it's harsh unwalkability and its weird curve and its 6-8 lanes is not needed, and I have never seen it congested in my life unless it was down to one lane, not even after Thunder games when Robinson and Sheridan are at a standstill.

I am just very..skeptical of factoring E.K. Gaylord Blvd, even in a minimized form, into any future plans for downtown especially for a transit hub. I think getting rid of it opens up a bit of land that some interesting things can be done with, and I'd be really, really curious to see what could be done when you merge that vision with the vision for reinventing the Cox Center and the vision for a multi-modal transit hub. I think merging 3 visions here could make for some really, really interesting possibilities.

As for the Cox Center, I looked into it for my blog a few months ago and found that all the kitchens and technical spaces of the Cox Center are up against that east wall with EKG, so that is a potential problem. The Cox needs a lot of things, especially corner entrances and breaking up blank walls, but you can stick an entrance in the SE corner and leave the NE corner with the kitchens alone. Here's a floor plan that I did a crayon depiction of how you could open the convention center to EKG and the supposed transit hub:

http://downtownontherange.blogspot.c...ng-cox-it.html

[Urban Pioneer]

Well what is evident is that EKG is a negative environment, it's a scar on downtown, and it's not a good place. I've always hated EKG and thought we need something revolutionary to redo it. It's causing a lot of harm because it's the rift tearing apart downtown from Bricktown, and it gives visitors a horrible impression of downtown proper. The big problem is that it is just an auto through-way wedged between a railroad retaining wall and some very ugly parking garages, so how do you "fix" that? Jeff Speck talked about it and provided illustrations of what it would look like if the parking garage facades were slightly improved, if there were plantings and street banners and if EKG was narrowed and to be honest, I was still underwhelmed. I can't help but think people like Jeff Speck don't have any idea how to fix such a huge blunder as that street was. Can we just take it out, remove it from our street grid? That would seem like almost as good a solution.

Also keep in mind the problems that EKG is causing in other areas, compiled with the problems it's causing for visitors, walkability/aesthetics, and Bricktown accessibility. The reason we get the Chamber proposal is because they had no idea how to address EKG frontage, and I think they addressed it the right way. The Chamber first wanted to straighten EKG and end it in front of the Downtown Y. The city engineers put the kibosh on that pretty quick. Why are we protecting this street, why do we need it so badly? Do people not realize that Broadway can go from the middle of downtown starting at Sheridan all the way up to the north side? EKG and it's harsh unwalkability and its weird curve and its 6-8 lanes is not needed, and I have never seen it congested in my life unless it was down to one lane, not even after Thunder games when Robinson and Sheridan are at a standstill.

I am just very..skeptical of factoring E.K. Gaylord Blvd, even in a minimized form, into any future plans for downtown especially for a transit hub. I think getting rid of it opens up a bit of land that some interesting things can be done with, and I'd be really, really curious to see what could be done when you merge that vision with the vision for reinventing the Cox Center and the vision for a multi-modal transit hub. I think merging 3 visions here could make for some really, really interesting possibilities.

As for the Cox Center, I looked into it for my blog a few months ago and found that all the kitchens and technical spaces of the Cox Center are up against that east wall with EKG, so that is a potential problem. The Cox needs a lot of things, especially corner entrances and breaking up blank walls, but you can stick an entrance in the SE corner and leave the NE corner with the kitchens alone. Here's a floor plan that I did a crayon depiction of how you could open the convention center to EKG and the supposed transit hub:

http://downtownontherange.blogspot.c...ng-cox-it.html

It is my understanding that EK Gaylord is being addressed directly through Project 180 to make it more pedestrian friendly. If you apply the standard 180 template, that means reducing the size by two lanes and adding a larger median and protected sidewalks on either side.

EK Gaylord would probably remain the main artery to the new boulevard. The real unknown is the design of it and the elevation changes necessary to interface to the new Boulevard.

[Urban Pioneer]

I would say however that the sheer size of EK Gaylord offers several possibilities for a good design interface and possibly dedicated transit lanes. If you think that we might ever have BRT or "light-rail" in the future, space for such vehicles in a protected area is something to consider.

Something else occurred to me today. Why not have space to lease to vendors such as Bricktown Pedi Cab and bicycle rentals? How cool would it be if we took multi-modal to the extreme considering the direct access to tourists? Plus, hasn't the city started implementing a bike sharing program?

[Kerry]

I would say however that the sheer size of EK Gaylord offers several possibilities for a good design interface and possibly dedicated transit lanes. If you think that we might ever have BRT or "light-rail" in the future, space for such vehicles in a protected area is something to consider.

Something else occurred to me today. Why not have space to lease to vendors such as Bricktown Pedi Cab and bicycle rentals? How cool would it be if we took multi-modal to the extreme considering the direct access to tourists? Plus, hasn't the city started implementing a bike sharing program?

We discussed all of this on one of these threads, but darned if I can find it. The major problem with removing EKG are the super blocks. If we didn't have the stupid super blocks to deal with the downtown grid would be intact. Downtown OKC has 4 super blocks all next to each which really mess things up.

[Urban Pioneer]

Kind of a shame.

http://newsok.com/santa-fe-train-dep...rticle/3500783

[OKC@heart]

No kidding I hope they get that resolved asap...I think it is time for the City to make an offer to purchase that building from Brewer and take this kind of possiblity out of the equation in the future! How awesome is that for riders to come into the station only to have to make the train back up and unload at a crossing without a platform and load them all into vans. That is not the kind of PR that the City needs to have as it is trying to build momentum behind both the Street cars and the need for Commuter rail!

[okclee]

There is NO CHANCE the Brewers will sell this building! Especially not now.

[CuatrodeMayo]

Eminent Domain?

[Watson410]

There is NO CHANCE the Brewers will sell this building! Especially not now.

My company does plumbing work for Brewer Entertainment and a few weeks ago we added bathrooms in one of those retail shops for a Cupcake shop that's about to open. They're putting money in it still, so I doubt he'll come off the building unless the price tag is right. Trust me, he knows what kind of price tag is on it right now.

[Kerry]

How did the Brewers come to own the train station in the first place?

Answered my own question - sort of...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahom...Amtrak_station)

The station was purchased from the Santa Fe Railway in 1998 by Jim Brewer, a developer responsible for creating the nearby Bricktown entertainment district. It was soon renovated using $2 million funds provided through the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) to make it ADA-compliant and allow train service to begin in 1999. Another $3.1 million renovation was completed in 2007, and additional ADA features were added with a $30,000 project following the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.[1]

Until 2010, Amtrak was operating at the station through an informal agreement made in 1998 with Brewer Entertainment. That agreement allowed the railroad to use the station rent-free, but required the state to pay for utilities and other costs associated with station operations. No official lease had been drawn up until at least 2010, when Brent Brewer locked the doors of the depot on September 27th and 29th, forcing new negotiations with ODOT.[2]

It is unclear whether the station is owned by the City of Oklahoma City[1] or by Brewer Entertainment.

Who paid for $3.1 million renovation in 2007?

[David Pollard]

Just gotta throw this in. 3rd time I've attached it and still no response. Connecting Cox and the Sante Fe Station as a phased approach to both a new transportation portal as well as re-defining the space of Cox in anticipation of the new convention center coming on line is just down right logical (me thinks). Is anyone out there??



P.S. If someone can advise me how to make the attachment bigger, please feel free.

[Kerry]

Just gotta throw this in. 3rd time I've attached it and still no response. Connecting Cox and the Sante Fe Station as a phased approach to both a new transportation portal as well as re-defining the space of Cox in anticipation of the new convention center coming on line is just down right logical (me thinks).

So in the scenario you posted, only the arena portion of the Cox Center will remain while space is made for two high-rise towers. Since keeping the arena will require building atleast 2 new exterior walls and roof reconstruction would it be cheaper to just tear down the whole thing and rebuild a AAA hockey arena, in the same spot or somewhere else downtown? Personally I would like to see the superblock broken up.

[ljbab728]

So in the scenario you posted, only the arena portion of the Cox Center will remain while space is made for two high-rise towers. Since keeping the arena will require building atleast 2 new exterior walls and roof reconstruction would it be cheaper to just tear down the whole thing and rebuild a AAA hockey arena, in the same spot or somewhere else downtown? Personally I would like to see the superblock broken up.

Kerry, the problem with that is that a small hockey arena just won't be built. The only option that is likely in the future is that a new large NBA arena will be built and perhaps the Ford Center (or whatever it will be called later) will be used for lesser events.

[metro]

My company does plumbing work for Brewer Entertainment and a few weeks ago we added bathrooms in one of those retail shops for a Cupcake shop that's about to open. They're putting money in it still, so I doubt he'll come off the building unless the price tag is right. Trust me, he knows what kind of price tag is on it right now.

Pinkitzel

[Watson410]

That would be the one!

[Spartan]

There was supposed to be a Camille's Sidewalk Cafe in the old docks next to Envy, which is probably fixing to move to a different Brewer building.

[mheaton76]

Not entirely related to the topic of the thread, but just read that Oklahoma has been awarded $4 million for intercity rail projects, and Texas has received more than $5 million for DFW-OKC rail projects. Just a drop in the bucket, I know, but a good step nonetheless. The link is here:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/2243.shtml