MAPS III??? Light Rail???

[Kerry]

According to transit planners who know a lot more about this than I do, a multi-modal or inter-modal or what ever you call it, transit center doesn't need to be located in the urban core to be effective Kerry.

Name one. I did a quick search for intermodal stations and trasit hubs and I can't find one that is not located downtown (execpt for park and ride stations). Penn Station and Grand central are located on Manhatten for a reason. In fact, I can not think of a single multimodal facility that is not located in a downtown district.

This is how I see it. OKc has two historic train stations, Santa Fe and Union. One is located in the urban core and one is not. One has train service today and the other doesn't. One is being replace by a freeway and one isn't. If location isn't the reason for these differences please explain what is.

[TStheThird]

I live in Stillwater. I would love to drive to Guthrie. Park... and take rail to the airport. Fly to Italia. Vacation for a few weeks. Fly home. Take rail to downtown for a night or two and then hop the train back to Guthrie and drive home. I hate driving to OKC. If I could take rail, I would consider staying in Stillwater and commuting to OKC in the future. It would be outstanding.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

Name one. I did a quick search for intermodal stations and trasit hubs and I can't find one that is not located downtown (execpt for park and ride stations). Penn Station and Grand central are located on Manhatten for a reason. In fact, I can not think of a single multimodal facility that is not located in a downtown district.

Technically, Union Station would be called downtown in most cities as it is only seven or eight blocks from Main Street. What I was getting at is that a location which is a few blocks one way or another isn't the most imortant piece of a transit hub, infrastructure is.

This is how I see it. OKc has two historic train stations, Santa Fe and Union. One is located in the urban core and one is not. One has train service today and the other doesn't. One is being replace by a freeway and one isn't. If location isn't the reason for these differences please explain what is.

One has train service because Jim Brewer is a smart dude. He bought the station and made deal with Amtrack. He used all kinds of tax credit money to help finance the rehabilitation. It still doesn't have a parking lot; short term or long term. It still isn't on the most important rail corridor. It has no rail connection to the airport, Union Station does. How important is that?

One is being replaced by a freeway because the Oklahoma Department of Transportation thinks mostly in terms of highway construction and there is a very strong highway builder's lobby.

Politics as usual combined with connected, fat, middle aged white guys scratching one anothers backs till we bleed.

But I don't need to make this argument. There is so much written about this, it would sink the Queen Mary. Thoughtful papers by Professors at OU, the Mayor of Denver, transit people from Texas; must be arguments in the hundreds by more qualified people than me.

But we will probably miss this opportunity unless lighting strikes.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

Name one. I did a quick search for intermodal stations and trasit hubs and I can't find one that is not located downtown (execpt for park and ride stations). Penn Station and Grand central are located on Manhatten for a reason. In fact, I can not think of a single multimodal facility that is not located in a downtown district.

Technically, Union Station would be called downtown in most cities as it is only seven or eight blocks from Main Street. What I was getting at is that a location which is a few blocks one way or another isn't the most imortant piece of a transit hub, infrastructure is.

This is how I see it. OKc has two historic train stations, Santa Fe and Union. One is located in the urban core and one is not. One has train service today and the other doesn't. One is being replace by a freeway and one isn't. If location isn't the reason for these differences please explain what is.

One has train service because Jim Brewer is a smart dude. He bought the station and made deal with Amtrack. He used all kinds of tax credit money to help finance the rehabilitation. It still doesn't have a parking lot; short term or long term. It still isn't on the most important rail corridor. It has no rail connection to the airport, Union Station does. How important is that?

One is being replaced by a freeway because the Oklahoma Department of Transportation thinks mostly in terms of highway construction and there is a very strong highway builder's lobby.

Politics as usual combined with connected, fat, middle aged white guys scratching one anothers backs till we bleed.

But I don't need to make this argument. There is so much written about this, it would sink the Queen Mary. Thoughtful papers by Professors at OU, the Mayor of Denver, transit people from Texas; must be arguments in the hundreds by more qualified people than me.

But we will probably miss this opportunity unless lighting strikes.

[Bobby H]

Name one. I did a quick search for intermodal stations and trasit hubs and I can't find one that is not located downtown (execpt for park and ride stations). Penn Station and Grand central are located on Manhatten for a reason. In fact, I can not think of a single multimodal facility that is not located in a downtown district.

Technically, New York City has more "intermodal" stations than just Penn Station and Grand Central in midtown Manhattan.

The Atlantic Avenue station in Brooklyn is the most complex hub in New York's subway system. It is BUSY. It has an overlapping, major connection with the Long Island Railroad. The Sutphin Blvd station out in eastern Queens is a major subway stop, connection to LIRR and the Airtrain to JFK airport. The massive bus system there has lots of overlap with the subway system. Certain subway stops gave free transfers to bus lines going other places. The "R" line terminus at Bay Ridge in Brooklyn gave free transfers to the S2 bus line over the Verrazano Bridge to Staten Island.

[Kerry]

Thanks Bobby. The only point I am trying to make is that Santa Fe stations is in a much better location for service to the convention center, downtwn offices, bricktown, Ford Center, and everything else. I understand the limitations at Santa Fe but I think asking a commuter to board a train in Norman or Moore and then transfer to a trolley or bus at Union station is asking to much.

You have to play the cards you are dealt. Not the cars you wish you had or the cards someone else has. Reality is what it is. Union satation does have a nice rail yard but it is simply in the wrong location.

I'm not sure how much parking is needed for a downtown station any how. Who would drive from somewhere in OKC to park downtown and then wait for a train to the airport? If you already live downtown then you would just walk to the station.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

Thanks for the thoughtful post Bobby H.

Obviously, you are very knowledgable about NY and environs transit. What you describe is an elegantly efficient and workable interconnected transit system that has developed over many years. Of course OKC is not the new NY, but I think there are still plenty of lessons to be taken from the experience of older and larger cities that have successful transit systems based on solid planning and long term implementation.

What are your views about the potential for developing a broader based 21st century public transit system in mid-sized middle-america OKC?

[Bobby H]

I lived in New York City for five years and went to art school there. Commuting from Staten Island to Manhattan was always very time consuming and sometimes challenging as well.

Oklahoma City and other "mid sized" cities can have commuter rail systems and other modes of transit from bus to bike paths help augment them, but any new rail system really needs to be implemented in a far more efficient manner than what has been done in a number of other cities. The projects should not be treated like a giant public works slush fund or just be badly managed. It's just too easy to waste many millions of dollars with these efforts.

I also think it is a big mistake to just pursue such rail systems from a standpoint of improving community pride or as a means to lure tourism. Mass transit rail systems are first and foremost for moving workers who live in the area between work and home. Tourism interests can be served as well, as long as those tourism stops are along logical corridors not chosen out of politics.

If Oklahoma City is going to have a rail system it will have to first start out small and then build outward and have things like the bus system provide overlap.

Commuter rail lines that link downtown with Will Rogers Airport, Norman/OU and Edmond might be able to get built alongside existing rail corridors.

A rail line from Downtown to points along Northwest Expressway can be justified. It could get more commuters to downtown. But it would be very expensive to build for the high cost of property acquisition. I have doubts an underground line would be feasible. Many would be firmly against an elevated train above NW Expwy.

Many residents would need to take a bus to connect with a train station. Lots of people in metro New York do that.

I think more thought also has to go into accomodating possible future rail transit lines into new highway construction and expansion. There's a number of cities which have mass transit rail lines running in the medians of superhighways, or even elevated above them.

[Kerry]

Now that you mentioned NW expressway - what would be the best way to build a line in that direction and where would the stations be. I think it is safe to assume that ground level tracks are out of the qustion in this area. Not sure elevated is the way to go either. The only thing left is underground.

Would it be more feasable to do cut and cover under NWE or use a tunnel boring machine and go down 60 or 70 feet? Either way, this would be the most expensive construction project in the history of the state. The rest of the system is relativly inexpensive as most of the track is already laid and is double track for most of the system.

Here are the NE Expw stops I would pick:
1. Begin Downtown (turn @ NW50th from main line)
2. Penn Square Mall/50 Penn Place
3. Baptist Hospital
4. Commuter Lot at NW Expw and MacArthur
5. Commuter Lot at NW Expw and Kilpatrick Turnpike (could be linked to future route in center median of Kilpat)

[Patrick]

There's still plenty of median in the middle of NW Expressway. It could go under the road or above the road at major intersections.

[ETL]

I really like the idea of street trolleys downtown, but I think that a light rail system is most needed from Tinker AFB to downtown and from downtown to the airport. After all, Tinker is the world’s largest jet engine repair facility. Most of my family has and (or) is working at Tinker, and people fly in all the time and go to meeting at Tinker. My dad works on the F-100 series, and just the other day we took someone from Pratt & Whitney to Kona Ranch. I mean that all the time people come from allover the place to Tinker and have to rent a car, but with light rail that will be no more. Also, I don’t know why Pratt & Whitney are still in Connecticut. Why don’t they move into the old GM plant? My dad honestly thinks that ether Pratt & Whitney, Boeing, or Rolls-Royce will move into the plant in the near future (he hopes). I mean for the last two or three years we have gone up to Connecticut to Pratt & Whitney, and I don’t know how many trips that my dad and step-mom have endured to those meetings in Connecticut, D.C., and Fairborn, Ohio (I think). Does anyone know what is going to become of the GM plant?

[Bobby H]

Of a would be commuter rail system, there might be some justification in building a rail line to serve parts of Del City, Midwest City and Tinker Air Force Base. But the base by itself has nowhere near enough potential riders to justify a rail line alone between it and downtown. You have to factor in the number of employees there, of that number divide out how many commute daily to downtown and then of that smaller number figure out how many would be willing to take the train (rather than just hop on I-40).

Frankly there's a lot more potential riders living in Del City and Midwest City. Given the workers at Tinker work at Tinker the number of Tinker AFB riders between the base and downtown would be pretty small.

There's still plenty of median in the middle of NW Expressway. It could go under the road or above the road at major intersections.

Changes in grade may be too serious to that. Trains, even small passenger trains, require more gradual rises and drops on track elevation. Large portions of track would have to be tunneled under NW Expressway or elevated above it. There is a lot of public resistance to elevated train lines, even though they are actually a lot less expensive to build than subway tunnels.

If NW Expressway was a limited access facility with a substantial median it would be a lot easier to accomdate a median based train line. You don't have all the at grade intersections where trains will block traffic. And there would be more space to build the train stations. There may be portions of NW Expressway that are wide enough to hold a pair of railroad tracks, but how can fit a train station in there?

If a rail line is to be built along NW Expressway it may have to be built around a block to the north or south of the road.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

If a rail line is to be built along NW Expressway it may have to be built around a block to the north or south of the road.

My recollection of the Carter Burgess Fixed Guideway Study recently completed, only included light rail in a corridor from Norman to OKC and later being extended to Edmond and pehaps Guthrie. I think there were some other linked lines way in the future. They proposed Express Bus service out NW Expwy to Yukon and El Reno as that solution. I don't recall how they connected to Tinker, but there was a recommendation included in the study.

I attended the OKC Sustainability panel discussion at OCU yesterday evening and I'm not encouraged that there is any likelihood of OKC doing more than slightly improving the existing bus system over the next five years. There seems to be no move afoot to begin implementing the recommendations of the recently completed Carter Burgess Fixed Guide way Study. All I heard was lame excuses about how difficult adding twenty-first century public transit to OKC would be and regret for not putting full funding for a downtown trolley loop in MAPS I. There was some talk about adding transit improvements to MAPS III but there wasn't any serious talk about a pilot project for urban fixed rail transit other than from the audience. I think that Urban Pioneer asked a question about that possibility and got mostly a blank stare and a little tap dance for an answer. As is often the case, the public seems to be way ahead of political leadership on big issues like this.

Without a CHAMPION for the cause of dramatically improving OKC public transit in the same way that Ron Norick was the CHAMPION for MAPS I, I don't see public transit getting much better for OKC over the next decade or so. However, if gasoline suddenly went to $7a gallon, a possibility tht was suggested by one member of the audience, that might get some people out of their cars and on to buses or at least more interested in car pooling. The panel seemed to agree that something of that magnitude might start the long process of change. But, no real plans for easily implemented HOV lanes were discussed by the panel.

Frankly, I just don't know if OKC citizens, businesses, real estate development community and political leadership, are making the incremental daily decisions that could lead to improvement in OKC public transit over the long haul. The OKC we live in today is the accumulated product of nearly one hundred years of small decision and public policy making. It didn't just wake up this morning as a 620 square mile city of mostly thinly populated suburbs with miles and miles of paved streets, few bike baths, acres of paved parking lots, no sidewalks to speak of . . . . . and so on and so fourth. So IMO it will be the tiny changes in daily policy and decision making that move this city toward greater density, improved walk ability, pedestrian friendliness etc. not a single dramatic event. Yes, MAPS could have been the big kick in the butt that altered the course of development in OKC, but without all of those follow-up incremental daily corrections by way of improved public policy and decision making, no long lasting change can take place.

That's my .02 on this deal.

[Augie12]

Two thoughts: 1) the Carter-Burgess Fixed Guideway Study for MetroTransit concluded that the NW Expressway would work best with a Bus Rapit Transit system. This is a rubber tired bus that looks like a rail car, that operates on limited access right-of-way. It is more flexible than rail but looks very similar. In a start from scratch mode, it would be most cost effective in a city like OKC where we have very low population densities.
2) The conundrum is how are we going to pay for public transportation. MAPSIII could pay the capital expense of the local share of the expansion, but where do we get the money for the operating subsidy. Transportation systems around the country that are about the same size as ours, only receives about 20% of revenue from passingers. The balance comes from local, state and federal subsidies and most of that is local. In Texas -- the cities of Houston, Dallas, Austin, SanAntonio and Fort Worth all have a dedicated sales tax for public transportation. Would the citizens of OKC be willing to add sales tax or property tax money to subsidies this expansion?

[shane453]

If we call any transportation initiative "MAPS III" The citizens of OKC will likely approve it. We love MAPS, and we'll continue to approve MAPS programs. It just takes leaders who are willing to make a dedicated "MAPS for Transit"... I put together such a proposal and the grand total was an estimated $900 million for light rail from Edmond to Norman, a 5 mile modern streetcar system in the inner city, and a $40 million sidewalk/bike trail initiative.

And if we're going to run rail down the NW Expwy, run the tracks right over the intersections- let them interrupt traffic. Put ads on the side of the trains that say "Stuck in traffic? Not us. OKCrail.org" and while sitting there waiting, people will be encouraged to use the train.

[ETL]

So what would be $900 million?

[jbrown84]

It could be elevated in the median and then cross to one side or the other at the stations.

[Kerry]

There might be enough space in the median for one set of tracks but you need to sets. One in each direction. Going over intersections would be more expensive than going underground for the whole line.

As for the $900 million pric tag. That is probably a lot more then it will really cost. Using a Colorado rail car style train that runs on existing freight rail will bring the cost way way down. A 400 seat CRC DMU only cost $6,000,000 and is ready to go on existing track. It meets all requirements to mix with frieght traffic. All you need is a loading platform, ticket keyosk, and a siding for loading. Downtown Tampa has a trolley and you can only buy tickts from a keyosk. Stations consist of some park benches with a shade cover. Actually not much more than a regular bus stop.

[ETL]

Could you put two tracks on top of each other with a station on the top level and a pedestrian bridge to the side of the highway?

[Bobby H]

There would already be quite a bit of public opposition to an elevated train with both directions of tracks on the same level. That blocks enough sight lines and such by itself. A double decker structure rising 50' above grade would be a horrible eye sore.

One can use Google Earth to easily visually compare existing rail transit lines and the space they require. Between Hefner Parkway and I-44, NW Expressway has a bit of a median, but not one wide enough to hold the tracks and all the other related hardware of a mass transit rail line. West of Hefner Parkway, NW Expressway has hardly any median at all. You have double turn lanes at many intersections and lots of other turn lanes in between traffic lights.

Mass transit trains require more gradual grades and more relaxed curves. Routes cannot simply be shifted from one side of the road to another, up over every turn lane and back down to grade. The result would be very short trains with very limited passenger capacity and a ride about as unpleasant as a mine car ride in Six Flags.

The only way to make it feasible to build a rail transit line in the median of NW Expressway is if NW Expressway itself is converted into a wide, limited access superhighway with the rail line built through the center of it.

Long term, OKC city planners should start work on requiring greater property line set backs from the road to gradually gain enough right of way to convert NW Expressway into a superhighway complete with frontage roads. The increasing traffic loads will eventually require it. If enough foresight is put into the effort, rail could be integrated into the median with that plan. The downside is the city must stick to the plan, not allowing deviations and do so for a good 20 years or more before such a project can be funded.

If there is any desire to build a mass transit rail system in OKC, they really need to study what has worked well in other cities and then find even more efficient, modern, cost effective ways to get it built here.

In the end I'm skeptical about mass transit rail happening in OKC within the next 20 years. Trolleys downtown are certainly possible. A beefed up bus system would be good. Bike path systems traversing the city between various parks and greeways would be excellent. Even with all that, OKC is still a "car culture" city. There are big problems with the freeway system, especially in a few key interchanges. I think that's one of the biggest needs near term.

[OKCNDN]

Actually OKC needs to fix the roads it already has way more than an additional rail system.

[the pledge]

Long term, OKC city planners should start work on requiring greater property line set backs from the road to gradually gain enough right of way to convert NW Expressway into a superhighway complete with frontage roads. The increasing traffic loads will eventually require it. If enough foresight is put into the effort, rail could be integrated into the median with that plan. The downside is the city must stick to the plan, not allowing deviations and do so for a good 20 years or more before such a project can be funded.

I've always thought this would be a great idea, allowing for MUCH faster travel to downtown than the current configuration. Given the large setbacks that most businesses on NW Expressway already have, converting the highway to a full-blown freeway with frontage roads could be very reasonable. The (six?) mainlanes could be elevated above the frontage roads which would help minimize the displacement of the current structures along the right-of-way. One frontage road could be constructed before closing the "middle" one to allow for minimal traffic interruption during what would undeniably be a long construction process. Light rail could certainly be run at grade between the two frontage roads. A similar conversion was done in Austin along US 183 (Research Pkwy).

http://www.texasfreeway.com/Austin/photos/183/183.shtml

If there is any desire to build a mass transit rail system in OKC, they really need to study what has worked well in other cities and then find even more efficient, modern, cost effective ways to get it built here.

In the end I'm skeptical about mass transit rail happening in OKC within the next 20 years. Trolleys downtown are certainly possible. A beefed up bus system would be good. Bike path systems traversing the city between various parks and greeways would be excellent. Even with all that, OKC is still a "car culture" city. There are big problems with the freeway system, especially in a few key interchanges. I think that's one of the biggest needs near term.

Well put. The city needs to focus on beefing up the bus system tremendously. Sidewalks should be built along every major street in the city, end of story. The outer parts of OKC are about as pedestrian-unfriendly as I could imagine an urban area.

Over the next few decades the city can focus on possible right-of-way acquisitions and property setbacks to allow for future rail construction. But in the meantime, the primary concern should be on improving major interchanges like 240/35 and 44/B'way to a stack configuration, “completing” the interchange at Lake Hefner Pkwy/Kilpatrick, as well as continuing the Kilpatrick to loop around the southwestern suburbs of the city. It’s not too early to start to begin planning for rail, but I hope for the next 10-15 years at least OKC focuses on improving the current road system in order to continue to stimulate more suburban development that is undeniably the source of most of our city’s growth right now. As OKC “fills in” and grows in metropolitan population, the increased demand on the freeways along with (hopefully) more corporate presence downtown may necessitate rail construction.

[ETL]

What problems are you talking about, like I-240 and I-35?

Also, what is wrong with a double-decker train and station above the highway. If it is done right it will look good.

[Bobby H]

No. It will not look good. A 50' tall concrete monstrosity will not go over with the public well at all. Count on 100% NIMBY resistance to any elevated trains along NW Expressway.

A good example of this is the I-635 LBJ Freeway expansion in Dallas. The city is looking at the longest running "deep bore tunnel" construction in the United States to double the lane capacity of LBJ Freeway. That's because a much cheaper stacked freeway has been blocked by one NIMBY group after another. They don't want some big structure blocking their view of the other side of the freeway (as if the view was all that great, but those folks won anyway so everyone everywhere is going to be stuck with that mindset).

A Subway is one possible solution, a very extreme high dollar solution. Converting NW Expressway to a full blown Interstate class facility with mass transit rail in the median is the other alternative. Take your pick.

And yes, the interchanges of I-35/I-240 and I-44/B'Way Extension are laughable jokes. They are embarassments in Oklahoma travel infrastructure. Those two interchanges need to be fully replaced with 4 or 5 level stack interchanges with all direct connector flyover ramps. There is a number of other interchanges in the OKC metro area that also need all direct connector ramps as well.

And while we're at it, add more lanes to a few roads, PLEASE! I'm typing this response from a hotel room in Tulsa. I cannot believe that to this very day a major part of I-44 running through the middle of Tulsa is still a pathetic PUNY two lanes in each direction. Inexcuseable. Add to that the danged 50 year old bridges that threaten to fall down at any moment!

Also, OK DOT needs to fix their signs. I spotted a "Sapulpa Next 2 Exits" sign on I-44 set in freaking Helvetica. There is a bunch of signs across the state that are not at all compliant with any recent MUTCD standard. Bascially there is a bunch of traffic control stuff along our major highways done on the cheap.

Meanwhile, you travel to Texas and they are getting very aggressive at improving their traffic control signs, right down to adopting the new ClearviewHwy font that is 20% more legible than the 50 year old FHWA Series Gothic "Highway Gothic" type family.

[ETL]

Are there any plans for these type of changes?