OKC Regional Transit System

[baralheia]

Okay, quick question asked with apologies if the answer has already been clarified: Are we talking about using existing tracks, say on the bnsf corridor for north/south movements? Or simply using ROW and installing new trackage parallel to existing tracks? Or both? Or something else altogether?

Generally - but not always - commuter rail operates over the same trackage that already exists for freight use. In this case, we're talking about utilizing the existing freight trackage that BNSF already uses through town, which is also the assumption that transit planning up to this point has used. That said, it's extremely likely that RTACO will have to work with BNSF to double track the entire alignment through OKC before commuter service can begin; this will ensure there is sufficient rail capacity to enable both commuter and freight operations, as this rail line is already very busy with freight.

[Mott]

Not trying to be negative, but 38 years as a trainman, here in OKC for the BNSF, and even with double tracking, a serious commuter operation is really a pipe dream. Most places there is no freight competition, and if so, there has been a long history of passenger and commuter trains, with staff and infrastructure. Main two has trains parked for hours, leaving only main 1 to meet north and south bound trains, using Britton and Burnett sidings. Fingers crossed!

[BoulderSooner]

Not trying to be negative, but 38 years as a trainman, here in OKC for the BNSF, and even with double tracking, a serious commuter operation is really a pipe dream. Most places there is no freight competition, and if so, there has been a long history of passenger and commuter trains, with staff and infrastructure. Main two has trains parked for hours, leaving only main 1 to meet north and south bound trains, using Britton and Burnett sidings. Fingers crossed!

way way more than a pipe dream

[catch22]

Not trying to be negative, but 38 years as a trainman, here in OKC for the BNSF, and even with double tracking, a serious commuter operation is really a pipe dream. Most places there is no freight competition, and if so, there has been a long history of passenger and commuter trains, with staff and infrastructure. Main two has trains parked for hours, leaving only main 1 to meet north and south bound trains, using Britton and Burnett sidings. Fingers crossed!

Sounds like they aren't using the track efficiently if they are using a mainline track as a siding. If other cities can do it, so can OKC. Maybe some new sidings would be necessary.

[Urban Pioneer]

Not trying to be negative, but 38 years as a trainman, here in OKC for the BNSF, and even with double tracking, a serious commuter operation is really a pipe dream. Most places there is no freight competition, and if so, there has been a long history of passenger and commuter trains, with staff and infrastructure. Main two has trains parked for hours, leaving only main 1 to meet north and south bound trains, using Britton and Burnett sidings. Fingers crossed!

Does BNSF use PTC (Positive Train Control) anywhere in Oklahoma yet? I think any double-tracking on the part of the RTA would have to include financing this as part of the federal mandate.

[benjico]

Off the topic of trains, but I'd love to see a trail exclusive for cycling and pedestrians created to connect these same cities. Similar to the NWA Razorback Greenway that connects Bentonville and Fayeteville. Accessible for small portions for quick rides/walks/runs/etc while also expansive for those looking to commute or exercise by bicycyle safely throughout the metro. I have no idea what route this would look like, but would love the newly formed regional group to consider it an option to connect the cities.

https://www.nwatrails.org/trail/razo...onal-greenway/

[HOT ROD]

^ and ideally along the commuter rail routes, so one could chose to ride the bike and/or rail.

another idea would be to develop trails along the interstate freeway network, something I thought was very cool thing about Wichita when I was a kid in the early 1980s (along I-135/35) and Denver when I lived there in the mid-1990s.

[fightlessllama]

^^ I couldn't agree more. I think it's integral that when they double track the rail right-of-way they also add a pedestrian and bike corridor. One of things impressing me the most about Tulsa is being able to bike and run along an uninterrupted stretch of more than 10 miles from the southern most suburbs without hitting a single stop light or crossing a single lane of traffic.

We need a straight path from Edmond and Norman into central OKC and here we have the chance for our own commuter/recreation version of Tulsa's riverside or Atlanta's Beltline while we are already in the process of negotiating with the railroads and building infrastructure. Too many times OKC planning is shortsighted or lacks a cohesive vision or the different departments are not in communication. Same thing with tearing up the street between scissortail park and the convention center yet not thinking to put in a protected bike lane.

Looking up and down the corridor on google maps, it appears there is plenty of room for even 3 rail lines and a trail if we so desired. And where there isn't enough room or a business/rail yard needs access to the tracks, the trail could diverge to paralleling the road or the highway. Plus there's even the opportunity to tie together automobile alley/deep deuce/CBD/bricktown with a Highline-esq trail of sorts. Plus, we know that the commuter rail loses its purpose real quick when it has too many stops slowing it down, so this trail connects to those neglected areas along the commuter corridor -- especially when paired with bike share docks and Lime/Bird scooters at the stations. Anyway, fan of both commuter rail and bike/running trails so I feel like they should be a package deal in any future plans.

Rough outline of the trail:



Able to connect to existing/near-term trails:



Crossing I-44 with a new pedestrian bridge might be the most expensive part but the trail could be rerouted across the existing Western Ave if the funds aren't immediately available. Great connection spot to the planned Deep Fork Greenway trail which I presume is being built sometime soon:


This hidden creek/greenway (blue) between 50th and 36th, to the west of I-235, feels like a natural diverging point from paralleling the rail line as it starts go go through industry. Bonus points if boob church future development integrates the trail into their plans. Then south of 36th it could follow the path of Edgemere park until it reconnects with the tracks at the future 23rd street commuter rail station:


I leave you with this inspiratory rendering of what the Atlanta Beltline will look like and what we could potentially have in our very own OKC (but with maybe something more than grass as a barrier between fast moving trains and pedestrians):

[benjico]

What a dream that would be!!!

[HOT ROD]

couldn't have said it better.

Commuter Rail = much less stops
Light Rail = more stops than Commuter but at major interchanges. Overkill if so many.
Streetcar = most stops for rail. Less stops than bus but more than any rail.

The RTD focus right now is Commuter Rail so for Norman I'd say:

* North Norman/Moore Park N Ride (this stop is a demand stop only - keep going unless someone hits the button or is at the platform). Might want this is N Norman to give some distance from the OKC-Crossroads Mall PNR but there could be a case for this one to be more Moore oriented. ..
* Norman Downtown - Obvious
* OU/Lindsey - Obvious
* Purcell Park N Ride - Terminal stop

[Hutch]

Some very perceptive comments.

At the last RTA meeting, our consultants briefed us on their detailed analysis of the BNSF corridor between Edmond and Norman. Based on the significant amount of freight service through the corridor, their recommendation is to acquire a portion of the BNSF right-of-way and install a separate dedicated commuter rail line. Throughout most of the corridor, the ROW has enough extra space to allow for it. And while there are several expected pinch points that would need to be resolved (mostly additional bridges), overall it appears very workable. Surprisingly, they were able to layout a preliminary alignment with only a single flyover to switch sides of the ROW that avoids all BNSF sidings and yards, does not interfere with freight service to companies along the line, and most importantly does not require switching across a single BNSF freight track. While additional technical reviews and discussions with BNSF are still required, the initial work is very positive.

Station spacing was also briefly discussed, and the consultants noted that the number of proposed commuter rail stations along the corridor from earlier studies likely needs to be reduced to some degree for optimal travel times and similar to other successful systems.

[OKC Guy]

Some very perceptive comments.

At the last RTA meeting, our consultants briefed us on their detailed analysis of the BNSF corridor between Edmond and Norman. Based on the significant amount of freight service through the corridor, their recommendation is to acquire a portion of the BNSF right-of-way and install a separate dedicated commuter rail line. Throughout most of the corridor, the ROW has enough extra space to allow for it. And while there are several expected pinch points that would need to be resolved (mostly additional bridges), overall it appears very workable. Surprisingly, they were able to layout a preliminary alignment with only a single flyover to switch sides of the ROW that avoids all BNSF sidings and yards, does not interfere with freight service to companies along the line, and most importantly does not require switching across a single BNSF freight track. While additional technical reviews and discussions with BNSF are still required, the initial work is very positive.

Station spacing was also briefly discussed, and the consultants noted that the number of proposed commuter rail stations along the corridor from earlier studies likely needs to be reduced to some degree for optimal travel times and similar to other successful systems.

The rail overpass over 235 is one track if I am not mistaken. That is a major stumbling block.

[SEMIweather]

The rail overpass over 235 is one track if I am not mistaken. That is a major stumbling block.

What a failure if they put in that brand new overpass last year and didn't make it wide enough to accommodate two tracks at some point in the future.

[Mott]

What a failure if they put in that brand new overpass last year and didn't make it wide enough to accommodate two tracks at some point in the future.

Agree, but you have single track bridges over I-44 and Western, just to the north of I-235. Believe me, after 38 years riding trains here in OKC, I don’t know who Hutch’s consultants are, but as I said before, commuter trains from Edmond to Norman aren’t going to happen, even with some new bridges.
As Hutch said, maybe with a separated, dedicated right of way, something like DART in Dallas.

[fightlessllama]

Some very perceptive comments.

At the last RTA meeting, our consultants briefed us on their detailed analysis of the BNSF corridor between Edmond and Norman. Based on the significant amount of freight service through the corridor, their recommendation is to acquire a portion of the BNSF right-of-way and install a separate dedicated commuter rail line. Throughout most of the corridor, the ROW has enough extra space to allow for it. And while there are several expected pinch points that would need to be resolved (mostly additional bridges), overall it appears very workable. Surprisingly, they were able to layout a preliminary alignment with only a single flyover to switch sides of the ROW that avoids all BNSF sidings and yards, does not interfere with freight service to companies along the line, and most importantly does not require switching across a single BNSF freight track. While additional technical reviews and discussions with BNSF are still required, the initial work is very positive.

Station spacing was also briefly discussed, and the consultants noted that the number of proposed commuter rail stations along the corridor from earlier studies likely needs to be reduced to some degree for optimal travel times and similar to other successful systems.

Does it feel like all this talk about too many stations is overblown? The current amount doesn't seem too crazy and nobody is advocating for more stations besides maybe two additional ones that people mentioned North of Edmond and in Guthrie. Also, there was the talk about taking away the station from OU-Norman earlier in the thread. All those stations would either be at the end or second to the end of the line and they don't affect the commute of all the existing stations. Yeah if you're commuting from Purcell all the way to Guthrie it's not going to be the fastest route but then again it was never going to be that.

It just seems crazy that some people are advocating for dropping the 23rd st station so there wouldn't be a single stop between the Chesapeake Energy/63rd station and downtown. That's a full 5-6 mile gap in coverage. People are expecting a hyperloop from their North Edmond living room to downtown. Elsewhere in this forum it was mentioned that the 23rd st corridor has the highest bus ridership and it's a natural connection point for future light rail or bus rapid transit. I guess you could make an argument for only one Moore station and maybe even cutting the Capital Hill station but I truly hope these "consultants" don't convince people that central and south okc should miss out on a completely reasonable and fair number of commuter stops. Otherwise we're looking at a bunch of park-and-rides and nowhere to park and ride to.

[Teo9969]

Does it feel like all this talk about too many stations is overblown? The current amount doesn't seem too crazy and nobody is advocating for more stations besides maybe two additional ones that people mentioned North of Edmond and in Guthrie. Also, there was the talk about taking away the station from OU-Norman earlier in the thread. All those stations would either be at the end or second to the end of the line and they don't affect the commute of all the existing stations. Yeah if you're commuting from Purcell all the way to Guthrie it's not going to be the fastest route but then again it was never going to be that.

It just seems crazy that some people are advocating for dropping the 23rd st station so there wouldn't be a single stop between the Chesapeake Energy/63rd station and downtown. That's a full 5-6 mile gap in coverage. People are expecting a hyperloop from their North Edmond living room to downtown. Elsewhere in this forum it was mentioned that the 23rd st corridor has the highest bus ridership and it's a natural connection point for future light rail or bus rapid transit. I guess you could make an argument for only one Moore station and maybe even cutting the Capital Hill station but I truly hope these "consultants" don't convince people that central and south okc should miss out on a completely reasonable and fair number of commuter stops. Otherwise we're looking at a bunch of park-and-rides and nowhere to park and ride to.

I think the question is how many people are going to go from Edmond/Norman to 23rd Street directly? If Broadway to the Capitol and the Capitol complex in general were more walkable, I could maybe see it, but at present, I think it can be left off for now. If in the future the density and demand can be proven, then the stop can always be added later.

[HOT ROD]

Does it feel like all this talk about too many stations is overblown? The current amount doesn't seem too crazy and nobody is advocating for more stations besides maybe two additional ones that people mentioned North of Edmond and in Guthrie. Also, there was the talk about taking away the station from OU-Norman earlier in the thread. All those stations would either be at the end or second to the end of the line and they don't affect the commute of all the existing stations. Yeah if you're commuting from Purcell all the way to Guthrie it's not going to be the fastest route but then again it was never going to be that.

It just seems crazy that some people are advocating for dropping the 23rd st station so there wouldn't be a single stop between the Chesapeake Energy/63rd station and downtown. That's a full 5-6 mile gap in coverage. People are expecting a hyperloop from their North Edmond living room to downtown. Elsewhere in this forum it was mentioned that the 23rd st corridor has the highest bus ridership and it's a natural connection point for future light rail or bus rapid transit. I guess you could make an argument for only one Moore station and maybe even cutting the Capital Hill station but I truly hope these "consultants" don't convince people that central and south okc should miss out on a completely reasonable and fair number of commuter stops. Otherwise we're looking at a bunch of park-and-rides and nowhere to park and ride to.

its because this will be a commuter rail line. If it were a light rail line then most would definitely agree that 23rd is a must. But commuter rail has fewer stops at major destinations - this is what we're building.

Let me give you an example of where I live: here in Seattle there is only ONE commuter rail stop and it is in downtown Seattle. This despite Seattle being about 25 miles end-to-end N-S, which is the direction CR goes. North of Seattle there are stops at the suburbs Edmonds (yes, we use an S at the end), Mukilteo before getting to the terminus in downtown Everett. South of Seattle there are stops at suburbs Renton, Kent, Auburn before terminating in downtown Tacoma or Lakewood (Tacoma suburb further south). Could we have an additional stop inside the city of Seattle? Sure. But it would make the system inefficient - that's the key with CR, lots of folks at the major destinations.

We're advocating OKC to have 3-4 stops in its city limits (not just one like Seattle). Downtown-63rd-Memorial or 122nd going North and Crossroads going south - these are natural 'destinations' of how OKC is laid out and despite also being 25 miles N-S, OKC isn't set up with a line of suburbs the same way Seattle is, OKC's suburbs are radial.

Anyway, Seattle does have and is building light rail as well which has/will have 5 stops in Seattle city limits north of downtown and has about 4 stops in southern Seattle limits.

I hope this illustrates the difference in rail technology and expectations of stops.

[HOT ROD]

^ facepalm. OMG, the railbridge at 235 ODOT just built last year - already obsolete?

As for the stations, I had proposed the following:

Commuter Rail North
**Guthrie (eventual metro terminus)
*Edmond North - Guthrie Airport PnR
*Edmond
*Edmond - Kilpatrick PnR
*OKC - 63rd Transit Hub
**OKC - Santa Fe Multimodal Hub (Metropolitan Hub)

Commuter Rail South
**OKC - Santa Fe Multimodal Hub (Metropolitan Hub)
*OKC - Crossroads PnR
*Norman - North PnR
*Norman
*Norman - OU Lindsey
**Purcell - (eventual metro terminus)

Stops in Green - these stops require signal from pax at station or train to stop, otherwise train keeps going.

Hutch, any thoughts on this?

[d-usa]

As much as I like to crap on ODOT, I don’t think they are responsible for funding any future rail growth, be it for BNSF or a regional transit authority. They were responsible for replacing a bridge with one rail line due to their construction work on the interstate.

[HOT ROD]

and ODOT should have anticipated the use of those bridges going forward and at least made the bridge wider so the new line could be added later.

[d-usa]

Why is it their cost though? Wouldn’t BNSF or the transit authority be responsible for the cost of a second bridge?

[Mott]

Why is it their cost though? Wouldn’t BNSF or the transit authority be responsible for the cost of a second bridge?

Yes, and not either was going to do it. Remember when the new bridge over South 59th Street was built, to accommodate the new 4 lanes, and the then ATSF really needed double track from Flynn yard north to Burnett siding, and they tried to get two tracks without paying for the second one. And whoever built it (OKC), gave them what they had before, a single track bridge.

[BoulderSooner]

Yes, and not either was going to do it. Remember when the new bridge over South 59th Street was built, to accommodate the new 4 lanes, and the then ATSF really needed double track from Flynn yard north to Burnett siding, and they tried to get two tracks without paying for the second one. And whoever built it (OKC), gave them what they had before, a single track bridge.

the transit authority was not set up at the time the bridge over 235 was built and was also not yet funded

[jn1780]

The recommendation basically reinforces what Mott has been saying. Their essentially saying its too difficult/impossible to work with BNSF so just buy ROW from them and build a dedicated commuter rail and minimize the interaction with BNSF and its freight traffic.

Of course that will be expensive. The whole idea of using existing track is that its cheaper.

[HOT ROD]

true that the transit agency was not set up when the bridge was installed. However, ACOG had long before completed the fixed guideway study and the transit agency was being formed/in process. ODOT could and should have had incentive to consider this with the bridge replacement - being proactive as the cost may have been minimal to install a larger bridge that later could add a second or third rail(s). Being proactive recognizing the growing city/region is what Oklahoma lacks in most projects.