Officials debate saving railyards vs. altering I-40

[angel27]

[QUOTE=CaptDave;172282]I think some are confusing the terms intermodal and multimodal. Intermodal (to me) is the trailers and containers on flat cars and double stack cars. A multimodal station is where various forms of "people movers" converge and the passengers from the outlying areas served transfer to the "lighter" transit options in the downtown core.

Yes, that would be me. Thanks for clarifying, I didn't know the difference and I did mean multimodal.

[jbrown84]

I'm sorry Pete, but that image of San Diego's Santa Fe station just says UGLY to me. Asphalt everywhere. Union Station is supposed to be IN the park, not across an ugly bus ramp or boulevard.

The park wont be bisected jbrown. The rail yard will stay where it is, behind Union Station.

Here's a rendering, because you clearly don't get it.



The park continues south of I-40, as part of a pedestrian axis from the Memorial all the way to the river. If we move I-40 south, that at least doubles the width of the divide, and makes it impossible to cross with one pedestrian bridge. Union Station is in the park, with just a small 2-lane drive in front of it. There is nowhere to put bus ramps and parking lots out of the view of the park. I understand your belief in mass transit for OKC, but why do you INSIST that it be at Union Station when better locations exist that still utilize existing infrastructure and ROW?

The more important issue with using Union Station as a multimodal facility is how do the North - South commuter trains get there? I do not see an efficient way to do that. Those trains would need to be able to switch from the North-South BNSF line to the tracks behind Union Station without a bunch of reverse moves. I think the best arrangement would be a "Y" track from the BNSF tracks to the area behind Union Station - the trains would pull in to Union Station, then back out to continue on to Edmond or Norman - but I am not sure there is room to do so especially with the elevation change from the N-S tracks to the E-W tracks. This is also necessary for the Heartland Flyer to ever use Union Station.

EXACTLY why it doesn't work in that location. It can be a single light rail stop, and should be, but that's it.

Do we really want this view from our central park. We can plan better than that.

[Pete]

jb, in the case of Union Station the tracks would be behind the station and border the interstate, not the park.

And the 2-3 buses at any given time could easily be routed to one of the sides of the station, as there are existing exits from the lobby both on the east and west sides with drives.

[jbrown84]

They would still be in view, just like that picture. Buses are noisy and stinky and fill the air with exhaust.

I realize the tracks would be behind the station, but leaving them would double the size of the separation of not just the greenspace, but all of the C2S neighborhood.

[Pete]

Here's an aerial that shows how a small area for buses just outside the west exit could be off of Hudson and could easily be screened by existing or new trees.

People are already going to have to walk across a pedestrian bridge to get to the area south of the interstate... Making it slightly longer is not going to have a huge impact IMO. And the whole idea is for people to move freely to the river shore, which would not be changed at all.

And if you look at the C2S plans, besides the park and convention center, the huge majority is housing. All east of the park and all south of the interstate -- we're talking about thousands of units. Having a major train station adjacent will make much more sense when all that is built out -- and in fact would greatly help in spurring those developments.


And finally, I used the San Diego example but I can think of many others as well -- especially Los Angeles -- where a main Amtrak/commuter station is quite removed from the CBD but connected through street cars, buses or in the case of L.A., a subway system. And the main station in San Francisco is well removed from the CBD as well, though connected through BART and buses. The area around the SF train station has exploded, with the addition of Pac Bell park and tons of condos.

In fact, can anyone name a city that has one of these elaborate, old train stations where they have completely cut off all rail service?

[betts]

Again, though. San Diego hasn't put it's Union Station in the middle of a park. Does Los Angeles even have a park? The solution to the problem is to move I-40 south of the river (which I would have been in favor of from the beginning), move the park to the east, and let Union Station be a station. If you don't do that, as jbrown has said, there is no way to cross both the train lines AND the interstate to get to the river or the south side of the park. We will have effectively said that our downtown development ends at 5th Street, and the mile south of it will be lost to Core to Whatever you now want to call it. BECAUSE YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO GET FROM CORE TO THE SHORE!!!!! Sorry about the caps, but no one seems to be paying attention. It will be Core to Train. If that's fine with everyone, then fine. This is a democracy, after all. But, let's all be honest about what will happen.

[Pete]

You've already got a huge interstate running through this area, so I think the arguments of it being bisected and substantially downgraded due to adding a few rail lines to an existing transportation corridor is a bit over the top.

Especially since the park -- even without the interstate or the rail lines -- is not continuous anyway. Central Park will end just north Union Station... Parkland doesn't resume until the other side of the freeway, which is over a tenth of a mile of separation, even with just the interstate. This is not one park.

There is a continuous throughway along Harvey and that wouldn't need to change with the addition of rail service. And the access to the river won't change in any way... There'll still be a pedestrian bridge, it just will have to cross both the rail lines and roadway.

[betts]

Is the pedestrian bridge big enough to cross both the raillines and the roadway? Do we know this? And, as far as pedestrians go, looking at the original Core to Shore plans, there was to be a Rose Garden in front of Union Station, not a parking lot. Strolling through the Rose Garden, wending your way through a Union Station that is perhaps a restaurant and Art Gallery and then crossing the below grade highway on a beautiful bridge is not the same as walking through a parking lot, walking around Union Station and then through bus lanes, a parking garage or truck bays to find a bridge that crosses multiple grade level train tracks AND a highway to get to the other half of the park is not a comparable experience.

I'm willing to admit that I don't want raillines behind Union Station or Union Station used as a train station. Will the people who are in favor of Union Station being used as a multi-modal station please admit that it will effectively keep pedestrians from going to the park south of the station, tracks and highway, and that the river will NOTeffectively be a part of the CBD? I'd also like people to comment on whether they would like to live next to the bus/train/truck/highway area, and whether they think families would. Just asking for people to be honest about what they want, and whether they would be willing to live in that area.

When I heard about the park, I decided I'd never be able to afford the housing drawn in the Core to Shore plans, and I was a little sad. I know what it costs to live on Central Park in NYC. When I heard about plans to use Union Station, I knew I'd never make a bad investment on a home that I couldn't resell. I would never move there, that's for sure. And I'm probably the most adventurous of my friends. They all think I'm brave to move to Maywood Park. Who is going to live down there? We might get a nice lifestyle center, but how much classic residential architecture?

Maybe I'm wrong. I actually would hate to have to said, "I told you so", but I've been buying houses for a long time, and I don't think we'll get anyone but people who can barely afford to live downtown in that area. Maybe that's good, but it's not what I envisioned.

[Pete]

Is the pedestrian bridge big enough to cross both the raillines and the roadway?

At this point it's only a concept... There is no reason it couldn't be made a little longer.

there was to be a Rose Garden in front of Union Station, not a parking lot.

There is a street (7th) just north of Union Station that will not be closed in any scenario. And who said anything about adding parking in front of Union Station? there is a drive there now and that's shown as staying in all the renderings.

Will the people who are in favor of Union Station being used as a multi-modal station please admit that it will effectively keep pedestrians from going to the park south of the station, tracks and highway, and that the river will NOTeffectively be a part of the CBD?

Why would it change access to the river? And as previously stated, this is not a continuous park anyway... Even without the rail lines there will be over a tenth of a mile between where the park ends just north of 7th and where it resumes south of the interstate.

Access to the river will not be changed in any way and it's not being moved further from the CBD. In fact, if people want to claim that access from just north of the interstate to the river front would be easy and frequently done, you have to also acknowledge that Union Station is just as close to the CBD as it is the river.

[bombermwc]

St. Louis....how about that one Pete? That station was WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYU bigger and it's a hotel/restaurant space now. Do they miss it? Not one bit.

[Pete]

bomber... They are now building a new multi-modal facility right next door to it and still using all the same rail lines.

And like the previous examples, it's almost a mile from their CBD, which is farther than our Union Station.

[bombermwc]

It's not a mile from the CBD, it's right next door. Have you been there? I have.

The rail is a new facility built next door. They didn't even use the same building.


Oh and hey, take a look at the vastness of the rail lines there. There are miles and miles of lines, not 3 blocks. People walk back and fourth from downtown there because there is greenery connecting all the way from the arch, to the station.....which is part of a tourist area...not residences.

[Pete]

Yes I've been there several times. Union station and the new facility are .89 miles from the middle of the St. Louis CBD if you map it out on Google Earth.

And I understand they aren't using the same building but that's an example of giving up on a facility and then having to build an all-new, expensive one. They also didn't destroy the rail lines as is being proposed in the current situation in OKC, otherwise the cost would have been much, much higher.

[betts]

Sorry, I'm not buying it. I think keeping Union Station a station is a bad, bad idea for all the reasons I've outlined multiple times. I think it's a mistake, and if we do it, I suspect it will sit there unused for years, at which point everyone will say, "Why didn't we ever do that Core to Shore development that everyone thought was so cool?" We don't need rail to El Reno, Yukon and Midwest City. We do desperately need a downtown with some aesthetics. It's not all about buildings. Green spaces are critically important when you've been called a dustbowl and wasteland for years. It's more than the dustbowl that has created that image. Oklahoma City is featureless, boring city. A railyard isn't going to change that image, but an iconic park might. San Diego may be using their Union Station, but San Diego has an ocean right behind it.

This interest in using Union Station as a railyard and train station is about paying the same kind of homage to the railroad in our building as we're criticizing Oklahoma City for doing with the automobile. We're elevating transportation over living spaces and creative building in our downtown. Transportation to places no one even wants to go.....

Why don't we make our city walkable and liveable? Why do we want to sacrifice that to making it easier to live out in the suburbs? What have the suburbs done for us?

[Pete]

Why don't we make our city walkable and liveable? Why do we want to sacrifice that to making it easier to live out in the suburbs? What have the suburbs done for us?

You are assuming the tyranny of the "or" versus the genius of the "and".

There are pretty simple ways of having everything you mention AND still leaving the rail option open at Union Station, as I've outlined.

These are very far from mutually exclusive concepts.

[betts]

I think we will have to agree to disagree. I see the two as mutually exclusive.

I'd like to see east-west light rail, if we really need it, would use it and can pay for it, run down the Boulevard. I'd like all commercial traffic to run on all the lines south of the river, which already exist and are being used daily.

[jbrown84]

Pete, you act as if we are talking adding 10 feet to the side of the interstate. From everything I've heard from OnTrac, Elmore, and Latham, they want rows and rows and rows of tracks. This would at least double the width already taken by I-40. This would also require complete redesign of the pedestrian bridge because it is designed to go over a depressed roadway, not an at-grade railyard. I STILL have not seen a valid answer for why the multimodal station won't work better at the junction of the N-S and E-W lines.

[bdhumphreys]

Why don't we make our city walkable and liveable? Why do we want to sacrifice that to making it easier to live out in the suburbs? What have the suburbs done for us?

Then perhaps we would be better with no highway at all. In truth, rail and bus will do alot to create a walkable and liveable downtown, though the same cannot necessarily be said for 10-lane highways. If you really believe so strongly in the value of walkability over all other concerns then you should be outraged at the idea of adding a second highway while retaining the current alignment for cars (in the form of a "boulevard"). I am a big fan of walkability, but transit is an enabler if anything.

Further, I worked on the Core 2 Shore plan and going in to the process we had no choice but to accept both the alignment of the highway and the resulting effects on the station. The parks - plural - are meant to be a continuous system, a green path, of sorts, to the river; but they are definitely not one park. It has already been stated, but the highway bisects the park system so adding to this barrier will have some negative effect, but the biggest problem is the initial barrier created by the highway. The added detriment is negligible. In the end the pedestrian bridge is meant to continue the path, but it is clear that it cannot continue the park!

[Pete]

From everything I've heard from OnTrac, Elmore, and Latham, they want rows and rows and rows of tracks. This would at least double the width already taken by I-40.

I can't imagine why there would be the need for more than 3 sets of tracks -- basically what is there currently.

I STILL have not seen a valid answer for why the multimodal station won't work better at the junction of the N-S and E-W lines.

You could do that but it still leaves the same situation at Union Station. The building is staying and for what you propose to be viable, the rail yard would have to stay too -- otherwise there is no E/W line. And that's still far enough from U.S. that there would still need to be a stop there anyway.

We don't need to decide all that now... But what we DO have to decide is if we are going to tear out valuable rail infrastructure that would severely limit future options -- and likely cost much more than a more immediate work-around.


As far as the other considerations such as bridges (it wouldn't only be the pedestrian variety that would be affected) and Core to Shore design elements, the great news is that we haven't built any of that stuff yet -- which is why it's important to make necessary changes now.

[betts]

Then perhaps we would be better with no highway at all. In truth, rail and bus will do alot to create a walkable and liveable downtown, though the same cannot necessarily be said for 10-lane highways. If you really believe so strongly in the value of walkability over all other concerns then you should be outraged at the idea of adding a second highway while retaining the current alignment for cars (in the form of a "boulevard"). I am a big fan of walkability, but transit is an enabler if anything.

I don't see that we have a choice regarding I-40. It has to exist. As far as the Boulevard is concerned, I don't know if "outraged" is an appropriate description of how I feel about it, but it is my least favorite part of the plan. I do think it's ridiculous that it has been lauded, and I'd be happy to see it go. I didn't know leaving it out was still an option, but if it is, then yes, I'll talk against it.

Further, I worked on the Core 2 Shore plan and going in to the process we had no choice but to accept both the alignment of the highway and the resulting effects on the station. The parks - plural - are meant to be a continuous system, a green path, of sorts, to the river; but they are definitely not one park. It has already been stated, but the highway bisects the park system so adding to this barrier will have some negative effect, but the biggest problem is the initial barrier created by the highway. The added detriment is negligible. In the end the pedestrian bridge is meant to continue the path, but it is clear that it cannot continue the park!

My objection is that it may be so detrimental and user unfriendly that that path isn't looked upon as continuous by pedestrians, and we effectively divide the river from the CBD. If Union Station were only a light rail station, it wouldn't be as terrible, but if it is a multi-modal station, as well as a station for commercial rail, then there will be multiple tracks. I've lived in cities with multi-track raillines, and they are distinctly unattractive and user unfriendly. No one would consider them aesthetic. If we aren't going to worry about aesthetics and user friendliness, so be it. But as a soon to be downtown resident, I am terribly disappointed that an area I thought would be a showpiece and a great residential location will be noisy, smelly,ugly and difficult to traverse. Just my opinion.

[jbrown84]

You could do that but it still leaves the same situation at Union Station. The building is staying and for what you propose to be viable, the rail yard would have to stay too -- otherwise there is no E/W line. And that's still far enough from U.S. that there would still need to be a stop there anyway.

No, they are keeping one line, so you could still have the E-W line and still have a stop at Union Station.

[Pete]

One line is not going to do it if we are going to have any type of rail system.

[betts]

How many lines do we need? We've got a rail system south of the river for freight, and it's clearly the preferred system, as the BNSF has abandoned the line south of Union Station.

Are we talking about commuter rail or light rail? Again, if we have to add rail lines for light rail, let's do it where it's more convenient. How many commuters are we going to have anyway? Do we really have the data to prove that we've got the kind of numbers that would make rail make sense?

I'm going to continue to suggest that light rail run along the boulevard, where people can get off to go to Bricktown and the Ford Center, the CBD and where else? How many stops do we need? Where are all these people going? Mathis Brothers? There's nothing between the CBD and Mathis Brothers. There's nothing east of Bricktown but the American Indian Cultural Center. We need all of four stops. Maybe we're not ready for east-west rail if we're so small that four stops on a light rail line will pretty much cover everything. No one's going to walk down Reno from a Meridian stop to get to restaurants south of I-40, nor are they going to walk down Reno to get to restaurants between it and Mathis Brothers. The problem is, except for near Bricktown, there's no really any place that's walkable along an east-west line. Nor are there really any places many people are going to want to go.

It's the north-south line that needs to go in first, if we even think we've got the density for it. We can stop every mile and pick up people from residential areas east and west of it. That's logical. If we're going to spend money, let's spend it on north-south, and see if we even get enough usage of it to make consideration of an east-west line reasonable.

[Tom Elmore]

Transcription of a letter from the late Dr. Marvin D. Monaghan --

M.D. Monaghan, O.D.
Garland, TX 75041

February 8, 2004

Mr. Tom Elmore, Executive Director
North American Transportation Institute
PO Box 6617
Oklahoma City, OK 73153-0617

Dear Mr. Elmore:

Your interest in preserving intact the property associated with the Oklahoma City Union Station is a worthwhile endeavor. During my fifty years in professional life I have had the pleasure and privilege of serving avocationally on several boards and commissions having to do with public transportation. Probably the most important and challenging example was five years as a member of the board of directors of Dallas Area Rapid Transit, known as DART.

Associated with this activity was a scenario that bears a close relationship to your efforts toward maintaining the integrity of your Union Station. Early in the 1970s I received a call at my office late one afternoon from a management official of the group that was developing the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Dallas. The location they had selected was just across the tracks from Dallas Union Station, which had been closed in 1969 with the cessation of rail passenger service. In order to develop the hotel in an attractive manner it was necessary that Union Station be part of the project. They felt, however, that it should be a joint development with the City for various reasons as the more farsighted planners envisioned its ultimate use for regional public transportation.

This led to a proposal to the Dallas City Council for the City to purchase the station property from the railroads and lease it to the hotel developers who would, in turn, sublease it for shops or offices. The council agreed to put the proposal up for a vote which was the subject of the 11th hour call I received that afternoon. The vote was scheduled to be taken the next afternoon, and they wanted me to draft letters to the Council on behalf of two civic groups with whom I was associated recommending the purchase. My wife and I stayed up all night typing individual letters from both organizations to each individual council member. It was before the day of word processors and photocopiers. It came down to the wire and the proposal passed by one vote the next day.

It turned out to be one of the most visionary and productive decisions the Council ever made. No long after that Dallas and Forth Worth jointly bought the former Rock Island Railroad line between the two cities. Close on the heels of that the DART referendum was passed which included plans for both commuter rail service on the line owned by the cities and for an extensive electric light rail system -- which immediately brought into clear focus the wisdom of acquiring Union Station as an intermodal terminal for the DART system, with the commuter trains also serving D/FW Airport.

Unfortunately, however, when the plans were drawn up for revitalization and renovation of the station, the need for track capacity was underestimated. Originally there were eleven tracks serving the passenger trains. The original restructuring done by the City reduced this to three tracks. As soon as the plans DART had formulated were laid on the table it was clear that two additional tracks had to be restored for the electric light rail line as the commuter trains to Fort Worth would need the three existing tracks. Also, Amtrak had begun service to Dallas which also had to share one of the three tracks with its trains to Chicago and San Antonio.

Work was begun and the two tracks were restored, which was a bit complex, since two bridges over streets going to the hotel, originally not present, had to be widened. This was accomplished and in 1996 both commuter and light rail service was begun -- which has been at the top of the success stories in the transit world. Plans, however, are in the works to add additional commuter rail lines to other outlying suburbs, which will place greater demands on the limited track space. Further addition of tracks would be difficult as additional widening of the bridges would be necessary. The solutions would have been much simpler if planners had looked still farther ahead and anticipated this potential demand, as there are requests coming from all quarters for other communities to be served by DART's fast 65 mph light rail trains.

There is a lesson to be learned here for Oklahoma City as it would be unfortunate for them to make the same mistake, if not a worse one, by removing major portions of the station trackage which might be impossible to replace. Make no mistake -- Oklahoma City people will hear that the city is not large enough for rail transit, ridership will be minimal and buses will be cheaper. We heard all of that in Dallas and experience has proven it to be untrue. Cities are experiencing rapid growth and they soon become too large for slow buses to serve adequately. And there is a reluctance on the part of the middle classes to use buses. Due to the speed and convenience of the trains and the park & ride stations they serve, the trains appeal to both classes who mix compatibly on their way to workplaces and other destinations.

If Oklahoma City citizens would like to take a peek at what your city could have in a few years, they would do well to visit Dallas, ride the two light rail lines and the commuter line to Fort Worth and then transpose this experience to their own environment thereby joining the multitude of cities that are building or planning rail transit.

Sincerely yours,
(Signed)
Marvin D. Monaghan
Former DART Board Member
Mobility Dallas Council

[bdhumphreys]

But as a soon to be downtown resident, I am terribly disappointed that an area I thought would be a showpiece and a great residential location will be noisy, smelly,ugly and difficult to traverse. Just my opinion.

Betts,

I hear what you are saying. I haven't seen any detailed plans of the proposed multi-modeal station with enough information to know for sure whether this is a good thing or whether your hunch is more correct. The point I was trying to make is that creating a continuous park system is not the overriding concern as the highway, which will not be capped in anyway and is only semi-depressed, already ruins this possibility.

It is much more important to focus on an overall strategy for improving not just downtown, but moving the whole city forward. Transit is certainly a part of the equation. We would have probably been better off planning to retain all of Union Station until we had a comprehensive long-term transportation strategy and knew for sure the role that Union station could/should play, but at this point I am not sure it is worth all of the trouble.

All that said, I definitely share your passion for making downtown OKC great and a wonderful urban place for residents, visitors, pedestrians, etc. I even want it to be enjoyable for drivers. We are headed in the right direction, we just need to keep working at it and keep improving.