I know this may sound to easy but why not construct a new station just south of the existing one maybe just to the west or southwest of the ford center when I-40is replaced?

Betts,

I guess I'm not understanding your definition of "Heavy Rail". The term is generally interpreted as this. Track gauge or size has nothing to do with mode. HRT and LRT distinguish themselves, by ROW, capacity, train length, speed, and cost. Examples of Heavy Rail systems are NYC's subway and Chicago's El. Marta and Bart were the last Heavy rail systems built.

Light Rail track would have to be added no matter where the hub was located. For safety reasons, Light Rail cannot run on track shared with freight (cars are too small and would be crushed). Therefore during this part of the line, it must have its own ROW.

As for location and getting people to their downtown destination, that's where a circulator would make the most sense. Patrons could ride a commuter train into Union Station and transfer to the modern streetcar circulator to get to downtown, midtown, and Bricktown. If the money isn't there, buses could do the same job.

If you want to see an Intermodal Hub in the design and build stage, check out Denver's Union Station.



Source: Continuum Partners

That's actually my point. Since light rail would have to be added, why not add it in a more logical location? If it ran down the new boulevard in an east-west direction, it would be much easier for people to get off and walk to the CBD, and be able to avoid a second mode of transportation. Personally, I'm more interested in north-south anyway, since I virtually never go east-west.

And I moved here from Denver I've been in Denver's Union Station more times than I can count.

Why don't we just use Santa Fe Station in Shawnee for the central hub? It is old and neat. Before you start telling me all of the reasons why the station in Shawnee is a bid idea let me warn you that those exact same reasons can be used to disqualify Union Station.

Union Station is in the wrong location and is way too small.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

jpeace... there is a southern anchor for C2S, the oklahoma river. there is all kinds of retail and residential planned... so you need not worry about development.

i went again and checked / walked the rails at union.... there is only one rail that is connected to anything. everything else has been pulled up

What does size have to do with anything? Remodel the main terminal and expand it to accommodate commuter, light rail, modern street-car, and bus. Hell, throw in a ferry terminal if you want. Location is pretty decent, obviously there are better locales, but none are in the position this location is. C2S may have some grand plan but nothing is set in stone and I doubt most of the planned office and residential will come to fruition for quite sometime. This puts the station in a unique position to not only be an inter-modal hub but also a TOD... on a grand scale. What a perfect catalyst for the area. Thousands of people could pass through.

Well, then you should know that the new Union Station brings together all modes, puts some of them underground and requires connection via multiple modes. DT Denver is quite a bit larger than OKC so people frequently use the Free Mall Shuttle to get to SE DT, Cap. Hill and GT. As it stands now you have to take the CPV spur just to get to Union Station (unless you walk or take the shuttle) Same idea could be applied here.

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
1600 Blake Street
Denver, Colorado* 80202-1399
304 628 9000

March 4, 2004

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

Dear Mr. Elmore:

This is in response to information we have received regarding construction plans that could preclude future passenger rail access to the Oklahoma City Union Station. Based on our experiences here in Denver, we believe that would be a very unfortunate and short-sighted move.

A consortium of agencies partnered to purchase Denver Union Station to preserve it as the future hub of multiple transportation modes. The Regional Transportation District, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the City and County of Denver, and the Colorado Department of Transportation all participated in the funding of that key purchase, accessing a combination of local, state and federal funding sources. This move will preserve Union Station as the transportation hub for all types of future transportation improvements, including local passenger rail, Amtrak, local transit buses, long-distance buses like Greyhound, taxis, bicycles and other modes.

A group of elected officials and business leaders from Salt Lake City made a presentation last year in Denver on their highly successful transit system and how it worked flawlessly during the 2002 Winter Olympics. The single, irreversible mistake they acknowledged making was in not preserving their historical Union Station as their transportation center.

Many years ago, Denver Union Station was purchased by a private sector group, but plans for the station languished and it was in danger of falling into major disrepair. Beginning in 2000, RTD pulled together a group of agencies to purchase the station, and RTD closed on the station purchase transaction a year later. This solidified Denver Union Station's status once again as the crown jewel of transportation access to the entire Denver metro area, just as it was envisioned when it was built over a hundred years ago.

Equally important, the purchase of Denver Union Station will jump start private development plans for the multiple acres of land surrounding the station, which has an estimated value totaling over $100 million. This economic generator aspect was another important factor in the decision by elected officials, local and state agencies, and business and community leaders to secure the future of this wonderful historic landmark for another one hundred years.

We are now well into the Master Plan process, which will detail the short and long range development of Denver Union Station and the surrounding property. The full story of the Master Plan can be viewed at Denver Union Station: Environmental Impact Statement , which gives a glimpse into the exciting prospects for this beautiful link to our past and portal to our future.

The experiences of Denver and other cities prove that it would be a true shame for the residents of Oklahoma City and the surrounding communities if construction plans precluded the proper preservation and future development of your Union Station as a passenger rail transportation center. Once that decision has been made, there may be little - if anything - that can be done to properly utilize that historic and functional facility.

Please let me know if I can provide any additional information or answer any questions.

Sincerely,
(signed)
Scott Reed
Director of Public Affairs
Regional Transportation District

So you feed some mis-information to someone in Colorado and he responds to it, big deal. I would rather read the wit and wisdom of Lester Munson from ESPN.com.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

2-10-04

OPINION ON ODOT’S “NEW I-40 CROSSTOWN PLAN” FROM INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ECONOMIST MALISE C. DICK

"The New I-40 Crosstown"

As a transport economist who has been involved with highway and railroad projects in many parts of the world, I would like to offer my views on the proposed New I-40 Crosstown, (N I 40) based on the most recent information available to me, and discussions I had while in Norman in 1998-99. *There are a number of different elements to this, most of which have been noted by other observers, but they deserve consideration in an integrated fashion.

First, the construction cost difference between the proposal and the real alternative, which has never been given substantive consideration, which is rebuilding the existing four mile section, (of which only 1.7 miles, which pose somewhat greater but not insurmountable maintenance problems than at ground level)*appear to be widening as time passes. Current estimates for the proposal are $ 360m (probably an underestimate) which is substantially more than forecast only four years ago. Probably not more than 10% of the increase can be attributed to inflation, which has been nationally, locally and sectorally very low. * The alternative, in terms of typical reconstruction costs, would probably not cost more than $ 50 million. *Regardless of funding sources, justification for the difference has never been satisfactorily presented.

What could the justification be? *It is estimated that the existing Crosstown has a theoretical capacity of 72,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and the actual volume is about 113,000vpd. *The proposed NI40 would have a 10 lanes (as compared to 6 existing) and a capacity of *140,000 vpd. *In terms of theoretical capacity, the increase (approx 100%) may seem large, but with reasonable growth in traffic, some induced by the initial easing of congestion, capacity constraints could again be felt in 10 years or so - perhaps only five years after construction is completed! It might also be asked how the additional capacity over a short distance (4 miles) will be used and what the effect on feeder roads will be; I have not seen this discussed.

What would be a better solution? It may not appeal to believers that the underutilized automobile (which causes most congestion)*or 18 wheelers (which cause most highway damage and contribute perhaps as little as 20% to attributable costs) should have any constraints placed on their movement, but there is little doubt that where there is marked differences in congestion levels between different highways, traffic restrictions are often the most economical way of addressing the problem. Implicitly, Oklahoma City (OKC) could be suitable for such an approach which, as far as I am aware, has not been attempted. *Crosstown is used extensively by short-distance auto traffic which could be readily handled by non-Interstate roads. *Equally, trucks which are transiting Oklahoma City, of which there a substantial number and proportion of Crosstown traffic (when consideration is taken of the road space occupied by 18 wheelers) could be directed to use less congested peripheral roads. Given the sophistication of electronic monitoring systems, Crosstown access could be varied according to the level of potential congestion. *Thus, the effective capacity of existing Crosstown for appropriate traffic, could be significantly increased.

The argument is advanced that reconstructing Crosstown would be logistically difficult. *This seems based on the assumption that all existing traffic would have to be accommodated during that time. *However, again, there are plenty of roads parallel to Crosstown which, with some modification to access, could handle much more traffic. *Congestion in any part of the OKC highway system is low compared with, say, the Washington DC metropolitan area!

A further problem with the proposed NI40 is the impact on rail facilities.*It is clear that the Union Station, not the Santa Fe, is the most suitable as a hub for interurban, commuter rail and local bus interchange. *However, the NI40 proposal would effectively eliminate that possibility. *It can be argued that the OKC population density is too low to make suburban rail economically viable, but this ignores the fact that (eg) the I 35 corridor from Norman to OKC does in fact have quite a high density of traffic and*in sections was considered highly congested even in 1999. *Also, light rail systems in other cities with quite low densities, such as Dallas, are proving successful and have rapidly expanding ridership. *It is much better to keep options open in terms of rail passenger facilities than to pre-empt them for unnecessary highway re-routing!

Finally, air quality in OKC is not as good as one might expect in a low-density city. *A significant increase in city center traffic (which might be induced by NI40) as compared to a more dispersed pattern, will probably increase vehicle generated atmospheric pollutants. *Studies (of Los Angeles in particular) have shown that health costs generated by exposure to vehicle-induced atmospheric pollution, can be considerable. *This is certainly something which should be taken into consideration, but, so far, has not been.

In conclusion the NI40 proposal should be seriously reconsidered.

Malise C. Dick,
Transport and Economic Research and Analysis (TERA), Adjunct (Finance) and Affiliate ("Smart Growth") University of Maryland

Union Station: bad location.

If we have to add light rail anyway, let's get over this obsession with a poorly located building simply because it used to be a train station. It would make a perfectly lovely restaurant. Let's build a modern station in a good location. One might notice that the I-35 corridor is nowhere near Union Station.

I would like to go on record and say that the closure of the downtown airpark has ruined any chances of OKC getting nonstop flights to Europe.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

LOL...

Okay, now how about this. Granted, I'm no whiz but I am a railfan and yet I say 'to hell with Union Station'. Let it be a centerpiece to the grand Central Park of Oklahoma City. Like I said, I'm not a master but here's my rendering:



Feedback would be fantastic!

The only thing I see is that the new station should be underground. You can't have East/West and North/South line crossing in the same horizontal plane. One will have to go over the top of the other or run parallel for some distance.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

The blue line & the purple line is Boulevard ground level. The red line runs on the same right-of-way viaduct as BNSF. Notice the spur south of transportation center that circles around it. These HRT sets will have an engine on each end like the Heartland Flyer (which will still use the Santa Fe station) so there will be no worrying regarding them having to be turned around anywhere they go. The Amtrak route only has specific times that a train departs for regional travel so it won't matter that a rider will have to get off at the transportation hub from anywhere any of the other lines come from, cross the LRT's and load on the Streetcars to get to Amtrak's station (considering that in this rendering the line runs right past the south end of the docks).

Of note: the brackets over the 'to-be' new boulevard indicate the elevated bridge that will have to be put in place at this point. There should be a large median in the new boulevard that is wide enough for LRT. Then the Streetcar lines can obviously be built within the street at the time they build it. To think that this is at all, no less than 5-6 years away, so I'd hope that this commuter rail survey (if it isn't already done) could be completed by then. Cause it would be stupid if a boulevard line did happen and they had to tear all of that back out again a few years down the line after it is initially constructed.

I still don't know what you mean by "add light rail". Do you mean track for light rail? Like as in the actual rails themselves? If so, all modes use the same basic track, some may have a "third rail" or cantilever for electrification, but it's essentially the same. Most LRT systems use double tracking to accommodate bi-directional and high capacity trains with shorter headways. I guess I just don't see your argument of having to "add light right" no matter where the hub is located.



Why can't the current Union Station location be modernized? Have you seen what they are doing to Denver's Union Station? You say you are from there, but it seems as if you have little knowledge of exactly what is transpiring there. This is a model for the entire country, you should take notice.

Look, I'm trying to play devil's advocate here, and I'm trying to understand both sides of the issue. But from what I've seen of the station (walking by) it seems like a huge mistake not to take advantage of this facility and its ROW.



BTW, I was reading a post you made toward the beginning of this thread about there not being much value to the station except the ROW and how we could get ROW somewhere else or just cut and cover below the new boulevard.

I must ask, do you have an idea about the cost associated with cut and cover? Do you have any idea about the cost and time associated with ROW acquisition? If not, ask Reno. They are finishing up a project to cut and cover the freight lines through DT, at a substantial cost. Or, ask Denver, and the time and money they spent for the West line ROW.

Yes that's what he means. If you Google Earth Dallas near their Union Station or, say, near the American Airlines Center, you will see that there are several sets of tracks.

For example the TRE (Trinity Rail Express) uses existing rail (freight rail) for their double-stack passenger cars/engine sets. You will see north of the AA Center where the TRE line separates from the DART lines.

DART uses a WHOLE other set of rail that was laid down with probably some lighter rail--something like 80lbs., as opposed to 130lbs.--for their lighter cars and they also in the process used concrete ties, which of course are more expensive than wooden ties but also more durable. The DART lines also either used old rail lines and purchased the ROW from the former owner and thus installing their lines.

Basically, if you take a gander, you will easily notice the lines and be able to distinguish between them with clarity.

We are clearly miscommunicating. I am not a rail expert, but I have opinions about transportation. It is my understanding that to have light rail, we would have to add track. It is my opinion that the east-west line is of less importance than the north-south line, and so it is my opinion that our station should be located on the north-south line, and it does not seem possible to run the north-south line directly to Union Station because it is directly south of the CBD and I think it would be difficult to run the line through there.

Union Station is on 17th and Wynkoop. It is four blocks from Larimer Square. It is within easy walking distance of a lot of the downtown. It is close to the Pepsi Center. IMO, Union Station is much more closely aligned with the CBD in Denver than our Union Station is. I understand what they are doing there. I have no problem with trying to do something like that here. I'm just confused as to why people are focusing on the building, rather than trying to optimize location. It is my personal experience that if you make things difficult or complicated, people tend not to use them. Why not put light rail where people want to go? Just because Denver is using their Union Station doesn't mean we have to. Again, how about a modern station that is optimally designed for what it is used for? We can do something different, and it might be better.

Why not make Union Station a restaurant and gathering place in the center of a beautiful iconic downtown park? No one is talking about not utilizing the structure, just questioning how practical it's use as a station is.

You have me confused with someone else. I would run light rail on the boulevard, not underneath it. It is clearly right of way owned by the city, and it's a far better location for getting to Bricktown and the CBD. It was my understanding that right of way is the key issue here. And I'm not interested in ROW at Union Station, as we've got east-west ROW on the Boulevard. But again, I'm far more interested in the north-south line, than an east-west line. I'd concentrate on it first, and as I said, I'd put my station directly on the north-south line to take advantage of Norman and Edmond commuters. I'm not sure where we're getting money for light rail anyway, but if we get it, it's my belief that we should start spending our money on the north-south line first.

I think this is great. I've not looked closely at anything other than the north-sout and east-west line locations, but they are precisely where I'd envisioned, and the hub location is right where I thought it should be.

betts, I'm pretty sure the I-40 ROW belongs to ODOT, not the city. I also think they are still having trouble pursuing ROW for some properties along the existing I-40 or the future boulevard. Either way unfortunately I think we are 10-15 years away from any kind of rail.

I think more realistically and soon would be a downtown circulator street car and perhaps a better bus/trolley system. This is where mass transit will start in this city.

PROGRESSIVE RAILROADING: "Son of Istook...."

From: Tom Elmore, NATI

To: mayor@okc.gov, david.holt@okc.gov, ward1@okc.gov, Ward2@okc.gov, ward3@okc.gov, ward4@okc.gov, ward5@okc.gov, ward6@okc.gov, ward7@okc.gov, ward8@okc.gov, guyliebmann@okhouse.gov, russell.claus@okc.gov

As we've noted regarding prospects for Federal Transit funding, the story below, from PROGRESSIVE RAILROADING, outlines significant funding boosts for Utah Transit, Washington's "Sound Transit," and New Jersey Transit.

While Oklahoma City mayors and council people hard-headedly sat on their hands over the last 20 years, Congressman Ernest J. Istook was funding far-sighted alternative transportation development in his "true sponsor state" of Utah.

It's reasonable to believe that cities like Salt Lake -- that have bucked the "highways only" forces to establish successful transit systems -- will be those that get any immediate Federal Transit funding boosts.

That leaves "all the rest."

Only one thing separates Oklahoma City from the long line of "completely unprepared" cities across the nation -- and that is the amazing railway network centered on OKC Union Station at 300 SW 7th.

Without Union Station's amazing rail yard, OKC goes "to the back of the line," empty cup in hand.

With an intact Union Station, the OKC metro has a fighting chance.

There is little doubt that Neal McCaleb and his "highways only" forces long planned the destruction of the Union Station rail yard and the rapidly and economically-available transit options it so clearly embodies. But they did so with the assistance of OKC government -- serving not the people of the city, who in the 1999 20 Year Plan Update demanded preservation and development of the facility, but "certain special interests" who continue to benefit from the automobile monopoly.

Will OKC government now stand up and do the right thing with OKC Union Station -- or will it continue to insist on the long held "better to rule in hell than serve in heaven" paradigm?

It's a question that goes directly to the heart of the integrity of all elected and appointed OKC officials.

TOM ELMORE

_________________________________________________

7/14/2008 Federal Funding

Senate committee allocates funds for three transit agencies
Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee signed off on a fiscal-year 2009 Department of Transportation appropriations bill that included millions of dollars for two transit agencies.

The bill earmarks more than $100 million for Utah transit and economic development projects, including $81.6 million to the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) to begin preliminary design and environmental work to extend the FrontRunner commuter-rail line to Payson and Brigham City. The bill also would include $10 million to extend the Mid-Jordan light-rail line 10 miles west from the 6400 South TRAX station through Murray, Midvale, West Jordan and South Jordan.

In addition, the committee earmarked $5 million to UTA to extend TRAX light-rail service form the current Arena Station in downtown Salt Lake City to the Gateway Intermodal Hub — enabling FrontRunner passengers to transfer to TRAX lines — continue environmental design for the West Valley City Intermodal Hub, and purchase land for hubs in Orem and Provo.

The committee also appropriated $128.8 million for Sound Transit's light-rail projects. The bill would provide $100 million for the 3.2-mile downtown Seattle-to-University of Washington University Link, and $28.8 million to complete the initial Link light-rail system, which is scheduled to open next year.

Meanwhile, Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) secured a $75 million appropriation for New Jersey Transit's Access to the Region's Core project, which the agency will use to continue engineering for the two new rail tunnels to be built under the Hudson River. The project also includes building a new station beneath 34th Street in Manhattan, and completing signal and track improvements along the Northeast Corridor.

Alert Trammel! Conspiracy nut at large.

Are you sure there are no other cities in America that don't have a rail station at 300 SW 7th, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma?

Tom - any rail project in OKC that uses Union Station as its main hub is doomed to failure from lack of ridership. The main reason Istook didn't support the MAPS rail link is because it didn't follow traffic patterns. Look at the Oklahoma Spirt trolly today and I think you will have to agree Istook was correct. No one is wanting to go to the Union Station vacinity now. Creating a rail network that doesn't go where the people want to go is a non-starter.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

some guy on ktok said that rail does not pay for itself and has to be subsidised by the goverment.

No interstate in America pays for itself. In fact the road that goes in front of my house doesn't pay for itself. I drive on it for free.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

yeah.. i see what you're saying. i know in japan the rail is privatized and it cost me 30 bux a day to ride into tokyo from narita and back. that's about a 45 minute ride one way. these were not high speed trains either.