Many good comments concerning the hub. Here's a few more thoughts to keep in mind:

From a rail transit perspective, the single most critical component of the hub is the terminal facility (railyard...tracks and platforms), and not the transit center (building). The specific location and size of the terminal facility determines service capacity, transfer efficiency, ease of connectivity, and system effectiveness. For the public to embrace any transit system, it must provide efficient, dependable and timely service. An improperly located or sized terminal facility can negatively impact system service, which in turn can diminish public support.

The transit center is an important supporting element of the hub, but it is not as critical to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the rail transit system as the terminal facility. Many local rail passengers will rarely enter the transit center. Instead, they will simply transfer from commuter train to commuter train or from commuter train to streetcar or bus or vice versa. However, proper location and size of the transit center is still vital for providing convenient linkage to the terminal facility and necessary passenger services, such as ticketing, waiting areas, baggage hold, rental cars, food and beverage areas, and restroom facilities, which are especially important for supporting intercity rail service.

These are not easy determinations to make, especially when trying to factor in future service demand. That's why we're spending $300,000 dollars to get the right answers. The last thing we want to do is repeat the mistakes made by other cities when initially developing their rail transit hubs, such as underestimating the current or future service needs of the terminal facility or transit center.

The Santa Fe Depot may be expandable to service all of the needs of a modern transit center or it may not. The Santa Fe terminal facility may be expandable to service all of the current and future needs of the rail transit system or it may not. It's potentially a tight squeeze, especially in light of the magnitude of freight traffic that will be moving through the terminal. Fortunately, we've got multiple options to work with and a very experienced consulting firm to provide us with the right answers.

We're very fortunate to be able to make decisions on the locations of the critical components (terminal facility...transit center...streetcar lines) of the system in its beginning stages and all essentially at the same time. It's extremely important we get it all right. And to do that will certainly take more than $10 million. At least it's a good downpayment.

The key is that we don't hamstring ourselves with a solution that tries to do too much with far too little. I am all for prudence with funds and am a firm believer that great design is not always tied to vast sums of money, rather my argument is that the scope of the transportation hub is so aggressive and all of it is needed, so lets design according to what we want to have in place as the end result and then develop a phased plan for implementation so that it can be realized and not patched together with less than desired results.

If $10 million is phase 1 of a multi-phase plan that would be good. I just hope they design a full service station and build it in phases. I wouldn't want it to look like OU Memorial Stadium in 30 years with 5 or 6 obvious additions that don't match.

Kerry, I was the one (or one of the main people) who had advocated removing PART of the Cox but retaining the 'newer' North Facing facade/meeting space area and building the intermodal into the back of it. We would basically remove the arena, in my idea and then spend money building an elevated Heavy Rail spur to connect the rear of the saved Myriad facade to the N-S train BNSF alignment. The elevated spur into the new intermodal building would serve Commuter Rail (say 3 boarding areas) and inter-city rail (2 AMTRAK/Regional Rail boarding areas, 1 HSR). We'd have future light rail come in at the street level immediately below the Heavy Rail spur. Streetcar doesn't need to be in a ROW, so it could come in at the 'street' level at Sheridan (which it will most likely do anyway) and transit and inter-city bus would come in at the basement level in the Rail ROW. The 2 square blocks where the Myriad Arena currently resides would be reclaimed and made available to development, expanding the CBD. Santa Fe would become a different use, such as a world class museum and/or signature restaurant.

I have this idea because we don't really need the Myriad Arena once we have 1) the new convention center and 2) a replacement arena in say the Ford dealership area. .... I also have this idea because I don't think Santa Fe can be expanded to truly be an intermodal facility. It is a train DEPOT, not even a true train station - Union Station is a true train station. ... So how could one expect to connect HSR, Intercity Rail, Commuter Rail, Transit Bus, and Inter-City Bus into a Depot? .... Can't happen. Definitely not with just $10M either.

So in my idea, and taking clues from others in this discussion - we could develop a grand plan to reuse the Cox (my idea or some modifications) now, but go ahead and pursue the Streetcar as part of MAPS III - since a streetcar does not need a terminal building (it can just stop right at the street in front, as it will likely do anyway). We could easily have Commuter Rail use Santa Fe for now, as I'm sure passenger loads and even CR service will be small at first. But once OKC achieves other milestones (convention center, new arena), then we could implement more phases of the Intermodal facility - eventually reusing the front Myriad facade area. Having such a phased plan and a running streetcar and commuter rail uses actually in-operation might actually free up transit/rail dollars from the Feds and State; making the reuse project more feasible. Also, by having the intermodal going later - we could tie it to a TRUE Metropolitan MAPS; maybe MAPS 4 or 5 would be having support from the entire metro area and ACOG essentially taking over transit (and not the city of OKC anymore).

The beauty of my idea is we build the best streetcar system that we can NOW. We don't need a building for streetcar and (for now) we could use Santa Fe for any startup Commuter Rail. We can use the $10M to develop full plans to reuse the Myriad, get all designs and plans in place (shovel ready) - so that once Streetcar builds rail ridership and Commuter Rail and rail transit in general becomes the lifeblood of metro OKC (hence demand for it), then we can really build the intermodal terminal reusing part of the myriad.

By designing it now but building it later, we could 1) have much more funds (and remove the excuse the Feds always have, that OKC isn't a transit city [provided we prove ourselves 'today' with the new streetcar and CR startups]), 2) possibly make it part of the Metropolitan MAPS (more money/investment available), and 3) have a potential lower overall cost by reusing part of the Myriad the public had already invested with MAPS I.

By the way, I don't want to scare people about a new arena - my idea wouldn't be to build a new Ford Center, but rather a smaller replacement to the Cox; say 12,000 seats to be used exclusively for the minor league and collegiate clubs in the city. Something in the $30-$50M range (using Ford's initial $89M cost as a baseline). Also, by reclaiming the Myriad Arena land - we could recoup some of the cost to these project's overall cost. ...

anyways - that was my thoughts, and I think it is what OKC should do. Don't go small time just because we only have $10M now. Design for the future, put together a plan to phase things in, and build the streetcar as best as we can now - get it up and running, build ridership and support, implement startup Commuter Rail runs using Santa Fe for now, then once other milestones are made we can implement the shovel ready reclamation of the myriad and turn it into our intermodal that would be the envy of all cities. ...

I think the tunnel under the tracks leads to where the canal ends. I think a great idea is to use the Santa Fe station as the initial hub by expanding it and building another bi level entrance to it on the bricktown side so it can be accessed from the canal. A better glass covered and walled loading area would be good. This would be the first step maybe mirroring the exterior of the south side of the Santa Fe station on the north. If we need to expand the amount of passenger tracks we can then use the eastern track and build another covered loading area. Then when we need to expand further we can build a covered or enclosed walkway across Reno to the u-haul parking lot with a tunnel and/or upper crosswalk to get to the building. This could house the taxis, buses and car rental. There should be enough space for a large parking garage eventually. And maybe even room across reno on the eastern side of the tracks for even more expansion.

I think the tunnel under the tracks leads to where the canal ends. I think a great idea is to use the Santa Fe station as the initial hub by expanding it and building another bi level entrance to it on the bricktown side so it can be accessed from the canal. A better glass covered and walled loading area would be good. This would be the first step maybe mirroring the exterior of the south side of the Santa Fe station on the north. If we need to expand the amount of passenger tracks we can then use the eastern track and build another covered loading area. Then when we need to expand further we can build a covered or enclosed walkway across Reno to the u-haul parking lot with a tunnel and/or upper crosswalk to get to the building. This could house the taxis, buses and car rental. There should be enough space for a large parking garage eventually. And maybe even room across reno on the eastern side of the tracks for even more expansion.

Dennis, this exactly the type of "multi-phase" and reasoned approach to "building out." There is a linear area skirting EK Gaylord on both sides of the tracks. Through the use of people movers or moving sidewalks, you could essentially "stretch" a transit campus out over time and as needed. Not unlike an airport terminal. The attractiveness of direct access to the Water Taxi and pedestrian connection is impressive.

It is my personal opinion out of the many conversations that I have heard that the Cox facility is going nowhere. It adds additional square feet for smaller conventions, increases our scoring when event planners review our overall available square footage, will continue to serve as our existing convention center while the other one is built, and undeniably played a big role in us being able to handle the Big 12. It is a structurally strong building in good shape. That's not to say that it couldn't be demolished 10 - 20 years from now to make room for something else, but the need for that much track space assumes to much. The Cox garage however could be a taxi hub, car rental, or other small vehicle area.

Project 180 will narrow EK Gaylord by two lanes. The additional space could potentially provide us the ability to place the streetcar platform at the very front door of the facility or in a central median.

Regarding Federal funding, most transit systems are financed with Federal funds. Our $130 million investment will definitely go a long way to providing a "match" that is often the obstacle to applying. However, federal funds would probably be directed to streetcar expansion or a commuter line proper. One final note on this, earmarks are still the prevalent way that such projects are "escorted" to the front of the line. Assuming the Republicans are successful in the midterms, Jim Imhoff would re-assume a ranking leadership position and would probably be a in a position to assist with this process.

$10 million dollars can a go a great distance in providing is something today. It should be part of a long term plan. It should be part of a "systematic" approach to reestablishing rail transit. However, how far in the future do you plan for?

I think the tunnel under the tracks leads to where the canal ends. I think a great idea is to use the Santa Fe station as the initial hub by expanding it and building another bi level entrance to it on the bricktown side so it can be accessed from the canal. A better glass covered and walled loading area would be good. This would be the first step maybe mirroring the exterior of the south side of the Santa Fe station on the north. If we need to expand the amount of passenger tracks we can then use the eastern track and build another covered loading area. Then when we need to expand further we can build a covered or enclosed walkway across Reno to the u-haul parking lot with a tunnel and/or upper crosswalk to get to the building. This could house the taxis, buses and car rental. There should be enough space for a large parking garage eventually. And maybe even room across reno on the eastern side of the tracks for even more expansion.

stdennis....I love that idea, also this would use up those parking lots. I know that paved area just east of the tracks, where the canal begins has a useless feel to it. I rarely see people in this area and it has one of the best views into bricktown, overlooking the canal with the bricktown ballpark as the backdrop.

One of the great hub design opportunities provided by having an elevated terminal facility is that any or all of the space under the terminal can be opened up for any number of purposes. A primary streetcar stop can be located directly under the terminal allowing for direct passenger transfer via stairs or escalators to the platforms above. An arched one-hundred foot opening can link the CBD on the west with Bricktown on the east, providing a pedestrian corridor and transit passenger access to the water taxis. Tunnels can be lengthend or added providing connections to other hub facilities, such as a parking garage or primary bus transfer facility located nearby. And a primary passenger platform for the elevated terminal can be extended and become an elevated pedestrian walkway connecting to certain buildings in the CBD or Bricktown. There is certainly tremendous potential to not just have an acceptable hub, but to develop one that is a unique and outstanding facility showcasing the City.

Hutch, you have some fantastic ideas, and you have obviously put much thought into the possibilities.

Welcome to Okctalk too.

I posted this pic back in December... this is a rendering of a station proposed in Baltimore. Our Santa Fe area could easily mimic something like this.
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/hub.jpg

Hutch, you have some fantastic ideas, and you have obviously put much thought into the possibilities.

Welcome to Okctalk too.

Marion Hutchison is probably "the citizen hub expert." He and OnTrac have been working on this for years. Marion also serves on our Hub Committee.

Just for fun... Santa Fe with elements of some european stations pasted on top.... not proposing tearing down the existing building... my idea with this is a glass 'umbrella' covering the historic building.
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/SantaFe-1.jpg

Thanks for the welcome!

I certainly don't claim to be a hub expert. And I won't claim credit for many of my suggestions. Most of what I know came from research of others technical information and discussions with real experts. However, as Jeff is quite aware, I do believe in sharing what I know. That's what I like about the discussions that take place here. A lot of good minds sharing a lot of good ideas. By getting it all out on the table we're much more likely to end up with the winning solutions.

Here is a proposed station along Chicago's elevated rail system.

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/CGSKETCH2.jpg

Nice!

Just for fun... Santa Fe with elements of some european stations pasted on top.... not proposing tearing down the existing building... my idea with this is a glass 'umbrella' covering the historic building.
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/SantaFe-1.jpg

I think the entire loading platform is going to have to be enclosed. No one is going to wait for a train in 20 degree weather with a 30 mph wind.

I think the entire loading platform is going to have to be enclosed. No one is going to wait for a train in 20 degree weather with a 30 mph wind.

That could be quite spectacular and beneficial. TAP Architecture is the architectural consultant on this project. They are a sub for Jacobs.

Marion found this. It is interesting that this came out during the Conference of Mayors in Oklahoma City


High-Speed Rail Will Spur Growth in Hub Cities, Says Mayors Report

By GAYATHRI VAIDYANATHAN of Greenwire
Published: June 14, 2010

Billions of dollars of new business and tens of thousands of jobs will flow to four hub cities -- Los Angeles, Chicago, Orlando and Albany, N.Y. -- where plans for major high-speed rail networks are located, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Their report, released in Oklahoma City today, is the first attempt to put numbers on the widely held belief that high-speed rail can stimulate local economies and act as a driver of growth. The Obama administration has invested $8 billion in federal stimulus money to create 13 high-speed rail corridors.

The benefits of traveling between 110 and 220 miles per hour will mean better connectivity, shorter travel times and new development around train stations, according to the report. The changes will create 150,000 new jobs and some $19 billion in new businesses by 2035.

"In these difficult economic times, these economic development and jobs creation numbers are huge for central Florida," said Buddy Dyer, mayor of Orlando.

The rail network will spur tourism, give businesses a wider pool of workers to choose from and help grow technology clusters in cities, said Steve Fitzroy, director of operations for the Economic Development Research Group, which conducted the study, during a phone interview.

"It is a game changer with how people envision the city; people see the city in new ways," Fitzroy said.

Albany, which is a political center in New York but not well-connected to the metropolitan area, will be pulled into New York City's economic core, said Fitzroy. A high-speed rail link connecting Albany to New York City, Syracuse and places as far off as Montreal have been proposed at various points by state legislators.

If the network does goes up, the report states that it would create $2.5 billion in new business in Albany and would add 21,000 jobs. It would increase gross regional product, a measure of the size of the local economy, by $1.4 billion. The train station would spur development, with new additions, hotels and other mixed-use projects coming up in the area, said Fitzroy.

But the Northeast network is furthest from being built, according to Oliver Hauck, CEO of Siemens AG, which sponsored the report. The Germany-based manufacturing giant is looking to expand its U.S. operations to include high-speed rail. It has already bought property adjacent to its current Sacramento plant to produce high-speed rail cars, according to Hauck.

"Our expectations are rather high," he said. "We are trying to do everything to support the departments of transportation in the states and we expect that Florida will be the first to go into operation."

The Florida high-speed rail system is closest to completion, with the first phase of construction connecting Orlando and Tampa at 168 miles per hour to be finished by 2015, Dyer said. The state received $1.25 billion in stimulus money, which should help it pay the relatively small bill of $3.5 billion for 86 miles of tracks.

Since the state had already secured the right of way to create a track network dedicated to passenger rail, the price tag of construction for phase 1 is relatively cheap. Phase 2 will require $8 billion in comparison.

So far, Florida has received $65 million, which is the largest amount of funding that has been actually dealt out in the country so far, said Dyer.

Hauck of Siemens Mobility said he expects orders for phase 1 to be placed in 15 months and completed in 36 months.

Completion of all phases of the hub, which would eventually connect to Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Palm Beach and other areas, would create $2.9 billion per year in new business, a growth of $1.7 billion per year in gross regional product and 27,500 new jobs, according to the report.

A Los Angeles high-speed rail system that connects the city to San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento and other cities would create $7.6 billion per year in new business, the report says. It would also increase gross regional product by $4.3 billion and create 55,000 jobs.

A Chicago high-speed rail network connecting to Minneapolis, St. Louis and other areas would create $6.1 billion per year in new business, according to the report. This includes a $3.6-billion-per-year increase in gross regional product and 42,000 new jobs.

The numbers are comparable to the economic revitalization seen in Europe and Asia when they got their high-speed rail systems, Hauck said.

"We are planning for the future," said Fitzroy of the Economic Development Research Group. "We have to be competitive on a global scale and be able to move from city to city without relying on fossil fuels."

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/14/14greenwire-high-speed-rail-will-spur-growth-in-hub-cities-65815.html?scp=1&sq=High-Speed%20Rail%20Will%20Spur%20Growth%20June%2014&st=cse

That has nothing to do with OKC... does it?

That has nothing to do with OKC... does it?

We are a designated/recognized high speed corridor. Also, the Mayors Conference was held here this past June and there was a "break-out" meeting from which this article was generated. ODoT is actively and continuing to pursue funding even though we did not receive fund son the first round.

While the article is specifically about the economic benefits of High-Speed Rail, much of the same applies to the development of local and regional light-rail and commuter rail systems. That underlying message about the substantial economic benefits associated with the development of rail transit systems in general is an important one for the public and our political and business leaders to continue to hear and understand. It is a message that can't be repeated enough as we try to move forward with the development of a rail transit system for the Oklahoma City metropolitan area.

HSR is worthless unless you have local rail to connect to.

Kerry, I think most would agree with you however most are also working to get the commuter rail and streetcar / light rail to fill that gap. No one is saying that it stands alone. At least that is not my take on the conversation.

How long before we can begin to see ANYTHING tangible with respect to MAPS3? Not complaining, just curious.

HSR is worthless unless you have local rail to connect to.

Why?

While I can see a benefit if both exist, why is it useless if local doesn't? That's like saying you have to have small planes or helicopters to get from the airport to your final destination. Obviously you don't. You get another means of transport (bus, taxi, rental etc).

How long before we can begin to see ANYTHING tangible with respect to MAPS3? Not complaining, just curious.

If the original MAPS is any indicator, about 5 years (passed in 93, Ballpark opened in 98). We saw construction well before that, but the completed project was years away. Similar story with MAPS 4 Kids, in not mistaken (at least a couple of years).

Although some "lesser" projects that are "shovel ready" (Trails) may get done sooner. There are time delays in the bigger projects as most were in the concept phase pre-vote. Nothing finalized on design etc (they are just starting that process).

The Park is scheduled roughly in 2014 (within 2 years after the relocated I-40 opens). But again, don't think we have seen anything final on its design etc. The Park's parameters were formally set by the Council recently.

If you are asking specifically about anything tangible on the Streetcars (subject of the thread) the latest quote I read (been a while now) was 10 years?? I know UrbanPioneer will take issue with the 10 years remark, but think he even said if they were ordered today (and we are a long way from doing that) it takes 2 years for delivery??? Routes haven't been selected, tracks haven't gone in etc etc.

Why?

While I can see a benefit if both exist, why is it useless if local doesn't? That's like saying you have to have small planes or helicopters to get from the airport to your final destination. Obviously you don't. You get another means of transport (bus, taxi, rental etc).

I guess if you are looking at HSR replacing a airplane then I see your point. But I don't think that is the intent of HSR. HSR is designed to be part of a cohesive mass transit system. If it was up to me HSR would only make stops at stations that were connected to a local rail system. If Norman wants a stop on an HSR line they better put a trolley through downtown Norman or something.

Aviation is the largest mass transit system ever devised -- albeit, private. You can get to any point on the globe within 24 hours of when you left. And most of the time within half of that time. There will be a percentage of replacement of aviation by HSR.

HSR will replace most flights that last less than 2 hours, unless they are connecting flights. But then HSR to compete with the family car. Transit is a crowded market.

Kerry does have a point about getting the HSR cart before the rail transit system horse. And it applies equally to building a commuter rail system without first having a local light-rail or modern streetcar system already in place. The main culprit in getting the cart before the horse, whether it be HSR or commuter rail, is often due to the sudden availability of federal money and the common knee-jerk reaction of states and cities to try to quickly get their share, whether or not they are really prepared for it.

It's the middle and upper-middle class who predominate modern rail transit ridership, and unfortunately some of those have a real aversion to riding buses. If they can drive to a local station or a park and ride...take a commuter train to downtown...and then take light rail to within reasonable walking distance of their destination, they'll do it. If they have to transfer to a bus or take a taxi or walk a long way, they'll just drive instead.

It's difficult enough as it is to muster the public, political and business support to initiate a rail transit system. The last thing you want to do is initiate a system that falls short of expected ridership because you rushed and got the cart before the horse. That can cause some real support problems for expanding or even continuing the system.

Salt Lake City had their TRAX light-rail system in place before they started developing their Frontrunner commuter rail system, which has been very successful. Denver first established a successful local light-rail system, and now they are developing the FasTracks commuter rail system. The State of New Mexico on the other hand built the Rail Runner commuter rail system first using federal money and without first developing supporting local light-rail in Albuquerque or Santa Fe. Recently they have experienced some ridership issues as some of the early patrons decided it was easier to drive their car than to try to figure out how to get to where they were going once they got off the train.

We're fortunate to be able to fund and develope a local light-rail streetcar system in advance of commuter rail. If we get the the streetcar system design and hub location right, when the commuter trains get going the entire system should be a success. And once the whole system is in place, we'll be primed for successfully integrating intercity HSR.

The good thing is that the time involved in securing the funding and manufacturing of the High Speed trains etc, will provide ample time to get these systems in place prior to it really being an issue. We know that even if the surprised all of us and ordered the street cars next year, that it would be a few years to get them manufactured and delivered, plus the time of getting the lines installed and the Hub located and built. So the earliest that we could ever hope to see the street car system go online with its first 7 miles of track would likely be 4 years, and likely I would expect it further out than that. I really hope I am wrong and would love to be surprised with some serious initiative taking by our local leaders in placing the order for the Street cars in advance, but will not hold my breath.

Of all MAPS III projects - the street car has to come first. It is a development anchor and few people are going to invest in new downtown housing/hotels/offices until they know where the rails are going to go. Once rail is laid development will be attracted to it.

As of right now, most streetcar manufacturers can produce cars in 3 - 4 years. The average engineering design process and resulting construction period is 3 - 5 Years.

Arguably, the most pressing reason regarding finalizing a design and pressing for the start of the Project is to capture direct savings in the 2nd half of Project 180. Project 180 is making as many provisions as they can without knowing an exact route. Knowing exactly where it will be going would certainly direct resources more effectively and benefit both projects.

It sounds as if the city now has the Streetcar route as the first order of Maps3 business. Especially with the Project 180 putting extra pressure on getting a route finalized.

Am I correct making this assumption?

keep in mind, Salt Lake got their TRAX due to support from Oklahoma's very own Senator Istook. And also SLC had got the Olympics, so they wanted some pet Pork projects to show off (and probably legitimately transport visitors, what little of them there were). ....

You dont need light rail in order for Commuter Rail to work. We had Commuter Rail here in Seattle for many years before we got light rail (just last year). Don't mix or confuse the two. Commuter rail is for commuters, has very few stops and the stops it has are usually very large parn n rides or city centers. Therefore, CR doesn't need density, it connects communities. Light rail transit is a step below that with more frequent stops and generally in city center and higher density areas. Streetcars are a step below that, with very frequent stops and usually streetcars help build density. OKC does need streetcars, because it will help densify the city center and inner city while also connecting key employment and entertainment centers in OKC's rather spread out inner city.

OKC doesn't have the density in the inner city to justify light rail. There is NO reason for OKC to need a light rail transit before or even to support Commuter Rail. Commuter Rail would just transport COMMUTERS from the suburbs into downtown, just like it does in every other city. However, I could see the need for streetcars in conjunction or shortly after a Commuter Rail implementation (and this mostly to funnel workers to and from downtown and the capitol, Saint Anthony, and Oklahoma Health Center. There might also need to be a Commuter Rail stop and a streetcar or bus shuttle network at 63rd Street to support that high employment and entertainment area too.

But an OKC light rail transit line would be a white elephant at this point, and maybe so for the next 30-40 years. ... until the density (residential, employment, entertainment destinations) become much more dense in the inner city.

Let's keep the dreams realistic and dont confuse the technology.

Agreed...I didn't mean to suggest OKC needed a DART or TRAX light rail system before commuter rail or even at all. My point was commuter rail systems are much more effective and embraced by the public if you have some form of modern street car or light rail system in place that is connected to the hub and provides for transfer service to get riders closer to their final destination in and around the CBD. OKC's existing rail network is laid out well for a commuter rail system. We don't need to spend $2 billion building light rail between Norman and OKC and Edmond when we can develop effective commuter rail transit at a fraction of the cost.

My only question would be how amenable the Santa Fe is to allowing commuter rail on their lines. I know they run a lot of trains north and south daily, and it seems to me as if rail traffic is increasing. Has commuter rail sharing lines with freight worked in other cities with lines as busy as this one?

The BNSF line does handle a lot of freight traffic. I don't have any information on how it compares to other commuter systems that share trackage with freight trains. I do know that the entire length of the BNSF line from Norman to Edmond would be double- tracked as part of a commuter rail system. That would be two main lines as well as third track siding areas for trains to pass. With that infrastructure, the relatively short distances the commuter trains would travel, and modern satellite tracking technology that is in use, I would imagine it would not be too difficult to coordinate commuter train schedules with significant freight volume to avoid traffic conflicts. As far as being amenable, you can be sure BNSF is already preparing for the that day to come. They are well aware of the fact that the OKC to Texas border portion of the line is part of an effort by the State of Oklahoma involving double-tracking, improved signalization and other upgrades as part of the development of that corridor for Emerging High-Speed Rail, as well as improved Amtrak service. Here's a clear indication of BNSF's thinkng. The City of Norman made the decision several years ago to build a grade-separated crossing where Robinson Street crosses the BSNF line. At that point there is a single main line and a siding track. Robinson will be reconstucted below-grade and pass under those rail lines. The designs were complete, funding authorized and approval given by BNSF a couple of years ago. The City was preparing to begin construction at the end of 2009, when BNSF contacted the City and told them they were now requiring the rail overpass to be widened to accomodate a third track. I don't think its a coincidence that the change in design requirements by BNSF came at a time when ODOT was applying for federal HSR funding and ACOG was applying for federal TIGER grants to double track our future commuter rail system. However, to get to the point of actually obtaining approval from BNSF to operate a commuter rail system will require extensive negotiations and certain financial commitments, including costs for infrastructure improvements and standby time charges among other things.

Keep in mind that if it is true commuter rail the trains don't run all day. There will probably be 2 or 3 trains inbound in the morning and 2 or 3 trains outbound in the afternoon.

http://www.acerail.com/ridingace/trainschedules.aspx

Here is a sample schedule.


Train 110 leaves Norman at 6AM, Train 210 leaves Edmond at 6AM

Train 110 and Train 210 Arrive in downtown OKC at 6:30AM.

Train 110 arrives in Edmond at 7AM, Train 210 arrives in Norman at 7AM

Engines moved to opposite end of trains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Train 110 (Norman northbound) becomes Train 220 (the second Edmond southbound)
Train 210 (Edmond southbound) becomes Train 120 (the second Norman northbound)

Train 120 leaves Norman at 7AM, Train 220 leaves Edmond at 7AM

Train 120 and 220 arrive in downtown OKC at 7:30AM

Train 120 arrives in Edmond at 8AM, Train 220 arrives in Norman at 8AM

Engines moved to opposite end of trains.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Train 120 (second Norman northbound) becomes Train 230 (the third Edmond southbound)
Train 220 (second Edmond southbound) becomes Train 130 (the third Norman northbound)

Train 130 leaves Norman at 8AM, Train 230 leaves Edmond at 8AM

Train 130 and 230 arrive in downtown OKC at 8:30AM

Train 130 arrives in Edmond at 9AM, Train 230 arrives in Norman at 9AM

Engines moved to opposite end of trains and wait for afternoon schedule using train numbers 610, 620, 630, 710, 720, and 730

When I lived in Norman, I took the #24 bus into downtown everyday. There are three buses that leave Norman to Downtown every morning... and every seat is occupied trust me. We would need at least three commuter trains to handle those passenger and the surge of new riders that would undoubtedly choose a train over a bus.

How long before we can begin to see ANYTHING tangible with respect to MAPS3? Not complaining, just curious.

This very question is the whole reason I hardly visit this thread. It's all based on speculation and I do hope that when we start seeing concrete evidence of The Modern Streetcar and Commuter Transit Project in MAPS 3, that we'll have an actual thread with articles and pictures!

:tiphat:

very good point Kerry. Most Commuter Rail systems run only one way, into the center city in the morning and out of the center city at night.

That's how it is in Seattle, Trains start in Tacoma in the South and Everett in the North and run into Seattle. I think there is also a train or two that run from Seattle to Tacoma in the morning, but downtown Tacoma is a much smaller employment center than downtown Seattle (obviously, haha). Trains run the other way in the late afternoon.

Only the biggest cities (Chicago, in particular), has Commuter Rail trains running both ways AND all through the day and night. Chicago's Metra is really like another subway network, alongside the actual L.

Like Kerry mentioned, I'd imagine OKC's CR system would be one or two trains to start, one hour apart perhaps to cover the morning and afternoon rush. As more passengers come on board, then more trains could be added. Maybe the city could also run a "Lunch" schedule, have one train going the opposite directions.

But I think CR in OKC is definitely doable and could/should begin asap (particularly the Guthrie/Edmond-Downtown and Purcell/Norman-Downtown N-S routes). Interesting question, would the Norman-Downtown route run into downtown in the morning, out of downtown at night? Or would it be a line from the beginning, that would have trains go in both directions (but just in the rush hours)? Also, the MWC/Tinker - Downtown; would it also be a both direction rush route from the start, too?

Interesting questions. .... :)

ut I think CR in OKC is definitely doable and could/should begin asap (particularly the Guthrie/Edmond-Downtown and Purcell/Norman-Downtown N-S routes). Interesting question, would the Norman-Downtown route run into downtown in the morning, out of downtown at night? Or would it be a line from the beginning, that would have trains go in both directions (but just in the rush hours)? Also, the MWC/Tinker - Downtown; would it also be a both direction rush route from the start, too?

Interesting questions. .... :)

If you look at my sample schedule there would be trains running from downtown OKC in the morning on the half hour going back to Norman and Edmond. If you don't reuse each train ever hour then you have to buy more trains. I looked at the ACE line from Stockton to San Jose and they make three runs in each direction. Due to the distance, all three trains are on the tracks at the same time so they can't be reused. CalTrain which goes from San Jose to San Francisco does recycle each train so they have service going north and south. If we didn't do inbound and outbound service then it would take 6 trains to do what 2 can do using my method but deliver only half the number of trips. I prefer my method.

I'm really liking Denver's Union Station Plan as a model for Santa Fe...
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/Junk/Denver-Union-Station.png

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/Junk/Denver-Union-Station-Site-Plan.png

yes, it is a good plan but look at the area involved. There's not that much room at Santa Fe.

Well the train platform at Santa Fe would be up top on the elevated section. There is room up there... they are actually five tracks up there. I made this from about the same height as the Denver aerial.
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/Junk/SantaFePlatform.jpg

if I recall correct, Denver's doesn't integrate bus but it does integrate Light Rail and Amtrak. It might also do CR now, but didn't when I lived there.

So once again, Santa Fe would get us RAIL (like it already does) but I don't see where it could be truly intermodal given the lack of space. I could see the streetcar coming to the front/street, with Commuter Rail, Amtrak, future HSR, and future state rail having platforms aka Denver with Freight by-pass tracks. But where would future light rail come and also transit bus, local and intercity bus?

But again - yes, I can see Santa Fe giving us a start and could even be done with the $10M budget plus if the state/feds could match. We could build the patforms to the elevated section and lay track, and I'd hope we could build some parking garages in the existing lots, with retail on the first level.

Maybe we would just have separate rail and bus terminals in downtown OKC. ... It is NICE to have an urban build-up area with this 'problem' I admit. :D

This is santa fe station with all the buildings from the denver proposal minus the two in the middle that look like hotels. plus another for bus and another that could be a garage or lightrail... the two sides of reno could be connected on two levels one above ground and one at track level. plus a regular ped crossing at street level. its a hack job and would be better but i want the individual buildings to be seen. I also added onto santefe by mirroring the other side.


622

looks good st

Im not sure how realistic, but I think splitting the functions across reno could work very well.

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

COX is going to have to come down. It is the logical solution.

No it's not..

No it's not..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something like this:
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/4200/airportxx.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2009/12/convention-center-search-fixing-cox-it.html

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

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

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

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

http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2009/12/convention-center-search-fixing-cox-it.html


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

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