Officials debate saving railyards vs. altering I-40

[OKCisOK4me]

Kerry, you should just make that your signature.

I know, I was thinking about asking Kerry if I could borrow it for my signature so Mr. Elmore could see it more and more!

[betts]

As I was driving today, I was thinking about London: Kensington Park, Hyde Park, St. James Park, Green Park. Then I thought about Paris: Le Bois de Boulogne. Without those green spaces, those cities would be less attractive places. That's where people who live in cities go to unwind, to gather. People don't go to Victoria Station to sightsee, nor do they go to the Gare(s) in Paris to do so. Oklahoma City needs be more like Paris and London, New York, Boston and Chicago, San Francisco. We need a great park. We need things to lure people to live downtown. We need to make it a walking city. That is what makes a city great.

[Kerry]

Feel free to use my 4 undeniable facts. Heck, share them with your friends. I didn't make them part of my signature because this is the only thread they need to appear in.

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station.
Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed.
Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down.

[bombermwc]

So 2 or 3 lines qualifies Union Station as a "great rail yard" huh? How in the world is that? Any line in America can be turned into 2 or 3 lines at the drop of a hat. There is absolutely nothing special about that yard, and stop trying to take things out of context to make it fit your agenda. Buffalo, OKC is not. You're not going to find a city that fits our situation because every city has it's own unique situation. You can site study after study for other cities, but it doesnt matter....they aren't OKC. They don't have our situation and therefore their studies don't apply....at all.

I think I'm going to start following Kerry's model here...

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station.
Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed.
Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down.

[CaptDave]

After reading this thread and the passionate arguments on both sides, I started some independent (admittedly amateur) research in an attempt to find a workable solution. Both sides have merit, but neither are 100% correct in my opinion. I drove down to the Union Station area yesterday to get a better feel for the possibilities and limitations of Union Station.

As far as OKC Union Station ever being a viable intermodal center I still say that really should not be considered for numerous reasons. If Union Station is valued for its ability to handle expedited freight, why limit the possible volume that could be handled in OKC, the "Crossroads of America"?

Here is a link to what Huntsville AL has established at their airport: [URL="http://www.hsvairport.org/iic/index.html"]/

With NAFTA and the rail, air, and highway infrastructure already in place here this could be a concept OKC should explore. There is plenty of available land adjacent to Will Rogers Airport with rail access and easy interstate access. Establishing a Free Trade Zone at Will Rogers would be a huge boost for OKC. It also would nicely dovetail into that huge multimodal transportation corridor being planned along I35. Goods could be cheaply transported by rail from the Gulf and Pacific ports and high value freight flown in - then it is distributed to the western and midwestern population centers by the cheapest and most efficient method - Denver, Minneapolis, DFW, Chicago, St Louis, etc. If making OKC a transportation hub is desired - think big and do not limit the volume and mode and transport by putting it at the Union Station location.

I think the future use of Union Station should focus solely on its ability to handle passenger traffic - and not necessarily long distance rail passengers but regional rail mass transit traffic. To try to shoehorn too much into Union Station would be a classic case of "jack of all trades, master of none."

Next is the issue of rail mass transit in the OKC metro. I think it will come and is needed. The adage of "If you build it, they will come" certainly applies. But being a fiscal conservative, I don't like throwing the tax payers money down rat holes. As betts has stated, some real analysis is required before undertaking this project - research and analysis that I agree with Mr Elmore ODOT is not capable of doing objectively or competently.

I think it would be prudent for the metro cities who say they want rail transit options to put up of shut up for this research and analysis. I think we could conduct a two to three year trial run by leasing some passenger equipment to test the viability of the North South Edmond to Norman corridor. It would give the metro governments a chance to gauge the real interest in rail mass transit. Of course, ODOT's and maybe even COPTA's role should be minimized given their history of ignoring and/or purposely eliminating rail transit as a viable option. The trial must be given a reasonable chance to succeed and gauge the true interest of the most likely "early adopters" of a regional rail transit system. The stops would be minimalist platforms placed at strategic locations along the existing BNSF line. If sufficient interest is demonstrated, then the region could begin real planning for a "DART" style light rail system.

This is where Union Station could be used as a mass transit or even regional rail focal point. Not the primary multimodal center because I have come to agree that it is not the best location for that, but one that could tie together light rail (like DART) and a modern streetcar system that would replace the initial bus service. Union Station would be a stop for two or three modes of transit - requiring space for one line of "heavy" rail and a couple for the "DART" light rail in the present yard. The modern streetcar system takes up a smaller footprint and could be located in the area where the unnecessary freight docks are now. Union Station would be a stop on the DART line running to the airport - if you have ever been to Chicago O'Hare, being able to get on the El and riding it all the way downtown is the only way to go. I'm not saying OKC will ever have the population density Chicago has, but I believe we will see convention and tourist traffic increase. Being able to ride a clean rail system directly from Will Rogers to the CDB, Bricktown, and C2S would be a sure sign OKC is a progressive growing city.

Additionally since I agree with betts the aesthetics of the proposed Core to Shore park are very important, I think the rail lines should be below grade. Union Station already has a tunnel leading to the old passenger platforms and it could be used to move passengers down to the below grade rails. The streetcar system would be at street level obviously and would run around the perimeter of the central park and quickly transport people to the CBD and Bricktown. It could also be expanded to cross the river once development begins after completion of the C2S.

Betts has stated she would prefer light rail located in the "Boulevard" that will replace the Crosstown - bad idea I think. It would be like running rail down the Champs Elysses and equally as bad as not building the proposed C2S Central Park. Modern street cars could cross the new primary CBD thoroughfare, but running them down the middle of what is sure to become a high traffic street is asking for all kinds of problems.

I have come to the conclusion that OKC may not require a single "hub" for its future transit system. Rather, I think there will be 5 - 7 smaller multimodal interfaces at strategic locations in the metro.

I am working on a real map of what I think an OKC transit system could (should?) look like. I've got a couple weeks here at home and this issue has captured my interest. I'll try to get posted in the next couple of days a first crack at a potential OKC Metro rail transit system could be. I know there was a "Fixed Guideway Study" done a while back but I cannot find much about their conclusions. I had hoped the OKC.gov site would have it much like they have the C2S info. If anyone has a summary of the FGS recommendations I'd be interested in a link.

I apologize for the length of this post - I hope we can agree that we can indeed have our cake and eat it too - if we remove the emotion and really work at finding solutions to this isue. Unfortunately, I don't think the relocation of I-40 will stop nor change so we must deal with the restraints imposed by a very imperfect solution that really could have been done better.

[betts]

Actually, Capt. Dave, I like your plan very, very much. It's a wee bit of a compromise for me, but one I could definitely live with. I still think the location for light rail is too far south to be as convenient as the boulevard. However, if it truly becomes a Champs Elysees style road, you are correct that it shouldn't be there. And, I'm more interested in the main light rail/trolley or bus station being located at the intersection of the north-south/east-west lines than it's actual distance south of Reno or the boulevard.

Perhaps even heavy passenger rail should leave from the airport. People are accustomed to going to the airport anyway, taxis and other forms of transportation are already set up there and it would allow people to link air and rail. If there's a light rail link to downtown, people who want to go there can even eschew taxis. If we're going to have really high speed trains for intercontinental travel (which I think is the only practical form), we'll need new rail anyway, especially if we use something like the TGV. Even the Shinkansen has its' own lines, I believe.

[jbrown84]

That's a very good plan Capt. Dave.

[angel27]

I like it too.

[ophitke38]

We don't. Some kind of rail line going through there is one thing, but ELMORE wants freaking Penn Station smack in the middle of a park, which ultimately means no park. It wont happen if he gets his way.

No, you're misunderstanding how it would turn out. The park would be north of the Union Station, instead of south of the new highway. Union Station would be an attractive buffer. Imagine it at one end of the green space, with the downtown skyscrapers (including Devon Tower) at the north end. The spring Arts Festival would finally have a decent venue, along with a multitude of other uses. The park would be quieter than under ODOT's plan, which has 175,000 semi trucks and cars per day flying by at 70 miles an hour.

[jbrown84]

Well you seem to think that there's some possibility that we would have a Union Station multimodal hub with NO interstate. No chance in h*ll.

A major rail/freight hub WILL destroy the aesthetics of the park.

[betts]

Well you seem to think that there's some possibility that we would have a Union Station multimodal hub with NO interstate. No chance in h*ll.

A major rail/freight hub WILL destroy the aesthetics of the park.

And the entire surrounding area. Bye bye residential development. Who in Oklahoma City is going to want to live in a neighborhood with trucks, buses and trains rumbling by. No one who has to. Making Union Station a major rail/freight hub would completely derail (pardon the pun) Core to Shore. We've already got freight south of the Oklahoma River. That seems to be where the railroads want it, since they've abandoned the line south of Union Station, and that's where it should stay, IMO.

Not to mention the fact that making Union Station a major rail/freight hub would completely ruin the aesthetics of the station. It's a beautiful building. I don't want to see it ruined by being surrounded by warehouses, bus lanes and parking garages, trucks pulled around it and parked near it, those lovely chain link fences surrounding concrete parking lots. Isn't that what we have already, and it's butt uuuuugly.

[sgray]

Here's a thought. Kind of like CaptDave was suggesting, who says that Union Station couldn't be, at some point, used as one of those "mini hubs" for the downtown area. Or some part of the big picture eventually.

If you look at the fact that shipping and receiving for OKC has located themselves out of the congestion of downtown, that should trigger an indicator--it is not the best place for a hub.

I mean, there's only so much expansion there...

As much as I wish we could use that cool facility, in the long run I think it would be best to plan for alternatives.


The layout and function of OKC when that facility was built was different than it is now.

[hoya]

Here's a thought. Kind of like CaptDave was suggesting, who says that Union Station couldn't be, at some point, used as one of those "mini hubs" for the downtown area. Or some part of the big picture eventually.

If you look at the fact that shipping and receiving for OKC has located themselves out of the congestion of downtown, that should trigger an indicator--it is not the best place for a hub.

I mean, there's only so much expansion there...

As much as I wish we could use that cool facility, in the long run I think it would be best to plan for alternatives.


The layout and function of OKC when that facility was built was different than it is now.

Exactly. If you want a major multimodal rail hub in this city, there are lots of other places to put it. It's not like we DON'T have empty land coming out of our ears. There's no reason it has to be at Union Station.

[Saberman]

Just to throw this in, there already is a free trade zone at the airport. This was designated back in the 80's.

Great area to incorporate as a transportation zone. No homes, all industrial area.

[CaptDave]

Just to throw this in, there already is a free trade zone at the airport. This was designated back in the 80's.

Great area to incorporate as a transportation zone. No homes, all industrial area.

That is exactly why I suggested building the multimodal freight handling facility on some of that land around the airport. Huntsville AL has done just that with an intermodal rail yard on the airport grounds with taxiways and ramp space for freight aircraft. Given the short distance from I-40, it would be the perfect location for the type facility Tom supports for Union Station. I think Tom is thinking too small in his vision for a multimodal expedited freight handling facility in OKC and this is why I think Union Station is not a good location for that.

I strongly advocate using Union Station as a small hub for passenger traffic. One or two standard gage rail lines would be sufficient for Amtrak to stop there. I am still not sure there is sufficient space at the North South BNSF line to smoothly move standard rail traffic over to Union Station from the N-S lines. The majority of the traffic at Union Station would be light rail, street level trolleys, and buses.

Two light rail lines below grade (same as the relocated Crosstown) would nicely interface with the tunnels at Union Station. People could then move from the light rail system up through the station building where they could walk out into the C2S Central Park or hop onto a modern street car to the CBD. The buses and street cars could run behind (south side) the station since the freight handling area is really not necessary.

Now that I am back from my "vacation", I will get that map I promised showing my idea of what a COMET (great name Tom) Transit system for OKC could look like. I have to confess, the Fixed Guideway Study proposal is pretty good. I would realign and modify a few things, but it really isn't too bad.

I still maintain all of us can achieve our visions for OKC with the notable exception that I really do not believe Union Station is the right location for freight handling.

[betts]

The airport would be perfect for freight. That's such a brilliant idea. I'd eschew the buses at Union Station in favor of only trolleys, as I think you'll find that to run them often enough to satisfy passengers, you're not going to have many people riding per vehicle. There wouldn't be much traffic exiting at Union Station throughout the day. I think, at least until the Core to Shore area is really developed, which is a probably a significant number of years in the future, you'll find that even most of the east-west passengers won't want to get off at Union Station, unless they happen to work immediately north of it, as Bricktown and the Ford Center area would be a more sensible stop. Trolleys require less space and are more attractive, more in keeping with "the look" of Union Station, IMO. I don't think buses would be necessary for the forseeable future. Otherwise, I love your ideas. It's a bit of a compromise for me, but the end result is good for Oklahoma City, I can see.

[jbrown84]

Two light rail lines below grade (same as the relocated Crosstown) would nicely interface with the tunnels at Union Station. People could then move from the light rail system up through the station building where they could walk out into the C2S Central Park or hop onto a modern street car to the CBD. The buses and street cars could run behind (south side) the station since the freight handling area is really not necessary.

I like this idea, but I agree with betts. No buses. Unfortunately Tom will not live with compromise, so he will prattle on.

[bretthexum]

I like this idea, but I agree with betts. No buses. Unfortunately Tom will not live with compromise, so he will prattle on.

Oh please. Can't we have a discussion without snide comments like this?

[jbrown84]

Those of us on the other side of the argument have been willing to compromise. He has not.

[bretthexum]

Yes I agree, but people a shot at Elmore everytime they get a chance. I don't agree with him either but I admire his effort.

[betts]

There are snide comments coming from both sides of the argument. No one is an angel here.

[kevinpate]

The core (pardon the pun) is Tom and folks are interested in preserving intact all the land that is currently the railyard, in addition to the bldg and the adjoining tracks, for future use relating to rail. Others appear interested in the railyard becoming the C2S park.

It's not quite that simplistic, but with such opposite views on best use of the real estate, the lines are fairly sharp between what is seen as compromise. For the park folks, moving the new I-40 a short distance south is completely unacceptable because that allows railyard to remain a railyard. To the rail folks, killing off a railyard, when other cities struggle to reach a level of less availability than we are currently poised to thrash, doesn't seem anything beyond shortsighted.

And now, we return to another 20 pages of the thread

[Bobby H]

Intermodal freight rail yards consume a LOT of land. I think it would be a very bad idea to put something like that downtown. I agree 100% with the idea of locating that sort of thing near the airport. There's good highway access there too. We sure don't need lots of heavy semi-trucks pounding down the streets of downtown to reach an intermodal rail yard.

Most passenger rail stations in large cities are dedicated only to passenger rail service. I lived in New York City for 5 years and rode commuter trains out Penn Station and Grand Central frequently. If there was any kind of intermodal freight service happening at those stations I didn't see it. There's large rail yards elsewhere in metro NYC.

Here's another important thing to consider about Penn Station and Grand Central Station in NYC: much of their operations take place underground below street level. A major passenger rail station in OKC wouldn't have a dig and cover kind of construction.

Considering how ODOT spends more than $1 million per year on emergency repairs to the existing Crosstown Expressway, and considering the specter of a tragic bridge collapse like what happened on I-35W in Minneapolis, I believe it's a pretty urgent issue that the new I-40 Crosstown is completed as soon as possible.

If the Crosstown has to go back to the drawing board to be altered the project will be delayed for years to come. And that will be years of more chances for people to get injured or worse if a calamity happens with the old, crumbling existing freeway. New designs, a new EIS process and a reboot of construction plans does not happen fast at all.

[betts]

I just went and walked/drove the entire Core to Shore area again, looked at Union Station, drove around behind the UHaul building and the cotton gins and had some thoughts:

1. Comercial rail has absolutely no place north of the river
2. There is no east-west line running through Oklahoma City and the entire state of Oklahoma that connects with lines in any other states, so it's ridiculous to think we could be part
of a national intercontinental passenger rail line without major track construction. Tulsa or Dallas is actually better situated for this.
3. Were there to be major track construction for something like a high speed rail line, it would be ridiculous not to route it through the airport for a rail/air link for passengers.
4. Before determining where a multimodal station should be located, we need firm plans regarding where we're going to run light rail
5. We already have passenger travel south, with a proposed route north, so it would be crazy not to put the multimodal station on the already existing
working passenger line.
6. There is a lot of land immediately east and west of the Amtrak line south, south of Reno (especially if it is true that the cotton gins are potentially purchaseable) that could
be used to build a multimodal station. A new station could be built to our precise specifications and needs, with plans for expansion. Then, if we determine we need light rail
east and west, we could use Union Station for a stop.