OKC Regional Transit System

[mugofbeer]

RTA News: https://www.normantranscript.com/new...7de026da4.html

Does anyone think 4 stops in Norman is a bit much for commuter rail?



I think that'd be a max amount of stops for even light-rail...

I used to ride the Denver light rail downtown to a point within 3 blocks of my office. Unless the weather was bad, I stopped riding it most of the distance because there were 17 stops. As soon as the train got up a head of steam, it was already stopping again because RTD put stops at every mile street to catch feeder busses. While I understood the concept, it would have been better to re-route the busses towards downtown and have 4-5 fewer stops along the way. Only in bad winter weather when I knew the highway would be gridlocked did I ride the rail all the way in by the time I changed jobs to the suburbs.

Number of stops is a definite consideration. There should be fewer stops with the transit parking facilities directly next to the train stop for maximum convenience. I vote North Norman, downtown and Duck Pond at OU or a point slightly south of Lindsey.

[HOT ROD]

couldn't have said it better.

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

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

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

[Hutch]

Some very perceptive comments.

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

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

[OKC Guy]

Some very perceptive comments.

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

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

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

[HOT ROD]

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

As for the stations, I had proposed the following:

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

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

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

Hutch, any thoughts on this?

[SEMIweather]

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

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

[Mott]

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

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

[d-usa]

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

[HOT ROD]

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

[d-usa]

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

[Mott]

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

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

[BoulderSooner]

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

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

[jn1780]

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

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

[HOT ROD]

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

[d-usa]

But who bears the cost of a second bridge? Does ODOT pay for any of it? Would they have saved money by paying for a bigger bridge?

I’m not disagreeing that it would have made sense and that we lack that kind of foresight. But ODOT cares mostly about $.

[jn1780]

If we have learned anything after the Blvd fiasco is that you pretty much have to micromanaged ODOT if you want anything done the way you like it. You can't assume ODOT will do what's best for the city. If a second bridge gets built over I-235, their not paying for any of it.

[Urban Pioneer]

ODOT is basically the Highway Department. The idea that the agency is multi-modal or gives precedence to multi-modal thinking is laughable at best. They might be technically multi-modal but seemingly their entire focus is on road building.

I was actually at the City council presentation where ODOT representatives were directly asked about double-tracking BNSF. They said to City Council that they thought it was a good idea just to double-track it for freight traffic alone. That led to a broader conversation about triple-tracking for commuter rail. They basically withdrew from the discussion on the funds premise.

My problem with ODOT is that they have known about their own long term intention to not build out I-35 further. They have also known about the metro's desire for a Regional Transit System to be seriously planned for and considered. They never leveraged those desires, intentions, and in some cases direct requests to apply for multi-modal federal funding to do things beyond road building that would allow the region to grow strategically in the future.

[Urban Pioneer]

The one exception was in Tulsa where they applied for TIGER funds on the premise of a multi-modal design for a bridge. That was essentially to obtain the needed funds to build the road deck and to resolve freight issues. There are no meaningful plans for passenger rail there.

[hoya]

ODOT is basically the Highway Department. The idea that the agency is multi-modal or gives precedence to multi-modal thinking is laughable at best. They might be technically multi-modal but seemingly their entire focus is on road building.

I was actually at the City council presentation where ODOT representatives were directly asked about double-tracking BNSF. They said to City Council that they thought it was a good idea just to double-track it for freight traffic alone. That led to a broader conversation about triple-tracking for commuter rail. They basically withdrew from the discussion on the funds premise.

My problem with ODOT is that they have known about their own long term intention to not build out I-35 further. They have also known about the metro's desire for a Regional Transit System to be seriously planned for and considered. They never leveraged those desires, intentions, and in some cases direct requests to apply for multi-modal federal funding to do things beyond road building that would allow the region to grow strategically in the future.

Then it's time to replace the people in charge at ODOT.

[OKC Guy]

So who owns the train track/bridge over 235? And even though the train left the station (so to speak), would it be cheaper to build another track above the existing one but using the same bridge? Of course thats provided it can carry the extra weight if bridge is “overbuilt” spec wise. Although expensive that might be way less than a whole new extra bridge?

Its bad planning on many peoples part but regardless any modal model is decades away at best. Just to do anything from Edmond to Norman you are talking billions of dollars. And then east//west cities who are part of regional transit will not support it since their cities are left out. The regional rail is DOA imo due to bad prior planning and funding. Any tax would take a few decades to cover costs and that would eliminate ability to do other projects like Peake replacement or any major downtown project. But with Streetcar and other annual maintenance and other operating costs we will need fo spend more and more of our taxes in just upkeep not new projects.

Years ago had they planned (not built) right of ways they could have created space in middle of 235/35/40 to build eventual rail. This would have meant engineering the bridge supports to leave room in middle for an eventual rail line. We are way down the road now and no going back. Could have had rail space in 40/35/245 from Shawnee to El Reno and Norman to Edmond/Guthrie.

[Urban Pioneer]

A commuter rail system wouldn’t be “billions of dollars”. Short of major changes / conversions and implementation of autonomous cars / buses at some distant date, a bilateral corridor is warranted as the metro continues to grow. Your way of thinking is way too simplistic to resolve the long term issues and consequences that continued intransigence will create for the metro at large.

[OKC Guy]

A commuter rail system wouldn’t be “billions of dollars”. Short of major changes / conversions and implementation of autonomous cars / buses at some distant date, a bilateral corridor is warranted as the metro continues to grow. Your way of thinking is way too simplistic to resolve the long term issues and consequences that continued intransigence will create for the metro at large.

So tell me then, all the bridges that will need built how much will they cost? Rights of way. Engineering and studies. Actual rail beds and lines. Stations. Repair depot. Actual trains/cars. Some here think we can piggyback on BSF but that will never work.

I cannot see this ever getting traction. Buses could.

[Urban Pioneer]

Again, as in previous posts, feel free to do your own research. I have. Your statements are opinions.

[OKC Guy]

Again, as in previous posts, feel free to do your own research. I have. Your statements are opinions.

Its an opinion board right? Or is there a test I missed?

If not mistaken your opinions are based on using existing rail line which is a pipe dream “in my opinion”.

We are decades away from a real rail solution and up and running. Where will funding come from?

[David]

Its an opinion board right? Or is there a test I missed?

If not mistaken your opinions are based on using existing rail line which is a pipe dream “in my opinion”.

We are decades away from a real rail solution and up and running. Where will funding come from?

You could try reading through this thread and finding out.