Looks like a short sighted decision. People may wish they had the rail station in the future when gas goes to $4-6 a gallon. We will always be dependent on imported oil with these decisions which force people to drive their cars at any costs for fuel. Looks like OKC is not planning to be a big time city like the others who all have mass transit rail.

Hi Tom, it was good to meet you earlier today. Good luck in pushing for the survival of our old Union Station. I agree 100%. Oh, and I don’t think you’re a religious bigot..

There are many other rail options that do not involve Union Station, and its nonuse does not rule out mass transit rail in Oklahoma City. Regardless, rail is the most expensive and least flexible of mass transit options, and were we to decide to spend that kind of money,an east-west line should be far behind a north, south line, in my opinion. If we determine that rail as a mass transit option is feasible, any multi-modal station should be located at the planned intersection of north-south/east-west lines for practicality’s sake. Union Station as a station is impractical, and we should not sacrifice good planning for nostalgia.

I think that the better idea is to utilize Union Station for a metro-wide commuter rail system similar to the DART, whereas a north-south line could intersect and would be more like the McKinney Avenue streetcars in Dallas.

Thanks, Tom for sounding more level-headed in this post. Tone and tack make all the difference. However, what do we do at this point about the existing I-40? It appears to be a Minneapolis waiting to happen. Also, what about the Little Flower Church? And what about the fact that moving the highway will force it to become raised again to dodge existing infrastructure?

Tom, thanks for being someone who has the public interest in mind. You are ahead of your time!

Steve, you failed to mention that the cost of the project has gone up because of inflation, and due to the constant delays caused by TOM and his Crue.

Lord Gerald, I don’t know that anyone can make the case that all the cost increases are due to inflation. Have we seen construction prices “double” in the past decade?

LordGerald, construction prices have gone down significantly due to the recession. Example: The Thunder practice facility, originally budgeted at $15 million, came in just over $10 million when they awarded the contract.

I’m still not clear on just how much of the railyard will be destroyed by the new Crosstown and how many actual tracks will be lost. Will the station itself be torn down? One thing is clear and that is the absolute, no-doubt need to finish the Crosstown and get off the old Crosstown before it falls down.

The station building is not being torn down or touched by the highway.

Steve, we actually saw construction prices double just last year right before the construction bubble burst in OKC. I was working on a relatively small project at the time, but since everyone was busy, we basically got a quote twice that of what the original estimate was. Part of that was also material, but they obviously go hand in hand.
Not to sound bitter, but construction companies always seem to make money somehow…

Ricky, the current plans would leave space for 1 track and 1 side track that a train could wait on while another passed by. That’s compared to the 12 tracks that the rail yard could accommodate if it is not destroyed. The station would remain, but there’s no way it could be used as a hub connecting commuter rail, light rail, freight, and other forms of transportation. The space for the rail yard is as important as the building itself.

Jill, Union Station DOES sit at the intersection of Oklahoma’s north-south and east-west lines, as the diagram included in Tom’s post reveals. That one is small and hard to read, but there’s a larger version on page 4 of this pdf: http://www.ontracok.org/Files/OnTrac%20Presentation%20Version%2012.pdf

Kris, OnTrac has developed engineering plans showing that the highway can be moved 125 feet south in a way that protects the rail yard space, connects with existing construction, and does not impede on Little River Church.

ODOT’s plan is to build the highway a few feet below grade through that area so that it can return to street level before interfering with existing buildings like the church. That means the yard itself would have to be lowered and we would lose the passenger tunnels going underneath. This is unfortunate, but the most important thing is to protect a track space large enough to include the many transportation modes described above.

It’s close to the wire but definitely not too late to make this happen. The OKC Council needs to hear from us right now. ODOT knows they can make the changes without too much extra time or expense, and a strong resolution from OKC would likely be a tipping point.

Gene makes a lot of sense. ODOT wants a highway to move people and tourists through OKC and on to the next state while Gene wants a plan to move these people around OKC and in state and move people in and out of the state. ODOT gives one option for future transportation and Gene gives 2 or more. Will a new rail hub cost more than the highway construction savings ODOT is trying to achieve? Better make the right decision if you want mass transit rail service. A new hub could cost more than ODOT highway savings and not be as good a location.

This seems a bit off from the other OKC 2020 posts…focusing just on Union Station seems a bit odd. But I’ll bite anyway. I like Union Station and think having it as a focal point at the end of the central park and as a focal stop for a streetcar is a great idea. However, as a point for every type of transportation does not make sense in the context of C2S.

If I think about some other transportation hubs around the country/world, Union Station in D.C., maybe South Station in Boston, Kansas City rail yards, stations in London, etc. there is a common theme in that freight and passenger service are not usually completely combined. A freight yard has different needs than a passenger yard and with C2S developing as it is and BNSF already having the yard it needs elsewhere, forcing it into Union Station is an unnecessary waste of track space and potential C2S space. Also, since we are unlikely to get a commuter rail and a streetcar system in the near future it would make sense to have a separate dedicated station for the two elsewhere than Union Station (maybe the Sante Fe Station or a new station not yet built). Union Station is not very close to the heart of downtown and it makes sense to be just a stop in any commuter system, if anything, rather than a central hub.

I like the forward thinking aspect of a commuter/streetcar hub idea, but Union Station does not seem to be the way to go. Other than the nostalgia factor, why would we try to put a square peg in a round hole? Irregardless, lay off the conspiracy juice for a while. Even if you and some others believe it, in the eyes of most people you lose credibility and are relegated to being just “one of those people.”

Brent, my idea with Downtown OKC 2020 is to be as free-handed as possible with it. Tom’s vision for downtown of 2020 pretty much evolves around Union Station. Casey Cornett’s vision, meanwhile, evolved around Core to Shore and the proposed central park.
I think it’s very difficult for one person to provide a full vision for all of downtown. But with all these different voices in play, I’d like to think we’re getting the next best thing – and I think we’re certainly getting a much more open discussion than what Mayor Mick Cornett promised would take place over the summer (In May he’s promising an open discussion with nothing settled on MAPS 3; in July, with no meetings or open discussions to speak of, the mayor is suddenly saying the ballot is pretty much set in stone).

It would be easy and convenient to pull off I-40 and into Union Station to board a mass transit train to see the sights and move around OKC if I am traveling through Oklahoma as tourist or traveler. Without the station I may just drive right on through OKC as ODOT has planned.

Gene, the idea of freight running through Union Station is anathema to me, and BNSF isn’t using it anyway. Core to Shore is designed to make Oklahoma City a showpiece, and if we were to use Union Station, I agree that a streetcar stop is a logical use, especially if we’ve got a park we’re trying to direct residents and visitors to. Freight would completely ruin any aesthetics of the location, and aesthetics and lesiure time activities are a significant part of the Core to Shore plan. To me, the logical location for a hub is ON the current north-south line that Amtrak is using, be it at the mill location, the Santa Fe location or somewhere in that general area. That would allow people to get off at Bricktown or the CBD, which is where the majority of people are going to want to leave any public transportation anyway. We need to CONNECT the CBD to the river, not create an even bigger gulf than I-40 is going to create. By adding a railyard to Union Station, the combination of it and the expanded I-40 is so daunting in size that it would effectively remove any logical connection between the Oklahoma River and our Central Park and Union Station. The shore of Core to Shore would be negated. I am far more in favor of keeping the shore than keeping a yard that was practical in the last century, but far less so in this one.

The North-South line that AmTrak uses is already one of the busiest freight routes in the entire country. Forty freight trains go down that line every day. The benefit of Union Station is that there is room for the freight to bypass the passenger lines, so riders don’t have to wait forever while freight trains go by, which is what is crippling AmTrak.

Santa Fe has a couple of elevated tracks, which are already being used by the aforementioned 40 trains a day, and no room to expand. We could build a transit hub from scratch at the mill, but where are we going to find a couple hundred million dollars to do that? It’s not like Oklahoma has shown a lot of eagerness to invest in transit, and it’s extremely wasteful when we already have the infrastructure.

I think the beautiful pedestrian walkway plans, combined with a transit hub that lets people exit right off the highway, leave their cars and get on a train or walk, would do a fantastic job of connecting downtown to the river, the rest of OKC, and all over the state. Maybe it’s not the perfect solution, but compared to the alternatives, there’s just no contest.

Just watched Nick Roberts at the City Council meeting. I want to give kudos for the message he shared and for conveying so many sentiments shared by young, creative professionals in OKC. Thanks Nick for representing my interests well!

Again, the concept of Core to Shore is to make downtown a place people want to go, to stay, in which to WALK. Ten rail lines is unthinkable, IMO. In Chicago, where they have two commuter rail lines downtown, nowhere near Milennium Park, even the road between the park and Lake Michigan is offputting for pedestrians. And, there is no way a pedestrian walkway crossing ten rail lines and a highway can be beautiful. Two is stretching it. How can walking across a multi-lane highway and ten rail lines be inviting for pedestrians? It’s a visual nightmare, and would completely bisect the parks stretching to the Oklahoma River concept.

Two rail lines would be more than adequate. We’re not a city of nine million people. Rail is a tool, not an end in itself, and it’s the least flexible of all our transportation options.

Any tourist wanting to “see the sights and move around OKC” is most likely going to also be staying in a hotel in the area. You don’t do something like that in an afternoon, especially trying to use public transportation to do so. So, they’ll likely be getting off the highway to go to a hotel, and from that hotel, they may want transit to the sights. Downtown, a streetcar serves a “see the sights” function far better than a train. It’s an easier, cheaper, more attractive and more flexible means of transportation around the CBD than light rail.

I think we need to think about what will make Oklahoma City an attractive place in which people will not only want to work and visit, but also to live. A walking city is a healthy city. That’s what we need to emphasize. Our population spends all of its time trying to figure out how to get places without moving their feet, and it’s causing massive health problems. Transit is only a means to an end,and that end should be getting people out of their cars or trains. The Core to Shore plan, IMO, is actually an attempt to do just that: to tie our now attractive river to the CBD. It’s a shame we have to have a highway in the middle of all of that, and I would have preferred the highway south of the river. But, let’s not add to the problem by creating a visually unaesthetic grand canyon of transit. We might need to start talking about a cablecar instead of a pedestrian bridge.

A very cool pedestrian bridge crosses several tracks in downtown Denver… It’s kinda neat to watch the trains from there, and it provides a vital link between their very successful pedestrian mall and some high density housing. It CAN be done well.

However, that bridge does not also cross an interstate highway! Our new I-40 is the 800-pound gorilla (“Grand Canyon”). It very effectively lacerates C2S; a couple RR tracks wouldn’t even be noticed (the “12″ tracks would only occur at the station). It is going to be very difficult to prevent the segment of C2S between I-40 & the river from becoming an island. More than one very cool pedestrian bridge will be required.

Two thoughts from reading this. First, isn’t the river currently a big part of any national attention Oklahoma City is getting? Shouldn’t we do anything we can to keep the river closely tied to our downtown? It’s already way too hard to get there from downtown. I agree with whoever said two tracks is enough. We don’t need any freight on the north side of the river. Second, where’s the money coming from to build all this track and buy all these trains? That kind of rail development would make the money for a new hub look like a spit in the bucket. I’d like to see the mill as the spot where the new convention center is built, but you could easily tie the hub to that development. I don’t think the money even for light rail will buy anything but a big white elephant anyway, with our population and lack of traffic. You can’t compare Oklahoma City to Denver or Dallas, especially Dallas where you’d almost rather gouge your eyeballs out than drive. I grew up back east and we’ve never seen traffic here. Maybe when gas is $5 or $6 a gallon again people might think about it, but how many people work or go downtown a day anyway? We’ve got a lot more important things to spend taxpayer’s money on than rail that most people wouldn’t ride anyway. My two cents.

I’d like to second, third and fourth the core to shore sentiments.

Everyone keeps talking about letting downtown “grow” into itself. The only reason it’s growing at all is because the city gave investors with capital a reason to invest downtown which brought people to the heart of the city in the first place.

The city invests, by all accounts, frugally into the city infrastructure and 15 years later we have a professional sports team, a thriving economy, Olympic trials, unprecedented tourism, and ever improving private capital flowing into the city to make a buck and improve the quality of life in OKC.

People talking about transit need to lay off the pipe. It’s so popular to talk about mass transit in Oklahoma because people here have no idea how much it costs. Several lines? We’re talking about several billion dollars minimum and billions more to keep it up. There is nothing that this city needs that can’t be taken care of with a beefed up bus system.

The Convention is an interesting concept, and I think when we build a center that we do it right, we pump a solid 600 million into it, but I see that maybe being talked about in 5-10 years.

Core 2 Shore gives us the most immediate impact for our money.

-It further beautifies the city
-We start losing weight because we are now walking and biking to events and locations.
-We break out of our bricktown bubble.
-We encourage new business and further private growth
-We provide a place for Steve Lackmeyer to roll around naked.
-We have a center piece that links our river, to bricktown, to the business district to the new Devon tower.
-People will actually want to live downtown, because there is a reason to.