Intermodal transportation hub master plan for central Oklahoma.

              Intermodal 
Transportation 
Hub Master Plan 
for Central Oklahoma
in association with
Connetics
Basile, Bauman & Prost
TAPArchitecture
Traffi c Engineering Consultants
June 30, 2011
Association of Central 
Oklahoma Governments
Intermodal Transportation Hub Master Plan
for Central Oklahoma
Prepared For: Association of Central Oklahoma Governments
Funded By: 
ACOG
City of Oklahoma City
COTPA
ODOT
Prepared By:  
in association with
Connetics
TAPArchitecture
Basile, Bauman & Prost
Traffi c Engineering Consultants
Submitted:
June 30, 2011
Central Oklahoma Transportation 
and Parking Authority
Association of Central 
Oklahoma Governments
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
4
  Table of Contents
Acknowledgments + Foreword 
1.0  Purpose + Need
  2.0  Transit Mode Characteristics
  3.0  Tier 1 Site Alternatives 
  4.0  Ridership Analysis
  5.0  Fixed Guideway Operations Analysis
  6.0  Facility Program
  7.0  Tier 2 Site Evaluation
  8.0  Traffi c Impacts 
9.0  Intermodal Hub Master Plan 
  10.0  Funding Alternatives
  Appendices (Under Separate Cover)
  1.  Ridership Report 
  2.  Facility Program 
  3.  Platform Capacity
  4.  Parking Requirements
  5.  Tier 2 Evaluations
  6.  Traffi c Analysis
  7.  Capital Cost Estimate
List of Figures
1.1   Transit System Plan
  1.2   Streetcar LPA
  1.3   High Speed Rail - South 
    Central Corridor
  2.1  Transit Mode Diagram 
3.1  Tier 1 Sites
  3.2  Tier 1 Scoring 
  4.1  Fixed Guideway Study -
    Transit System Plan Map
  5.1  Platform Diagram
  5.2  Sketch Schedule
  5.3  Hub Operation Plan
  6.1  Platform Length
  7.1  Tier 2 Sites
  7.2  Tier 2 Scoring
  7.3  Site A Concept Plan
  7.4  Site B Concept Plan
  7.5   Site C Concept Plan
  9.1  Intermodal Hub Master    
    Development Plan   
  9.2  Intermodal Hub Concept
  9.3  Gaylord Plaza Site Plan
  9.4  Gaylord Plaza 
  9.5  Gaylord Plaza
  9.6  Bricktown Plaza Site Plan
 9.7  Existing Conditions @
    Bricktown West Canal
  9.8  Perspective of
    Bricktown Plaza and 
    Pedestrian Entrance at
    West Canal 
  9.9  Santa Fe Building Floor Plan
  9.10  Santa Fe Building
  9.11  Transit Hall Floor Plan
  9.12  Transit Hall 
  9.16  Amtrak
  9.17  Boarding Platforms 
  9.18  Boarding Platforms Perspective
  9.19  Cross Section A @ Boarding Platforms
  9.20  Parking Garage/Intercity Bus Site Plan
  9.21  Parking Garage/Intercity Bus
  9.22  Parking Garage/Intercity Bus
  9.23  Project Phase 1 
  9.24  Project Phase 2a
  9.25  Project Phase 2b
  9.26  Project Phase 3
  9.27  Impacts of Third Platform
  9.28  Third Platform Schematic Diagram
  9.29  Cross Sections of Two Platform-5 Track
  9.30  Cross Sections of Three Platform-7 Track
  9.31  Three Platform Master Plan (Enlarged)
List of Tables
4.1   Estimated Passenger Activity - Select Tier 1  
    Hub Sites
  4.2   Peak Bus Connectivity Assumption by 
    Site Location
  4.3   Estimated Daily Commuter Rail Boarding  
    by Line
  6.1  Peak Hour Ridership 
6.2  Platform Requirements
  6.3  Parking Requirements
8.1  Projected Site Generated Traffi c Volumes
  8.2  Capacity Analysis Results
  9.1  Costs Summary
  9.2  Costs Summary Exclusive of HSR
5
The Intermodal Transportation Hub Master Plan (the “Plan”) is the result of an ongoing  
partnership among community stakeholders in Central Oklahoma to envision, plan 
and prepare for a public transit system that promotes mobility, encourages growth 
and development and enhances the quality of life across the region.  While the study 
area considered in this planning effort was concentrated in downtown Oklahoma 
City, the conclusions of the Hub Master Plan could have far reaching impacts 
into the participating communities of Norman, Edmond, Midwest City and others.  
Representatives from these communities, as well as the local and state transit and 
rail service providers, participated actively in the study and assisted in identifying 
critical issues and potential implementation strategies with the planning team.  This 
document represents a summary response to the region’s collaborative and collective 
effort to establish a unifi ed and consistent approach to the potential of an intermodal 
transportation hub, thereby creating and sustaining an enhanced quality of life and 
prosperity throughout the Central Oklahoma region.  
The consulting team appreciates the work and contributions of the following individuals 
who were instrumental in the development of this Plan.  
Hub Study Advisory Committee
City of Oklahoma City 
  Hon. Pete White,  Council member
  Hon. Sam Bowman, Former Council member
City of Norman
  Hon. Rachel Butler, Former Council member
City of Yukon
  Jim Crosby, Former City Manager
City of Edmond
  Shannon Entz, Manager-Community Development
City of Midwest City
  J. Guy Henson, City Manager
  Billy Harless, Community Development Director
OnTrac
  Marion Hutchison, Executive Board Member
Downtown OKC, Inc.
  Jane Jenkins,  President
Association of Central Oklahoma Governments
  John G. Johnson, Executive Director
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
  Joe Kyle, Manager-Rail Programs
COTPA Board of Trustees
  Dick Lee, Trustee
Union Pacifi c Railroad
  Clint Schelbitzki, Director-Public Affairs
Oklahoma Railroad Association
  Lori Peterson, Executive Director
Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce
  Mark VanLandingham,VP of Government Relations
  Derek Sparks, Mgr. of Government Relations
Funding Agencies
Association of Central Oklahoma Governments
  John Johnson, Executive Director
  Doug Rex, Director of Transportation 
  Holly Massie, Project Manager
Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority
  Rick Cain, Administrator
City of Oklahoma City 
  Jim Thompson, Former Assistant City Manager
  Russell Claus, Planning Director
  Randy Entz, Transportation Planner
Oklahoma Department of Transportation 
  David Streb, Director of Engineering 
  Joe Kyle, Director of Rails Division
  Johnson Bridgwater, Planner 
Consulting Team
JACOBS 
  Allan Zreet, Project Director 
  Doug Tennant, Project Manager
  Brad Moulton, Planner
In association with 
  Connetics – Chris Adkins
  TAPArchitecture – Anthony McDermid
  Basile, Bauman & Prost – Jim Prost
  Traffi c Engineering Consultants - Todd Butler
Acknowledgments
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
6
Format of the Report
This  report  provides  the  graphic and narrative  results  of  the  study  effort.    The  intent  of 
this document is  to  present  the major  fi ndings  of  the  study  that  have been reviewed, 
vetted and agreed-upon through the public process.  To that end, the report follows the 
general work program and process fl ow utilized with the Hub Study Advisory Committee 
and the public meetings to demonstrate key fi ndings and conclusions.  The more detailed 
information and research used to analyze competing sites, plans or strategies are included 
in  an Appendix  (separate  volume)  in  order  to  keep  the  fi nal  report  as  user-friendly  as 
possible.  
The Public Process 
Each  of  the  participating  funding  agencies  indicated  a  strong  desire  to  conduct  the 
study effort within the parameters of a meaningful public process to ensure that all ideas, 
strategies  and  conclusions  were  presented  and  evaluated  in  a  transparent  manner 
with  the  citizens  of  Central  Oklahoma.    An  advisory  committee  of  local  leaders  and 
advocates and participating agencies and entities was created to assist the consulting 
team  in  the  development  and  review  of  alternative  sites,  concepts  and  strategies  for 
the  Hub.    Five  Advisory  Committee  meetings  were 
conducted during the planning process in which key 
issues  were  identifi ed;  alternatives  were  suggested; 
concept plans  were  evaluated; and fi nal  strategies 
and recommendations were confi rmed.   In addition 
to these Advisory Committee meetings, three public 
meetings  were  conducted  to  educate  and  inform 
the public about the process, the concepts and the 
preferred  and  recommended  actions.    Meetings 
were  conducted  at  several  venues  in  and  around 
downtown Oklahoma City,  with  the  last meeting to 
present the preferred Master Plan and implementation 
strategy held in the Grand Hall of the Santa Fe Depot, 
the recommended site  for the hub.   In the end, this 
public process was a strong contributor to the overall 
success and feasibility of the Plan and will ultimately 
help ensure its implementation.   
Introduction + Background
In 2005, Central Oklahoma embarked upon a new vision for its future – a vision that included 
a coordinated plan for rail-based transit services across the region. The fi nal Fixed Guideway 
Study  (FGS)  for  Central  Oklahoma  included  several  recommendations.  But  it’s  the  rail-
based transit elements – commuter rail service between downtown Oklahoma City and the 
communities of Edmond, Norman and Midwest City, a new downtown streetcar system, and 
a proposed intermodal transportation hub – that captured the attention and imagination of 
area residents. The development of the FGS provided local leaders with a public process to 
discuss and understand how rail transit could benefi t their communities and, as a byproduct, 
helped create rail and transit advocacy groups within the region that continue to promote 
the implementation of the Study today.  
During  the  same  period,  Oklahoma  City  leadership  began  to  conceive  of  a  new  public 
works  and  economic  development  program  that  would  build  the  core  elements  of  a 
modern downtown community to attract the workers, residents and businesses of the 21st 
century economy.  The MAPS 3 sales tax, approved by Oklahoma City voters in December 
2008, furthered this downtown momentum and included $130 million for the creation of a 
new downtown circulator (later determined to be a modern streetcar) and initial planning 
and  development  of  a  new  intermodal  transportation  hub.    With  this  vote,  area  leaders 
and residents envisioned the streetcar as the fi rst element of a regional transit system. They 
also recognized and endorsed planning for a regional transit hub that would serve as the 
centerpiece of the system, where multiple transportation modes would connect. 
This growing momentum for  transit planning and services  in  Central Oklahoma led  to  the 
initiation and development of this Intermodal Transportation Hub Study.  The study process 
was directed and funded by the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG), 
with additional funding and technical support provided by COTPA, the City of Oklahoma 
City and the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.  The purpose of the study was to: (1) 
identify and evaluate alternative sites for the proposed hub and recommend a preferred 
location;  (2) defi ne the program and parameters for the hub and its support facilities;  (3) 
develop costs for the overall Hub Master Plan and include funding strategies for the facility; 
and (4) conduct a meaningful and transparent public process. 
Foreword
1.0 Purpose + Need
Association of Central 
Oklahoma Governments
9
The need for an intermodal hub in Oklahoma City is supported 
by numerous current and proposed transportation programs 
in  Central Oklahoma.   The  transit hub will be the  primary 
connective  element  among  all  modes  of  transportation 
and will be the central focus and identity of the Oklahoma 
City regional transit system. The proposed Oklahoma City 
Intermodal  Hub  will  provide  interconnectivity  between 
existing and future transit modes and provide passengers 
with  amenities  such  as  enclosed  waiting  and  ticketing, 
restrooms and retail linked to mixed use development.
The need for the facility was documented in the Regional Fixed Guideway Study (FGS), 
completed in 2006.  This study proposed a transit network developed around enhanced 
bus service, bus rapid transit  (BRT), commuter rail and streetcar all connected through 
a downtown hub.  This FGS network was received by the COTPA Board of Trustees and 
ACOG, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), as the FGS System Plan for the 
Central Oklahoma region.
Transit Oriented Development
The integration of transit and land use has become 
increasingly important in the design of our cities and 
the quality of life in our communities. Transit opens 
land for new development, changes movement 
patterns and exposure of existing developments, and 
provides a tool for the advancement of economic 
development. The linkage between transit, land 
use and density is critical to the economic success, 
neighborhood integration, and ability to animate the 
intermodal hub area.  The intermodal hub must have 
attributes and urban form that balance the urban 
environment with needs of pedestrians, motorists, 
bicyclists, and transit 
riders while promoting a 
vital public realm.  The 
intermodal hub location 
must be able to support 
the development of 
increased infi ll density and 
quality public infrastructure 
that encourages further 
economic development. 
Purpose + Need
1.0  Purpose and Need
Goals + Objectives
The goal for the Oklahoma City Intermodal Hub is to create a plan for a new transportation
center and gateway for Oklahoma City and the region that promotes mobility, enhances
the image of public transportation and creates a catalyst for economic development.  This 
goal is supported jointly by the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG), 
the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA), the City of Oklahoma 
City,  and  the  Oklahoma  Department  of  Transportation,  each  of  which  contributed 
fi nancial and technical support and assistance to the development of this plan.  While 
each of these agencies will ultimately have a different role in the development of the 
hub, their combined leadership and support of the hub is critical to its ultimate success. 
Additionally, a Hub Study Advisory Committee was created and provided critical input 
and direction through the course of the planning process.  The downtown transit hub will 
become the single identifi able project that links all transportation modes and will become 
the marketable vision of the transit system.
Modes of Service:
• Amtrak
• Commuter Rail
• Streetcar
• Local Fixed Route Bus
• Bus Rapid Transit
• Intercity Bus
• Local Shuttle Services / Taxis
• High Speed Rail
• Pedestrians / Bicycles
Principles of Transit Supportive 
Development:
• Compact Urban Environment
• Mix of Land Uses
• Destinations within an Easy Walk
• Design for the Pedestrian
• New Construction or
Redevelopment
• Quality Public Infrastructure
Medium to High Density Mixed Use
Ground Level Retail
Transit Stop
Pedestrian Oriented Streets
The  hub  serves  as  the  centerpiece 
of  the  future  regional  transit  system 
and accomplishes  multiple  goals  for 
multiple client groups.
Purpose and Need
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
10 Purpose + Need
Basis of Design
The program development for the intermodal hub was based on accommodating the 
modes identifi ed in the Fixed Guideway Study, generally consisting of streetcar, enhanced 
and intercity bus, bus rapid transit (BRT) and commuter rail with the addition of high speed 
rail and enhancements to the current Amtrak Heartland Flyer service.  Consideration was 
also given to the introduction of longer term modes and expansion of service to add light 
rail transit in the future as ridership and demographics change.
Enhanced Bus
Enhanced  bus  routes  in  the  FGS System Plan  provide  frequent  service  connecting 
transit riders throughout the COTPA service area.  Bus routes will be aligned to serve the 
downtown intermodal hub; however, bus to bus transfers will be accommodated at the 
existing COTPA Downtown Transit Center.  The transit center will be connected to the hub 
by the streetcar.  
Bus Rapid Transit
Three BRT routes are proposed along arterial roads in Oklahoma City.  Two of these routes 
will serve the Hub; the Meridian (Northwest) Route, serving the northwest, and the Reno 
Route,  serving  Yukon  and  Will  Rogers  Airport.    The  third  route  follows  59th  Street.  The 
Meridian Route was initially designated to terminate at the Downtown Transit Center but 
is recommended to extend to the intermodal hub location. BRT is envisioned to operate 
on-street at the Hub utilizing designated curb side bus bays. 
Commuter Rail
Commuter rail service is envisioned to provide peak-oriented service from outer suburban 
communities  into  downtown  Oklahoma  City  along  existing  freight  routes.  The  Fixed 
Guideway Study designated three commuter routes within the BNSF and Union Pacifi c 
(UP) corridors; the Edmond corridor, Norman corridor and Midwest City/Tinker AFB corridor. 
All  routes  would  converge  in  downtown  Oklahoma  City  and  allow  transfers  between 
the  routes. Headways on each line would be 60-minutes in  the peak and 120-minutes 
in the off-peak for a combined headway of 30-minutes peak and 60-minutes off-peak 
within each corridor.   Based on Advisory Committee and community input,  a  possible 
future commuter rail line from the Adventure District (Northeast) to Yukon was added for 
consideration in the Hub study.  A Yukon line was initially considered in the Fixed Guideway
Study but eliminated and replaced with BRT due to ridership considerations. 
Commuter Rail Line
Bus Rapid Transit Line
Modern Streetcar Route
Enhanced Bus Service Routes
Legend
NORMAN
MIDWEST CITY
EDMOND
YUKON
OKLAHOMA CITY
Fixed Guideway Study Transit System Plan Map - Firgure 1.1
11
Amtrak
At the request of ODOT Rail Programs Division, Amtrak completed a study in February 1999 
that ultimately led to the re-establishment of passenger rail service in Oklahoma after a 
20 year absence.  The Amtrak study prompted the initiation  of Oklahoma’s Heartland 
Flyer Service on June 14, 1999.  The Heartland Flyer service operates out of the Santa Fe 
Station with one train per day running between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth.  Extension 
of the Heartland Flyer service north to Kansas City has been studied and is included in 
planning for the intermodal hub; however, no commitments to this service have been 
made at this time.
Streetcar
The proposed downtown streetcar  will  serve  as  a  circulator  providing  frequent,  direct 
service between the downtown intermodal hub, COTPA Transit Center, the CBD, Bricktown, 
Midtown, and the Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. The Downtown Circulator Alternatives 
Analysis , conducted by COTPA, included an 18 month planning process to identify the 
key characteristics of a streetcar system and concluded with the recommendation of a 
Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) shown in Figure 1.2.  This LPA indicates the proposed 
route  for  a  modern 
streetcar  vehicle  that 
connects  Bricktown 
to  Downtown  to 
Midtown in Oklahoma 
City and then reaches 
out  to  connect  these 
downtown  subareas 
to  the  Oklahoma 
Health  Center,  a 
large  medical  and 
research  complex 
north  of  downtown. 
The  hub  study  team 
coordinated  closely 
with  the  efforts  of  the 
Alternatives  Analysis 
Steering  Committee 
and the MAPS 3 Transit 
Subcommittee  to 
ensure, to the greatest 
degree  possible,  that 
the  planning  efforts 
associated  with  these 
Streetcar LPA - Figure 1.2
major transit initiatives and their resulting recommendations were compatible, mutually 
supportive and benefi cial. Ultimately, the LPA alignment and the streetcar program may 
be modifi ed as needed to provide direct service to the fi nal hub location depending on the 
further refi nement and coordination of these overall transit planning efforts, specifi cally the 
planning and phasing options that may be required by the MAPS 3 Streetcar program.  
High Speed Rail
After  Amtrak  initiated  the  Heartland  Flyer  Service,  ODOT  began  evaluating  potential 
connections to other regions of the state. A Passenger Rail Feasibility Study was conducted 
by the ODOT Rail Programs Division assessing the feasibility of high speed passenger rail 
service  in  Oklahoma.    The  fi ndings  of  the  initial  ODOT  Passenger Rail Feasibility Study
indicated that expanded passenger rail services would benefi t both residents of Oklahoma 
and passengers traveling on the national passenger 
rail  system.    Initial  efforts  were  directed  toward 
Oklahoma City and Tulsa  because of the increasing 
awareness that an adequate ridership base would be 
required to establish a sustainable service that could 
be expanded into other areas of the State. (1)
(1) Oklahoma City to Tulsa High Speed Rail Corridor Study, The State of Oklahoma, 
Oklahoma Department of Transportation, 2002                                                                                                               
Based  on  the  Passenger  Rail  Feasibility  Study,  the 
Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) is in 
the process of developing a Tier 1 NEPA Environmental
Assessment  for  environmental  analysis  of  a  high 
speed  rail  initiative  from  Oklahoma  City  to  Tulsa, 
with approximately  106  miles  located  in Oklahoma, 
Lincoln, Creek and Tulsa Counties. This section is part 
of  the South Central Rail Corridor, one of  ten  national  corridors  identifi ed by Congress 
in 2001 (See Figure 1.3).  The South Central Corridor extends from San Antonio, Texas, to 
Tulsa, passing through Forth Worth and Oklahoma City.  High Speed Rail service for the 
South Central Corridor has been designated as “Emerging High-Speed Rail” and defi ned 
as using existing tracks and infrastructure shared with  freight service at top speeds of up 
to 90–110 mph.
Each of the above referenced studies designated the Santa Fe Station, or adjacent area, 
as  the  Oklahoma  City  connection  to  the  high  speed  rail  system.    This  location  would 
allow passenger interface with Amtrak and connectivity to other modes within the urban 
Oklahoma City area.
High Speed Rail - Figure 1.3
G@-9'H- !!-
9I&H#%')/!>
%!J'K#I(!/) &
# L() 9# $)''
)/!%I !
H9! .&)%')/!>
 !%#')/!>
GG-9'H- !!-
%>'+9.((.+H')/!>
 #K.%H#%')/!>
K #)&J)*')/!>
&!J!*')/!>
%
 !" #$%&'() 
*$+,$-
*.&)%-$+/0
1203&,()
*.(-)$0 
4,$3.$+02+ 
56)(.27( 
*(+'$- *$+,$-
8-$09:,$-&(+ 
;2<$-
=>?
@$A$+': 
;2<$-
#B0$B7 
2C "- ,
*&,: 
1())
D$(%$-0.&3
4EB(-$
4.$-(,2+ 
12,$)
46&-F&+   
12,$)
=$$3 =$B'$ 
12B0&+A
*.(0$   
;2<$-
4(+%@&%A$
G(+6 2C
56)(.27(
4,(A$ 
*$+,$-
*2H 
*2+F$+,&2+ 
*$+,$-
IB,B-$
;-(+0&, 1B9
IB,B-$ 
*2+F$+,&2+ 
*$+,$-
IB,B-$   
*2-$ ,2 4.2-$ 
8(-6
56)(.27( *&,: 
"-$+(
1(-6&+0 
;.$(,$-
D(+% @B+ 
*$+,$++&() 
8(-6
G-&'6,2<+ 
*(+()
G-&'6,2<+
G()) 8(-6
*2'( *2)( 
>F$+,0 
*$+,$-
42+&'   
*2-3J
G(00   
8-2
#:-&(%   
K(-%$+0
=$F2+   
;2<$-
*&F&' 
*$+,$- 
#B0&' 1())
=2<+,2<+ 
;-(+0&, *$+,$-
D$A(':
"3(- ,7$+,0
8-$09:,$-&(+ 1$(),. 
I2B+%(,&2+ 
@$0$(-'. 
*$+,$-
5L 1$(),. 
4'&$+'$ 
*$+,$-
5L 8.:0&'&(+0 
GB&)%&+A
5L #$%&'() 
*$+,$-
G2+$ 
(+% M2&+, 
1203&,()
5N* 
O(,&2+() 
#$72-&()
I$%$-() 
GB&)%&+A
5N G)22% 
P+0,&,B,$
IB,B-$   
12,$)
IB,B-$   
12,$)
IB,B-$   
12,$)
@$0&%$+'$   
P++ 12,$)
*2B- ,:(-% 9: 
#(--&2,,
1(73,2+   
P++ 12,$)
*2)'2-% 
12,$) 
IB,B-$   
12,$)
@$% 
*-200
Q#*"
=2<+,2<+ 
D&9-(-:
IO*
*2B+,: 
*2B- ,.2B0$
IB,B-$ #$-': 
12B0&+A
*277B+&,: 
I2B+%(,&2+
G(+6 2C 
O&'.2)0 1&))0
4,J "+,.2+: 
1203&,()
I&-0,   
G(3,&0,
D2C , "3,0
8)(R( *2B- ,
M-9'H- !!-
(.%"#(%'K(/&>
=-9'H- !!-
@$+(&00(+'$ 
12,$)
82,$+,&() 
4,-$$,'(-
#(&+,$+(+'$ 
I('&)&,:
82,$+,&() 
4,-$$,'(-
#(&+,$+(+'$ 
I('&)&,:
82,$+,&() 
4,-$$,'(-
#(&+,$+(+'$ 
I('&)&,:
􀀀
􀀀 􀀀
Purpose and Need
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
12
Light Rail
While light rail transit (LRT) is not currently a defi ned mode in the region’s FGS System Plan, 
it  is  possible  that  light  rail may replace designated BRT  routes  in  the  future  as  ridership 
increases  along  these  routes.    Accordingly,  provisions  were made in  this  study  for  the 
accommodation of LRT transfers at the intermodal hub. 
Project Area
The project area was designated as  a ½ mile wide corridor centered along the Union 
Pacifi c  and  BNSF  freight  corridors  in  the  greater downtown Oklahoma City  area.    This 
area (shown in Figure 1.4) was designated due to the need to serve the primary transit 
modes that would utilize these freight corridors as identifi ed in the Fixed Guideway Study, 
including Amtrak, commuter rail service to Norman, Edmond and Midwest City.  Although 
not mentioned in the Fixed Guideway Study, additional transit modes like High Speed Rail 
and additional commuter or light  rail services to the eastern portions of the Oklahoma 
City metropolitan area were also considerations in the determination of a proper project 
area.  Section 5.0 of this report (Ridership Analysis) provides further information regarding 
these additonal modes, including their anticipated ridership, their potential impact on the 
existing rail network at the alternative hub sites, and how these impacts could infl uence 
the evaluation, selection and planning of intermodal hub facility.    
Ultimately, one quarter mile on each side of the railroad right-of-way was designated as 
the logical study area, since this distance represents the commonly-accepted walking 
distance in urban areas and also constitutes the primary development infl uence area for 
the intermodal hub. The project area is bounded by the northern edge of the CBD on the 
north, the new I-40 corridor on the south, the CBD core on the west and the eastern edge 
of Bricktown on the east. 
Project Area - Figure 1.4
Purpose + Need
2.0 Potential Transit Mode Characteristics
Association of Central 
Oklahoma Governments
Transit Mode Characteristics 15
2.0 Transit Mode Characteristics 
A typical transit system plan generally consists of numerous modes of transportation based 
on the type of ridership served, operational distance, operational environment (type of 
right-of-way) and costs. The Fixed Guideway Study included a system plan in which the 
downtown intermodal hub would be the transfer point between numerous transit modes 
described in Section 1.  The following diagram is intended to represent the relationship 
between each mode and the overall system plan as it relates to ridership and geographic 
distance in the typical urban, metropolitan area. 
Streetcar
   General Purpose of this Mode: Urban Circulator
Service Distance:      < 5 miles
Station Spacing:     ¼ mile
Service Frequency:     10 – 15 minutes
Average Speed:      8 – 12 MPH
Integration:       Street Running
Capital Costs:       $20 – 25M  / mile
Passenger Capacity:    15 - 30  / vehicle
Power Source:      Overhead Electrifi cation / 
        Emerging Battery / Hybrid
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
   General Purpose of this Mode: Nodal Point to Point Service within urban city
Service Distance:      5 – 20 miles
Station Spacing:     ½ to 2 miles
Service Frequency:     10 – 20 minutes
Average Speed:      15 – 20 MPH
Integration:       Street Running (with Traffi c)
Capital Costs:       $10 – 15M  / mile
Passenger Capacity    30 - 40  / vehicle
Power Source:      Diesel / CNG / Hybrid
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
   General Purpose of this Mode: Nodal Point to Point Service for higher passenger
volumes within the urban city
Service Distance:      5 – 20 miles
Station Spacing:     ½ to 2 miles
Service Frequency:     10 – 20 minutes
Average Speed:      15 – 20 MPH
Integration:       Exclusive ROW or Street running
Capital Costs:       $40 – 80M  / mile
Passenger Capacity    40 - 90  / vehicle
Power Source:      Overhead electrifi cation
Commuter Rail
   General Purpose of this Mode: Connects suburbs to the urban core, potential
Intercity service also
Service Distance:      20 – 80 miles
Station Spacing:     2 to 10 miles
Service Frequency:     30 – 60 minutes
Average Speed:      30 MPH
Integration:       Exclusive ROW, Compatible w/ Freight
Capital Costs:       $15 – 20M  / mile
Passenger Capacity    120 - 180  / vehicle
Power Source:      Diesel-electric
High Speed Rail
   General Purpose of this Mode: City to City Service within broader region
Service Distance:      100+ miles
Station Spacing:     20 to 50 miles
Service Frequency:     1 - 4 hours
Average Speed:      60 – 90 MPH
Integration:       Exclusive ROW, Shared w/ Freight 
Capital Costs:       $80 – 160M  / Mile
Passenger Capacity    40 - 90  / vehicle
Power Source:      Overhead electrifi cation or Diesel-electric
Each mode represented above has operational characteristics that make it applicable 
to the type of right-of-way, number of passengers carried, speed, distance and density of 
the area served.  The specifi c characteristics of each proposed transit mode serving the 
intermodal hub include:
Transit Mode Diagram - Figure 2.1
3.0 Tier 1 Site Alternatives
Association of Central 
Oklahoma Governments
Tier 1 Site Alternatives 19
3.0 Tier 1 Site Alternatives
A formal site selection process was developed for identifi cation of a preferred site  for the 
intermodal hub. This “tiered” ranking and selection process included: (1) the development 
of Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluation criteria; (2) the analysis and ranking of Tier 1 sites; (3) a shortlist 
of candidate sites that are recommended for further consideration into Tier 2; and (4) the 
fi nal analysis and ranking of Tier 2 sites and a recommendation for the preferred site.  The Tier 
1 evaluation process was intended to reduce the site options for consideration at the Tier 2 
level to a maximum of three sites for more detailed evaluation against the project program 
requirements.  
Evaluation Methodology and Scoring Measures
A Tier 1 evaluation methodology was developed around the following framework components 
for which a ranking system was applied.  
•  Transportation Accommodation:  ability to provide a balance of access by    
all modes including streetcar, BRT, bike, and commuter and high speed    
regional rail 
•  Civic Presence / Visibility:  ability to anchor a neighborhood or district by     
creating a  sense of place and forming a gateway to the city 
•  Economic Development:  ability to provide a combination of development    
potential on vacant or under utilized parcels in a desirable, walkable      
location 
•  Auto / Pedestrian Access: ability of the street system to provide a walkable    
environment  while providing capacity for automobile drop-off and parking 
A scoring methodology and measures were then applied to each component as follows:
(-) Poor:      Does not meet minimum requirements for respective        
      framework component without signifi cant infrastructure      
      modifi cations 
(o) Good:    Meets minimum requirements or allows for future         
      accommodation of framework component with minor       
      modifi cations 
(+) Excellent:   Provides current accommodation of framework component      
      without need for signifi cant alterations or improvements  
Each component was assigned a ranking, and the resulting average score was created for 
each site.  Sites receiving a score of good or excellent advanced to the Tier 2 evaluation.  
Tier 1 Sites
Based on input received from the project Advisory Committee and initial public meeting, 
ten potential sites were selected for evaluation at the Tier 1 level.  The site locations are listed 
below  and  illustrated  graphically  in 
Figure 3.1.
1.  North Bricktown Parking Lot
2.  Buffalo Statue Site
3.  Santa Fe Station
4.  Cox Convention Center
5.  Bricktown Parking Lot North of Reno
6.  Bricktown Parking Lot South of Reno
7.  East of future MAPS 3 Central Park
8.  Lumber Yard Site
9.  Union Station
10.  Pull-a Part Site
Sites Advancing to Tier 2
The  ten  Tier  1  sites  were  evaluated 
and  the  results  were  presented  to 
the Advisory Committee and public 
for input (see Figure 3.2 on next page 
for  ranking  results).    After  detailed 
review with the Advisory Committee, 
the  following  recommendations 
were made:
•  Combine  Sites  1  and  2 
into  a  single  “site”  for  Tier  2 
screening
•  Combine  Sites  3,  5  and  6 
into  a  single  “site”  for  Tier  2 
screening
•  Carry  Site  8  into  Tier  2 
screening due to its ability to 
accomodate  potential  high 
speed rail routes
Tier 1 Sites - Figure 3.1
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
20
Summary of Tier 1 Evaluation Comments and Findings
Figure 3.2 illustrates the fi nal rankings and scoring for each of the ten sites evaluated during 
the Tier 1 process.  These sites were considered based on the evaluation methodology 
offered by the study team and presented to the Advisory Committee.    Based on the 
evaluation process, sites 1,2,3,5 and 6 received positive rankings, and these sites were 
clearly favored as potential Tier 2 sites after review by the Advisory Committee.  More 
detailed discussion of each site(s) advancing to Tier 2 screening is offered below:  
•  Combine Sites  1  &  2  into  a  single  “site”:    Both  Site  1 and 2  received  favorable 
rankings  and  scoring  due  to  their  proximity  and  access  to  surface  streets  and 
their  potential  impact  on  future  economic  development  and  redevelopment 
opportunities in the adjacent areas.  The sites, however, received less favorable 
rankings in terms of their ability to accommodate the anticipated transit modes 
due to their location at the far north end of the potential high speed rail alignment 
proposed in the most current ODOT HSR environmental study.  Finally, while these 
sites have frontage along Main Street in Bricktown, thus affording a measure of 
“civic presence” for a future hub, the size and confi guration of each individual site 
was deemed insuffi cient for either site to stand on its own, thus Sites 1 and 2 were 
combined and advanced.  
•  Combine Sites 3, 5 & 6 into a single “site”:  The proximity of each of these sites along 
the  main  rail  line  and  their  ability  to accommodate anticipated  transit  modes 
and other modes and activities was the single strongest attribute.  The Santa Fe 
station (site 3) was clearly a highly ranked location, with the only drawback being 
the size  of the site and whether it can accommodate the entire hub program. 
Accordingly, the highest ranking nearby sites  (sites 5 and 6) were evaluated as 
potential companion sites to Santa Fe, and upon further review and evaluation, 
the combined site of 3, 5 and 6 was advanced into Tier 2 evaluation.  
•  Carry Site 8 into  Tier  2:   While site 8 did not rank highly in any of the evaluation 
criteria, the site was advanced into Tier 2 evaluation as a precautionary measure 
related  to  the  possible  High  Speed  Rail  southern  route  alternative  by  ODOT. 
ODOT’s upcoming environmental study of possible high speed route alternatives 
between Tulsa and Oklahoma City will help determine if the southern HSR route is 
feasible.  If this study indicates that this route could be the preferred alignment, it 
was recommended that the Tier 2 evaluation consider this site and the implications 
and advantages of a hub in this location, mainly for its ability to accommodate 
this potential high speed rail alignment and service in the future.  
Tier 1 Site Alternatives
Tier 1 Scoring - Figure 3.2
4.0 Ridership Analysis
Association of Central 
Oklahoma Governments
Ridership Analysis 23
4.0 Ridership Analysis
Connetics Transportation Group (CTG) completed travel demand model runs to determine 
potential passenger trip activity for the Tier 2 site alternatives for the Intermodal Transportation 
Hub Study. Results presented below assume Year 2035 land use inputs and all travel forecasting 
was  done  with  the  Oklahoma  City  Area  Regional  Transportation  Study  (OCARTS)  travel 
demand model. Modeled scenarios included:
•  Combined hub sites 1and 2 (North Bricktown and the Buffalo Statue sites)
•  Combined hub sites 3, 5 and 6 (Santa Fe Station, Bricktown parking site north of Reno 
Avenue, and Bricktown parking site south of Reno Avenue) 
•  Hub site 8 (Lumber Yard site)
Background Transit Network
In general, all initial hub model runs were based on the system plan that emerged from the 
regional Fixed Guideway Study (June 2006). High capacity lines are illustrated in Figure 4.1 
and include the commuter lines: Edmond to Norman, Edmond to Midwest City/Tinker and 
Norman to  Midwest  City/Tinker.    In  additon,  several  proposed  bus  rapid  transit  (BRT)  lines 
were included, such as Reno Avenue through Downtown Oklahoma City (OKC), Will Rogers 
Airport to Downtown OKC via Reno Avenue, Northwest Expressway to Downtown OKC, and 
Will Rogers Airport to Interstate 35 interchange area at SW 54th Street via SW 54th Street. 
No changes were assumed for local and express bus service patterns. Forecasts were based 
on year 2035 demographic inputs and the region’s present plus committed highway network. 
No changes were assumed to downtown bus operating patterns.  Thus, all radial routes remain 
coded to and from the existing downtown transit center. Bus travel time computations were 
re-calibrated to be more refl ective of existing schedules. The recalibration was done with the 
OCARTS 2005 validation model and carried forward to the 2035 forecasts.
Service frequencies for Commuter Rail lines were assumed as follows:
•  Commuter Rail; Edmond – Norman, 60 peak/120 off-peak
•  Commuter Rail; Edmond – Midwest City/Tinker, 60 peak/120 off-peak
•  Commuter Rail; Norman – Midwest City/Tinker, 60 peak/120 off-peak
Utilizing the FGS system plan described herein resulted in a combined 30-minute peak/60-
minute off-peak  service frequency at each hub location.  Fares  for  all  high-capacity  lines 
were assumed to be the same as existing express bus service. 
Commuter Rail; Edmond – Norman
Commuter Rail; Edmond – Midwest City/Tinker
Commuter Rail; Norman – Midwest City/Tinker
Bus Rapid Transit; Reno – Downtown Oklahoma City 
Bus Rapid Transit; Will Rogers Airport – Downtown OKC via Reno
Bus Rapid Transit; Northwest Expressway – Downtown Oklahoma City
Bus Rapid Transit; Will Rogers Airport – I-35/SW 54th Street via SW 54th Street
Modern Streetcar
Enhanced Bus Service Routes
Legend
NORMAN
MIDWEST CITY
EDMOND
YUKON
OKLAHOMA CITY
Fixed Guideway Study - Transit System Plan Map - Figure 4.1
1 9
9 12
1 12
9 14
19 14
1 8
17 22
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
24
Service frequencies for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines were assumed as follows:
•  Bus Rapid Transit; Reno – Downtown OKC, 60 peak/120 off-peak 
•  Bus Rapid Transit; Will Rogers Airport – Downtown OKC via Reno, 60       
peak/120 off-peak
•  Bus Rapid Transit; Northwest Expressway – Downtown OKC, 30 peak/60 off-   
peak
•  Bus Rapid Transit; Will Rogers Airport – I-35/SW54th Street via SW54th Street, 30    
peak/60 off-peak 
Finally, the background transit network includes a downtown circulator streetcar system.  The 
streetcar line was assumed to operate on 10-minute peak and 15-minute midday headways. 
The  assumed  alignment  and  station  locations  were  assumed  to  be  consistent  with  the 
approved locally preferred alternative (see Figure 1.2).   Fares for the downtown streetcar 
were assumed to be the same as local buses.
Passenger Activity at the Hub Sites 
Projected person trip activity for the modeled Tier 1 hub sites are presented below in Table 
4.1(Year 2035 Forecasts).  
This table breaks out weekday person trips by mode of access.  Weekday totals refl ect the 
number of passengers that would be boarding or alighting commuter rail trains at a given 
hub site on a typical weekday. Walk trips are persons that are anticipated to enter or leave a 
hub site by walking (i.e., on foot).  Drive trips are persons anticipated to drive to or from a hub 
Site.  Transfer trips are passengers that transfer to/from another mode (e.g., riding the bus to 
a hub site and then transferring to one of the commuter rail lines or vice-versa). 
Overall, model results suggest that passenger activity is highest under the scenario for hub 
sites 3, 5 & 6 (Santa Fe/ Bricktown, North or South of Reno). For this combined location, the 
model’s estimate of daily passenger activity (i.e., boardings, alightings and transfers) totaled 
1,910 for a typical weekday in the horizon year 2035. Of that total, some 60 persons would be 
expected to drive and park at the site. Another 300 people would be transferring between 
CRT lines and other transit services (e.g., local bus, BRT, Streetcar).
In  general, mode of access results  for  walk tend to  refl ect each site’s proximity  to  the 
downtown core. For example, the modeled scenario for sites 3, 5 & 6 resulted with 1,540 
person trips on a  typical weekday. The scenario representing hub site  8  is  a  bit  further 
away from the downtown core and walk access activity drops off to 1,210 per day. 
Bus Connectivity at the Hub Sites 
The  level  of  circulation  to  and  from  the  modeled  hub  sites  merits  further  mention  in 
these results. As previously noted, the existing (2005) bus network has been used as the 
background transit network. Thus, a majority of buses operate to and from the existing 
downtown transit  center.    In  general,  the  level  of  transit  access  for  circulation  to  and 
from each hub site varies depending on the location of the hub site, the number of bus 
connections, walk access and proximity to the downtown core.
  
From Table 4.1 above, the scenario for hub sites 3, 5 & 6 has the highest bus-rail transfers 
(300 per day). This is due in part to peak period bus connectivity. Table 4.2 summarizes 
the number of hourly bus connections at each hub site. The hub site 3, 5 & 6 scenario had 
the highest bus connectivity with 15 buses per hour during peak periods.  Generally, this 
level of service would require six bus bays or pull-in, pull-out lanes and, depending on the 
service plans, bus lanes could be situated in a number of ways (e.g., side-by-side, each 
side of the street, along east-west or north-south streets, etc.).
Ridership Analysis
Estimated Passenger Activity for Select Tier 1 Hub Sites (2035 Persons Trips) - Table 4.1 
Tier 1 Hub 
Sites
Location
Modes of Access/Egress Weekday 
Total
Parking 
Walk Drive Transfer Spaces
1&2 North Bricktown (10, Buffalo Statue (2) 1,470 60 260 1,790 40-60
3, 5, & 6 Santa Fe Station (3), Bricktown North(5), or South (6) of Reno 1,540 60 300 1,910 40-60
8 Lumber Yard (8) 1,210 60 250 1,510 40-60
Peak Bus Connectivity Assumptions by Site Location - Table 4.2 
Tier 1 Hub 
Sites
Location
Pk Busses 
per Hour
1&2 North Bricktown (10, Buffalo Statue (2) 8.0
3, 5, & 6 Santa Fe Station (3), Bricktown North(5), or South (6) of Reno 15.0
8 Lumber Yard (8) 11.0
Commuter Rail Ridership and Peak Period Line Loads
Table 4.3 shows the estimated 2035 daily boardings for each line and for each of the hub 
site scenarios. It is important to note that this refl ects total boardings at all stations along 
the specifi ed line and does not refl ect ridership activity at the hub.  Passenger activity at 
specifi c hub sites was summarized earlier in Table 4.1. 
Total boardings range from a low of 6,150 per day (hub site 8) to a high of 6,430 per day 
(hub sites  3,  5 & 6). Of the three modeled lines, the Norman-Edmond Line  attracts the 
most boardings. This is the case across all hub scenarios. However, daily boardings for the 
Norman - Midwest City Line are roughly equivalent.
25
High Speed Rail Ridership
As with Amtrak, the OCARTS model cannot be used to estimate ridership for high speed
rail because such a service would extend beyond the boundaries of the regional model.
However, a November 2009 report by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation
(ODOT)(3) was reviewed, and year 2023 estimates were about 500,000 riders annually
between Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Assuming annualization factors between 280 and 300
suggests about 1600 to 1800 passengers per day. The November 2009 report proposed
four stations at Downtown Oklahoma City, Edmond Park and Ride (PnR) , Sapulpa (PnR)
and Tulsa. Ridership estimates in this report, however, were not specified at the station
level. As such, making an estimate for the Oklahoma City and Edmond Stations cannot
be done without additional information.
(3) Oklahoma Portion of the South Central High Speed Rail Corridor, Service Development Plan, The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma
Department of Transportation, November 2009.
Other Factors Influencing Model Results
It is important to note that these results are heavily influenced by the background transit
networks that have been applied to these model runs. Feeder bus routes (i.e., local
routes) to outlying commuter rail and BRT stations have not been designed in the model
coding. The addition of feeder bus routes could boost fixed guideway ridership and thus
boost passenger activity at each hub site. Bus routing in the downtown network has
also remained unchanged. Modifications to downtown bus routing could improve transit
accessibility to and from each hub site.
In addition, fixed guideway station locations and travel times are based on rather general
assumptions at this time. Fixed guideway ridership could also potentially be boosted with
modified station assumptions, faster fixed guideway travel time, and introducing rail bias
to the model.
Potential Model Variable Modifications
These forecasts were made using the new OCARTS regional travel demand model
(TDM). To our knowledge, this is the first transit-related application of the new TDM. Some
modifications were made to improve performance (e.g., re-calibration of bus speeds,
path processes, etc.).
During a cursory review of the model, potential model variable adjustments were identified
that may impact ridership results for the hub. These are discussed in the Ridership Report
in Appendix 1.
Peak period line loads measure passenger accumulation and therefore is used to
approximate train consist (number of vehicles) requirements. In general, peak period line
loads did not vary by hub site. The model’s estimate was 500 passengers for a 5.5 hour
peak period (i.e., AM plus PM). This estimate is for both the Edmond-Norman line and
the Norman-Midwest City/Tinker line; that is 500 passengers accumulate for each line for
the modeled 5.5-hour period. Hourly, this would be approximately 90 to 125 passengers
and suggests single car consists would be sufficient. Note that designing for 2-car consists
would be desirable given that these are model estimates and would accommodate
future growth.
The total daily ridership of approximately 6,200 patrons is fairly typical for a relatively new
commuter rail system operating over similar distances. This number can be compared to
the Dallas/Fort Worth Trinity Railway Express (8,100 daily riders), Seattle Sounder (8,700 daily
riders), Salt Lake City Frontrunner (5,400 daily riders) and Sacramento/San Jose Capital
Corridor (5,300 daily riders). (2)
(2) APTA Ridership Report Statistics 3rd Quarter 2010
Ridership Analysis
Estimated Daily Commuter Rail Boardings by Line (Systemwide 2035) - Table 4.3
Tier 1 Hub
Sites Location
Daily Commuter Rail Boardings
by Line Total
Norman - Boardings
Edmond
Norman -
MWC
Edmond -
MWC
1&2 North Bricktown (10, Buffalo Statue (2) 2,520 2,250 1,430 6,200
3, 5, & 6 Santa Fe Station (3), Bricktown North(5), or South (6) of Reno 2,650 2,280 1,500 6,430
8 Lumber Yard (8) 2,530 2,220 1,400 6,150
Amtrak Ridership
The OCARTS model cannot be used to estimate Amtrak ridership because the service
extends beyond the boundaries of the regional model. The Amtrak Fact Sheet indicates
FY 2010 boardings and alightings on the Heartland Flyer as:
• 14,119 at the Norman Station
• 55,230 at the Oklahoma City Station (Santa Fe Depot)
Assuming annualizing factors between 280 and 300 yields roughly 40 to 50 passengers per
day at the Norman Station and 180 to 200 passengers per day at the Santa Fe Depot in
Oklahoma City. Future forecasts cannot be done without additional information.
Ridership Analysis
5.0 Fixed Guideway Operations Analysis
Association of Central 
Oklahoma Governments
29
•  Amtrak Heartland Flyer – Between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth (1 or perhaps 2 
round trips daily)
•  High Speed Rail – Between Tulsa and Fort Worth via OKC (6 round trips daily)
•  BNSF Freight – Long distance and local trains through the terminal on two tracks 
reserved for exclusive freight use
•  Local Passenger Rail – Up to four coordinated services through and to the hub
•  Edmond-Norman (11 weekday round trips)
•  Norman-Midwest City / Tinker AFB (11 weekday round trips)
•  Edmond-Midwest City / Tinker AFB (11 weekday round trips)
•  Adventure District-Yukon (12 weekday round trips)
       Note: All local passenger trains would be routed through the hub en-route    
           to another outlying terminal. Owing to the track confi guration at the hub,   
           Edmond-Midwest City trains would need to change direction in the station.  
          All other services would simply stop at the hub near the midpoint of their    
    scheduled trip.
•  Proposed streetcar and future light rail modes are assumed to be located outside 
of the existing BNSF corridor and operate independently.
Based on the current BNSF right-of-way and elevated trackway structure through downtown 
Oklahoma  City,  5  tracks  and  2  platforms  can  be  accommodated  without  signifi cant 
infrastructure  modifi cations  to 
widen the trackway.  The operations 
analysis  is  based  on  maximizing 
the  use  of  the  existing  right-of-way 
by  developing  the  most  effi cient 
track  arrangements  and  sharing 
platforms  between  commuter  rail 
and high speed rail. The base track 
confi guration for the hub includes:
•  two  through  tracks  sharing  an 
island  platform  for  use  by  local 
trains and HSR,
•  one through track and platform 
for the exclusive use of Amtrak’s 
Heartland Flyer  
•  two  through  tracks  for  BNSF 
freight  trains  with  no  passenger 
platforms
Fixed Guideway Operations Analysis
5.0 Fixed Guideway Operations Analysis
Introduction 
The Fixed Guideway Study (FGS) provided the planning foundation for a future regional 
public transportation system for Central Oklahoma.  The resulting System Plan was based 
on  a  horizon  year  of  2030 and included recommendations for commuter rail, modern 
streetcar, bus rapid transit and enhanced bus services, and an intermodal transportation 
hub.  The conclusions of the FGS formed the basis  for  initial evaluation of  future  transit 
ridership, hub capacity and hub operations.  In recent years, Central Oklahoma residents 
have  become  energized  about  the  possibilities  of  regional  public  transportation  as 
a  means  to  improve  mobility  for  all  citizens,  provide  a  catalyst  for  greater  economic 
development, improve livability, and reduce auto emissions that affect air quality.  As a 
result, ACOG partnered with community and private sector leaders to begin a visioning 
process known as the Regional Transit Dialogue (RTD). The RTD process examined local 
desire for enhanced regional public transportation and explored potential governance, 
funding and coordination strategies.  These efforts will continue in the future in order to 
fi ne tune and build upon the accomplishments of the fi rst RTD phase.   
In the development of the hub operations plan, it became clear in the public discussions 
and further dialogue with the Hub Study Advisory Committee that the hub study should 
expand on the limits and directions offered in the Fixed Guideway Study by incorporating 
additional modes developed under other studies (Amtrak and high speed rail), as well 
as  other  potential  modes  and  routes  that  emanated  in  the  Regional  Transit  Dialogue 
discussions  and  recommendations.    Accordingly,  these  future  modes,  as  well  as  their 
additional  patronage,  were  considered  in  the  hub  operations  plan  in  order  to  ensure 
that  the hub location chosen could accommodate all needs far  into  the  future.      This 
“future  proofi ng”  of  the  hub  operations  included  expanded  ridership  assumptions  to 
accommodate the higher levels of commuter service with additional lines and modes. 
The nature and impact of these expanded services are documented in this section.  When 
added to the baseline riderships and patronage generated by the FGS conclusions, this 
operations analysis will help to ensure that the hub facility will be sized and planned to 
provide adequate service well beyond the timelines included in the FGS and the region’s 
2030 Transportation Plan. 
Fixed Guideway Components
The primary focus of the operational analysis is based on the fi xed guideway components 
operating  in  the  BNSF  corridor.    The  need  for  this  corridor  to  accommodate  freight, 
commuter rail and high speed rail  will ultimately limit the passenger capacity of the hub. 
As a result, a detailed operations plan was developed to fully understand the capacity 
of this corridor as well as its relationship to other modes outside the corridor. The following 
assembly of modes provides the basis for development of the operations analysis. Platform Diagram - Figure 5.1
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
30
Commuter Rail Service
The current scheduling paradigm for local commuter service plans are for hourly peak 
service on all branches with bi-hourly off peak service.  Plans call for local trains originating 
in Edmond, Norman and Midwest City to alternate destinations providing frequent and 
attractive  service  to  downtown  through  the  hub.    Based  on  projections  in  the  Fixed 
Guideway Study, three local suburban communities are likely to warrant commuter rail 
service in the future.  While each of these commuter rail corridors are expected to yield 
varying degrees of demand for passenger rail service, the overall demand generated by 
the Edmond, Norman and Midwest City areas is the basis for the commuter rail service 
components of the hub analysis.  
Integrated Station Schedule
In  order  to  fully  understand  the  relationship  between  arriving  and  departing  trains  on 
each  of  the  commuter  rail  and  high  speed  rail  lines,  a  sketch  level  scheduling  and 
capacity study was developed.  The study is based on the current scheduling paradigm 
discussed above and proposed track layout to determine if all proposed services could 
be accommodated in the fi ve track station and what level of service defi nes a “tipping 
point’ requiring additional tracks to further expand service.
Assumptions for the Station Schedule
The study was conducted subject to a variety of assumptions. 
•  All local and HSR trains are restricted to the two track center island platform.
•  Running  times  are  based  on  the  2006  Fixed  Guideway  Study  Ridership  and 
Operations Report and 2011 Ridership Analysis update.
•  All routes have suffi cient capacity that there are no constraining meets or passes 
affecting local, HSR, or Amtrak services.
•  Crossovers  and  interlockings  could  be  constructed  to  support  the  connections 
required for interline switching at the terminal and the junction to the Midwest City 
line. 
•  Local schedules were prepared to maximize regularity and frequency of service.
•  Trains moving between Midwest City and Edmond must change ends at the hub 
and reverse their inbound route for 0.3 miles.
•  HSR shares a route with Norman/Midwest City.  This route must be clear 15 minutes 
ahead of scheduled HSR trains.
•  All local trains have a minimum stop of one minute at OKC.
•  Longer OKC dwells for HSR and trains following HSR (2 minutes).
•  Local trains can follow other local trains, HSR and Amtrak trains by 5 minutes without 
interference.
•  For the purposes of the sketch plan, it is assumed that there is suffi cient capacity 
and fl exibility to avoid all confl icts with BNSF freight trains.
Fixed Guideway Operations Analysis
Sketch Schedule - Figure 5.2
31
Findings of Station Scheduling Analysis 
The station scheduling exercise indicates that:
•  It is possible to schedule all 2030 projected local and HSR services through the 
two track island platform. 
•  Local service on the four lines can be operated with eight consists (2 cars per 
line).
•  Services to Midwest City, Edmond and Norman are all interlined and require 
sensitive scheduling to balance customer service.
•  Northeast /Yukon service is completely independent of all other services and 
consequently relatively easy to schedule. 
•  HSR service marginally affects the schedules of local services along the shared 
route  and  through  the  terminal  but  can  be accommodated with  only  one 
adjustment at 5pm.
•  The  dedicated  Amtrak  track  and  platform  receives  very  little  traffi c  and  is 
unused for 13 hours from 8:30 am to 9:30 pm each day.
The schedule of interlined local services for Midwest City, Norman and Edmond is complex 
but  feasible.    Scheduling  the  three  services  through  a  two  track  terminal  will  require 
precision in scheduling and operations. This type of scheduling operation is typical for many 
similar operations in other cities but not desired for optimal operations as dependencies 
between schedules at the terminal could result in a relatively fragile service that maybe 
subject to cascading delays. 
The complexity of scheduling four lines at one platform can be mitigated by utilizing either 
of the following alternatives:
1.  Scheduling  most  (or  all)  Norman-Edmond  trains  through  the  track  currently 
reserved for Amtrak’s exclusive use would relieve capacity constraints and yield 
a service that is much more robust and less subject to cascading delays.  Amtrak 
shares their platform with both commuter and High Speed Rail at many locations 
in the Northeast Corridor.
2. A third passenger platform with two additional tracks would serve all commuter 
and high speed rail lines continuing to the east. Shifting the High Speed Rail and 
Norman to Midwest City line to Platform 3 provides higher operational capacity 
for Edmond to Midwest City and Adventure District  to Yukon on Platform  2.   A 
third platform would also be indicated in the more distant future when additional 
frequencies are considered for Oklahoma City.
Fixed Guideway Operations Analysis
Findings and Recommendations for Rail Operations Plan at the Hub
As indicated in the information contained within this section, the introduction of regional 
transit services and rail traffi c at the proposed hub location will have signifi cant impacts in 
terms of new platforms and the need to appropriately coordinate passenger and freight 
services through this yard into the future.  The analysis is based on the FGS recommendations, 
as well as additional rail-based transit services that may occur in the future.  In this way, 
the hub location and site has been tested and “future-proofed” in order to ensure that 
expansions of the future transit system (beyond those contemplated in the FGS) can be 
accommodated at this hub location. 
Figure  5.3  (below)  indicates  in  graphic  form  the  services,  lines,  headways  and  other 
important  features  of  the  proposed  long  term  operations  plan  for  the  hub.  The major 
fi ndings  and  recommendations  of  this  operations  analysis  are  included  on  the  next 
page.
Hub Operation Plan - Figure 5.3
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
32
Outlined below are the recommendations for future operations of the hub that will now form 
the basis for the further development of a physical layout and master plan for the hub at the 
Santa Fe depot site.  
•  A  two  platform Commuter Rail  /  High  Speed  Rail  operation  provides  effective 
service for the system at the hub through 2030, with the current Amtrak operation 
also included in this system analysis.
•  As ridership increases and new commuter rail services are added at the hub in 
the future, shifting the Edmond - Norman Line to the current Amtrak platform will 
permit less constrained scheduling. 
•  A future third platform (to the east side of the current elevated guideway at the 
Santa Fe depot location) may be needed to accommodate expanded passenger 
service (commuter rail or high speed rail) in the long term future.
•  The addition of third platform requires the following actions to be initiated in the 
short term so that the third platform is not precluded from occurring in the future: 
1.  Preserve the ability to widen the railroad bridge spanning the proposed  
Oklahoma City “boulevard” that is being designed currently; (4)
2.  Coordinate the design of the proposed “boulevard” to ensure that it does 
not preclude the bridge widening discussed herein; 
3.  Acquire or gain control of the rail right-of-way needed to accommodate  
the high speed rail and commuter rail services at the existing Union    
Pacifi c spur and the North Bricktown parking lot; 
4.  Design and maintain the proposed public plaza on the east side of the current 
elevated guideway to allow the addition of the future third platform.  
Fixed Guideway Operations Analysis
(4)  At the time of this study, construction of the I-40 realignment in downtown Oklahoma City was underway, with 
completion expected in fall 2012.  Subsequent to opening the realigned I-40 mainline, the old elevated I-40 structure will 
be removed and replaced with an at-grade boulevard which will provide direct access to downtown Oklahoma City.
6.0 Facility Program
Association of Central 
Oklahoma Governments
35
6.0 Facility Program
The Intermodal Hub program was developed based on the project goals and objectives 
to accommodate passenger boarding, transfers, waiting and transit provider operations. 
Space requirements include platforms for passenger boarding, parking, common areas 
including passenger waiting and amenities, facility access, circulation and  bus / streetcar 
boarding areas.  
The program was derived from requirements for train lengths and schedules, scheduling 
of buses, enclosed space based on the number of patrons projected to use the facility, 
transportation provider requirements and general circulation and access.  The general 
program areas are summarized below. A detailed Facility Program is included in Appendix 
2 of this report. 
Commuter Rail Platform
The commuter rail platform has been sized based on the projected 2035 ridership with 
assumptions made on the vehicle type and capacity to serve the ridership.  Based on the 
ridership analysis, 6,400 patrons can be expected to use the commuter rail system on a daily 
basis.  The “peak line load” measures passenger accumulation and is used to approximate 
train consist requirements. The model’s estimate is that 500 passengers accumulate for 
each line for the modeled 5.5-hour period. Hourly, this would be approximately 90 to 125 
passengers per line and suggests a single car consists would be suffi cient dependant on 
the vehicle utilized.  
Based on an industry review of the most recent commuter 
rail  systems,  two  types  of  vehicles  are  primarily  being 
utilized; the Bombardier, push-pull Bi-Level Coach and the 
US Railcar Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Bi-Level Coach.  The 
difference  in  these  two  vehicle  types  primarily  lies  in  the 
power  equipment  used  to  propel  the  vehicle.    Push-pull 
requires a locomotive to propel the passenger cars, while 
the  DMU  utilizes  diesel  powered  self  propelled  individual 
vehicles.    The  coach  capacity  for  each  vehicle  type  is 
similar ranging from 150 – 188 seated capacity.  The vehicle 
length is also approximately equal for both vehicles.  Based 
on the peak line load, a single vehicle can meet the initial 
capacity needs of 125 passengers for the corridor. 
Designing the hub for initial capacity would be shortsighted. 
Therefore,  consideration  must  be  given  higher  future 
ridership.    The most effective  form  of expansion capability  for  fi xed guideway transit  is 
the addition of vehicles, expanding in a linear fashion as opposed to adding more lanes. 
The chart below shows the capacity that can be added by providing  more vehicles.  A 
detailed Vehicle Capacity Analysis is located in Appendix 3. 
        No. Vehicles         Daily Capacity
          1          6,480 Passengers (PAX)
          2      10,080 PAX
          3      16,200 PAX
          4      19,440 PAX
The above capacities can be further increased by decreasing headways (30 minute peak 
headways vs. 60 minute). The design basis for the commuter rail platform was determined 
to be three vehicles, which provides 250% of the capacity needed in 2035.  A 350 foot 
platform length will accommodate 3 vehicles and a locomotive with provisions for some 
fl exibility in positioning the train.   The platform width was determined to be 26 feet allowing 
for vertical circulation (elevator and stairs) with adequate space on each side for patron 
circulation,  boarding and alighting.
Facility Program
Commuter Rail
Daily Boardings (1910 use 2000) 2,000 Passengers (PAX)
2035 Peak Hour Boarding/Alighting at OKC Hub (2000 x 25%) 500 PAX
Peak Boardings per Train
(500 PAX Peak Hr/3 Trains/ 3 per Hour)
56 PAX
High Speed Rail
2035 Daily Boardings 2,880 PAX
Boardings per Train
(6 per day / AM Peak)
480 PAX
Amtrak
2035 Daily Boardings 340 PAX
Boardings per Train
(2 per day / AM Peak)
170 PAX
Total Peak Boardings at OKC Hub 706 PAX
Peak Hour Ridership - Table 6.1 
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
36
Transit Hall
The Transit Hall includes the common areas that accommodate all passenger services, 
operations support and passenger amenities.  This program component will provide the 
linkages between modes and support all passenger operations. The primary functional 
elements for this area include the following:
•  Waiting
•  Patron Restrooms
•  Retail
•  Security Offi ce
•  Information / Customer Service Desk
•  Visitor Center
•  Circulation
•  Amtrak Ticketing and Operations
•  Commuter Rail Ticketing and Operations
•  High Speed Rail Ticketing and Operations
The total enclosed area for the Transit Hall is approximately 30,000 square feet. This area 
was determined based on transit provider needs, waiting area based on the number of 
passengers anticipated in the peak period, and circulation space for transfers between 
modes.  A detailed analysis of the space requirements is shown in the Facility Program. 
A total of approximately 700 passengers are expected to occupy the hub in the peak 
hour based on ridership projections as shown in Table 6.1 on the preceeding page and 
as detailed in Appendix 3 (see Peak Boardings category).  
Bus / BRT Boarding
Local bus service will be one of the primary distribution systems of the Intermodal hub. 
Six bus bays will be required to accommodate 15 buses per hour serving the facility.  Bus 
bays are anticipated to be located curb side immediately adjacent to the facility.
Streetcar Stop
The alignment of the proposed streetcar circulator is anticipated to utilize Sheridan and 
Reno.  The  fl exibility  of  the  streetcar  operation  should  allow  stops  at  several  locations 
depending  on  the  site  location  and  confi guration.    A  single  streetcar  stop  location  is 
anticipated to serve the Intermodal Hub with space for layover of one vehicle.
Intercity Bus
Provisions have been made in the program to accommodate intercity bus operators such 
as Greyhound.  Intercity bus providers in Oklahoma City currently operate out of privately 
owned facilities; however, this mode could be an integral part of the hub in the future. 
Accommodations have been made for 8 bus bays and passenger operations space of 
Note that as described in Section 5, Fixed Guideway Operations Analysis, the commuter rail 
service may operate from the same platform as High Speed Rail.  The facility implications 
of  the shared platform and operations are discussed in Section 8.    In  the northeastern 
United States, the Acela high speed service shares tracks and platforms with commuter 
rail at most stations. 
Facility Program
High Speed Rail Platform
The  South  Central  High  Speed  ail  Service  Development  Plan  indicates  a  need  for  nine 
passenger cars and a locomotive.   The Northeast Corridor Acela high speed rail  service 
operates using 87’ Bombardier passenger cars, and a 70’ powercar (locomotive).  Each 
passenger car seats approximately 50. Using a similar vehicle type would result  in a total 
passenger capacity of 450 with a total length of 853’.   A 900’ platform will be adequate to 
support high speed rail service at the intermodal hub. 
Amtrak
1200’ x 20’ Platform (Existing)
High Speed Rail
900’ x 26’ Platform (Possibly Shared with Commuter Rail)
Commuter Rail
350’ x 26’ Platform (3 car train)
Platform Requirements - Table 6.2 
Platform Length - Figure 6.1
37
approximately 14,000 square feet.  It is anticipated that this facility would be adjacent to, 
but not necessarily integral to, the hub depending on the fi nal hub site selection.
Parking
The primary function of an intermodal terminal is mode to mode transfers.  While transit use 
is the primary function, parking must also be considered a mode, especially for regional 
service  such  as  Amtrak,  High  Speed  Rail,  and  to  some  extent,  Commuter  Rail,  where 
patrons may not be able to access these facilities by other modes.  Based on ridership 
projections and assumptions made on percentage of automobile access by riders, 833 
parking spaces have been programmed for the facility.  This parking may be phased in 
as individual transit modes are introduced into the facility.  Detailed parking calculations 
are included in Appendix 4.
Commuter Rail
(Per Ridership Model) 64 Spaces
High Speed Rail
Based on 50% of Daily Riders
(340 x .50)
179 Spaces
Amtrak
Based on 50% of Daily Riders 586 Spaces
Total Parking Requirement 833 Spaces
Taxi / Shuttles
Curbside space will be required for passenger drop-off and pickup by taxis and private 
shuttles such as hotel and limousine service.  Two spaces will be allocated for  this use. 
Should high capacity taxi service be desired, an off-site staging area may be required.
Bike Station
E.K.  Gaylord  Boulevard  is  proposed  for  streetscape  improvements  associated  with  the 
Project 180 downtown streetscaping program.  As such, a bike lane is planned along with 
other improvements that will facilitate bike usage in the downtown area.  Accordingly, 
bike storage facilities, and possibly a bike rental and repair shop, should be a component 
of the facility. 
Parking Requirements - Table 6.3 
Facility Program
7.0 Tier 2 Site Evaluation
Association of Central 
Oklahoma Governments
41
7.0 Tier 2 Site Evaluation   
      
The Tier 2 evaluation process was developed to identify a preferred site from the three short 
listed  Tier  1  sites.    The  criteria  focused  on  the  site’s  ability  to accommodate the  physical 
requirements of the program and also included economic development, urban form and 
environmental factors that could impact development.  Conceptual  layouts were developed 
at each site to test the site geometry and related infrastructure against the program.
Tier 2 Evaluation Methodology
•  Multimodal Access:  The site’s ability to provide access by all modes, including streetcar, 
BRT, local and intercity bus, bike, and commuter and high speed rail services.
•  Site Confi guration:   The ability of the site to accommodate the necessary program 
components including platforms, facility requirements, parking and access.  
•  Economic Development:  The site’s ability to enhance the development potential on 
adjacent vacant or underutilized parcels in a desirable, walkable location.   
•  Urban  Form:  The  site’s  conformance  with  the  appropriate  density,  walkable 
environment  and transit supportive zoning that encourage an active urban space.
•  Environmental: The site’s ability to minimize displacements, noise impacts and historic 
property impacts through the development of the hub.  
Site A Evaluation
Site A includes the combination of Sites 1 and 2 from the Tier 1 evaluation.  During the 
analysis and operation planning process it was determined that in order to link commuter 
rail and high speed rail  service  to  the  east,  right-of-way would have to be dedicated 
through this site.  This right-of-way would connect the existing Union Pacifi c corridor to the 
existing elevated guideway and BNSF right-of-way in order to  provide the rail connection 
to Midwest City and Tulsa.  The 750 foot track radius required for this right-of -way to make 
the  connection  bifurcates  the  site  posing  several  challenges  to  accommodating  the 
program.  The track curvature would also force the majority of the proposed passenger 
platforms  either  north  or  south  of  the  central  portions  of  the  site  creating  additional 
challenges of linking the platforms to the hub facility.  Due to these signifi cant obstacles 
to developing a feasible site plan and the apparent operational infeasibility of the site, 
a layout and site plan was not developed for this site.  Furthermore, as was anticipated 
during the evaluation, the overall ranking for this site was quite low, scoring a 55 out of a 
possible 105 total points.  The detailed evaluation of Site A is included in Appendix 5.
Tier 2 Site Evaluation
                                                                  Tier 2 Sites - Figure 7.1  Site A Concept Plan - Figure 7.3 
Tier 2 Summary Rankings 
Figure 7.2 (below) presents the summary of Tier 
2 rankings, indicating that Site B (Santa Fe site) 
clearly achieved the highest score.  The Advisory 
Committee  and  the  public  endorsed  this  site 
selection due to the following attributes: 
•  Provides  adequate  transit  capacity 
through 2030 and beyond
•  Enhances  development  opportunities 
for Downtown and Bricktown
•  Possesses  a  notable  civic  presence, 
history, and visibility within the region 
•  Creates a new pedestrian linkage  that 
ties Downtown to Bricktown 
Evaluation Criteria A B C
Multimodal Access 11 24 15
Site Confi guration 7 17 11
Economic Development 5 14 8
Urban Form 15 22 15
Environmental 17 17 18
Total 55 94 67 Tier 2 Rankings - Figure 7.2
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
42
As presented in Figure 7.4, this site combination provided the majority of the passenger 
functions at the Santa Fe Terminal site, two passenger platforms within the existing 180’ 
elevated guideway structure, and parking east of the guideway south of Reno Avenue. 
Due to its ability to meet the criteria, the overall ranking for this site was 94 out of a possible 
105 total points.  The detailed evaluation is included in Appendix 5.
Site C Evaluation
Site C is located immediately south of I-40 at the commonly referred to “lumber yard” site. 
The area around this location will undergo extensive modifi cations with the removal of the 
I-40 overpass and the introduction of a new boulevard in its place.  Due to clearances at 
the railroad’s elevated guideway, the new boulevard will be depressed at the intersection 
of EK Gaylord and Reno, creating a depressed roadway from Gaylord east to Oklahoma 
Avenue.  The  elevated  guideway  at  this  location  is  approximately  60  feet  in  width  as 
opposed to 180 feet further north at Site B; therefore, the guideway will be required to be 
widened to accommodate two platforms.  While the site will accommodate the program 
requirements as illustrated in the concept diagram, accessibility to and visibility of the site 
were viewed as signifi cant negative factors. The site is also removed from the primary bus 
routes and proposed streetcar route.  Because of these drawbacks, the overall ranking 
for this site was 67, and the detailed evaluation is included in Appendix 5.
Site B Evaluation
Site B includes the combination of Sites 3, 5 and 6 from the Tier 1 evaluation.  The initial 
evaluations  indicated  that  the  re-purposing  and  reinvigoration  of  the  Santa  Fe  depot 
facility would not only accommodate much of the anticipated building program for the 
hub (i.e. square footage for passengers, transit hall, Amtrak, common spaces, etc.) but 
also provide a literal and fi gurative link  to the proud history  of  rail transportation in the 
Oklahoma territory.    While  the  site proved to accommodate the  facility program and 
allow for future expansion of the elevated guideway without requiring additional property, 
it was determined that additional property would be needed for the parking needs of the 
hub and the other intercity bus services that were desired as a part of the program.  It was 
determined that both sites 5 and 6 could accommodate these program requirements, but 
the preferred location was site 6 due to its size and ability to provide additional development 
opportunities in the area.  Other attributes of this site include a strong civic presence along 
Gaylord Boulevard,  good roadway access, and strong economic development potential 
through urban infi ll.  The location also provided the opportunity for new pedestrian access 
from downtown and Bricktown  with  the hub acting  as  a  connector between the  two 
districts.  By extending the existing below grade pedestrian underpass within the current 
Santa Fe depot facility through the elevated guideway and then punching through the 
railroad “wall” at the western end of the Bricktown canal, the hub facility could encourage 
and  enliven 
the  activity 
b e t w e e n 
B r i c k t own 
and  the 
downtown 
area,  which 
has  been 
an  urban 
design  goal 
for  the  City 
for  several 
years.  Figure 
7.4  provides 
a  concept 
plan on how 
the  facility 
could  be 
planned  at 
these  sites. 
Tier 2 Site Evaluation
Site B Concept Plan - Figure 7.4  Site C Concept Plan - Figure 7.5 
8.0 Traffi c Impacts
Association of Central 
Oklahoma Governments
45
8.0 Traffi c Impacts
Traffi c Impacts
The traffi c impacts of the proposed intermodal hub were reviewed with respect to the 
expected increase in traffi c due to the attraction of the facility. The hub is proposed to 
provide  interconnectivity  between  several  different  modes  of  transportation  including 
commuter rail, streetcar, BRT, local and intercity bus, local shuttle services and future high 
speed rail. Associated with the new hub is a proposed new 850 space parking garage, 
street car station, and pick-up and drop-off facilities for taxis and buses. The study includes 
a review of the traffi c operations of E.K. Gaylord between the proposed new Boulevard 
and Sheridan Avenue and of Reno Avenue between E.K. Gaylord and Oklahoma Avenue. 
The results of the reviews are to be used to determine the traffi c impacts of the new hub 
and develop improvement scenarios, if necessary, for the safe and effi cient movement 
of traffi c.
The reviews conducted for the intermodal hub included the utilization of the projected 
future 2025 background traffi c data previously developed for the Downtown Oklahoma 
City Comprehensive Traffi c Study as completed in 2009. The background traffi c within the 
study area is indicated in Table 8.1.
The traffi c volumes expected to be generated by the new hub facility were determined 
utilizing the trip rate information for the category “light rail transit station with parking” land 
use as included in Volume 2 of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 
8th Edition report. The trip rates of this land use were determined utilizing the number of 
parking spaces located within the adjacent parking facility as the variable. Based on the 
proposed hub plan, a parking garage is to be constructed just east of E.K. Gaylord on the 
south side of Reno. The new parking facility is proposed to contain a total of 850 parking 
spaces to be used primarily by traffi c generated by the new hub. To determine the trip 
total to apply to the hub, it was calculated that on average the parking garage would 
have an occupancy rate of 60 percent. The resultant number of vehicle trip ends for an 
average weekday and associated a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods are summarized in 
Table 8.1.
This  traffi c was distributed among the intersections within the study area based on the 
distributions of traffi c as determined in the previously mentioned comprehensive traffi c 
study. The resultant distribution of the projected hub generated traffi c was then added 
to the 2025 background traffi c to create a total projected 2025 traffi c volume associated 
with  the  hub  and  the  surrounding  area.    These  traffi c  volumes  were  used  to  conduct 
the reviews and analyses identifi ed herein and details of these volumes are indicated in 
Appendix 8.  
Capacity Analysis
TEC  conducted  several  analyses  utilizing  the  projected  traffi c  volumes.  The  analyses 
were conducted using Synchro Professional, Version 7.0, which is a software package for 
modeling and optimizing traffi c signal timings at signalized intersections, and analyzing 
unsignalized intersections in accordance with the methodology of the latest edition of 
the Highway Capacity Manual.(5)
(5) The Highway Capacity Manual is provided by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 
The information is widely accepted throughout the U.S. as a guide for defi ning and solving transportation challenges. The information 
is approved and distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
The capacity analysis provides a measure of the amount of traffi c that a given facility can 
accommodate. Traffi c facilities generally operate poorly at or near capacity. The analysis 
is intended to estimate the maximum amount of traffi c that can be accommodated by 
a facility while maintaining prescribed operational qualities. The defi nition of operational 
criteria  is  accomplished  using  level-of-service  (LOS).  The  concept  of  LOS  is defi ned  as 
a qualitative measure and describes operational conditions in terms of such factors as 
speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffi c interruptions, 
comfort  and  convenience,  and  safety.  Six  levels-of-service  are 
defi ned for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are 
available. They are given letter designations, from “A” to “F”, with 
LOS “A” representing the best operating conditions and LOS “F” 
the worst. Normally, levels-of-service “A, B or C” are considered 
good during peak traffi c periods, level-of-service “D” is considered 
acceptable,  level-of-service  “E”  is  considered  undesirable, and 
level-of-service “F” is considered unacceptable.
Traffi c Impacts
Building Type
(Land Use)
Approx.
Number of 
Occupied 
Parking 
Spaces2
Avg. Weekday Veh. Trip Ends
Average AM Peak 
Hour Directional 
Distribution
Average AM Peak 
Hour Directional 
Volume
Average PM Peak 
Hour Directional 
Distribution
Average PM Peak 
Hour Directional 
Volume
Per Day
(vpd)
Per Peak Hour of 
Adjacent Street Traffi c
One Hour 
Between
7am & 9am
(vph)
One Hour 
Between
4am & 6am
(vph) IN OUT IN  OUT IN OUT IN OUT
Trip Rate1 3.91 1.14 1.33
Light Rail Transit 0.80 0.20 465 116 0.58 0.42 393 285
Station w/Parking 510 1994 581 678
Projected Site Generated Traffi c Volumes - Table 8.1 
1 Trip Rates from “TRIP GENERATION”, 8th Ed., Vol. 2, Institute of Transportation Engineers.
2 Assumed the Parking Garage to include 60% occupied parking spaces in garage due to transit riders within the 850 space garage.
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
46
The average control delay for signalized intersections is estimated for each lane group 
and  aggregated  for  each  approach  for  the  intersection  as  a  whole.  The  LOS,  for  this 
type of traffi c control, is directly related to the control delay value. The LOS criteria for 
signalized intersections are indicated below.
Signalized Intersections
    Level-of-Service      Control Delay per Vehicle (seconds/veh)
      A            <10
      B            >10-20
      C            >20-35
      D            >35-55
      E            >55-80
      F            >80
The  criteria  for  stop  controlled  or  unsignalized  intersections  have  different  threshold 
values than do those for signalized intersections. A higher level of control delay has been 
determined  to  be  acceptable  at  a  signalized  intersection  for  the  same  LOS.  The  LOS 
criteria for unsignalized intersections are indicated below.
Unsignalized Intersections
    Level-of-Service      Control Delay per Vehicle (seconds/veh)
      A                0-10
      B            >10-15
      C            >15-25
      D            >25-35
      E            >35-50
      F            >50
The  results  of  the  capacity  analyses  conducted  are  summarized  in  Table  8.2  and  are 
included in Appendix 6 of this study. The analyses of the signalized intersections included 
the  use  of  actuated-coordinated  traffi c  control  throughout  the  network.  The  lane 
confi gurations  include  those  as  proposed  in  the  Project  180  Downtown  Streetscape 
project except  for  the  street  segments  along  E.K.  Gaylord.  This  street  was assumed to 
be in its current condition, except for the segment between Reno Avenue and Sheridan 
Avenue. This segment was assumed to be narrowed to two lanes each northbound and 
southbound. This change refl ects the street car station proposed to be provided in the 
existing outside southbound lane and the pick-up/drop-off lane proposed to be provided 
in the existing outside northbound lane.
The pedestrian crossing to be located along E.K. Gaylord between Reno Avenue and 
Sheridan Avenue was analyzed as a signalized crossing. This crossing is intended to serve 
the pedestrians crossing between the hub transit station and the streetcar station located 
on the west side of E.K. Gaylord. This crossing could also provide an alternative pedestrian 
crossing between Bricktown and the west side of E.K. Gaylord.
The  analysis  results  indicate  the  traffi c  expected  to  be  generated  by  the  proposed 
downtown intermodal hub is not anticipated to be detrimental to the overall operation of 
the signalized intersections within the study area. The proposed new signalized pedestrian 
crossing along E.K. Gaylord is expected to be accommodated without causing undue 
delays to the traffi c when operating in a coordinated fashion.  The only facilities of some 
concern would be the exiting intersection for the proposed new garage, located along 
Reno Avenue, east of E.K. Gaylord. The northbound movement (traffi c exiting garage) 
could be subjected to very long delays. The delays would be the result of traffi c waiting 
for a gap to enter the traffi c stream along Reno Avenue. Therefore, the resultant level-
of-service of this intersection is largely due to the amount of through traffi c along Reno 
Avenue.  During  periods  of  long  delays, some of  the exiting  traffi c  could  be expected 
to  be  diverted  to  the  Oklahoma  Avenue  exit.  Due  to  this  possibility,  no  further  traffi c 
control methods would be recommended initially.  The  installation  of  signalized  control 
for  this  intersection  along  Reno Avenue would  not  be recommended due  to  its  close 
proximity with the intersection of Reno Avenue and Oklahoma Avenue. If, in the future, 
the delays contained in the analysis results are fully realized, the Reno Avenue exit would 
be recommended to be channelized to provide right-turn out egress only. All other traffi c 
would then be required to utilize the egress located along Oklahoma Avenue. With less 
through traffi c expected to occur along Oklahoma Avenue, the exiting traffi c would be 
expected to be better served with less delay.
Traffi c Impacts
AM Peak hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Type of 
Traffi c 
Control
Critical Approach Intersection Critical Approach Intersection
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Existing 2011 Traffi c Volumes
EK Gaylord and Boulevard Signalized 45.9 / NB  D 33.6 C 69.1 / SB E 57.0 E
Boulevard and Oklahoma Signalized 30.9 / SB C 20.9 C 40.8 / WB D 14.0 B
EK Gaylord and Reno Signalized 47.0 / WB D 31.7 C 54.7 / EB D 31.1 C
Reno and Garage Entrance Unsignalized 5.2 / WB A 3.2 A 35.3 / WB E 14.7 B
Reno and Garage Exit Unsignalized 33.8 / NB D 2.2 A * / NB F * F
Oklahoma and Garage Dr. Unsignalized 13.6 / EB B 1.3 A 16.5 / EB C 3.2 A
EK Gaylord and Cox Garage Signalized 35.1 / EB D 9.7 A 43.4 / EB D 12.2 B
EK Gaylord and Sheridan Signalized * / EB F 64.1 E * / EB F 48.6 D
Capacity Analysis Results - Projected 2025 Total Traffi c Conditions - Table 8.2
* Trip Rates from “TRIP GENERATION”, 8th Ed., Vol. 2, Institute of Transportation Engineers.
9.0 Intermodal Hub Master Plan 
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
48 Intermodal Hub Master Plan
Intermodal Hub Master Development  Plan - Figure 9.1
49
• The Hub enhances the image of pubic transit in the region.   Santa Fe depot’s role as 
a central element in the hub master plan represents a unique design opportunity for 
the City.  The history of the Santa Fe depot alone conjures up nostalgic connections 
to the great history of rail in the region, and the design of the hub seeks to respect 
this context while also providing a new image of modern transportation.  The hub’s 
platform canopies metaphorically reach across the railroad to not only connect 
Bricktown and Downtown, but also to link the region’s history with its future, creating 
an iconic and lasting image for the City and the region.  
     
• The Hub creates a new gateway into Downtown and Bricktown for the region. 
The proposed underground tunnel or “portal” that is proposed within the master 
plan provides an important urban design element for the community.  This portal 
creates both a literal and fi gurative “connection” across and through the elevated 
railroad guideway that has separated Downtown from Bricktown for years.  With 
arching  canopies  above  and  pedestrian  connectors  below,  the  hub  master 
plan provides the critical urban design linkages that will activate the surrounding 
properties and provide economic benefi ts to the region beyond just those realized 
through enhanced mobility.  The hub will truly become the new gateway to Central 
Oklahoma.  
Description of the Functional Components of the Hub 
The following pages present a more detailed examination of the functional components 
of the Hub plan, including the primary hub program areas (the boarding platforms, the 
Transit Hall, etc.) and the ancillary public spaces that serve to activate and enliven the 
areas  adjacent  to  and  connected  to  the  hub  (i.e.  the  Gaylord  Plaza,  the  Bricktown 
Plaza,  etc).    Narrative 
descriptions,  plan 
images  and  perspective 
renderings  are  offered  to 
provide  more  detail  on 
these  key  components 
of  the  facility  and  how 
they  interact  to  create 
an  exciting  “home” 
for  the  future  regional 
transit  network  in  Central 
Oklahoma.  
Intermodal Hub Master Plan 
9.0 Intermodal Hub Master Plan
This  section  presents  a  summary  of  the  proposed  master  plan  for  the  intermodal 
transportation hub.  The plan is based on the conclusions reached in the Tier 1 and Tier 
2 evaluations and the comments received during the public involvement process, and 
includes the following elements:
•  Master Development Plan and Functional Components of the Hub
•  Phasing Plan for the Hub
•  Estimated Project Costs for the Hub
Each  of  these major  components  is  identifi ed  and  detailed  in  the  following  pages  in 
order to provide both narrative and graphic descriptions of the Plan and how it could be 
implemented in phases.  
Intermodal Transportation Hub Master Development Plan
Figure 9.1 (on facing page) graphically illustrates the proposed master development plan 
for the intermodal hub in downtown Oklahoma City.  Based on the analysis conducted 
by the consulting team and the review and consideration of the Advisory Committee and 
the public, the proposed hub is recommended to be located on the property currently 
occupied by the historic Santa Fe depot (Site B in the Tier 2 evaluation rankings).  This site, the 
proposed master development plan, and the surrounding redevelopment opportunities 
that it promotes, provides the maximum potential benefi t to the region when viewed in 
the context of the hub’s role as the “centerpiece” of the regional transit system.  The key 
attributes of master plan include:  
• The Hub promotes multi-modal mobility.  Not only does the hub address long term 
transit needs for fi xed guideway services within the rail yard, it also accommodates 
pedestrians, bicyclists, local and intercity bus riders, and future downtown streetcar 
users.  E.K.  Gaylord  Boulevard  becomes  a  pedestrian  and  transit-friendly  street, 
accommodating all modes and integrating each of them into  the  activity and 
framework of the overall hub site plan.   
• The Hub serves as a catalyst for economic development.    With  almost  2,000 
customers boarding and alighting at the hub daily, the redevelopment opportunities 
for nearby properties will be greatly enhanced as the hub becomes the focal point 
for regional commuters and travelers (Amtrak, High Speed Rail).  Retail storefronts, 
professional  offi ces,  and  ancillary  downtown  uses  will  feed  off  the  additional 
consumer traffi c, and the Bricktown Canal’s western end will become activated 
with new patrons as the hub’s design (i.e. underground tunnel) becomes a new 
“portal” connecting Bricktown to Downtown.
Intermodal Hub Concept - Figure 9.2
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
50
Gaylord Plaza
The  proposed  hub  master  plan  provides  the  opportunity 
for  multiple  entrances.    A  proposed  new  plaza,  running 
along the east side of EK Gaylord Boulevard, will provide an 
inviting entrance to the hub; a new pedestrian connection 
to downtown; and effi cient bus and streetcar access.   The 
potential redevelopment of the Cox Convention Center site 
will allow a new mid-block signalized pedestrian crossing at 
the  entrance  to  the existing  Santa  Fe Depot building,  thus 
allowing  pedestrians  to  access  Bricktown  and  Downtown 
through  the  proposed  Grand  Hall  of  the  new  hub.    This 
pedestrian crossing will  also provide access to a proposed 
streetcar stop in the median of EK Gaylord and future light 
rail stop on the west side of the street.  
Street  trees  and  quality  urban  design  features  within  the 
plaza  will  provide  shade  and  a  more  pedestrian  oriented 
environment  along  this  street,  and  the  plaza  will  provide 
direct pedestrian access to the Santa Fe building, the Transit 
Hall, and the  future Amtrak terminal.    Finally,  the  plaza  will 
also  promote  multi-modal  mobility  by  interfacing  with  the 
proposed bike lane on EK Gaylord and a new bike station 
at the hub, which will provide covered bike storage, rental, 
and possibly a retail and repair shop for downtown bikers.
Intermodal Hub Master Plan 
Gaylord Plaza Site Plan - Figure 9.3
Gaylord Plaza - Figure 9.4
Gaylord Plaza - Figure 9.5
51
Bricktown Plaza
The  westernmost  end  of  Bricktown  terminates  at  a  City-owned 
public  open  space  that  includes  a  fountain  at  the  end  of  the 
canal and a two-level public walkway connecting the canal to 
Sheridan and Reno Avenues.  This urban space, while enhanced 
with planters, water features and landscaping, is not highly utilized 
due to the “hidden” nature of the space and the limited activity 
at the west end of the canal.  The master plan proposes to modify 
this  linear  urban  space  to  provide  a  green  “lawn”  that  opens 
up the area, thus providing a space that is safe and one which 
can be programmed with activities.  This linear green space will 
provide the linkage between the Bricktown Canal, Sheridan and 
Reno to the Bricktown entrance of the Intermodal Hub.  The green 
space will terrace down to the canal level, while the upper level 
walkway will remain to provide the connection to the pedestrian 
underpass connecting to the hub platforms and Santa Fe building. 
This upper level walkway is proposed to be extended via two new 
pedestrian bridges to connect to the upper (street) level terraces 
at  the  retail  building  fronting  the  canal.    This connection to  the 
hub  should  further  activate  both  the  upper  and  lower  levels  of 
the  retail  building  at  the  west  end  of  the  canal.    The  potential 
linkage of the canal water taxis to the Intermodal Hub provides 
the opportunity for another mode of transportation.  A passenger 
could  potentially  take  any  surface  transportation  mode  to 
Oklahoma City and transfer to a water taxi to go to a restaurant 
or ball game at Bricktown Ball Park.
Bricktown Plaza Site Plan - Figure 9.6
Existing Conditions @ Bricktown West Canal - Figure 9.7
Perspective of Bricktown Plaza and Pedestrian Entrance at West Canal- Figure 9.8
Intermodal Hub Master Plan
Existing Conditions @ Plaza
Precedent Plaza “Lawn” 
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
52
for historic designation at local, state and national levels. As a result, the Secretary of
the Interior Standards for Restoration should be followed for building rehabilitation.
“Rehabilitation” is defined as “the process of returning a property to a state of utility,
through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while
preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic,
architectural, and cultural values.”
Under the Secretary of Interior Standards, new additions, exterior alterations, or related
new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The
new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing,
size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and
its environment. Early architectural concepts for the hub were developed based on these
requirements and reviewed by historic preservation staff with the Oklahoma City Planning
Department. Based on staff input, the concepts were modified to detach proposed
additions from the original structure in order to preserve the original view corridors of
the façade. Further coordination and refinement will be required as the project moves
forward.
Santa Fe Depot Building
The historic Santa Fe Depot building initially served as the
primary passenger terminal for Oklahoma City, serving the
Texas Chief route until 1974 and the Lone Star route until
1979. The depot was privately purchased from the Santa
Fe Railway in 1998 and underwent a renovation to make it
ADA-compliant using funds provided through the Oklahoma
Department of Transportation (ODOT). The renovation also
promoted the return of passenger service in 1999. Amtrak
currently operates the Heartland Flyer from the Depot with
one train per day running between Fort Worth and Oklahoma
City. Additional track improvements are planned at the
existing track and platform and have been funded by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, but as of
September, 2011, they have not yet been constructed.
Santa Fe Depot is envisioned to be the public face of the
Intermodal Hub, serving as the foyer or Grand Hall and primary
public space leading the visitor to Bricktown and Downtown.
The existing pedestrian underpass serving the Amtrak
platform will be extended through the elevated guideway
structure opening to the Bricktown side. This new pedestrian
linkage will allow the Intermodal Hub to be the connection
linkage between downtown
and Bricktown. The existing
building will serve as the
information center and
contain a restaurant or
public event space in the
space originally set aside as
the waiting area. Amtrak will
utilize the building’s annex
for ticketing, baggage and
operations offices.
While the Santa Fe Terminal
building is not currently on
the National Register of
Historic Places it is eligible
Santa Fe Building Floor Plan - Figure 9.9 Santa Fe Building - Figure 9.10
Intermodal Hub Master Plan
53
Transit Hall
The Transit Hall is a proposed new building that will house
the commuter rail and high speed rail operations, including
ticketing, ticket offices and operations offices. The space will
also provide passenger waiting, restrooms, retail and a security
office. The building will be connected directly to the commuter
rail / high speed rail platform(s) by a new pedestrian underpass
(see below - Figure 9.11). The Transit Hall is connected to the
Santa Fe building by a covered walkway located adjacent to
the Bike Station. While it may be premature to offer architectural
styles and concepts for this proposed facility, the master plan
recommends that the building be designed to be relatively
transparent and “light” in order that the historic nature and
features of the Santa Fe depot are not overwhelmed, but also
to provide a connective design theme that links our history with
our modern future, Downtown with Bricktown, and the future
of the region with its urban core. The design of the hall and its
accompanying platform canopies and roof structures could also
feature another element of “connectiveness” by incorporating
broad and sweeping platform canopies that serve to connect
the hall to the platforms and also figuratively link Bricktown to
Downtown once again.
Transit Hall - Figure 9.12
Transit Hall - Figure 9.13
Intermodal Hub Master Plan
Transit Hall Floor Plan - Figure 9.11
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
54
Amtrak
The master plan envisions that Amtrak will utilize the southern 
section  of  the  building  that  was  originally  designed  for 
passenger  and  baggage  operations.    This  section  of  the 
building extends under the elevated guideway and originally 
included  a    baggage  elevator  connecting  to  the  Amtrak 
platform above.   The existing  elevator  shaft  will be utilized 
for  a new service  / baggage elevator.    A new passenger 
elevator  and  stair  will  be  added  providing  direct  access 
from  Amtrak  ticketing  to  the  platform.      Approximately 
5,400  square  feet  of space is programmed for  the  Amtrak 
operations.  The section of the Santa Fe building designated 
for Amtrak includes 9,800 square feet allowing 4,400 square 
feet for waiting and circulation.
Sketchup view
Sketchup view
Amtrak Floor Plan - Figure 9.14
Amtrak - Figure 9.15
Amtrak - Figure 9.16
Intermodal Hub Master Plan 
55
Boarding Platforms
Amtrak currently utilizes the eastern side of their existing platform 
for boarding and the west side for overnight train storage via a 
siding track.  The boarding function is served by the westernmost 
of 2 freight mainlines, which limits use of the west mainline while 
Amtrak  is  utilizing  the  platform.    Overnight  storage  requires  a 
backing operation to access the west side of the platform as 
the siding does not connect south of the platform.  ODOT has 
recently  received  a  grant  to extend  the  partial  siding  serving 
the south, which would allow Amtrak to pull into the station from 
the south and board from the west. This new operation will free 
up one of the freight main lines currently used for Amtrak.
The Intermodal Hub master plan includes provisions to maintain 
the existing  location  of  the  Amtrak  platform  and  proposes  to 
upgrade the  platform  for  the  west  side  operation.   Upgrades 
include  eventual  full  service  operation,  with  ticketing  and 
baggage  services  utilizing  new  elevators  and  stairs  from  the 
Amtrak ticketing and operations area at the Santa Fe building. 
The addition of the combined commuter rail and high speed rail 
platform will represent the fi rst full operation of the facility as a 
true Intermodal Hub.  Based on the Fixed Guideway Operations 
Analysis described in Section 5, commuter rail and high speed rail will share the same platform. 
The platform will be 900 feet in length based on high speed rail requirements.  Commuter 
rail will utilize approximately 350 feet of this platform.  If commuter rail service precedes high 
speed rail service, only 350 feet of the platform will be required initially.  
Boarding Platforms - Figure 9.17
Cross Section A @ Boarding Platforms - Figure 9.19
Boarding Platforms Perspective- Figure 9.18
Intermodal Hub Master Plan
Figures  9.18  and  9.19  illustrate  the  general  nature  and  design  of  the  platforms  proposed 
at the hub.  Each platform is planned to be 26 feet in width, allowing for a 10-foot vertical 
circulation zone (elevator/stair/escalator) with 6 feet clear and a 2-foot wide warning strip on 
each side.  The proposed 5 track 2 platform confi guration proposed in the master plan can 
be accommodated within the 120 foot elevated guideway width. Based on maintaining the 
existing 20 foot width of the Amtrak platform, an additional 6 feet of tolerance is provided 
within the guideway width.  This area could be allocated to widening the Amtrak platform if 
desired. 
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
56
Parking Garage / Intercity Bus
During  the  initial  phases  of  the  project,  parking  for 
commuter    rail  services  and  existing  Amtrak  services  can 
be  accommodated  using  existing  surface  parking  in  the 
site  area.    As  Amtrak  service  expands  and  high  speed 
rail  is  introduced,  higher  parking  demand  will  require 
approximately 600 additional spaces. This increased parking 
requirement will most likely require the transition to structured 
parking.    Structured  parking  is  recommended  as  it  allows 
higher  density  development  in  the  area,  accommodates 
other uses at ground level, and provides potential additional 
capacity  for  shared  parking  for  entertainment,  retail  and 
downtown sports venues.  As density in Bricktown increases, 
a  shared  parking  structure  will  also  allow  redevelopment 
of existing  surface  lots.    The master plan  illustrates  that  this 
parking  facility  use  is  proposed  on  a  redeveloped  parcel 
located just south of Reno Avenue, just east of the railroad’s 
elevated guideway.  
Intercity Bus operations are proposed to be located in the base 
of the parking structure.  Suffi cient space has been allocated 
at  the  easternmost  bay  of  the  garage  to  accommodate 
intercity  bus  ticketing,  operations  and  passenger  waiting. 
The  proposed 
parking  structure 
location  south  of 
Reno allows for bus 
access  from  the 
new  “boulevard” 
to  the  south 
and  Oklahoma 
Avenue  without 
disrupting  traffi c  in 
the Bricktown core 
area.  Eight or more 
bus  bays  can  be 
accommodated 
at this location with 
suffi cient  space 
for  bus  berthing, 
boarding  and 
circulation.
Parking Garage / Intercity Bus Site Plan - Figure 9.20
Parking Garage / Intercity Bus - Figure 9.21
Parking Garage / Intercity Bus - Figure 9.22
Intermodal Hub Master Plan 
57
platform would be accompanied by the 
expansion of the pedestrian  underpass 
to  the  Bricktown  side  of  the  elevated 
guideway.  The second platform would 
also accommodate the addition of high 
speed  rail  if  the  project  is  developed 
during this time frame.  During this phase, 
the  pedestrian  underpass  would  be 
extended to the new platform and the 
new  Bricktown  entrance  introduced. 
The  Amtrak  ticketing  and  operations 
space  would  be  added  in  this  phase 
to  accommodate  an    expanded 
Amtrak operation.  The addition of the 
Transit  Hall  could  be  partially  or  fully 
completed  dependant  on  the  timing 
for introduction of high speed rail.  
Phase 2b:  High Speed Rail / Expanded 
Commuter Rail Service
Phase  2B  would  expand  the  initial 
commuter  rail  service  to  include  a 
new line from the Adventure District  in 
northeast Oklahoma City to Yukon.  This 
additional line would be served by the 
2nd platform  as  discussed  in  the  Fixed 
Guideway  Operations  Analysis.    High 
speed rail service would most likely be 
introduced at  this time, also operating 
from the 2nd platform.  This phase would 
include  the  full  buildout  of  the  Transit 
Hall  including  new  pedestrian  access 
to the Amtrak and commuter rail / high 
speed rail platform from the Transit Hall 
waiting area.  
Project Phasing
The  development  and  implementation  of  the  intermodal  hub  will  progress  over  time  as 
planning  and  implementation  of  individual  transportation  modes  are  advanced  and 
ridership  increases  due  to  synergies  of  multiple  modes  and  higher  densities  in  the  hub 
area.    While  timelines  for  implementation  of  the  transit modes are  still  in  development,  a 
sequenced phasing plan has been developed to lay out an orderly thought process of how 
the Intermodal Hub will develop.  A key element to development of the phasing plan is an 
understanding of the sequencing of fi xed guideway operations.  A brief description of each 
mode based on operations follows.
Phase 1: Property Acquisition / Santa Fe Modifi cations
Phase  1  primarily  entails  securing  the 
property required for the future construction 
and operation of the full hub buildout.  The 
existing privately owned Santa Fe building 
and site between Sheridan and Reno would 
be required.  This site could be purchased 
or  secured  under  a  long  term  lease  with 
the  property  owner  (see  Section  10  for 
additional  information).      Minor upgrades 
to the Santa Fe building at this time would 
provide  a  civic  presence  that  the  future 
development  of  the  intermodal  hub  will 
build on.  While this phase of development 
will  primarily  serve  Amtrak  operationally, 
the  initiation  of  an  Edmond  to  Norman 
commuter rail operation could be accommodated during this phase.  The commuter rail 
operation could utilize the east side of the Amtrak platform as shown in the Fixed Guideway 
Operations  Analysis,  without  signifi cant  changes  to  the  current  facility.    Ticketing  and 
passenger information could be initially accommodated in the Santa Fe building.    Phase 
1 could also include service to the hub by the Downtown Circulator and Bus Rapid Transit 
through curbside stops.
Phase 2a:  Initial Commuter Rail Operations
Phase 2A of the hub operation would accommodate expanded Amtrak service to Newton/
Kansas  City and expanded or  initial commuter rail  service  with  the  addition  of  a second 
platform.    The  Edmond  /  Norman  commuter  rail  route  would  operate  from  the  Amtrak 
platform with the Norman / Midwest City and Edmond / Midwest City lines operating from 
the second platform, which allows track connections to the east.  The addition of the second 
Project Phase 1 - Figure 9.23
Project Phase 2a - Figure 9.24
Project Phase 2b - Figure 9.25
Intermodal Hub Master Plan
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
58
Phase 3: Expanded Passenger Service
A  key  attribute  to  the  Santa  Fe  site  is 
its  ability  to accommodate expansion 
of  the  guideway  to  accommodate 
a  third  platform  should  a  higher  level 
of  service  be  required  in  the  future. 
Operationally the expansion to a third 
platform would be required to increase 
headways from 60 minutes during peak 
periods to 30 minutes to accommodate 
higher  ridership.        It  is  envisioned  that 
the addition of light rail service from the 
northwest to  the  southeast and out  to 
Will  Rogers  World  Airport  could  be  in 
operation  at  this  time.    An  additional 
commuter rail line could also be added, 
splitting  off  the  Norman  /  Midwest  City 
line to serve the Will Rogers Airport area. 
A  key  advantage  in  this  master  plan  is 
that the City owns the property needed 
to construct the third platform, east of the 
guideway between Sheridan and Reno. 
This property is currently used as an urban 
green space as discussed previously.  The 
120 foot’ width of the parcel would allow 
for the needed 60’ for the third platform, 
while  still  allowing  the  residual space to 
remain  as  open  space  and  serve  as  a 
linkage to the Bricktown entrance of the 
intermodal hub.
Project Phase 3 - Figure 9.26
Impacts of Third Platform - Figure 9.27                 N 
Third Platform Schematic - Figure 9.28                                  N
Cross Section of Two Platform- 5 Track- Figure 9.29
It is envisioned that the existing east wall 
of  the  guideway  would  remain,  and  a 
retained  fi ll  or  open  elevated  structure 
would be added to accommodate the 
new  platform  above.    The  pedestrian 
underpass would be extended at this time 
and include a new Bricktown entrance. 
to the hub.  This future expansion will impact the railroad bridge and potentially the design 
of   the new “boulevard.”  The design should take into account the future widening of 
the east side of the bridge for the elevated guideway, since the road may need to be 
lowered slightly to provide adequate vertical clearance at the widened bridge.
Intermodal Hub Master Plan 
Cross Section of Three Platform- 7 Track- Figure 9.30
59
3 Platform / 7 Track Layout (Enlarged) - Figure 9.31
Estimate of Probable Facility Costs
An order of magnitude facility cost estimate was developed for the project based on the 
phasing scenario described in the previous section.  The estimate is built on soft costs (real 
estate acquisition, environmental assessment, design and construction management fees) 
and hard costs developed by line item unit costs for individual program components.  The 
estimate  was  developed  in  2011  dollars  and  does  not  include  escalation,  fi nancing  or 
agency costs.   The estimate assumes that trackwork modifi cations  will be constructed by 
the operating railroad or operating transit agency entity. Therefore, costs are not  included 
for trackwork.  The construction of platforms and the pedestrian tunnel was assumed to be 
constructed at the same time as trackwork modifi cations, therefore no costs are included for 
temporary track relocations related to the construction of these elements.
Finally, Figure 9.31(below) provides a graphic illustration of the hub’s platforms and how they 
relate  to  the existing guideway (ROW) and the  future  bridge  impacts  over  the proposed 
“boulevard”  on  the  south  side  of  downtown.    Close  coordination  with ODOT (boulevard 
design) and the City of Oklahoma City (on allowing developments within the urban plaza 
area east of the guideway) will be needed to ensure the long term capacity for future hub 
expansions.  
A  summary  of  the  estimated  project  costs  by  phase  is  included  in  Table  9.1,  and  the 
detailed cost estimate is included in Appendix 7.    The cost summary includes two hub 
development scenarios, one with and one without high speed rail.  High speed rail costs 
for  platforms,  operations  space  and  parking  have  been  removed  in  Table  9.2  for  the 
purpose of illustrating stand alone costs for the hub components should high speed rail 
not initially be a service provider. Ideally, costs for common facilities, including the transit 
hall, platforms and pedestrian access, will be shared by high speed rail and commuter 
rail.
Intermodal Hub Master Plan
Phase 1
Hard Costs $4,832,850
Soft Costs $4,254,041
Phase 1 Total $9,086,891
Phase 2
Hard Costs $65,334,411
Soft Costs $7,302,390
Phase 2 Total $72,636,802
Phase 3
Hard Costs $37,273,259
Soft Costs $4,066,174
Phase 3 Total $41,339,433
Total Project Costs $123,063,126
Phase 1
Hard Costs $4,832,850
Soft Costs $4,254,041
Phase 1 Total $9,086,891
Phase 2
Hard Costs $49,306,479
Soft Costs $5,647,766
Phase 2 Total $54,954,245
Phase 3
Hard Costs $35,780,216
Soft Costs $3,903,296
Phase 3 Total $39,683,512
Total Project Costs $103,724,648
Costs Summary - Table 9.1
Costs Summary Exclusive of HSR - Table 9.2
Total Project Costs
Total Project Costs Excluding High Speed Rail
10.0 Funding Alternatives
Association of Central 
Oklahoma Governments
63
the  passenger  boarding  areas  and  the  rail  yard.    The  further  enhancement  of  transit 
services and the major guideway expansion could open signifi cant adjacent areas for 
transit related development.
Uses of Capital Funds
Phase 1 consists primarily of real estate acquisition and related relocation, environmental 
clearance, and legal and administrative costs. Preliminary estimates based upon current 
assessed  value  total  approximately  $3.6  million,  plus  almost  $600,000  in  design  fee/
permits. Phase 1 hard costs consist primarily of preservation and renovation of the Santa 
Fe building and resurfacing 130 existing parking spaces at a cost of $3.4 million, plus a 
25% design and 10% construction contingency for total hard cost of $4.8 million and an 
overall total cost of $9.1 million. Given the current private ownership of the station and 
parking  site, and the  potential  opportunity  for  historic  tax  credits  on  a  private income 
generating  property,  these  capital  costs  could  potentially  be  ameliorated  through  a 
public-private partnership. While still allowing suffi cient site control for the transit hub and 
retaining necessary development rights for transportation related improvements, capital 
costs could be signifi cantly reduced and an order of magnitude of $500,000 in historic tax 
credits created. 
An evaluation needs to be conducted of the relative costs, ease of implementation, and 
subsequent  development  issues  related  to  acquisition  of  real  property  and  the  Santa 
Fe  Depot  building  which  are  currently  in  private  ownership.  Estimated  Phase  1  costs 
($9.1 million) are within the realm of capacity from the local MAPS 3 sales-tax initiatives. 
However, acquisition costs are always subject to potential signifi cant variation. Fee simple 
ownership would assure site control and potentially could be used as a future match for 
federal funds.  Alternatively, a cooperative public-private partnership may do much to 
increase interest and support for future joint development and value capture and may 
be easier to implement than site and building acquisition. A public-private partnership 
could potentially provide reduced front end costs and help facilitate future public-private 
development. A key element will be to  provide  long-term  public  sector  site  control  to 
allow development of the transportation facilities and meet federal funding criteria. This 
could be implemented through development agreements, easements, provision  of  air 
and ground rights requirements, etc.
As noted previously, Phases 2 and 3 have the capability of being constructed in stages. 
The  total  cost  of  Phase  2  is approximately  $72.6  million  including  $7.3  million  in  design 
fees and $65.3  million  in  construction  costs.    The  various  construction  cost elements of 
Phases 2A and 2B  will  also  likely be staged based on  transit demand or  availability  of 
funding.  The major components and associated costs (excluding design and construction 
contingencies) of Phases 2 and 3 are discussed in the following paragraphs.  
10.0 Funding Alternatives
The fi nancing and funding options and alternative implementation strategies are based 
on the capital costs and proposed phasing of the project as outlined in Section 9.0.   The 
strategy  outlines  sources  of  capital  funding  and  addresses  likely  operating  costs  and 
revenues.    Due  to  the  preliminary  nature  of  this  study,  the  strategies  presented  herein 
provide an initial outline framework for a fi nancing and funding approach rather than a 
detailed model of how to fund each program element.   
Project Phasing’s Impact on Funding Options
Based upon the study’s phasing plan, Phase 1 will be relatively limited in scope, primarily 
consisting of acquisition of the Santa Fe terminal and related property, and minor property 
renovations. It will also include acquisition of the potential site for initial surface parking and 
subsequent, structured parking as needed. The primary emphasis will be on preservation, 
renovation and restoration of the Santa Fe Depot for Amtrak and limited commuter rail 
service. The initial phase of the transit hub would also likely link to the downtown streetcar. 
This phase would establish project site control and provide a highly visible enhancement 
of the Santa Fe rail facility. Opportunities may exist for a public-private partnership related 
to perspective site acquisition and control and the potential for creating a private income 
generating  use  of  the  Santa  Fe  Depot  which  could  enable  the  receipt  of  historic  tax 
credits.
As currently envisioned, Phase 2 of the proposed master plan (including Phases 2A and 
2B)  consists  of  major  transportation  enhancements  to  service  Amtrak,  commuter  rail, 
high-speed rail, intercity bus, major pedestrian linkages connecting the central business 
district and the Bricktown area, and an initial phase of structured parking. It is possible to 
stage the capital improvements to the transportation hub depending upon the timing 
of commuter rail expansion, high-speed rail, intercity bus facility needs, and the timing 
and desirability of the linkages between the CBD/transit hub/Bricktown. Similarly, parking 
requirements would need to be reevaluated to determine potential phasing of structured 
parking. Major capital investments, streetscape and pedestrian linkages, enhanced transit 
services and shared parking opportunities could all help attract related development on 
adjacent parcels. This phase would also likely coincide with the potential redevelopment 
of the current Cox Convention Center site.
Phase 3 assumes the  signifi cant expansion of  transit  services and guideway expansion 
and bridge widening at the hub site.  Similarly, additional common passenger boarding 
areas would be provided for both commuter and high-speed rail, and enhancements of 
the Bricktown plaza/canopy would also be undertaken. This phase includes  signifi cant 
construction activities and would have implications for the hub operations, particularly 
Funding Alternatives
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
64 Funding Alternatives
The largest construction cost component for Phase 2A and 2B is the common passenger 
boarding  area  including  underpass,  access,  and  canopy,  which  total  approximately 
$19.1 million. This particular component may be diffi cult to stage although it is a function 
of the rail utilization. The next largest cost element is the parking structure which has two 
components, $1.6 million for 243 commuter rail/Amtrak spaces and $12 million for 586 high 
speed rail parking spaces. The parking structure clearly would be phased in relationship 
to provision of services and likely cost allocated to the services generating the parking 
demand, primarily high speed rail.
The transit hub can provide the linkage between the CBD and Bricktown eliminating the 
barrier created by the rail  line.  This phase includes $3.6 million  for the Bricktown Plaza/
canopy and an additional $0.9 million for the Gaylord Plaza streetscape. These elements 
consist of enhanced pedestrian connections and high quality plaza, canal enhancements, 
and streetscape. 
The fi nal component of this phase is the intercity bus terminal at a cost of $1.6 million. This 
could be staged related to intercity bus facility needs.
Phase 3 consists primarily of the additional cost for the guideway and common passenger 
area access and canopy improvements. This phase has total cost of $41.3 million including 
$4.1  million  for  design  fees  and  approximately  $10  million  in  design  and  construction 
contingencies.  The  various  construction  elements  and  their  costs,  excluding  design 
fees  and  design  and  construction  contingencies,  are  noted  below.    The  construction 
components  include  the  guideway  expansion  which  has  a  total  cost  of  $13.6  million. 
The related common passenger boarding area including canopy support and passenger 
underpass  has  a  cost  of  $9.5  million.  The  passenger  boarding  area  costs  have  been 
allocated into commuter rail and high-speed rail  costs  of  $1.1  million each. This phase 
also includes enhancements to the Bri