It's pretty ironic that Elmore posted a link to the Nashville Music City Star iin his last post. Nashville has a beautiful Union Station that is converted into a hotel....

http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww210/quickersooner/292510017lbWapp_ph.jpg

From Elmore's link....


The Music City Star is a regional rail service running between Nashville and Lebanon, Tennessee. The service uses the existing trackage of the Nashville and Eastern Railroad. The line currently has six stops: Riverfront Station (western terminus), Donelson, Hermitage, Mt. Juliet, Martha (Tennessee State Route 109 and U.S. Highway 70), and Lebanon (eastern terminus).

Here's a picture of Riverfront Station, built to accomodate the Music City Star...

http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww210/quickersooner/800px-Riverfront_train_station.jpg

I think Elmores Nashville example is a good one. We should look at alternate uses for Union Station and find a more suitable location for a future train station....

I'd just like to see some questions answered.

I'd just like to see some questions answered.

Good luck! I've been waiting for months, and all I've seen is incomprehensible, off the point, inaccurate verbiage. I've not seen any attempt to answer even one question.

OK, then it's resolved. I'll pull a play out of my old Brent Rinehart playbook. Each time Tom speaks up on this site, I'll be repeating the unanswered questions with one more added each time.
So, to summarize the outstanding questions for Tom:
1. Do you agree that the Union Station Building will be left standing as part of the Interstate 40 reconstruction? Or do you have proof that the state and city are lying about this building's fate?
2. ODOT engineers have provided plans showing there will still be room for rail lines if this ever becomes an intermodel station. Can you prove them to be wrong on this claim?
3. City leaders say this station is not the best location for an intermodal station. Why should people believe you instead of city leaders on this debate?
4. How much money have Norman, Lawton, Chickasha, El Reno and Shawnee offered to support these rail lines they claim they need?
5. Have Norman, Lawton, Chickasha, El Reno and Shawnee done the studies showing how many passengers they'll have traveling to OKC daily?
6. Since there's no freight at Union Station now, how is it going to affect to movement of freight between their cities and OKC differently?


I'm not taking sides here. But I am trying to force you to address some new questions instead of repeating the same talking points given the past decade.
And to those unfamiliar with my past coverage on this issue (I'm more on the development side of the story now), I was a thorn in the side of ODOT when this debate was in its prime. I had several open records and open meetings fights with ODOT over their deliberations and crashed a meeting, uninvited, when I found out downtown property owners were being allowed to listen to final consideration of the current route but the public was being excluded.
I believe in asking hard questions of everybody. And it's my experience that the more a person refuses to answer questions, the more questions need to be asked.
-Steve
-Steve

I'd just like to see some questions answered.


Good luck! I've been waiting for months, and all I've seen is incomprehensible, off the point, inaccurate verbiage. I've not seen any attempt to answer even one question.

He doesn't appreciate you asking questions that detract from the pursuit of his agenda.

OK, then it's resolved. I'll pull a play out of my old Brent Rinehart playbook. Each time Tom speaks up on this site, I'll be repeating the unanswered questions with one more added each time.
So, to summarize the outstanding questions for Tom:
1. Do you agree that the Union Station Building will be left standing as part of the Interstate 40 reconstruction? Or do you have proof that the state and city are lying about this building's fate?
2. ODOT engineers have provided plans showing there will still be room for rail lines if this ever becomes an intermodel station. Can you prove them to be wrong on this claim?
3. City leaders say this station is not the best location for an intermodal station. Why should people believe you instead of city leaders on this debate?
4. How much money have Norman, Lawton, Chickasha, El Reno and Shawnee offered to support these rail lines they claim they need?
5. Have Norman, Lawton, Chickasha, El Reno and Shawnee done the studies showing how many passengers they'll have traveling to OKC daily?
6. Since there's no freight at Union Station now, how is it going to affect to movement of freight between their cities and OKC differently?


I'm not taking sides here. But I am trying to force you to address some new questions instead of repeating the same talking points given the past decade.
And to those unfamiliar with my past coverage on this issue (I'm more on the development side of the story now), I was a thorn in the side of ODOT when this debate was in its prime. I had several open records and open meetings fights with ODOT over their deliberations and crashed a meeting, uninvited, when I found out downtown property owners were being allowed to listen to final consideration of the current route but the public was being excluded.
I believe in asking hard questions of everybody. And it's my experience that the more a person refuses to answer questions, the more questions need to be asked.
-Steve
-Steve

I can't speak for Tom, but as a supporter for local rail, let me attempt to answer those questions:

1. OKC Union Station is on the National Register of Historic Places. It will not ever be demolished and anyone who says so is wrong. The issue here is saving the rail yard (aka future passenger rail capacity in OKC)
2. There will indeed be one set of through-tracks remaining at OKC Union Station with room for one more set. Without saving the whole rail yard though, there will be no possibility for significant passenger rail (intercity or commuter) in OKC. Dallas made the same mistake decades ago--took a 10-track rail yard, cut it to 4-tracks and gave the space to developers. Now that their rail transit system needs expansion, they are stuck.
3. This location worked fine for multimodal passenger transport from 1931-1967. OKC Union Station is at the center of the Core-to-Shore urban redevelopment, a perfect place for a city transit center. I am not sure why city leaders do not agree with the preservation of the rail yard, but if I were to guess, they might be against any modification of their plan for fear of losing momentum in acquiring $500b for the Crosstown rebuild. It is worth pointing out that the short-sighted judgment of long-gone Dallas city leaders is only now being felt. I would never count on politicians taking the long-term view, they are focused on the next election.
4. Obviously no money has been committed by local communities for a project that their own state government doesn't support. However that shouldn't stop a town from voicing their opinion in favor of any issue they feel is important.
5. Once again, ridership studies take money and with no leadership from the state leadership, no studies can be done. I think in most cases, transit agencies are surprised by the volume of ridership they carry.
6. I think this question is based on a confusion on the meaning of intermodal in this context. OKC Union Station is the only viable location for for an intermodal passenger terminal (Any combination of taxi, bus, light rail, commuter rail, intercity rail). Intermodal rail freight is handled on the south side of OKC and refers to the multiple modes that 53' containers can be carried (Ship, Rail, Truck.)

I'm curious as to why some people so vehemently defend this new Crosstown Expressway. Why should we be building a 10-lane 70mph $500b freeway through OKC? Lets spend some of that money diverting through truck traffic to I-240 (more lanes, whatever is needed--the trucks are what destroyed the Crosstown in the first place). Then we can spend the rest of the money on refurbishing the Crosstown so it that it is easier to get on and off in central OKC. Right now a passing motorist in either direction can see how neat Bricktown looks but cannot exit directly into Bricktown--they have to drive 1/2 mile onward and find their way back. Lets slow people down and get them to stop in our great city if they drive on I-40!

As an OKC transplant who has lived in Chicago and Dallas, I'd suggest OKCers try commuter/light-rail. I know you'll like it!

Light-rail can turn into money train - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10850014)

Light-rail can turn into money train - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10850014)

Tom-

There is no doubt that you wish to see Union Station revived. The articles you keep submitting are irrelevant and share nothing of what you want to see happen here in OKC...tell us, in detail, how you think Union Station could possibly serve as OKC's multi-modal hub, given it's location and the issues surrounding it.

The station and several of it's tracks are able to survive after the completion of the new crosstown. Now i'm not at all in support of the location of the crosstown, but that is no longer an issue for debate. It is now being built.

The Union Station/several remaining tracks and their future use are debatable and since you seem to want to see it used, tell us how you would use it, with details please.

Others and myself argue that Union Station should not be the hub, for reasons not unlike other cities. I believe that such a facility needs to be offset somewhere outside of downtown, but within city limits. Of course, this is just my opinion, but I believe that downtown should be densely packed and every square inch of real-estate should be like gold. So, I am against big parking garages in a downtown area as well. I believe that some high-frequency, variable-capacity shuttle with 100% ROW should be used to get people in/out of the core to/from the multi-modal hub. And since there would be room to grow, you could build parking, tracks, maintenance, etc, etc, etc... and not be using up high-dollar real-estate and taking away from what will become a very nice-looking downtown. Those are just a few of my thoughts on the subject.

So, tell us Tom, in your own words--how can Union Station be made to work as a main station and how could a station of it's size even possibly have a use for more than two tracks? Obviously no room for expansion and touching the building would be modifying that neat piece of history.

some commuter rail folks are on board-

Rail opportunities available as part of federal stimulus

Development of American rail transportation got a $9 billion boost from the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Oklahoma could easily see some of those dollars, rail enthusiasts say.

The race for funding projects will be intense as some states are more comfortable with rail transportation. But Oklahoma leaders should seize the opportunity and push ahead with commuter routes.

The Oklahoma Rail Passenger Association said that in 2000, the state won a federal designation to authorize a high-speed rail route between Dallas, through Oklahoma City, to Tulsa. The stimulus bill is the first significant federal funding approved to begin building that high-speed route.

The rail advocacy group said other state routes also are eligible. They include service to Oklahoma City, Edmond, Guthrie, Perry, Ponca City, Wichita, Kansas City, St. Louis, Springfield, Vinita, Claremore and Tulsa.

Intercity projects like Norman to Oklahoma City or Jenks to Tulsa also could apply for funding to build commuter rail service. Amtrak's Heartland Flyer set all-time ridership records in 2008. January's ridership was the best January in the train's history.

The Norman Transcript - Rail opportunities available as part of federal stimulus (http://www.normantranscript.com/archivesearch/local_story_070011135)

I'm with Steve - I want Tom to answer the questions.

Who framed the debate here pitting rail versus everyone else? Rail certainly has a place in our future, but Union Station just doesn't fit our overall plan. Why not work with the City/State instead of constantly kicking and screaming?

3. City leaders say this station is not the best location for an intermodal station. Why should people believe you instead of city leaders on this debate?

In fairness to Tom, I think this question should be removed. Honestly, the City has a less than stellar reputation for competency about mass transit. Look at the trolley system (the one you wrote about that put stickers over the tiny route maps), our bus system isn't much better. City leaders have an agenda as well (granted most of the time I agree with them), and frankly, if anyone should be required to comment more on the subject of mass transit, it should be them, and from an unbiased standpoint.

In fairness to Tom, I think this question should be removed. Honestly, the City has a less than stellar reputation for competency about mass transit. Look at the trolley system (the one you wrote about that put stickers over the tiny route maps), our bus system isn't much better. City leaders have an agenda as well (granted most of the time I agree with them), and frankly, if anyone should be required to comment more on the subject of mass transit, it should be them, and from an unbiased standpoint.

Past precedence shouldn't negate them from commenting on the future, should it? New leadership within the City (without mentioning COTPA) has a much higher regard for the future of transit. Shouldn't that count?

Mick and the majority of the City Council have been in office long enough to fix the trolley problem and to work towards a solution. I've PERSONALLY talked with Mick, and he basically laughed at having mass transit in this city (that was about 4 years ago). It TOOK the CITIZENS and a SURVEY (to express our opinions on priorities) for him and other city leaders to change their mind IMO to actually start considering mass transit as a viable option. He used to say it'd take gasoline to get to $20 a gallon before people would consider mass transit in this City. Personally, I think a lot of people changed their mind about that when gas hit about $3 a gallon. Yes, I am excited about where we're headed, but that doesn't excuse neglecting the opportunities we could have taken. If we passed MAPS3 today, we're still years off from having decent mass transit.

The 100K+ people that drive the crosstown versus the 0 that ride light rail in OKC are what make me so pissed off shinkdown. I will tell you that there is zero chance of light rail taking the place of that highway. In 50 years, that highway will still be there and it will be full again. By then we might have some light rail happening with some commuter lines and maybe even some connection to other cities. But the highway will still be the MAIN route...remember it's the heaviest driven strech of interstate in the state. So don't pretend for a second that the crosstown doesnt affect more than normal commuter traffic. Remember all those other cars that drive I-40 on a daily basis won't be hopping on rail....be it freight or passenger.

Another point is that even it were used as a station, it would only be a small commuter station. It would NOT be a city connecting center. Intermodal or other-modal otherwise, Union station is NOT where it's going to happen. Any other use than a simple platform to hop on a commuter line wouldn't be feasible here. The traffic and space that a multi modal station would need would require more platforms, more depot space, more parking, more everything. It would wind up killing the historical nature of the building more than by usuing. While I'm there, lets talk about how much it would cost to maintain a public use structure that's a historic building. Not ever being able to do some upgrades because they don't fit the era of the building. Think about how hard it is for someone to get approval to run cable or network lines in Heritage Hills, much less in a PUBLIC structure.

This isn't Nashville or St. Louis where their stations were many times over larger....or where those same stations were converted to other NON rail uses. This is a small little station that fit the times of the early 1900's when we were hardly a dot on the map. It would fit better in El Reno as a stop on the line than try to use it as a real station.

2. There will indeed be one set of through-tracks remaining at OKC Union Station with room for one more set. Without saving the whole rail yard though, there will be no possibility for significant passenger rail (intercity or commuter) in OKC. Dallas made the same mistake decades ago--took a 10-track rail yard, cut it to 4-tracks and gave the space to developers. Now that their rail transit system needs expansion, they are stuck.

3. This location worked fine for multimodal passenger transport from 1931-1967. OKC Union Station is at the center of the Core-to-Shore urban redevelopment, a perfect place for a city transit center. I am not sure why city leaders do not agree with the preservation of the rail yard, but if I were to guess, they might be against any modification of their plan for fear of losing momentum in acquiring $500b for the Crosstown rebuild. It is worth pointing out that the short-sighted judgment of long-gone Dallas city leaders is only now being felt. I would never count on politicians taking the long-term view, they are focused on the next election.

4. Obviously no money has been committed by local communities for a project that their own state government doesn't support. However that shouldn't stop a town from voicing their opinion in favor of any issue they feel is important.

5. Once again, ridership studies take money and with no leadership from the state leadership, no studies can be done. I think in most cases, transit agencies are surprised by the volume of ridership they carry.

Thanks for trying to answer these, shinkdown. I too have lived in other cities with mass transit, and I used mass transit exclusively for over 8 years....didn't even drive a car. I'd be delighted to lose my car again, but I see some holes in your statements.

2. Why does intercity rail HAVE to be located at Union Station? We've already got the Santa Fe station, and the Norman line connects with it. Why is it you say we can have no intercity rail transit unless we use Union Station? There's lots of open land and potentially open land in other places that make more sense to me.

3. Although the line did indeed work fine for multi-modal transport in the past, why does the past have to determine the future? We've got other plans for that part of the city, and I personally would like to see a hub closer to Bricktown or any North-South line we might construct. It's illogical to expect people coming to Oklahoma City from Norman (or the north were that to exist) to get off their North-South train and transfer to another line to go another just to get off at Union Station. Most of those passengers would want to stop nearer to the CBD and Bricktown anyway, so why would they transfer?

Also, in Chicago, I suspect most people take the bus rather than the El. My kids do, as do all of their friends. Why walk a mile to the El when there's a bus a couple of blocks away? Why not spend more of our resources establishing a cheaper and more flexible bus or trolley service while we make plans for light rail people might actually use. Why tie ourselves down to an inconvenient location simply because it used to be used?

3. I don't mind other cities voicing their support, but they'd better be prepared to put their money where their mouth is. I agree that our city government is probably not as supportive of mass transit as they should be, but the one thing I agree with Mick Cornett is on the fact that cities that want transit to Oklahoma City had better be prepared to help pay for it. We might find that all those cities are all about train travel as long as its free. I want proof that this is something more than a group of people looking for a handout. If these groups want transit so badly, then they should be willing to fund the studies, and those studies might make something happen.....if they prove people will actually use rail in numbers to justify the expense.

Also, you mistake Tom Elmore's plans, as he considers multi-modal to include freight, and he'd like Union Station to not only be the site for multi-modal transporation for passengers, but for commercial rail as well. That's the one thing most of us are resoundingly opposed to. But again, I'm confused as to why we can't build a multimodal facility elsewhere, in a more convenient location. If I were traveling to downtown Oklahoma City (which will be a moot point soon, as I'm moving down there) from my current home, I'd want to get off as close to the Santa Fe station as possible, as I'd be going to the Ford Center or Bricktown. I wouldn't want to have to transfer from there to a second train to take me to Union Station, where I would have to pick up a taxi or a bus to take me BACK to the Ford Center or Bricktown. People use mass transit when its convenient and gets them where they want to go in the fewest possible stops. That's why my daughters use the bus in Chicago and not the El. The same thing will happen here if we don't plan sensibly.

Questions Tom still hasn't answered, plus a bonus question as promised:
1. Do you agree that the Union Station Building will be left standing as part of the Interstate 40 reconstruction? Or do you have proof that the state and city are lying about this building's fate?
2. ODOT engineers have provided plans showing there will still be room for rail lines if this ever becomes an intermodel station. Can you prove them to be wrong on this claim?
3. City leaders say this station is not the best location for an intermodal station. Why should people believe you instead of city leaders on this debate?
4. How much money have Norman, Lawton, Chickasha, El Reno and Shawnee offered to support these rail lines they claim they need?
5. Have Norman, Lawton, Chickasha, El Reno and Shawnee done the studies showing how many passengers they'll have traveling to OKC daily?
6. Since there's no freight at Union Station now, how is it going to affect to movement of freight between their cities and OKC differently?
Bonus No. 7: If one were to build an intermodal station from scratch, would one really want to build it at SW 7 and Hudson when the spot is seven blocks south of the Central Business District and seven blocks west of Bricktown and even further from the bulk of downtown residential (Deep Deuce and Automobile Alley)?

If Tom posts in this thread again without answering these questions, I'll add yet another bonus question (Tom, I can assure you the folks at ODOT, especially Terri Angier, still have bitter memories of the hardballs I threw at them. But at least they answered my questions).

There is residential in Automobile Alley?

Thought you knew it all Metro!

:ohno:

Yes. The Fifth Avenue Lofts, the Garage, and just off the stretch you have the Aberdeen and of course Heritage Hills. It also seems a bit far from residential in the Arts district (about five to six blocks).

The point of the question is, why would one build an intermodal station so far away from where the downtown population lives, works and plays?

I I would count the 5th avenue lofts (small handful of residents), but I wouldn't call the Garage/Aberdeen, etc. Automobile Alley, that's a stretch but that's just me.

I do however agree with your point, just don't think AA makes sense as much as say the Arts District or MidTown.

And the overall point is, "don't use it just because it's there". If it doesnt' make sense to use Union, then don't use it....which it doesnt. All the arguements for using it are unsupported outside of their little group, and you can't find me any article from any other city or time that will make up for that. Tom like always, is full of hot air and no substance.

I'm not arguing anything or trying to make a point. I'm just asking questions. If Tom posts again without answering them, the next question I'll add is a fun one.

I think Tom is a bot. You could ask him to just type the word TRAIN and it would just post another loosely-related article.

Questions Tom still hasn't answered, plus a bonus question as promised:
1. Do you agree that the Union Station Building will be left standing as part of the Interstate 40 reconstruction? Or do you have proof that the state and city are lying about this building's fate?
Of course it will be left standing. There's a building down in Norman that could topple if a 50mph gust hits it but it's still standing (my totally sarcastic smartass answer, lol).
2. ODOT engineers have provided plans showing there will still be room for rail lines if this ever becomes an intermodel station. Can you prove them to be wrong on this claim?
No he can't.
3. City leaders say this station is not the best location for an intermodal station. Why should people believe you instead of city leaders on this debate?
Why should this question be omitted?
4. How much money have Norman, Lawton, Chickasha, El Reno and Shawnee offered to support these rail lines they claim they need?
I've never seen one article in the Daily Oklahoman telling of studies done by any of these cities. Something I think Steve would be aware of considering he works for the paper, lol.
5. Have Norman, Lawton, Chickasha, El Reno and Shawnee done the studies showing how many passengers they'll have traveling to OKC daily?
See above.
6. Since there's no freight at Union Station now, how is it going to affect to movement of freight between their cities and OKC differently?
No way at all really, other than down south, over the river and running due west along the river to the Packingtown Lead south of the Stockyards.
Bonus No. 7: If one were to build an intermodal station from scratch, would one really want to build it at SW 7 and Hudson when the spot is seven blocks south of the Central Business District and seven blocks west of Bricktown and even further from the bulk of downtown residential (Deep Deuce and Automobile Alley)?
I'm sure his answer would be that once the C2S district starts to become a reality that there will eventually be development in and around Union Station...


If Tom posts in this thread again without answering these questions, I'll add yet another bonus question (Tom, I can assure you the folks at ODOT, especially Terri Angier, still have bitter memories of the hardballs I threw at them. But at least they answered my questions).

I'm a railfan and I'm against what Tom supports. I also drive a car & the reason I stay away from the Crosstown as often as possible is because it's going to become (if not already) a deathtrap.

it's been a minute since i've engaged in this debate... but i think it's interesting that the rail line to mwc that is about to be developed ends up at the santa fe station and not union.

it's been a minute since i've engaged in this debate... but i think it's interesting that the rail line to mwc that is about to be developed ends up at the santa fe station and not union.

Yes, however, my understanding was that this mwc "demo system" was primarily making use of state-owned track (wherever possible) and that it's intended run was from "Bricktown" to "Midwest City"... so I think that was the major deciding factor in the line's alignment. Obviously, there are better choices for a show-off demo system, but if $$$ are the primary concern, then state-owned track may be a decent way to keep costs down on the initial project.

Regardless of Sante Fe station's issues or Union Station's issues...might as well connect to AmTrak (for now) since it's basically near the track's terminus anyways and doesn't cost a lot to do so, right? Might as well in my opinion, since we have no centralized transit center. I don't think that the demo system connecting to Santa Fe station means anything for Union...we've got some historic transit buildings: Union and Sante Fe for Rail--one happens to be used a little bit for Amtrak. And then the Union bus terminal downtown. Obviously, none of these facilities will be able to serve as our main multi-modal interconnect point, and I think its crazy that they are so disconnected from each other.

IMO, we need to converge the functions of all of our transit facilities, both active and inactive, into one. Especially to allow transfer service, which is next to impossible now without walking to Egypt.

Coming in from Ft Worth on Amtrak and want to transfer to Greyhound or Metro Transit? Good Luck.
Coming in on Greyhound and want to transfer to Amtrak or Metro Transit? Good Luck.
Coming in on an Airline and want to transfer to Metro Transit or Downtown? Good Luck.
and on and on and on and on...



There is a thread here "somewhere" that is just about the MWC demo line.

Why would the state fairgrounds not be an ideal locationn for a light rail hub?

Why would the state fairgrounds not be an ideal locationn for a light rail hub?

I would think somewhere near the CBD would be best because it is very near major N/S/E/W crossroads like I-40 and 235. The State Fair would be a great place for a secondary hub because it is right off of I-44 and near I-40 but a lot of the people that would be using it would be working DT. So instead of transferring to another line to get DT from the State Fair, it would make more sense for people going to the State Fair to have to transfer from a CBD line to State Fair line.

OKLAHOMAN anti-High Speed Rail editorial takes a whipping in its own website comments section: http://newsok.com/flight-of-fancy-can-we-afford-high-speed-rail/article/3355998?widgetOffset0=0&custom_click=headlines_widget#comment

OKLAHOMAN anti-High Speed Rail editorial takes a whipping in its own website comments section: http://newsok.com/flight-of-fancy-can-we-afford-high-speed-rail/article/3355998?widgetOffset0=0&custom_click=headlines_widget#comment

Tom - that has absolutely nothing to do with Union Station. High Speed Rail would need much more space than Union Station could provide. I'm fully in favor of HSR and the editorial is absolutely disgusting, but that has no relation to Union Station. Come back when you have good answers for Steve's questions.

Questions Tom still hasn't answered, plus another bonus question as promised:
1. Do you agree that the Union Station Building will be left standing as part of the Interstate 40 reconstruction? Or do you have proof that the state and city are lying about this building's fate?
2. ODOT engineers have provided plans showing there will still be room for rail lines if this ever becomes an intermodel station. Can you prove them to be wrong on this claim?
3. City leaders say this station is not the best location for an intermodal station. Why should people believe you instead of city leaders on this debate?
4. How much money have Norman, Lawton, Chickasha, El Reno and Shawnee offered to support these rail lines they claim they need?
5. Have Norman, Lawton, Chickasha, El Reno and Shawnee done the studies showing how many passengers they'll have traveling to OKC daily?
6. Since there's no freight at Union Station now, how is it going to affect to movement of freight between their cities and OKC differently?
Bonus No. 7: If one were to build an intermodal station from scratch, would one really want to build it at SW 7 and Hudson when the spot is seven blocks south of the Central Business District and seven blocks west of Bricktown and even further from the bulk of downtown residential (Deep Deuce and Automobile Alley)?
Bonus No. 8: Tom, you've identified yourself over the years as being with the North American Transportation Institute. What is the North American Transportation Institute and who funds it? What is your formal education? Who are you?

If Tom posts in this thread again without answering these questions, I'll add yet another bonus question (Tom, I continue to assure you the folks at ODOT, especially Terri Angier, still have bitter memories of the hardballs I threw at them. But at least they answered my questions).

Pretty intense and even seemingly invasive line of questioning coming from a guy with "only a first name," wouldn't you say?

Tom, I'm fully identified in my contact info and I thought you know that.
Steve Lackmeyer

:LolLolLol And still no answers...

No answers? Have we had any questions, yet?

I want to have some of those "bitter memories" of those "blistering hardballs" 'ol Steve throws.

To date, I've walked to first base on "balls" -- in the dirt -- twice.

Whatever.

No answers? Have we had any questions, yet?

.
refer to post #730 above

No answers? Have we had any questions, yet?

:doh:

Questions Tom still hasn't answered, plus another bonus question as promised:
1. Do you agree that the Union Station Building will be left standing as part of the Interstate 40 reconstruction? Or do you have proof that the state and city are lying about this building's fate?
2. ODOT engineers have provided plans showing there will still be room for rail lines if this ever becomes an intermodel station. Can you prove them to be wrong on this claim?
3. City leaders say this station is not the best location for an intermodal station. Why should people believe you instead of city leaders on this debate?
4. How much money have Norman, Lawton, Chickasha, El Reno and Shawnee offered to support these rail lines they claim they need?
5. Have Norman, Lawton, Chickasha, El Reno and Shawnee done the studies showing how many passengers they'll have traveling to OKC daily?
6. Since there's no freight at Union Station now, how is it going to affect to movement of freight between their cities and OKC differently?
Bonus No. 7: If one were to build an intermodal station from scratch, would one really want to build it at SW 7 and Hudson when the spot is seven blocks south of the Central Business District and seven blocks west of Bricktown and even further from the bulk of downtown residential (Deep Deuce and Automobile Alley)?
Bonus No. 8: Tom, you've identified yourself over the years as being with the North American Transportation Institute. What is the North American Transportation Institute and who funds it? What is your formal education? Who are you?
Bonus No. 9: Why won't you answer the previous eight questions?

(Tom, if you tell me you don't want to answer these questions, I'll quit asking them).

Thanks for trying to answer these, shinkdown. I too have lived in other cities with mass transit, and I used mass transit exclusively for over 8 years....didn't even drive a car. I'd be delighted to lose my car again, but I see some holes in your statements.

2. Why does intercity rail HAVE to be located at Union Station? We've already got the Santa Fe station, and the Norman line connects with it. Why is it you say we can have no intercity rail transit unless we use Union Station? There's lots of open land and potentially open land in other places that make more sense to me.

3. Although the line did indeed work fine for multi-modal transport in the past, why does the past have to determine the future? We've got other plans for that part of the city, and I personally would like to see a hub closer to Bricktown or any North-South line we might construct. It's illogical to expect people coming to Oklahoma City from Norman (or the north were that to exist) to get off their North-South train and transfer to another line to go another just to get off at Union Station. Most of those passengers would want to stop nearer to the CBD and Bricktown anyway, so why would they transfer?

Also, in Chicago, I suspect most people take the bus rather than the El. My kids do, as do all of their friends. Why walk a mile to the El when there's a bus a couple of blocks away? Why not spend more of our resources establishing a cheaper and more flexible bus or trolley service while we make plans for light rail people might actually use. Why tie ourselves down to an inconvenient location simply because it used to be used?

3. I don't mind other cities voicing their support, but they'd better be prepared to put their money where their mouth is. I agree that our city government is probably not as supportive of mass transit as they should be, but the one thing I agree with Mick Cornett is on the fact that cities that want transit to Oklahoma City had better be prepared to help pay for it. We might find that all those cities are all about train travel as long as its free. I want proof that this is something more than a group of people looking for a handout. If these groups want transit so badly, then they should be willing to fund the studies, and those studies might make something happen.....if they prove people will actually use rail in numbers to justify the expense.

Also, you mistake Tom Elmore's plans, as he considers multi-modal to include freight, and he'd like Union Station to not only be the site for multi-modal transporation for passengers, but for commercial rail as well. That's the one thing most of us are resoundingly opposed to. But again, I'm confused as to why we can't build a multimodal facility elsewhere, in a more convenient location. If I were traveling to downtown Oklahoma City (which will be a moot point soon, as I'm moving down there) from my current home, I'd want to get off as close to the Santa Fe station as possible, as I'd be going to the Ford Center or Bricktown. I wouldn't want to have to transfer from there to a second train to take me to Union Station, where I would have to pick up a taxi or a bus to take me BACK to the Ford Center or Bricktown. People use mass transit when its convenient and gets them where they want to go in the fewest possible stops. That's why my daughters use the bus in Chicago and not the El. The same thing will happen here if we don't plan sensibly.

Thanks betts for your thoughtful answers. By paragraph, my responses would be:

2. We don't have to have intercity rail at Union Station. But right now, 5 blocks south of the Ford Center, there are direct rails to commuter destinations Mustang, El Reno, Tinker, Shawnee, Remington Park, Will Rogers Airport and regional destinations Tulsa and Lawton. Now Santa Fe station is in a great location and connects to Edmond, Norman, Fort Worth and Wichita. It may be that OKC only needs a small station (2 tracks) serving the N-S corridor and a small potential station (1-2 tracks) serving the E-W and NE-SW corridors. But once the Crosstown is built, we will never be able to change our minds to add more capacity to all of these potential destinations that are not served by the capacity-limited Santa Fe station. I guess what I'm saying is that Union Station rail yard is open land close to central OKC. We can fit the new Crosstown and the full rail yard in the same land (I think...)

3. I'd hope that we could get a smart urban planner to avoid the scenario you describe. I'd suspect that Santa Fe station would turn into the main N-S transit hub (as much as possible in that space) and Union Station would turn into the E-W/NE-SW transit hub. My guess would be that most transit trips are in/out of central districts with a maximum of one transfer (like a suburbanite who works downtown.) If you come from Norman, yes, you get off at Santa Fe station and you are at Bricktown. If you come from El Reno, you get to Union Station and take a trolley or walk to Bricktown. Just my educated guesses though.

I looked up the bus/rail data for Chicago (yes I have too much time)
Rail = 917k daily (536k El (light) + 336k Metra (commuter))
Bus = 936k daily
These systems are complementary. I'd often use both (take Metra downtown and then get on a bus or trolley)

3. I agree with you and Mick on this...surrounding communities must be a part of this and not only by passing resolutions. Operationally this would mean the creation of a multi-county transit authority (Oklahoma, Cleveland, Canadian, etc.) that collects taxes for transit. But to get transit going, OKC as a government will need to be the leader in helping to secure funding. Norman, Edmond and Shawnee can't do this alone. All of these feasibility studies are done with federal dollars anyway--just like the federal dollars that fund our highways and airports. I'm not sure what interest group would be looking for transit dollar "handouts". Highway money seems equally if not more susceptible to this sort of issue. If we need Union Station rail yard for future transit needs, we would have study OKC transit issues before we destroy the yard. We've only done a study on highway needs (easiest place to put the new Crosstown.) Why not do a transportation study in a more comprehensive and forward-looking way. When this area doubles in size will we still all want to drive on I-35/I-40/I-44 or will we want the option to take mass transit. As other cities are finding out, mass transit is an important part of getting people between their destinations in addition to car and air.

Freight at Union Station is a non-starter. There is no one in that area who would need freight service. People who need freight service have a spur or send it to the intermodal freight yard. Passenger only at my downtown transit hubs.

Again, thanks for your responses betts. Those of us who support mass transit (possibly in the minority) and those of us who think that includes Union Station (an even smaller number) need to convince the majority. I think Tom should add a blog to his NATI website with his articles that he finds and add thoughtful commentary...just dropping links about other city's successes with mass transit doesn't really convince anyone. Persuasion is a give and take and it seems like people are talking through one another on this thread (at least what I have read.)

We don't have to have intercity rail at Union Station. But right now, 5 blocks south of the Ford Center, there are direct rails to commuter destinations Mustang, El Reno, Tinker, Shawnee, Remington Park, Will Rogers Airport and regional destinations Tulsa and Lawton. Now Santa Fe station is in a great location and connects to Edmond, Norman, Fort Worth and Wichita. It may be that OKC only needs a small station (2 tracks) serving the N-S corridor and a small potential station (1-2 tracks) serving the E-W and NE-SW corridors. But once the Crosstown is built, we will never be able to change our minds to add more capacity to all of these potential destinations that are not served by the capacity-limited Santa Fe station. I guess what I'm saying is that Union Station rail yard is open land close to central OKC. We can fit the new Crosstown and the full rail yard in the same land (I think...)

I'm trying to think of what kind of volume cities like Mustang, El Reno, Shawnee, Tulsa and Lawton could ever generate that would require more than 2 rail lines. Doesn't the Metra in Chicago only have 2 lines? That's a city over 5 times the size of Oklahoma City. Yes, the Santa Fe station has not got the capacity to handle large volumes, but there are other places that do. The Cotton gin area, which is going to be vacated, south of Reno, is immediately adjacent to rail lines and has a significant amount of land. I'd like to see a modern multimodal hub built in a location like that. We could build it to last for a long time, with adequate parking, bus stalls, taxi stands, etc.



I'd hope that we could get a smart urban planner to avoid the scenario you describe. I'd suspect that Santa Fe station would turn into the main N-S transit hub (as much as possible in that space) and Union Station would turn into the E-W/NE-SW transit hub. My guess would be that most transit trips are in/out of central districts with a maximum of one transfer (like a suburbanite who works downtown.) If you come from Norman, yes, you get off at Santa Fe station and you are at Bricktown. If you come from El Reno, you get to Union Station and take a trolley or walk to Bricktown. Just my educated guesses though.

So, for those coming into Oklahoma City from El Reno, they could get off at my Cotton Gin location and walk to the Ford Center, Bricktown or the CBD as well.


I agree with you and Mick on this...surrounding communities must be a part of this and not only by passing resolutions. Operationally this would mean the creation of a multi-county transit authority (Oklahoma, Cleveland, Canadian, etc.) that collects taxes for transit. But to get transit going, OKC as a government will need to be the leader in helping to secure funding. Norman, Edmond and Shawnee can't do this alone. All of these feasibility studies are done with federal dollars anyway--just like the federal dollars that fund our highways and airports. I'm not sure what interest group would be looking for transit dollar "handouts". Highway money seems equally if not more susceptible to this sort of issue. If we need Union Station rail yard for future transit needs, we would have study OKC transit issues before we destroy the yard. We've only done a study on highway needs (easiest place to put the new Crosstown.) Why not do a transportation study in a more comprehensive and forward-looking way. When this area doubles in size will we still all want to drive on I-35/I-40/I-44 or will we want the option to take mass transit. As other cities are finding out, mass transit is an important part of getting people between their destinations in addition to car and air..

If feasibility studies can be paid for with federal dollars, then cities such as Norman and Shawnee should be lobbying for feasibility studies, not passing city council resolutions. They should be knocking on the mayor's door telling them what they want and how much they're willing to contribute. I think that when this area doubles in size, Union Station will be as ridiculous a location for the main transit station as perhaps the Santa Fe station is now, personally. I think a lot of people are interested in mass transit. Almost everyone who posts on this thread is interested in mass transit. We just have different ideas of what we think the city and surrounding communities truly need.


Freight at Union Station is a non-starter. There is no one in that area who would need freight service. People who need freight service have a spur or send it to the intermodal freight yard. Passenger only at my downtown transit hubs.

Thank you.


Those of us who support mass transit (possibly in the minority) and those of us who think that includes Union Station (an even smaller number) need to convince the majority. I think Tom should add a blog to his NATI website with his articles that he finds and add thoughtful commentary...just dropping links about other city's successes with mass transit doesn't really convince anyone. Persuasion is a give and take and it seems like people are talking through one another on this thread (at least what I have read.)

I'm interested in what you think about the city's plans for a "Central Park", and how having Union Station as a multimodal hub would impact that. I think that when you've been to Chicago's Grant and Millenium Parks, you realize just what can be done with a large greenspace in the center of a city, both in terms of improving recreational opportunities for people who live and visit downtown, and for creating a sense of community. My concern is that Union Station as a multimodal hub would essentially bisect the park and completely cut off the CBD's connection to the river. I realize that an interstate highway will as well, but obviously our water table negated a "Big Dig" equivalent, and below grade construction and the pedestrian bridge is a somewhat workable compromise. The required concrete around Union Station to make it a multimodal hub, as well as the space required to leave the railyard as it stands would create two mini parks with no visible connection, and no easy access to the river. I want a new, modern multimodal hub east of Union Station, and I want it to be preserved, but as a community gathering site, not a train station. That has nothing to do with my attitude towards mass transit, of which I'm a huge proponent. We're primarily arguing about location, not transit in this particular thread.

Top 10 list of people who I had trouble getting to answer my questions:
1. Brent Rinehart
2. The local president of the Teamsters in the early 1990s (what fight?)
3. Former Secretary of Transportation Neal McCaleb (the answers he gave on Route D of the new I-40 alignment have since turned out to be way off when it came to costs and scheduling. I'm still waiting to see if ODOT keeps his promise to build the boulevard, which still isn't funded)
4. Jim Brewer (he either hated me or loved me depending on what I was asking)
5. OU VP of Communications Katherine Bishop (I do not miss my short stint covering higher ed)
6. Nick Preftakes (guy I like, but he won't say anything about his arts district acquisitions)
7. Maurice Kanbar (owns half of downtown Tulsa)
8. Rep. Frank Lucas (he's great at releasing press releases about farm subsidies, but wouldn't do an interview about it).
9. Tom Elmore (He doesn't answer questions, he just gives links)
10. TV weathermen (not gonna say anything else on this one)

tom seems to be more of an empty suit than obama!

Denver Union Station: Environmental Impact Statement (http://www.denverunionstation.com)

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/main_1

Denver Union Station: Environmental Impact Statement (http://www.denverunionstation.com/)

TOM ELMORE: Please answer the questions. Steve is a legit journalist, unlike metro, and you can use your answers as a bully pulpit like you do whenever you see a mic or camera around.

TOM ELMORE: Please answer the questions. Steve is a legit journalist, unlike metro, and you can use your answers as a bully pulpit like you do whenever you see a mic or camera around.

Ouch - not too nice of a statement on Metro there... Like Metro or not, he shares a lot on the board and often has well-formed comments.

Tom: here's the deal. I've got a website, OKC Central (http://www.okccentral.com), that is the most read news blog at OPUBCO. Provide straight answers to my questions and I'll repost them, unedited, at the site with only an introduction to the questions and answers.
I will, as a bonus, list under the questions and answers your top five links. And as yet another incentive to better educate readers, I'll throw in yet another prize - you provide me with 10 questions to pose to ODOT - questions that do not slander but address the issues - and I'll pester ODOT as much as I've pestered you.
But wait, there's more. I'll also throw in a box of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco treat (seriously, if that's what it takes).

By the way, Metro would make a great muckraker - and I mean that as a compliment. I would not want to be a public official taking his call.

That's a heck of a deal Steve. But I doubt he takes it...

I've bought three new cars in my lifetime. I've listened to and learned from some of the most manipulative high pressure sales folks on Earth. Oh, and I also have a seven-year-old son.

I swear to god Tom, your posts are more bunk than crunk. I believe you should take Steve's deal. Mike Morgan did. Then again, you're not on TV and don't really have anything legit to defend...

The Edmond Sun, Edmond, OK - ODOT should give more support (http://www.edmondsun.com/archivesearch/local_story_094000543.html)

Um, ok, Tom, that's a link to a letter to the editor in the Edmond Sun.
I can only assume at this point there is some truth out there, some answers that you don't want out.
Now I'm really, really, really curious as to what you're all about Tom. Who is funding you? Are there ulterior motives we don't know about?

Um, ok, Tom, that's a link to a letter to the editor in the Edmond Sun.
I can only assume at this point there is some truth out there, some answers that you don't want out.
Now I'm really, really, really curious as to what you're all about Tom. Who is funding you? Are there ulterior motives we don't know about?


Steve: Hate to tell you this, but Tom doesn't respond to real journalists. He only lights up to AM radio talk shows and TV cameras.

He also doesn't realize that cement has already been poured.

Link: 40 Forward: Oklahoma's I-40 Crosstown Expressway (http://www.40forward.com/)

the edmond sun, edmond, ok - odot should give more support (http://www.edmondsun.com/archivesearch/local_story_094000543.html)



here's a solution....take the money that it would cost to lay tracks down somewhere else...what was it? $150 million? Put that into running the new i-40 on its current alignment behind union station but run it under the yard. Granted it will all have to be removed for supports to be put in and then be rebuilt over the highway which would be in a tunnel like environment and then every freakin body could be happy. Granted it's going to add another five years to the project but who cares? We're already three years behind schedule. I hate this argument and i wish they would just build the darn thing. Jesus... I hope the current crosstown collapses...just so washington will just say 'crap we should not have argued against this a long long time ago...

My work and that of my organization and colleagues speaks for itself. We have not stood "against a quality highway." We have stood for careful, reverent preservation and intelligent reuse of the OKC Union Station rail facility, which never needed to be threatened in order to have a quality road of any kind. We have, similarly, stood through the years for honest, open and accountable management of the state and national highway system, which is the only assurance of the greatest possible safety and efficiency of our public roadways.

My answers and those of my colleagues to any reasonable question regarding the value of OKC Union Station can be found in this and other forums and media going back more than a decade. These answers, facts and positions are validated by the experiences of other cities as communicated in relevant news articles and other related data. I seem, also, to remember, that someone here has written that nobody should necessarily believe anything I say just because I say it. I've never asked anyone to do otherwise.

My family, friends and colleagues support the work that NATI does -- because they believe it is important. The organization does not take money from any transportation business interest. Never has. Never will. We stand on our own integrity and, as previously noted, on our work.

TOM ELMORE

Who do you take money from?

This is the thread that will never die. Did we forget the 4 undeniable facts?

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

I still love those facts!

Yep!