View Full Version : Union Station - Transit Discussions



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16

metro
04-06-2009, 08:42 AM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

bombermwc
04-06-2009, 09:18 AM
Tom, don't pretend to take the high ground here. You play evasive tactics at every opportunity and still refuse to answer the questions. I think I'll follow Kerry on stating the same facts with some elaboration

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station. Nor has it been for decades. Why is that? Because there's no need for it.

Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station. And here's the big one Tom. NO ONE has ANY plans to use Union Station for any sort of train station. So unless you plan on funding your own rail system then what's the big stink? Even a new light rail system doesn't plan on using it. We're more likely to see busses than light rail anyway because of the cost involved in rail.

Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed. The station will still be useable if it ever comes up. 2 lines are plenty and a standard number for MUCH MORE urban environments. Last time I checked, 90% of the stations in DC were 2 line stations...not 4. Even in the core.

Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down. You've been trying to get people to think that the building will be torn down by telling half truths. You present the argument, "Save Union Station" leading people to believe it's going to be torn down...which it isn't. What you need to do is alter your campaign to what you are really doing...."Save the rail lines". You'll find much less support if you do that, which is I'm sure why you haven't been fully honest. You know people don't care about rail lines and you'd rather use shock than the truth.

SouthsideSooner
04-06-2009, 12:34 PM
Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down. You've been trying to get people to think that the building will be torn down by telling half truths. You present the argument, "Save Union Station" leading people to believe it's going to be torn down...which it isn't. What you need to do is alter your campaign to what you are really doing...."Save the rail lines". You'll find much less support if you do that, which is I'm sure why you haven't been fully honest. You know people don't care about rail lines and you'd rather use shock than the truth.


There aren't any rail lines to save, either. I ran an errand downtown Friday and deciding to drive by Union Station to get a first hand look . I parked at the dead end at the tracks and walked out into the yard. The only two sets of tracks left are the two sets that will remain and the rest of the railyard is in complete disrepair, there are no other tracks left and it looks like it hasn't been touched in decades.

There's nothing there to save.

betts
04-06-2009, 01:54 PM
There aren't any rail lines to save, either. I ran an errand downtown Friday and deciding to drive by Union Station to get a first hand look . I parked at the dead end at the tracks and walked out into the yard. The only two sets of tracks left are the two sets that will remain and the rest of the railyard is in complete disrepair, there are no other tracks left and it looks like it hasn't been touched in decades.

There's nothing there to save.

Unless I am mistaken as well, certainly as soon as you get several blocks away from Union station there aren't even any extra tracks in disrepair. I didn't actually get out of my car and walk it, but I drove as close as I could to the rail lines over by Broadway and also over by Classen, and I only saw one line for sure, perhaps two. So, as far as I can tell, there are not four rail lines leaving Union Station for other cities.

Jazzman
04-08-2009, 01:14 AM
I was in Dallas in the 80's before DART got started. Back then Dallas Union Station wasn't being used as a passenger rail station either and its rail yard looked a lot like Oklahoma Union Station's does today. There were a lot of people who thought it was a useless facility and it was almost sold off for private development. Fortunately for Dallas that didn't happen. Now its the main hub for one of the best rail transit systems in the west. Just because Oklahoma City Union Station hasn't been used for passenger service for some time doesn't mean its not a good choice for a regional rail hub.

Also, the fact there are no plans to use Union Station as a passenger rail center has nothing to do with whether or not the facility is best suited to serve in that capacity. It's common knowledge that the reason there are no plans is (1) prior to the late 90's there was no serious consideration of any kind given to developing a regional rail transit system for the Oklahoma City metro area and (2) by the time COTPA began to study the issue, the decision had already been made by ODOT to relocate the Crosstown along the BNSF railroad right of way.

I've looked at information on ODOT's website. It clearly shows there will only be one active rail line remaining (Union Pacific) behind Union Station after the Crosstown is built. The other active rail line (BNSF) is being permanently removed and those trains will be rerouted through south OKC. Also, ODOT's information shows there will only be room for an additional single side track. With just one active line and one side track, you could use Union Station as a very limited rail stop for trains on the UP line, but that would be about it. Loosing the BNSF line is a big deal as far as I'm concerned. If you look at the maps, it's the only rail line that can provide direct passenger service to the airport. It's also the main active line between Tulsa and OKC, as well as OKC and Lawton. Eliminating the BNSF line from Union Station and forcing the rail service to the south of the new Crosstown will make developing a regional rail transit system that much more difficult and costly.

Finally, if you look at the state rail map, you'll see there are essentially three main rail lines: (1) E-W Union Pacific line...runs from Elk City to Weatherford to El Reno to Yukon to Oklahoma City to Harrah to Choctaw to Shawnee to Ft. Smith, (2) NE-SW BNSF line that runs from Tulsa to Oklahoma City to Chickasha to Lawton to Altus, and (3) N-S Sant Fe line that runs from Ardmore to Norman to Moore to Oklahoma City to Edmond to Guthrie to Wichita. The UP line and BNSF line run directly through Union Station. The Santa Fe line connects through Union Station by way of a short spur line. So, the fact is all three main rail lines could be serviced by Union Station.

Just my two cents for what its worth.

bombermwc
04-08-2009, 03:24 PM
Well whether we agree on that evaluation or not, at least jazz gives some solid backing to his arguement. Tom could learn a few things.

I think you'll still find that there is little support for saving that use though. Whether it's one, two, or four lines doesnt matter. The main point is, we want I-40 and the time for arguing has past. The opportunity was there for discussion, and it past. The decision was made to go ahead and so those with the opinion to keep the lines were outvoted. That's how things work. It's time to let the crosstown project finish as planned. Any issues with the rail can be worked out when they are needed. And the way the mayor is talking, we most likely won't be seeing rail in Maps 3.

jbrown84
04-08-2009, 07:50 PM
Well whether we agree on that evaluation or not, at least jazz gives some solid backing to his arguement. Tom could learn a few things.

Indeed. Well argued, jazzman. At this point though, it's just too late to change this.

The fact remains that the rail yard is in disrepair and would require a lot of cash to rebuild. So why not build in a much better location? The junction of the N-S and E-W lines is near Bricktown and the future convention center site, and being a junction of these two lines makes it a perfect spot for our intermodal/multimodal hub.

Dallas' Union Station is much closer to downtown than ours. Ours, even after the C2S park is built, is more suited to just a regular stop than a full rail hub.

OKCisOK4me
04-08-2009, 09:53 PM
Finally, if you look at the state rail map, you'll see there are essentially three main rail lines: (1) E-W Union Pacific line...runs from Elk City to Weatherford to El Reno to Yukon to Oklahoma City to Harrah to Choctaw to Shawnee to Ft. Smith, (2) NE-SW BNSF line that runs from Tulsa to Oklahoma City to Chickasha to Lawton to Altus, and (3) N-S Sant Fe line that runs from Ardmore to Norman to Moore to Oklahoma City to Edmond to Guthrie to Wichita. The UP line and BNSF line run directly through Union Station. The Santa Fe line connects through Union Station by way of a short spur line. So, the fact is all three main rail lines could be serviced by Union Station.


Okay, first off. It's not Union Pacific from East to West or vice-a-versa. West of Oklahoma City, it's Union Pacific to their North/South route through Enid, El Reno, Chickasha, & Duncan. So those tracks are good, but they're not that good. They're still jointed, not CWR (continuous welded rail) like BNSF's North/South route through the state. From just west of El Reno, the rails are owned by a company called Austin, Todd & Ladd, which runs up to Watonga and west to Bridgeport. West of Bridgeport to Hydro it is strictly State owned track. And from Hydro all the way out to Erick it is Farmrail Corporation. These short line entities usually only maintain something like a 90lb. limit on their rail lines, where as the big Class 1 carriers, like Union Pacific & BNSF maintain a weight limit of 135lbs. (which is almost extinct because newer freight cars are getting heavier and heavier. East of Oklahoma City it's joint owned BNSF/Union Pacific rails to Shawnee & then Union Pacific only on down to McAlester. East of there to Howe, Oklahoma, it's Arkansas Oklahoma Railroad. Same thing with the lines here.

Your info is correct on BNSF.

The NE/SW route is owned by a company called Stillwater Central which operates what used to be a state owned line temporarily between Oklahoma City & Tulsa. Yes, BNSF used to own the segment between Oklahoma City, Lawton, and then Snyder, Oklahoma, where it dead ends but that is run by Stillwater Central as well. Again, all jointed line.

My point is, if you want to have Union Station be the center of all traffic, all of these lines are all going to have to have major upgrades. Go to a big city that has light rail, heavy rail or whatever it may be and tell me they run on jointed rail lines......PLEASE.

There's some useful information for the argument. I rest my case...

Jazzman
04-09-2009, 12:11 AM
OK4me:

Thanks for correcting my generalities. My fault for trying to overly simplify the nomenclature for discussion purposes. As long as we're clarifying things, I believe the section of the old Frisco line from Tulsa to just east of OKC is still owned by the State of Oklahoma and leased to Stillwater Central. And I thought BNSF still owned the line from OKC to Altus, but leased it to SLWC. But it really doesn't matter. Who owns vs. leases vs. operates the lines had very little, actually nothing, to do with my comments. The point I was trying to make is that there are three main active rail lines available for developing a commuter rail system in and around the Oklahoma City metropolitan area and all three of those, including the N-S BNSF line could be serviced by Union Station. And you're certainly correct on the need for rail upgrades. The state owned lines between OKC and Shawnee and OKC and Tulsa would need some serious capital investment before they could be used again for passenger service regardless where the rail hub is located.

sgray
04-09-2009, 01:23 AM
While I agree that there is nothing to be changed with the I-40 crosstown plan now, I must take issue with the following:


The decision was made to go ahead and so those with the opinion to keep the lines were outvoted.

Outvoted??? Who voted?...oh yeah. When did the people get to vote on the location of I-40 crosstown? I think you mean the folks at ODOT and elsewhere that decided which alignment to take. Heck, if my memory serves me correct, didn't the city choose the alignment that would have essentially made it a straight shot across? And where did that vote go?


That's how things work.

Around here, indeed. That is the way things do work here.


And the way the mayor is talking, we most likely won't be seeing rail in Maps 3.

This is also the way things work around here. How the mayor alone can decide what our MAPS3 tax dollars are spent on is astonishing. Are we really going to let this sort of behavior continue...come on guys! This is our city, not "his" city.

He'll likely eliminate public transit from the plan altogether, unless there are some Diesel or CNG buses involved, then he'll prolly make sure those are bought! Make that streetcar plan run on straight Gasoline and you've got yourself a streetcar as part of MAPS3 guaranteed!


We've got to stand up and quit taking this crap. If it went to vote and failed, then I'd be okay with removing it.

betts
04-09-2009, 04:59 AM
Just because Oklahoma City Union Station hasn't been used for passenger service for some time doesn't mean its not a good choice for a regional rail hub.

While I agree that the time Union Station has been unused has nothing to do with whether it is a good choice for a regional rail hub, the fact that it happened to be a station at one point in time also has nothing to do with whether or not it might be a bad choice for a rail hub.


I've looked at information on ODOT's website. It clearly shows there will only be one active rail line remaining (Union Pacific) behind Union Station after the Crosstown is built. The other active rail line (BNSF) is being permanently removed and those trains will be rerouted through south OKC. Also, ODOT's information shows there will only be room for an additional single side track. With just one active line and one side track, you could use Union Station as a very limited rail stop for trains on the UP line, but that would be about it. Losing the BNSF line is a big deal as far as I'm concerned. If you look at the maps, it's the only rail line that can provide direct passenger service to the airport. It's also the main active line between Tulsa and OKC, as well as OKC and Lawton. Eliminating the BNSF line from Union Station and forcing the rail service to the south of the new Crosstown will make developing a regional rail transit system that much more difficult and costly.

Later in your comments you say that "the Santa Fe line connects through Union Station by way of a short spur line", which implies you think it's fine for people to change trains to get to their desired destination. The BNSF essentially runs east and west, which means that even relocated south it is going to intersect the Santa Fe line at some point regardless. That would be the location at which any presumed passengers using the BNSF line could transfer to the Santa Fe line. Most people would have to take some form of transportation from Union Station to get where they want to go as well, as there would be nothing there for them to see. It would be just as simple to transfer to a north-south train at the BNSF-Santa Fe intersection or pick up a bus or taxi as it would to do so at Union Station.

A short spur line between the Santa Fe and Union Station is nonessential, as there is virtually no one who would transfer lines from the Santa Fe to a spur line to get to Union Station. It's far more logical to disembark directly from the Santa Fe line, as it is closer to where most people want to be when they arrive in Oklahoma City: Bricktown, the CBD, the Ford Center.

That's my problem with Union Station. It's in an illogical location. Any east-west line intersects with the north-south line, which I believe has the potential to be the most heavily traveled, and it's the point of intersection that seems like the logical place to put a station.

metro
04-09-2009, 08:30 AM
this thread makes me dizzy, let it die already............

kevinpate
04-09-2009, 09:24 AM
spin around three times in the opposite direction to counter act the dizzies. As for me, when a thread makes me dizzy, or worse, I tend to not worry with it any more and leave it to those who are interested, whatever their reasons may be.

bombermwc
04-09-2009, 11:44 AM
sgray - The decision was made by ODOT, but the public was given ample opportunity to provide arguments for or against each route. There were open meetings held for YEARS where the topic was discussed. In the end, our govenment is set up in such a way that ODOT ultimately decided wich way to go. It can be argued up and down whether they are the best people to make that decision, but that's how things work around here. If we don't like it, anyone is welcome to try to change it through legislature. I won't pretend to back ODOT on their decisions on a great number of things, but don't act for a second like it was just decreed from on high overnight. It was a very involved process that was very open, and very public.

As for the mayor, yes he does get to decide what goes on MAPS 3, it's the mayors plan and always has been. Each portion of MAPS has been driven by the mayor of the time, so why shouldn't he decide. Like with most projects, just because the public decides they want to see a certain project happen, it doesn't mean that MAPS is the place that is going to fund it. Sometimes they are willing to put in projects the public doesn't understand the impact of. I would challenge anyone to argue that the public knows the needs of OKC than the leadership. OKC has had a great track record in the last 20 years with civic government....it is what's responsible for the good things that are happening. We're not fighting our city like Tulsa. I'm not sure what gripe you personally have with the city of OKC, but I've been very happy with the way they've been handling things lately.

Jazzman
04-09-2009, 11:49 AM
There seems to be some inaccurate information that keeps getting repeated.

First is this notion that the route for the new Crosstown is what everyone wanted. The city council recommended alternative B..the chamber of commerce recommended alternative B...the hispanic community opposed the route...and obviously rail supporters opposed the route. Noboday I know favored the new route. It was essentially forced on us by ODOT. So, let's keep that part of the discussion honest. If your position is that the decision has already been made and it's too late to do anything about it, that's fine and I respect that. But let's not try to rewrite history and portray this as though the majority approved and embraced the route.

Next is this idea that nobody will use a rail transit system unless the hub is located within a block of their final destination. I've ridden the systems in Dallas, St. Louis, Denver, Seattle and others. No matter where the hub is located, everyone commonly transfers trains to get to their final destination. It's done by thousands of people everyday. If the system is designed right with simple across platform transfers...commuter to light rail or vice versa..and only one transfer is needed to get the majority of riders quickly to within easy walking distance of their final destination, hub location is not an issue. If your personal preference is that you'd rather not make a transfer or have to walk more than one or two blocks, that's fine too and I'll respect that as well. But let's not misconstrue how nearly all rail transit systems are designed and how most most rail transit riders use those systems.

Along that same line, there's been a lot of comments that a new hub needs to be built at the intersection of the N-S and E-W lines so that it is closer to Bricktown and the CBD. The N-S BNSF line, the E-W UP line and NE-SW BNSF/SLWC line all intersect just 3 blocks east of Union Station. A new hub location on the Co-op property where these intersect is not significantly closer to most final destinations than is Union Station. Here's the distances from Google Earth:

OKCUS to CBD: .8 mi
N-S/E-W to CBD: .8 mi

OKCUS to new Convention Center: .2 mi
N-S/E-W to new Convention Center: .25 mi

OKCUS to Myriad Convention Center: .6 mi
N-S/E-W to Myriad Convention Center: .5 mi

OKCUS to Bricktown: .75 mi
N-S/E-W to Bricktown: .6 mi

Not much of a difference in my opinion. Now if you're position is that the hub should be located further north near the Santa Fe Depot, that's fine too and I'd agree that would be closer to the CBD and Bricktown. But let's not imply that a hub location that close to the CBD and Bricktown is any nearer the intersection of the N-S and E-W lines than is Union Station.

A few other measurements for reference:

Dallas US to the center of CBD: .7 mi
OKC US to the center of CBD: .8 mi

Dallas US to Dallas Convention Center: .5 mi
OKC US to Myriad Convention Center: .6 mi

Again, not much difference in my opinion. Based on the success of the Dallas system, it's fairly obvious transferring trains or walking to get to a final destination is not an issue for the majority of rail transit users.

OKCisOK4me
04-09-2009, 12:32 PM
Jazzman:

Touche. Glad somebody on here has some knowledge regarding this subject. Considering how SLWC's route has now been altered, there is really only one line serviced by Union Station, that of course being UP's. But you knew that.

Don't you believe that our Union Station is way too small? Gotta work now, so I'll leave it at that. Peace.

sgray
04-09-2009, 01:57 PM
Sorry for the long post guys, but I want to state my own views on this matter and I don't feel it really needs a dedicated thread.


sgray - The decision was made by ODOT, but the public was given ample opportunity to provide arguments for or against each route. There were open meetings held for YEARS where the topic was discussed. In the end, our govenment is set up in such a way that ODOT ultimately decided wich way to go. It can be argued up and down whether they are the best people to make that decision, but that's how things work around here. If we don't like it, anyone is welcome to try to change it through legislature. I won't pretend to back ODOT on their decisions on a great number of things, but don't act for a second like it was just decreed from on high overnight. It was a very involved process that was very open, and very public.

"The decision was made by ODOT" That's pretty much the gist of it. I was right here, voicing my views at the time, as were many others and the city government itself. What good is having the people (who actually live in and pay taxes in OKC) come forward and state their wishes if, in the end, an entity outside of Oklahoma City is the one and only "decider"? It's like a slap in the face and definitely is a waste of our time. Dont pretend that for a moment ODOT hadn't already made up their mind before the people of and the city of OKC submitted their choice. And in all friggen honesty---why the heck would ODOT not want to honor the city's own alignment choice, unless their were some other motive? Obviously, what's done is done and it is what it is...


As for the mayor, yes he does get to decide what goes on MAPS 3, it's the mayors plan and always has been. Each portion of MAPS has been driven by the mayor of the time, so why shouldn't he decide. Like with most projects, just because the public decides they want to see a certain project happen, it doesn't mean that MAPS is the place that is going to fund it. Sometimes they are willing to put in projects the public doesn't understand the impact of. I would challenge anyone to argue that the public knows the needs of OKC than the leadership. OKC has had a great track record in the last 20 years with civic government....it is what's responsible for the good things that are happening. We're not fighting our city like Tulsa. I'm not sure what gripe you personally have with the city of OKC, but I've been very happy with the way they've been handling things lately.

It's the mayor's plan, but OUR MONEY! And until he picks up my portion of the tab, I WILL have my vote counted to determine what the scope of the project is or I won't support it. I really don't see why you see mick as this person who knows better than the citizens "what we need"...and even more so, you refer to the "leadership" as some ultimate wisdom that we should bow down to or something! Now, I dont hate mick or anything like that, but come on! It almost sounds like something written by a really close friend of Mick's.


I'm sorry if I come off sounding like an a** here...I do respect your views and want you to know that...but I take major issue when folks refer to our elected officials as somehow being some greater-than-thou force that's more in-tune with 'our' needs than 'we' are. Mick, so long as he resides in OKC, is part of 'we'.

As a city, I feel that we are too agreeable and trusting and need to be more active and aggressive in pushing this city to be better. Folks need to voice their views on how stuff is to be done, and when the decision makers follow the will of the people, then they should receive a pat on the back. And when they clearly take their own path for some personal gain, they should receive the boot, in a most timely manner. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Anyways, back to the subject. Union Station

I think metro and others are right. Is there anything else this massive thread hasn't covered on Union Station?

Tom Elmore
04-09-2009, 04:02 PM
So now there are only 3 "undeniable facts?"

I thought they were all "undeniable."

warreng88
04-09-2009, 04:39 PM
So now there are only 3 "undeniable facts?"

I thought they were all "undeniable."

No Tom, there are four. Here they are again in case you don't remember:

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.

Jazzman
04-09-2009, 06:35 PM
Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed.

Actually, that one is fiction.

There are two main regional rail lines running by Union Station:

(1) Union Pacific line running from El Reno to OKC to Shawnee; and
(2) BNSF line which connects Tulsa to OKC to Chickasha to Lawton to Altus, and which by the way runs directly passed Will Rogers airport.

The UP line is the only line that will remain at Union Station. It will run on the north side of the new Crosstown.

The several mile section of the BNSF line from just east of Shields, past Union Station, and across the river to just west of the airpark will be abandoned.

That would eliminate the only existing direct rail line and transit corridor for easily establishing rail service between downtown and the airport, not to mention providing rail transit service for the future airpark development.

It seems strange to build a new convention center one block from Union Station and allow ODOT to eliminate the only existing rail line that could provide direct rail transit service for convention visitors from the airport to the doorstep of the convention center.

SouthsideSooner
04-09-2009, 10:55 PM
....
In fact, there are currently two active rail lines located just south of the Union Station. The remainder of the former Union Station yard is currently unusable due to the fact that the railroad companies have removed many of the tracks and any other remaining tracks are unserviceable.

The northernmost of the two active lines is operated by the Union Pacific (UP). This line will be depressed, along with the roadway, from approximately Santa Fe Ave. to approximately Western Ave. and maintain somewhat the current alignment. The UP line will be far enough to the south to allow for a second track to be installed in the future in the event that passenger rail activities ever return to Union Station.

Just to the south of the UP line is an east-west line belonging to the BNSF Railroad. This line will be removed and the trains diverted to the south of the North Canadian River onto an existing east-west line referred to as the Packingtown Lead, which ODOT is updating. Utilization of this line and the existing north-south BNSF mainline in conjunction with improvements to the Flynn Yard will ensure continued service for the area. This work will improve the connectivity from the area of Will Rogers World Airport to the Santa Fe Station, which is the chosen Oklahoma City passenger rail facility.

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

SouthsideSooner
04-09-2009, 11:45 PM
It seems strange to build a new convention center one block from Union Station and allow ODOT to eliminate the only existing rail line that could provide direct rail transit service for convention visitors from the airport to the doorstep of the convention center.

Why does it seem strange? There has never been passenger rail from the airport to Union Station and passenger rail at Union Station became extinct almost a half century ago because of lack of demand. The reasons that made that a reality have not changed.

Where is the demand for commuter rail? The closest comparison we have are commuter buses. What has the ridership trend been for Greyhound bus lines been over the last few decades? New technologies make old technologies irrelevant and obsolete. Mass transit doesn't do well where driving is convenient and affordable.

OKCisOK4me
04-10-2009, 01:39 AM
Actually, that one is fiction.

There are two main regional rail lines running by Union Station:

(1) Union Pacific line running from El Reno to OKC to Shawnee; and
(2) BNSF line which connects Tulsa to OKC to Chickasha to Lawton to Altus, and which by the way runs directly passed Will Rogers airport.

The UP line is the only line that will remain at Union Station. It will run on the north side of the new Crosstown.

The several mile section of the BNSF line from just east of Shields, past Union Station, and across the river to just west of the airpark will be abandoned.

That would eliminate the only existing direct rail line and transit corridor for easily establishing rail service between downtown and the airport, not to mention providing rail transit service for the future airpark development.

It seems strange to build a new convention center one block from Union Station and allow ODOT to eliminate the only existing rail line that could provide direct rail transit service for convention visitors from the airport to the doorstep of the convention center.

Again, am I blind or am I seeing something you and Tom don't see?!

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r170/OkStateBBall78/****ingjesus.jpg

Only UNION Pacific is behind UNION Station. Makes sense...hahaha

BoulderSooner
04-10-2009, 02:19 AM
Why does it seem strange? There has never been passenger rail from the airport to Union Station and passenger rail at Union Station became extinct almost a half century ago because of lack of demand. The reasons that made that a reality have not changed.

Where is the demand for commuter rail? The closest comparison we have are commuter buses. What has the ridership trend been for Greyhound bus lines been over the last few decades? New technologies make old technologies irrelevant and obsolete. Mass transit doesn't do well where driving is convenient and affordable.

ding ding ding we have a winner ....

we have a huge (land size) city .. with little to no traffic issues ... thus not much demand for rail

bombermwc
04-10-2009, 09:41 AM
And that's the point right there. We're not congested at all. What we call "rush hour" is NOTHING. So it takes 5 or 10 more minutes to get home at the most packed time of day.....think Dallas and then you have traffic....that's where it adds an hour on to your drive.

I'm still going to disagree with sgray on a great many things. We're all entitled to our opinions, but to feel like ODOT had some big conspriacy...no. You think they chose this option because it would take the rail lines? No. They made their decision and we're stuck with it, like it or not. It definitely wouldn't be the first time they went against what the civic govt. wanted....won't be the last either. And as for Mick....I'll stick with his ideas. I gurantee he sees a bigger picture than some shmoe off the street, so yeah I'm going to trust him on what HE wants to put in Maps 3. You can decide whether or not you agree by voting. He's got plenty pressure to determine what to include....and I still say the previous projects have been overwhelmingly successful. Yes lessons were learned, but you can't deny the life those projects gave to the city...and in a VERY fair and open manner.

metro
04-10-2009, 11:54 AM
Dallas' rush hour to other major cities is nothing as well.

Steve
04-10-2009, 07:28 PM
[QUOTE=sgray;215387]Sorry for the long post guys, but I want to state my own views on this matter and I don't feel it really needs a dedicated thread.



"The decision was made by ODOT" That's pretty much the gist of it. I was right here, voicing my views at the time, as were many others and the city government itself. What good is having the people (who actually live in and pay taxes in OKC) come forward and state their wishes if, in the end, an entity outside of Oklahoma City is the one and only "decider"? It's like a slap in the face and definitely is a waste of our time. Dont pretend that for a moment ODOT hadn't already made up their mind before the people of and the city of OKC submitted their choice. And in all friggen honesty---why the heck would ODOT not want to honor the city's own alignment choice, unless their were some other motive? Obviously, what's done is done and it is what it is...


QUOTE]

I was reporting on all this when it was happening. What I saw would seem to back this up. I never saw ODOT give the B3 alignment any real consideration. They were always pushing and angling for the chosen D alignment whenever I talked to them.

But at least they answered my questions, Tom.

betts
04-11-2009, 08:19 AM
Regardless, what I see in OKCisOK4me's photo is both east-west lines crossing the north-south line. Again, what is logical is to have a station at the point where lines converge, in order to minimize transfers for everyone. Since the photo doesn't continue west, I'm going to inquire as to whether the new line shown in the above photo continues on to the airport or merges with the old line at some point.

I'm going to disagree a bit with SoutsideSooner (in a friendly fashion), in that I think that we should not only look for what works, but plan for the future. I also think we have to think of efficiency. If we have well-planned transit that is easy to use and practical, we reduce the "one car-one person" extremely inefficient and wasteful mode of transit. I want our city to think carefully about what will work, as I do think that's the key to encouraging people used to driving cars to get out of them. We shouldn't use existing structures simply because they exist, because if mass transit is impractical, people won't use it. We should only use them if they're the best and most transit-friendly option.

SouthsideSooner
04-11-2009, 09:57 AM
I understand and appreciate the need for mass transit and as I've said before, I'll support and vote for a plan that is affordable and makes sense. I would support a well thought out streetcar system for downtown and improvements to our current bus system but commuter rail just makes very little sense to me.

Proponents like to point to the Heartland Flyer as an example of successful commuter rail and I believe it's a good example of how it doesn't make sense. It is great novelty for someone wanting to take a leisurely train ride but it isn't really a reasonable, affordable transportation option for the "masses".

A round trip ticket to Ft. Worth on the Heartland Flyer is $66.00 per person. http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak/FareFinder?_tripType=Return&_origin=okc&_depmonthyear=2009-04&_depday=12&_dephourmin=&_destination=etw&_retmonthyear=2009-04&_retday=12&_rethourmin=&_adults=1&_children=0&_infants=0&_searchBy=fare&x=19&y=11. Last year the ridership was 68,000 passengers. Oklahoma and Texas each a pay 2 million dollar subsidy to keep it running for a cost of $59.00 per passenger. So the true cost of the trip is $125.00 per passenger with roughly half paid by the passenger and half paid by taxpayers. The round trip takes 8 and a half hours of travel time with the only option leaving at 8:25 in the morning and arriving back at 9:39 at night. It does virtually nothing to alleviate the need for roads or decreasing traffic congestion.

I would call it more of an amusement ride than a reasonable transportation option.

LakeEffect
04-11-2009, 10:35 AM
Proponents like to point to the Heartland Flyer as an example of successful commuter rail and I believe it's a good example of how it doesn't make sense. It is great novelty for someone wanting to take a leisurely train ride but it isn't really a reasonable, affordable transportation option for the "masses".

I would call it more of an amusement ride than a reasonable transportation option.

I don't think I've heard anyone claim it's a good example of commuter rail... but I agree that it's lack of speed really knocks it out of any competition with autos. I love riding the train because I don't have to drive, I can use my lap top and relax in quite spacious seating, but I don't like it because it can take quite a while.

SouthsideSooner
04-11-2009, 11:27 AM
I don't think I've heard anyone claim it's a good example of commuter rail... but I agree that it's lack of speed really knocks it out of any competition with autos. I love riding the train because I don't have to drive, I can use my lap top and relax in quite spacious seating, but I don't like it because it can take quite a while.

It is very indicative of the only kind of commuter rail that would ever be even close to affordable in Oklahoma. Anything faster or requiring building dedicated rail would be ridiculously expensive.

A dedicated light rail line linking downtown to Norman and Edmond would cost over 2 billion dollars and that would be for a system that has a top speed of about 55 miles per hour.

The cost of high speed rail (+ 90 mph) is astronomical. In 2000, development of a Florida high-speed rail service was approved by voters. Four years later, concerns about construction costs estimated at $20 billion to $25 billion drove voters to repeal it, ending plans for a Tampa-St. Petersburg-Orlando system, as well as a proposed second link from Orlando to Miami.

20 to 25 BILLION!.....and Tampa and Orlando are only 85 miles apart.

betts
04-11-2009, 12:41 PM
I understand and appreciate the need for mass transit and as I've said before, I'll support and vote for a plan that is affordable and makes sense. I would support a well thought out streetcar system for downtown and improvements to our current bus system but commuter rail just makes very little sense to me.

Proponents like to point to the Heartland Flyer as an example of successful commuter rail and I believe it's a good example of how it doesn't make sense. It is great novelty for someone wanting to take a leisurely train ride but it isn't really a reasonable, affordable transportation option for the "masses".

Actually, I will have to backtrack and say I agree completely with you on this. I think a streetcar and bus system is far more important than any sort of rail at this point in time. As far as commuter rail goes, we need to have enough commuters going to a few places to make it practical. Manhattan has people coming in to work there from New York state, Connecticut and New Jersey, in addition to it being available for other types of transit besides commuter transit. Were we to have a significant portion of our workforce working downtown or at the adjacent Health Sciences Center, including people from Shawnee, Midwest City, Yukon, El Reno, Norman, etc, then commuter rail would be logical. Right now, I suspect it's not. But, if we think that may change in the forseeable future, then I think now is the time to start planning for the future. The first thing I would like to see in the future, however, is a commuter rail system from Norman to Guthrie, with a bus system extending radially from stops along that line. I suspect light rail to the airport would not be cost effective, but it would be interesting to see the studies. I'd like to see how people actually living in the metropolitan area utililze rail before committing to anything more than that.

Tom Elmore
04-13-2009, 12:32 AM
Perhaps that's what was happening when transit money was spent in OKC for "riverboats?"

Maybe they were trying to see how people "actually living in the metropolitan area" would use -- riverboats -- before they did anything else?

Oklahomans need reasonable, practical and useful alternatives to "highways only" -- and we need them now. There's substantial transit money available to use -- but none to lose.

We don't need our transit dollars wasted on nonsense. We can't afford to allow asphalt lobbyists masquerading as "secretaries of transportation" to deliberately put real, rapidly and economically available multimodal transportation further out of reach by the calculated destruction of the best existing rail assets in the West.

We can't afford it. Our children and grandchildren can't afford it.

Oklahomans all across the state need these services -- and we need them now.

TOM ELMORE

SouthsideSooner
04-13-2009, 11:15 AM
Oklahomans need reasonable, practical and useful alternatives to "highways only" -- and we need them now.

We have them...they're called airplanes.


We don't need our transit dollars wasted on nonsense.

We can't afford it. Our children and grandchildren can't afford it.

I agree with these sentiments...commuter rail went out of business due to a lack of demand over a half century ago. Those who don't learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them.


Oklahomans all across the state need these services -- and we need them now.

We haven't "needed" them for over half a century. Why do we need them now?

Why won't you answer Steve's questions, Tom? Why are you afraid of the press? What do you have to hide?

betts
04-13-2009, 12:46 PM
Oklahomans need reasonable, practical and useful alternatives to "highways only" -- and we need them now. There's substantial transit money available to use -- but none to lose.

We don't need our transit dollars wasted on nonsense.

I agree, but I call the alternatives busses and trollies. Cheap, flexible, available


We can't afford it. Our children and grandchildren can't afford it.Oklahomans all across the state need these services -- and we need them now.

TOM ELMORE
How many Oklahomans across the state? How many people from other cities will use rail every single day to come to Oklahoma City to work or play who already do so by car? How many new people per day can we expect if we make those services available? How much are these people across the state willing to pay for it?

Tom Elmore
04-13-2009, 02:05 PM
Every time a gallon of motor fuel is purchased in Oklahoma, 2.86 cents of the federal fuel tax goes to the Federal Transit Trust Fund. Oklahomans thus send around $72 million per year to fund transit.

Most able-bodied Oklahomans pay -- and pay -- to fund transit nearly every day.

$72 million per year would be a good start for modern transit development in the state -- if we can keep the highways-only crowd from destroying our existing railway infrastructure.

But what happens to that money in Oklahoma?

Recently, some of it bought "riverboats" -- at the hands of folks who apparently never read "The Ant and the Grasshopper...," and who appear to arrogantly assume that "things will go right back to the way they were before" when the nation comes out of its current economic trouble; folks who would probably agree with the sensitive and erudite editorial writers at the "state's largest newspaper" that professional basketball is the "greatest thing ever to happen to their city."

It apparently never occurs to them to consider that these days -- of "$2 Unleaded" -- might just be the last "Indian Summer" of the illusory, expensive and fuel-hungry "50s culture."

Perhaps they don't have elderly parents one-hundred-or-more-miles-away from OKC or Tulsa who can no longer drive automobiles, but need regular medical care in the metros. Perhaps they can never envision themselves unable to "sail down Route 66, top down, wind in their hair..." Of course, that would mean that they're not particularly observant or thoughtful -- fine examples of a generation seemingly proud of its all-too-characteristic "irreverence."

The folks out in the hustings around the state understand that services "cost money."

It's Oklahoma City, particularly -- and apparently at least a few "Oklahoma Citians" -- that continue to, f'rinstance, push urban-style, residential sprawl out into the tinder-dry scrub without even "providing enough fire hydrants to fight that kind of fires."

This is a city that hasn't, for many years, been able to afford infrastructure maintenance in its historic center -- a city that doesn't even have "sidewalks" in many of its long standing neighborhoods (its much-beloved children have been walking to school in the streets all these years), but which, like Ado Annie, "jist cain't say no" to the wafer-board developers. But a few of its apparently more "self congratulatory" now demand to know whether the smaller towns and rural dwellers are "prepared to pay" for basic transportation and essential strategic redundancy serving public convenience and necessity.

...all of which resoundingly recalls that even the best possible answers to meaningless questions are not particularly useful.

TOM ELMORE

hoya
04-13-2009, 02:57 PM
Tom, if you're done insulting us, then please answer Steve's questions.

What I see is a special interest group beating its own drum. This is a serious case of political masturbation, one small group of people praising their own ideas and refusing to interact with the rest of society. You throw out half-truths and statistics that don't apply and pretend that we're all idiots for not following you along.

But enough of this. What this ultimately comes down to Tom, is you have the burden of proof. YOU need to convince US. So far you haven't done it, and aren't even close. You're the one who wants us to stop construction of the new Crosstown. You're the one who wants us to spend billions on a new rail system. You're the one who not only wants to change the status quo, but send OKC in an entirely different direction.

The thing you don't seem to realize is, you have that opportunity right here, right now. If this was a court case, then you're up with your closing argument right now. You have our attention. You have the floor. But up to this point, you've only repeated the same talking points that haven't yet convinced us. You've refused to answer our questions. You've insulted us. You've ignored our concerns. That's fine. That's your right.

But ultimately this question goes to the jury. And your case isn't looking good Tom. Not good at all. So go ahead and ramble, refuse to address our concerns, insult us as you will. I once knew a kid back in school who would ask people for help, or for a favor, and then if they refused, he'd lose his temper and call them names (which just resulted in people not wanting to help him even more). Now I know what became of him.

Steve
04-13-2009, 03:00 PM
Tom, you seem to have a lot of time to post on this site. It seems to go against your insistence you don't have time to answer my questions. I don't think they're meaningless. I worked on them. And it seems like there are others on this site who want to see them answered.
Here's my final question to add to the list: Tom, why should anyone take your questions seriously if you won't answer questions directed at yourself? Could Gary Ridley get away with calling my questions "meaningless"?

Kerry
04-13-2009, 05:22 PM
I just looked at the construction photos on ODOT web site - it appears contruction is full speed ahead. Unless ODOT plans to put in some kind of 90 degree turns it looks like the freeway will pass right by Union Station as planned.

theparkman81
04-13-2009, 05:55 PM
Tom, why don't you quit being a moron and answer steve's questions, everytime that you post on here, you keep rattling on and on and on about this and that, JUST ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS MAN!

Tom Elmore
04-13-2009, 09:58 PM
Here's a great opportunity to get "all your questions answered."

TOM ELMORE
____________________________

"WHY OKC UNION STATION RAIL TERMINAL IS IMPORTANT AND HOW WE CAN SAVE IT!!"

Join ONTRAC's Marion Hutchison for a presentation and/or see action alert below

(Oklahomans for New Transportation Alternatives Coalition - ONTRAC)

April 14 - 7:00 p.m.

Gold Dome (2nd floor) - NW 23rd & Classen - OKC

(enter through west door by the Prohibition Room restaurant)

Oklahoma City Union Station’s terminal facility provides us a rare opportunity to:

(a) quickly and affordably develop an effective commuter rail and light rail system that will serve the Oklahoma City metropolitan area and Central Oklahoma well into the future,

(b) take advantage of significant federal funding for rail transit hubs and systems,

(c) ensure the transportation and economic future for the Oklahoma City metropolitan area and Central Oklahoma

(d) anchor and stimulate Oklahoma City’s important and valuable Core to Shore redevelopment plans, and

(e) reduce ozone and green house gases.

A decision to resolve this issue in favor of preserving the Union Station Terminal Facility by the Oklahoma City Council could end the standoff. Support is growing in the community and on the City Council. It is a win /win solution that would provide the multimodal rail hub and infrastructure so critical to a successful public transportation system.

You can also read the Oklahoma Sierra Club Chapter’s Resolution to preserve the terminal on our website Oklahoma Chapter (http://www.oklahoma.sierraclub.org/conservation) and more information is available here: OnTrac | Oklahomans for New Transportation Alternatives Coalition (http://www.ontracok.org)

Steve
04-13-2009, 10:04 PM
You've given me no reason to believe you're willing to answer my questions.

CuatrodeMayo
04-13-2009, 10:05 PM
That does not answer any questions that Steve Lackmeyer asked. Maybe you should take Mike Morgan's advice...

hoya
04-14-2009, 01:21 PM
There's no "standoff" Tom. Construction is moving along on the new Crosstown.

bombermwc
04-14-2009, 04:50 PM
maybe someone can just go "take care" of the tracks for us...then we won't have to worry about it...

SouthsideSooner
04-14-2009, 05:10 PM
maybe someone can just go "take care" of the tracks for us...then we won't have to worry about it...

We don't have to. The tracks in the switching yard were removed years ago...Tom is fighting for the dirt.

sgray
04-15-2009, 02:27 AM
Folks, come on! This is getting silly. Maybe Tom does occasionally drop a rant with the same talking points, but this is getting out of hand. I mean, seriously. Every time Tom posts something, the same people keep complaining...let it go.

Please, please, quit rattling the cage!

hoya
04-15-2009, 10:54 AM
Folks, come on! This is getting silly. Maybe Tom does occasionally drop a rant with the same talking points, but this is getting out of hand. I mean, seriously. Every time Tom posts something, the same people keep complaining...let it go.

Please, please, quit rattling the cage!

33 pages of dropping rants? The reason the same people are complaining is because we're the only ones dumb enough to keep reading the thread. :)

Tom Elmore
04-16-2009, 10:02 PM
Tulsa World: Obama rail plans include Tulsa, Oklahoma City (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090416_298_0_rmrhtw690711)

betts
04-16-2009, 10:48 PM
I don't have any problem with high speed rail, as long as it's cost and energy effective, which might be a stretch, but that has nothing to do with Union Station. You're posting in the wrong thread, however: http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/15733-high-speed-rail-link-tulsa-okc-dallas-more.html

Tom Elmore
04-16-2009, 11:35 PM
High Speed regional / intercity rail fits OKC Union Station quite precisely. That's what a multimodal hub is all about -- bringing intercity trains, regional commuter trains and local trolley and/or light rail services and their bus network counterparts together at a common metropolitan marshalling and interchange point.

As an example, Bombardier's "Jet Train" power unit is an extension of the company's successful "Acela" tilt-train technology, designed to operate on conventional, unelectrified lines, and available now.

With OKC Union Station's terminal yard left intact, Oklahoma City could rapidly become a center for advanced rail passenger services. Loss of the yard would be a tremendous setback. As the new US administration appears poised to move ahead rapidly, there's plainly no time for such setbacks in cities that would become strategic centers for these developments.

Advanced Intercity Rail cannot work effectively alone. Optimum usefulness requires the connectivity available only at modern multimodal hubs. Multimodal synergism is required and quality hubs are a key and indispensable ingredient. This is why OKC Union Station's elegant rail facility is so overwhelmingly vital to the state and region's future, and why this thread is exactly the right thread for any discussion of high speed rail -- for those who understand the relevant questions.

By threatening the obvious, already available central hub for such development, ODOT is clearly threatening the state's place in a national high speed rail network.

What's the most important thing we can do, here and now, to ensure the success of advanced rail passenger services in Oklahoma? We can save the Union Station rail terminal yard.

TOM ELMORE

Tom Elmore
04-30-2009, 10:36 AM
Hard not to note the acres and acres of sodded roadbeds on the "New Crosstown," and that the OKC Union Station rail yard with its depot tunnels and arterial street underpasses remains untouched...

Interesting, also, that the state's largest newspaper published its own edit of Tim Talley's AP news story.

http://newsok.com/rail-line-outcome-may-stall-oklahoma-city-crosstown/article/3365551

Ruling could delay Crosstown Expressway work
By Tim Talley
Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY – The most expensive highway construction project ever undertaken by the state could be delayed if a federal agency denies an application to relocate a railway line that lies directly in the project's path, officials said Wednesday.

The federal Surface Transportation Board is considering a request by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. to relocate about a mile of rail line it owns in Oklahoma City that is in the path of the Interstate 40 Crosstown Expressway relocation project.

Construction of the $500 million, 4.5-mile relocation project has already begun and completion is scheduled for 2012, said Gary Ridley, director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and Gov. Brad Henry's transportation secretary. But no construction work can begin on that one-mile stretch until the rail line issue is resolved, Ridley said.

"It's in the hands of the STB," Ridley said. He said the agency has been seeking public comments about the plan and that it is not known when it will decide the issue.

"It's been some time," Ridley said.
Although the rail line issue has not yet delayed the project's completion date, the area will become part of the critical path of the Crosstown relocation project this year and a decision must be handed down within the next 30 to 60 days to avoid construction delays, Ridley said.

"It's getting fairly close," the ODOT director said. "We're optimistic that the ruling will come down that will allow this to be done."

But a critic of the Crosstown project said it should have never been launched until the state had control of all of the right of way it needed for the project.

Tom Elmore of the North American Transportation Institute, which promotes transportation issues including rail, also said relocation of the BNSF rail line will disrupt a critical east-west rail path that connects southwest Oklahoma with eastern parts of the state.

"Why would the highway department try to destroy the state's rail center?" Elmore said. "We're in the catbird seat for railway development. We're a shovel-ready project waiting for an opportunity.

"Why is ODOT trying to rip the center out from our railway network? Why does the Department of Transportation want to cripple our rail capacity?" Elmore said.

Although BNSF filed the relocation request and the state is not directly involved, the state will pay for relocating the line as part of the Crosstown project, Ridley said.

The project requires grading, drainage and construction of a railroad bridge. Eventually the new Crosstown Expressway will go under that railroad bridge, according to transportation officials. The new stretch of roadway where the rail line is now located will be 8 to 10 feet deep.

The project's total cost will rise to $600 million if a planned boulevard is built along parts of the existing roadway's path, Ridley said.

The board, which is affiliated with the Department of Transportation, was created in 1995 and succeeded the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is an economic regulatory agency whose fundamental mission is to resolve railroad rate and service disputes and review proposed railroad mergers.

The relocation request was filed after the board last June reversed an earlier decision that gave the railroad authority to abandon and discontinue use of the line to facilitate the highway relocation project.

BNSF had claimed that the line should be abandoned because no local traffic had moved over the line for at least two years prior to the railroad's abandonment request in September 2005, according to the board's ruling.

But the board said evidence presented by opponents of the move, including photographs allegedly showing a train being pulled by two BNSF locomotives, indicated that BNSF's assertion "was false or misleading," the board's decision states.

bombermwc
04-30-2009, 01:24 PM
Are you freaking kidding me? Did you run out of the crap you paste here and now you're finding articles with your own name in them that are just as worthless?

ssandedoc
04-30-2009, 03:48 PM
Tom, I am so tired of you being the lone voice in favor of the railyard. If you are the reason why construction is delayed, I will do everything in my power to petition ODOT and city leaders to continue building the new I-40 and eventual boulevard.

I think its time we start a petition in favor of construction on OKCTalk and submit it to leaders. Tom please grow up and move on. Let our city revitalize itself, don't hold us back with an unused rail system.

OKCisOK4me
04-30-2009, 04:07 PM
What boggles my mind is that 2nd paragraph. THE FREAKING LINE HAS ALREADY BEEN RELOCATED SINCE, LIKE, 2007. I WENT AND TOOK PICTURES!

Midtowner
04-30-2009, 04:26 PM
Tom, I am so tired of you being the lone voice in favor of the railyard. If you are the reason why construction is delayed, I will do everything in my power to petition ODOT and city leaders to continue building the new I-40 and eventual boulevard.

I think its time we start a petition in favor of construction on OKCTalk and submit it to leaders. Tom please grow up and move on. Let our city revitalize itself, don't hold us back with an unused rail system.

Tom's definitely not alone on this. It's just that he has the energy to talk to brick walls whose opinions don't really matter. And yes, I readily admit my hypocrisy in that I gleefully argue with brick walls in other places.

If nothing else, ODOT has gone about this project in an utterly incompetent manner at best, at worst, they committed fraud on the Department of Transportation. If they'd have dotted their I's and crossed their T's, things would be much clearer at this point.

-- really? a petition from OKCTalk? I needed a good chuckle.

BoulderSooner
04-30-2009, 04:43 PM
Tom's definitely not alone on this. It's just that he has the energy to talk to brick walls whose opinions don't really matter. And yes, I readily admit my hypocrisy in that I gleefully argue with brick walls in other places.

If nothing else, ODOT has gone about this project in an utterly incompetent manner at best, at worst, they committed fraud on the Department of Transportation. If they'd have dotted their I's and crossed their T's, things would be much clearer at this point.

-- really? a petition from OKCTalk? I needed a good chuckle.

i would be hard for ODOT to have committed fraud in this .. since they are not the ones that petitioned the DOT

Midtowner
04-30-2009, 04:52 PM
The alleged fraud is that they represented the BNSF line as 'abandoned' when it was still being used. Procedurally, I don't see what you're saying. Theoretically speaking, of course, one entity can just about always commit fraud on another entity. Since ODOT =/= the Department of Transportation (the guys who oversee these rail lines), I don't see the problem with that.

I do realize that BNSF is who actually made the claim that the lines were abandoned, but I don't see how/why they would have made that assertion. The situation seems very 'not-on-the-level' to me.

kevinpate
04-30-2009, 05:20 PM
> but I don't see how/why they would have made that assertion.

If memory serves, permission to dispose of a line or segment of a line, in non-use for a requisite amount of time, can be fast tracked procedurally. To drop an active line requires the requesting party to leap a few extra, and time consuming, hurdles.

Of course, misrepresentation, if discovered, can, and has, add a whole lot more time to the process, esp[ecially if the ruling were to resemble go back to a very blank page 1 and restart your application process.

If that happens, the delay rests squarely with those who fudged, not those who cried foul about it, or those who hold fudging isn't proper.

LakeEffect
04-30-2009, 05:49 PM
The alleged fraud is that they represented the BNSF line as 'abandoned' when it was still being used. Procedurally, I don't see what you're saying. Theoretically speaking, of course, one entity can just about always commit fraud on another entity. Since ODOT =/= the Department of Transportation (the guys who oversee these rail lines), I don't see the problem with that.

I do realize that BNSF is who actually made the claim that the lines were abandoned, but I don't see how/why they would have made that assertion. The situation seems very 'not-on-the-level' to me.

I think they made the claim because the line was not active past a certain point. They happened to use the line once to store cars and a picture was taken. It's hardly a reason to call it an "active" line.