While I hope that you, yourself, will be eternally young and forever champing at the bit to brave street and highway traffic, wind in your hair, laughing like Captain Blood in derisive defiance as you joust with the trucks, the drunks, the deer, the baby ducks, the opossums, the racoons, the stray dogs, the panhandlers, the speedtraps and the construction zones in your own automobile, increasing numbers of Americans no longer do that comfortably. And just imagine how much more transcendent your ecstatic daily communion (I hope you have at least a little sense of humor) with steel, rubber, rich Corinthian leather and concrete would be if all those folks who'd rather not be driving had an alternative and could be out of your way.

AAAHHHHH!!!! You know me so well, dear Tom! But seriously, I just love this paragraph. You made me smile.

You argue that the elderly or infirm would benefit from rail, but there is a flaw in that logic. If I can't get in the car and drive myself somewhere, then what makes you think I can drive myself to the park-and-ride lot? Or walk a few blocks to/from the train station? The better solution to this problem is BUS TRANSIT with handicapped accessible buses and frequent widespread stops. And that is cheaper, too!


What do you do when your car breaks -- or leaves you on the side of the road in the rain at midnight? You're "on your own," aren't you?

And what happens in DC when their trains break down or have an outage? It happened a few times while I was here and it was mass chaos - no one getting to work - and a lot of furious riders. All systems have points of failure, including auto and train.

I don't like the idea of increasing dependency on another government funded institution in the business of daily life. I'm also not so excited about massive government spending to build such a system. JMHO.

For what it's worth, considering this is a community forum that Tom has chosen to address, I don't think I'm anymore entitled to having questions answered than anybody else. And I've seen some good questions being asked.
I'll leave it up to you to decide why Tom has seen fit to write and post dozens of times since I first asked my question but has been unable to find the time to answer questions aimed at him.

I completely agree with you Steve. I'm just saying it's as if he'd maybe answer us if you handed out deputy press passes for the rest of us. SWEAR US IN STEVE!!! Lol....

Hey, in the world of new media I'm just a blind guy like the rest of you, trying to figure it all out. As far as I know, I might end up being the deputy.

Hey, in the world of new media I'm just a blind guy like the rest of you, trying to figure it all out. As far as I know, I might end up being the deputy.
Well, you MIGHT wind up being the SHERIFF .. and I'll join your posse ... unless Julie Riggs gets to be the Sheriff, and I'll FOR SURE join HER posse!

Oh boy... me, Sheriff? Have you ever seen the Apple Dumpling Gang?

http://www.filmfan.com/images/stills/Apple_Dumpling_Gang_B&W.jpg

.oO(Aunt Bea wants you home in time for supper Andy)Oo.

Can I be Doc Holliday with a press pass? Please, please???

Doc Holliday? Heck yeah...

I guess we'll have to wait until a few cars fall through the I-40 crosstown before the "new" I-40 is built. I rarely drive that route, so it works for me.

Getting America to Ride the High-Speed Rails;
HNTB's America THINKS survey highlights public perspectives on high-speed train travel


KANSAS CITY, Mo., April 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The romance of riding the rails may
be returning to America thanks to new federal funding and a public hungry for
ways to save time, money, the environment, and add a measure of convenience in
their hectic lives.

According to a new study commissioned by HNTB Corporation, more than half of
Americans (54 percent) would choose modern high-speed trains over automobile (33
percent) and air travel (13 percent) if fares and travel time were about the
same.

"Our country needs high-speed rail as part of a balanced transportation
system," said Peter Gertler, chair of the firm's high-speed rail practice. "It
has been the missing lynchpin in our national network. Without it, the whole
system is less effective."

Now is the time to act

High-speed rail is receiving renewed attention in this country due to a
variety of factors, including last year's spike in fuel prices, the passage of a
$10 billion bond measure in California last November to support the development
of a high-speed rail system there, and $8 billion this year for high-speed rail
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Prominent supporters from both
political parties include President Barack Obama; Vice President Joe Biden; Rep.
Jim Oberstar, chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee; Rep. John Mica, ranking Republican member of the
committee; California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger; and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle,
who recently toured high-speed rail systems in Spain.

The survey showed Americans would be most excited by the possibility of more
convenient travel (71 percent), less expensive fares (69 percent) and faster
trains (55 percent) with the introduction of high-speed rail in their region.

Gertler said educating people who haven't ridden high-speed trains remains a
priority. There were clear differences between experienced and nonexperienced
riders, including a much lower preference for traveling to large cities nearby
via car (41 percent versus 69 percent) and a higher expectation of productivity
when traveling high-speed rail on business (51 percent versus 38 percent). He
added the fact that less than three in ten (29 percent) Americans understand the
environmental impact high-speed trains can have versus traditional train travel
- and high-speed rail's overall positive impact versus other forms of
transportation - emphasizes the need for a more informed public.

"High-speed rail will benefit the country in a variety of ways, including
improved mobility, job creation, reduced usage of fossil fuel and fewer annual
greenhouse gas emissions," Gertler said. "High-speed trains use one-third as
much energy as comparable air travel and consume less than one-fifth as much
energy as driving. This is proven technology that America can adopt and protect
its status as a mobility super power."

Transforming transportation in America

High-speed trains operate significantly faster than traditional trains,
traveling from 110 mph to more than 200 mph. The highest-speed trains are
powered by electricity, but others run on diesel fuel. Currently, the only
operational high-speed rail system in the U.S. is the Acela Express, which
travels between Boston and Washington, DC, and achieves speeds up to 150 mph.

HNTB's research, the second in a series of "America THINKS" surveys, found
even greater acceptance of high-speed rail among the 18 percent of Americans who
have experienced such travel here or abroad. An overwhelming majority of
high-speed train travelers (82 percent) found it more enjoyable than plane
travel and slightly more than half (51 percent) said they would be most
productive on high-speed trains when traveling for business.

"For more than 40 years, with the exception of the Acela, the United States
has not been able to implement high-speed rail while other countries developed,
ran, and are retiring their first high-speed trains to museums," Gertler said.
"Now with new funding and renewed vision, more Americans will be able to
appreciate the value of this transformative transportation alternative."

Even among those who haven't traveled by high-speed rail, more respondents
said they would prefer traveling on such trains (22 percent) rather than by
plane (6 percent) or bus (3 percent) to the closest large city. Only Americans'
love affair with their cars provided a stronger pull (69 percent).

In fact, nearly half of the nation (49 percent) said the best benefit of high
-speed rail in their region would be the ability to travel more easily to cities
up to 400 miles away. Experts agree high-speed rail is best-suited for journeys
of 100-500 miles or 1 to 3 hours. The U.S. Federal Railroad Administration has
identified 10 such corridors as potential centers of high-speed rail activity.

About the survey

HNTB's America THINKS survey polled a random nationwide sample of 1,007
Americans March 18-23, 2009. It was conducted by Kelton Research, which used an
e-mail invitation and online survey. Quotas were set to ensure reliable and
accurate representation of the total U.S. population ages 18 and over. The
margin of error is +/- 3.1 percent.

About HNTB Corporation

HNTB Corporation is an employee-owned infrastructure firm serving federal,
state, municipal, military and private clients. With nearly a century of
service, HNTB has the insight to understand the life cycle of infrastructure and
the perspective to solve the most complex technical, financial and operational
challenges. Professionals nationwide provide award-winning planning, design,
program management and construction management services. For more information,
visit HNTB (http://www.hntb.com/) .

EDITOR'S NOTE: Additional Survey Results
-- Seven in ten (70 percent) think train travel in general would be more
appealing to Americans if it included more routes or cities in certain
regions.
-- A majority (56 percent) of Americans would be more apt to sign-up for
high-speed train travel if it was the most comfortable option.
-- Americans who live in urban areas are the biggest proponents of
improved quality and comfort of train travel (65 percent) versus rural
and suburban dwellers (57 percent).
-- Nearly a third (31 percent) place job creation at the top of their
lists benefits from high-speed rail coming to their region.
-- Women would be more excited than men about the environmental benefits
of high-speed rail in their area (45 percent versus 41 percent) while
more men would appreciate faster trains (62 percent versus 50
percent.)


Available Topic Expert(s): For information on the listed expert(s), click
appropriate link.

Peter Gertler

http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile.aspx?ei=87447

CONTACT: John O'Connell of HNTB public relations, +1-816-527-2383,
joconnell@hntb.com

Web Site: HNTB (http://www.hntb.com/)
HNTB (http://www.hntb.com/)

Tom, did you notice all those IF's at the beginning. The point is that the travel time is about the same......that's the big one. There is currently ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that we can match that. If we had twice the number of people in OKC squeezed into the same amount of space we use right now (i e no more sprawl) then it might start to look like it would work. But OKC is so sprawled and it's so easy to get around, where's the benefit. I guarantee that any rail or bus system will NEVER get me to work anywhere near as fast as my car does.

Why is that? Well on my way across town, the train/bus is going to have to make SEVERAL stops to pick up the other commuters. If it doesnt have a lot of stops, people are never going to get on the damned thing anyway. So right there, all the stop/go traffic will slow me down. Next thing is, unless the train can fly in the sky from my house to my office door, then I'm probably going to have to transfer. Again, that's going to slow me down. So what is a 15-20 minute commute right now, would turn into a 45 minute one AT LEAST...without argument.

Now I don't disagree that rail can be a good thing. OKC just isn't ready for it. And putting it in now won't help us prepare for the future. All that will happen is that we'll have spend millions of dollars on a system doomed to failure and bankruptcy. In another 30 years, who knows, maybe we'll have a large enough dense population to make use. But we're just not there right now. You can't sell rail in one of America's most driveable cities.....those two are sort of mutually exclusive.

Now the tourist areas/downtoan might be a good way to start a trolly type system up. But tell me how a bus isn't a better solution for that? It's much cheaper to ride/maintain and much more flexible.

Billions for high-speed rail; anyone aboard? - Life- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29900655/)

From the link that Tom posted...


But this country has never built a high-speed "bullet" train rivaling the successful systems of Europe and Asia, where passenger railcars have blurred by at top speeds nearing 200 mph for decades.

Since the 1980s, every state effort to reproduce such service has failed. The reasons often boil down to poor planning and simple mathematics.

Billions for rail in stimulus plan
Yet President Barack Obama, intent on harnessing new technology to rebuild the devastated economy, made a last-minute allocation of $8 billion for high-speed rail in his mammoth stimulus plan.

It sounds good, but that amount isn't enough to build a single system...


"Here's what's going to happen: The (Obama) administration will issue these funds in dribs and drabs — to this project and that project — and the result will be an Amtrak train from Chicago to St. Louis that takes maybe 15 minutes off the travel time."

Current Amtrak travel time between the two cities is about five hours, 30 minutes.


In 2000, development of a Florida high-speed rail service was approved by voters. Four years later, concerns about community impact and 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.


In the 1990s, Texas awarded a 50-year high-speed rail franchise to an international consortium that claimed it could connect the "Texas Triangle" — Dallas, Houston and San Antonio — with a $5.6 billion rail system financed entirely with private funds.

Four years later, Texas canceled the project after cost estimates rose to $6.8 billion


Yet other rail activists look at the stimulus money and see no bullet trains at all.

Ross Capon of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, an advocacy group for rail travel, is a member of the anything-is-better-than-nothing group when it comes to improving train service.

He's also blunt in describing America's inability to make speedy tracks. "The reason why high-speed rail has never taken off is because this country is determined to live on cheap gasoline and airplane travel," he said.

And to his way of thinking, that means Obama's infusion will probably go toward fixing what the country already has.

"It's very likely that all of the money will go to significant improvements of existing tracks. It's not going to build bullet trains," Capon said.

Federal board rejects challenge to I-40 project
by Tim Talley
Associated Press May 26, 2009

OKLAHOMA CITY – A federal agency has authorized the relocation of an Oklahoma City railway line that lies in the path of the most expensive highway construction project ever undertaken in the state.

In a ruling, the Surface Transportation Board granted an application by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. to relocate about a mile of rail line it owns that lies in the path of the Interstate 40 Crosstown Expressway relocation project.

Construction of the $500 million, 4.5-mile project is under way and completion is scheduled by 2012. But Gary Ridley, director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, said last month construction work could not begin on a one-mile stretch of the project until the rail line was moved.

Ridley said the area will become part of the critical path of the Crosstown relocation project this year and that delays were possible if the federal agency did not grant BNSF’s application within 60 days.

In a statement, ODOT officials said they were pleased with the decision and that it will help keep the I-40 project on schedule.

“ODOT can now proceed with fulfilling requirements to let the project in the center portion of the corridor involving the relocated track as a result of this ruling,” the statement said.

However, the next scheduled project in a series of about 20 projects involving the highway relocation project will go out for bids this summer and involves widening the westbound lanes of I-40 on the west end of the corridor.

In its ruling, the federal agency said relocation of I-40 in Oklahoma City “is clearly a valid public purpose” and that there has been no local traffic on the rail line involved in 10 years.

“There is no evidence to suggest that a public need for rail service ... outweighs the public purposes associated with replacing a deteriorated, outdated and overcapacity interstate highway,” the decision states.

“Expediting the abandonment will minimize federal regulatory control over the rail system, expedite regulatory decisions and reduce regulatory barriers.”

Opponents, including the Oklahomans for New Transportation Alternatives Coalition, have said relocating the line will disrupt a critical east-west rail path that connects southwest Oklahoma with eastern parts of the state.

In a statement, OnTrac executive board Chair Charles Wesner said the decision does not mean ODOT’s plan to abandon the rail line is in the best interest of future passenger rail transit for the Oklahoma City metropolitan area and central Oklahoma.

“The fact of the matter is that the STB bases its decisions solely on the impacts such actions have on rail freight shippers,” Wesner said. “There was no consideration given to passenger rail transit needs.”

OnTrac communications director Marion Hutchison urged ODOT to make minor changes to the alignment of the new Crosstown project “that would preserve this important major rail line connection.”

Construction of the new I-40 Crosstown began in late 2005. The new 10-lane interstate is being built about five blocks south of the current corridor.

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

http://journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=98985

Excellent news. This project can now continue full speed ahead and the timing couldn't be better.

After all these years, it's great to have a $500 million dollar hiway project fully underway in the heart of our city during this recession.

In retrospect, this project along with the Ford Center and the Devon tower couldn't have been timed better.

And maybe this thread will go away?

. . . Austin then says to Robin "Why won't you die!"? That is how I feel about this thread. Why won't it die!!!!

I've seen this sentiment expressed several times on this thread. I haven't yet found the mechanism that forces people to read the thread if they don't want to. Aren't there a lot of thread titles that you pass by on the way to what does interest you?

As to the question of "population density," I'd remind you that there was no population density at all, to speak of, in the interior of this nation before the railroads brought it. They weren't built to serve existing population density. They were built to create it -- and they did.

This point bears repeating. Rail transit builds urban density, and mini-core districts near rail stations. This has been best documented in Dallas and Portland, where transit oriented development has led to billions of dollars in investment and tens of millions in new tax revenue. Not to mention thousands of people who save their car for the weekends, or do without.

That point compares apples and oranges. Cross country rail travel nowdays has virtually nothing to do with transit within a city and its suburbs. And, it may be that rail transit builds density, but so should any other type of mass transit, if that's the case. Perhaps we need to walk before we run. A great bus and/or trolley system, especially with buses running on natural gas, could and should precede any rail mass transit, which will take years to plan and implement.

This point bears repeating. Rail transit builds urban density, and mini-core districts near rail stations. This has been best documented in Dallas and Portland,
really??? the only thing in dallas is mockingbird station. that is one set of lofts and some retail... wow! that is nothing to tout. do you realize just how many lofts and little retail districts get built like that in dallas?
btw, i did enjoy hanging out there... and most of the time i drove to it. lol

A great bus and/or trolley system, especially with buses running on natural gas, could and should precede any rail mass transit, which will take years to plan and implement.

I read in the journal record the other day that Tulsa had put in, and been granted, $8 million to convert their bus fleet to CNG. It didn't sound like OKC had done the same.

I saw that, seemed like Tulsa was getting a bunch of that money and OKC was just passing the opportunity right on by....

I saw that, seemed like Tulsa was getting a bunch of that money and OKC was just passing the opportunity right on by....

Actually, OKC will be getting over $10 million in stimulus funds for transit. This will fund bus and paratransit van replacement, improvements to maintenance facilities, and AVL, among other things.

Full information is available on the Metro Transit website (http://www.gometro.org/). Look under "Stimulus Funding Update."

PIEDMONT SURREY-GAZETTE
A Train Wreck in Slow Motion

A tragedy is slowly unfolding in the center of Oklahoma City, and this week it moved a step closer toward its apparently inexorable conclusion when federal officials ruled in favor of a corporate Goliath over a lonely David who had literally thrown himself in front of a train in valiant effort to prevent the now imminent wreck.

The Goliath in this case is the BNSF Railway, formerly called the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway, while the David was Oklahoma City resident Dr. Edwin Kessler, who tried to prevent the abandonment of a key piece of track that could have been part of a future rail transportation center for central Oklahoma.

A ruling May 19 by the Surface Transportation Board permits BNSF to abandon a portion of the former Frisco Rail Road mainline that serves the old Oklahoma City Union Station and paves the way for the Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation to proceed with construction of a segment of the new I-40 on a planned route that will obliterate the switching yard and related infrastructure around the station.

The station was purchased by Oklahoma City many years ago for use as the hub of a new rail transit system. The pending destruction of the yard will make that plan impossible, squandering the investment taxpayers made in purchasing the property, and raising the cost of a new system by hundreds of millions of dollars. It is ironic that this is occurring at a time when Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett is trumpeting plans for a new rail system plan as a part of MAPS 3.

The sad reality is that the people of Oklahoma City already voted to get trains rolling into Union Station as part of the first MAPS election, at a time when the city qualified for an additional $18 million in federal funds.
The results of that election were single-handedly overturned by former U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook, who misused his power to block the use of federal funds for bringing trolleys back to Oklahoma City, claiming that such a system was not needed here. Union Station would now be in use had Istook not blocked that voter-approved rail system.

Instead, he substituted $3 million for the purchase of shuttle buses built to resemble trolleys and which now fraudulently masquerade as such. The remaining $15 million was subsequently made available to Salt Lake City for use on their new light rail system, where Istook’s efforts on behalf of that system were hailed by officials there.

Oklahoma was no better served by the Surface Transportation Board, which in its decision last week derided concerns over what impact the loss of the yard might have on a new rail system as too “speculative” to warrant consideration.

We won’t try to fathom what was going on in the minds of the “wizards” at ODOT when they selected their planned route, but if their goal was to find the one which would do the most damage possible to the people and transportation infrastructure of Oklahoma City, they succeeded.

Now that the Surface Transportation Board has swept aside the valiant Dr. Kessler, nothing stands between the ODOT juggernaut and Oklahoma City’s endangered, precious asset. The impending train wreck is proceeding in slow but accelerating motion, and we are left to wonder if anyone has the wisdom or the courage to stop it.

ERIC BERGER

Tom, look at the bright side. Though we will be spending *vastly* more money to rebuild a rail hub at some point, we can build it for where it belongs at that point in the city's development.

I don't think there's much use in crying over spilt milk at this point.

Hey Tom, do you have any thoughts to share about Coffee Slingers?

Hey Tom, do you have any thoughts to share about Coffee Slingers?

Well played.

Mods, I suggest you merge the coffee slingers thread with this one.

So we give a crap about a little Piedmont paper why?

QUOTE: The station was purchased by Oklahoma City many years ago for use as the hub of a new rail transit system. The pending destruction of the yard will make that plan impossible, squandering the investment taxpayers made in purchasing the property, and raising the cost of a new system by hundreds of millions of dollars.

OK, so not to be the party pooper here, but let's bring some facts into this latest posting by Tom Elmore. First of all, I'm always skeptical of unattributed information in un-bylined stories or editorials.

Where, I ask, is the accountability?

So, let's go back to when the city bought Union Station - did they really intend for the depot to be used for rail again? We're blessed to have a report below by one of the greatest journalists ever at The Oklahoman, Mary Jo Nelson (a member of the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame):

Railroad Station Gets New Life

By Mary Jo Nelson, Ellie Sutter


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, August 10, 1989
Edition: CITY, Section: NEWS, Page 01

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New life awaits the national landmark Union Station, a once-bustling railroad terminal at 300 SW 7, extensively restored early in this decade.

Opened originally in 1930, the twice-abandoned terminal is destined to become a MassTrans bus transfer point.


Trustees of the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority on Wednesday approved a covenant pledging to maintain the building as an historic site, a federal requirement for funding the city's purchase of the property.


The pledge was required by the Urban Mass Transit Authority, from which Oklahoma City seeks a $1.2 million grant to buy the depot.


The station is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and was restored for offices and warehousing by Oklahoma City businessman Thurman Magbee. Its 55,000 square feet of floor space includes 15,000 square feet of tunnels and underground passages.


Terry Pattillo, COTPA director, said the transit agency grant would be matched by $400,000 from Liberty National Bank and Trust Co., which owns the property, to secure it for the city.


Pattillo said Liberty is forgiving $400,000 of the purchase price, which can be applied for grant-matching purposes.


Magbee bought the property in 1978, after two years of negotiations with the Frisco and Rock Island Railroads. It had been abandoned for about 10 years and had been virtually wrecked by vandals and neglect.


Magbee unveiled the Union Station Trade Center in 1982, after spending three years and an undisclosed amount of money converting it to offices and warehousing, a restoration designed by the architectural firm of Noftsger, Lawrence, Lawrence and Flesher.


By mid-1986, Magbee sought to convert the station's underground vaults and passages to secured records storage and safe deposit zones.


Financing was arranged at one point, but the project was never finished.


The building went on the sale block in 1987. Magbee deeded the property to Liberty National Bank and Trust Co. in lieu of foreclosure, bank officers said at the time.


COTPA trustees will send the deed covenant to the Oklahoma City Council for approval Tuesday. From there the matter goes to the Oklahoma State Historical Society, responsible for protecting the building's historic status.


Pattillo said the grant from UMPTA is expected about Sept. 30. At the outset, the station will house offices for city, state and COTPA transportation planners, while some city MassTrans buses will begin using it as a transfer point.


"Ultimately, we'll move the entire transfer system there," Pattillo said. That includes a station now located south of Myriad Convention Center. The move would give transferring riders indoor shelter to wait for buses. Currently, passengers are sheltered by only a roof.

Here's an inside tip on how the game of swaying public opinion is played: if you're a group advocating a position, provide information to obscure publications or small town officials who won't spend the time to see whether its accurate. They write editorials and stories, or pass resolutions, based on the information they were provided by the lobbyist, activist, what have you. That same advocate/activist/lobbyist then uses the resolution/story/editorial to argue their case with the public: "see here, this city council, this paper is saying what I'm saying ..."

Did Tom do this? I don't know. Notice he never wanted to answer questions from me. Folks, always question what you read and hear, and yes, that goes for what you get from me. Educate yourselves, do some digging, and be smart about what's going on.

thanks steve i wanted to post something similar but didn't have the background story to back it up.

Here's an inside tip on how the game of swaying public opinion is played: if you're a group advocating a position, provide information to obscure publications or small town officials who won't spend the time to see whether its accurate. They write editorials and stories, or pass resolutions, based on the information they were provided by the lobbyist, activist, what have you. That same advocate/activist/lobbyist then uses the resolution/story/editorial to argue their case with the public: "see here, this city council, this paper is saying what I'm saying ..."

Did Tom do this? I don't know. Notice he never wanted to answer questions from me. Folks, always question what you read and hear, and yes, that goes for what you get from me. Educate yourselves, do some digging, and be smart about what's going on.

Steve, after I read the op/ed by the powerful Piedmont Surrey with a Fringe on Top Paper, I was convinced that TOM ELMORE actually wrote it.

Hey Tom, here's something from a REAL news source that shows rail isn't what you thought it to be...

From: The Register

Research: Airliners can be more eco-friendly than trains
Flying cars bound to be greener than normal ones, surely

By Lewis Page
Posted in Environment, 8th June 2009 08:58 GMT

Research carried out by boffins in California appears to have seriously undermined a major piece of received wisdom regarding transport: namely, the belief that railways are more eco-friendly than airliners.

The cage-rattling analysis comes from profs at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at UC Berkeley. Rather than merely considering the carbon emissions resulting from fuel burned, the researchers considered every ecological impact created by having a given means of transport. Carbon or other greenhouse-gas emissions resulting from manufacture of concrete and steel, generation of electricity, manufacture of rolling stock etc. were all accounted for with respect to railways: and in the case of aircraft, building of airports and other associated infrastructure was included along with manufacture of the planes and so on.

According to the Berkeley boffins, the added greenhouse burden of construction, manufacturing, supply chain etc. etc. adds 155 per cent to the impact of railways, compared to "tailpipe emissions" arising in use. For road vehicles the increase is 63 per cent. But for aircraft it's just 31 per cent - the low figure being partly because aircraft emit a lot of exhaust in service, and partly because they need relatively little infrastructure, materials and so on.

What this adds up to, according to the engineers, is that the highly energy-efficient light-rail system in Boston - where a lot of electricity is fossil generated - has the same environmental impact when half full as a medium-sized airliner with 38 per cent occupancy. The virtuous public transport system is actually more environmentally damaging per passenger mile than the fuel-guzzling jet, even at somewhat higher occupancy.

We here on the Reg flying-car desk are particularly bucked by this news, obviously, as it would seem to lend support to our hypothesis that flying cars could be greener than normal ones. Or anyway, greener than trains running half empty.

The Californian engineers' paper is published online (free) today, in the journal Environmental Research Letters. ®

They probably didn't even begin to take into account the carbon cost of traffic which would be inevitably held up by trains (thus forcing cars to emit more CO2).

Tulsa World: State tracks train plans (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090608_16_A1_WASHIN339824)

Tom, you never cease to amaze me.

http://newsok.com/track-talk-odot-directors-rail-concerns-merited/article/3376402?custom_click=headlines_widget

If we're going to change the subject, don't you think it's time for another thread?

I hate to be trying to do metro's job here, but 37 pages... if you're going to change the subject, new thread time.

I think that considering the reality that most of the tracks at Union Station are going to be gone by the time dirt starts to turn on high-speed rail, we really can't bemoan the fact that Union Station probably isn't an option anymore -- and that's OK. There are plenty of places to put tracks.

I think it'd make much more sense to put a high-sped rail hub at Will Rogers World Airport than anywhere else. Doing that, we wouldn't have to worry about integration of different modalities of transportation or any of that nonsense. You could hop off of your train and right into a bus or rental car. Problem solved.

As far as the editorial's content goes, it's not a very smartly written piece and Ridley is, either purposefully or accidentally a big fat hypocrite here. For one form of transportation to complain that another might be subsidized is just hilarious. Name me one (motorized) form of transportation which in some way isn't subsidized and I'll buy you a chicken dinner.

From the "Entertainment Section" of the state's largest newspaper:

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-fans-get-on-board-for-trip-to-the-past/article/3376434?custom_click=lead_story_title

From the "Entertainment Section" of the state's largest newspaper:

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-fans-get-on-board-for-trip-to-the-past/article/3376434?custom_click=lead_story_title

Of course it's in the "Entertainment Section"...it's a story about a novelty...not a serious transportation option.

From the story...


"It’s almost like traveling in the past,” she said. "The rails were the original way to get across the country other than horseback."

" . . . traveling in the past." What an apt description.

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. Winston Churchill

Ah yes -- "traveling in the past." Like Nashville, St. Louis, Dallas, Austin, Houston, Denver, Little Rock, Salt Lake, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, etc., etc. are doing, as fast as they can.

Here in Oklahoma, perpetually "boom-bust," 46th in per capita income and fading, we "sure don't want none uh that stuff" -- even though we already have more of it lying on the ground than nearly any other state.

We're much too smart for that. After all, we have Columbia Journalism Review's worst newspaper in America here telling us we oughta tear up the center of our rail network and forget it. They wouldn't mislead us, would they?

Tell me again, now -- who's traveling in the past?

The Oklahoman was named the "worst" like 20 years ago.

The description ceased to be accurate some time ago.

Tell me again, now -- who's traveling in the past?

From the look of things, you are. You keep repeating the same refrain over and over again, and making so little progress. In fact, I think you're moving backward. I was sympathetic and open-minded about the issue at the beginning, but you have managed to turn me off to it completely. Congratulations!

Midtowner: This morning's "Ridley and rail" editorial says you're absolutely wrong. Still the worst. Still utterly self serving -- and utterly self righteous.

Brad: I've fought this fight for more than fifteen years. Strangely, I don't recall stumbling over you at any juncture in this or any other battle. If those of us who are doing this work win, you and your children win, whether they choose to stay in Oklahoma or not. If you win, I guess -- not, apparently, that you're actually in the fight one way or another (although the apathetic have chosen their side by default) -- we all lose.

As ever, work is expensive and talk is cheap.

True, I'm always sorry to see preemptive self-alienation from efforts in which folks were never involved anyway, but I'll try not to be discouraged. In any case, best wishes wherever and whenever you finally decide to take a stand, if you ever do.

This morning's "Ridley and rail" editorial says you're absolutely wrong. Still the worst. Still utterly self serving -- and utterly self righteous.

Well, that's what editorials do. They take positions and defend them, right or wrong, agree or disagree, that's what they do. I like that the Oklahoman allows us to post comments and that as to that editorial, the last time I looked, many of those comments pointed out the general hypocrisy of the notion of hand-wringing because of the fact that a certain mode of transportation will require subsidies (hint: they all do).

The Oklahoman is pro-roads though, and that's just fine. Roads are our main mode of transportation, and for the foreseeable future, that'll continue.

God knows the Oklahoman has been involved in shady goings-on in the past (and you know I know and I know you know I know), but I don't think this is one of those things.

Tom, you've got Midtowner defending The Oklahoman... are you sure you're effectively communicating here? Just out of curiousity - ifi you could build a passenger rail hub anywhere in the city, would the best place be at the Union State (if the site didn't exist)? If so, why when downtown's offices, retail and residential are blocks away?

> you've got Midtowner defending The Oklahoman...
> are you sure you're effectively communicating here?

ROTFLOL

He's just pissed that he lost and has to come up with something to keep pissing and moaning about. The fact he uses editorials instead of actual investigative journalism shows how much his side was worth in the first place. If the evidence for support doesn't exist, then perhaps the hypothesis was incorrect Tom.

He's just pissed that he lost and has to come up with something to keep pissing and moaning about. The fact he uses editorials instead of actual investigative journalism shows how much his side was worth in the first place. If the evidence for support doesn't exist, then perhaps the hypothesis was incorrect Tom.

Not really... Where you stand on this is a matter of opinion, so editorials, being one of the more effective means of disseminating opinions seem to be a good option. Maybe you can clue me in on an 'investigatory' news article which concludes objectively, and after investigation that in fact, Union Station's highest and best use is as a mega-gazebo in the middle of OKC's future central park, but I really doubt it.

This is all about whether you think the city fathers have a 100% good plan when it comes to core to shore, and by that, particularly, I mean a good plan not involving Union Station as a multi-modal hub.

It's a subjective inquiry, not an objective one really, unless you want to say "objectively" that ODOT and the relevant people have done all the stuff they need to do to get the I-40 alignment condemned and cleared as previously ordained and that "objectively," there's not much use hand wringing anymore because what's done is done. That's pretty much where I'm at. As far as I'm concerned, once the relevant administrative body promulgated their ruling, didn't do anything blatantly arbitrary and capricious and essentially supported their decision with findings based upon the record before it, it was game over... time to move on... time to figure out what we can do for public transit in OKC instead of Union Station, because even if it was our best hope for something soon, it's basically off the table at this point. Yes, I realize there's a motion to reconsider pending, but honestly, it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. It was a waste of money as far as I'm concerned. In fact, it's a procedural motion, which in my opinion is used way too much because lawyers don't really understand how it works and when it should be used. More often than not, all you do is piss off the reviewing court, because in essence, you just told them that they did their job wrong, so unless you have something new to add or something you're quite sure they missed, the 'ol "the decision was not fair" schtick isn't going to bring about any positive developments in your client's case... but I digress.

The point is, Tom, everyone, this thread is/should be over, done, fini. The fate of the BNSF line is sealed, the fate of Union Station is sealed with it. We can all now agree that the question to be asking now is "What now?" rather than yammering on about the highest and best use of a building when that use is irrevocably decided (at least insofar as its transit possibilities).

Editorialize all you want though, it ain't gonna change nothin'.

Anybody watch the latest city council meeting from June 9? There were 3 conspicuous citizens speaking to the council in favor of commuter rail and "saving" Union Station. They mentioned Tom Elmore as some sort of "encyclopedia" of rail and spoke as if the city has made certain plans to demolish Union Station and never consider any form of mass transit in the future.

Just wondered if anyone caught this and their response to it. We certainly need citizens to speak up on behalf of mass transit...but I'm not sure if Mr. Elmore's plan is the way to go.

Well if they spoke about demolishing the station, then they're just fearmongering because that's not going to happen. It's on the national register, which means it's not going anywhere whether someone would want it to or not.

And midtowner, by investigative journalism, I mean that wich involves actually researching a story. It's months of work versus a few minutes of online reserach and a few phones calls before the 10pm news. It's been a long time since we've seen actual good journalism in the world. The days of actually putting yourself to work to find out truths died out long ago in favor of the ratings game. "Scare 'em to reel 'em in".

What I was really talking about was finding hard evidence of the topic...NOT editorials. We can editorialize (like we do here on the forum) till the cows come home. It's each individual's opinion and that's it. Tom refused to aknowledge the other side, which means he never had any intention admitting that he might be wrong. You have to be willing to concede that the other side might be right before you go blabbing to the world. Not to mention the fact that he and his group used hands down inaccurate and WRONG information and lied to the public on countless occassions. Then we're supposed to just believe his point of view without questioning it....nope.

Had OnTrac actually gone about thier fight in a legitimate and correct way, maybe they would have stood a chance. But the folks involved saw through their lightweight cover from the get go. If you want to make an arguement about the viablity of the place while utilizing all 4 lines, then you need to do the research to show the pros and cons of each aspect of it. Meaning, find some examples of how removing a line caused issues and see if it is relatable to our situation. If not, then don't ignore it (again you have to be able to admit if you might be wrong). Compare inter/multi/whatever modal possibilties. Would the station make more sense in conjunction with one type or another given all possiblities of the outcome (ie 2 or 4 lines). Could additions be built later to accomodate other uses (ie more covered platform for bus use)?

The list goes on and on and on....the problem is, they didn't do this. They chose to do other things instead of actual research. Tom might have a great deal of rail knowledge, but objective, he is not.

http://newsok.com/public-transit-should-move-in-new-direction/article/3379049

Co-chair of ACOG's new transit steering committee? Truck stop baron Tom Love -- longtime sidekick of Neal McCaleb.

During the Keating administration, with McCaleb serving simultaneously as Secretary and Director of both ODOT and Turnpikes, Love sat on the state Transportation Commission, first as a regular member, then, later, as chair. It was during this time that ODOT determined to unnecessarily destroy the OKC Union Station rail yard, undercut THE HEARTLAND FLYER's shot at self-support, and, of course, ramrod the infamous BILLION DOLLAR HIGHWAY PACKAGE, after which heavy truck traffic and unfunded highway maintenance requirement skyrocketed.

Since then, Love has served with McCaleb at the top of "Oklahomans for Safe Bridges and Roads" (an attempt to raise, chiefly, the driving public's fuel taxes to pay for overwhelmingly-truck-inflicted-damage-to-public-roads) and "TRUST," which insists that all transportation funding and any other money they can borrow or steal should go solely to roads.

ACOG, plainly, may be counted on -- to carry water for the highway lobby, as it has always done, and to deflect, diffuse and frustrate legitimate citizen efforts to improve the regional transportation system.

Well that's one persepective on the matter. And very old news.

Here's an interesting blog about demolished train stations.

The Infrastructurist - Demolished! 11 Beautiful Train Stations That Fell To The Wrecking Ball (http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/06/22/11-beautiful-train-stations-that-fell-to-the-wrecking-ball/)

Here's an interesting blog about demolished train stations.

The Infrastructurist - Demolished! 11 Beautiful Train Stations That Fell To The Wrecking Ball (http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/06/22/11-beautiful-train-stations-that-fell-to-the-wrecking-ball/)

Doesn't that imply that we're tearing down Union Station, which is absolutely not going to happen.

Was at city council today. Odot came to the meeting and the Union Station folks.

Doesn't that imply that we're tearing down Union Station, which is absolutely not going to happen.
No, I just thought it was an interesting piece on some "lost" history.

> Odot came to the meeting and the Union Station folks.

Which team did Ben Stiller captain?

Anybody catch Mr. Elmore at City Council this week? Here's my summary: lots of cheap shots at ODOT and a generally apocalyptic tone suggesting that ODOT's evil empire has conspired to destroy us all. Can someone please show up to city council and offer the missing perspective that has been expressed on this forum? I'm not the best spokesperson, but someone needs to give the council members a 3rd option.