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.
There is no real need -- most everyone sees through a cheap shots approach as being what it is. For good or ill, these days Tom's present reputation precedes him, and that's kinda too bad and too good all at the same time -- one one hand, it eliminates any realistic concern that many will take what he says very seriously, but, on the other, it also means that most will ignore his ideas whether they do or do not have merit. Tom doubtless has some good thoughts, but because of the way he has presents himself any such good thoughts will not likely receive serious consideration. But, fact is, that's what happens when one chooses a path or technique of using cheap shots and one assumes a posture of being above everyone else in their opinions should they deign to disagree.

I'm sure that Tom has a genuine interest in the city, just as I'm sure that David Glover did in his vocal opposition to the March 4 Ford Center vote and their methods were not dissimilar ... even though Tom's litigious approach to solution-finding takes him several steps beyond David who did not take such a course.

Back in the days that Amtrak service was restored to OKC, Tom was involved in that process, and I'll give him credit for that. He is not without a positive record in days gone by ... it's just that he's not seen as having taken such a path lately.

There is no real need -- most everyone sees through a cheap shots approach as being what it is. For good or ill, these days Tom's present reputation precedes him, and that's kinda too bad and too good all at the same time -- one one hand, it eliminates any realistic concern that many will take what he says very seriously, but, on the other, it also means that most will ignore his ideas whether they do or do not have merit. Tom doubtless has some good thoughts, but because of the way he has presents himself any such good thoughts will not likely receive serious consideration. But, fact is, that's what happens when one chooses a path or technique of using cheap shots and one assumes a posture of being above everyone else in their opinions should they deign to disagree.


Yes, yes, yes. When Tom opened his comments yesterday I immediately hit "mute". When you start by saying the same thing 3 or 4 times, it's not going to be good.

Work took me away from the rest of the Council meeting, but I heard that David Streb, from ODOT, and Marion Hutchinson, from OnTrac, both made great comments regarding Union Station's rail yard. Streb noted that, unfortunately, Union Station was one of many, many concerns when selecting the route. Worries about splitting the Latino community in particular took much more precedent in the decision days (Streb may have not noted that, but that's what he was hinting at). Unfortunately for the rail yard, the only person fighting for Union Station back then was Tom Elmore... and one voice amongst many (and an abrasive one at that), is not an easy sell. If Marion Hutchinson had been vocal back then, however, it might be a different story today...

Yeah, Marion Hutchinson is obviously a hired gun for the Union Station folks. And the council members were citing the work of OnTrac as if it were some independent consulting group. One glance at their website screams special interest group. I still think the city council members need to be briefed on the multiple perspectives on this issue, not the simple dichotomy so often presented. I want them to hear other folks like myself who are for rail/mass transit but believe Union Station can be preserved better as an architectural jewel of the new central park...and let's build a modern transit hub where it needs to be.

Yeah, Marion Hutchinson is obviously a hired gun for the Union Station folks. And the council members were citing the work of OnTrac as if it were some independent consulting group. One glance at their website screams special interest group. I still think the city council members need to be briefed on the multiple perspectives on this issue, not the simple dichotomy so often presented. I want them to hear other folks like myself who are for rail/mass transit but believe Union Station can be preserved better as an architectural jewel of the new central park...and let's build a modern transit hub where it needs to be.

That's just it... it's past the City. ODOT and the Governor are in control. Council can pass a resolution of support or un-support, but unless they have some extreme control behind scenes, they are out of play. The State is funding the project and the State now owns the ROW, so it's their call.

YouTube - Bombardier JetTrain Rare Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN_dbzlBw4w)

I've never seen another video clip of the Bombardier Jet Train power unit in operation. A couple of things are remarkable about this one: (1) How quiet the unit is, (2) That it is drawing a train of conventional, single-level Amtrak passenger coaches. Apparently, the units can handle just about any available coach combination, including advanced, Amtrak/Acela type high speed train sets.

As you may recall, this single unit, a development of Bombardier / Amtrak's "Acela" High Speed Rail technology, would allow advanced passenger service on existing US rail lines. It could draw the Acela-type High Speed train sets which tilt into curves -- without requiring electrification of lines. It carries its own electrical generating equipment, powered by a 5,000 hp jet engine. JetTrain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JetTrain)

Jet-powered train could speed across nation. Category: News from The Berkeley Daily Planet - Wednesday October 16, 2002 (http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2002-10-16/article/15405?headline=Jet-powered-train-could-speed-across-nation&status=301)

ODOT, plainly not a credible source for railway information, insists that reasonable passenger train speeds on lines like the state-owned, former Frisco, OKC-to-Tulsa line, would cost "billions and billions." Could Jet Train technology operate on such corridors without over-the-top infrastructure upgrades?

This is a reasonable question for those who wish to be reasonable. Of course -- "getting reasonable" might make Oklahomans ask why ODOT has insisted on the entirely unnecessary destruction of the OKC Union Station rail yard, the capital city confluence of our key state rail lines.

More than this, however, is anybody in Oklahoma interested in the prospect of developing and manufacturing such technology here in our state -- for promotion and sales to the world?

TOM ELMORE
Tel: 405 794 7163

Tom, do you respond to a single comment on this forum? It seems you just like to post random articles. We might have a more productive discussion of ideas if you related to the rest of us in a more direct manner.

What would you like to talk about, krisb? Shall we discuss facts and realities -- or shall we spend our energies jumping to wild conclusions arbitrarily misrepresenting the work of our fellow citizens? (re: Post 943, above....)

You can talk to me on this forum, or otherwise. My telephone number is 405 794 7163.

Tom, I applaud you for remaining consistent to your beliefs, however, this fight has been lost long ago. Perhaps at this point in time your efforts would be better spent working with the City on a new line, as Union Station railyard for the most part will be destroyed. I'm not saying it was the best solution. I think ODOT definitely screwed us on several things with this new I-40 and the downtown boulevard. Let's move forward and do what we can to make sure we don't screw up what mass transit we will get. Union Station is going to be used for a multi-use facility.

What would you like to talk about, krisb? Shall we discuss facts and realities -- or shall we spend our energies jumping to wild conclusions arbitrarily misrepresenting the work of our fellow citizens? (re: Post 943, above....)

You can talk to me on this forum, or otherwise. My telephone number is 405 794 7163.


On page 35 at the bottom on 5/8/09 you said:

"I'll answer your questions in detail, Steve, when I get a few minutes -- which might be a few days."

It has been two months, so answer the questions already:


1. Do you agree that the Union Station Building will be left standing as part of the Interstate 40 reconstruction? Or do you have proof that the state and city are lying about this building's fate?

2. ODOT engineers have provided plans showing there will still be room for rail lines if this ever becomes an intermodel station. Can you prove them to be wron

1. The Union Station building, alone, devoid of its purpose and its enabling infrastructure, is not the question. Never has been the question. Only people who don't understand the question would be diverted by it. "Union Station" is the Union Station complex -- the rail yard, the underpasses, the underground platform access tunnels. The terminal building, in and of itself, was never the "triumph." The yard, the direct street access on Hudson and Harvey and flanking, arterial Robinson and Walker Avenue underpasses were the solution to the problems that brought its development about.

OKC purchased the terminal building in 1989 with Federal Transit Administration grant money for the express purpose -- detailed in reams of supporting paperwork -- of establishing a transit center there. It has never been used for anything but COTPA offices.

Now there's glib talk about using this structure, purchased with transit dollars to be a transit center, for something else.

Did "the city" lie?

ODOT insisted for years that what it called "Union Station" would not be harmed by the New Crosstown project. We said otherwise. ODOT's plan plainly calls for the complete excavation of the yard, the destruction of at-grade terminal access on Hudson and Harvey and the removal of direct rail access northeast and southwest, including a line to the airport.

John Bowman, who's gotten all-too-used to deliberately deceiving the folks who fund his paychecks admitted years ago, "Well, after we're done Union Station can never be a hub...."

Who was telling the truth -- and who was lying?

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me...." goes the old saying.

Perhaps OKC folks enjoy being fooled.

2. A single rail line does not a transit hub make. It's another absurd question -- a "Daily Oklahoman question" -- playing into and supporting ODOT's determination to deceive. Deliberately diminishing the facility as a multimodal center by cutting it off from the airport and second largest state metro is just part of the reason the mayor of one of the West's "New Transit" cities has called the plan "insane."

ODOT has insisted since the "comparative route study," clearly another false-front misdirection play from this agency, that OKC Union Station was worth "zero."

The intrinsic value of Union Station is and has always been self-evident -- certainly to real transit and transportation experts and civic leaders all over the West. Their statements about it are on the record, and are manifestly spot-on.

As Gary Ridley told me years ago, "Well, Tom, there was a time when we didn't even have to ask you what you thought...."

If that's acceptable to Oklahoma taxpayers, then we all ought to feel like we're "in heaven."

2. A single rail line does not a transit hub make.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa....last time I checked, your skin wasn't green was it?!? :irule:

Plenty of us don't want Union Station (the building) to be anything more than a stop on an east-west line that has a hub further east where it crosses the more important (in my eyes and in the eyes of everyone I've talked to about it) north-south line. I have yet to talk to anyone personally who thinks we should be concentrating on anything but a north-south line and CBD transit now.

As Matthew Henry observed, "None so blind as those who will not see. None so deaf as those who will not hear." Churchill warned: "Do not let spacious plans for a new world divert your energies from saving what is left of the old."

I'd prescribe some reflection on these things, and what The Lord said about "being faithful in little" leading to greater possibilities -- while thinking too little of what we already have is a path to "weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Perhaps a reading of Sandburg's "Four Preludes on Playthings of the Wind" would be helpful.

Of course, it's doubtful that enticement to any such noble reflection would much impress a determined vandal.

Let's not forget those time tested and immortal words of Tommy James and the Shondells..."crimson and clover over and over, crimson and clover over and over"...or the elegant phrasings of the late John Lennon in "Why don't we do it in the road"...

I'm anxious to see what Union Station can become as part of our new central park...A museum? A "Tavern on the green" type restaurant ? A vibrant multi-use facility?

It will be wonderful to see new live brought to such a beautiful old building...

I agree. Tom, really, this one is over. If you're focusing your attention somewhere, continuing to focus any of it on the rail yard is going to be futile. We have a real chance of having some sort of rail system in OKC, but it won't be based out of Union Station. We'll still be able to utilize some of the old right of ways and tracks. It's not a total loss.

And I agree with the above poster that this is still an awesome building with amazing potential.

As someone who takes advantage of light rail about 5 months out of the year in Plano, I am a big supporter of using Union Station, in some form or fashion, for transit. Random thoughts:


Learn from other cities and don't make the same mistakes. Make it AREA wide and not CITY wide. Incorporate everything from Guthrie to Norman to participate in a long-range plan for area transit.



Begin NOW. Look at the history of DART (http://www.dart.org/about/history.asp) (Dallas Area Rapid Transit). It's fascinating, but also shows just how long and tedious the process is.



With a long-range plan and funding in place, create a starter line that utilizes center city (Union Station?) as Transit Central and is a North/South test system.



Skeptics: Read this article (http://www.dart.org/about/economicimpact.asp) from DART regarding TOD and the future of cities. A great (and fairly short) read.



We must start somewhere and start SOON, but we can't start with backroom deals to enrich a few within the buddy system.


The long-range plans should include as many "member cities" as possible and incorporate transit into an area-wide mindset rather than communities all trying to serve themselves and all doing it inadequately. The same group that will eventually run the light-rail should be commissioned ASAP and all existing area transit (buses) consolidated with funding proportionally from all member cities. The first priority must be on improving the quality of current service. Only then can support build for long-range transit plans with any sense of trust.

For me, I can't visualize any of this without preserving Union Station and rail, rail, rail. But, if we must, then make alternate plans and start NOW.

Mike, there's really no choice. The rail yard at Union Station will be gone soon and in its place will be I-40. This means that Union Station is no longer a viable choice for a rail hub.

For me, I can't visualize any of this without preserving Union Station and rail, rail, rail. But, if we must, then make alternate plans and start NOW.

Visualize a hub where north-south/east-west lines intersect, closer to Bricktown and the CBD. I can't visualize choosing any other site. That's what makes sense for modern day Oklahoma City, IMO.

Visualize a hub where north-south/east-west lines intersect, closer to Bricktown and the CBD. I can't visualize choosing any other site. That's what makes sense for modern day Oklahoma City, IMO.

There or Crossroads Mall -- that'd definitely be a way to revitalize that place.

WEBSITE READERS KICK OKLAHOMAN TO THE CURB AFTER ITS EDITORIAL ATTACK ON OKC UNION STATION ADVOCATES

http://newsok.com/some-refuse-to-believe-this-train-has-left-station/article/3387515?custom_click=headlines_widget

__________________________

Reference these OKC City Council video links:

June 23 Meeting: ODOT Crosstown update with Secretary of Transportation Gary Ridley, John Bowman, David Streb and others with citizen comments from Fannie Bates, Tom Elmore, Marion Hutchison and others -
City of Oklahoma City | City Council Archive (http://okc.gov/council/council_library/forms/CouncilMeetings.aspx?MeetingID=215)

ODOT presentation is first item on agenda following invocation, pledge of allegiance and introduction of Gary Ridley. Pointed questions from council members follow, with comments from Fannie Bates and others beginning at about 24:00 on the video player clock. Councilman Pete White's comments following the first group of citizen observations are riveting. OnTrac spokesman Marion Hutchison speaks near the end of the meeting under "Citizens to be Heard" beginning at about 2:47:00.

July 21 Meeting:
City of Oklahoma City | City Council Archive (http://okc.gov/council/council_library/forms/CouncilMeetings.aspx?MeetingID=217)

Transportation discussion under "Citizens to be Heard" picks up at about 2:06:00

Tom Elmore tells how passenger trains historically covered their operating costs and how ODOT kept THE HEARTLAND FLYER from doing that, apparently preferring to make it a subsidy case and a whipping boy because it "can't cover its costs." Fannie Bates notes her observations of unacceptable danger to pedestrians and street traffic at ODOT's "newly upgraded railroad crossing" at S. Robinson near the Cargill Feed plant (northern edge of Capitol Hill). Anyone who cares to drive down that way will immediately see that the situation is far, far worse than even Ms. Bates relates.

WEBSITE READERS KICK OKLAHOMAN TO THE CURB AFTER ITS EDITORIAL ATTACK ON OKC UNION STATION ADVOCATES

http://newsok.com/some-refuse-to-believe-this-train-has-left-station/article/3387515?custom_click=headlines_widget[quote]

... closes with ...

[quote]The council kindly thanked him for his presentation, although members could have been excused for thinking it was five minutes of their lives that they would never get back.
:ohno:

WEBSITE READERS KICK OKLAHOMAN TO THE CURB AFTER ITS EDITORIAL ATTACK ON OKC UNION STATION ADVOCATES

http://newsok.com/some-refuse-to-believe-this-train-has-left-station/article/3387515?custom_click=headlines_widget

__________________________

Reference these OKC City Council video links:

June 23 Meeting: ODOT Crosstown update with Secretary of Transportation Gary Ridley, John Bowman, David Streb and others with citizen comments from Fannie Bates, Tom Elmore, Marion Hutchison and others -
City of Oklahoma City | City Council Archive (http://okc.gov/council/council_library/forms/CouncilMeetings.aspx?MeetingID=215)

ODOT presentation is first item on agenda following invocation, pledge of allegiance and introduction of Gary Ridley. Pointed questions from council members follow, with comments from Fannie Bates and others beginning at about 24:00 on the video player clock. Councilman Pete White's comments following the first group of citizen observations are riveting. OnTrac spokesman Marion Hutchison speaks near the end of the meeting under "Citizens to be Heard" beginning at about 2:47:00.

July 21 Meeting:
City of Oklahoma City | City Council Archive (http://okc.gov/council/council_library/forms/CouncilMeetings.aspx?MeetingID=217)

Transportation discussion under "Citizens to be Heard" picks up at about 2:06:00

Tom Elmore tells how passenger trains historically covered their operating costs and how ODOT kept THE HEARTLAND FLYER from doing that, apparently preferring to make it a subsidy case and a whipping boy because it "can't cover its costs." Fannie Bates notes her observations of unacceptable danger to pedestrians and street traffic at ODOT's "newly upgraded railroad crossing" at S. Robinson near the Cargill Feed plant (northern edge of Capitol Hill). Anyone who cares to drive down that way will immediately see that the situation is far, far worse than even Ms. Bates relates.

Prophecies of Metrodamus:

Brash hat wearing man by name of Eli More,
Much like Met-row, full of grandiose hyperbole,
With his faithful lover Marian,
Repeats script ad nauseum, until gallery is bored.

Hey folks, new to the site. Have loved reading it for the last few days.

I have to say I agree with Midtowner. This rail thing is done - stick a fork in it. The Crosstown move is well under way and they aren't going to stop it. Tom Elmore is wasting his energy on this and would be better served working to ensure what they do with the Union Station is to put it to its highest and best use.

In an particularly trenchant comment posted on the OKLAHOMAN's website below its snippy little editorial from 7-24-09, an individual identified as "Dan" from Edmond said that, while he regularly defends THE OKLAHOMAN -- as he knows lots of folks who work there, likes them and likes the place -- the editorial is "truly unconscionable." He accurately observes that it's the place of the citizen in this nation to speak before elected bodies to petition for redress of grievances. Those who consider the Union Station issue to be "dead," especially those occupying positions of privilege like the OKLAHOMAN bosses, he indicates, should ignore it -- but raining on those who fight on in this and other lawful ways to achieve what they consider to be the only acceptable outcome, is "quite distatestful." He ended by emphasizing his disappointment with the paper and its editorial writers.

I suppose that the British government-types in the American colonies were probably fairly bored and disgusted of the constant agitation of the revolutionary colonists. I'm sure they might occasionally have condescended to suggest that those they privately considered particularly effective "use their talents in more constructive ways."

However -- the "agitators" persisted -- and against all odds won the battles that mattered, placing their infant nation in a position from which it ultimately saved the mother country.

Work is expensive. Talk, at least talk not backed up by work -- is cheap.

I'm always fascinated when those who haven't bothered to dirty their hands with this particular business tell me "it's time for me to quit." At those times, the words of the narrative in Luke 10 always ring in my ears: "...but he, willing to justify himself, said..." and it's hard not to smile.

Be certain that those of us who have fought this fight all these years -- and who certainly haven't often been impeded by tripping over many of the anonymous snipers on this forum -- have no intention of backing up or backing down.

I believe you'll find that you can count on it.

I am also often disappointed in the DOK but they are right in this case. Its like trying to stop the Ford Center from being built.

As previously noted, Mug, it's not at all strange that you and your many brethren on the sidelines would justify yourselves by justifying the state's largest newspaper's latest blank-eyed pseudo-editorial.

As Mr. Lincoln said about another matter -- "It has many defenders, but no defense."

I have kept my comments to myself regarding the Union Station. But I just want to say that it is incredibaly unfortunate on how this issue has been handled for years- on both sides. A great deal of energy has been spent on the fight rather than on solutions. I am not sure (because of the length of time this has gone on) whether opportunities for diplomacy ever existed- and will not debate it as I don't know, but the lack of leadership and diplomacy stand as a funeral marker to complete disfunctionality on nearly every front.

Jeff, your crashing lack of perspective on the matter is not surprising, any more than your smugly passive-aggressive condemnatory rhetoric toward those who, unlike yourself, have borne the load in the heat of the day.

Has your good pal "THE mayor" threatened to sic "a thousand cops" on you lately?

Perhaps you don't have the history on the matter to understand that your own proposals are very similar to earlier ideas that came to nothing precisely because of their limited scale. I can testify that you weren't there when these things happened. As noted to the council, "Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

Jeff, your crashing lack of perspective on the matter is not surprising, any more than your smugly condemnatory rhetoric toward those who, unlike yourself, have borne the load in the heat of the day.

Has your good pal "THE mayor" threatened to sic "a thousand cops" on you lately?

Jeff may be late in referencing Union Station, but at least he's cordial about stating the nature of the situation. Jeff's already obviously won many more friends on the pro-transit side by using supportive, constructive words and a polite demeanor than you have in your long years of using derisive rhetoric and blame sharing. Also, explain his lack of perspective - I think he summed up the derisive nature of the issue quite well. It's extremely unfortunate that things have come to this, but it is what it is, and now we must move forward.

The trouble, I think from the get-go, (and discussion of this is more like an autopsy than a live examination of the subject since absent a change of heart by ODOT [which won't be forthcoming], this thing is going to go ahead exactly as planned) ODOT seemed to have proposed a few plans and then chosen without a whole lot of justification the plan which had already probably been chosen in questionably legal closed-door meetings.

I can't prove any of that is true of course, and it may not be true. It's really nothing but an inference. Sure, some lip service was paid to the other options, but I doubt it was much more than that.

The only hope of derailing this thing (pun intended) was a challenge to the abandonment of the BNSF line which was denied by the relevant federal agency even after information concerning the same which later proved to be false had been submitted to it by ODOT/BNSF.

But all of those impediments are gone and construction is underway. Millions of dollars are being spent in reliance of this plan being carried out as is and that's just the way it's going to be.

The only purpose in discussing this further is to see what went wrong -- how can multimodal advocates better communicate with ODOT to get their point across? What was missing in this effort and why did it fail? Continuing to protest a foregone conclusion is not being constructive.

I would urge anyone who still thinks fighting over Union Station as a multimodal hub is worthwhile to recognize that the fight is futile. It's time to channel your energy somewhere else. I think rail in OKC at some point is probably going to happen again. Maybe making sure that happens should be the next push. Maybe the focus should be creating and promoting alternatives to the city's small time proposals which are bound to come out of MAPS III? This is futile. Concentrate on something that's not.

Under the Ridley / McCaleb cabal, ODOT = The Highway Lobby.

Like Ernest Istook, those at the top of this unaccountable agency well understand the urgent importance of multimodal and the value of OKC Union Station as a base for ready, economical deployment of relevant technologies and services. They're not stupid. They're corrupt -- and they hold the voting and taxpaying public of this state in utter derision.

They're doing all they can to ensure that we continue to be dominated by their true bosses, the highway contractors and truckers. They can pull this off only if the people of the state so completely misunderstand their own role in the American system as to allow it. Plainly, we -- the general population of the state -- have been fooled before. Will we really allow ourselves to be fooled again -- at this late date in history -- with the meaning of the loss of our high-quality, existing rail center so entirely obvious?

In late 1990s, Gary Ridley was chief lobbyist for the Oklahoma Asphalt Paving Association. Neal McCaleb was ODOT Director and Secretary. Today, Neal McCaleb is head of the state highway lobby's political storefront, "TRUST."

What's the difference?

The difference is that the laughable revolving door at the top of ODOT has simply swung around 180 degrees. Previously, the puppetmaster, the guy with his hand in the other guy's head making his mouth move, was in the bureaucracy and the other guy was in the lobby. Today the puppetmaster is the lobbyist and the puppet is in the leather chair on the top floor at 200 NE 21st. The same people are still running ODOT and the effect is still the same.

While such complete debacles as the 1997 "Billion Dollar Highway Package" were being engineered chiefly by McCaleb, another of his close cronies was truckstop king Tom Love.

ACOG has now chosen that selfsame Tom Love to co-chair its "transit committee," along with Mayor Mick Cornett, whose determination to run interference for the destruction of the state's passenger rail center is well established. ACOG has thus shown us that it has absolutely no intention of seeking a reasonable, economical and effective regional transit system.

Despite the clear front-loading of such committees with the minions of the highway lobby and protectors of the status quo, there appear to still be those who believe that their own personal stock can somehow be raised if they publicly preach that the proper strategy is for the public to "puppy down," act like serfs and "make certain to hold their mouths just right as they grovel." If we don't quite understand how to do that, they apparently will be glad to demonstrate their own well-studied techniques.

What we face is an ugly, profoundly corrupt and completely unacceptable situation that cannot somehow be sweet-talked into a righteous position. It should be clear to any half-awake observer that we will not schmooze our way to a balanced, efficient multimodal transportation system against the automobile, highway and trucking lords that have completely dominated Oklahoma since at least 1946. These people and their schemes must be defeated -- and only the people of the state, whom the government purports to be "of, by and for," can defeat them.

Tom, there is a difference between giving up completely and giving up on a completely futile effort. I will agree that it doesn't take a genius to see what's going on and whose interests are not being represented. The answer though? Instead of raging the machine, maybe establishing some credibility and rapport with the public and ideally those who are in positions to make changes.

I suppose one strategy is to try and use Union Station as your Alamo. To use it as a story of a valiant fight and the sort of 'failure' that typifies what we've come to expect from ODOT. That can't be the whole strategy though.

You also need to think about what's beyond Union Station -- because if nothing is beyond Union Station, then there's nothing to be fighting for. It's much easier to fight for something than against it. Being the loser here means you're fighting against change which is inevitable. It's a losing position and gains you no ground with anyone.

Figure out what's next and move on to that. Have a clear and workable alternative or you're just doomed to failure.

It would also help if you (Tom) didn't give the impression that ODOT is the antichrist. I know ODOT has its problems...but they will ultimately be the ones making future decisions for statewide mass transit...it behooves us to not burn our bridges. Your legitimate criticisms get nowhere because people can't see past your fanatical tone. Just my two cents.

How many on this list can, off the top of their heads, name the directors of ODOT going back to 1990?

I can -- simply because I've been involved in this work since then.

In 1991, the first little citizen coalition we assembled, called Safe Highways for Oklahoma, had a lot to do with keeping that year's Senate Joint Resolution 23 from becoming law. SJR 23 was an effort to substantially increase the legal weights of a certain number of "Longer Combination Vehicles" or "LCVs," which are simply super-long double- and triple-trailer trucks for a so-called "demonstration project."

We did all we could do, and were frankly pretty surprised at the effectiveness of our effort. All the experts had said defeating the bill would be impossible. However -- we very likely couldn't have done any of it if it had not been for that era's honest and upright ODOT leadership. Delmas Ford was Governor Walters' Secretary of Transportation. Bobby Green was ODOT Director. Veldo Goins was Bridge Engineer, as they call the head of the Bridge Division. These men produced a hard-hitting, scrupulously documented 16 page position paper explaining in detail why heavier trucks were not acceptable -- a document the likes of which was never seen again from ODOT after the Walters Administration left office. This was the real basis for the legislative victory.

I have no doubt that the determination of the ODOT leadership to do right, to fully air the issue and to put the interests of the public in front of the desires of the big lobbies was costly in many ways to these men. It was immensely courageous.

In short, I know what honest, accountable and statesmanlike leadership at ODOT looks like -- and I can say for sure that we've seen nothing like this after the time that Frank Keating was elected governor.

It's not a "political thing." It's an "honesty and integrity thing."

If the people accede to having the departments of their state government overwhelmed and dominated by the special interests, things will continue to be the way they are today. If the people refuse to accept this, we can have honest and upright leadership at ODOT and the other agencies again. But does anybody really believe that the longtime grasp of the special interests on these agencies can be broken by "asking real nice?"

All I can tell you Tom is that your message is turning good people away from your cause. If that's the case, you're doing a poor job marketing yourself. If the number one complaint is that you're being unreasonable, maybe you should take some steps to appear more reasonable?

A grassroots effort which can't win hearts and minds isn't going to work. You're asking a lot of the people in power -- to swim against a very strong current. You need to make yours a cause someone can align themselves with while not simultaneously appearing kooky. You need a clear (and realistic) alternative. You need Something you can fight for, not against.

This is marketing and politics and if you don't play by the well-established rules, then you don't have a winning campaign, you just have a really aggravating hobby.

I don't think anything I could say or do would convince folks who think taking four miles of I-40 eight blocks off its longstanding path just long enough to wreck the state's central rail passenger yard is in any way acceptable.

I appreciate all the advice, Mid -- but I have to ask, how many of these fights have you won?

Why the hell are we still talking about this? I-40 won, and the damn piece of crap yard lost. Lets' just delete the thread so Tom stops posting crap about random articles or conspiracy theories. Notice he's even bleeding that crap into other threads now?

Gee, Bomb -- I just want you to know that you're really hurting my feelings with your obvious "damn 'em with faint praise" strategy.

Things come and things go -- but people-friendly access will always be an indispensible key to economic development, no matter where or on "which thread" it's being discussed.

Yes -- and by the way, how many of these fights have you won?

I don't think anything I could say or do would convince folks who think taking four miles of I-40 eight blocks off its longstanding path just long enough to wreck the state's central rail passenger yard is in any way acceptable.

I appreciate all the advice, Mid -- but I have to ask, how many of these fights have you won?

Haven't had a chance to fight one yet. Heard plenty of stories though, and I have a fine tutor in the subject -- and I know you know that.

As far as my lack of a track record, that's really pretty irrelevant. Perhaps it even allows me to have better perspective in this matter. Tell me -- what is it you think you can actually accomplish by staying this course? How is this better than creating a better alternative plan and promoting it as an alternative to MAPS? Do you honestly expect to win this fight if you continue to stay the course? If not, then how does asking me the above question improve your lot in any way?

You are in a great place to lead a revolution in Oklahoma with regard to our transportation options. I really hate to see you squander your momentum on a lost cause.

Bomber, it sounds like you might be advocating a lock on this thread and creation to two new threads - one about the history and design of Union Station and another for those who want to read Tom Elmore's complaints about ODOT and the Union Station rail yard. Do you believe this thread has been hijacked?

This is 40 pages of Tom Elmore ranting. When was the last page that actually talked about the history and design of the station? I see Tom jumping in on page two.

Bomber, it sounds like you might be advocating a lock on this thread and creation to two new threads - one about the history and design of Union Station and another for those who want to read Tom Elmore's complaints about ODOT and the Union Station rail yard. Do you believe this thread has been hijacked?

I suggest we start a thread called TOM ELMORE, and open it up to everyone to unleash on him. It will be good therapy for everyone, and would therefore qualify as a true discussion on Oklahoma City development and civic issues. Besides, I have a lot more quadrants that I'm itching to unveil.

LordGerald, I think that would go against OKC Talk rules. But I'm very serious about asking if this thread should be locked and new ones be started. What I hear others suggesting is maybe the moderators should let Tom have his thread complaining about ODOT and the rail yard, and let there be another thread for people who want to talk about the station without going through 30 pages of Tom Elmore's complaints.

LordGerald, I think that would go against OKC Talk rules. But I'm very serious about asking if this thread should be locked and new ones be started. What I hear others suggesting is maybe the moderators should let Tom have his thread complaining about ODOT and the rail yard, and let there be another thread for people who want to talk about the station without going through 30 pages of Tom Elmore's complaints.

I'll 2nd that.

Well CuatrodeMayo, are you then asking the moderators to make this happen?

I remind all that it is also possible to modify your Settings & Options as follows:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/ignoreusers.jpg

I've not yet done that, but it is possible.

Well CuatrodeMayo, are you then asking the moderators to make this happen?

Yes.

Or give TE the spammer treatment (see the Hard Rock thread).

Tom's about 18 months too late.

I'm all for the new threads. Discussion on Union station has it's place. It's an important historical structure, but Tom's continual ranting about a lost battle isn't going to help. We can have an honest discussion regarding future utilization of the station WITHOUT his type of copy/paste editorial.

i'd say that the last umpteen pages of this thread is pretty much dedicated to the union station debate. anyone interested can create a union station thread in the nostalgia section for those who just want to discuss history without getting into current issues.

also... there will be no 'unleash everybody on tom elmore' thread. any thread created to taunt or humiliate another user will be closed. try to keep your discussion civil.

-M

US RAILCAR TO RESUME PRODUCTION OF FORMER COLORADO RAILCAR DIESEL MULTI-UNIT PASSENGER EQUIPMENT

US Railcar to Resume Production of Former Colorado Railcar DMU - Business News - redOrbit (http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1714572/us_railcar_to_resume_production_of_former_colorado _railcar_dmu/index.html)

There he goes again...

mmm - can we rename this thread "Tom Elmore/Union Station" if someone creates a new thread titled "Union Station/reuse"?

how about this... 'union station - transit complaints'... i'm not entirely keen on making the title of the thread about any one person.

if the discussion of the new thread is reuse, then nostalgia may not be the best forum. however, whatever the topic is it will be enforced.

-M

US RAILCAR TO RESUME PRODUCTION OF FORMER COLORADO RAILCAR DIESEL MULTI-UNIT PASSENGER EQUIPMENT

US Railcar to Resume Production of Former Colorado Railcar DMU - Business News - redOrbit (http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1714572/us_railcar_to_resume_production_of_former_colorado _railcar_dmu/index.html)

That's actually good news. I had hoped Colorado Railcar's DMU would be used in Denver's Fastracks commuter component. Maybe it still can. As long as the new livery is not the god awful maroon they used for show-and-tell.

From United Rail Passenger Alliance United Rail Passenger Alliance (http://www.unitedrail.org).

HISTORIC TRAIN STATIONS: THE PAST IS PROLOGUE

By William Lindley, Scottsdale, Arizona

Imagine putting a 10-story building in the middle of Los Angeles International Airport's runway. Ridiculous! you say. Yet, that's what Kansas City did with their Union Station – built a mid-rise building right smack in the middle of the train platform area, destroying its ability to be a train station. Saint Louis built a mall inside its Union Station, but at least most of that could be removed fairly easily (malls are always changing, anyway).

Are our historic train stations only to become museums (like Kansas City's) or should they have a rightful place in our transportation future?

Atlanta recently made what appears to be a bad decision that will prevent some mainline trains from conveniently entering its planned new downtown station, but at least the station will be downtown. Saint Paul, Minnesota likewise is moving forward with the renovation of its Union Depot, close to downtown – as light rail, and possibly a southward extension of the upcoming Northstar commuter trains get underway.

These cities understand, as in most real estate, station sites are about Location, Location, Location. That means walking distance to downtown; it means connections with commuter trains and streetcars and buses; it means a place where mainline trains can move in and out easily, and where rail services can be provided.

When the national argument for passenger rail was at its lowest point, Dallas shortchanged itself on the latter, by providing only three platforms – barely enough for Trinity Railway commuter trains and one or two intercity trains. San Antonio, in contrast, found new life for its main depot building as a food an entertainment complex called Historic Sunset Station at St. Paul Square, but, built a harmonious, functional, and pleasant new adjacent passenger and train servicing facility just a few feet away, using the original passenger platforms.

If the original station does not fit today's demands, it is appropriate to build a new building “around” an existing depot as at San Antonio. But, also have the fortitude to build an updated facility in a new location convenient to the city's modern activity centers. Some of our best historic stations and depots, often over a century old, are located in parts of cities and towns no longer desirable for 24-hour public use because of dangerous neighbors.

While it is highly desirable to keep these older structures and find new uses for them, it is equally important and more desirable to meet the needs of the traveling public by providing a station facility in a safe and secure location. The most beautiful or historic station can be meticulously restored, but if it’s in a bad part of town or lacks adequate parking or transit connections, the purpose of a proper, useful, and desirable gateway for rail passengers into a city or town is defeated.

An interesting point of discussion has been for former New York Central train station and tower in Buffalo, New York. The building has been empty since 1979 and is in a high state of disrepair. The sprawling station complex is located 2.5 miles from downtown Buffalo, and was designed to host an astonishing 3,200 passengers per hour. Debate and plans are raging in Buffalo as to how best preserve this architectural gem, perhaps through reincarnation as a high speed rail terminal.

In Detroit, a similarly magnificent structure is in even more dire condition; the old Michigan Central station and tower in another huge complex sits outside of the normal traffic flow of downtown Detroit. The local government in Detroit has decreed the building should be torn down it is in such bad condition, but supporters of this huge architectural marvel are looking to create a new life for the station either through rail-related purposes or as a convention center and casino, perhaps an international trade processing center (The station is near the Ambassador Bridge and gateway to Canada.), or as police headquarters for the City of Detroit.

When Michigan Central originally constructed the complex in 1913, it was built to last a lifetime, and Amtrak used the facility until 1988. At the time of its construction, it was the tallest railroad station in the world, with its massive tower atop the station, going up 18 floors and comprising 500,000 square feet of space, including the station areas. Located about two miles southwest of downtown Detroit, the station was always considered to be outside the loop of normal downtown traffic. The hope today is a revival of the station building will also bring a revival of the surrounding neighborhood.

In Jacksonville, Florida, the downtown Union Station is today the Prime F. Osborn III Convention Center, named in honor of the late CSX Transportation Chairman of the Board who took a personal interest in saving the historic Jacksonville Union Station, designed by New York Architect Kenneth Mackensie Murcheson. Murcheson also designed Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore, Maryland, which is still in use today by Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor.

When Jacksonville Union Station opened at midnight on November 17, 1919, with its vast array of through-service and stub end tracks, it was designed to handle up to 210 trains a day. On opening day, the station handled more than 110 trains and 20,000 passengers. Every U.S. president from Woodrow Wilson through Richard Nixon traveled through the station. The station was mothballed in 1974, and Amtrak was moved to a far suburban station in the middle of one of Jacksonville’s industrial areas with a high crime rate.

While today’s primary use of the Union Station complex is a convention center, plans are also on the drawing board to remake the complex into a full multi-modal facility, which will include Amtrak, commuter rail, intercity bus, local transit, and downtown airport check-in facility where passengers will be able to come to the complex, check in for their airline, and then take secure bus service from the downtown station to the airport on the north end of Jacksonville. Ideally, when Amtrak moves back downtown, the present, far-suburban Amtrak station will stay in use as a second facility in a sprawling metropolitan area.

For all modern, full service stations, all the local connections – commuter trains, streetcars, buses, taxis, parking – create a "lesser matrix effect," where the intercity train matrix meets the local distribution matrix. The better these two systems tie together, the more useful they both become. Relieved of the necessity to carry every passengers everywhere, intercity trains can again rely, as they did in earlier days, on feeder regional and commuter trains. But, that does mean the Limited needs a stop at one or two suburban stations on either side of downtown, perhaps 10 to 30 miles out, at regional train stations (with that 10-to-30 mile spacing based on regional service levels), to collect and distribute passengers.

Let's look at one more example.

In Phoenix, the 1923 Union Station is still the junction point between BNSF and Union Pacific right downtown. The station is three short blocks from City Hall and a few more blocks away from the new City Hall light rail station (which Valley Metro Rail, in its wisdom, calls "First Avenue and Jefferson Street and Central Avenue and Washington Street Station" – not terribly easy to write and remember).

Phoenix Union Station maintains its alignments for the original six through tracks (a seventh was added during World War II) and several stub-ends on both sides of the depot. There is no other location close to downtown which could accommodate more than perhaps even two platforms, because of the street layout and the historic warehouse district.

Advanced studies are underway for both commuter rail in metro Phoenix and for express trains to Tucson (120 miles to the southeast). The Tucson trains would not be "high speed," but would likely travel at 79 MPH or 90 MPH on upgraded (double-and-triple-tracked) Union Pacific rails. UP, BNSF, and Arizona's short-line railroads are involved, and it is known the railroads are businesses and expect any passenger agreement to be beneficial to their freight business. Arizona has learned from California and New Mexico, Utah, and other western states which have succeeded in working relationships and actual operations with host freight railroads.

Valley Metro Rail ("METRO"), meanwhile, is planning a westward extension in the median of Interstate 10, taking LRVs potentially right past the railroad depot. There has been some talk also of historic or modern streetcars along Washington Street from downtown to the Capitol at 19th Avenue, should the LRT line be deferred or rerouted – and these streetcars could certainly connect Union Station to the Capitol with its thousands of daily workers at the west end, and the LRT line at the east end.

The city of Phoenix has certainly grown since the historic downtown station was built. In the 1920s, a civic goal was 100,000 citizens; today the city boasts 1.5 million, and the metro area over 4 million. But, as the population has expanded fifteen-fold, transportation options have expanded, too. Union Station was built to handle 90% of the transportation needs of a city of 100,000, so it certainly could handle 10% of transportation of a city ten times larger. It still fits the city.

And, it fits the city, too, in its Mission Revival architectural style. It is not enough for a station to be correctly located (both in the city and on the railroad mains) – a station also serves as a gateway, setting the mood for travelers entering a city or town. A station is part of a city's identity; and Phoenix Union Station does fit.

So, in Phoenix, at least for the upcoming decade, Union Station is the only logical intercity train station.

In the future, following Berlin, Germany's motif, a new modern station could be built west of the Airport LRT station (which METRO again calls "44th Street and Washington Street" instead of “Airport”). There is room enough between 38th Street and 44th Street to build an eight or 10 platform railroad station with connections to the new people-mover (to all airport terminals, parking garages, the car rental center, taxicabs and tour buses). This new station would handle commuter trains, intrastate express trains, intercity trains from Los Angeles, San Diego, the Grand Canyon, El Paso, Albuquerque, and points east.

Yet, even in that scenario, Union Station remains the only choice for a downtown depot. Perhaps the commuter trains and express trains will stop there, with the intercity trains serving the Airport station. Once regional commuter trains cover the intermediate stations, a modern Golden State intercity train would likely stop at suburban Gilbert on the east side and suburban Goodyear on the west, with those stations' regional rail connections. Arizona Express trains would likely serve Union Station, the Airport, Tempe (with Arizona State University's huge main campus), Mesa, and Gilbert and just a few more intermediate stops north of downtown Tucson.

A mix of trains and services then blankets southern Arizona. Union Station steps back at that point from some of its design role, and becomes more an historic gathering place, a meeting place, perhaps with conference facilities or shopping in addition to regional rail and streetcar connections.

Southern California has the newest and among the most robust examples of several overlaid systems, although there is room for improvement even there. Los Angeles Union Station has been well refitted to its modern role, a re-interpretation of its historic one; the same is true of San Diego's Santa Fe station. These serve as models for other cities; look, too, to Saint Paul. Learn from mistakes at Kansas City and near-misses like Dallas. Denver would be wise to consider the constraints at Dallas as it looks to reconfigure its historic station built in 1881 as part of a new development, even as it seeks to bring commuter and more intercity service back to the station.

Many of our historic train stations should continue their revival along with their passenger trains... past is prologue.

Wow, Tom, that's sooooooooooooooooooooooooo exciting.