Subways for OKC? I've got to think about that for a while.

"The owner of the tracks in question, BNSF Railway Co., wishes to abandon them." An railline which the owner, a busy RR company, doesn't want to use, is more importantto preserve for future use than getting people off the aging and dangerous crosstown and removing an eyesore?

Mapmgr and Okiebadger - The only part I see going underground is in the downtown area. Once the rail lines get otside the downtown core it can run at the surface or even elevated to avoid road crossings. See MARTA in Atlanta as an example. The underground portion can be done using cut and cover so tunneling won't be needed.

Jammed transit systems running on fumes - Consumer news - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25010939)

“The story is the same everywhere: In Seattle, commuter rail ridership recorded the biggest jump in the nation during the first quarter, with 28 percent more riders than during the same time last year. Ridership in Harrisburg, Pa., rose 17 percent. In Oakland, Calif., it rose 15.8 percent.

Nationwide, Americans took 2.6 billion bus, subway, commuter rail and light rail trips in the first three months of the year, 85 million more than in the same period in 2007, the American Public Transportation Association said. But it’s not clear that the nation’s transit systems are able to handle the load.

While many major cities cities have invested heavily in mass transit over the past 15 years, many more have not. Now that people are demanding service, there isn’t the infrastructure to provide it.

“We’re seeing it in a lot of other metropolitan areas where there just [aren’t] viable transit options — places like Indianapolis, Orlando or Raleigh,” said Robert Puentes, a transportation and urban planning scholar with the Brookings Institution, a public policy association in Washington. “They haven’t put the money into it. They haven’t put the resources into it.”

HOW ARIZONA GOVERNOR JANET NAPOLITANO GOT HER LIGHT RAIL LINE FUNDED

Napolitano's mission: Learn about Mormons

By Paul Davenport
The Associated Press
The Arizona Republic

Gov. Janet Napolitano plans to visit Salt Lake City this week to meet with leaders of the Mormon Church to learn more about the faith shared by hundreds of thousands of Arizonans.

A Napolitano spokeswoman said the Democratic governor will meet Friday with Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints leaders, including President Gordon B. Hinckley and other members of the three-man First Presidency, a policy-making body that has final authority on all spiritual and worldly matters.

The itinerary for the trip being made at state expense also includes touring church facilities, including Temple Square and the family history library, and being briefed on welfare programs, Napolitano spokeswoman Jeanine L'Ecuyer said Monday.

The governor, who was raised as a Methodist but who L'Ecuyer said now regards herself as a practicing Christian, will be accompanied by three aides, as well as Arizona Chief Justice Charles E. Jones and other state officials who are Mormon.

"It just made sense to have people who are familiar with the church," L'Ecuyer said.

L'Ecuyer said the trip evolved from Napolitano's realization over the summer that she didn't know much about the church and its structure and activities in Arizona.

Subsequent discussions within the Governor's Office "having to do with the fact that we have so many people in Arizona who are members of the faith" led to phone calls between church officials and the governor's office, L'Ecuyer said.

The church has a reported 339,900 members in Arizona, with 685 congregations and with temples in Mesa and Snowflake.

The state will pay approximately $1,500 for air travel, hotel rooms and meals for Napolitano and her aides while the other officials will pay their own way, L'Ecuyer said.

No meetings are planned with Utah state officials, L'Ecuyer said. "This is all church-related."

Mormon Church spokesman Dale Bills said he could not immediately say whether church officials have hosted similar visits by other state governors and what benefit church leaders anticipate from Napolitano's visit.

Jones, a Republican appointed to the Supreme Court in 1996, is going because he has been active in church leadership and can provide introductions, Supreme Court spokesman Tom Augherton said.

L'Ecuyer said the trip has "nothing whatsoever" to do with Colorado City, a polygamist enclave on Arizona's border with Utah.

Colorado City and neighboring Hildale, Utah, are dominated by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, an offshoot of the Mormon Church. The Mormon Church itself disavowed polygamy in 1890 and excommunicates those who practice plural marriage.

According to the Mormon church's Web site, some church members arrived in Arizona with a unit of Mormons preparing to fight in the Mexican-American War in the winter of 1846-47, while others arrived in 1873 after being sent from Utah to colonize the area.

azcentral.com
Originally published September 21, 2004

__________________________________________________ ____________________________




Federal Funds Boost Prospects for Phoenix Light Rail System

Buoyed by the Federal Transit Administration's pledge of $587 million for the $1.3 billion, 20-mile light-rail system under initial construction between Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa, and by congressional approval of a $75 million down payment for its final design and engineering, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon says this ''now guarantees'' that light rail will be built, but observers call for stronger support among Arizona congressional delegates and state lawmakers.

Noting that Oklahoma Republican Representative Ernest Istook and Alabama Republican Senator Richard Shelby, who chair their respective congressional subcommittees on transportation, visited the Valley and gave its light-rail project ''a thumbs up,'' The Arizona Republic names only two dedicated light-rail advocates among Arizona's own eight U.S. Representatives, Democrat Ed Pastor and Republican J. D. Hayworth.

At the same time, Business Journal of Phoenix writer Mike Sunnucks points out that the Republican majority in the state legislature gave its transportation committees to ''anti-rail conservatives,'' state Representative Andy Biggs and state Senator Thayer Verschoor. They both wanted to invest more in roads and criticized the $18.8 billion regional transportation plan, crafted by the Maricopa Association of Governments and passed by voters last month, which includes $2.3 billion for future light-rail expansion.

But stressing that ''(r)etail, housing and other development will be spurred near the light-rail stations,'' The Arizona Republic opines, ''Light rail has proved its worth in other major metropolitan areas -- and it will do the same here.'' -- The Arizona Republic, Business Journal of Phoenix 12/6/2004

This is bordering on:

http://noticethings.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/spam.jpg

ERNEST J. ISTOOK - THE REST OF THE STORY
Is there anybody Ernest "wouldn't throw over?"


Part 2 (http://www.mormonalliance.org/casereports/volume1/part2/v1p2.htm)

As far as I'm concerned, Tom has now earned his way on to a list that includes Steve Hunt and David Glover.

Attention whore wth an agenda.

These three need to learn that their place is to shut up and obey dear leader.

I would rather have a meaningful discussion than continous posting of silly articles and not responding to those who disagree with them.

Elmore posts are the definition of spam.

world.nycsubway.org/United States/Seattle, Washington/Sounder Commuter Rail (http://world.nycsubway.org/us/seattle/sounder.html)

Amtrak Cascades (http://www.amtrakcascades.com/)

Seattle multimodal

^ Like that ^

Ex veritate vita

As far as I'm concerned, Tom has now earned his way on to a list that includes Steve Hunt and David Glover.

Attention whore wth an agenda.
WHEW!!!
thank God i don't have an agenda... or i'd be up on that motherscratchin' list with them!

You know, it's mighty funny: On one hand, these fellers get tired of hearing "all of Elmore's blather." They want some testimony from "sources they can all agree are reliable and objective." .....so, I give 'em links to people and places who have "already done it" -- and they accuse that of being "spam."

Heck, they didn't really want "reliable and objective" at all. Somewhere along in there, they got "lonesome" and decided they'd rather "have a discussion."

Uh huh.

Yep.

TOM ELMORE
NATI - Solutions to the Nation's Transportation Problems (http://www.advancedtransport.org)

You know, it's mighty funny: On one hand, these fellers get tired of hearing "all of Elmore's blather." They want some testimony from "sources they can all agree are reliable and objective." .....so, I give 'em links to people and places who have "already done it" -- and they accuse that of being "spam."

Heck, they didn't really want "reliable and objective" at all. Somewhere along in there, they got "lonesome" and decided they'd rather "have a discussion."

Uh huh.

Yep.

TOM ELMORE
NATI - Solutions to the Nation's Transportation Problems (http://www.advancedtransport.org)

Tom,

Throughout the entire thread people have been asking you very pointed questions in an effort to engage in meaningful discussions about the issue.

Instead of answering said questions in a direct manner, you post blathering articles that have little or nothing to do with the questions being asked. In case you hadn't noticed, this is a discussion board.

Posting articles is not a meaningful form of discussion or debate. Everyone who has tried that tactic here, those who cannot come up with specific facts in particular, find themselves in the same situation you are now...pretty much being ignored at this point.

If you want to engage people in what you have to say, please give them the respect of answering what they ask of you.

I think the problem is -- you don't like the answers you're getting.

TOM ELMORE

Tom,

Throughout the entire thread people have been asking you very pointed questions in an effort to engage in meaningful discussions about the issue.

Instead of answering said questions in a direct manner, you post blathering articles that have little or nothing to do with the questions being asked. In case you hadn't noticed, this is a discussion board.

Posting articles is not a meaningful form of discussion or debate. Everyone who has tried that tactic here, those who cannot come up with specific facts in particular, find themselves in the same situation you are now...pretty much being ignored at this point.

If you want to engage people in what you have to say, please give them the respect of answering what they ask of you.

thanx fritts! my thoughts exactly. my brain cell disabled melon that i'm working with couldn't quite articulate it in the manner that you did.

tom, i believe i'm starting to see why no one is willing to debate you. perhaps if you had an editor of sorts or a spokesperson who could speak in short concise answers for you (and not delve into biblical stories and what not)... i think you possibly would be better received.

Tom

I just read a 46 line discourse by you about the Mormon Church which had not a single mention of anything related to transportation. Please understand that I respect the Mormon Church, but this discussion is supposed to be about transport. It is not a matter of not liking your answers; it is that you seldom GIVE any answers. We tire of your formless rants.

okiebadger - the Mormon article was about establishing the conspiracy theory that the Mormon Church is hording all of the nations rail funds to establish a network of rail transit that will lead everyone to Temple Square in Salt Lake City. You see, SLC got the 2002 Olympic Games as a cover to build the initial local rail network. Then they brought in government leaders and hypnotized them to build rail systems in their own cities. Once each city has their own rail network the Mormons will persuade other government leaders to connect the cities with high-speed rail, thus establishing a regional rail network. In short, it is the same thing Tom Elmore wants to do, except without the hypnotism.

Well said, Frittergirl!

As previously noted, for some on this forum, information, even from manifestly objective sources, is "acceptable" only as long as it says whatever it is that these think they want to hear.

As a matter of common logic, it's hard to get to meaningful answers if you don't understand the questions -- or persist in demanding answers to irrelevant questions.

The reality is this: Rail as the central public transit technology in a given metropolitan area has been repeatedly shown to be the answer.

That would be good news for thoughtful Oklahomans -- inasmuch as we have more publicly-owned rail infrastructure than anybody else, radiating from the best, currently unused, potential multimodal center in the West if not in the nation.

In the developing environment, it's reasonable to believe that cities that have had enough actual leadership over the last 30 years to have some effective transit in operation will be those that receive any near-term boosts in federal transit funding.

"Them that's got shall get -- them that's not shall lose," and all that.

Oklahoma City is distinguished from the long line of completely, crashingly, hard-headedly unprepared US cities only by the presence of Union Station and its existing rail connections.

Throw that away -- because "you've just got to tear something up" -- and this town goes to the back of the line of the completely unprepared -- with nothing to show but "an empty cup."

These things are not, at all, hard to understand -- unless you're just so determined to follow in the footsteps of the civic vandals who destroyed downtown in the 1970s that you refuse to listen.

Fortunately, the fight has been waged, and quite possible won -- without you.

Ya'll have a nice time.

TOM ELMORE
NATI - Solutions to the Nation's Transportation Problems (http://www.advancedtransport.org)

The Edmond Sun, Edmond, OK - I-40 plan may derail (http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_165210442.html?keyword=secondarystory)

Published: June 13, 2008 09:04 pm

I-40 plan may derail

Walter Jenny Jr.
The Edmond Sun

EDMOND — In a remarkable turnabout, a federal agency has thrown a kink in the reconstruction of the I-40 Crosstown Expressway. The decision brings new hope for passenger rail service in Oklahoma, and headaches for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation in the face of soaring costs and dwindling resources.

The federal Surface Transportation Board, which succeeded the Interstate Commerce Commission in its 1995 reorganization, has jurisdiction over the railroad industry in this country, including line abandonments. In January 2007 the board was persuaded that the rail lines in downtown Oklahoma City had been abandoned for more than two years, triggering a federal regulation that allowed the lines to be expeditiously removed and clearing the way for the I-40 rerouting project.

As it turns out, the rail lines had not been abandoned. While construction began on the highway project, Ed Kessler of Norman filed a petition to reopen the abandonment decision. He presented evidence, including photographs, indicating BNSF and Stillwater Central Railroad trains still were using the line to serve businesses in the area.

The federal regulation is pretty cut and dried. If a rail line has been out of service for at least two years, the carrier easily can abandon the line through an expedited procedure. But that process depends on the truthfulness of the information submitted. If the application “contains false or misleading information,” federal regulations require the application to be rejected.

So, based on Kessler’s evidence and some of BNSF’s own admissions, on June 5 the board reopened its January 2007 decision and declared the application void. BNSF can file a new application to abandon the line, but that process will not be an expedited one.

Our national rail policy is “to ensure the development and continuation of a sound rail transportation system,” “to foster sound economic conditions in transportation and to ensure effective competition and coordination between rail carriers and other modes” of transportation, as well as to encourage and promote energy conservation and other goals.

In an application to abandon the Union Station tracks, it seems BNSF would have to convince the board that the integrity of Oklahoma’s statewide rail system “is not necessary” to carry out that transportation policy. It becomes more than a simple question of whether a short rail line actually has been abandoned for a couple of years. That option is no longer on the table.

Oklahomans also should thank Ed Kessler for his persistence. He and a small band of other concerned residents have proven that the system can work, and that powerful interests cannot use “false or misleading information” to frustrate public policy. It’s been a long time since we’ve seen David take on Goliath, but in this case right won over might.

The decision raises new concerns about the massive highway project and the castration of rail service possibilities in Oklahoma. A lot has changed since ODOT decided a 10-lane, 70 mile per hour serpentine raceway was needed through downtown Oklahoma City. Gas prices have soared. The economy has soured. The housing bubble has burst, and the commute from suburbia is no longer as attractive. The nation’s largest independent oil and gas producer wants to build the city’s tallest skyscraper in the heart of downtown, with no means to move 2,000 employees in and out of the urban core.

The public has indicated light rail transit is its No. 1 priority for MAPS III. Oklahoma needs to follow through on its commitment to develop rail transportation before too much time and money are wasted. The Union Station link is the keystone to that system; remove it, and the entire structure collapses.

Union Station was acquired in 1989 with mostly federal funds, expressly to be returned to use as a multimodal transportation center. That promise has not been fulfilled. The state already owns 866 miles of rail from border to border that connect through Union Station. For the most part, it sits idle today. That remarkable system could be the foundation of a model intrastate transportation system that would be the envy of other states and a boon to economic growth throughout Oklahoma for years to come.

Old Will Rogers would have had a field day with the Crosstown Expressway. He once said if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. That’s the dilemma we’re in. The Department of Transportation needs to curb this monstrosity before it gets out of hand, and revise it to spare the Union Station rail yard for Oklahoma’s future growth and prosperity.



WALTER JENNY JR. is an Edmond resident and serves as secretary of the Oklahoma Democratic Party.

::

The The nation’s largest independent oil and gas producer wants to build the city’s tallest skyscraper in the heart of downtown, with no means to move 2,000 employees in and out of the urban core.


aren't all of it's employees already downtown?

I don't know if all of them are downtown, but Devon does have office space spread across a number of downtown buildings.

I wonder what kind of impact a collapsing crosstown would have on a "sound transit infrastructure"? I'll tell you where ODOT messed up, they should torn out the rail yard first.

Where ODOT messed up was when it put BNSF in a position where it had no choice but to lie to the STB.

Are lies preferrable to the truth?

If citizens don't demand the truth, how can they expect good government?

TOM ELMORE

MR. ELMORE, do you REALLY think we do not need a new crosstown????

You and your friends are blocking progress on a road than needs to be built NOW before we have another Minneapolis on our hands.

You. are. ridiculous.

A question for Mr. Elmore: Is Union Station conveniently connected with the BNSF north south rails on which Amtrak resides?

I ask this because I seriously doubt if any passenger service will be moved off the current tracks. This is because of the inertia of the Federal Government and the Amtral subsidy. The Santa Fe depot is adequate, but Union Station is better, and its owned by OKC, not Mr. Brewer. But I give it a snowballs chance at snagging Amtrak.

Union Station is an engineering marvel, without at grade crossings and unblocked freight docks as Tom pointed out. But I don't want all of those 18 wheelers loading and unloading in Downtown OKC. Put the intermodal hub in the burbs.

Union Station would be a great light rail/urban transit stop.

Mr. Elmore, you have done your home work, your enthusiasm is unmatched, but the conditions that created Union Station no longer exist. The cost of oil will undoubtedly create mass transit in OKC. It just won't elevate Union Station to the pinnacle Mr. Elmore longs for. You could do so much more for your city if you would put your energy into light rail/mass transit that included Union Station as an adjunct, not the end-all inter-modal hub for the ages.

The state of the existing Crosstown is ODOT's problem. They have cultivated and nurtured that problem now for many, many years, with the inexplicable support and protection of officials at several levels of government.

I'd suggest they fix the current structure, ASAP, and move on to some of the rest of the disastrous mess they've made of the state road system over the last 30 years. They might want to "put some bumpers on the piers of bridges over navigable rivers" and a few seemingly-common-sense things like that -- along with meeting some of the more obvious road-system needs.

Those of us who've urged a more rational course in the matter of the downtown I-40 segment over the last fifteen years have the same message for ODOT and its co-dependent facilitators today as always: As far as we're concerned, OKC Union Station's rail yard is not negotiable.

Intelligent, conservative reuse and careful maintenance of existing assets is plainly a large part of the answer to the trouble we now face. Of course, that would mean a complete "culture change" at the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.

Why would responsible citizens accept any less?

TOM ELMORE
NATI - Solutions to the Nation's Transportation Problems (http://www.advancedtransport.org)

This citizen wants I-40 moved, not repaired. I personally am more interested in the revitalization of downtown than preservation of a railroad line in an imperfect location that is not even wanted by it's current owner OR the city. I consider myself a responsible citizen who is interested in Oklahoma City moving beyond what it has been in the past, who is interested in our city becoming a beautiful place where people not only want to live, but where people not living here would like to relocate to. The Crosstown is too small, dangerous and an eyesore. It needs to go.

Well said Betts.

Mr. Elmore's time would be better spent pushing for light rail and commuter rail, something actually attainable.

Right on, Betts.

Tom is fighting for the wrong cause and all he's doing is causing further delays and driving up the price on the new crosstown.

Good job on avoiding PJ's question, Mr. Elmore.

No surprise there.

http://www.bgamers.com/images/8ball.jpg

There's only a couple possible answers...

Both the north-south BNSF Red Rock Subdivision line and the east-west lines are important to strategic intrastate and interstate connections. All will be needed.

OKC now has a choice -- which probably won't be on the table long -- to be a mere "stop" along regional lines centered elsewhere -- or to be the regional hub, itself. For that purpose, Union Station is the ideal -- and critical -- starting point.

Ready interchange was always possible between the north-south Santa Fe line and the east-west lines during the days of commercial passenger services. The paths of most of these interchanges still exist.

However, fast, through-access to Union Station yard for north-south trains is now more in reach than before, and would be absolutely required for passenger trains originating in Chicago or Houston but turning toward Tulsa / St. Louis or Lawton/Texas at Oklahoma City.

The opportunity to establish ourselves as the regional center for urgently needed rail development, and in the doing, establishing Oklahoma as the technological center for "advanced surface transport" is here, today.

Are any of our leaders willing to see it?

TOM ELMORE

Tom: I always thought you were advocating light rail.

Long distance rail?

So, we're discussing national passenger traffic? I don't really care if we're the regional center for "urgently needed rail development". I thought we were discussing local needs for light rail and mass transportation? And why wouldn't the Amtrack station be a better option? It could be extended north and south, could go up more floors, it's still more centrally located, and it's already on a used passenger line.

Isn't part of the disagreement here tied into whether folks are talking about Union Station's fit as an inner city transport hub, or talking instead of Union Station's fit as a regional hub for commerce and also hanfdling local peep movement?

Sorry to be dense, but I've spent way, way more time the last few weeks with grandbaby play than transport matters, so I profess to being somewhat confused. However, I readily also concede being confused due to deliberate inattention has been absolutely fantastic.

Union station lines are DEAD .. this will only delay the new cross town and cost of city a few mil extra dollars ..

the I 40 cross town is not "Odots problem" .. it is our entire states problem ..

and union station as a regional transport hud .. you are the one not liking what you are hearing ..

What "multimodal hub" means is -- an urban interface point for intercity passenger trains, regional commuter trains, urban/suburban light rail and local trolley services and corresponding, coordinated bus services.

Such a hub would immediately require, (1) 2 dedicated intercity passenger train platform tracks, (2) 2 dedicated mail and express sidings, (3) 2 dedicated light rail platform tracks with overhead electric catenary power, (4) 2 dedicated regional commuter train platform tracks, (5) 2 yard bypass tracks for through freight trains.

Urban center trolleys could be handled on SW 7th Street, linking to the rail yard through the terminal building. Plenty of room surrounds the Union Station terminal building for bus platforms and parking.

This kind of room and free-flowing, surrounding steets is simply not available at the downtown, former Santa Fe depot -- nor would increasing congestion with the activities required of a multimodal center be desirable this near the center of the CBD.

Union Station is in precisely the right place for a multimodal hub: Close enough to the center of downtown to offer ready access -- but far enough away not to create new congestion problems.

The obvious value of OKC Union Station is increased by an existing ready rail link to Will Rogers Airport and other strategic transportation assets across the state.

Oklahoma City and Tulsa lie along a designated federal High Speed Rail development corridor. Only Union Station has the train-handling capacity to serve as a hub and marshaling point for advanced rail development as well as the mail and express handling facility to support all intercity rail services.

TOM ELMORE

It would be ugly. There's nothing beautiful about bypass tracks for freight trains, regional commuter train platform tracks, overhead catenary power lines. Has anyone been in one of these stations in other cities? It would completely ruin Core to Shore. You talk about wanting to preserve Union Station, but all I see it being preserved for is a building that people walk through to go someplace else. Move the station east, where at least it would replace existing ugliness. And, who needs freight lines north of the river? Aren't there several active freight lines south of the river? Couldn't those be used for commercial passenger traffic if we're already talking about using lines that aren't currently being used for passenger travel anyway? Again, there is a lot of land that could be used for a multi-modal station either east of Broadway or south of the river. If we're piling people on a bus anyway, a few more blocks won't matter.

Tom, have you zero interest in beautifying our city, making an iconic park we can all be proud of? Or is everything to be sacrificed (since religion has already been thrown in) to the god of transport?

Oklahoma City has a lot of ugly land, so I don't see why we have to put something like that where we've got something beautiful planned. I've continued to ask if replacing or adding to those lines elsewhere would really be any more expensive than obtaining right of way for the Crosstown somewhere else and haven't gotten an answer.

Such a hub would immediately require, (1) 2 dedicated intercity passenger train platform tracks, (2) 2 dedicated mail and express sidings, (3) 2 dedicated light rail platform tracks with overhead electric catenary power, (4) 2 dedicated regional commuter train platform tracks, (5) 2 yard bypass tracks for through freight trains.

You are delusional if you think all of that already exists at Union Station. It does not. There's maybe three platforms.

jbrown, I realize you are on opposite ends of El,more on US, but he doesn't say these things are already there, but that they would be needed immediately for such a hub.

I don't know how it shakes out, but those strongly in favor of US certainly seem to have more time to make a case for their position than seemed available even 7 weeks ago.

jbrown, I realize you are on opposite ends of El,more on US, but he doesn't say these things are already there, but that they would be needed immediately for such a hub.

I don't know how it shakes out, but those strongly in favor of US certainly seem to have more time to make a case for their position than seemed available even 7 weeks ago.

I'm very confused about the "immediate" part of this. There is no immediate need for the lines for cross-country passenger travel because it doesn't exist. There is obviously no immediate need for those lines for freight, because the current owner doesn't even want to use them. We have no immediate plan to use them for light rail, because it's not light rail track, we don't have light rail trains, and we don't even know if an east-west route is going to get that much use.

jbrown, I realize you are on opposite ends of El,more on US, but he doesn't say these things are already there, but that they would be needed immediately for such a hub.

Elmore's whole stance is based around some fictitious notion Union Station already has all these lines that would be a disastrous loss and could never be rebuilt anywhere else. That's just not the case. There's 2, maybe 3 lines in existence there. So if we need to BUILD all that that he describes, why does it have to be Union Station?

the union station to me is like the gold dome debate from a few years ago.

anyway, every been to union station in D.C.? it would be a shame if it were not there today.

oh and seattle is building rail from their downtown business district to the airport that will be finished and operating next year.

blangtang, this is NOTHING like the Gold Dome debate.

Union Station will not be torn down. That is not in question. It never was. The debate is over a few sets of tracks behind the building.

Interurban blues
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
By Keith Gaddie

Comment at: Interurban blues | OKG News.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12806/a/2225/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIAOAAwADYA)

Old-line Oklahoma residents didn’t enjoy the first two rounds of oil shocks that hit the U.S. in the Seventies and Eighties. The most recent round visited Oklahoma, and the reality of automotive and oil dependency is being driven home.

The time is now to revisit mass transit.

Oklahoma once upon a time had clean mass transit. It was called the interurban line, with tracks running all over the city. Passenger trains also went back and forth to destinations surrounding Oklahoma City, not so different from the commuter train lines that survive to this day in the northeastern corridor of the U.S. As I talk to old-time Oklahoma City residents about gasoline sticker shock, they speak in wistful terms of both the old trolley line and the trains that they would catch to Norman or Edmond to do a day’s business.

We lost our trains. We can get them back. But we have to understand why we lost them.

The assumption is made that automobiles and highways killed electric mass transit. That is, in a sense, true. In the post-World War II Forties, General Motors Corp. had a lot of production capacity geared up to make heavy transport vehicles, including trucks. The Standard Oil Corp. had been providing fuel to the war machine at peak capacity. The two firms colluded together to create a system that ultimately wrecked electric mass transit in the United States. How?

They created a series of shell corporations and holding companies to purchase private electric trolley and electric bus lines. They then pulled up the trolley car tracks, crushed the electric buses, and either replaced them with diesel-burning buses or just let the local transit system languish. What was left? Cars, driven by individuals, on highways built with public money. GM and Standard got nailed on antitrust violations, but the damage was done, and clean mass transit disappeared from most of the United States.

What would such a system look like here? The east-west leg would run from Will Rogers World Airport to downtown and then east out to Tinker Air Force Base. The north-south line would run from Norman, parallel to Interstate 35/235. The line would then split, going out Northwest Expressway or up to Edmond and Guthrie in the other direction. Localized lines could also be developed at relatively “low” cost.

The egregious failure of Ernest Istook to help fund an Oklahoma City rail system while he was transportation appropriations chair in Congress leaves Oklahoma in a must-need situation. Under these conditions, startup and construction costs will increase while the time delay of getting meaningful rail online in the metro is extended.

The approximate cost of constructing a light-rail system to effectively serve the Oklahoma City metropolitan area is $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion. This price tag seems daunting until you consider that a conservative estimate of fuel costs of commuting metro residents is more than $2 billion a year.

Build the trains! We’ll use them to get around. But there is, in my opinion, one catch. These should be public transportation systems, but not publicly owned and operated. The vehicle should be a private-public venture, run by a private franchise accountable to a public audit. Build trains, and watch development follow the tracks.

Gaddie is professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma and president of the Southwestern Political Science Association.

No one is disagreeing with Gaddie. We're just disagreeing with the location of the station. If you run the north-south line parallell to I-35, then the logical location for the hub is the site where the north-south and east-west lines intersect. And, if we're talking about light rail, since there are no lines, the east-west lines can go anywhere, including down our new boulevard that will replace the existing crosstown.

Multi-modal doesn't mean what T.E. says it means. It just means that multiple modes of transportaion exist at a single geographic point. A true multimodal station would have to combine rail, buses, waking/biking, automobile, etc. I did notice that Tom really loves that express mail thing. 2 sidings for it. To bad they are moving the main mail sorting facility out of Core to Shore. It is probably part of ODOT's master plan to ruin Union Station.

BTW - I do have one point of disagreement with the article. It should be free to ride. If the goal is to save the environment or get people off the road or whatever, then just make it free and get ridership to peak capacity. More people equals higher advertising rates to help off set the annual operating cost.

Multi-modal doesn't mean what T.E. says it means. It just means that multiple modes of transportaion exist at a single geographic point. A true multimodal station would have to combine rail, buses, waking/biking, automobile, etc. I did notice that Tom really loves that express mail thing. 2 sidings for it. To bad they are moving the main mail sorting facility out of Core to Shore. It is probably part of ODOT's master plan to ruin Union Station.

BTW - I do have one point of disagreement with the article. It should be free to ride. If the goal is to save the environment or get people off the road or whatever, then just make it free and get ridership to peak capacity. More people equals higher advertising rates to help off set the annual operating cost.

It costs a $1.10 to ride Trinity Rail Express from a radius of 10 miles out from downtown Dallas. That's the same cost as buying a bottle of Evian water with tax, or in most places outside of Oklahoma, a fourth the cost of a gallon of gas! Either way, that's nearly free.

The one time I road DART I got 3 tickets from a machine but did not find a turnstile to put the tickets into before I got on the train. Thought that was strange since I have ridden the subways in NYC, Washington, Chicago, London, Paris and Barcelona and they all have turnstiles of some sort. So I thought they must take your ticket on the train. Nobody ever took my ticket. I asked my brother in law who lives there about it later and he tells me that DART works on the honor system. So it seems to me that a lot of people don't even pay the 1.10 to ride. This has been a few years but I don't think the pay system has changed.

there are dart police that check every so often on the trains.

For $1.10 why even go through the hasel of dealing with cash at all. All of the work that has to go into collecting $1.00 just isn't worth it. Make the suburban station large enough to house about 10 business and collect rent plus a portion of sales. They could have Starbucks (or local coffe shop chain), Hallmark Store, Sundry Shop, McDonalds, flower shop, newsstand, a small bank, and similar type stores.

Modern Patriot Chronicles

An Eleventh Commandment Free Zone

Vol. 7, Issue 11

July 6, 2008

By Craig Dawkins

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

See Candidate Websites!!!

BRENTRINEHART.NET (http://www.brentrinehart.net/)

Jim Inhofe United States Senate (http://www.jiminhofe.com/Splash/Default.aspx)

Welcome | Bob Barr for President of the United States (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/splash/video/?s0618)

Welcome to the Stan Inman for County Clerk Homepage! (http://www.staninman.com/)

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

TOM ELMORE WAS RIGHT

Imagine the year 2010. Oil per barrel hovers at around $200 and unleaded gas is $7 per gallon. That’s the projection of a recent study. How will your transportation habits change at $7 per gallon? Or do you completely deny the possibility of this scenario?

For many years, Tom Elmore has been pounding the table for the need of a passenger rail system. But when gas was under $2 per gallon, NO ONE wanted to listen. NO ONE believed there was a need for rail. NO ONE was concerned about mass transit because we had cars and cheap gas. I too ignored Elmore’s plea to pay attention to the option of passenger rail service. That is history people. Welcome to the new world. Tom Elmore was right.

At $7 dollars per gallon, the study predicts that over 12 million vehicles will be scrapped due to low fuel efficiency. New car sales will dramatically fall to new lows and will be dominated by small fuel efficient vehicles. We will start driving vehicles that look more European than American. Smaller cars are a reality. Americans will increasingly view mass transit as a viable transportation option more than ever.

And I predict it is not only large fuel hogging cars that will be in less demand, but also large 3000+ square foot homes that will suffer demand in the future as well. Big homes in the suburbs will be harder to sell. Homes closer to the large cities will increase in price. Cities that are isolated had better develop a survival plan now. Perhaps rural cities should foster destination based mass transit options to the major employers in Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

Shouldn’t we already be looking to construct high speed rail between Tulsa and Oklahoma City? I can already hear people shouting back rebuttal arguments. But shouldn’t we look to help promote a mass transit system that affords people the opportunity to travel in an economic environment of $7-8 per gallon fuel costs? Or should we just wait and hope for a magic solution?

Change is staring at us. Its nose is bumping against our faces. Ignoring reality is not an option. We must come to terms with the idea that we will be relying more on some form of mass transportation in the future. Not exclusively mass transit, but a significant amount of our transportation needs will be met with mass transit. How soon?

I get the sense that people are holding out for an alternative fuel believing that they will be able to maintain traditional American transportation habits. I hope they are correct. But alternatives are only alternatives because the current price of fuel is at a high level. I doubt the costs of a future fuel will fall to pre-Katrina levels in real or nominal terms.

So embrace change. Start planning now for much higher fuel prices. If I were an elected official today, I would look to fund the construction of high speed rail between Tulsa and Oklahoma City as a first step. The cost of building it will be high. The cost of delaying action on will be much higher.

There's no question we need better mass transit in this city and a link to Tulsa would be nice. Unfortunately our city leaders are not visionary enough to see this. I've heard Mayor Cornett personally on more than one occassion talk about gas would have to reach $20 a gallon before mass transit will be effective in this city. I think he's completely wrong saying that and he probably has realized that number is MUCH lower, but I have heard him say that on record more than once and he was serious about it.

The one time I road DART I got 3 tickets from a machine but did not find a turnstile to put the tickets into before I got on the train. Thought that was strange since I have ridden the subways in NYC, Washington, Chicago, London, Paris and Barcelona and they all have turnstiles of some sort. So I thought they must take your ticket on the train. Nobody ever took my ticket. I asked my brother in law who lives there about it later and he tells me that DART works on the honor system. So it seems to me that a lot of people don't even pay the 1.10 to ride. This has been a few years but I don't think the pay system has changed.

A lot of newer transit system operate on the honor system, allowing cities to not have to build expensive entrance and exit type stations with turnstiles or access control gates. From classes I've taken, I've seen stats that suggest about 85% of patrons still pay the fare. The 15% loss in revenue does not warrant the construction of turnstile or ACG admission.


For $1.10 why even go through the hasel of dealing with cash at all. All of the work that has to go into collecting $1.00 just isn't worth it. Make the suburban station large enough to house about 10 business and collect rent plus a portion of sales. They could have Starbucks (or local coffe shop chain), Hallmark Store, Sundry Shop, McDonalds, flower shop, newsstand, a small bank, and similar type stores.

I don't see how a small automated vending machine is a hassle for collecting fares. Most stations have 3 to 6 of these machines that require little human interaction or maintenance. Also, many chronic riders just use a farecard that can be recharged or billed direct.

Most importantly, collecting a fare is more than just a means of recouping costs - studies (don't have a link yet) suggest that collecting some kind of fare, whether it's $0.25 or $1.10 reduces the amount of "free loaders" (homeless and kids) who sometimes joyride trains and buses for fun or to stay cool in the summer and warm in the winter. Additionally, there is a negative perception, (much like the train is sexy, but buses are gross mentality) that "free" transit is somehow inept or unequipped to transport patrons efficiently and quickly.

Most "free zones" that seem to work, such as the downtown Portland circulatory or the downtown Denver mall shuttle benefit from small geographic areas, high volumes, limited immediate coverage, and physically smaller/shorter trains (easier for the driver or operator to monitor).

It seems to me that one problem with the present Core to Shore proposal is that it needs a real southern anchor, something that would bring lots of people. And nothing would do that like revitalizing Union Station exactly as Tom Elmore envisions it -- the hub of a multi-modal regional transportation system. Everywhere transit goes, development follows.

Four years ago I spent ten days in Rome. I stayed at a hotel close to the Termini Station. I was able to go anywhere I wanted thanks to the dense nexus of transportation options that centered on that station. No taxi or rental car was needed.

Regular shuttle buses or light rail lines could connect Union Station with Bricktown and other parts of downtown and the core to shore development.

I-40 Crosstown? Well, the original idea to put it in a ditch has fallen victim to the lack of proper engineering studies in advance. So why not elevate part of it so it runs over the existing rail network the present plan proposes to destroy? That way we can have our cake and eat it too -- a new freeway, which will be finished about the time gasoline makes it to $10/gallon, and a multi-modal transit center based on the intelligent and cost-effect adaptive reuse of heritage assets.

That way the construction could go forward. The way things stand now, there is no way that ODOT and BNSF can avoid a lengthy and drawn out abandonment proceeding, and the construction can't destroy the rail line until that proceeding has been finished and the STB has made its ruling. If I understand correctly, if a railroad wants to abandon a line, other railroad companies can apply to take it over. So once the hearing process gets started, there might be one or more railroad companies intrigued by the possibilities of serving the existing customers there and perhaps adding something radical like a place to load trucks onto trains. UPS isn't so very far away from this area, after all, and with the price diesel, they might be very interested in that service.