Tell it to the 70+ Oklahomans who make their living at BOARDMAN, Inc.

Explain to them that, while Chinese industrial fabricators are reportedly able to ship to the US West Coast cheaper than many US companies, "certain folks" here in Oklahoma City are much more interested in "four miles of redundant urban expressway" and whatever they imagine they, themselves, might get out of it.

Ask the downtown "party boys" who's gonna support their "party" when Oklahoma workers' "disposable income" disappears.

Blind self interest is not just ugly. It's inevitably also counterproductive.

TOM ELMORE

get a clue ... the crosstown is not close to "redundant" ... and the blight the C2C area currently sits in going away is well worth any minor costs

Tom - youre all alone here dude. No one supports you. We're tired of wasting time dealing with this crap. We want our road, we want it now, and we're done listening to the same tired arguement you always give. Give it a rest already!!! It's time to move on, let the road be built.

Tom - youre all alone here dude. No one supports you. We're tired of wasting time dealing with this crap. We want our road, we want it now, and we're done listening to the same tired arguement you always give. Give it a rest already!!! It's time to move on, let the road be built.

I have never seen such the whiniest post.

If you think you're so 'right', go fight it at the STB and prove to us why we need this stupid realignment. Nobody cares about your whining for a new road. All we care about is the truth and the needs of Oklahoma City. The Gazette just posted a story where even the Boardman company is getting screwed just so some brainless crybaby can get their 'precious' road.

Why is Oklahoma so bent on being backwards? All the other states are saving their Union Stations. They see the writing on the wall. Driving is down for 8 consecutive months.

Tom sure is taking a lot of heat trying to keep us competitive with the rest of the nation.

Tom I asked you this once before and you didn't answer but I will make another attempt.

Do you see no value in the Core to Shore project?

Tom I asked you this once before and you didn't answer but I will make another attempt.

Do you see no value in the Core to Shore project?

I've asked him at least three times and never gotten an answer. I think this is a "rails at any price" attitude. I don't see any evidence that he has any vision for Oklahoma City, or interest in Oklahoma City moving forward. I'd like to hear from people who can explain how we can do both, if they are so determined to save this set of rails. Union Station should be a non-issue, because we are going to preserve it regardless. I'm interested in hearing how many people like living near multi-modal train stations and parking garages, and if keeping it a station renders the area unfit for residential living, just what we can do with that land that will help Oklahoma City turn into a place more people want to live in and visit. Are these people fine with giving up our iconic Central Park, or, if not, where would they put it? How would they connect the CBD and the river with trains running between them?

Where else would they put I-40? We cannot pretend I-40 doesn't need to be redone. It's a major east-west interstate. But, leaving it elevated like it is will do absolutely nothing to erase the blight under and around it. Obviously that's fine with the redeck I-40 people, but not fine for most of us who want to see that land turned into something special. What would it cost to move I-40 somewhere else than where it's currently planned? Would moving it cost more than building a multi-modal station someplace other than Union Station? How much would we need to spend on Union Station to turn it into a multi-modal station? We'd have to build parking lots and/or garages anyway, which would be an expense that would be standard regardless of where the station was bult.

Before I could be in favor of keeping those rail lines and rerouting I-40, I'd certainly like the above questions answered.

Again, saving Union Station and turning it into a multimodal transit hub, would not give up our Central Park, we would still have a central park, obviously a part of it would be cut out where the station sits. We would still have a world class park, and a transit center right there to bring people to it.

Examples of immensely successful "transit-oriented development" or "TOD" as planners have come to call it, abound in the nation's "new transit cities." In each of these, the most valuable property is any property adjacent to the rail transit lines, and of this, the "plum" property surrounds the central terminals and stops.

In the expansion of the nation, government generally limited its role to providing, or partnering in providing access -- a point from which individuals and businesses did the "developing." The impressive success of the nation's new rail transit systems in driving development and redevelopment would seem to plainly indicate that the formula still works.

The atmosphere at the "Core to Shore meetings" I attended was inescapably similar to that of ODOT's "Crosstown meetings." The citizenry wasn't being "made a partner." Citizens, instead, were being notified of what had already been decided from "on-high." A neutral observer might have concluded it had all the marks of a "big land grab" -- but, then "government says it's OK, so it must be OK...." -- after all, it just happens "they're putting this big highway in down there," you know.

Arbitrarily wiping away a long standing, minority area such as Riverside is plainly considered problematic enough by the Feds, from not only moral and legal, but also practical standpoints, that it is pointedly forbidden by federal highway standards applicable at the time of the planning of the "New Crosstown."

I once asked Pat Fennell if she didn't figure there'd likely be "just about as many brown people left in Riverside as there are black people left in the new Deep Deuce" once the "reinventors" were through.

I don't recall her answer.

I do know this: The Almighty promises us that people who misuse the poor will deal with Him. What weight do you figure He normally assigns to the standard "urban blight" argument?

That might be something for the "planners" to consider...

TOM ELMORE

Again, saving Union Station and turning it into a multimodal transit hub, would not give up our Central Park, we would still have a central park, obviously a part of it would be cut out where the station sits. We would still have a world class park, and a transit center right there to bring people to it.

You would have a block or two north of Union Station for a park, but land would have to be used for parking, for bus lanes, etc, which would occupy at least one block north of Union Station, by my estimation. Then, you would have no way to get to the park south of Union Station that would be pedestrian friendly. Also, all the train lines etc south of Union Station would be an eyesore, having seen many of the multimodal stations that exist. Wouldn't I-40 then take up much of the space between it and the river? You'd end up with two pocket parks with an interstate and a train station between them, and no gracious central park that people would want to spend any time in. And, as I've said, can you get people in Oklahoma to move downtown if they were living immediately adjacent to a noisy train station, with bus and trolley traffic, and an interstate highway as well? What other kind of development would we get in the place of residential housing? And, how would that promote downtown density?

I'm going to add this as well. I've visited and admired a lot of cities, and lived in a few. What makes a city a great place to live? People like to live in an aesthetically pleasing place, where there are things to do. That's why people put up with the traffic in places like Seattle....it's beautiful there, and they've got an ocean. Lots of other cities have oceans near them. Denver has the mountains.

Oklahoma City is sitting on the great plains. We don't have a lot of trees. We don't have any natural features nearby like huge lakes, the ocean or mountains. Making Oklahoma City an aesthetically pleasing place is really important, if we want this city to grow and become more city-like. The reason I am so behind Core to Shore is because it is a vision that is designed to make Oklahoma City a more interesting and aesthetically pleasing place in which to live and spend time. It's a grand vision that has a chance of succeeding.

I think it's short sighted to drop those plans to preserve a rail line that is probably not even the most needed line for this city. People will not move here because they can take the train from El Reno to Tinker or downtown. People will not move downtown because we've turned Union Station back into a station, and they can now take the train to the Outlet Mall in El Reno or Tinker. But, if we have a mile long park downtown, something akin to the iconic Boston Public Garden, a mini Central Park, a park that links the CBD and the river, people will be fighting to live next to it. It's a way to help turn us into a city people admire, and in which they want to live. I can't seem to get off this soapbox, but it's because I think this is a really important issue. Rail transportation is not what is going to make this into a tier two city. Being a place people want to live and visit might.

There's a reason for the power and longevity of the old saying, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." It's an expression of the wisdom of the ages.

The OKC proponents of "Urban Renewal" apparently didn't consider that before embarking on their own disaster.

"Happiness is not getting what you want -- but wanting what you have," goes another saying. Then there's the one about "the grass always being greener on the other side of the fence."

Uh huh.

Wise people assess and appreciate what they have. Wise people do not precipitously destroy the gifts of their forbears.

Consider the long string of disasters brought by such thoughtless destruction.

Consider, too, what Documentary Historian Robert Jackson, a man well acquainted with the "highway culture," told OKLAHOMAN columnist Ann DeFrange about the "New Crosstown plan." --- "Highway builders don't care what they destroy," he said -- as reported by Ann in the column. This hit ODOT so hard that they reportedly threatened Jackson's pay until he "reinterviewed" with DeFrange and changed his statement.

You see -- "a little light nearly got under the door," and ODOT just couldn't have that.

What we "have" in Oklahoma City -- is the stated envy of of transit developers all over the nation (or we could trade that for "four more miles of unaffordable, generic expressway"). If we are wise, we'll carefully consider that -- in the context of what has all-too-often been the unfortunate outcome of "the Oklahoma way..."

We can do better, folks -- and if we do better, the entire state will benefit.

TOM ELMORE

Does Dallas have a "Central Park"?

Would you want to live in Dallas? I don't. Cities like Chicago, New York and Boston are known for their parks. Atlanta has a great park, and while Denver doesn't have a true Central Park, there are multiple great parks there. I think it is an important element for a city like OKC, which has a dearth of parks. Will Rogers could be a really nice park, but its' location causes problems. The park around Lake Hefner is OK, but it's not great.

The same old argument comes up that the location must be the location for an as yet, non-existent rail system. However, it's NOT in the location anyone would want it in.

Let it now be mistaken though, I don't think anyone would want the building demolished, we can save the station without question, but we're talking rail LINES. Lines, we're really wasting all this time/effort/money on a bunch of crap rail lines that don't get used, that we won't BE using. I for one see the yard as a hinderence to future growth in every possible way. It would serve as a barrier as the old I-40 did. Instead of helping to spur development, it's going to stop it and we'll see a "other side of the tracks".

So seriously, the 100K+ people that drive the road want it done. And Richard, I could care less if you dont' agree. The majority of people want the new I-40 and are tired of this crap about the rails. We drive, we use the road, we want a new one and we're tired of dealing with a small group that has it's own agenda. We've wanted it for 10 years, and now that it's happening, there is no way we're going to sit idly by and let someone screw it up.

"Consider, too, what Documentary Historian Robert Jackson, a man well acquainted with the "highway culture," told OKLAHOMAN columnist Ann DeFrange about the "New Crosstown plan." --- "Highway builders don't care what they destroy," he said -- as reported by Ann in the column. This hit ODOT so hard that they reportedly threatened Jackson's pay until he "reinterviewed" with DeFrange and changed his statement."
TOM ELMORE

Crosstown 2012 is only destroying your railyard space. UNION STATION WILL STILL BE THERE. This rail line is not an important corridor. It doesn't even have anything to do with the one that would go to the airport--as that is the BNSF line! We need this highway even if the general public is still traveling less, businesses will still be transporting goods at a greater rate no matter the price of fuel & they're the ones that are making our deteriorating highways worse.

Also, we're so supportive of keeping Union Station for the sole purpose of light rail service to these suburbs of Oklahoma City. Have these cities themselves expressed the interest of building light rail in to their towns? Being that, just like in the Dallas metroplex, each of those cities would have to put up the money for the plan.

Albeit, I do know that Edmond and Guthrie have expressed interest in extending the Heartland Flyer through Kansas in to Kansas City, but that is a multi-state, nationwide system.

This is our own little Oklahoma City metropolitan project. I haven't heard one story that states cities like Yukon & El Reno fronting 30%-50% of the funds to build the lines and the stations that would need to be present on the line (the only line associated with Union Station) that comes to them.

If you build a much larger and accessible transportation facility, where I've seen it being suggested and I support as a future location, and this line goes in to it, we'll still be alright. Union Station can still be a nice little Central Park stop on the line. We'll still be spending money either way whether they tear (will tear) out the tracks at Union. Face the facts, they're not halting construction on either end of Crosstown 2012! Probably means the guts in the middle will be torn out soon. Thank God!!

NY Times: DOWNTOWNS ACROSS THE US SEE STREETCARS IN THEIR FUTURES

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/us/14streetcar.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Does Dallas have a "Central Park"?

Are you seriously suggesting the because Dallas doesn't have it, we shouldn't build it??

I'm not concerned about the TOD issue. Having a station there would spur development for residential as well as other issues. But it's more important, IMO that the park be large, iconic, and not cut in half by a large multi-modal station.

As far as Boardman goes, I don't see why they can just transport their product half a mile to the closest place to load up a freight car. They seem to be overlooking that simple solution.

SOMETHING ABOUT RUNNING HEAD-ON INTO TODAY'S REALITIES MAKES "CERTAIN COUNCIL MEMBERS'" MEMORY GO "STRANGELY HAZY" ....

Amazing OKC Council conversation about transit with Rick Cain, COTPA director.

New councilors tell it like it is -- while longer serving councilors seem to "forget" aggressive city government complicity with ODOT's plan to destroy OKC Union Station -- and the way they brushed aside citizen insistence that Union Station be preserved and energetically developed as our multimodal transit center.

Plainly -- the citizenry has vision OKC "leadership" does not have. However, in this case, the vision of those citizens was aggressively "hushed up" by former city government officials and some that still remain -- and their many willing accomplices.

City of Oklahoma City | City Council Archive (http://okc.gov/council/council_library/forms/CouncilMeetings.aspx?MeetingID=169)

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

New councilors tell it like it is -- while longer serving councilors seem to "forget" aggressive city government complicity with ODOT's plan to destroy OKC Union Station -- and the way they brushed aside citizen insistence that Union Station be preserved and energetically developed as our multimodal transit center

I detect a wee bit of sensationalism here. I have yet to see anyone talking about destroying Union Station. We all want it preserved, just not necessarily as a station for trains.

This is how the 1999 OKC 20 Year Plan Update Transportation Working Group resolution on Union Station was presented:

RESOLUTION REGARDING OKC UNION STATION: UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY OKC PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP, AUGUST 31, 1999

Preservation of existing rail assets; creating a modern multimodal transportation center at OKC Union Station

OKC Union Station, at 300 SW 7th, stands at the nexus of existing rail lines linking downtown to other important areas and transportation terminals (both urban and suburban). The station and its grade-separated railway yard and corridors are assets of great potential value in developing high-quality, low-cost multimodal transport for Oklahoma City. Union Station is owned by COTPA and several of the rail corridors serving it are now owned either by the city or the state of Oklahoma. In light of mobility and air-quality concerns presently being accelerated by aggressive inner-city development, Oklahoma City should proceed with plans to develop Union Station as a modern, multimodal transportation center for intercity passenger trains and buses as well as regional rail and bus transit. All existing rail access corridors serving Union Station must be preserved, along with the existing yard facilities. Current ODOT plans to build a new I-40 Crosstown on the existing northern rail approaches and through the Union Station yard must be rejected.

___________________________________________


SUCCESS OF HIGH-QUALITY TRANSIT

The successes of Dallas DART Rail as outlined in the Sunday, October 3, 1999 DALLAS MORNING NEWS are impossible to ignore. In spite of the predictable cacophony of naysayers and critics, Dallas leaders seized a fleeting opportunity to build the rail transit system at relatively low cost before existing rail corridors and facilities enabling its low-cost construction were lost forever. (The Metroplex has spent roughly $1.1 billion on the DART Rail System to date. Most of this money was raised from 1 cent sales taxes in Dallas and participating suburbs. ODOT will spend in excess of one-quarter billion dollars rebuilding the 3.96 mile I-40 Crosstown.)

For its vision and persistence, Dallas is experiencing a sea-change in its mobility and quality of life. Today, DART Rail along with the infant Trinity Railway Express system which will soon link Ft. Worth and the mid-cities to DART, is moving 40,000 riders a day. Along DART Rail Corridors, "rampant growth" is taking place. Over $600 million in new development has sprung up around the DART Rail lines since they opened in June, 1996. Ridership of DART buses, which fell in the mid-1990s, has grown 5% since 1998, growth attributed to the fact they now link to the trains.

According to a University of North Texas study, values of property served by DART Rail are now 25% higher than for similar properties not on the rail system. Clearly, high-quality transit, defined by modern rail systems like DART Rail, is a dynamic tool for planned development and redevelopment. DART contends the starter rail system, funded primarily by a one-cent sales tax in Dallas and twelve participating suburbs, was built for roughly one-fifth the cost of producing the same amount of new carrying capacity with the new highways. As a significant ancillary benefit, since much of the system is being developed on existing corridors, the social trauma associated with tearing out old neighborhoods to create new highways has been avoided.

DART and similar new systems in middle America are trashing the transit-negative presuppositions and shibboleths long used by "highways-only" "transportation departments" as justification for their one-dimensional philosophies. Oklahoma -- most especially Oklahoma City -- ignores the phenomenal successes of these new systems at its very great peril. This will not keep Oklahoma's ingrained "highways-only" transportation establishment from trying to ignore it anyway.

PRESERVING IRREPLACEABLE INFRASTRUCTURE BY REUSING IT

Oklahoma City is undeniably at a crossroads. The contest between conservative management and reuse of existing transportation infrastructure versus its destruction to support far less attractive outcomes at far greater expense is arguably nowhere better illustrated than in the "I-40 Crosstown D-Option Plan."

Whatever the other negative byproducts of the "D-Option" plan (and there are MANY), the wanton destruction of the rail facility serving Union Station and its potential for saving us from many transportation-related woes which are only beginning to emerge, could well be among the worst.

If Oklahoma City is ever to have a relatively inexpensive yet highly effective rail transit system like DART Rail, Union Station and the rail facilities serving it must be saved. The chance to save this magnificent infrastructure will never come again -- nor will we be able to replace it with "something just as good." New transportation corridors can NEVER be superimposed on existing neighborhoods as effectively as those neighborhoods grow up around pre-existing corridors.

Union Station and its grade-separated rail facilities were built in 1930 as a planned, integral unit (unlike the I-40 Crosstown, for which there evidently was no rational replacement strategy). Every element of the station and its rail lines were designed for optimum utility -- and continue to function today. Although built to serve intercity trains, Union Station is at the nexus of existing rail lines which also serve the Stockyards area, Will Rogers Airport, Wheatland and Mustang to the southwest, the State Fairgrounds, I-40 / Meridian District, Yukon and El Reno to the west, Bricktown and the Zoo / Omniplex / Remington Park area to the northeast, Midwest City and Tinker AFB to the east, as well as Harrah, Shawnee and Seminole, Luther, Chandler, Stroud and Tulsa. These lines also interchange with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe north-south mainline now served by Amtrak's HEARTLAND FLYER.

The "D-Option" will destroy the critical rail links to Will Rogers Airport and Tulsa. It will destroy the marvelous Robinson and Walker street underpasses, sending current BNSF trains across the same streets further south on at-grade crossings at the foot of Capitol Hill. It will decimate the Union Station rail yard, leaving only the northerly Union Pacific line somewhat intact.

Instead of allowing its Union Station facility to be destroyed, Dallas redeveloped it as a vital multimodal transportation center serving Amtrak passenger trains, DART Rail and Buses, and Trinity Railway Express trains. As good as the Dallas facility is, it simply cannot be compared with the immediate access afforded to critical areas by OKC Union Station's rail lines.

In light of Oklahoma City's growing air-quality and mobility problems, the planned destruction of the usefulness of Oklahoma City Union Station could only be described as "utterly irresponsible." To destroy it for the benefit of "two new lanes of traffic both directions" on I-40 is simply unbelievable.

Oklahoma's transportation establishment has so far produced well over $11 billion in unfunded highway maintenance need -- a number which is growing every day. Whatever their "plan," it has succeeded mainly in putting several future generations of our unborn offspring under a prodigious load of debt. Adding another $250 million (for exactly 3.96 miles of new highway!) to the negative side of the ledger instead of managing the existing structure and developing cheaper alternatives is simply unacceptable. It cannot be justified.

Oklahoma City can and should aggressively develop efficient, environmentally clean transit from Union Station, using DART as a model. To do otherwise is to reject a tested model of success in favor of an undeniable model of abject failure and irredeemable debt.

TOM ELMORE
North American Transportation Institute

Broken record alert - nothing new to see here. Just some 10 year old draft document that was pre-C2C.

I've remained pretty silent here on this topic, but it is one that I've seen from the outside as I mostly work and travel a lot all over the US.

Please don't flame me as I'm only asking harmless "what ifs"

Why couldn't we just re-route commercial traffic through I-44 as "I-40 Business" like other cities do to relieve stress on taxed road systems? I-44 isn't much of a diversion. And it still leaves the current system for lighter traffic. It wouldn't be permanent, just until a solution that serves both interests can be met.

It does seem to me that OKC may be making decisions out of impatience and over-eagerness to have a "pretty city." I'm all for C2S and a great new crosstown, but I also know that in other cities, businesses are looking closer at rail transit.

It also seems fishy that BNSF would be so interested in taking out a rail line, a possible revenue stream for them. Usually they just stay out of these sort of things.

I hope for the best, but I sure do hope we're not screwing ourselves just because we rushed to make a decision.

New councilors tell it like it is -- while longer serving councilors seem to "forget" aggressive city government complicity with ODOT's plan to destroy OKC Union Station -- and the way they brushed aside citizen insistence that Union Station be preserved and energetically developed as our multimodal transit center.


are they brushing aside all the citizenry... or just you?

please realize that there is a large part of the citizenry that want this frikking road built.

Taggart - rerouting truck traffic to I-44 won't solve any problems. Instead it will just start causing wear and tear on a different road. Here is the problem. Construction on the new I-40 has already started, the plans have already been developed, and the right of way has already been purchased. Every hour the project is delayed costs the state more money.

The decision to remove the rail yard at Union Station was made a long time ago and the vast majority of people want the new I-40 built exactly where it is planned to be built. We now have one vocal person at a 1-person self proclaimed transporation advocacy group trying to stop the entire process in an apparent bid to save Oklahoma from it self.

The fact of the matter is that the rail stationed envisionded by Tom Elmore is not even being planned by any federal or state agency. Maybe Tom can share with us the cost and ridership estimates of his idea to recreate the interurban system by providing rail service to places like Altus and Enid. Rail has its place in the transporation network but this is not 1947 and rebuilding a statewide interurban systems isn't going to work.

The main reason I can see for not doing a reroute is you're just trampling one big stretch of elevated roadway to lighten load on another. A smaller, but still not insignificant length, of I-44 is not ground level either.

As for Kerry's dispersions on Elmore, it's hardly fair to treat Elmore an army of one.
And, I suspect, after the latest round of "oh, there's an acid laced sludge pit where new interstate piers go? Odd we missed that, but hey, no worries, folks want this raod built and so we will just move forward", that those asking questions may grow in numbers.

How dangerous is the situation? I dunno, but it's given me more pause than i had before.

My personal biggest gripe was the brain dead decision to squeeze the road path in between the south end of the canal and the north end of the spur off the river at the Chesapeake boathouse and river plaza. It greatly detracts from both locations. Pity really.

I agree that is a lousy location, but I'm not sure where else it would have made sense.

Kevin - Tom Elmore is an army of one. Anyone care to guess the annual operating budget of his non-profit. I'll bet it is close to $0. As for the slude pit. Wouldn't you rather it be found and fixed as opposed to just killing the whole project? Not knowing about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just think about the people that were living around it. I am glad it was found and is being cleaned up.

COALITION WANTS SHAWNEE TO SUPPORT RAILWAY STATION
OKLAHOMAN 8-21-08

By Ann Kelley
Staff Writer

SHAWNEE — Members of a grassroots group looking to save Oklahoma City's Union Station asked Shawnee city commissioners this week to get on board and support their effort.

Marion Hutchison, member of Oklahomans for New Transportation Alternative Coalition, said it's not too late to save commuter rail, but there are roadblocks. He asked Shawnee leaders to contact their state legislators and consider passing a resolution of support to send to Gov. Brad Henry.

Hutchison said the group's main goal is to round up support for preserving Oklahoma City's Union Station rail yard during the Crosstown Expressway development. He said road construction will eliminate rail space and existing rail infrastructure.

"This is not a choice between the Crosstown Expressway or Union Station,” Hutchison said. "There are alternative routes that could save both.”

He said the historic station could serve as a hub which could provide two or more types of transportation. The station could include conventional rail and a bus-trolley system or conventional rail, light rail and a bus-trolley system.

Hutchison said there are already several connections that link Oklahoma City to Tinker Air Force Base, Will Rogers Airport and metro communities. All of it flows through Union Station, he said.

Shawnee Mayor Chuck Mills said a rail service that will take residents back and forth from Shawnee to Oklahoma City would be invaluable to residents. The rising cost of gasoline and energy prices should have community leaders thinking hard about alternative transportation options, he said.

Shawnee city officials said they will consider at a future meeting a resolution supporting rail service.

Marion Hutchison, member of Oklahomans for New Transportation Alternative Coalition, said it's not too late to save commuter rail

Trying to get Shawnee's approval to save the rail since Gov. Henry is from there?

Maybe we get Shawnee to put up about $50 million to pay for their share of a regional rail plan while they are voting to support Tom Elmore's plan.

Who says we are saving commuter rail? Who says we're killing it? I am so freaking tired of this. IF....IIIIIIFFFFFFF we ever get ligh rail in OKC, it's NNNNNOOOOOOOTTTTTTTT going to use this rail yard anyway. It's a horrible location, serves as a barrier to development, and SUCKS! Removing the yard has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on whether we continue to pursue light rail or not. If we build it, we're going to be building a new system across the board. Our city-lines aren't up to spec and the abandoned ones are going to have to be rebuilt anyway...ie the eastern line to MWC.

Downtown is a HORRIBLE place for a depot like that. Yes it's a good place for a transfer station where lines cross, but not a rail yard. Send that crap outside the core where land is cheaper. There's no reason to put it there.

vocallocals.net (http://www.vocallocals.net) (Click on PROJECTS)

OKLAHOMA WHEAT COMMISSION XD WITNESSES RAIL CAPACITY TROUBLES FIRST HAND...

Grain Bottlenecks Irk Farmers -- Courant.com (http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-grain0825.artaug25,0,433788,print.story)
Courant.com

Grain Bottlenecks Irk Farmers
Infrastructure Flaws Making It Tough To Get Products To Market

By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD And CATHERINE TSAI
Associated Press
August 25, 2008

Across the country, from grain elevator to grain elevator, golden wheat and corn are piled in
towering mounds, waiting for a rail car to haul them to market.

Some grain can sit for a month or more on the ground, exposed to wind, rain and rats.

It's the dark side of the booming global demand for U.S. corn, wheat and soybeans. The surge in
exports is revealing inefficiencies in the country's railways, highways and rivers that carry the
grain that helps feed the world. And those bottlenecks are costing farmers, shippers and ultimately
consumers millions of dollars a year.

Mark Hodges, the executive director of the Oklahoma Wheat Commission, has seen it firsthand. Earlier
this summer, when consumers around the world hungered more than ever for American wheat and corn, he
hopped into his pickup truck and toured local grain elevators.

Piles of grain sat like giant anthills, waiting to be shipped. Frantic managers couldn't find enough
rail cars to haul it.

"When you're putting wheat on the ground, there's going to be a loss," Hodges said.

A surprisingly large harvest this fall is expected to test the system even further. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture predicts farmers will produce the second largest corn crop and fourth
largest soybean crop in history.

Some agribusiness groups worry the bottlenecks could hurt the United States' standing as a global
food provider as other nations, such as Brazil and Argentina, compete for a lucrative share of the
market.

In years past, bountiful harvests meant millions of bushels were stored outside overstuffed grain
silos, waiting for shipment. Commodities loaded on barges faced long waits at outdated locks and
dams on the Mississippi River, adding days and dollars to their transportation.

The barge delays alone added an average $72.6 million annually to cost of shipping goods down the
Mississippi and Illinois rivers, according to a new Army Corps of Engineers analysis provided to The
Associated Press.

Rail delays are costly as well. In 2006, an estimated 1 billion bushels of grain was stored outside
or in improvised shelters in Iowa, Illinois and Indiana, adding an estimated $107 million to $160
million that year to the cost of transporting it, according to USDA figures. That's about 1 percent
of the combined $13.8 billion value of corn and soybean exports in 2006.

"We're way, way behind in our infrastructure investment, both in the private sector and publicly,"
said Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, a trade group
representing grain exporters. "And we need to move a lot on that or we will see other countries
supplant us as they get greater investment in their infrastructure."

The problem is likely to persist, if not worsen, in years to come.

Fixing the bottlenecks will take billions of dollars in investment over several years. In the
meantime, exports are forecast to increase, with corn shipments expected to grow every year over the
next decade from 54 million metric tons to 77 million metric tons, according to the Food and
Agricultural Policy Research Institute.

Sounds like there are going to be rail lines regardless. It's rather the question of where they run. South of the river is a great place for the commercial lines, as Union Station has absolutely nothing to do with commercial train traffic, and we would be crazy to blight our downtown for commercial train traffic that can run elsewhere. Union Station is not going to be destroyed, and it's a poor location for mass transit, so I'm not really sure what we're arguing about.

Yep - nothing will get wheat to market faster that throwing a passenger train on the same tracks.

Word games, fantasy and glaring ignorance of transportation history help neither the argument nor the reality of what we will face if we allow blind, self-serving agencies like ODOT to continue to diminish our primary transportation capacity.

If we left the terminal building and tower out at Will Rogers Airport -- but replaced the runways with freeway lanes -- would we still have "an airport?" We could then continue to call what was left "Will Rogers Airport" -- or we could call it "George." Any name would do. However, retaining the term "airport" in such a title would simply be arbitrarily assigning it "a name." It would no longer be a description. As a description, the "name" would then be inaccurate and misleading.

If we destroy the rail terminal infrastructure at "Union Station," we can call whatever's left "anything we want." Without the ability to handle trains of more than one line at high capacity, it's then no longer a "Union Station."

But, then, you understand the point of "The Emperor's New Clothes," don't you? "Reality is whatever the big shots and bureaucrats say it is" -- as long as that suits the prejudices and egos of those who accept it. And calling bad outcomes of cowardly, misguided policy by "familiar names" is supposed to make everybody "feel better."

For instance, Neville Chamberlain called his "Peace in our Time...."

Obviously, there's "a problem" when folks start calling things whatever they want to call them instead of what they are.

"Fixing the bottlenecks will take billions of dollars in investment over several years," the report above noted.

But in its "New Crossotown" project, ODOT isn't "fixing bottlenecks." Instead, it is offhandedly attempting to "create new bottlenecks" in currently independent, free-flowing, strategic railway corridors -- all to make way for "four more miles of expressway it can't begin to properly maintain..."

As Parsons-Brinkerhoff historian Robert Jackson told THE OKLAHOMAN's Ann De Frange, "Highway builders don't care what they destroy." A good part of the transportation capacity mess faced across the USA today is attributable to that very fact.

TOM ELMORE

Pete, Santa Fe Station is no doubt beautiful.. and there does'nt seem to be any limits to what we could do with Union Station itself. Your point seems to be that you placed value and it added to the quality of your life experience to be able to bike one way and catch a train back. Would be nice here - but the thought does come to mind about how beautiful the weather is there.

Can you further show us what kind of development surrounds the Santa Fe station? Is it also beautiful .. or a hugh parking lot? do the rail lines detract considerably from the area? Can anyone contribute pictures or plans of successful and aesthetically pleasing TODs? Apologize if this has been posted as I've read alot but not all posts this thread and similar.

I'm quite distressed to be able to see both the sides of Tom and betts. This seems like a very important decision and the last point in time where we have a choice. He's so far ahead of many of us, maybe Larry could drop by and give us his insight!

Tom - you could tear down the terminal and tower at WRWA as long as you build a new one somewhere else. That is the point many of us have been trying to make. In fact, your analogy works better with the old downtown airpark than it does with WRWA. According to your logic, all hope of getting international flights was lost when the downtown airpark was removed.

You see, Union Station is not currently being used a rail station which, according to you, means it isn't even a station.

Here is your quote on the subject

If we destroy the rail terminal infrastructure at "Union Station," we can call whatever's left "anything we want." Without the ability to handle trains of more than one line at high capacity, it's then no longer a "Union Station."

News flash - the rail terminal infrastructure at Union Station is already destroyed. Hence it is not a rail station, Union or otherwise.

When OKC does develop a rail system the main transfer station will be built at a location that makes the most sense for riders, surrounding areas, and rail operations. I can tell you this for sure though; the current location of Union Station isn't the best location for any of those requirements.

Here is how I can prove it. Let’s pretend Union Station didn't exist today. The City, State or whomever says we are going to build a rail system and we are going to make the main station 6 blocks from the nearest downtown building and 10 blocks from the core of downtown. Do you honestly believe anyone would think that is a good idea? Of course no one would. In fact, many people would probably say, "Why the hell are you making it so far away."

If you wouldn't build it from scratch that way, then why force a rail system into a model that isn't ideal. Purposely building an inferior system is the best way to ensure failure.

Can you further show us what kind of development surrounds the Santa Fe station? Is it also beautiful .. or a hugh parking lot? do the rail lines detract considerably from the area? Can anyone contribute pictures or plans of successful and aesthetically pleasing TODs?

angel, the San Diego station is right next to the waterfront and downtown. Also, it's tied into their streetcar system that runs throughout the county and all the way to Tijuana.

The tracks are not obtrusive at all and are well integrated into the city streets.

And because of it's location, it's surrounded by high-rises, hotels and the convention center.

To be fair, this is a very different situation than our Union Station which is pretty far removed from the city center. Also, their station is used by Amtrak with trains every hour or two up to L.A. and beyond. And the train I took on Sunday afternoon was almost completely full.

http://photography.us.com/images/photos/medium/amtrak_surfliner.jpg

To be fair, this is a very different situation than our Union Station which is pretty far removed from the city center.

Granted, however, our Union Station will be in the thick of it with C2S development, correct?

our Union Station will be in the thick of it with C2S development, correct?

Even in the next 10-15 years, it would be at the far south end of the new development -- but in the longer term there should be housing south of there as well.

One of the cool things about the SD setup is how their streetcar / light rail system is so well integrated into the Amtrak / commuter rail station. The trains run right next to each other:

http://www.urbanrail.net/am/sdie/BL-Santa-Fe-04.JPG

Word games, fantasy and glaring ignorance of transportation history help neither the argument nor the reality of what we will face if we allow blind, self-serving agencies like ODOT to continue to diminish our primary transportation capacity.



take your own advise .. all you do is show your ignorance .. and play word games ..


i will be happy .. when the new cross town in finished and you can go away

Pete, San Diego actually gives credence to my point about the ability to run light rail down the middle of the Boulevard, and it is where I got the idea for it. Because it is not also associated with a multi-lane highway, it is easy to cross the tracks and navigate around the area. It is also not in the center of any of the San Diego parks. It is part of the business and tourist district, is conveniently located and fits the locale.

Granted, however, our Union Station will be in the thick of it with C2S development, correct?

No. It will be located right in the middle of the park. It would be OKCs version of putting Grand Central Terminal in the center of Central Park.

No. It will be located right in the middle of the park. It would be OKCs version of putting Grand Central Terminal in the center of Central Park.

From what the renderings show, it will be to the far south of the park, just north of the new crosstown.

From what the renderings show, it will be to the far south of the park, just north of the new crosstown.

It will be at the south edge of "Central Park" but an additional park will start on the southside of the new I-40. Keep in mind though that under Tom's plan I-40 won't be there at all so it would all be park land with 6 at-grade train tracks running through the middle of it.

It will be at the south edge of "Central Park" but an additional park will start on the southside of the new I-40. Keep in mind though that under Tom's plan I-40 won't be there at all so it would all be park land with 6 at-grade train tracks running through the middle of it.

Gotcha, misunderstanding on my part. I thought you were saying it was in the middle of the "Central Park."

Is it time for Light Rail in Oklahoma City after a ride in Denver? | DenverOkie.com (http://denverokie.com/?p=57)

From what the renderings show, it will be to the far south of the park, just north of the new crosstown.

There's far more to the park than just the couple of blocks north of Union Station. Again, I urge everyone to drive down Walker from Reno to the river and envision what that park can be. The size would be more comparable to the Boston Public Garden than Central Park in NYC, but the scale will take your breath away, considering what is there now. But, if you imagine bus stalls and parking in front of Union Station, as well as rail lines and an expressway south of it, you will also realize that using Union Station as our multimodal station would significantly decrease the size of the park, and effectively bisect it to the point that it would be distinctly pedestrian unfriendly. We would end up with two small parks with no connection to each other, and the south one being completely disconnected from the CBD, rather than a grand iconic park.

As far as light rail is concerned, I don't think anyone here is anti light rail, or there aren't many anti-light rail people speaking up. But, what people need to realize is that light rail and commercial rail are mutually exclusive, and that to have light rail, we'd have to add lines anyway. That's why I'd like to see them run down the boulevard, closer to the CBD, with a multimodal station at the point that the north-south east-west line intersect, with the north-south line being constructed first, to see what kind of use we get with it.

The Norman Transcript - Rail resolution steaming ahead (http://www.normantranscript.com/localnews/local_story_261002230)

Except you won't get the governor to go along with that. He's a politician...which means he likes the majority. The voting public wants I-40 more than a crapped up rail yard. He'll do what the I-40 people want...not what some rinky little band of pains in the ass want.

The Norman Transcript - Rail resolution steaming ahead (http://www.normantranscript.com/localnews/local_story_261002230)

good thing the norman city gov't has almost 0 to do with the cross town or our new city park ..

good thing the norman city gov't has almost 0 to do with the cross town or our new city park ..

Since they probably have to review it first...this is how I replied to the article. Again, it is my thought that I have shared many times on here. I do bring up another point and I do exaggerate a little talking about 20 Union Stations. Anyway, here it is:

"I'm a rail fan and guess what? Tear the frickin tracks out. Here's the thing: A lot of people talk about how far away it is from downtown. I've got a similar station that is far from downtown--Union Station in Kansas City. DIFFERENCE--Union Station in KC could fit about 20 OKC Union Stations in it. And the Amtrak facility that is part of that Union Station doesn't even utilize the facility. It is on the eastern edge of the property. Our Union Station is too small and too inadequate for today's transportation needs. Get over it. Keep the history but tear the darn tracks out!"

good thing the norman city gov't has almost 0 to do with the cross town or our new city park ..

Thank you Boulder for echoing what I was about to say. It is not Norman's bizness what OKC does. Norman should be worried about getting their cops to work on directing gameday traffic, instead of being concerned about a nonexistent rail yard that doesn't impact them.

I fully expect Norman to use their little train station when rail does come to Norman. I don't want to hear any concerns out of the Norman City Council that their existing station is inadequate for a multi-modal rail facility. Of course, Norman does have one advantage over OKC with regards to station location. Theirs is located adjacent to downtown. Maybe Norman should be forced to move their station 6 blocks south.

I drove by Union Station yesterday, since I'd never seen it before and didn't even know it was there. I was struck by a number of things.

1) It's a beautiful building. We definitely need to preserve this.

2) It's in the middle of a warzone. I'm not going anywhere near that place after dark unless I'm escorted by Batman.

3) It's a half mile from anywhere useful. I park for free downtown and the walk from my truck is a third the distance to work that Union Station is.

4) It's small. While a gorgeous building, it isn't big enough to be a modern transportation hub.

Right on Hoya.

And no one is saying tear out the building. We all are in favor of keeping the building. What we want gone are the unused freight lines that aren't even tagged for anything but freight. It's an unused freight line and it's in the way. It's NOT a good location for anything...ever!

And no one is saying tear out the building. We all are in favor of keeping the building. What we want gone are the unused freight lines that aren't even tagged for anything but freight. It's an unused freight line and it's in the way. It's NOT a good location for anything...ever!

I am in agreement. I saw the freight lines. I was surprised that people had made such a big deal about it.

I lived in Washington DC for 3 years. I'd love to have a system here in OKC similar to the DC Metro. But Union Station would be just about useless in that regard, except as a historical landmark.

It's good to know that we have so many rail transit experts available to make comments on this forum. I feel so much better now.