We're not supposed to talk about trucks?

Sorry, Betts, but by its charter, North American Transportation Institute works on intermodal and multimodal transportation. We recognize that together in a synergistic mix, the modes become more than the sum of their parts. We recognize the value of all.

If you want to talk to people who close their eyes to one element or another, or who refuse to speak honestly about what's already been achieved through intermodal / multimodal strategies, you'll have to talk to ODOT. Or perhaps, visit the "Oklahoma Transportation Center" at OSU -- which claims to be a world-class, academic transportation research center, but "has never worked on anything but roads."

Not at all strange when you take a look at its board. You could nearly be convinced its just sort of another public false-front for the highway and trucking lobbies. But, of course, it's funded with public dollars, up to and including $3.5 million federal dollars per year, provided without concrete explanation or stated goal by Inhofe and Istook.

NATI doesn't talk about "just one mode." In fact, most of our work through the years has actually been directed at reforming highway management. "How can there be an expectation of proper public roadway maintenance in the absence of any effort to accurately and comprehensively recover use costs?" "Considering its profound public road problems, why haven't Oklahoma's leaders ever bothered to nail down what's now being paid versus what ought to be paid by each road user, via an honest Highway Cost Allocation Study?"

Seems simple and reasonable enough, doesn't it? Except that the alleged experts at ODOT aren't interested. They and their handlers appear to like things the way they are. Is it possible they "don't want to know" because then it would be possible for everybody else to know?

TOM ELMORE

warreng88 - you are way off. You didn't mention Istook, Utah, or the Mormons. You can't have a conspiracy theory without a shadow quazi-religious organization pulling strings behind the scenes.

Touche!

Huh? Yesterday you said Union station was only going to be used for commercial mail transport in your world view. I'm not sure what all your multimodal talk is about, since the mode that is completely incompatible with Oklahoma City's plans for Core to Shore is commercial trucking. That is an unacceptable concept, IMO, and I suspect in a lot of other people's eyes as well. If that's what you're talking about, no way Jose. If you're not (because I'm not completely sure WHAT you're saying), then who cares? This is the Union Station thread, not the we want trains to haul piggybacks and use public highways less thread. That is a completely different issue.

With respect, ma'am, "Union Station" is a Union Station. It not only "unites" rail lines, but streets, and via these, air transport and ultimately even other modes. That's what a multimodal hub is supposed to do.

Name for me a business downtown that doesn't rely on truck delivery and shipping. It goes on, hour-after-hour, every day.

So it is at a metropolitan surface transportation center. And it's done in such an efficient and unobtrusive way as to work beautifully with "passenger modes."

It's required for success.

By the way -- I'm now hearing rumblings from Capitol Hill about school and work drive-time conflicts between freight trains and arterial street traffic. Union Station was designed and built to eliminate such conflicts. Now, the alleged experts at ODOT, oblivious to our warnings, are trying to recreate them.

Nuts?

You bet it is.

TOM ELMORE

Sorry, but I'm vehemently against the truck mode for anything other than deliveries. Uniting air transport with a station is fine. That doesn't mean there will be airplanes pulling up to gates at Union Station. Trucks and airplanes are aesthetic unfriendly, from a noise, smell and visual standpoint. That's why airports aren't downtown. Trucks don't belong in residential/recreational/retail areas either, except for unobtrusive deliveries of necessary products. If we want to remove urban blight, we don't need trucks and warehouses. Those can go south of the river, where trains are actually running. We don't need to obsess over the prior use of a station. As was aptly demonstrated on this very forum, an old power plant can become a retail center, a warehouse can become an art gallery. These are not tragedies. Union Station can be a fabulous place everyone wants to visit without trains or trucks.

Wow, Betts -- I'm sure your generous offer to shunt the stuff you think you don't wanta hafta look at down Robinson and Walker a ways to the nice folks in Capitol Hill and South Town will be seen by them as truly noble and endearing gesture. "Real neighborly."

"Let them eat cake," and all that -- right?

Does what you'd rather not have in your idyllic, arboreal, urban-heavenscape include the Latino Center and Little Flower Church? If memory serves, I think both the current Latino Center and Wheeler Park, at least, look a lot like condos or somesuch in one of the Core to Shore color maps.

I once suggested to Pat Fennell that it looked like a fair bet that when the big shots were done with Riverside, there'd be about as many brown folks left there as there are black folks in Deep Deuce.

Whaddaya think?

TOM ELMORE

Wow, Betts -- I'm sure your generous offer to shunt the stuff you think you don't wanta hafta look at down Robinson and Walker a ways to the nice folks in Capitol Hill and South Town will be seen by them as truly noble and endearing gesture. "Real neighborly."

"Let them eat cake," and all that -- right?

Does what you'd rather not have in your idyllic, arboreal, urban-heavenscape include the Latino Center and Little Flower Church? If memory serves, I think both the current Latino Center and Wheeler Park, at least, look a lot like condos or somesuch in one of the Core to Shore color maps.

I once suggested to Pat Fennell that it looked like a fair bet that when the big shots were done with Riverside, there'd be about as many brown folks left there as there are black folks in Deep Deuce.

Whaddaya think?

TOM ELMORE

I think nobody likes your plan, and you've now resorted to calling us a bunch of racists. Because not wanting freight shipping downtown means that I'm a member of the Klan, apparently.

Wow, Betts -- I'm sure your generous offer to shunt the stuff you think you don't wanta hafta look at down Robinson and Walker a ways to the nice folks in Capitol Hill and South Town will be seen by them as truly noble and endearing gesture. "Real neighborly."

"Let them eat cake," and all that -- right?

Does what you'd rather not have in your idyllic, arboreal, urban-heavenscape include the Latino Center and Little Flower Church? If memory serves, I think both the current Latino Center and Wheeler Park, at least, look a lot like condos or somesuch in one of the Core to Shore color maps.

I once suggested to Pat Fennell that it looked like a fair bet that when the big shots were done with Riverside, there'd be about as many brown folks left there as there are black folks in Deep Deuce.

Whaddaya think?

TOM ELMORE

Tom, the freight yards are already there south of the river. I'm not "shunting" anything. And if you're agreeing that they're "not worth looking at", then why would you think we would want them next to our Central Park? Core to Shore has Little Flower staying intact. I don't know about the Latino Center. I would assume it would stay there unless they wanted to sell. Now, there is abandoned commercial land south of Little Flower than only a bulldozer can cure, but Core to Shore has land that can be used for many income levels. It has a school on the Riverside that I would assume would serve people north and south of the river, which might make it a school that serves multiple ethnicities and income levels. That's the kind of schools we need to encourage in our city. I think most people who are going to live in condos downtown are the type of people that would welcome any ethnic group.

So, you don't think Latinos would benefit from am "idyllic, arboreal, urban-heavenscape"? They don't have the sensibility to enjoy parkland? The wonderful things about parks is that they're free, and they provide free leisure time activity to anyone, no matter what their income level. They're a place people can join together as a community to recreate. I've not seen much sense of community on commuter trains, necessary as they might be in some places. We all need things that uplift us, that allow us to escape the daily grind. You are showing your disdain for parkland with your words. We clearly have a difference in what we value that discussion cannot erase.

Ahh yes -- so you fellers can dish it out -- but you're not much on "taking it," are you?

And, no, Betts -- I never said that anything that's already there in the Union Station corridor "wasn't worth looking at." I like the real stuff -- the historic stuff -- the stuff that makes life and commerce possible for us real Oklahomans.

Have you walked the north bank of the river from Western to Exchange and on, westerly, to Penn? It's like a natural extension of Wheeler Park.

I recently did so. I'd say it qualifies as a broad, beautiful, green space -- that might make you want to kick the soccer ball around with the kids or just run and jump and play.

...and, heck -- it's already there!

Of course, not for long if ODOT has its way.

Is it just "less desirable" because we already have it -- and don't have to take it away from anybody?

I was envisioning a rail transit stop -- right there on the former Frisco line linking the Stockyards and Union Station.

Pretty handy.

TOM ELMORE

Does what you'd rather not have in your idyllic, arboreal, urban-heavenscape include the Latino Center and Little Flower Church?

No, those will stay right were they are, unless you are successful in getting I-40 moved south--then they will be demolished.

It's time to listen to an ODOT bridge engineer who stated we can redeck that bridge for $50 million, keep the parks, keep Union Station, keep our life.

But of course Oklahoma isn't 47th in the nation per capita income with a loss of a congressional seat with ignorant planning such as the I-40 realignment.

We destroyed Deep Deuce losing all that heritage for 'new' apartments and we'll destroy Union Station for a 'new' highway.

Oklahomans doesn't know how to use what they have.

If we redeck the current crosstown, it's still an ugly eyesore and there will NOT be a park. We can't have C2S with the elevated highway remaining. And if we don't clean up that area, Union Station sure as heck won't work as a passenger rail hub.

So destroying Union Station is 'cleaning' it up? How is that even possible? What about that park south and west of Union Station that's there now?

Don't be so dense.

The area around Union Station is severely blighted. It will not become otherwise (and the park will not happen) unless the elevated highway is removed as a visual and psychological barrier.

Why would we want to have our primary rail hub in the middle of a slum? That is what you are suggesting.

You did NOT answer the question. What about the park that is there now?

The area around Union Station can be improved but there's so much a political (not logical) push to get I-40 realignment that people are blind.

Again you use feelings regarding Union Station and not facts.

The park's name that's just south and west of Union Station now is Wheeler Park. Part of that will be affected by the realignment. So don't tell me there won't be a park if we don't realign. That's part of the massive disinformation going on along with the Oklahoman.

If there was no fraud involved, the STB would NOT throw out the BNSF application to abandon the rail lines. They were using that lie to expedite Union Station's destruction.

People are so uneducated about this that they even call Union Depot the 'station'. According to railroading definitions, a station is simply a stop on the tracks. How else does a train pull into a station if it has no tracks? It can't. It's like ripping all the runways out at an airport and still call it an airport. It makes no logical sense.

Oklahoma is 47th per capita income and has lost a congressional seat and pathetic planning such as the I-40 realignment keeps us there.

The park's name that's just south and west of Union Station now is Wheeler Park. Part of that will be affected by the realignment. So don't tell me there won't be now park if we don't realign.

What does that have to do with anything? Wheeler Park is not a nice park at all, and in no way substitutes for the C2S iconic park. It's a glorified ballfield.

How else does a train pull into a station if it has no tracks? It can't.

TWO SETS OF TRACKS will remain!

RichardR369,

As much of a critic as I am of the whole C2S thing, you've got to admit that that existing I-40 bridge looks like an emergency overnight replacement for a broken bridge...it's the work of a madman, honestly!!! that is the weirdest thing I've ever seen. And also consider, that it also has ZERO means of expansion for more lanes.

I can appreciate your cost-saving approach to just re-deck the thing, but I think it would cost us dearly in the long-run.

I just wish that we could get rid of all the wacky curvature and have the interstate as straight as possible through the city...I mean it's bad enough with I-35 taking it's wacko merge thing, veering back and forth, with I-40 for that short distance...

BUT, we are here now and they are geared to move the thing.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I dont think union station was ever in the 'destroy' path of the new interstate, just some of the rails were...???

Glad to correct you. ODOT's plan has always called for the entire existing Union Station rail terminal facility yard to be excavated. Every square inch -- including the platforms and underground tunnels, which, of course, are part of the terminal building.

They've always claimed they would "put the UP line back" -- but sort of "down in a ditch with the new 10-lane road" instead of at its current elevation, which, of course, cripples its usefulness. And, of course, they are very, very determined to destroy the beautiful "iconic underpasses" at Robinson and Walker. You sort of get the idea that it really, really bugs ODOT that these structures are not only still looking great, but unlike the stuff ODOT always builds, still working just fine after 77 years.

Maybe instead of destroying the underpasses, they should carefully preserve them so that all their experts can come down and look at them to learn how to build good stuff -- instead of the sort of stuff ODOT always builds. After all -- according to the courageous, nameless editorial writers at the state's largest newspaper, the first "really big crack" appeared in the Crosstown bridgework in 1989 -- which would mean the bridge was only 23 years old. And, of course, ODOT built it.

And who would keep on lettin' people who'd build bridges that crack up after only 23 years tear up far better bridges that others built -- that are still working just fine after 77 years and don't have any "big cracks" in 'em -- to build more of the sort of stuff they always build?

I mean -- do you see what I mean?

TOM ELMORE

Glad to correct you. ODOT's plan has always called for the entire existing Union Station rail terminal facility yard to be excavated. Every square inch -- including the platforms and underground tunnels, which, of course, are part of the terminal building.

They've always claimed they would "put the UP line back" -- but sort of "down in a ditch with the new 10-lane road" instead of at its current elevation, which, of course, cripples its usefulness. And, of course, they are very, very determined to destroy the beautiful "iconic underpasses" at Robinson and Walker. You sort of get the idea that it really, really bugs ODOT that these structures are not only still looking great, but unlike the stuff ODOT always builds, still working just fine after 77 years.

Maybe instead of destroying the underpasses, they should carefully preserve them so that all their experts can come down and look at them to learn how to build good stuff -- instead of the sort of stuff ODOT always builds. After all -- according to the courageous, nameless editorial writers at the state's largest newspaper, the first "really big crack" appeared in the Crosstown bridgework in 1989 -- which would mean the bridge was only 23 years old. And, of course, ODOT built it.

And who would keep on lettin' people who'd build bridges that crack up after only 23 years tear up far better bridges that others built -- that are still working just fine after 77 years and don't have any "big cracks" in 'em -- to build more of the sort of stuff they always build?

I mean -- do you see what I mean?

TOM ELMORE

Yeah, I totally get the feeling that ODOT goes around looking for scenic underpasses to destroy. Hell, I bet they did it just to get under your skin.

Dude, you're a loon. I'm done with you.

Don't feed the troll guys. He's like a broken record.

It's time to listen to an ODOT bridge engineer who stated we can redeck that bridge for $50 million, keep the parks, keep Union Station, keep our life.

But of course Oklahoma isn't 47th in the nation per capita income with a loss of a congressional seat with ignorant planning such as the I-40 realignment.

We destroyed Deep Deuce losing all that heritage for 'new' apartments and we'll destroy Union Station for a 'new' highway.

Oklahomans doesn't know how to use what they have.

You can redeck i-40, but that doesn't help the fact that it's got 40% more daily traffic than it was designed for. It also doesn't help the fact that it's a an eyesore that completely blights all the land under and around it.

And I fail to see the connection between 47th in the nation in per capita income with loss of a congressional seat having anything to do with I-40.

You did NOT answer the question. What about the park that is there now?

The area around Union Station can be improved but there's so much a political (not logical) push to get I-40 realignment that people are blind.

Again you use feelings regarding Union Station and not facts.

What park? Sorry, but there are a lot of us who have no political connections who think the I-40 realignment is reasonable. I wanted it to go south of the river, but apparently that's rather crass of me, so I'll stick with the current plan.

I find this subject fascinating, but since I'm not from here I know very little about it.

Where exactly is Union Station. A street address would be great.

Why wasn't it ever designated as a historical site?

I think if at all possible the rail lines should be saved for future light rail use, it's always cheaper than putting in an all new line.

Why are people here so opposed to mass transit?

hoyasooner sez: Dude, you're a loon. I'm done with you.
_____________________________

You're done with me, you say hoya?

Well, I'd just have to say that's certainly a relief. You had me worried there for a minute.

TOM ELMORE

Where exactly is Union Station. A street address would be great. ]

300 SW 7th St.



Why wasn't it ever designated as a historical site?


Don't know, but it really doesn't matter because NO ONE wants it torn down. The people who talk about relocation plans "destroying" Union Station are being histrionic.


I think if at all possible the rail lines should be saved for future light rail use, it's always cheaper than putting in an all new line. ]

I'm not sure any of us know how much money it would cost to move the planned Crosstown, compared to what the amount of track being removed would cost to replace. I don't even know if the track being removed is currently in need of repair or replacement, and if it is, what that would cost. I'm not sure who does have that data. The lines under discussion are heavy rail lines, not light rail lines.



Why are people here so opposed to mass transit?

I'm not sure who you mean by "here". If you mean people posting here, then you probably need to wade through this thread again, as I don't believe anyone posting here, regardless of their position on how Union Station should be used, is against mass transit. If you're talking about the information offered by various posters here that there are people in positions of power in the city who are opposed to mass transit, none of us seem to have the answer to that question. It doesn't really make sense that they would be, but there does seem to be some footdragging that implies opposition.

By the way, folks -- to answer another question or two, OKC Union Station, of course, may be found where Hudson Street, leading south out of downtown, crosses SW 7th. If you go further, you run right into the rail yard, which is how the facility was designed. Hudson and Harvey come to the terminal yard at-grade, Robinson and Walker, one block east and west, respectively, flow under the yard at the spectacular, purpose-built underpasses that were key, integral design elements of the new-in-1931 terminal facility. The street address is 300 SW 7th. Look it up on Google Earth or maps.live.com

And, yes, the OKC Union Station terminal building is listed on the National Historic Register. And the Robinson and Walker underpasses are said to be "candidates" for the register. But this doesn't necessarily protect any of them. Meanwhile, the "station" is actually the terminal rail facility yard, which could handle trains up to a certain level with or without a terminal building.

The problems Union Station was built to solve were actually addressed in the design of the terminal yard and underpasses. Without them -- as folks in Capitol Hill are already discovering -- many of those problems are likely to reappear.

TOM ELMORE

300 SW 7th St.



Don't know, but it really doesn't matter because NO ONE wants it torn down. The people who talk about relocation plans "destroying" Union Station are being histrionic.



I'm not sure any of us know how much money it would cost to move the planned Crosstown, compared to what the amount of track being removed would cost to replace. I don't even know if the track being removed is currently in need of repair or replacement, and if it is, what that would cost. I'm not sure who does have that data. The lines under discussion are heavy rail lines, not light rail lines.



I'm not sure who you mean by "here". If you mean people posting here, then you probably need to wade through this thread again, as I don't believe anyone posting here, regardless of their position on how Union Station should be used, is against mass transit. If you're talking about the information offered by various posters here that there are people in positions of power in the city who are opposed to mass transit, none of us seem to have the answer to that question. It doesn't really make sense that they would be, but there does seem to be some footdragging that implies opposition.

Regarding Union Station destruction, it's by definition.

Union Depot (the building) was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. That cannot be torn down but if OKC had the chance, they would.

According to the General Code of Operating Railroads (GCOR) that all railroads have to comply with, a station is simply a timetable. A stop on the tracks. So you can have have a terminal building like Union Depot at a station, a hut, a bench or even nothing at a station. All the tracks will be removed and one (maybe 2) would be put back so thus by definition, Union 'Station' will be destroyed.

Those that advocate otherwise aren't defining their terms.

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station.
Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed.
Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down.

That's what you say are facts. I used outside resources. Where's yours?

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station.
Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed.
Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down.

You just made me realize something. When people like you call those 'facts', it's hopeless to convince you otherwise. So why am I even wasting my time?

Matthew 7:6 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station.
Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed.
Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down.

You just made me realize something. When people like you submit opinions as facts without quoting sources, it's useless to teach you anything.

Matthew 7:6 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

Regarding Union Station destruction, it's by definition.

According to the General Code of Operating Railroads (GCOR) that all railroads have to comply with, a station is simply a timetable. A stop on the tracks. So you can have have a terminal building like Union Depot at a station, a hut, a bench or even nothing at a station. All the tracks will be removed and one (maybe 2) would be put back so thus by definition, Union 'Station' will be destroyed.

Those that advocate otherwise aren't defining their terms.

No existing active rail lines at Union Station will be removed - only the abandoned lines will be taken out. Actually, most of the actual track isn't even there anyhow. Either you don't know the situation on the ground at Union Station or you are lying about it to push an agenda. Which is it?

You just made me realize something. When people like you submit opinions as facts without quoting sources, it's useless to teach you anything.

Are you serious? These statements are not opinion, they are undeniable facts. Please show me where anyone of them is false.

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station.
Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed.
Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down.

Are you serious? These statements are not opinion, they are undeniable facts. Please show me where anyone of them is false.

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station.
Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed.
Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down.

I just gave you the information you needed, National Register and GCOR. You gave me nothing but your statements.

I could say "FACT: People who support the I-40 realignment are mongoloid idiots" but that doesn't say much. Where's your external references to support your claim?

Apparently you don't pay attenion Richard.

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Unless you know of some ghost train that currently uses the station.....or why the lines were abandoned if a train still uses them....?

Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station.
No one had any plans to reutilize the station as a train station when all of this started. The ontrac folks are still the only ones that even talk about it and they aren't the ones that would actually pull the plan off. It would be the city and they don't have any plans for it....go ask, we have.

Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed.
This has been clearly stated in the i-40 discussions, you can even find it on their website. The plans have been out for months and proposals for years. It's not new news.

Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down.
Again, look at the i-40 website. They very clearly say it won't be torn down.

So now would you like to put your foot in your mouth about anything else? Because if you don't do your homework and just talk our of your rear, be prepared to have it handed to you.

FACT: The National Register states "Union Depot". What part of 'depot' and 'station' don't you understand? The depot is the building and that's not what's being torn down. The station 'GCOR defined' is being destroyed for the realignment save enough track space for 2 tracks leaving the depot behind.

And FACT - if the city's plan were actually taking part of the DEPOT, then they wouldn't have been federally approved. It's not like they were trying to hide it. Rail lines feeding into the depot do not count as part of the depot. There is a limit on how far out the DEPOT goes. You can't claim lines a mile out bud.

I love how you twist all that around. You can't even tell the difference between a station or a depot.

And by the way, just because OKC says they're not destroying the station and GCOR states they are doesn't mean they aren't. Just remember, OKC is so corrupt even the state auditor went to jail. I trust nobody. It's this kind of government that keeps us at 47th per capita income and we also lost a congressional seat to where Utah picked it up.

Union Depot (the building) was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. That cannot be torn down but if OKC had the chance, they would.

Sorry, but I call BS on that. I know of no one who does not recognize the charm of Union Station. I'd probably chain myself to the door before I allowed a wrecking ball to come near it. Who is "OKC"? Define that term.


According to the General Code of Operating Railroads (GCOR) that all railroads have to comply with, a station is simply a timetable. A stop on the tracks. So you can have have a terminal building like Union Depot at a station, a hut, a bench or even nothing at a station. All the tracks will be removed and one (maybe 2) would be put back so thus by definition, Union 'Station' will be destroyed.

Those that advocate otherwise aren't defining their terms.

Again. BS. I have yet to see anyone who is talking about Union Station being "destroyed" give any sort of definition unless pressed. Regardless, Union Station is not currently a schedule for anyone, so by your definition it's already too late. It's already been destroyed. With even one track it has as much potential to be a "schedule" as it does with three, so even if you alter your definition to say it currently has the "potential" to be a "schedule" if track is not destroyed, your definition doesn't work.

The people who are not defining their terms are the ones using sensationalistic words like "destroyed" to the gullible public. I'm pretty honest about what I want for Union Station. I'd be fine with it being one stop on a light rail line. That would actually make it a station, by your definition. Then, it could house a wonderful rail museum, if the rail lovers would like. It could hold an art gallery and a great restaurant. I'd also like to see if have a casual restaurant where people could bring their children for lunch on a Saturday when they're enjoying the park. It could have an event space, for things like wedding receptions and parties. Tavern on the Green does pretty well for itself. Union Station could be an icon as well.

I'd rather see it used as a space the people in Oklahoma City can enjoy than satisfy the train obsessed people of the world, so they can put pictures of it in Trains magazine, stop to visit it once in their life so they can say they've been there and throw around words like GCOR. Even my train obsessed husband thinks plans to use Union Station as a multimodal station are ridiculous. He thinks the only logical place for a multimodal station is at the intersection of a north-south/east-west line. It does sound rather sensible.

Sorry, but I call BS on that. I know of no one who does not recognize the charm of Union Station. I'd probably chain myself to the door before I allowed a wrecking ball to come near it. Who is "OKC"? Define that term.



Again. BS. I have yet to see anyone who is talking about Union Station being "destroyed" give any sort of definition unless pressed. Regardless, Union Station is not currently a schedule for anyone, so by your definition it's already too late. It's already been destroyed. With even one track it has as much potential to be a "schedule" as it does with three, so even if you alter your definition to say it currently has the "potential" to be a "schedule" if track is not destroyed, your definition doesn't work.

The people who are not defining their terms are the ones using sensationalistic words like "destroyed" to the gullible public. I'm pretty honest about what I want for Union Station. I'd be fine with it being one stop on a light rail line. That would actually make it a station, by your definition. Then, it could house a wonderful rail museum, if the rail lovers would like. It could hold an art gallery and a great restaurant. I'd also like to see if have a casual restaurant where people could bring their children for lunch on a Saturday when they're enjoying the park. It could have an event space, for things like wedding receptions and parties. Tavern on the Green does pretty well for itself. Union Station could be an icon as well.

When I refer to OKC, I refer to the corrupt government that runs this place.

You are correct in that there's no more timetables in use for Union Station but that doesn't negate the definition of what a station is. People in Oklahoma City just can't change the dictionary because they want something done.

Blah blah corupt government blah blah blah ODOT evil blah blah Istook blah blah blah Mormons blah blah. What kind of kool-aide are you guys drinking over there at OnTrac?

ooops - I forgot:

blah blah mail blah blah...

Undeniable Facts
Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station.
Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed.
Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down.

Actually Kerry, the Mormons put together a pretty good system so far... rail, bus, wide residential streets with bike lanes and room to park without taking up lanes. I dont think they belong in the list of 'evil', at least not for the transit stuff. See pics...

DSCN0058 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/31925739@N07/2986921258/)

DSCN0029 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/31925739@N07/2986065389/)

DSCN0072 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/31925739@N07/2986921284/)

Blah blah corupt government blah blah blah ODOT evil blah blah Istook blah blah blah Mormons blah blah. What kind of kool-aide are you guys drinking over there at OnTrac?

ooops - I forgot:

blah blah mail blah blah...

Undeniable Facts
Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station.
Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed.
Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down.

Fact: Rocky Anderson called OKC fools for destroying Union Station. Dallas DART has warned OKC not to make this mistake.

I support OnTRAC but I'm not an official member.

Undeniable Fact: 47th per capita income and lost congressional seat. Keep up the good work. It's funny what you call facts the rest of the nation calls opinion.

We're Okies...blah..blah...blah...we're too smart to do proper studies to see if what we're doing is right...blah...blah...blah.

I'm proud of you for keeping us near the bottom in every conceivable ranking in the US. In the 80's our school system was 7th worst in the nation. I haven't keep up to see if we finally hit bottom or not. I have to listen to morons like you say "undeniable fact: We're not destroying the station" when 49 other states say you are.

You just made me realize something. When people like you submit opinions as facts without quoting sources, it's useless to teach you anything.

Matthew 7:6 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

You, my friend, are a piece of work.

Last year, I went to Union Station. Before ODOT showed up, it was a happy place. They had... flowery meadows and rainbow skies and, and rivers made of chocolate where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

Ya, I think they originally filmed Willa Wonka there...

RichardR369,

Couple of logic points.


Fact: Rocky Anderson called OKC fools for destroying Union Station.


-we are then NOT fools UNTIL we destroy the station, correct?


"undeniable fact: We're not destroying the station" when 49 other states say you are.


-For some reason, I must have missed the other 49 states' presence here checking out all that is going on. If we have that much interest in OK's union station--from 49 states--then let's bargain with them. Each of them can pitch in a little $ and we'll make union station anything they want! Anything... If they will buy our transit system, we'll turn that thing in to a transit center, fruit stand, hell a WAL-MART!

If they're buying.

Sir, you seem to have a drive to save union station. What would you like to see it's future become? I don't want to demolish the thing, but to invest in making it a functional mass transit center would mean the need to plan extra space for expansion. There's only so much space down there.

I'm not sure who you mean by "here". If you mean people posting here, then you probably need to wade through this thread again, as I don't believe anyone posting here, regardless of their position on how Union Station should be used, is against mass transit. If you're talking about the information offered by various posters here that there are people in positions of power in the city who are opposed to mass transit, none of us seem to have the answer to that question. It doesn't really make sense that they would be, but there does seem to be some footdragging that implies opposition.

I mean the people of OKC in general, not necessarily anyone that posts here. Just look at the state of the bus system here.



The people who are not defining their terms are the ones using sensationalistic words like "destroyed" to the gullible public. I'm pretty honest about what I want for Union Station. I'd be fine with it being one stop on a light rail line. That would actually make it a station, by your definition. Then, it could house a wonderful rail museum, if the rail lovers would like. It could hold an art gallery and a great restaurant. I'd also like to see if have a casual restaurant where people could bring their children for lunch on a Saturday when they're enjoying the park. It could have an event space, for things like wedding receptions and parties. Tavern on the Green does pretty well for itself. Union Station could be an icon as well..
That is a great idea.


Even my train obsessed husband thinks plans to use Union Station as a multimodal station are ridiculous. He thinks the only logical place for a multimodal station is at the intersection of a north-south/east-west line. It does sound rather sensible.

Explain to me please, what you mean by multimodal station

When I refer to OKC, I refer to the corrupt government that runs this place.

You are correct in that there's no more timetables in use for Union Station but that doesn't negate the definition of what a station is. People in Oklahoma City just can't change the dictionary because they want something done.

I recognize that arguing with you is a waste of time, but at this point in time, I don't believe anyone's plans for Union Station negate the definition of a station.

Personally, mine would, because I'd like to see light rail run along the boulevard, but I've come to realize that a compromise is probably necessary. So, I'm not thrilled with, but would be OK with light rail stopping at Union Station. That would make it a station, according to your definition.

Regardless, who cares about definitions? What we care about is what is best for Oklahoma City. What I care about is, if we're going to have light rail, (and I'm still not sure that's the best option for Oklahoma City at this point in time), coming up with a plan for location of lines so that people will actually use it. A station at the intersection of north-south and east-west lines makes far more sense. Practicality and ease of use are what might make mass transit a reasonable option for people who are accustomed to getting in their cars and driving directly to where they want to go.

And again, please come up with a city other than Dallas to give us as an example, or whose experts to quote. There's a city that has very few redeeming virtues when considered as an example of urban living, IMO.

Explain to me please, what you mean by multimodal station

A multimodal station is one that has multiple modes of transportation as options. Buses, heavy and light rail and commercial rail/truck traffic is what the OnTrac people would like to see.

OnTrac's plan to move the relocation of I-40 a bit south would also destroy (see I can use that word too) the Little Flower Church, which I would hate to see happen.

As a compromise, I'd be willing to accept light rail and trollies at Union Station. They would offer mass transit to locals and visitors around the city, without destroying (there's that word again;))) the beauty of Union Station like I think commercial rail and buses would. They would also be more acceptable to potential residents, as all that blighted land around Union Station gives us a remarkable opportunity to create a downtown neighborhood that is higher density and aesthetically pleasing

A multimodal station is one that has multiple modes of transportation as options. Buses, heavy and light rail and commercial rail/truck traffic is what the OnTrac people would like to see.

OnTrac's plan to move the relocation of I-40 a bit south would also destroy (see I can use that word too) the Little Flower Church, which I would hate to see happen.

As a compromise, I'd be willing to accept light rail and trollies at Union Station. They would offer mass transit to locals and visitors around the city, without destroying (there's that word again;))) the beauty of Union Station like I think commercial rail and buses would. They would also be more acceptable to potential residents, as all that blighted land around Union Station gives us a remarkable opportunity to create a downtown neighborhood that is higher density and aesthetically pleasing


Freight rail/truck traffic doesn't belong downtown. I would like to see the rails saved for future light/passenger rail .

What is the Little Flower Church and could it be moved?

I'm not too fond of Dallas either, it's a fun place to go spend a weekend but I wouldn't want to live there. There are lessons that OKC could learn from Dallas, Austin , Portland, Seattle ect. on how to make a transit system work here.

This is Little Flower Church.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/reinhart/littleflower2007.jpg

http://newsok.com/off-track-this-train-really-has-left-the-station/article/3316641

Answering yesterday's OKLAHOMAN "anti Union Station" editorial, and some recent comments on that website:

As the late Dr. Marvin D. Monaghan, longtime Dallas Area Rapid Transit board member recalled, like most "new transit city" leaders, DART officials faced a lot of static getting their rail transit development underway. What we who've fought for OKC Union Station since 1989 have faced was very familiar to him. He'd met plenty of "Jills," and plenty of blustering bureaucrats and elected officials protecting their own fiefdoms.

Interviewed by KTOK's Jerry Bohnen in 2002, Dr. Monaghan reflected that, six years into DART Rail service, suburban and other leaders who'd thrown in with the highway lobby to fight rail, costing the effort tremendous time and money, were now lined up at DART's door, hats in hands, meekly requesting service extension for their communities ASAP. "They're eating crow by the platter," he said. Why? Because of the nearly unbelievable development and redevelopment that immediately flowed to the rail transit lines.

The first trains ran in June, 1996. DART Rail's first phase, built mostly on former freight railway corridors centered at Dallas Union Station, quickly drew 40,000 daily riders. Dallas Zoo visitors tripled in the first year. New business, hotels and convention centers sprang up along the lines and old urban neighborhoods suddenly reborn. In 2001, Metroplex voters who'd defeated a 1988 startup funding proposal approved $2.9 billion to speed system extensions -- 4-to-1. Similar success followed Denver and Salt Lake's first phases.

"A start" draws overwhelming local support. A start is what's been methodically denied Oklahomans, despite our amazing wealth of superb rail assets, despite high gas prices, terrorist bombings, world turmoil and economic meltdowns.

A DART Rail day pass is $3. Commuters ride all month for $50. Who knew money we send in to the Federal Transit Trust Fund with every motor fuel purchase was building such systems for others -- while our own elected officials sought to destroy our magnificent rail center, best in the West? Did you read it in THE OKLAHOMAN? See it on 4,5 and 9? No? And why, despite the repeated pleas and warnings of surrounding "new transit city" officials would debt-ridden, perpetually-money-grubbing ODOT continue its hell-bent rush to destroy our statewide railway network's center -- for a mere four miles of highway?

Who and what is THE OKLAHOMAN and the rest of the state's big media protecting? Are they really so hungry for auto dealer ad revenue that they'd cripple, forever, the state's ability to compete with our newly-transit-mobile neighbors in the West? OKLAHOMAN readers may remember that if we'd listened to its nasty editorials a few years back, the landmark Walnut Bridge would now be gone, replaced with "another at-grade rail crossing."

Considering the staggering failures of OKC leadership in the urban renewal disasters of the 1970s, OKC Union Station should plainly be seen by all of us as a second chance -- an elegant gift of our great-grandparents' generation to our own grandchildren, reaching down through time to give us all exactly what we need at this moment. If this is your thinking, now would be the time to ask Governor Henry to call the "debt kings" at ODOT off of this treasure.

Most recent OKLAHOMAN comment -- http://newsok.com/off-track-this-tra...rticle/3316641

ODOT'S "Revised Financial Plan February 2008 Update" sign by Mr. Ridley on 5/27/2008 shows $624 million for the current cost estimate of the I-40 Crosstown Project. This is almost 300% over the orginal cost estimate. Someone should be doing an investigation.
chuck, oklahoma city - Oct 30, 2008 2:20 PM

WE CAN STILL HAVE LIGHT RAIL WITHOUT HAVING UNION STATION AS A MULTIMODAL STATION.

Sorry to capitalize, but there are two separate arguments here. You can be pro one and anti the other.

I am not anti light rail, although I want thoughtful decisions to be made about its' location so that it is practical and useful. I think mass transit in Oklahoma City would be better served by first improving our bus and trolley system, which is flexible and runs on existing streets. No one on this thread is anti-light rail that I've seen. Don't lump people who are against using Union Station as a multi-modal station with people who are not interested in mass transit. That's as false as saying it would "destroy" Union Station were it not used as a multi-modal station. If you want to accuse ODOT of falsifying things, you have to keep your own nose clean or you lose all credibility.

We can have anything we want -- if we have time, money and resources to get it.

Trouble is, Oklahoma actually ranks 46th in per capita income in the nation, today. Under the "stellar leadership" of Frank Keating, whose "transportation czar" Neal McCaleb ginned up the plan to destroy the Union Station rail facility, we fell two places in the late 90s -- behind Arkansas and New Mexico.

We are among the poorest states in the nation.

We happen to be rich in one, particularly strategic transportation asset: Our 800+ miles of state-owned rail lines and their magnificent center, the 8-block-long, twelve-track-wide OKC Union Station terminal rail yard.

Why would people in such a poor state turn up their noses at such a gift?

Why would they allow people who've literally buried them and their unborn offspring in debt and trouble to talk them out of it?

The problem here has always been a failure on the part of far too many Oklahomans to recognize the great things we already have -- and what could be done with them.

Somebody always wants you to kill the goose "to get all the golden eggs right now!"

Big mistake.

How many times do we have to make that mistake before we learn?

I can hear Mick Cornett right now -- "Waaalll -- if yaall'd uh kepp us frum tarin' up dat Eunyun Stayshun, we' coulda sure had us a bang up transit deal. Dadgummit -- shore am a shame about dat -- ain't it?"

How many times are you gonna let yourselves be suckered by these people -- and the visionless fantasizers among the rest of us?

TOM ELMORE

Union Depot (the building) was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. That cannot be torn down but if OKC had the chance, they would.

That's absolutely ridiculous and not true.



FACT: The National Register states "Union Depot". What part of 'depot' and 'station' don't you understand? The depot is the building and that's not what's being torn down. The station 'GCOR defined' is being destroyed for the realignment save enough track space for 2 tracks leaving the depot behind.

Semantics.

I guess the people that carved the name into the building were wrong too, Richy?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/93/205371504_354c15e522.jpg

Ooh. Now I'm a visionless fantasizer. Isn't that an oxymoron?

Last year, I went to Union Station. Before ODOT showed up, it was a happy place. They had... flowery meadows and rainbow skies and, and rivers made of chocolate where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

:lol2:



Undeniable Fact: 47th per capita income and lost congressional seat. Keep up the good work.

Take that to another thread. It has NOTHING to do with Union Station.



I mean the people of OKC in general, not necessarily anyone that posts here. Just look at the state of the bus system here.

The citizens have consistently voted in favor of better mass transit. Certain COTPA, Metro Transit, and ODOT officials just won't get it going.

jbrown84 sez: Semantics.

I guess the people that carved the name into the building were wrong too, Richy?
_________________________________

The people who carved that name into the building were constructing a grand, urban rail center, hoss. I'll guarantee you they knew what they meant -- even if smart fellers like you can't figure it out.

That's what it is -- that's why it's there and that's why they named it that. The brass sign on the front of the entry there says very plainly why OKC purchased it in 1989 -- and it wasn't for "a museum."

Maybe you and "betts" would like to turn it into the "Union Station boutique" or "Union Station casino" or "Union Station laundromat" or "Union Station bowling green" -- but the "Union Station RAIL station" has you trumped by about 77 years.

By the way -- there's about a hundred feet of right of way that goes right along with that former Frisco rail line they can't move. It lies south of the northern hundred feet.

Makes a great rail center -- doesn't it?

TOM ELMORE