You could do that but it still leaves the same situation at Union Station. The building is staying and for what you propose to be viable, the rail yard would have to stay too -- otherwise there is no E/W line. And that's still far enough from U.S. that there would still need to be a stop there anyway.

No, they are keeping one line, so you could still have the E-W line and still have a stop at Union Station.

One line is not going to do it if we are going to have any type of rail system.

How many lines do we need? We've got a rail system south of the river for freight, and it's clearly the preferred system, as the BNSF has abandoned the line south of Union Station.

Are we talking about commuter rail or light rail? Again, if we have to add rail lines for light rail, let's do it where it's more convenient. How many commuters are we going to have anyway? Do we really have the data to prove that we've got the kind of numbers that would make rail make sense?

I'm going to continue to suggest that light rail run along the boulevard, where people can get off to go to Bricktown and the Ford Center, the CBD and where else? How many stops do we need? Where are all these people going? Mathis Brothers? There's nothing between the CBD and Mathis Brothers. There's nothing east of Bricktown but the American Indian Cultural Center. We need all of four stops. Maybe we're not ready for east-west rail if we're so small that four stops on a light rail line will pretty much cover everything. No one's going to walk down Reno from a Meridian stop to get to restaurants south of I-40, nor are they going to walk down Reno to get to restaurants between it and Mathis Brothers. The problem is, except for near Bricktown, there's no really any place that's walkable along an east-west line. Nor are there really any places many people are going to want to go.

It's the north-south line that needs to go in first, if we even think we've got the density for it. We can stop every mile and pick up people from residential areas east and west of it. That's logical. If we're going to spend money, let's spend it on north-south, and see if we even get enough usage of it to make consideration of an east-west line reasonable.

Transcription of a letter from the late Dr. Marvin D. Monaghan --

M.D. Monaghan, O.D.
Garland, TX 75041

February 8, 2004

Mr. Tom Elmore, Executive Director
North American Transportation Institute
PO Box 6617
Oklahoma City, OK 73153-0617

Dear Mr. Elmore:

Your interest in preserving intact the property associated with the Oklahoma City Union Station is a worthwhile endeavor. During my fifty years in professional life I have had the pleasure and privilege of serving avocationally on several boards and commissions having to do with public transportation. Probably the most important and challenging example was five years as a member of the board of directors of Dallas Area Rapid Transit, known as DART.

Associated with this activity was a scenario that bears a close relationship to your efforts toward maintaining the integrity of your Union Station. Early in the 1970s I received a call at my office late one afternoon from a management official of the group that was developing the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Dallas. The location they had selected was just across the tracks from Dallas Union Station, which had been closed in 1969 with the cessation of rail passenger service. In order to develop the hotel in an attractive manner it was necessary that Union Station be part of the project. They felt, however, that it should be a joint development with the City for various reasons as the more farsighted planners envisioned its ultimate use for regional public transportation.

This led to a proposal to the Dallas City Council for the City to purchase the station property from the railroads and lease it to the hotel developers who would, in turn, sublease it for shops or offices. The council agreed to put the proposal up for a vote which was the subject of the 11th hour call I received that afternoon. The vote was scheduled to be taken the next afternoon, and they wanted me to draft letters to the Council on behalf of two civic groups with whom I was associated recommending the purchase. My wife and I stayed up all night typing individual letters from both organizations to each individual council member. It was before the day of word processors and photocopiers. It came down to the wire and the proposal passed by one vote the next day.

It turned out to be one of the most visionary and productive decisions the Council ever made. No long after that Dallas and Forth Worth jointly bought the former Rock Island Railroad line between the two cities. Close on the heels of that the DART referendum was passed which included plans for both commuter rail service on the line owned by the cities and for an extensive electric light rail system -- which immediately brought into clear focus the wisdom of acquiring Union Station as an intermodal terminal for the DART system, with the commuter trains also serving D/FW Airport.

Unfortunately, however, when the plans were drawn up for revitalization and renovation of the station, the need for track capacity was underestimated. Originally there were eleven tracks serving the passenger trains. The original restructuring done by the City reduced this to three tracks. As soon as the plans DART had formulated were laid on the table it was clear that two additional tracks had to be restored for the electric light rail line as the commuter trains to Fort Worth would need the three existing tracks. Also, Amtrak had begun service to Dallas which also had to share one of the three tracks with its trains to Chicago and San Antonio.

Work was begun and the two tracks were restored, which was a bit complex, since two bridges over streets going to the hotel, originally not present, had to be widened. This was accomplished and in 1996 both commuter and light rail service was begun -- which has been at the top of the success stories in the transit world. Plans, however, are in the works to add additional commuter rail lines to other outlying suburbs, which will place greater demands on the limited track space. Further addition of tracks would be difficult as additional widening of the bridges would be necessary. The solutions would have been much simpler if planners had looked still farther ahead and anticipated this potential demand, as there are requests coming from all quarters for other communities to be served by DART's fast 65 mph light rail trains.

There is a lesson to be learned here for Oklahoma City as it would be unfortunate for them to make the same mistake, if not a worse one, by removing major portions of the station trackage which might be impossible to replace. Make no mistake -- Oklahoma City people will hear that the city is not large enough for rail transit, ridership will be minimal and buses will be cheaper. We heard all of that in Dallas and experience has proven it to be untrue. Cities are experiencing rapid growth and they soon become too large for slow buses to serve adequately. And there is a reluctance on the part of the middle classes to use buses. Due to the speed and convenience of the trains and the park & ride stations they serve, the trains appeal to both classes who mix compatibly on their way to workplaces and other destinations.

If Oklahoma City citizens would like to take a peek at what your city could have in a few years, they would do well to visit Dallas, ride the two light rail lines and the commuter line to Fort Worth and then transpose this experience to their own environment thereby joining the multitude of cities that are building or planning rail transit.

Sincerely yours,
(Signed)
Marvin D. Monaghan
Former DART Board Member
Mobility Dallas Council

But as a soon to be downtown resident, I am terribly disappointed that an area I thought would be a showpiece and a great residential location will be noisy, smelly,ugly and difficult to traverse. Just my opinion.

Betts,

I hear what you are saying. I haven't seen any detailed plans of the proposed multi-modeal station with enough information to know for sure whether this is a good thing or whether your hunch is more correct. The point I was trying to make is that creating a continuous park system is not the overriding concern as the highway, which will not be capped in anyway and is only semi-depressed, already ruins this possibility.

It is much more important to focus on an overall strategy for improving not just downtown, but moving the whole city forward. Transit is certainly a part of the equation. We would have probably been better off planning to retain all of Union Station until we had a comprehensive long-term transportation strategy and knew for sure the role that Union station could/should play, but at this point I am not sure it is worth all of the trouble.

All that said, I definitely share your passion for making downtown OKC great and a wonderful urban place for residents, visitors, pedestrians, etc. I even want it to be enjoyable for drivers. We are headed in the right direction, we just need to keep working at it and keep improving.

How many lines do we need? We've got a rail system south of the river for freight, and it's clearly the preferred system, as the BNSF has abandoned the line south of Union Station.

Are we talking about commuter rail or light rail?

I would say 2 lines for "heavy" commuter rail plus 2 lines for the "light" electric rail / street car. No additional land is needed because that can be reclaimed from the present footprint of Union Station by eliminating some of the freight docks that I agree are not needed for passenger interchange.

Another consideration - does the relocated I-40 need to be 10 lanes wide? I know 4 is too small - but would doubling the new Crosstown to 8 lanes meet the present and predicted future traffic volume? If so, this is the solution. The transportation footprint that will divide the C2S park will be the same as presently planned while leaving the ability to build a viable mass transit system for OKC.

As for the aesthetics, I am inclined to agree with Betts on the importance of the "look" of the C2S. However, with some creative engineering and planning I think the aesthetics can be preserved while permitting the infrastructure for a future rail transit system. Since pedestrian traffic will need a ramp to lead up to the bridge of the not-so-below grade I40, why not build up a "hill" in the green space to the east of Union Station and enclose the future light rail in it? The present "heavy" rail would remain as it is today behind the retaining wall that will be necessary to build I40 partially below grade.

The hill would have trees and other plantings along with benches to view the CBD and the rest of the park as it extends down to the river. One of the stated goals of the C2S planning is to lead pedestrians along a path where new views are "discovered" as they move along the path. Why not add an elevation change to add more visual interest?

Any bus traffic should be contained on the south and west side of Union Station th the greatest extent possible. Any auto parking should be located on the west side as well.

This is how I see where we can have our cake and eat it too. (Only if we solve the issie of how N-S trains access Union Station.) I really do not believe these equally important goals need to be mutually exclusive.

I'm not against transit at all. I'm actually all about making it practical. Oklahoma City has such a car culture that I think to get people out of their cars we've got to make it as convenient as possible. Besides the park and the aesthetics (or lack thereof) of a multi-modal station, my biggest concern is that we invest time and money in a system that people will actually use, and I see Union Station as a very bad location for a multi-modal station. I'm not even against running a rail line east-west, although I'd like to see it run along the Boulevard (if we've decided we want to spend money on light rail).

We talk about the money lost if we tear up rail, and I understand that concern. My concern is that we could spend millions, if not billions of dollars on a system that people don't use because it doesn't get them where they want to go. That's a far bigger financial loss than a few rail lines.

To me, the logical place for a multimodal station is at the intersection of north-south and east-west rail lines. Then we can build a station that is designed to be multi-modal, that is convenient for passengers. Personally, and perhaps it's my bias because of where I live and where I want to travel, I think the north-south line is far more important than an east-west line. I'm hoping the city is studying this to determine if I'm right or not. If I'm right, and we have more travelers on the north-south line, we inconvenience them if we make them change trains to an east-west line to get to the multi-modal station (assuming it's Union Station) where they then have to take a bus to get to where they want to go. How much easier to have the multimodal station right where they get off? It's no less convenient for the east-west travelers as well, since they only have to take one train as well. A multi-modal station there would actually be more convenient to Bricktown and no less convenient to the CBD than Union Station. That's how we get people to use mass transit: we make it easy for them to get where they're going.

Case in point was the article in the DOK outlining what it took for one of their reporters to take the bus from Edmond to his job. The primary focus of his article was the time spent changing buses, and the inconvenience of waiting for them. If we can make mass transit a one stop trip, we make it far more inviting for people currently used to driving right to where they want to go.

Once the parks are in place, and we have our nice Tavern restaurant overlooking our central park, we'll all want to visit. We can run or bike or just walk down the paths and by our river. It will be nice not to have to find parking once there, and to lounge the afternoon away in a beautiful setting and catch a trolly or bus or train back home. I want to do that now!

Anyone else here just scroll past Elmore's posts like me? I see his long-winded copy-paste of articles from other cities that have nothing to do with our situation and I just scroll right past him without wasting my time.

Anyone else here just scroll past Elmore's posts like me? I see his long-winded copy-paste of articles from other cities that have nothing to do with our situation and I just scroll right past him without wasting my time.

No, but then again, many of us don't experience the violent cognitive dissonance which seems to plague you.

But if it pains you that much to read a dissonant viewpoint, by all means, scroll away.

Anyone else here just scroll past Elmore's posts like me? I see his long-winded copy-paste of articles from other cities that have nothing to do with our situation and I just scroll right past him without wasting my time.

I normally just give them a quick scan, as well. He has a rigid agenda and no respect for opposing viewpoints.

Why is Union Station sitting empty today? What has changed that now makes it viable? What kind of development did it attract around it in its heyday?

Lots of train stations went dark after the glory days of rail but the huge majority have reopened to passenger service, including OKC's Sante Fe station, which only reopened 9 years ago and to very limited service. However, it now features prominently in any central OK rail plan. Good thing we didn't trash it in the early 80's just because no one at that time could ever envision it being used as a train station... And as it turns out, there are now active negotiations to expand passenger service from that station, and maybe soon.

And as stated, most these larger stations are located about a mile from a city's CBD. In other towns, their reemergence has drawn development from the CBD's towards the stations -- many examples given in this thread.

Union Station also had the great misfortune of having a huge interstate built as a barrier between it and downtown, something that is getting ready to go away.

As far as what has changed: 1) reemergence of downtown; 2) planned removal of interstate barrier; 3) renewed importance of rail across the country; 4) $4 a gallon gas (likely to go up even further); 5) Core to Shore. Those are some pretty significant changes.

"....... if it pains you that much to read a dissonant viewpoint, by all means, scroll away.

I don't mind reading a dissonant viewpoint if it is rational, well thought out and indicates a concern for our city and it's development in multiple areas. I realize that there are differences of opinion regarding what is best for the city, in terms of moving it up to compete with larger cities for businesses, media and visitor attention and population.

But, when there seems to be no concern for anything but one aspect of that development, a refusal to consider the possibility that development of a city might be multidisciplinary, and no attempt to look at differences between other cities and ours and how that might affect said development, then I too scroll right past without reading.

I don't mind reading a dissonant viewpoint if it is rational, well thought out and indicates a concern for our city and it's development in multiple areas. I realize that there are differences of opinion regarding what is best for the city, in terms of moving it up to compete with larger cities for businesses, media and visitor attention and population.

Elmore's viewpoints are unapologetically one-sided. He genuinely seems to believe that having a superior public transit system, including rail, with Union Station as a multimodal hub is a good thing. I think he makes a lot of fine arguments in support of his contentions. There are other fine arguments against.

I think there is little doubt that Union Station can be redeveloped cheaper and quicker than any other site in the city and that most of the right of ways for it to be a functional hub already exist. I don't think that's even disputable.

The question is whether we ought to start from scratch, or we ought to rehabilitate a system which has not been in operation for around 50 years, which was built to serve OKC as it was 50 years ago and not as it is now.

Reasonable minds can differ, I think. That you disagree with one viewpoint does not in itself make it an inferior viewpoint, however.


But, when there seems to be no concern for anything but one aspect of that development, a refusal to consider the possibility that development of a city might be multidisciplinary, and no attempt to look at differences between other cities and ours and how that might affect said development, then I too scroll right past without reading.

That's fine, but I think Elmore's posts are quite valuable. I question why it disturbs some to see well thought-out, highly researched opinions which run contra to ODOT's official positions, and in some cases, expose ODOT's complete and utter incompetence.

No one is wanting to stop the crosstown.

No one.

Many of us just want an honest broker in our Department of Transportation, rather than a shill for highway contractors and speculating developers who have bought property in anticipation of a project being done a certain way and on a certain route.

It's really not unreasonable to expect ODOT to not lie on legal applications and to honestly consider all of the options when it comes to deciding how Oklahomans will move around. I don't think ODOT has done a very good job, and I don't think my belief is unreasonable.

As much as I'm a proponent of a lightrail system connecting OKC to Edmond, Norman, airport, etc, there is no evidence that it will see worthwhile ridership numbers. The Heartland Flyer from OKC to Fort Worth has been bailed out at least once or twice since its opened. Do we really want to pay $500 million to revitalize Union Station and find out in ten years it wasn't worth it. OKC desperately needs the I-40 crosstown NOW. Union Station will have a place in the proposed central park a restaurant/museum would be perfect.

If everyone is so high on mass transit, why not push for increased funding for buses? We already have a nice bus terminal downtown. It's not uncommon for world class cities to be heavily reliant on buses. Rome has a metro, lightrail, and buses. But if you want to see Rome, the bus system is the way to get around as the metro and lightrail are in isolated areas.

Last point, OKC and Oklahoma is a car society. If we have a train or rail to Edmond, Norman, Yukon, etc. people are going to have to drive to the station in these suburbs, park their car, and then take the train. Most people don't have this kind of patience.

No one is wanting to stop the crosstown.

No one.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Tom Elmore simply wants to resurface the existing I-40, but I don't have the patience to wade through all his posts to quote him. And there's where I have my biggest problem with his views. He doesn't care about aesthetics. He doesn't have a vision for the city, just the rail lines (and maybe the station because it's associated with the rail lines). I'm not sure he cares what happens to Oklahoma City as a home for people, as long as there's train traffic through it. I'd be happy if just once he said that he could care less if we have a beautiful downtown, because that's the implication of his posts. He dances around the question. If he were honest, then he would say he doesn't care what Oklahoma City looks like, and he doesn't care if people live downtown, or if there is a plan for OKC that includes making downtown a place people want to call home. Since I'm planning to call it home, I have a sincere interest in making it a great place to live, and I'll be honest: I don't care nearly as much about giving people in El Reno or Shawnee an alternate choice about how to get downtown if it means sacrificing plans for a beautiful downtown. I certainly don't care if people from Weatherford and Tulsa don't get to get off the train at Union Station, and have to get off somewhere else instead, and I vehemently object to piggybacks being picked up by trucks at Union Station when there's a perfectly good railyard south of the river that the rail companies are actually using already.


Many of us just want an honest broker in our Department of Transportation, rather than a shill for highway contractors and speculating developers who have bought property in anticipation of a project being done a certain way and on a certain route.

It's really not unreasonable to expect ODOT to not lie on legal applications and to honestly consider all of the options when it comes to deciding how Oklahomans will move around. I don't think ODOT has done a very good job, and I don't think my belief is unreasonable..

I don't think anyone is arguing that ODOT has done a wonderful job. Perhaps they are a shill for highway contractors and speculating developers. But, sometimes speculating developers (whom we're applauding in other places downtown) actually have plans that coincide with what some of the rest of us want. I don't care if someone else makes money if they create places where people want to live and recreate downtown. Cleaning up ODOT doesn't necessarily mean one must abandon the plans with which they're working. There were a lot of people who worked on Core to Shore, and not all of them had nefarious reasons for doing so. Oklahoma City has very little in the way of natural beauty. We have to make beauty to make this a place people who aren't stuck here regardless want to live. There have to be compromises that make that possible, but personally, I don't see anyone willing to compromise on Union Station. People like me want it to be a mecca for leisure time activities. I'd love to see it full of little shops and restaurant/s....a place where people hold parties, an art museum perhaps, sitting in the middle of a beautiful, iconic park. Those that oppose that idea don't seem willing for it to be anything other than a multimodal station, with trains, trucks, buses, a barrier to the river and an aesthetic disaster. Where's the compromise? Why didn't this argument take place before the Crosstown was ever planned? Or, if it did, then the decision has been made, and people need to live with it.

Of course Elmore doesn't care what Oklahoma City looks like. He doesn't live here. He just wants to be able to take the train in from Norman every now and then.

If everyone is so high on mass transit, why not push for increased funding for buses? We already have a nice bus terminal downtown. It's not uncommon for world class cities to be heavily reliant on buses. Rome has a metro, lightrail, and buses. But if you want to see Rome, the bus system is the way to get around as the metro and lightrail are in isolated areas.

Rome is a horrible example.

The problem with rail transit in Rome is that it is very difficult and very expensive to dig anything anywhere due to the archaeological preservation restrictions and the fact that it's likely something important will be found and either cancel the project or set it way, way back. Accordingly, the subway and light rail systems they do have are few and far between -- and what they do have are horrible roads and taxicab drivers who think they're practicing for Nascar.

OKC is not like Rome in any way, shape or form. Look at cities in Germany or France if you want something that's (sort of) comparable, or better yet, Salt Lake City which has a very successful light rail system.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Tom Elmore simply wants to resurface the existing I-40, but I don't have the patience to wade through all his posts to quote him.

I seem to remember him saying that. I can see his side of things and it doesn't make him any less believable. The current crosstown is nothing more than a psychological barrier, and its safety can't really be a concern if ODOT is continuing to allow 18-wheelers which could easily be rerouted to I-240 use the crosstown. I think the horrible state of disrepair has been overstated to help make a stronger case for moving forward on the crosstown project without a complete discussion of the alternatives.


And there's where I have my biggest problem with his views. He doesn't care about aesthetics. He doesn't have a vision for the city, just the rail lines (and maybe the station because it's associated with the rail lines). I'm not sure he cares what happens to Oklahoma City as a home for people, as long as there's train traffic through it.

Perhaps a valid point of view does exist that trains would benefit the entire city, maybe the whole state, while a picturesque park, at least would only really directly benefit those who were well-healed enough to afford the $300+/sq. ft. homes being built around it.


I'd be happy if just once he said that he could care less if we have a beautiful downtown, because that's the implication of his posts. He dances around the question. If he were honest, then he would say he doesn't care what Oklahoma City looks like, and he doesn't care if people live downtown, or if there is a plan for OKC that includes making downtown a place people want to call home.

You build Elmore's argument as a nice straw man, only to knock it down. Maybe aesthetics aren't at the top of his list of priorities. So what? That doesn't inherently make him wrong, and it's also not clear that we can't have a fine light rail system alongside other aesthetically pleasing amenities.


Since I'm planning to call it home, I have a sincere interest in making it a great place to live, and I'll be honest: I don't care nearly as much about giving people in El Reno or Shawnee an alternate choice about how to get downtown if it means sacrificing plans for a beautiful downtown. I certainly don't care if people from Weatherford and Tulsa don't get to get off the train at Union Station, and have to get off somewhere else instead, and I vehemently object to piggybacks being picked up by trucks at Union Station when there's a perfectly good railyard south of the river that the rail companies are actually using already.

Fantastic. God bless America. That's your point of view. I don't think you're inherently wrong, but a beautiful core city can and should on some level incorporate mass transit. I'd like to see COTPA develop a comprehensive 25-year plan which will allay my concerns that core to shore will not be built with the right-of-ways we'll be needing 25 years from now when OKC is going to definitely need a rail system.


I don't think anyone is arguing that ODOT has done a wonderful job. Perhaps they are a shill for highway contractors and speculating developers. But, sometimes speculating developers (whom we're applauding in other places downtown) actually have plans that coincide with what some of the rest of us want. I don't care if someone else makes money if they create places where people want to live and recreate downtown. Cleaning up ODOT doesn't necessarily mean one must abandon the plans with which they're working. There were a lot of people who worked on Core to Shore, and not all of them had nefarious reasons for doing so. Oklahoma City has very little in the way of natural beauty. We have to make beauty to make this a place people who aren't stuck here regardless want to live. There have to be compromises that make that possible, but personally, I don't see anyone willing to compromise on Union Station. People like me want it to be a mecca for leisure time activities. I'd love to see it full of little shops and restaurant/s....a place where people hold parties, an art museum perhaps, sitting in the middle of a beautiful, iconic park. Those that oppose that idea don't seem willing for it to be anything other than a multimodal station, with trains, trucks, buses, a barrier to the river and an aesthetic disaster. Where's the compromise? Why didn't this argument take place before the Crosstown was ever planned? Or, if it did, then the decision has been made, and people need to live with it.

You paint it as a zero-sum game. As for having a multimodal hub, it is a zero-sum game. As to whether that hub can be aesthetically pleasing and a cultural/recreational mecca? I think there's a lot of middle ground there. Such a hub has a potential to literally be part of the heart of the city, not only for the folks in Nichols Hills South (which I'd love to live in, and hope to be able to), but for the rest of the city as well.

I don't really see how your iconic park will be set back if it is also the hub for the city's mass transit system. I actually don't understand how the area wouldn't benefit from such a thing.

I don't see your "barrier to the river" argument. I don't think you make a lick of sense there. I-40 will already be serving as a barrier. I don't know how much more of a barrier you can have than an 8-lane interstate highway.

Of course Elmore doesn't care what Oklahoma City looks like. He doesn't live here. He just wants to be able to take the train in from Norman every now and then.

Ah, it becomes clearer now. But the train from Norman wouldn't stop at Union Station anyway, unless he wanted to change trains at the intersection of the North-South and East-West lines. That explains the Norman City Council as well. I'm not interested in what people outside of Oklahoma City think, unless they're experts in urban renewal and city development as well as transit. or they want to offer a simple personal opinion. I would also like their assessments to reflect how Oklahoma City is different from other cities they've studied, and how that uniqueness needs to be considered when planning redevelopment of the Core to Shore area.

In other words, with respect, you are only interested in hearing an echo chamber :)

Perhaps a valid point of view does exist that trains would benefit the entire city, maybe the whole state, while a picturesque park, at least would only really directly benefit those who were well-healed enough to afford the $300+/sq. ft. homes being built around it.

I'm not arguing against trains, just using Union Station as the location for the multi-modal station. For those who want to use it, perhaps they should give us an alternate plan and location for our iconic city park, just as we've given alternate locations for a multi-modal station, commercial rail traffic and interstate passenger traffic. I doubt a downtown park would only be used by those well-healed enough to afford $300+ square foot homes around it. Everytime I'm in New York I spend time in Central Park. Same with the Boston Public Garden when I'm there. When I was in Chicago last month, I saw people from all socieconomic groups enjoying Millenium Park. A park can be the heart of a community, if it's well-planned.


You build Elmore's argument as a nice straw man, only to knock it down. Maybe aesthetics aren't at the top of his list of priorities. So what? That doesn't inherently make him wrong, and it's also not clear that we can't have a fine light rail system alongside other aesthetically pleasing amenities.
.

I'm not saying it's wrong for him not to care about aesthetics. That's his personal choice as a private citizen. I'm asking that he be honest about aesthetics and admit that he doesn't care, rather than ignore the issue and pretend that it's not one. Also, he's not talking about light rail. He wants commercial and inter and intrastate heavy passenger rail to use Union Station.


..... a beautiful core city can and should on some level incorporate mass transit. I'd like to see COTPA develop a comprehensive 25-year plan which will allay my concerns that core to shore will not be built with the right-of-ways we'll be needing 25 years from now when OKC is going to definitely need a rail system..

I do not and have never disagreed. I'm all for mass transit. I simply have a different opinion on where mass transit should be located in Oklahoma City, and, to a certain extent, what types of mass transit we should be considering.


You paint it as a zero-sum game. As for having a multimodal hub, it is a zero-sum game. As to whether that hub can be aesthetically pleasing and a cultural/recreational mecca? I think there's a lot of middle ground there. Such a hub has a potential to literally be part of the heart of the city, not only for the folks in Nichols Hills South (which I'd love to live in, and hope to be able to), but for the rest of the city as well. .

One of the reasons people love Nichols Hills is because of all the green space. There's a mile long park in the center of Nichols Hills, and scattered parks throughout the neighborhood. I promise you, if you tried to put a multi-modal hub in the center of the Grand Boulevard park, it would be fought to the death by virtually every resident there. Why? They love their park, and they would know a transit hub would ruin it.


I don't really see how your iconic park will be set back if it is also the hub for the city's mass transit system. I actually don't understand how the area wouldn't benefit from such a thing.

I don't see your "barrier to the river" argument. I don't think you make a lick of sense there. I-40 will already be serving as a barrier. I don't know how much more of a barrier you can have than an 8-lane interstate highway.

Why do people love parks? They're peaceful. The smell good. They're relaxing. Imagine diesel fumes from buses, train noise, trucks coming at going at all hours of the day. Not my idea of peaceful, relaxing or good smelling. I agree that an 8-lane interstate highway is a barrier. If I had my way, it too would be south of the river. However, it is below grade and it's going to have an iconic pedestrian bridge over that highway, which helps considerably. If you can figure out a way to put the bus lanes, train tracks and parking below grade too, and cross all of them with an iconic bridge, I'll stop arguing. I want aesthetics. This is a phenomenal piece of land we have. We currently have a boring, uninspiring city, and this is our chance to remake it. I don't want to see a bigger, but still boring, uninspiring city. I have only seen one multimodal train station that inspires me, and I've seen quite a few incredibly ugly ones. That is Grand Central Station, which is nowhere near New York City's Central Park. Perhaps there's a reason.

In other words, with respect, you are only interested in hearing an echo chamber :)

No, I want to hear from people who care about Oklahoma City and know what they're talking about with respect to more than mass transit. I want to hear from people who are true city planners, in the grand sense of the word.

I am all for the park. I really don't think an active Union Station is going to be a deal breaker. I think it's a reaching a bit saying you are going to smell fumes and noise, etc. It's one little part of the park. If anything, I think the majority of the exhaust and noise will be from I-40. Don't shoot the idea down before you see the specifics.

I just recently moved to Los Angeles and never thought I'd be such a big believer in mass transit such as the light rail system here.

Yes, there are huge differences in the population, but shouldn't OKC be hoping that they reach some form of this capacity, or better yet, that they're prepared for it? The only way to encourage new business to your area is to show they are welcomed with the preparedness of the city infrastructure. It is sort of like wanting to start a family and then moving into a 1 bedroom house instead of a place with room to grow.

Yes, the roads aren't as busy, but they easily could be. I find myself using the rail system frequently out here and never would have known its benefits until I just used it.

I also look at the polar opposite, what if we couldn't afford to drive anymore? I don't mean to sound alarmist or extreme, but it seems a very valid argument by each day.

If using union station would be much cheaper than building a completely new hub, why not give it serious thought? Even if the new I-40 was further along in construction, I seriously doubt that it would cost more to reprofile a highway than to build a completely new rail hub and station.

Maybe they could divert some of the money from Mick Cornett's facelift procedures.


..

I am all for the park. I really don't think an active Union Station is going to be a deal breaker. I think it's a reaching a bit saying you are going to smell fumes and noise, etc. It's one little part of the park. If anything, I think the majority of the exhaust and noise will be from I-40. Don't shoot the idea down before you see the specifics.

The idea was shot down a long time ago. The decision to relocate I-40 was made many years ago, the route was chosen and construction is underway.

There are no specifics because there is no plan or proposal to restore rail service to Union Station. That train has already left the station.

State rail projects get boost as driving declines - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080930/ap_on_re_us/rail_and_roads)

Driving down 3.6 percent.

9 consecutive months of decline in miles traveled by car.

Transit ridership up 11 percent.

Amtrak carried more passengers in July than any month in its history.


That train has already left the station.

And once again Oklahoma City stands to lose an asset that could very well be important to its competitive stature in the future. These days it is not that hard to imagine that cities without a viable transportation infrastructure as an alternative to driving will have a hard time competing. Yes, Oklahoma City is dominated by the "car culture", and that culture may be its undoing.

It is not hard to imagine that in 2 or 3 generations from now, cities without some sort of comprehensive mass transit system will be as irrelavent as those without major freeway infrasturcture were in the 20th century. So, given the massive hole we are in in terms of mass transit, can we really afford to destroy any infrastructure we do have?

If I felt like there was any viable and realistic proposal for mass transit in the Oklahoma City metro area in place that didn't need these lines, then I would say let it go. However, as we have NO plan for mass transit in Oklahoma City or Oklahoma, I think it is rash to destroy any infrastructure that could potentially be considered in such a plan. I just don't want to see Oklahoma City come as far as it has in the last 20 years, just to continue to play catch up for the next 50, because we wouldn't move a freeway 300 yards. A freeway that is becoming less and less affordable for the average person to use. It would be better, imo, to delay buidling the old mode of infrastructure to improve our chances of offering relavent and viable alternatives that compete with other cities in the near future.

Yes, we need the new I-40. We needed it 10 years ago. But we also need a future and personal driving will play less and less of a role in the future. I know some will say that we'll figure it out then, but we need to figure it out now. Cities are already competing for these dollars and for the work. It will only got to where the tax payer can get the most for their money and starting from scratch in a small market is a very expensive proposition with a relatively low initial ROI.

Some of the last few posters hit upon something very specific.

There is no plan.

Nobody has a plan to use Union Station. What little plan exists can be summed up thus: "I think we should use Union Station." That's it. That's the whole of the plan. There's nothing else. There are no feasibility studies. There are no cost estimates. Nobody even knows exactly what they'd like to do to the thing, or when service could begin. That's not a plan. That's a mission statement. "Mass transit is good." That's all we've got.

On the other hand, I-40 construction is underway. The costs of delaying it could be huge, especially if an accident happens.

And once again Oklahoma City stands to lose an asset that could very well be important to its competitive stature in the future. These days it is not that hard to imagine that cities without a viable transportation infrastructure as an alternative to driving will have a hard time competing. Yes, Oklahoma City is dominated by the "car culture", and that culture may be its undoing.

Yes, we need the new I-40. We needed it 10 years ago. But we also need a future and personal driving will play less and less of a role in the future.

Sorry BDP, but I don't buy your premise.

There is no reason to believe that cars will be any less relevant in the foreseeable future than they are now. It is very possible that in the future, cars using new technologies will be less expensive to use and maintain than the cars we drive today.

Mass transit makes sense in areas with heavy population density, where traffic congestion and parking are problems. That certainly doesn't describe OKC now or is it likely to in the future. As OKC has grown outward over the last 60+ years, it is mass transit here that has become obsolete.

I am all for a mass transit plan that makes sense. Putting the hub in the wrong spot just because there are abandoned lines there, makes no sense.

I'm not really sure how putting light rail (or any rail) in would help reduce urban sprawl. Yes, there might be development around rail stops, but how much of that would be residential? If you've got a north-south route, there is already a fair amount of residential development along that line. On a east-west line, if it roughly followed Reno, you've got commercial development along the entire route. I'm not sure how much land is available for residential development, nor how attractive it would be for residential development, given what's already there.

What you might see is people with higher incomes moving in to inner city neighborhoods and fixing up houses, if the downtown is more attractive and inviting, has more retail and restaurants, as well as a grocery store, but I don't see rail making that happen as much as it would be people responding to entertainment and retail options. People who want to live downtown want to do so to gain more of a walking environment, not a riding environment. And, it's not as if our downtown is so big you can't walk everywhere quite easily.

So, what would rail do besides make it easier and more convenient for people to live outside Oklahoma City? I agree with Southside Sooner in that, if technology develops to provide marked increase in fuel efficiency for cars, unless most people were working downtown and it was a nightmare to drive there or park, I'm not sure that enough people would use it to make it cost effective.

Hate to beat a dead horse, but buses or trolleys are way more flexible and work far better for short distance mass transit if they run frequently and on time. Let's work on a great bus system before spending billions on light rail that may not be used with any great frequency.

Just sixty years ago, freight trains were the primary mover of long haul freight and passenger trains and buses were the primary long distance mode of personal travel in the United States. Between, around 1950, and today, trucks gobbled up the lions share of long haul freight and airplanes replaced passenger trains as the primary choice of most long distance business and pleasure travelers. Except in densely populated US cities, the automobile (along with vans, SUVs, RVs etc.) has become more and more the transportation choice of individuals and families for short and long trips alike. Highway bus, and large RV travel is still important for vacation, excursions, some group travel and to those standing on the bottom few rungs of the US economic ladder. This is not a personal opinion, this is the documented transportation trend of the past sixty years. The reasons behind these trends can certainly be argued, and are, but the reality of the trends cannot.

Commuter rail travel has been historically important and use is growing in the major population centers of the NE. In the past few years, rail has reemerged as a viable option for commuter and short distance travel in and around cities between the Mississippi and the Rockies; again not just a personal opinion, as we are all familiar with the new passenger rail systems in Texas, Utah, New Mexico etc.

Today, passenger rail is still an upward moving trend. Predicting whether it continues at a minimal, moderate or fast pace, or fades away, is not an issue I or anyone else posting on this forum is probably well qualified for, even if we all did lots of research. But, we are all entitled to our opinions and we have seen many expressed here. I for one am impressed by many of the well reasoned arguments on all sides of these issues. And certainly, we can all agree that the present day upward trend in passenger rail travel is indeed, well documented.

The incredibly complex question(s) facing transportation planners, city planners, urban planners and the appointed and elected officials charged with making the far reaching decisions that effect the lives of us all is . . . . given all that we know and all that we can be relatively certain of, what should the freight, business and personal transportation system of the US look like in 2020 . . . . 2030 etc. Here in Oklahoma and Oklahoma City, there are those who believe much of the Union Station rail yard can simply be eliminated with little or no negative impact as a result on our future transportation system. There are others that take the opposite position and still others that put totally different priorities above transportation. A place of agreement probably is that our individual transportation needs are varied and our personal choices are made because of many factors; cost, convenience, access, habit . . . . it's a long list for sure.

I am personally in the camp with those who believe removing any of the existing tracks from the Union Station rail yard takes away valuable infrastructure that can serve our state and city well in the relatively near (2015) and distant (2070) future. Further, I believe (because of the apparent direction of economic and transportation trends driven by upward trending energy costs) that with imaginative transportation planning and strong political leadership, Oklahoma City can become an established major passenger and freight rail hub that will spur economic growth of such magnitude that it will make the current exciting revitalization and redevelopment of our urban core seem like just a drop in the bucket.

That was very well spoken and thought out, Old Downtown Guy. I agree with the complexity, and am never stating more than my opinion, as every city is different, and applying what works or what doesn't work in one city to another is fraught with hazard.

I have no problem with us being a major passenger and freight hub. That's an exciting prospect, although we are already far south of the main existing cross country passenger rail service, and so I'm not sure what we would be a hub for. Regardless, my point has always been that especially freight, and potentially heavy passenger rail, do not have to be right in the middle of our CBD, or in an area that's ripe for development.

People who are traveling through a city and who have a destination elsewhere may not even get off the train, or if they do, they spend a brief period of time in the station. Cross country passenger travel is not going to impact our city in terms of hotel, retail or restaurant usage numbers. Like with an airport, if someone is traveling to Oklahoma City via rail, they do not necessarily need to be blocks from downtown or their hotel. They're going to take a taxi or hotel shuttle anyway, as walking with luggage even six blocks is completely impractical, so six blocks one way or the other is not going to impact their trip, or make them choose another destination.

Commercial rail is ugly and noisy. There are very few railyards in any cities that are immediately adjacent to attractive development. No one wants to live or recreate near them. If anything, being right in the middle of a city is a hindrance, as trucks have to come and go at all hours, including rush hour. There's a reason the line south of union station isn't being used, and the one south of the river is. Perhaps ease of access has something to do with that.

It would be a crime to use our beautiful Union Station as a commercial railyard. What a way to ruin a beautiful piece of architecture and a great location for attractive development. It's also a waste to use it for heavy rail passengers, who's only goal when they arrive at a station is to leave it.....as fast as possible. They're tired and hauling luggage. Airports are no longer in the middle of cities, and yet people still use airplanes. I don't think using a location other than Union Station would negatively affect any commercial rail passenger travel in the future.

So, if someone wants to have light rail at Union Station, maybe that would be OK. Not my first choice. But, that's the least intrusive and most useful for actual city dwellers. I still think we will find it's not the chosen hub, even for light rail passengers. They'll walk, take their bus or their taxi at whichever stop is closest to their destination, and for everyone riding a north-south line, that will be the stop closest to Bricktown and the CBD. They won't take the time to transfer twice just so they can go through Union Station.

Do we actually know the cost per mile of putting down rail line, and do we definitely know that the only useable east-west heavy track for passenger rail is the one behind Union Station?

That was very well spoken and thought out, Old Downtown Guy. I agree with the complexity, and am never stating more than my opinion, as every city is different, and applying what works or what doesn't work in one city to another is fraught with hazard. . . .

Those who better than I understand the components of rail traffic tell me that historical and future primary use for Union Station is passenger service, including reestablishing the former east - west service from (I think) St. Louis on the east end to Los Angeles and as the multi-modal hub for linking light rail, the existing rail line from Will Rogers air port, buses, taxis and local trolley service.

Union Station is not a heavy freight depot, though some of the rail sets passing through that yard would be used by freight trains. Passenger trains share rail with freight trains and they also usually carry mail and express packages, which could be classified as freight. This is the same situation presently employed by the rail lines that run through the middle of downtown OKC's other rail station, Santa Fe Depot. Most freight is carried in piggy back truck trailers or containers. Union Station is not where on and off freight loading would take place. Freight trains are put together and broken down in other locations such as the rail yard east of I-235 between NW 36th and NW 50th with cars to and from industrial sidings around the city. Trucking companies are clamoring for more space for their piggy back trailers on freight trains.

One quick side note: The at grade crossing that blocks NW 10th east of Broadway, backing up traffic for a block or so in both directions several times every day will be duplicated at Robinson and Walker under the present I-40 relocation plan. Both those streets now enjoy grade separated crossings.

Fully utilizing the passenger potential at Union Station would make OKC's geographical central location a natural staging area for the private passenger rail cars provided by services such as

Private Railcars, Railcar Charters & Private Rail Tours - RailServe.com (http://www.railserve.com/Private_Railcars/) or check this site out RailroadData.Com Railroad Links: Passenger Trains: Luxury Tours and Private Cars (http://www.railroaddata.com/rrlinks/Passenger_Trains/Luxury_Tours_and_Private_Cars/)

There's plenty to talk about on this thread, but I'm pretty sure that the Union Station rail yard isn't going away any time soon, and likely not ever. ODOT would be well advised to get busy planning how to incorporate those Union Station tracks into a comprehensive transportation network to serve the future needs this state.

Fully utilizing the passenger potential at Union Station would make OKC's geographical central location a natural staging area for the private passenger rail cars provided by services such as

Private Railcars, Railcar Charters & Private Rail Tours - RailServe.com (http://www.railserve.com/Private_Railcars/) or check this site out RailroadData.Com Railroad Links: Passenger Trains: Luxury Tours and Private Cars (http://www.railroaddata.com/rrlinks/Passenger_Trains/Luxury_Tours_and_Private_Cars/).

Have you spent much time traveling by rail, Old Downtown Guy? I've spent a considerable part of my life traveling by rail at least once a year. I grew up taking the train from Minnesota to my grandmother's house in Nebraska and back every summer. I took the train to college in Denver, and graduate school in Michigan multiple times every year. I've spent a lot of time in train stations.

Train stations are like airports. There's nothing intrinsically noble or wonderful about them. You spend as little time in them as possible, hoping your train will leave soon. Passengers going from St. Louis to Los Angeles would likely never get off the train in Oklahoma City. It would simply be passing through. Those who did get off the train because they live here would be hoping to get out of the station as quickly as possible and into their cars heading home. Those who had to change trains in Oklahoma City would be unhappy about it, and hoping their train showed up soon.

There is very little economic impact to cross country train travel here, in terms of dollars spent by people passing through. There is nothing intrinsically wonderful about the train passing through Union Station. It would not transform Oklahoma City into anything, except an annoyance to those having to change trains, just like having to switch airplanes in Dallas to get to elsewhere is an annoyance.

People are glorifying Union Station as a train station, but when people really did ride trains, no one gave the station a thought. It was just there. There is nothing noble about Union Station being a train station. It isn't fulfilling some grand purpose intended by God if trains stop there again.

As far as kitschy passenger cars and themed travel, there's really not anything to see when looking out a train window in Oklahoma City or environs. I seriously doubt we'd have many takers. People like going through the Rocky Mountains on Vista cars, not the flatlands.

We're going to give up our park, and our chance to remake a significant amount of land near our CBD (what would most cities give for that opportunity!) so that people from Los Angeles can look out the window of their train car, if they're not asleep, and see a real Union Station? There's one in every city. They won't care. Why don't we think of ourselves instead, and do something for the people of this city?

. . . . Train stations are like airports. There's nothing intrinsically noble or wonderful about them. You spend as little time in them as possible, hoping your train will leave soon. Passengers going from St. Louis to Los Angeles would likely never get off the train in Oklahoma City. It would simply be passing through. Those who did get off the train because they live here would be hoping to get out of the station as quickly as possible and into their cars heading home. Those who had to change trains in Oklahoma City would be unhappy about it, and hoping their train showed up soon.

There is very little economic impact to cross country train travel here, in terms of dollars spent by people passing through. There is nothing intrinsically wonderful about the train passing through Union Station. It would not transform Oklahoma City into anything, except an annoyance to those having to change trains, just like having to switch airplanes in Dallas to get to elsewhere is an annoyance. . . .

I don't think that the OKC Chamber of Commerce would (nor do I) agree that transportatin hubs are just an annoyance; both to the traveler and those living in cities people are traveling through . . . . or more importantly to. If everyone had your view, we could just board up the airports and bus stations and let everyone drive to their destinations.

Rail transit is an important and growing mode of travel. Why would we here in Oklahoma City want to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world?


. . . . As far as kitschy passenger cars and themed travel, there's really not anything to see when looking out a train window in Oklahoma City or environs. I seriously doubt we'd have many takers. People like going through the Rocky Mountains on Vista cars, not the flatlands.

I find a lot to look at here in Oklahoma City and around our state . . . . sorry that you find little to interest you.


. . . . We're going to give up our park, and our chance to remake a significant amount of land near our CBD (what would most cities give for that opportunity!) so that people from Los Angeles can look out the window of their train car, if they're not asleep, and see a real Union Station? There's one in every city. They won't care. Why don't we think of ourselves instead, and do something for the people of this city?

This is not a trade between a park and a rail yard. This is a choice between a virtually highway only transportation system and the reality of positioning our city and state to compete in our national economy and provide a full compliment of transportation options to our citizens. It's planning for the future.

Again, Old Downtown Guy, I'm not disagreeing with providing a full compliment of transportation options to our citizens. You keep saying this is not a trade off between a park and a rail yard (although I challenge you to find me one city with their major park sited immediately adjacent to their rail yard), but refuse to acknowledge that any location other than Union Station or the truck adjacent to it is an option for commercial rail or passenger travel.

Why did the BNSF abandon the line behind Union Station? Does that mean they run no commercial freight east and west through Oklahoma City? Or is there another option that they're already using?

What precisely would being a transportation hub for train travel mean to Oklahoma City from an economic standpoint? Do you have data suggesting we're being considered for such a hub? What kind of numbers of travelers are anticipated for rail travel between St. Louis and Los Angeles? Is there reason to think air travel is going to go the way of the dinosaur and everyone is going to travel by train from now on?

We don't live in Europe, where travel destinations are close together. It could easily take two days to travel to Los Angeles from St. Louis (or more, if there are delays). If you have a week's vacation, it would take over half of your vacation to get from St. Louis to Los Angeles and back again. Short hops to places like Dallas work, but how many people in Oklahoma City are taking the train to Dallas rather than driving, percentage wise? I think train travel is lovely, but it only works for people with a lot of time, who can afford delays. When you start adding what it would cost to take a family of four by train and look at the number of days the trip would take, as well as the fact that you would have no car when you get to your destination, I suspect most families of four would start looking at their car again, regardless of the price of gas. In fact, my husband and my son took a trip to the west coast this summer. I thought it would be nice for them to take the train from San Francisco to Seattle, beautiful scenery and all. When I looked at the cost of the trip and how incredibly long it was going to take to get from place to place, I booked them plane tickets. Even in Europe, Ryan Air has taken over a lot of the passengers from many routes that were routinely traveled by train. Why? Convenience.

I don't want to give up my beautiful park (which I beg to differ would be ruined by multiple train tracks and multiple trains running through it) so a few people can travel from St. Louis to Los Angeles. Especially if there's no reason to think it would have significant economic impact in this city. People from here wouldn't care if they got on the train somewhere other than Union Station to go to Los Angeles or St. Louis. In fact, if we had significant numbers of people traveling, they'd be complaining that there wasn't enough parking, and wondering why we didn't build a train station somewhere other than near downtown. Unless you're proposing that we turn most of the area around Union Station into a giant parking lot......

Like so many of us have said....we're not opposed to the idea of a hub, but Union station is not the answer for it. The location is NOT good no matter how you look at it. Simply saying it's "downtown" doesn't count. It needs to be close to the CBD...walking distance < 1 mile to the core. Otherwise, no one is going to even care it exists.

We have to remember that we're in Oklahoma, USA....not Europe. People here are lazy and a train isn't going to change that. We just don't walk here...for anything. People would rather drive around a parking lot for 10 minutes to get one row closer to the door than walk 5 more feet....just watch a wal-mart parking lot some time if you dont believe me.

Personally, I walk a lot. I'll park in the middle of Town Center in MWC and walk between Lowes on one end and Kohls on the other....but I'm young and in shape and I WOULDNT do that everyday to get to work. You tell a 30+ parent of 3 kids that they have to corall them onto a train and then from the train onto a bus or walk....not going to happen my friend. In NYC, yes....OKC, no. It's just too easy to use your own car and get where you want to go. Traffic and Parking in OKC is EEEAAASSSYYY compared to large cities...can get anywhere in 20 minutes.

So some is going to have to convince me that I'm going to want to hop on the train and take 45 minutes to get downtown from say Edmond or Norman (because it IS going to stop MULTIPLE times on it's way so it has to take longer than a straight shot in the car), only to have to hop on a bus and pay yet again to get somewhere.

I would LOVE to ride a train to work everyday, but it's all about where the stations are. If they are convenient, then they might as well not exist. Union Station is a "nonexistent" station. I would rather pay as part of Maps III or IV millions of dollars to build new lines where we want them (and yes I am a resident of the city of OKC so I would be voting on that one), than be forced into using a station simply because it exists today.

Remember we're not talking about tossing the building....it's staying. We're talking tossing a few rail lines. Yeah...rail lines. It's not the end of the world. They aren't historic, they aren't super special. They can be rebuilt without losing any meaning. Rail Lines.....

Okay, we've all had this big debate. What do the actual city leaders say?

Oklahoma panel approves finishing new Crosstown Expressway
By John Greiner
Published: October 6, 2008

"State transportation commissioners approved a $3.8 billion highway and bridge construction plan today that includes enough estimate revenues to complete Oklahoma City's new Crosstown Expressway by its 2012 target date. "

Oklahoma panel approves finishing new Crosstown Expressway | NewsOK.com (http://www.newsok.com/odot-approves-finishing-crosstown-expressway/article/3308008/)

Oh boy! We get to keep the existing I-40 elevated highway as well as destroy our best chance at connecting to a reemerging national rail network. That's a loose - loose situation if there ever was one.

I doubt that will happen.

Oh boy! We get to keep the existing I-40 elevated highway as well as destroy our best chance at connecting to a reemerging national rail network. That's a loose - loose situation if there ever was one.

I'm sure we will find the money to tear down I-40. Where does that BNSF line go? Does it go all the way to Little Rock or to Santa Fe, uninterrupted? I don't believe it does, and if it doesn't, then it connects to other lines, which can be used in its' place. If people start using the railroad for transcontinental travel, we are going to have to build high speed trains, and they'll need new rail lines anyway.

Oh boy! We get to keep the existing I-40 elevated highway as well as destroy our best chance at connecting to a reemerging national rail network. That's a loose - loose situation if there ever was one.


How many times does this have to be said:

OKC does not have an East West Corridor. It used to. Long ago and it only went from Memphis to Tucamcari, NM, where it then connected in with the UP line that runs from KC to El Paso. Face it, your plan is about to be buried in the dirt and it's about time. OKC's only connection to the re-emerging network happens to be the BNSF line which runs N/S. Who wants a Union Station on a "usta-be" now spur line?!

For me it's a "when-when" situation...lol

3.8 billion dollars!!

What was the project originally supposed to cost? Holly effing crap. That is 10 times the estimated cost when the project was sold to the public.

Oklahoma City Crosstown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_Crosstown)

I recall it was a lot less. Whoever is in charge of making these projections should be fired.

It becomes somewhat clear that the goal of the initial projections were to hook the decisionmakers with pie-in-the-sky estimates, then come back for more money when we were too deep in the muck to quit.

This whole thing really stinks. Someone was either grossly incompetent and should be fired or they're a liar and intentionally deceived the public and should be fired.

-- or both.

The $3.8 billion is the cost for all state projects, not just the Crosstown. However, I blame all the Union Station supporters for every 1 second delay and every extra dollar.

These cost overruns can't be explained away by claiming that it's mere debt service on construction loans or something to that effect.

Thanks for the clarification on the 3.8billion, but where do we stand as to the $380 million estimate?

The delay is 100% ODOT's fault though. They falsified their application to sever the BNSF rail line. If ODOT had not knowingly (or at least recklessly) made misstatements to the relevant agency, we'd be full speed ahead right now.

I also recall reading somewhere that there have been several redesigns due to the unfortunate fact taht ODOT's original plan failed to account for the fact that the highway's initial design was unworkable due to potential drainage issues.

The delay is 100% ODOT's fault though. They falsified their application to sever the BNSF rail line. If ODOT had not knowingly (or at least recklessly) made misstatements to the relevant agency, we'd be full speed ahead right now.

While I am not saying it's appropriate to falsify an application, the BNSF was also quite eager to sever the line, and it was actually an independent entity calling minimal usage, which sounded like a technicality, to someone's attention that caused the delay.

okcisok4me wrote:

How many times does this have to be said:

OKC does not have an East West Corridor. It used to. Long ago and it only went from Memphis to Tucamcari, NM, where it then connected in with the UP line that runs from KC to El Paso. Face it, your plan is about to be buried in the dirt and it's about time. OKC's only connection to the re-emerging network happens to be the BNSF line which runs N/S. Who wants a Union Station on a "usta-be" now spur line?!

For me it's a "when-when" situation...lol
__________________________________

OKC does not have an east-west corridor?

The BNSF, former Frisco line links the state's three most populous cities -- Lawton, OKC and Tulsa and three of the state's key military installations -- Altus AFB, Ft. Sill and Tinker AFB. As a strategic interstate line, it links to Houston, Ft. Worth, Wichita Falls, Amarillo, Denver at Quanah, Texas and to the northeast, serves Springfield and St. Louis, Missouri.

The Union Pacific, former Rock Island "Choctaw Route" is fully intact in Oklahoma roughly paralleling the route of I-40. It ties into the KCS at Howe, via McAlester with access to Kansas City, New Orleans and Mexico. To the west the line serves Yukon, El Reno (with connections to Kingfisher and Enid to the north and Chickasha and Duncan to the south), Weatherford, Clinton, Elk City, Sayre, Texola.

The original Memphis - Little Rock - OKC - Tucumcari - LA line was always the most direct rail route from the Mid-South to the West Coast. Word is that certain Class-1 railroads, hard pressed for capacity, are seriously considering rebuilding and reconnecting the entire line.

No east-west corridor in OKC? Tell it to Midwest City, Shawnee, Seminole. Tell it to Tinker AFB. Tell it to Anadarko, Chickasha, Tuttle-Newcastle-Mustang. Tell it to Choctaw-Harrah-McLoud. Tell it to Yukon and El Reno. Tell it to Spencer-Jones-Luther.

Count the colleges and industries on these lines -- and think of the people and goods that could be moved along them daily.

If you haven't noticed, these smaller surrounding cities are "gettin' kinda uppity" lately -- taking their futures in their own hands, unintimidated by the sabre rattling of certain OKC and ODOT officials. Talking down these cities and these corridors won't make them go away -- and if served by modern rail transit, they could immediately become the envy of others you quite arbitrarily pronounce predominant.

Could that be what's worrying you?

TOM ELMORE

While I am not saying it's appropriate to falsify an application, the BNSF was also quite eager to sever the line, and it was actually an independent entity calling minimal usage, which sounded like a technicality, to someone's attention that caused the delay.

That's a different way of saying that ODOT recklessly or knowingly failed to make an adequate investigation into the facts which they verified as false to the administrative body which has the jurisdiction to sever the rail lines.

I'm sure the company which relies on the rail line for most of its shipping considers the use of the line to be more than a 'mere technicality.'

ODOT shouldn't have to rely on third-parties to do its job.

By the way, I did the research. ODOT's original figure was $380 million. The project is now, according to ODOT supposed to cost $557 million.

It took 12 years from the project's inception until the most recent estimate for the cost to almost double. I wonder what it'll be at in 4 more years when the project is supposedly going to be finished?

Actually, the original official cost estimate for the New Crosstown "D-Route" was $236 million.

TOM ELMORE

It seems that someone forgot to carry the one somewhere :)

I would like to say thank you to Tom and all the other Union Station supporters for doing your part to drive the price up. Don't try to weazel out of your attempts to slow or cancel the project and blame it on ODOT. First you do everything you can to save a worthless railyard and then act with indignation when the price goes up.

Again, Tom hasn't delayed it. ODOT screwed up its own court filings.

It's ODOT's fault. Blame the people who should be blamed.

I can blame whomever I want. Tom and his group has done everything in their power to slow this down. I-40 is going to be built as planned and all Tom has to show for his actions is 123 OKCTalk posts and a bigger taxpayer bill ($200 million more and counting). Thanks. If not for all the legal delays this project would be almost done and at a lower price. Just think, that $200 million could have gone towards an OKC to Tulsa rail link.

People do not travel by train anymore folks, at least not in this neck of the woods. People only ride them for nostalgia's sake. Before you jump on me, I rode the Heartland Flyer from OKC to Gainesville, Texas round trip. Interesting trip, but more efficient and time friendly to take my car.

Who wants to take a train from Memphis to OKC to Amarillo or wherever? Not many. The only way trains will become viable is for a super-fast train network like Europe or Japan be integrated in America. We need a new I-40 before we need to set up a train station. Union Station isn't going anywhere, and will probably be used for the better in C2S.

okcisok4me wrote:

How many times does this have to be said:

OKC does not have an East West Corridor. It used to. Long ago and it only went from Memphis to Tucamcari, NM, where it then connected in with the UP line that runs from KC to El Paso. Face it, your plan is about to be buried in the dirt and it's about time. OKC's only connection to the re-emerging network happens to be the BNSF line which runs N/S. Who wants a Union Station on a "usta-be" now spur line?!

For me it's a "when-when" situation...lol
__________________________________

OKC does not have an east-west corridor?

The BNSF, former Frisco line links the state's three most populous cities -- Lawton, OKC and Tulsa and three of the state's key military installations -- Altus AFB, Ft. Sill and Tinker AFB. As a strategic interstate line, it links to Houston, Ft. Worth, Wichita Falls, Amarillo, Denver at Quanah, Texas and to the northeast, serves Springfield and St. Louis, Missouri.

The Union Pacific, former Rock Island "Choctaw Route" is fully intact in Oklahoma roughly paralleling the route of I-40. It ties into the KCS at Howe, via McAlester with access to Kansas City, New Orleans and Mexico. To the west the line serves Yukon, El Reno (with connections to Kingfisher and Enid to the north and Chickasha and Duncan to the south), Weatherford, Clinton, Elk City, Sayre, Texola.

The original Memphis - Little Rock - OKC - Tucumcari - LA line was always the most direct rail route from the Mid-South to the West Coast. Word is that certain Class-1 railroads, hard pressed for capacity, are seriously considering rebuilding and reconnecting the entire line.

No east-west corridor in OKC? Tell it to Midwest City, Shawnee, Seminole. Tell it to Tinker AFB. Tell it to Anadarko, Chickasha, Tuttle-Newcastle-Mustang. Tell it to Choctaw-Harrah-McLoud. Tell it to Yukon and El Reno. Tell it to Spencer-Jones-Luther.

Count the colleges and industries on these lines -- and think of the people and goods that could be moved along them daily.

If you haven't noticed, these smaller surrounding cities are "gettin' kinda uppity" lately -- taking their futures in their own hands, unintimidated by the sabre rattling of certain OKC and ODOT officials. Talking down these cities and these corridors won't make them go away -- and if served by modern rail transit, they could immediately become the envy of others you quite arbitrarily pronounce predominant.

Could that be what's worrying you?

TOM ELMORE

But does every single one of these lines link directly into the specific line in question behind Union Station and no other line? Is there no other rail in the entire city that links to these cities?

Again, Tom hasn't delayed it. ODOT screwed up its own court filings.

It's ODOT's fault. Blame the people who should be blamed.

You can blame ODOT, but it seems as if there is blame to share. If no one cared whether they screwed up the court filings, we'd be discussing a moot point. Of course he delayed it. He planned to delay it, and succeeded.

The only way trains will become viable is for a super-fast train network like Europe or Japan be integrated in America.

Agreed. And those trains need new rail. We can put that rail anywhere we want, including logical locations.