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.

But ODOT did either "screw up," falsify, or incompetently represent the facts to the tribunal, right?

And the individual (who is not Tom) who objected was telling the truth, right?

Yeah, I guess telling the truth to a tribunal is an awful, awful thing... and that costs $300+million dollars, right?

Do you know how absurd that is?

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

Dude, I ain't worried about frickin poo. You and your little stupid group is what's perturbing me!!!!

Hear me when I say this--------MAJOR RAILFAN. Know the history of the rails of Oklahoma inside out. Have read and DO OWN several books on the railroad history in Oklahoma and the southwest regions of the United States of America. Own three of SPV's atlases to current/former/abandoned lines covering Arizona, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Missouri, & Arkansas. Not to mention that I have been subscribed to Trains magazines on and off for 75% of my life since 1989. I even have a Choctaw, Oklahoma and Gulf Railroad Co. $1000 stock that was never sold (but it's a pretty piece of history from the state of Oklahoma) that I thoroughly enjoy owning.

I know about the former tracks that belonged to Missouri Kansas Texas formally Oklahoma City Ada Atoka that run down to Tinker. And they are not in that great of shape. And I do hope they keep it and upgrade it for future use for a commuter line. I know about the former San Francisco St. Louis, Burlington Northern, BNSF, now state owned line that Stillwater Central uses between Oklahoma City, Tulsa & Lawton. Those tracks are half crappy too & would once again take a lot of money to upgrade. The former line of the Chicago Rock Island & Pacific that went from Memphis to Tucamcari will never be rebuilt. Please send me the article on that one if you can find it. Look how many miles of tracks the major haulers such as Burlington Northern Santa Fe & Union Pacific have shedded in all the years since their massive mergers!! BNSF has dropped billions to double track their transcon route & they're blasting Abo Canyon in New Mexico as we speak to finish this project of theirs off. I think the least of their worries was their former crap track that went behind the Union Station, not to mention they got a nice upgrade on the south side of the river. So I just don't really understand what you're arguing about other than po old little Union Station and a measly two track line behind the station for a nice drop off point in the middle of a future Central Park for OKC.

IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE THE MAIN FOCAL POINT OF OUR FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CENTER FOR RAIL TRAVEL THAT IS PROBABLY STILL 20 YEARS OFF IN THE FUTURE OF OKC.

WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THE CROSSTOWN. THAT IS NOW. THAT IS PEOPLE DRIVING ACROSS IT NOW & EVERY DAY FROM NOW WITH CHUNKS FALLING OUT FROM BENEATH PATCHES HAVING TO BE FIXED. WE CAN GET THAT PERMANENT FIX IN FOUR YEARS. WITH 16 YEARS TO SPARE WITH, YES I WANT IT TOO, COMMUTER SERVICE TO ONE DAY COME.

YOU WORRIED YOU'RE GONNA LOSE?

But ODOT did either "screw up," falsify, or incompetently represent the facts to the tribunal, right?

And the individual (who is not Tom) who objected was telling the truth, right?

Yeah, I guess telling the truth to a tribunal is an awful, awful thing... and that costs $300+million dollars, right?

Do you know how absurd that is?

Yes there was an error in the filing but it could have been an administrative fix and the problem would have been corrected. However, the goal of the complaint was not to get the paper work straight - the goal was to delay and/or cancel the project. The delays and cost overruns fall 100% on the people trying to delay the project - Tom and his group included. If there are others trying to stop it then they need to share the blamed also.

Yes there was an error in the filing but it could have been an administrative fix and the problem would have been corrected. However, the goal of the complaint was not to get the paper work straight - the goal was to delay and/or cancel the project. The delays and cost overruns fall 100% on the people trying to delay the project - Tom and his group included. If there are others trying to stop it then they need to share the blamed also.

Nice. They have an agenda and so does ODOT.

ODOT wants to build this road come hell or high water (the later was a serious problem a few hundred million dollars ago).

The advocates of the rail line want to keep it in service, had ODOT's legal department done a competent job, either these folks would not have had an opening or the problem would have been resolved in some way a long time ago.

100% seems like a big share of the percentage when you take into account the fact that but for ODOT's misstatement, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Or how about another "but for"?

But for ODOT's selection of a route which would cripple Union Station and sever several rail lines, Tom, et al would not be upset and would not be fighting the I-40 relocation at all.

ODOT has screwed this up on so many levels and to think otherwise takes quite a bit of kool aide drinking.

Maybe it's possible that ODOT saw Union Station as a dead issue and a misnomer for the a new I-40. The debate was a worthy one, just wish it happened long before construction started.

Maybe it's possible that ODOT saw Union Station as a dead issue and a misnomer for the a new I-40. The debate was a worthy one, just wish it happened long before construction started.

ODOT doesn't have discussions. For them, it's their way or the highway.

-- pun intended.

Nice. They have an agenda and so does ODOT.

ODOT wants to build this road come hell or high water (the later was a serious problem a few hundred million dollars ago).

The advocates of the rail line want to keep it in service, had ODOT's legal department done a competent job, either these folks would not have had an opening or the problem would have been resolved in some way a long time ago.

100% seems like a big share of the percentage when you take into account the fact that but for ODOT's misstatement, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Or how about another "but for"?

But for ODOT's selection of a route which would cripple Union Station and sever several rail lines, Tom, et al would not be upset and would not be fighting the I-40 relocation at all.

ODOT has screwed this up on so many levels and to think otherwise takes quite a bit of kool aide drinking.


Are you even reading what you are writing?
1. ODOT doesn't have an agenda as much as they have a State mandate. They are the Oklahoma Department of Transporation and have a legal requirement to plan and implement transportation infrastructure.

2. The old I-40 has to be replaced. Hell nor high water has anything to do with it.

3. Try to stick with the facts. Union Station is currently not in service (hasn't been for 40 years) and the lines currently used will still be in service after the new freeway is done.

4. They wouldn't have an opening? An opening for what? We all know their true agenda is against ODOT. The new I-40 is just the battlefield.

5. If ODOT didn't screw up we wouldn't be having this discussion? Surely you don't actually believe that. Tom and his group were on the case years before anyone knew there was a paperwork error. You make it sound like some random citizen was walking down the sidewalk one day and discovered totally by accident the paperwork error.

6. Cripple Union Station and sever rail lines? Once again- stick to the facts. Union Station is not used, there is no plan to use it, and the existing lines will still be there.

7. Now you claim it is ODOTs fault. The only thing ODOT did wrong was not tearing out the railyard first. If I was in charge I would dismantel what is left of the railyard today.

Would it be, "It's their way AND the highway?"

;)

2. The old I-40 has to be replaced. Hell nor high water has anything to do with it.

I agree. I think most people agree. It just didn't have to be done in this particular manner. Maybe a little more public deliberation, you know, pretending to think about all of the ramifications of route "D" and the potential costs before selecting it would have been nice. Some semblance of consideration to other modes of transportation aside from the money-makers would also have been nice.


3. Try to stick with the facts. Union Station is currently not in service (hasn't been for 40 years) and the lines currently used will still be in service after the new freeway is done.

Even the BNSF line?

The fact is many think it's time to consider that at some point, rail will again become a viable if not dominant mode of transportation and that failing to at least leave our existing infrastructure in place could turn out to be a very costly mistake.

ODOT has been historically very myopic when it comes to a cohesive infrastructure plan. It's not surprising that they continue to be in not considering the possibility that Union Station is useful as something more than a cool centerpiece to a park in the middle of Nichols Hills South.


4. They wouldn't have an opening? An opening for what? We all know their true agenda is against ODOT. The new I-40 is just the battlefield.

The current situation is that the tribunal has been made aware of a misstatement on ODOT's application and has remanded the applications process to start from the beginning, correct?

But for ODOT's lack of investigation or choosing to make misstatements on their application, would the "opening" for the anti-ODOT crowd (if you want to call it that) have existed? Would there be cause for remand? Nope. Would we be full steam ahead? Yep.. or at least we would be moving ahead with a plan which preserves the BNSF line.


5. If ODOT didn't screw up we wouldn't be having this discussion? Surely you don't actually believe that. Tom and his group were on the case years before anyone knew there was a paperwork error. You make it sound like some random citizen was walking down the sidewalk one day and discovered totally by accident the paperwork error.

Who created the paperwork error?

(Getting you to admit that ODOT is capable of a mistake is like pulling teeth).

I am getting dizzy on this ride. Lets start over with basics.

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used a train station.
Fact 2 - There is no 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 can answer every question you, Tom, and anyone else can throw out there using 1 or more of the 4 facts shown above.

Had ODOT been open to it, and there been this level of open, frank, broad-based discussion during the I-40 relocation planning phase, a better plan would have been adopted. I don't know what that plan would have looked like, but it would have at least come from an honest process. The present plan was deceitfully contrived and trotted out under the pretext of being the result of an open public process . . . . which it was not.

I am SO tired of this discussion...

Kerry, I know you are entitled to your opinion and you are a staunt supporter of Oklahoma City and it's urban development: so I am very surprised at your stance in this issue and furthermore your overarching concern for the issue.

This is more of a local issue that apparently ODOT tried to rush through. ODOT has a history of being ONLY highway centric and not a true 'department of transportation.'

Would you hold this same stance if the issue were taking place in Tampa?

Of the facts you posted, only two are correct - AND you are showing that you are not quite so supportive of the progressive and democratic momentum that has been taking place in the city. Why do I say this?

1) Both you and I used to live in OKC back in the days where the Gaylord Empire and those 'in the know' controlled EVERYTHING! OKC was held back on many occassions to support the greed of a few. Nowdays, OKC acts like most other big cities - in that people have a voice and wont stand for b.s. anymore, and actually speak out against it. For you (and others on here) to take the tired old facist role and suppress the opposition to the plan D, well it goes against the urban renaissance that I've gotten to know you and therefore is a surprise.

2) Of the four points you made and said you would make to answer 'the opposition', two are incorrect. a) there is a plan for Union Station, though it is not active, and b) Union Station is still a train station.

Let's handle b) first, since it's the easiest. Union Station sits on a rail yard with trains going by. Furthermore, there is no other use for Union Station since the last pax trains docked there. So, using these facts and the logic that 'downtown airport' was still an airport even after the last flight took off years ago - Union Station is still a train station. It just isn't active.

Now a), more complicated but still you are incorrect. While it is true that there has not been a public announcement on what to do with Union Station, there has been MANY plans circling around to make it as OKC's multimodal facility. Just review threads on this forum and you will see that there are plans to do just that. Up until recently, there was no momentum on these plans because OKC was not seen as a city needing MASS Transit. This is unfortunate and is the SOLE reason why ODOT was allowed to 'get away' with pushing through plan D.

Times have changed. And the realities are 1) ODOT committed a huge public mistrust by not allowing an open public dialog and 2) now the public wants to discuss revising ODOT's plan.

Here's another theory that could be proven fact; revising plan D to salvage the rail yard could be accomplished with minimal additional cost. This needs to be considered because it was not allowed to during the original planning stages. I remember then, even I spoke up on one of these forums and said that plan D would be a bad idea since it was pretty overzelous about the rail yard. It seemed to have political motivations back then and sure enough - I was right!

Now, having the discussion on what to do 1) will not stop construction on the freeway and 2) does not mean we wont see the new central park. What it does mean is NOW the public is involved AND the revision to the plan should at least be discussed.

One more thing, get off of the 'opposition scare tactics' (not necessarily directed to any ONE person, but in general). ODOT was wrong in not allowing public debate on this in the beginning but that does not mean people who now want to discuss are evil or anti-crosstown.

I, for one, am in favor of the new freeway, desire to see the pedestrian bridge built, can't wait to stroll the environs of the new central park, and even see the new Nichols Hill's South... er um, Core 2 Shore built

- in general I want the best for OKC. That means - having open (and honest/complete) dialog and ensuring we utilize our resources efficiently, effectively, and earnestly. Those three terms are what the OLD Oklahoma Good Ole's need to get used to - because when it comes to the NEW Oklahoma City, people will demand that! Just like we do in Seattle (hey, it cost us our basketball team) and Kerry Im sure you guys in Tampa do too.

If this means we modify our mistakes (or those of our elected officials), then so be it!

Kerry wrote: 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.
_____________________________________

The value of the Union Station rail plant is intrinsic and self evident. As Churchill said, "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."

Churchill's observation seems to be borne out "in spades" on this forum.

Good government is based on the truth and on accountability. The only reliable means to this end is the intelligent scrutiny and persistent, determined action of citizens.

TOM ELMORE

Had ODOT been open to it, and there been this level of open, frank, broad-based discussion during the I-40 relocation planning phase, a better plan would have been adopted. I don't know what that plan would have looked like, but it would have at least come from an honest process. The present plan was deceitfully contrived and trotted out under the pretext of being the result of an open public process . . . . which it was not.

It may be true that a better plan would have come from an open process. What we really don't know, however, is how many people truly oppose the current plan. Just because I wasn't present when decisions were made, doesn't mean that I disagree with the plan as outlined, and we have no idea how many other people feel the same way or disagree completely. And, if one doesn't oppose the plan as outlined, then the procedure for establishing it as the accepted plan doesn't really matter. It might be good if we can effect change for future planning. I'm all for public discussions of plans.

If people want to call out ODOT, that's fine. But, regardless of how one feels about ODOT, the Core to Shore plan should stand or fail on its' own merits.

Had I all the money in the world, I would locate I-40 south of the Oklahoma River. I would also run light rail down the boulevard, and build a multi-modal station where north-south and east-west tracks meet. Had I all the money in the world, I'd never consider using Union Station as a multi-modal station, as I don't want OKC to be as soulless as Dallas. It needs a heart, and we don't currently have one, but a park would create one. Had I all the money in the world, I'd create a park to rival the Boston Public Garden, and watch people pour into downtown.

Perhaps what has been planned is the best that can be done with the money available. Yes, it would be nice to have known that. But, at this point in time, I'd rather the current plan go forward than talk about might-have-beens that will stop all progress and potentially get us back to the same place.....with another doubling of costs as labor and material costs rise.

In other words -- in the inexplicable words of General "Bomb 'em back to the Stoneage" Curtis Lemay -- "If rape is inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it?"

"Government by fait accompli?"

Sorry, Betts. Not on my watch. Ain't gonna happen.

TOM ELMORE

If this means we modify our mistakes (or those of our elected officials), then so be it!

This is part of the outrage -- not a single one of the decision-makers here is an elected official as far as I know.

As important a role as ODOT has, there is absolutely zero accountability to the public -- and they act like it.

Perhaps what has been planned is the best that can be done with the money available. Yes, it would be nice to have known that. But, at this point in time, I'd rather the current plan go forward than talk about might-have-beens that will stop all progress and potentially get us back to the same place.....with another doubling of costs as labor and material costs rise.

"Money available" hasn't entered into the equation. ODOT has been plowing forward on this thing from day one knowing full well that the project isn't even near funded all the way.

Also, our estimated costs have more than doubled.

We're looking at a growing city's transportation grid for probably the next 100 years or so (or until WWIII and we're bombed into the stoneage). If we're able to absorb going from 200 million to 557 million, why not another few million? It seems inevitable that there'll be cost overruns on the 557 million anyhow.

...as ODOT Director Gary Ridley told me, point-blank -- "Well, Tom there was a time when we didn't even have to ask you what you thought..."

Incredible, perpetually deficit-financed arrogance gone to seed.

TOM ELMORE

Again, you are making ODOT the issue, when that is a separate issue. If people want to work for a change to ODOT.....no problem. Have at it.

Regardless, we need a solution to the I-40 problem. We may want people to take trains, but that's a dream for the future, not a solution for our current problem. I-40 is one of the major transcontinental routes, and as such, deserves a solution that works for our city, but also the transportation needs of a nation.

Unless we develop high speed rail lines, transcontinental travel is never going to work in the US. There aren't going to be enough people traveling daily from Woodward and Tulsa to Oklahoma City to make regular interstate train travel economically feasible for the immediate future. You want to talk about a sink for money.....consider adding underutilized Amtrack routes here in the state. What kind of subsidies would they need to exist?

High speed rail requires a completely different set of rail lines, so even if that were an working concept, we wouldn't be using the existing lines behind Union Station for that anyway. If we're talking about light rail, it too would require de novo lines, and our boulevard is still a more logical location for light rail lines than a line a minimum of half a mile south of where people actually want to go.

In other words -- in the inexplicable words of General "Bomb 'em back to the Stoneage" Curtis Lemay -- "If rape is inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it?"

"Government by fait accompli?"

Sorry, Betts. Not on my watch. Ain't gonna happen.

TOM ELMORE

No Tom, you miss the point. It's not rape if you want it. What I'm saying is that if ODOT's plans, regardless of how they were created or implemented, coincide with your own hopes, although you can decry the methods, you cannot decry the results.

How many well-educated, well-informed people are out there who actually oppose the Core to Shore plans, versus people who are excited about it? We really don't know, do we? So, neither of us knows if our view is the will of the people. We're just individuals promoting what we hope is the common good, without knowing which one of us is really right. However, one of us will find out we were wrong at some point in time. Either Core to Shore will progress as planned, we will have a beautiful downtown park and it will stimulate good development of a blighted area adjacent to our city, or we will have a rail station and a dinky park blighted by it's proximity to it. If we get plan A, we'll find out whether it spurs more residential development downtown and a cleanup of the whole Core to Shore area, or not. If we get plan B, we'll find out if there really is funding and impetus for this national and regional train travel that transforms Oklahoma City by making it a hub for train travel in the southern US. If plan A fails, at least we have a beautiful park, to my way of thinking. If plan B fails or never gets around to being implemented (a bigger risk to my way of thinking), we've got what we already have......a large chunk of blighted land immediately south of our CBD. I'm not sure if we wouldn't end up with the same if plan B succeeds. That's why I oppose it.

All I heard from the last 6 or 7 posts is blah blah blah ODOT sucks blah blah blah ODOT sucks blah blah.

HotRod - Union Station is not a train station - it doesn't matter what it used to be used for. That is like saying Alcatraz is still a prison. I am correct on all 4 facts. They are undeniable facts. Show me where any 4 of these facts are wrong.

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is no 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.

As for the fascism comment - my guess is you have no idea what that even means. Please look it up.

Betts wrote: Regardless, we need a solution to the I-40 problem. We may want people to take trains, but that's a dream for the future, not a solution for our current problem. I-40 is one of the major transcontinental routes, and as such, deserves a solution that works for our city, but also the transportation needs of a nation.

Unless we develop high speed rail lines, transcontinental travel is never going to work in the US. There aren't going to be enough people traveling daily from Woodward and Tulsa to Oklahoma City to make regular interstate train travel economically feasible for the immediate future. You want to talk about a sink for money.....consider adding underutilized Amtrack routes here in the state. What kind of subsidies would they need to exist?

High speed rail requires a completely different set of rail lines, so even if that were an working concept, we wouldn't be using the existing lines behind Union Station for that anyway. If we're talking about light rail, it too would require de novo lines, and our boulevard is still a more logical location for light rail lines than a line a minimum of half a mile south of where people actually want to go.
_______________________________________

You mean -- like those "all new tracks" Amtrak's Acela trains operate on -- side by side with MARC commuter trains -- in the Northeast Corridor?

You appear not to know a thing about real-world advanced railway development -- nor about "Amtrak subsidies." As to rail transit, how is what you shunt aside as a "dream for the future" -- which 80,000+ north Texans are eagerly using right now -- advanced by the goofy destruction of the last urban rail center with all its original yard space intact in the West? I'd remind you that leaders in cities that have done it continue to urge us to preserve our Union Station. Hell-bent devotion to its destruction comes only from folks like you, Betts.

The wanton destruction of an elegant rail facility that exists -- in favor of something that doesn't exist -- could only be characterized as characteristically irresponsible here in one of the poorest states in the nation. "Poor folks have poor ways," my grandmother used to say.
_______________________________________

Betts wrote: You miss the point. It's not rape if you want it. What I'm saying is that if ODOT's plans, regardless of how they were created or implemented, coincide with your own hopes, although you can decry the methods, you cannot decry the results.
_______________________________________

Nope. I don't miss the point. I do, however, understand that some folks can justify just about anything. ("Hit me again, baby -- I think I sorta liked it...")

"We know that from evil -- good comes," said Frank Keating following the Murrah bombing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But "good" for "whom," Frank?

I know exactly where ODOT's "New Crosstown" plan to destroy the Union Station rail terminal facility came from -- and I know where those who are attempting to foist it off on us would like to go.

Bad government left to itself just gets worse.

No more.

TOM ELMORE

Tearing down Union Station is like losing 168 lives in an act of terrorism. Nice leap.

This is a ridiculous discussion.

There is zero demand for passenger rail service from Shawnee or El Reno to the the blighted area south of downtown. Bus service would be a much more practical solution for people traveling from those communities so why don't we explore that option.

Oh wait......bus service to those areas already exists and NOBODY USES IT!!!! A round trip ticket on Greyhound from Shawnee to OKC is $27.00. A Toyota Prius Hybrid gets 50 miles to the gallon. How expensive will gas have to be for people to prefer and start using the Greyhound option rather than just buying a more fuel efficient vehicle?

I'm all for mass transportation that makes sense but I am completely against my tax dollars being spent on trains that nobody wants and NOBODY IS GOING TO USE.

The current path for the new crosstown along the ABANDONED RAIL LINES was and is the least costly and least intrusive to private property owners. It was the right choice YEARS AGO when the decision was made and is still the right choice today.

"Zero demand" from El Reno and Shawnee? That's why both city governments have risked the wrath of the ODOT bosses to unanimously pass resolutions urging the governor to suspend and investigate the New Crosstown project -- and to develop rail transit from OKC Union Station now?

Bus service? "The beatings will continue until morale improves?"

You're against your tax dollars being spent for anything but trucks and highways? What about the $72 million a year Oklahomans send in to the Federal Transit Trust Fund? You'd rather have "Oklahoma elected officials" on the model of the redoubtable Ernest J. Istook and Jim Inhofe send our money to build fabulous transit for folks in other states rather than insist on its intelligent use here?

The "current path for the new crosstown" was chosen by the fathers of $40+ billion in "unfunded maintenance need" on the state highway system -- the fathers of the "Belle Isle Bridge," the fathers of "no upstream barge-strike bumpers on the I-40 Webbers Falls Bridge" etc., etc., etc.

As Will Rogers observed -- "If you find yourself in a hole, the first step towards getting out is to quit digging."

Naah. Let's let ODOT dig the whole a good deal deeper. We'll think about gettin' out of it "later" -- even as we send the apocalyptic day of reckoning for our irresponsible, black-hole debt and mindless destruction of the gifts of our forbears down the line to our unborn offspring.

Now that's "real planning," ain't it?

TOM ELMORE

Southsidesooner - the one flaw in your Greyhound bus plan is that it is a private sector solution which makes it an unviable option to Union Station supporters. And people call me the facist.

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is no 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.

Tom wrote: "Zero demand" from El Reno and Shawnee? That's why both city governments have risked the wrath of ODOT leadership to unanimously pass resolutions urging the governor to suspend and investigate the New Crosstown project -- and to develop rail transit from OKC Union Station now?"

How much money have the city governments of Shawnee and El Reno committed to rail service in their resolutions, Tom?

How much of a tax increase are the citizens of those communities willing to implement?

You have to admit that a resolution without a funding source isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Tom wrote: "You're against your tax dollars being spent for anything but trucks and highways?"

My tax dollars being spent on highways that EVERYBODY uses makes perfect sense whereas taxes being spent on rail service that virtually NOBODY will use does not....... but I never said I was against my tax dollars being spent on anything but trucks and highways, that's just you misrepresenting the truth again. I've said repeatedly that I'm for a mass transit plan for OKC that makes sense. Rail service to Union Station makes no sense.

amaesquire wrote: Tearing down Union Station is like losing 168 lives in an act of terrorism. Nice leap.
___________________________________

The proposed destruction of the OKC Union Station rail terminal yard would be an act of civic vandalism on the scale of the much lamented destruction of NYC's Penn Station in the 1960s -- or the equally mindless demolition of downtown OKC in early 1970s.

The difference is, that with those examples behind us, we ought to have learned better by now. Greed and its associated vices, however, characteristically resist such lessons.

By the way -- I just got off the telephone with ODOT's David Streb who admitted that the agency has done no planning -- none -- for an alternative future rail hub for the OKC metro. ODOT's plan is to "destroy the one we've got" -- the one whose terminal building was purchased with a federal transit grant justified by reams of documentation of its obvious suitability for that purpose. Perhaps if they'd looked at how difficult it would be to replace, it would look "a little more valuable to them."

You can "trust" ODOT. Rule 1 at ODOT is "The answer is more highways." Rule 2 is, "If the answer is plainly not more highways, see Rule 1."

TOM ELMORE

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is no 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.

Comparing the abandoned railyard at Union Station to Penn Station is a crime against architecture. There is no comparison - not even close - no way no how. Tom Elmore is now officially out of his mind. I wish him a speedy recovery. Are you other Union Station supporters listening to you head spokesperson?

Wrong again Mr. Elmore. Do not even begin to compare this to the Pei era of urban renewal. In that time we would have bulldozed the station itself without any question. The fact that we've saved the building is a hat tip to ODOT for keeping an eye out to save the building.

A rail line is just that....a rail line. There's nothing historic about it. It has absolutely no more significance than a power line running over your head. It may cost more, but that's it. You're statements about "shore sightedness" just don't apply. IF we ever do go with passenger rail, we will build the lines where we want them. I'm 99.99999999% sure that Union station wouldn't be where we would go anyway. But if we did, we could always handle that on the flip side to figure out how we want to make that work. Yes, we might end up rebuilding some of what we lose now, but the crosstown is what's important today, and for the next 20 years.

It's fine that you don't agree with ODOT...many of us have issues with them. But that also doesn't make your logic the automatic winner either...the two are NOT mutually exclusive. You have as single-minded of a vision as ODOT. For you, if it's not rail, it doesnt matter. Sorry, but that doesn't fly either dude. You have to be willing to compromise.

The rail folks have been trying their hardest to make comparisons here to things that just don't line up. ODOT has to be this big bad group out to get everyone, they're so evil, they're going to cost us a trillion dollars. It's just not so. You think the lines would be difficult to replace....we don't agree.

How dare you EVER try and use those 168 lives for your means. If I was in person with you right now, I believe I'd probably have to resist the urge to physically assault you. That's so far below the belt it's not even funny. You should feel horrible for ever making that comment. That's an insult to every one of those lives, their families, and the rescue workers. I don't think I can verbally express the anger I felt when I saw that.

Oklahoma City is one of the most drivable cities in the nation. We have remarkably few traffic problems for a city our size and our Interstate system is laid out to accommodate future growth while maintaining that.

I love the fact that I can drive from my house to virtually anywhere in the metro, at almost anytime of the day, in thirty minutes or less and have a parking space there ready to accomodate me.

I'm sure glad we spent that money on our highways instead of a passenger rail system that I would never use.

Would people stop talking about "destroying" Union Station, when they really mean removing rail lines? That's sensationalist journalism at its' worst.

No one on this forum is saying the answer is more highways. We're saying one part of the problem is an existing highway that needs to be redone. We're saying that we have a chance, by redoing it so it's not an elevated highway (which requires more maintenance), to make available a large amount of land immediately adjacent to our CBD so that our city can become a showpiece.....so that it can have a heart, and offer leisure time activities that encourage exercise and recreation. That's something our downtown is seriously lacking, and it is one of the reasons we're the butt of jokes. I'm tired of being the "dustbowl city, the ugly city". I'm ready to wow the country with our vision for our city. That vision can and should include mass transit, but aesthetics are as, if not more, important, in my opinion. Really, for people who actually live in the city (and I'm thinking about my fellow city dwellers first, since it's our tax money that will pay for all this), making Oklahoma City a walking city is far more important to me than making sure the zero to ten people in western or eastern Oklahoma who come to Oklahoma City daily by train can get off at Union Station.

But, the jury is also still out as to whether improved fuel economy in cars, alternative sources of fuel in cars AND other sources of transportation such as trains and buses are what we need as a city or whether we should assume no one is going to drive cars and concentrate only on mass transit. If people in the US are still going to drive cars, then we need roads. Then, we need really well-planned, thoughtful mass transit that is so practical and easy to use that people are willing to give up their cars. And, we need to figure out where these people who are willing to give up their cars want to go. That requires time and study. As far as not having a plan for a rail hub, that is something that needs to be worked on. Since we don't have a light rail plan, and we don't even know where light rail optimally needs to run, it's a little premature to be planning the hub. That should all be part of the same planning process, and it needs to be very carefully done, so that we don't spend billions on a system that runs empty because it's impractical for users.

You "hereby demand that we stop making sense?" We should, rather, comfort ourselves by "speaking in soothing euphemisms?"

If we destroyed the runways at Will Rogers Airport but left terminal building, would we have an airport?

A "station" is a point on a rail line. No rail line -- no "station." Just "one rail line?" What's being "united?"

You're ready to "wow" the country? Really? Good. Transit and transportation officials, planners and thinkers across the nation are watching to see what we're gonna do with the last grand urban passenger rail facility in the West possessed of all its original yard space. They figure we're gonna act like "typical Okies" and allow it to be destroyed -- but they're hoping that we'll surprise the country and finally wake up.

And, Betts, with no disrespect intended, I'd observe that you seem to know quite as little about NATI and the work we've done for better roads and commonsense roadway management since 1990 as you apparently know about advanced railway development in the US. Will said, "We're all ignorant -- just about different things." It's no crime. But there's plenty of good information available about it, if you're really interested.

TOM ELMORE

If we destroyed the runways at Will Rogers Airport but left terminal building, would we have an airport?

I'll refer you back to Kerry's essential facts.

1) It's not currently a train station
2) There are no plans for it to be a train station

Why can't we end this argument?!?!

Tom, we need the airport that is such a ridiculous analogy.

Please get over trying to save an abandon railroad station, when the people want to save $500 million & their safety with a new interstate. OKCTalk is a small section of the population pie, if people were to vote on this today they would side with the majority of us here on the forums.

For the love of god ease the quotations, it's annoying as hell. Try reading "The Elements of Style (http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-50th-Anniversary/dp/0205632645/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223570184&sr=1-1)." I'm not trying to flame you, but the quotations are over the top.

"Seriously Tom" look at the "size" of other "Union Stations" in other cities that are "equal" in size to that of "OKC". Tell me why theirs are so much bigger? "Because they're more adequate for current & future growth", "right"?

Back in July, I stood on Platform 2 in the middle of the OKCUS terminal yard with one of the best-known and respected railway development and railway law experts in the United States. His remark about the OKCUS facility was that the only mid-sized city yard with comparable capacity he had ever seen is in Buffalo, New York.

He was very impressed at the tremendous size and potential capacity of the yard, and expressed profound consternation that any "Department of Transportation" expecting to be taken seriously would ever have contemplated its destruction.

This has been the universal response of real experts who have seen the facility.

TOM ELMORE

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is no 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.

Yep - and we all know about Buffalo's outstanding national rail hub.

In your case, Kerry -- with a big grin on my face -- I gladly defer to the great Apostle Paul who said (and I quote), "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

Will Rogers did, in fact, say, "We're all ignorant, just about different things." Any judge, however, will probably advise you that, even so, "Ignorance is no excuse..."

TOM ELMORE

Oklahoma City is one of the most drivable cities in the nation. We have remarkably few traffic problems for a city our size and our Interstate system is laid out to accommodate future growth while maintaining that.

I love the fact that I can drive from my house to virtually anywhere in the metro, at almost anytime of the day, in thirty minutes or less and have a parking space there ready to accomodate me.

I'm sure glad we spent that money on our highways instead of a passenger rail system that I would never use.

don't let logic get in the way of this discussion ... we are a mid size pop city in a top 5 size land area city ..

thus very little need for mass transit ..

In your case, Kerry -- with a big grin on my face -- I gladly defer to the great Apostle Paul who said (and I quote), "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

Will Rogers did, in fact, say, "We're all ignorant, just about different things." Any judge, however, will probably advise you that, even so, "Ignorance is no excuse..."

TOM ELMORE

Are you saying that Buffalo does in fact have an outstanding national rail hub?

Just remember my 4 undeniable facts:

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is no 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.

And everybody is fighting to move to Buffalo? Buffalo or Boston? Buffalo or Chicago? Buffalo or New York?

I'll admit, I am not an expert on rail. I do know that the TGV and Shinkansen have their own rail lines, and that it takes my son so long to travel from Tokyo to visit his girlfriend in Nagasaki on the Skinkansen that he rarely uses it. Japan is smaller than the US. I do know that. I also know that we have a subscription to Trains magazine that arrives at my house and has since I married my husband 30 years ago. My self-described train nut of a husband, who grew up in NYC riding trains and who can discuss every rail line in the US, who owns it, who used to own it and where it goes, thinks plans for both heavy rail intrastate and intercontinental travel from here are foolish. So does a friend of mine who was a railroad lawyer and also a self described "train nut". So, that's what I know.

But, having lived in Oklahoma City for the last 30 years, and having lived in Denver and Chicago and very near Minneapolis, I do know something about what makes cities liveable and what it's like to use mass transit. I spent my childhood traveling on trains. As an adult living in Chicago and Denver, I didn't even own a car until we moved to Oklahoma City and I had to drive to Norman to take classes. My husband rode his bike to the Health Sciences Center every day, since we chose to only have one car until we had children. We currently drive a Prius and a Mini Cooper. We're not big-car loving worshippers of the road and everything auto.

So, although I'm not an "expert", this is my city, I love it and I've chosen to live here, despite multiple opportunities to live other places. I pay taxes here, and I know what I want my city to become. That makes my opinion as valid as anyone elses, including "experts" who don't live here and don't pay taxes here.

What I know is that people don't use mass transit unless it's reliable, relatively fast and convenient. They won't go out of their way to go to out of the way places. And Union Station is out of the way. I don't really care about the zero to ten people who might want to take the train to OKC from Tulsa or Woodward personally. Those aren't numbers that make any difference to me or to Oklahoma City. That's my right as a citizen and "nonexpert". I also see plenty of freight train activity north-south on the UP line and east-west south of the river. That makes me think there are plenty of other options for freight besides Union Station. If the BNSF thought Union Station was so lucrative and sensible, they'd be falling all over themselves to use that track, and I don't see that.

So, personally, as a "nonexpert", I don't care what someone who doesn't live here envisions for our city. When they live here and can vote, then their opinion matters. If the majority of people in OKC would rather use Union Station as a multimodal hub, then my opinion no longer counts. Until I know that's true, I'll continue giving mine.

Expert - Someone that knows more and more about less and less.

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is no 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.

Kerry, you should just make that your signature. ;)

Kerry, you should just make that your signature. ;)


I know, I was thinking about asking Kerry if I could borrow it for my signature so Mr. Elmore could see it more and more!

As I was driving today, I was thinking about London: Kensington Park, Hyde Park, St. James Park, Green Park. Then I thought about Paris: Le Bois de Boulogne. Without those green spaces, those cities would be less attractive places. That's where people who live in cities go to unwind, to gather. People don't go to Victoria Station to sightsee, nor do they go to the Gare(s) in Paris to do so. Oklahoma City needs be more like Paris and London, New York, Boston and Chicago, San Francisco. We need a great park. We need things to lure people to live downtown. We need to make it a walking city. That is what makes a city great.

Feel free to use my 4 undeniable facts. Heck, share them with your friends. I didn't make them part of my signature because this is the only thread they need to appear in.

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.

So 2 or 3 lines qualifies Union Station as a "great rail yard" huh? How in the world is that? Any line in America can be turned into 2 or 3 lines at the drop of a hat. There is absolutely nothing special about that yard, and stop trying to take things out of context to make it fit your agenda. Buffalo, OKC is not. You're not going to find a city that fits our situation because every city has it's own unique situation. You can site study after study for other cities, but it doesnt matter....they aren't OKC. They don't have our situation and therefore their studies don't apply....at all.

I think I'm going to start following Kerry's model here...

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.

After reading this thread and the passionate arguments on both sides, I started some independent (admittedly amateur) research in an attempt to find a workable solution. Both sides have merit, but neither are 100% correct in my opinion. I drove down to the Union Station area yesterday to get a better feel for the possibilities and limitations of Union Station.

As far as OKC Union Station ever being a viable intermodal center I still say that really should not be considered for numerous reasons. If Union Station is valued for its ability to handle expedited freight, why limit the possible volume that could be handled in OKC, the "Crossroads of America"?

Here is a link to what Huntsville AL has established at their airport: [URL="http://www.hsvairport.org/iic/index.html"]/

With NAFTA and the rail, air, and highway infrastructure already in place here this could be a concept OKC should explore. There is plenty of available land adjacent to Will Rogers Airport with rail access and easy interstate access. Establishing a Free Trade Zone at Will Rogers would be a huge boost for OKC. It also would nicely dovetail into that huge multimodal transportation corridor being planned along I35. Goods could be cheaply transported by rail from the Gulf and Pacific ports and high value freight flown in - then it is distributed to the western and midwestern population centers by the cheapest and most efficient method - Denver, Minneapolis, DFW, Chicago, St Louis, etc. If making OKC a transportation hub is desired - think big and do not limit the volume and mode and transport by putting it at the Union Station location.

I think the future use of Union Station should focus solely on its ability to handle passenger traffic - and not necessarily long distance rail passengers but regional rail mass transit traffic. To try to shoehorn too much into Union Station would be a classic case of "jack of all trades, master of none."

Next is the issue of rail mass transit in the OKC metro. I think it will come and is needed. The adage of "If you build it, they will come" certainly applies. But being a fiscal conservative, I don't like throwing the tax payers money down rat holes. As betts has stated, some real analysis is required before undertaking this project - research and analysis that I agree with Mr Elmore ODOT is not capable of doing objectively or competently.

I think it would be prudent for the metro cities who say they want rail transit options to put up of shut up for this research and analysis. I think we could conduct a two to three year trial run by leasing some passenger equipment to test the viability of the North South Edmond to Norman corridor. It would give the metro governments a chance to gauge the real interest in rail mass transit. Of course, ODOT's and maybe even COPTA's role should be minimized given their history of ignoring and/or purposely eliminating rail transit as a viable option. The trial must be given a reasonable chance to succeed and gauge the true interest of the most likely "early adopters" of a regional rail transit system. The stops would be minimalist platforms placed at strategic locations along the existing BNSF line. If sufficient interest is demonstrated, then the region could begin real planning for a "DART" style light rail system.

This is where Union Station could be used as a mass transit or even regional rail focal point. Not the primary multimodal center because I have come to agree that it is not the best location for that, but one that could tie together light rail (like DART) and a modern streetcar system that would replace the initial bus service. Union Station would be a stop for two or three modes of transit - requiring space for one line of "heavy" rail and a couple for the "DART" light rail in the present yard. The modern streetcar system takes up a smaller footprint and could be located in the area where the unnecessary freight docks are now. Union Station would be a stop on the DART line running to the airport - if you have ever been to Chicago O'Hare, being able to get on the El and riding it all the way downtown is the only way to go. I'm not saying OKC will ever have the population density Chicago has, but I believe we will see convention and tourist traffic increase. Being able to ride a clean rail system directly from Will Rogers to the CDB, Bricktown, and C2S would be a sure sign OKC is a progressive growing city.

Additionally since I agree with betts the aesthetics of the proposed Core to Shore park are very important, I think the rail lines should be below grade. Union Station already has a tunnel leading to the old passenger platforms and it could be used to move passengers down to the below grade rails. The streetcar system would be at street level obviously and would run around the perimeter of the central park and quickly transport people to the CBD and Bricktown. It could also be expanded to cross the river once development begins after completion of the C2S.

Betts has stated she would prefer light rail located in the "Boulevard" that will replace the Crosstown - bad idea I think. It would be like running rail down the Champs Elysses and equally as bad as not building the proposed C2S Central Park. Modern street cars could cross the new primary CBD thoroughfare, but running them down the middle of what is sure to become a high traffic street is asking for all kinds of problems.

I have come to the conclusion that OKC may not require a single "hub" for its future transit system. Rather, I think there will be 5 - 7 smaller multimodal interfaces at strategic locations in the metro.

I am working on a real map of what I think an OKC transit system could (should?) look like. I've got a couple weeks here at home and this issue has captured my interest. I'll try to get posted in the next couple of days a first crack at a potential OKC Metro rail transit system could be. I know there was a "Fixed Guideway Study" done a while back but I cannot find much about their conclusions. I had hoped the OKC.gov site would have it much like they have the C2S info. If anyone has a summary of the FGS recommendations I'd be interested in a link.

I apologize for the length of this post - I hope we can agree that we can indeed have our cake and eat it too - if we remove the emotion and really work at finding solutions to this isue. Unfortunately, I don't think the relocation of I-40 will stop nor change so we must deal with the restraints imposed by a very imperfect solution that really could have been done better.

Actually, Capt. Dave, I like your plan very, very much. It's a wee bit of a compromise for me, but one I could definitely live with. I still think the location for light rail is too far south to be as convenient as the boulevard. However, if it truly becomes a Champs Elysees style road, you are correct that it shouldn't be there. And, I'm more interested in the main light rail/trolley or bus station being located at the intersection of the north-south/east-west lines than it's actual distance south of Reno or the boulevard.

Perhaps even heavy passenger rail should leave from the airport. People are accustomed to going to the airport anyway, taxis and other forms of transportation are already set up there and it would allow people to link air and rail. If there's a light rail link to downtown, people who want to go there can even eschew taxis. If we're going to have really high speed trains for intercontinental travel (which I think is the only practical form), we'll need new rail anyway, especially if we use something like the TGV. Even the Shinkansen has its' own lines, I believe.

That's a very good plan Capt. Dave.

I like it too.

We don't. Some kind of rail line going through there is one thing, but ELMORE wants freaking Penn Station smack in the middle of a park, which ultimately means no park. It wont happen if he gets his way.
No, you're misunderstanding how it would turn out. The park would be north of the Union Station, instead of south of the new highway. Union Station would be an attractive buffer. Imagine it at one end of the green space, with the downtown skyscrapers (including Devon Tower) at the north end. The spring Arts Festival would finally have a decent venue, along with a multitude of other uses. The park would be quieter than under ODOT's plan, which has 175,000 semi trucks and cars per day flying by at 70 miles an hour.

Well you seem to think that there's some possibility that we would have a Union Station multimodal hub with NO interstate. No chance in h*ll.

A major rail/freight hub WILL destroy the aesthetics of the park.

Well you seem to think that there's some possibility that we would have a Union Station multimodal hub with NO interstate. No chance in h*ll.

A major rail/freight hub WILL destroy the aesthetics of the park.

And the entire surrounding area. Bye bye residential development. Who in Oklahoma City is going to want to live in a neighborhood with trucks, buses and trains rumbling by. No one who has to. Making Union Station a major rail/freight hub would completely derail (pardon the pun) Core to Shore. We've already got freight south of the Oklahoma River. That seems to be where the railroads want it, since they've abandoned the line south of Union Station, and that's where it should stay, IMO.

Not to mention the fact that making Union Station a major rail/freight hub would completely ruin the aesthetics of the station. It's a beautiful building. I don't want to see it ruined by being surrounded by warehouses, bus lanes and parking garages, trucks pulled around it and parked near it, those lovely chain link fences surrounding concrete parking lots. Isn't that what we have already, and it's butt uuuuugly.

Here's a thought. Kind of like CaptDave was suggesting, who says that Union Station couldn't be, at some point, used as one of those "mini hubs" for the downtown area. Or some part of the big picture eventually.

If you look at the fact that shipping and receiving for OKC has located themselves out of the congestion of downtown, that should trigger an indicator--it is not the best place for a hub.

I mean, there's only so much expansion there...

As much as I wish we could use that cool facility, in the long run I think it would be best to plan for alternatives.


The layout and function of OKC when that facility was built was different than it is now.

Here's a thought. Kind of like CaptDave was suggesting, who says that Union Station couldn't be, at some point, used as one of those "mini hubs" for the downtown area. Or some part of the big picture eventually.

If you look at the fact that shipping and receiving for OKC has located themselves out of the congestion of downtown, that should trigger an indicator--it is not the best place for a hub.

I mean, there's only so much expansion there...

As much as I wish we could use that cool facility, in the long run I think it would be best to plan for alternatives.


The layout and function of OKC when that facility was built was different than it is now.


Exactly. If you want a major multimodal rail hub in this city, there are lots of other places to put it. It's not like we DON'T have empty land coming out of our ears. There's no reason it has to be at Union Station.

Just to throw this in, there already is a free trade zone at the airport. This was designated back in the 80's.

Great area to incorporate as a transportation zone. No homes, all industrial area.

Just to throw this in, there already is a free trade zone at the airport. This was designated back in the 80's.

Great area to incorporate as a transportation zone. No homes, all industrial area.

That is exactly why I suggested building the multimodal freight handling facility on some of that land around the airport. Huntsville AL has done just that with an intermodal rail yard on the airport grounds with taxiways and ramp space for freight aircraft. Given the short distance from I-40, it would be the perfect location for the type facility Tom supports for Union Station. I think Tom is thinking too small in his vision for a multimodal expedited freight handling facility in OKC and this is why I think Union Station is not a good location for that.

I strongly advocate using Union Station as a small hub for passenger traffic. One or two standard gage rail lines would be sufficient for Amtrak to stop there. I am still not sure there is sufficient space at the North South BNSF line to smoothly move standard rail traffic over to Union Station from the N-S lines. The majority of the traffic at Union Station would be light rail, street level trolleys, and buses.

Two light rail lines below grade (same as the relocated Crosstown) would nicely interface with the tunnels at Union Station. People could then move from the light rail system up through the station building where they could walk out into the C2S Central Park or hop onto a modern street car to the CBD. The buses and street cars could run behind (south side) the station since the freight handling area is really not necessary.

Now that I am back from my "vacation", I will get that map I promised showing my idea of what a COMET (great name Tom) Transit system for OKC could look like. I have to confess, the Fixed Guideway Study proposal is pretty good. I would realign and modify a few things, but it really isn't too bad.

I still maintain all of us can achieve our visions for OKC with the notable exception that I really do not believe Union Station is the right location for freight handling.