it would be a long walk everyday to go from the gate to building 3001 and back again.

I just got in from a week in Boston. They've got subways and light rail out the ass . . . have had for about a hundred years. Not just in the inner-city part, but lines stretching miles out into the burbs with stations that have lots that park hundreds of cars. Yeah, I know. . . we're not Boston . . . OK, we're not . . . never will be, but OKC should have commuter rail on the drawing boards for tracks from Norman through OKC to Edmond and Guthrie right now . . . right now . . . and be planning a crossing line to Tinker and Yukon/El Reno. No city of any size, even OKC's 1.5Mill Metro has a chance in the future without rail . . . Not only that, Oklahoma is throwing away it's chance of being a national heavy rail crossroads by ripping out the Union Station railyard. It's pathetic. The development along DART in Dallas is off the charts and Huston's light rail line down Main Street is spawning hundreds of new townhouses and apartments. Here we sit with our heads in the sand . . . oh boy the Sonics are coming the Sonics are coming . . . give me a break . . . so to get to a game, thousands of people will pile in their SUVs and guzzle thousands of gallons of $5 gasoline rather than pull out a transit pass, get on the train and not have to worry about parking or walking very far . . . is there something wrong with this picture . . . big league my Aunt Fanny . . . or is it just me?

Not only that, Oklahoma is throwing away it's chance of being a national heavy rail crossroads by ripping out the Union Station railyard. It's pathetic.

Below are two pictures with the same scaling from MSN Terraserver:

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r170/OkStateBBall78/BaileyYard.jpg

Bailey Yard, North Platt, Nebraska. This yard stretches over 7 miles and is KEY to Union Pacific operations.

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r170/OkStateBBall78/UnionStationYard.jpg

Our little tiny yard that you consider KEY.

I'm confused...

I hear ridership on the city buses is up 40%.

jbrown, how accurate is that number? I bet if it was up that high, we'd be hearing about it and Metro Transit would be talking about expanding routes, etc. Heck, we can't even get the downtown trolleys (MAPS 1 project designed to be expanded upon but haven't) to go north of NW 4th street. It's a no brainer that they should have a Broadway to NW 10th loop and then over to St. Anthony's and Plaza Court at a bare minimum. It also would be nice if they'd stop at all the downtown housing developments. If they want riders, they need to go to the people.

Thank you OKCisOK4me. What is all of this fascination with a decrepit old rail yard? Let it go already. That facility is too small to do anything useful with. At best it could be a stop on some kind of rail line but no way could it ever serve again as a main transit facility/hub of any kind. Five Points Station on MARTA is underground and it dwarfs the Union Pacific station. This is not 1945!!!!

Hi, folks.

Tom Elmore here.

This is not 1945?

You're correct. In 1945, OKC still had something of a multimodal transportation system -- which we all now wish we had back. Through August of that year, that system was very busy helping the nation mount the greatest logistical feat in history, supporting victory in WWII.

According to historians, 1946 was the big bosses acquiesced to GM's "National Cities Lines" front to throw our trolleys and interurbans away -- much like what ODOT has been trying to do to Union Station since the late 1990s.

Anybody learn anything from that? (I wonder how many of the local officials who facilitated that got "GM auto dealerships...")

So why are we allowing ODOT to pretend it's "1955?"

Isn't "$40 billion in unfunded highway maintenance need" enough?

OKC Union Station yard is "too small" to be a modern, multimodal passenger transportation center? And the "proof" is comparison is UP's Bailey Yard, largest freight rail classification yard in the world?

As kindly as I might, friends, I'd observe that we will never find the answers if we don't understand the questions.

OKC Union Station yard is six blocks long, 200 feet wide. It is a textbook basis for an effective urban multimodal hub.

We would no more expect heavy freight classification to take place in such a facility than we would consider moving the airport downtown.

Union Station's yard is a passenger yard with generous freight rail bypass capacity which also perfectly accomodates and bypasses city street traffic.

Here, fast intercity passenger trains -- supported by First Class Mail and express freight -- would interface with regional and local train and bus services while simultaneously allowing free flow of the specific, specialized freight services required to support passenger traffic.

To the west southwest, the yard links to Will Rogers Airport. To the east, it links to heavy freight yards of several commercial railroads and to Tinker AFB.

It is near enough to the Central Business District to be handy -- but not so close as to add to the natural congestion of such an area. Downtown, Bricktown, the Capitol, Capitol Hill, Stockyards, etc. would be or linked or sub-linked via bus and trolleys (real trolleys).

ODOT has cleared a good deal more area parallel to the Union Station yard than already existed there. So far, nothing ODOT has done would interfere with hub development at Union Station. As far as I'm concerned, they've spent a lot of money on potential multimodal development -- which it's now undoubtedly clear to all is urgently needed -- that they would never have spent this way if asked to do so.

Part of this is the upgrading of the old east-west "Packingtown Lead" south of the river -- which, with a few more additions, could allow north-south passenger trains on the BNSF Red Rock Subdivision to conveniently use Union Station.

It's up to the citizenry to see to it that the right thing is done from here on in.

TOM ELMORE

I'm sorry if I disturbed anyone by including a remark in a previous post that the Union Station rail yard might be important. I know it's so much easier to just shoot from the hip, but you rail experts might want to google "Oklahoma City Union Station" and spend the next two or three days reading the information to the contrary you find in the 800 plus hits you'll get. I really should have left that out, because it was not relevant to the more important point that I wanted to make in my post . . . the Norman - OKC - Edmond (Guthrie) transportation corridor.

BTW, Kerry . . . you are right about it not being 1945. In 1945 the Interurban electric rail line still connected Norman to OKC and Guthrie and El Reno.

The title of the thread is "OKC Commuter Rail" . . . we ain't got none and it doesn't look like we will have any in the near future. We apparently have no new transit system plans, but we have had lots of planning studies in the last few years, most with at least a transit component; at least one totally dedicated to transit. What use, if any other than door stops, are these studies being put to?

Transit was deemed the major component of a Maps III only a few short months ago, now we seem to have stalled out on transit. What has changed about the nearly universally accepted projected need for a more modern mass transit system in OKC that would include some rail? I don't agree with the Mayor that voters are pooped out after voting for NBA hoops and won't support the financing for development of the initial stages of a modern mass transit system that citizens living here in the next century won't be able to get along without on a daily basis.

In the face of the reality of $5 to $7 to WhoTFKnows prices for gasoline, in ten or fifteen years, how will even middle-classed people get to their jobs, let alone to a basketball game downtown? We have spent hundreds of $$$millions constructing, maintaining and widening the highway connecting Norman, OKC and Edmond the past twenty-odd years with no real thought for the future, other than how can we provide infrastructure for more and more automobiles. Like many other people who have posted their questions and opinions here, I am just suggesting that there are proven transit alternatives, that the planning and development process is long and expensive and that we aren't making much progress.

Ask yourself if there already were a light rail line operating from Norman through Oklahoma City to Edmond if it would be in considerable use today and whether it would have saved on the costs to maintain and widen the highway in that transit corridor? The planning for such a line would have to have been well underway at least ten, and more like fifteen years ago for that line to be in service today. So, if we decide today that the next round of funding to upgrade that transit corridor will include adding rail capacity, it will be about 2025 before you can ride a train from Oklahoma City to an OU football game in Norman.

ODG - now we are talking. I agree with your last post. When I see something about the Union rail yard and alarms start going off in my head because we do have a faction of our group here that must have kissed their first girl behind that building or saw a love one go off to war there because they just can't let it go. I can respect those feelings but not at the expense of implementing a modern transit system.

You are right, I think this subject has been studied to death and it is time to see some track laid.

I totally agree, OKC needs light rail. In addition to easing pain at the pump, lessening emissions, and connecting the major parts of the OKC metro, adding rail would benefit OKC in another aspect. Not to get off topic here, but adding rail and connecting the major parts of the metro with downtown would alleviate the need for parking, thus taking money out of the hands of Brewer, in turn allowing for some real development over all of the surface parking in Bricktown. We need rail!

...waiting for johnnyboyokc to chime in...

I was just taking a look at Google Earth and following some of the existing rail lines around OKC. Man, they run through some extra crappy parts of town. I don't think there is any way an OKC rail system could use any of that right of way for anything other than commuter rail but that would probably need to be funded by the state anyhow.

. . .anyone thinking about the "Park and Ride" that you see in the DC area?? Seems that might be at least a place to start.

Park and Ride is almost in every city, not just D.C., except OKC. We do have a few "park & ride" locations. There is one that I know of on I-35 near the Turnpike exit. Unfortunately we don't have mass transit connected to these as other cities, however I do belive they are used as encouragement to car pool in OKC or to Tulsa.

I was just taking a look at Google Earth and following some of the existing rail lines around OKC. Man, they run through some extra crappy parts of town. I don't think there is any way an OKC rail system could use any of that right of way for anything other than commuter rail but that would probably need to be funded by the state anyhow.

Kerry, again as others have already said, most cities rail systems run/ran through crappy parts of town anyways. That's just the nature of the beast. I've ridden NYC's, Atlanta's, Philadelphia's, Miami's, Dallas', San Fran's. They all go through bad parts of the city. Also, as others pointed out, rail and mass transit have spurred TONS of development near the tracks that otherwise would have remained blighted areas. Forget about what our Union Station and surrounding areas are now, imagine what they could/would be if we had a modern rail system with a hub in that area. Union Station pretty much has the infrastructure still in place to implement a modern system for little money. The rail yard is much bigger than people realize.

What most people don't get is the importance of a "Hub" to implement a multi-modal transit strategy. As Tom Elmore pointed out, there is already a lot of rail infrastructure that would make it very cost effective to develop a line from our airport through downtown and out to Tinker. A multi-modal hub provides the connection point for taxis, buses, trolleys and whatever to collect passengers and distribute them to hotels, offices etc. Also, an adjacent parking garage could provide the long term parking for passengers making rail trips to other cities on lines that would connect at the hub.

OKC already has a significiant amount of rail infrastructure that only requires upgrading to be put into use which would off-set thousands of automobile miles per day and start to take some pressure off of the expressways. In time, the existing lines can be branched off to put rail onto NW Expwy and other heavily traveled auto routes. The rail that would replace two traffic lanes could eaisly reduce the auto traffic by half.

Although bus ridership is up in OKC, the system really needs to be linked to rail traffic to get large numbers of people onto the buses . . . not to make their whole ride on, but just to get them to the rail stop. This is the proven system that has worked in cities across this country and around the world for years and years. The same system design that served OKC for over fifty years.

jbrown, how accurate is that number? I bet if it was up that high, we'd be hearing about it and Metro Transit would be talking about expanding routes, etc.

I just "heard" that. Someone mentioned it in conversation. Not official by any means.

What most people don't get is the importance of a "Hub" to implement a multi-modal transit strategy. As Tom Elmore pointed out, there is already a lot of rail infrastructure that would make it very cost effective to develop a line from our airport through downtown and out to Tinker. A multi-modal hub provides the connection point for taxis, buses, trolleys and whatever to collect passengers and distribute them to hotels, offices etc. Also, an adjacent parking garage could provide the long term parking for passengers making rail trips to other cities on lines that would connect at the hub.

OKC already has a significiant amount of rail infrastructure that only requires upgrading to be put into use which would off-set thousands of automobile miles per day and start to take some pressure off of the expressways. In time, the existing lines can be branched off to put rail onto NW Expwy and other heavily traveled auto routes. The rail that would replace two traffic lanes could eaisly reduce the auto traffic by half.

Although bus ridership is up in OKC, the system really needs to be linked to rail traffic to get large numbers of people onto the buses . . . not to make their whole ride on, but just to get them to the rail stop. This is the proven system that has worked in cities across this country and around the world for years and years. The same system design that served OKC for over fifty years.

I get the importance of a hub, but I'd like to see data that shows that more of our commuter traffic is east-west than north-south, and I'd like to see any hub moved further east, to coincide with a north-south route that could not cut through downtown to link up with any east-west line. Personally, I travel the Broadway extension all the time, but am rarely on I-40, and I wonder how many other people are like me. I seriously doubt I would take commuter rail to the airport, as that would probably necessitate leaving my car somewhere anyway, and I'd rather have the ease of transporting baggage directly to my car, rather than by train to car. I've used the Tube in London and the subway in Chicago to get from the airport to my hotels, and it's a pain in the neck. I could do it in Atlanta, but again, I don't because I don't have to. I'm all about using mass transit if it helps ease congestion, save energy and improve the environment, but I'd rather take mass trans to work every day of the year than use it a couple of times a year to go to the airport.

I get the importance of a hub, but I'd like to see data that shows that more of our commuter traffic is east-west than north-south, and I'd like to see any hub moved further east, to coincide with a north-south route that could not cut through downtown to link up with any east-west line. Personally, I travel the Broadway extension all the time, but am rarely on I-40, and I wonder how many other people are like me. I seriously doubt I would take commuter rail to the airport, as that would probably necessitate leaving my car somewhere anyway, and I'd rather have the ease of transporting baggage directly to my car, rather than by train to car. I've used the Tube in London and the subway in Chicago to get from the airport to my hotels, and it's a pain in the neck. I could do it in Atlanta, but again, I don't because I don't have to. I'm all about using mass transit if it helps ease congestion, save energy and improve the environment, but I'd rather take mass trans to work every day of the year than use it a couple of times a year to go to the airport.

great post .. .. i 100% agree .. north south is how okc area has grown .. and that is the direction that transit needs to start ..

i would just be happy with a street car type light rail in and around downtown to start ..

I get the importance of a hub, but I'd like to see data that shows that more of our commuter traffic is east-west than north-south, and I'd like to see any hub moved further east, to coincide with a north-south route that could not cut through downtown to link up with any east-west line. . . .


I understand everything you are saying betts. I won't be dragging my luggage on and off of a train if I'm flying out for a long trip, but I would if it was a couple of days on business. A downtown transit hub at Union Station gives the several thousand people that will be living downtown twenty years from now that option.

The fact is, there is a lot of rail infrastructure at Union Station that will unfortunately go by way of the wrecking ball . . . but it hasn't happened yet and as long as it's still there, Tom Elmore will fight tooth and nail to keep it from being destroyed. More than anyone I have every met or heard opinions from, he understands transit . . . he knows it inside and out and he can quote facts and figures against any argument that tearing out that rail yard is a good idea . . . he gets way over the top when he starts calling out the politicians he has seen make decisions time and time again that rar contrary to the interests of us taxpayers, but's that's Tom . . . he calls it like he has seen it time and time again.

But, in the long run, all of this discussion may be mute, but Tom's point is to take the infrastructure you have and put it to use as a starting point. The exact location of a hub can be argued until the cows come home, but Union Station is already a hub. Yes, there appears to be more traffic north/south than east/west, but the north/south infrastructure has to be developed. There is right of way that could be used but no rails. The east/west part is already complete and only needs to be shaped up to put it into use.

And just to thrown out something to think on . . . as fule costs get higher and higher the cost per pound/mile to haul freight on trucks, which is already much higher than hauling on rail, will likely drive a lot of that freight onto trains and off of the highways, leaving space and financial resources available to further develop more rail transportation. But, developing these transportation corridors is a decades long process and it may be quite likely that the realigned I-40 won't need all of the proposed lane width planned by the time it finally gets constructed, or another ten years down the line and we will have eleminated an irreplacable rail asset which is the Union Station rail yard.

It's really no different that what OKC Urban Renewal did to downtown in the 70's by tearing down dozens of buildings that if left standing would be in the process of being readdapted to new uses today . . . tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in existing buildings hauled to land fills. Most of which will be replaced as downtown continues is redeveloped by buildings that are not of the same character and quality as the ones torn down. I don't know anyone that would say today that leveling all the buildings that were lost was a good idea . . . not anyone.

I understand everything you are saying betts. I won't be dragging my luggage on and off of a train if I'm flying out for a long trip, but I would if it was a couple of days on business. A downtown transit hub at Union Station gives the several thousand people that will be living downtown twenty years from now that option.

The fact is, there is a lot of rail infrastructure at Union Station that will unfortunately go by way of the wrecking ball . . . but it hasn't happened yet and as long as it's still there, Tom Elmore will fight tooth and nail to keep it from being destroyed. More than anyone I have every met or heard opinions from, he understands transit . . . he knows it inside and out and he can quote facts and figures against any argument that tearing out that rail yard is a good idea . . . he gets way over the top when he starts calling out the politicians he has seen make decisions time and time again that rar contrary to the interests of us taxpayers, but's that's Tom . . . he calls it like he has seen it time and time again.

But, in the long run, all of this discussion may be mute, but Tom's point is to take the infrastructure you have and put it to use as a starting point. The exact location of a hub can be argued until the cows come home, but Union Station is already a hub. Yes, there appears to be more traffic north/south than east/west, but the north/south infrastructure has to be developed. There is right of way that could be used but no rails. The east/west part is already complete and only needs to be shaped up to put it into use.

And just to thrown out something to think on . . . as fule costs get higher and higher the cost per pound/mile to haul freight on trucks, which is already much higher than hauling on rail, will likely drive a lot of that freight onto trains and off of the highways, leaving space and financial resources available to further develop more rail transportation. But, developing these transportation corridors is a decades long process and it may be quite likely that the realigned I-40 won't need all of the proposed lane width planned by the time it finally gets constructed, or another ten years down the line and we will have eleminated an irreplacable rail asset which is the Union Station rail yard.

It's really no different that what OKC Urban Renewal did to downtown in the 70's by tearing down dozens of buildings that if left standing would be in the process of being readdapted to new uses today . . . tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in existing buildings hauled to land fills. Most of which will be replaced as downtown continues is redeveloped by buildings that are not of the same character and quality as the ones torn down. I don't know anyone that would say today that leveling all the buildings that were lost was a good idea . . . not anyone.

a couple of things ..

it has already happened ... millions of $ have already been spent on the new cross town ... and more work goes on everyday ... the union rail yard is gone ..

tom may know transit ... however he doesn't have many facts to back up any thing he says ... and he has every bit as much agenda as those he rails against ...

and just because he has his idea of doing things .. doesn't make it correct for our citys future .. no matter how many times he says it ..

Having lived in OKC for several decades and visited many other cities in this country and abroad, my experience is that decisions made by governments are fraught with at least the same ratio of "right decision" vs "wrong decision" that has taken place in my own life . . . I think that I've been correct in making major decisions in my life more than half of the time, but my batting average It isn't anywhere close to say 700 and may only be 501 . . . I'm not dead yet either.

Frankly, I don't see government doing much better in the major decision making process than I have achieved, and the reasons for taking the wrong path are often similar . . . not considering all the options . . . lack of information . . . selfish motivation . . . trying to please too many people . . . short sightedness . . . the list could get pretty long. The problem is the leverage and resources that government brings to the table when it makes the wrong choice. The comparative example I cited in my previous post of the destruction of Oklahoma City's urban core in the 1970's is a perfect demonstration of how bad the results can be when government decision making goes off course.


. . . it has already happened ... millions of $ have already been spent on the new cross town ... and more work goes on everyday ... the union rail yard is gone ..

This is a perfect example of another human frailty . . . one that I certainly suffer from, but that government suffers from to the absolute maximum . . . a stubborn unwillingness to reassess the original decision in the light of the present conditions and make corrections while there is still time to improve the final result. One good name for that process could be "The Titanic Effect". The rational is that we've already gone too far to correct course.


. . . tom may know transit ... however he doesn't have many facts to back up any thing he says ... and he has every bit as much agenda as those he rails against ...

Yes, Tom does know transit and he does have an agenda. His agenda is promoting a balance between all of the transit options available, suggesting that there be a fair allocation of costs to all of the users and planning for the best possible future without regard to who profits from decisions made along the way. And, his arguments are absolutely replete with facts and it doesn't matter how many times you assert the contrary.


and just because he has his idea of doing things .. doesn't make it correct for our citys future .. no matter how many times he says it ..

No it doesn't make it correct, but it doesn't automatically make it incorrect either.

Perhaps because of the privilege I have enjoyed of knowing Tom Elmore for several years now, I am able to set aside some of his more strident language and agree to disagree with him on a minor point here and there. But in a much broader context, I value his loyal friendship and generous service to our community and his steadfast strength of character. He is an intelligent, talented upstanding citizen, dedicated husband and wonderful father.

He is also very, very stubborn in his point of view about the need for the State of Oklahoma and Oklahoma City to move from an almost totally automobile/truck/bus/highway/street transit system to one that incorporates rail components where they are appropriate. I am very stubborn in my agreement with him.

City says streetcar is on track even if trains look empty
By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times transportation reporter

Heading to lunch, a group of downtown employees chose to ride in style, on a purple South Lake Union streetcar.

Jane Nelson fed a colleague's $10 bill into the ticket machine aboard the moving train, then tried not to topple, as she passed proof-of-payment slips to the others, in a human chain. "Did we look like we knew what we were doing?" she asked. They managed to finish just before the one-mile ride ended.

Seattle could use a few hundred thousand more customers like these.

Streetcar use has lulled since December, when the novelty factor, holiday shoppers and free rides kept the trains full throughout the opening month.

Six months into the city's streetcar revival, a chasm exists between backers such as Mayor Greg Nickels, who says the line is exceeding expectations, and a common public perception that the streetcars look empty.

In fact, ridership is almost exactly where the city predicted it would be the first year — about 1,000 average daily trips, based on logs by streetcar drivers. Sounds high, but it breaks down to eight riders per one-way trip. Since some people get off partway, five or six typically are aboard.

During a recent midday stretch, six to 22 people were aboard the streetcar during a 2 ½-hour period, while a rush-hour sampling found 20 to 30 riders.

And passengers like Nelson, who pay cash for the $1.75 adult ticket, are even fewer. Ticket sales cover 5 percent of the estimated $2.1 million annual operating cost, mainly because the overwhelming majority of riders use King County Metro Transit passes.

Even after crediting the streetcar with a share of pass sales, passengers still cover only about 14 percent of operations, compared with 22 percent for the countywide bus system. (Cash fares on Metro buses cover 6 percent of operating costs.)

"That is not, obviously, a stellar performance from a financial viewpoint, but it's also the first year," said Jim Jacobson, deputy general manager for Metro, which operates the city-owned streetcar line. He said ridership will grow as the neighborhood develops and more trains are added.

Then again, the point of the $52 million line never was to break even, but to promote housing density and business growth.

Other trends look more positive. After a rainy beginning to 2008, daily trips ought to surpass the 1,000 mark soon. Summer tourists, attracted in part by the new Lake Union Park, are likely to pay cash instead of using passes.

Sponsorships and a federal grant do help with operating costs, but taxpayers foot most of the bill.

Summer riders will find the trains are quicker, and less prone to stalls, than last December.

"It's clean. It's air-conditioned. It's roomy," Nelson said.

Ticket machines that didn't work in January are fixed. But how to pay remains confusing.

On the trains, the orange-trimmed ticket machines take only cash, no plastic. On the sidewalk, a set of four machines takes only plastic, no cash.

Trains sometimes wait for visitors as they fumble with the outdoor machines, not knowing they can pay onboard, said Christine Rimorin, a daily commuter who suggests making rides free.

Two people, in a group of five headed to lunch, held cash in their fists, thinking a Metro inspector would collect fares. One person eventually bought a ticket from the machine; another didn't.

One woman didn't because she thought her ride would be free since she boarded in the downtown zone that's sometimes free for buses.

Another repeatedly flattened her dollar bill, but the machine repeatedly spit it back, and she gave up. "Please eat my money," pleaded a business visitor from England, until the machine finally accepted.

Esther Franada of Kent tried the streetcar on her first day of work in South Lake Union. She tried in vain to buy a ticket. She didn't need to — she had a Metro pass.

Only 1 to 2 percent of riders evade paying the fare, Jacobson said. Spot-checks are sporadic, but are supposed to increase this summer.

"I think I've been checked twice," rider Jeff Whiteaker said. "It would be pretty easy to cheat."

Jacobson said officials still are considering what payment methods work best. "Our intent is to continue to experiment with these things," he said.

Catching up

Seattle is far behind Portland, whose first line surpassed 4,000 weekday rides within six months of starting service in 2001, and has since expanded. Sound Transit's free Tacoma Link, which opened in 2003, averages 2,925 trips per weekday.

Kevin Phelps, a former Sound Transit board member from Tacoma, said officials wanted to encourage people to try mass transit as part of a regional system that included buses and trains. Phelps said Seattle should consider free rides.

"What if they could triple or quadruple their ridership?" he said. "I think it does a lot of damage to the overall image of mass transit, when you have a lot of unused capacity going back and forth."

Seattle is banking on the arrival of new employers such as Amazon.com and UW Medicine, along with new condos, to boost ridership.

Consultants predict it will triple by 2020, and city transportation officials this month presented their ideas for four new streetcar lines to run between Queen Anne and the Central Area, between Ballard and Fremont, between South Lake Union and the University District, and between Capitol Hill and First Hill.

The city's streetcar project manager, Ethan Melone, says his first step is to make streetcars a fixture in South Lake Union. Ridership then will increase.

"I think what we are trying to do is provide a reliable level of service," he said.

According to the above article annual maintenance of the system is not that high. Any OKC rail system that is part of MAPS III needs to be free to use. It cost more money to collect fares then they raise by collecting fares. Make it free, pack the people in, and sell advertising at the stations and aboard the trains. In fact, if the trip was free I would be willing to listen to non-stop commercials playing over a loud speaker. Heck, they could tack on an extra $10 million to MAPS III, give it to Boone Pickens, and start an endowment for maintenence.

I have been and will be in favor of light rail. However, I am equally strongly in favor of abolishment of an inadequate elevated highway running through downtown that requires more maintenance than ground or below ground level roads and blights our downtown. I think we can have both, and it's shortsighted of people to assume one cannot happen without the other. As far as whether the new Crosstown construction has gone too far to go back, that's a discussion I don't have enough knowledge to comment on. I would have been fine with it going south of the river, but getting it out of it's current location and at least ground level should be a high priority, IMO.

I have been and will be in favor of light rail. However, I am equally strongly in favor of abolishment of an inadequate elevated highway running through downtown that requires more maintenance than ground or below ground level roads and blights our downtown. I think we can have both, and it's shortsighted of people to assume one cannot happen without the other. As far as whether the new Crosstown construction has gone too far to go back, that's a discussion I don't have enough knowledge to comment on. I would have been fine with it going south of the river, but getting it out of it's current location and at least ground level should be a high priority, IMO.

While I agree to an extent that new crosstown is...questionable, I also see a lot of potential in it. I also believe that light rail is going to be part of a the transportation mix of the future. Obviously it's not practical to use one system for everything, but if you look at the most successful cities around the world they have a variety of transportation options. Light & Heavy rail help drive density as well as saving on overall expenses, while buses, trams, and normal streets help deliver that last mile of service, so to say.I think OKC would benefit greatly from light-rail because it would help build-up that level of density that really drivers a good urban-economy. I think Tulsa would benefit too, and is well setup for it, but that's a whole other topic.

LIGHT RAIL NOW news log compilation --

Light Rail Now! NewsLog - Light Rail Transit News (http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2007q4.htm)

This particular edition may be of particular interest.

It includes news of Boston's continued use of ultra-simple, and very elegant PCC cars, and also of test runs of Utah's new commuter rail service linking Salt Lake / Provo and Ogden to Tinker competitor, Hill AFB.

What's been achieved in Utah is very impressive, indeed. Perhaps longtime Utah Transit Director John Inglish and former SLC Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson would come to OKC to tell the story, and to offer advice.

Imagine what might have been -- if only civic leaders had put a little of the effort into shoring up the old Oklahoma Railway that was spent otherwise, post-1945. If ever a transportation services had won the right to be so supported, it was surely the old Oklahoma trolleys and interurbans. Modern PCC cars on major routes might have made a tremendous difference -- and the quality, economy and obvious longevity of the PCCs is entirely evident today. world.nycsubway.org/United States/The PCC Car - Not So Standard (http://world.nycsubway.org/us/pcc/)

Meanwhile, is the OKC Union Station yard, as confidently asserted by some, "gone?" Check the "E-Library" segment of the federal Surface Trasnportation Board: www.stb.dot.gov Docket number is AB-6 430 X. Action is ongoing not only before this agency, but before at least two separate elements of the federal courts.

TOM ELMORE

I still don't understand the fascination with the rail yard at Union Station. The yard is the wrong place for a transit hub in modern OKC and since the tracks that run through Union Station are mixed with freight traffic it really limits the options for choosing a rail style that will work best for OKC. In fact, the only option would be heavy rail.

Sure there are tracks to the airport, actually not even close to the terminal so an extension would have to be done, but there are other ways to the airport. A line from downtown could follow Reno to Meridian, hang a left and go straight to the terminal. Plus it could make a few stops along Meridian like at the Oklahoma River. Where would a train stop if it used the old freight line from Union Station to the airport? There isn’t any place.

I am very much opposed to Tom's agenda. I am completely against beating the same dead horse on decisions that have already been made, that would slow down work on the new crosstown by one day.

I am very excited about MAPS 3/C2S and much of that can't proceed until this project is finished. With Union Station and the east-west tracks, it's easy to envision empty trains spending many, many years trying to develope ridership. It could actually hamper us as a city from focusing our efforts on a plan that truly makes sense.

The new crosstown has moved too slow as it is but if it will open in 2012, that is still a good time frame in continuing our current momentum as a city.

I am very much opposed to Tom's agenda. I am completely against beating the same dead horse on decisions that have already been made, that would slow down work on the new crosstown by one day.

I am very excited about MAPS 3/C2S and much of that can't proceed until this project is finished. With Union Station and the east-west tracks, it's easy to envision empty trains spending many, many years trying to develope ridership. It could actually hamper us as a city from focusing our efforts on a plan that truly makes sense.

The new crosstown has moved too slow as it is but if it will open in 2012, that is still a good time frame in continuing our current momentum as a city.

Sure, SSS, I see your point . . . why strive for excellence when we can take the most expedient route and continue to wallow in mediocrity? And as you say, the decision (albeit the special interest driven wrong one) has already been made. Why would we want to revisit a project that was designed in an era of $1 gasoline while we are staring into a future of $7 to $10 fuel? So, just stay the I-40 course with our blinders on and don’t ask too many questions? No thanks.

Rock on Tom!

Just imagine how much Tom could get done if he stopped trying to fight to revive a rail system that died 50 years ago and instead spent his time and effort helping to plan a future rail system in OKC. The rail system Tom is trying so hard to rebuild died at the hands of the automobile. You can't rebuild a system that already lost the battle once (unless you want to lose again). We need a new system designed and built for OKC now, not OKC circa 1945.

Tom seems to think that all you need to do is lay some new track, add some trains, and everything will fill-up. It isn't the condition of the tracks that is lacking, it is the location of the right-of-way. No one that would commute to downtown lives along those tracks.

Exactlly Kerry. The decision has been made, why are we still arguing about it? If it was so important, why did it sit there vacant for 50 years with no purpose? We're all in favor of keeping the building, but we're not going to let an empty rail yard keep us from making progress.

The yard is NOT in a good location for ANYTHING modern. Ther just isn't any plan that would use it. Get off the dead horse and let it die!

Sure, SSS, I see your point . . . why strive for excellence when we can take the most expedient route and continue to wallow in mediocrity? And as you say, the decision (albeit the special interest driven wrong one) has already been made. Why would we want to revisit a project that was designed in an era of $1 gasoline while we are staring into a future of $7 to $10 fuel? So, just stay the I-40 course with our blinders on and don’t ask too many questions? No thanks.

Rock on Tom!

Thanks for the sarcastic reply, ODG.

Maybe you can help me understand this. If we started service tomorrow on a route from Union Station with stops at 15th and S. Penn, 22nd and S. May, 29th and S. Portland, 38th and S. Meridian and on to Wheatland, What would you expect the ridership numbers to be. What would a future ridership curve look like?

It looks like a doomed concept to me, maybe you can help me understand it. I live at 104th and S. May and I'm quite sure that even in a park and ride situation, I would never use it, even if it were free.

Who is your target rider?

I still think the location for Union Station is completely wrong. People don't want to get off there and take a bus to Bricktown or the CBD. Drop me off right where I want to be. Were I to use light rail, I would use it to go downtown to the movies or a ball game, but if I had to take a bus from Union Station it would never happen. I'd drive and park instead.

And, I agree that this is a different era than that of $1 a gallon gas, but someone will have to prove to me that no one is going to use our interstate highways anymore before I would think we should simply stop improving them. I see two issues here: the needs of cross country or cross state travelers, and the needs of a city. We might not need I-40 as a city, but it is one of the major cross country highway routes, and I don't see highways disappearing any time soon.

Also, does aesthetics carry no weight? It's fine that we have an ugly, elevated highway that blights any land around it and makes it unattractive for retail, business or housing? Should aesthetics completely give way to transportation expediency? It seems as if we are trying to reinvent OKC, and we cannot do that if we lose an entire square mile of land south of downtown to blight.

The answer is in your question.

The agency that built the "ugly elevated highway" -- using "fracture critical design" -- is the one whose plan so many on this forum adamantly, unquestioningly support.

"Different people today," you say? Same plan, same motivation, same approach. They're there to keep the work and the money flowing to the contractors. "Any project is a good project."

"Rule 1" at ODOT is, "More highways is the answer." Rule 2? "If more highways plainly is not the answer -- or if we simply can't afford more highways -- see Rule 1."

It was just a couple of years back -- with tens of millions in bond debt service eating up their operating budget, that one of their key executives told me, "I think we've learned our lesson about bond debt, Tom."

Learned their lesson?

I assure you that former Oklahoma Asphalt Paving Association chief lobbyist Gary Ridley -- now ODOT director -- was one of those walking the halls of the capitol during this recent session, shilling for McCaleb, Poe and Love's $300 million in new bonds.

Ridley, the "P.E. without a dee-gree," when asked why the agency never seriously addressed, let alone answered even one of the many, serious and well-documented questions brought to "Crosstown input sessions" by informed citizenry responded, "Well, Tom -- there was a time when we didn't even have to ask you what you thought."

I would urge those who question the value and location of Union Station to ask themselves why transit leaders and other officials from cities who've come through the controversies and now have modern transit systems well along continue to urge OKC leaders to preserve and reuse this historic facility.

Is it just possible that they know something that you, ODOT and Mick Cornett don't know?

TOM ELMORE

City says streetcar is on track even if trains look empty
By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times transportation reporter

Six months into the city's streetcar revival, a chasm exists between backers such as Mayor Greg Nickels, who says the line is exceeding expectations, and a common public perception that the streetcars look empty.

In fact, ridership is almost exactly where the city predicted it would be the first year — about 1,000 average daily trips, based on logs by streetcar drivers. Sounds high, but it breaks down to eight riders per one-way trip. Since some people get off partway, five or six typically are aboard.


Five or six people aboard a streetcar in downtown Seattle? Sounds like the entire season ticket base for the Sonics en route to one of the final home games at Key Arena....

You also have to remember Seattle is 3 times the size of OKC with a smalller footprint.

You also have to remember Seattle is 3 times the size of OKC with a smalller footprint.

Seattle is saying that the line from downtown to the airport (13 miles/30 minutes) will cary 45,000 people every day by 2010.

When the system was free ridership was through the roof. Once they started charging people went back to driving or not taking a trip at all. This is why rail needs to be free in OKC. Granted, taking a train is not as convenient as driving your own car, so it has to be cheaper. Nothing is cheaper than free. When ridership increases the advertising rates will increase. There are a number of ways advertiser could pay for the train: electronic billboards in stations and aboard the trains, advertising on closed circuit tvs, coupon dispensing machines on station platforms (like at the grocery store), wrapping the rail cars themselves….

maybe we can take a page from Seattle's book and incentivize mass transportation. I'd much rather see incentives for mass transporation than a Bass Pro Shops or the Tinker bond issue........


Seattle Incentivizes Residents To Ditch Their Cars : TreeHugger (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/seattle-incentivizes-residents-to-ditch-their-cars.php)

John Landrum, longtime CEO of Dallas' fabled "McKinney Avenue Trolleys," says, "Figure out where you want development or redevelopment (including "grocery stores," I imagine) and lay trolley tracks there. You won't be able to keep the development away." McKinney Avenue Transit Authority (http://www.mata.org)

As witness, "McKinney Avenue Transit," old, rebuilt trolleys operating on track laid in the streets in 1887, buried for years under asphalt, and then revitalized in the 1980s -- run by volunteers of a 501c3 nonprofit -- created over $100 million in new commercial development in the first nine years of it's "new life."

There's reportedly plenty of the Oklahoma Railway's tracks still in Oklahoma City streets.

TOM ELMORE

even with gas goin the way it is... i still don't see the majority of people abandoning their cars. like i said before, it's no fun sharing a seat with thugs and gangsters.

Thugs and gangsters?

You mean certain public officials might use these services regularly? (C'mon, Ed -- smile...)

On another note, I recently saw a TULSA WORLD report where Mayor Taylor and others in City Government there have brought in former ODOT Director and nationally respected Planner Jack Crowley to work on updating Tulsa.

Crowley is the only PhD in Planning ever employed by ODOT as Director. If I recall his statement, later, he said, "There is no planning at ODOT beyond the next election."

He was Director when the state purchased the old Oklahoma City, Ada and Atoka rail line running from the easterly confluence of the old Rock Island and Frisco Lines in the Del City bottoms, through the neighborhoods and businesses areas of Midwest City into the north side of Tinker AFB.

Purchasing the line was not supposed to be possible. It had "already been sold for scrap." However, because certain citizens wouldn't take no for an answer, the "impossible" was achieved.

Look at the metro rail map at NATI - Solutions to the Nation's Transportation Problems (http://www.advancedtransport.org), and you'll see that a rail loop from downtown and south town out around the MWC / Tinker area is absolutely "doable."

Meanwhile, take a look at this: Power Technology - The ST40 was selected by Bombardier to power its new JetTrain locomotive (http://www.power-technology.com/contractors/powerplantequip/pratt/pratt4.html)

It's a little blurb about the gas-turbine version of Bombardier / Alsthom's "Acela" power unit, able to draw high-speed, tilting passenger train sets on less-than optimum track, far from overhead electric catenary.

How about establishing a daily, operating test bed for this technology on the state-owned, former Frisco line between OKC and Tulsa? Might shake things up around the country.

Amtrak's "Acela" trains drew a good deal of criticism over their seemingly lengthy teething period. However, when considering Amtrak's perpetual lack of resources and that these trainsets, reportedly based mainly on off-the-shelf components from long-established Canadian LRV trains, were brought into revenue service under a nearly impossible deadline, it's quite a triumph. It'd be a shame to see the technology go no further than that.

Compare that to US airlines' benefiting from the Boeing 707 (and its offspring) -- developed as a jet tanker to serve the B-47 and B-52 with Defense Department funds.

TOM ELMORE

http://www.okgazette.com/article/09-01-2010/Light_rail_proponents_met_recently_with_Texas_rail _reps_to_talk_about_commuter_rail_s_next_step_in_O klahoma.aspx

I've always thought our north-south traffic north of I-40 was too light to induce people to get out of their cars, but I've seen a huge increase in standstill traffic in the last couple of years. Luckily for me, I don't ever have to get on the highway at rush hour unless I want to, but at times when I've been running an errand and forgotten, I've been highly annoyed at the backup. Also, on nights when there are events downtown, the same thing can happen. If I lived in Edmond and wanted to go to a Thunder game, the thought of not having to sit at the 6th street exit or pay for parking would probably be inducement enough for me to sit back and let someone else drive as well.

Even my husband, whose chief interest is trains, is beginning to think it might work. He's been a naysayer for years, but now he has the Broadway Extension to contend with on occasion.

Betts... How much money do you think that you have saved in auto fuel since your relocation to downtown living?

People that are skeptics about living downtown and paying the higher rents or higher monthly mortgage often overlook this expense.

I think that should be marketed more in both the commuter rail and downtown living discussions.

People that are skeptics about living downtown and paying the higher rents or higher monthly mortgage often overlook this expense.

I think that should be marketed more in both the commuter rail and downtown living discussions.

I currently pay $450 a month house payment. I spend $45 a month in gas. I commute downtown for work every weekday and most weekends.

There's not a single place downtown that costs $495 a month and comes anywhere near my current square footage at even double that amount...

I currently pay $450 a month house payment. I spend $45 a month in gas. I commute downtown for work every weekday and most weekends.

There's not a single place downtown that costs $495 a month and comes anywhere near my current square footage at even double that amount...

You ride a motorcycle? I work from my living room and spend more than $45 a month in gas.

you mean $45 per week right?

you mean $45 per week right?

no, per month

no, per month

Riddle me this, do you even use gasoline in your conveyance?

Riddle me this, do you even use gasoline in your conveyance?

yes...

I get roughly 30mpg, try to time my drive when there's almost no traffic and try to shop mostly at stores that are either within walking distance of my house or work or places that are along my daily drive(the length of broadway from n. Edmond to 6th street DT).

I fill up my vehicle every 4 weeks which costs $40 - $45...

Which means that there's no way I'm going to save any money by moving downtown and paying 2-3 times more per month for a place half the size of my current house..

I think it's pretty cool that they're wanting to do a "demonstration" line. Keep us up to date when that takes place!

Betts... How much money do you think that you have saved in auto fuel since your relocation to downtown living?

People that are skeptics about living downtown and paying the higher rents or higher monthly mortgage often overlook this expense.
If you do the math, it's not all that compelling.

Say you commute downtown to work 22 days/month, you live 20 miles from downtown, gas costs $2.60, and your car gets 15 mpg: your monthly fuel cost for your work commute is ((22d * 40mi) / 15mpg) * $2.6 = $152.53. If instead you live in a 10 mile radius of downtown, that cost is cut in half (to $76.27); if instead your car gets 20 mpg that cost drops by a quarter (to $114.4). So by not driving to work *at all* and moving a full 20 miles closer, you're still only saving ~$150/month even if you were doing that commute in a relatively fuel-inefficient SUV.

The other issue is that even if you ARE saving $150 a month on your work commute by doing the above, it's highly probable that you are eating into that savings by increasing your non-work commutes. Downtown and its immediate surroundings have a great assortment of restaurants, entertainment options, gas stations, etc., but there's not a decent grocery store for several miles. You're also several miles from most types of retail establishments - clothing, electronics, etc. Wanna take your dog to the dog park since you no longer have a yard? Lake Hefner isn't close.

It's not nothing, but for most people it won't come anywhere close to offsetting the rent/mortgage/price per sq. ft. increase. The choice to live downtown is more about quality of life improvement than cost savings, IMO. You're not having to spend time every day sitting in traffic because you're not doing the rush hour drive to and from work. You can walk to restaurants and bars without people assuming you must have racked up enough DUIs to lose your license. There's a pretty varied selection of "culture" to be found in your immediate neighborhood. You're not having to keep up with a yard, or maintain the exterior of a house. You can get high quality appointments in small living spaces which are hard to find in other areas of town; some people have plenty of money to spend but don't care to clean, furnish, etc. a 1.5k+ sq. ft. house.

Betts... How much money do you think that you have saved in auto fuel since your relocation to downtown living?

People that are skeptics about living downtown and paying the higher rents or higher monthly mortgage often overlook this expense.

I think that should be marketed more in both the commuter rail and downtown living discussions.

Well I will give you my personal experience. I moved to midtown last month after living off NWX and Council for the previous year (and before that, I was commuting to my job from my old college pad in Norman). From Norman to my job near Dewey and 11th I was spending approx. $170/month on fuel. From NWX to work, $150 month. From midtown to work, $35/month. Full disclosure: I have a car with an eight-cylinder engine and I tend to...um "speed" a little, which is much harder to do in the middle of the city than on a freeway. The savings on fuel cover the $105/month jump in rent. From that perspective, its a financially lateral move, which was the best I could hope for.

But there are savings like car maintenence that aren't realized unless you expense it over a large period of time. Also, I have intangible savings in my lifestyle. I can sleep in a little later since I live so close to work, and I'm not so stressed from dealing with idiots on Lake Hefner Parkway trying to kill me during my commute. One thing to remember: the fuel prices I used were assuming gas at $2.50-ish a gallon. Who doesn't think its only a matter of time before gas spikes back up?

EDIT: I just read Eep's post and he makes some good points. I will say I probably have taken on more expenses now because I have so many great bars and restaurants around me and I'm constantly eating out. You really have to plan your food budget because indeed, there are few options for grocery shopping. No "running up the street" if you forgot something. On the other hand, the fact that I moved into a slightly smaller space and the fact that my building (like many other buildings in midtown) have come online during a period of increased awareness over energy efficiency has done wonders for my electric bill. My first OGE bill last month was $65, during a time of near record heat.

Its all about weighing whats important to you in your life.

I don't save that much on gas by living downtown, because I drive a mini, but what I do save a phenomenal amount of money on is lawn maintenance, since I have none, insurance and utilities. Since we have foam insulated concrete walls and a heatpump, my utility bill is literally at most 10% of what it was before, and my house isn't that much smaller. Insurance premiums are lower too, because of how our house is constructed and because we have sprinklers. Over 10 years, I've estimated I will save at least $300,000 over what I was paying to live in my last house just on expenses.

What is incalculable is how walking everywhere will impact health care costs and how pleasant it is to have all the restaurants and entertainment options we do within walking distance.

Now, back to rail. I'm not sure how much it would save to take the train to work everyday, but I can only imagine how much more relaxing it would be to ride rather than drive. To me, it would be well worth the minor inconvenience of having to get to where I'm going from the train station.

My first OGE bill last month was $65, during a time of near record heat.


Holy crap. My electric bill the last 2 months were $496 and $490.

Holy crap. My electric bill the last 2 months were $496 and $490.

I was feeling a tad depressed about adaniels low bill compared to mine.
Kerry helped ease that pain. Thanks, and uh, sorry too.

I was feeling a tad depressed about adaniels low bill compared to mine.
Kerry helped ease that pain. Thanks, and uh, sorry too.

Here is my power pole. I think my neighbors might be stealing electricity from me.

http://image56.webshots.com/156/7/37/6/464873706EpKQBV_ph.jpg

Holy crap. My electric bill the last 2 months were $496 and $490.

Good grief...what are your electric rates like in Florida? I am in a older 2 bed/bath apartment that probably has nil insulation, paper thin windows, all electric and monthly bill averages less than $120/month. There are some ups/downs but kilowatt usage stays fairly constant year round

Good grief...what are your electric rates like in Florida? I am in a older 2 bed/bath apartment that probably has nil insulation, paper thin windows, all electric and monthly bill averages less than $120/month. There are some ups/downs but kilowatt usage stays fairly constant year round

We have had multiple double digit rate increases the last few years and an article in the paper said a large portion of the bill goes to service JEA debt. We also pay for a lot environmental regulations. On the plus side, of everyone we know on our street we had the lowest bill. Everyone else is the $500s with one being over $600. JEA is sucking a lot of money out of the Jacksonville economy.

But I think we strayed from the topic.

I was feeling a tad depressed about adaniels low bill compared to mine.
Kerry helped ease that pain. Thanks, and uh, sorry too.

Sorry indeed! you guys are getting hosed in JAX. And if it makes you feel better, my last place was about as well insulated as a wood hut. During the days of the snowpocalypse in January and Februray of this year my eletric bill topped $300 both months (this was for a 900 sq ft condo). So you could say that me and OGE are even now.

But yes, back on topic now.

I think Oklahoma electricity rates are in the $80 to $90 per 1,000 KWH. Looks like Jacksonville is more around $114.