OKC Commuter Rail

[BoulderSooner]

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 ..

[The Old Downtown Guy]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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 ..

[The Old Downtown Guy]

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.

[Kerry]

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.

[Kerry]

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.

[betts]

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.

[Superhyper]

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.

[Tom Elmore]

LIGHT RAIL NOW news log compilation --

Light Rail Now! NewsLog - Light Rail Transit News

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

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

[Kerry]

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.

[SouthsideSooner]

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.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

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!

[Kerry]

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.

[bombermwc]

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!

[SouthsideSooner]

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?

[betts]

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.

[Tom Elmore]

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

[bwana_bob]

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....

[OU Adonis]

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

[soonerfever]

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.

[Kerry]

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….

[metro]

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

[Tom Elmore]

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

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

[edcrunk]

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.

[Tom Elmore]

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, 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

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