Henry says Crosstown is feds responsibility

[Midtowner]

It sounds like you agree with me now. Istook never asked the state to pay for half the project. He said it was wrong for the state and the city to pay zero (which is what they've paid so far). 35% is a lot better than zero, and I bet Istook would also agree with you about 35% being fair.

But so far Brad Henry hasn't agreed to a single penny.

The more I look into this project, the less I like it. The reasons are fairly complex. Henry is smart not to oppose the project openly. His current strategy is really win-win. Either he the project just dies a quiet death, or the project is fully funded by the federal government.

[gtelmore]

From: Tom Elmore, North American Transportation Institute
AOL customer, gtelmore

Re: "Bridge Collapse"

The folks who ginned up the "fuel tax increase proposal" are the same folks who sold you the "New Crosstown" -- and the idea that the existing Crosstown is "about to fall down." They're in the habit of avoiding "full disclosure."

Call ODOT Bridge Division. Ask them if the Crosstown is "about to fall down." Don't take any innuendo or skating around it. "Yes," or "No?" is the question.

Even ODOT has strict safety standards. Many truly deficient bridges around the state are posted limiting heavy truck gross weights or prohibiting certain trucks altogether -- but NOT the Crosstown. About one-third of daily traffic on the Crosstown is heavy trucks, overwhelmingly THROUGH trucks. These could easily be rerouted around I-44 / I-240 and the Kilpatrick Turnpike if structural safety was really a problem -- but it isn't.

When pressed before the Norman City Council last year, ODOT Director Gary Ridley admitted "the Crosstown is not unsafe." A now retired, longtime bridge division director says the Crosstown is safe and structurally sound. It needs to be redecked -- which could be done much, much, much more cheaply than replacing it. Questioned about this, the current ODOT bridge staffer most knowledgable about the Crosstown said, "Please don't ask me to comment on that. You know the people you quote are reliable. You have no idea how much pressure we're under in this division to help sell the new highway project."

Look for a thin asphalt overlay to be applied to the road deck on the old Crosstown to stabilize it for interim use -- but only if and when the Union Station rail yard is excavated. At that point, the fait accompli will be complete, they think -- but until that moment, the old Crosstown deck is "useful" because, while not unsafe, any sizable chunk of concrete falling from it becomes a "media event" they can use to convince us all that "it's about to fall down." Check the history of the Crosstown and you'll see that parking underneath it was suspended years ago -- because chunks of concrete have nearly always fallen from the deck -- too many, too heavy TRUCKS are largely to blame.

Use the "intelligent transport system" digital signs now erected east and west of the Crosstown to reroute through trucks around it and that traffic counts drop back well within design standards -- while providing better, safer routes for the trucks. A new and improved deck with the addition of modern, corrosion-resistant materials and minor structural upgrades would allow the "old Crosstown" to serve indefinitely.

The "open secret" is that the "New Crosstown plan" is much more about redevelopment of the Riverside area than it is about transportation, but redevelopment of Union Station as a multimodal center would be much better for all involved (including our highway system), as is being proved in Western cities from Little Rock to Portland.

ODOT leadership's policies have put our state into perhaps $40 billion of unfunded highway maintenance need on existing roads, apparently growing at about 40% a year - not the track record of responsible people. When he came back to ODOT as director (after a stint as XD of the state Asphalt Association), Gary Ridley said he would practice a conservative, "fix it first" strategy. Now, however, he says, "we'll start on the Crosstown as if we had the money to finish it." Get the kitty out on the limb, in other words; government by fait accompli -- the "Capitol Dome Strategy." All this to benefit the highway contractors and developers at the expense of the rest of us instead of respectful, conservative, intelligent reuse of existing assets.

Some say we inherit the time in which we live from our forebears. Others say we borrow it from our children. Consider the stunning cynicsm of the "New Crosstown Plan" to destroy the irreplaceable Union Station rail yard: Desecrating this elegant gift of our great grandparents in order to keep our unborn grandchildren in unfunded highway maintenance debt.

It can't be justified.

Governor Henry can -- and must stop it. It's time for an independent review, or perhaps even a Grand Jury probe of the "New Crosstown" route decision.

TOM ELMORE

[travis]

I think Tom may be right on this. Although I think the crosstown bridge should be replace for reasons I have previously stated, I think this plan is a little overambitious. I believe the proposed I-40 route was probably more of an efort to get federal dollars in to the state. Think back to when this first got underway, when the economy was better and the government was running a surplus. There was a lot more federal money available for such projects, so why not make it grand. Now the federal money is largely gone, what they get each year for this project will barely cover inflation and rising construction costs. With the current increase in steel prices, and the rising cost of fuel, the price tag will go higher. But now they are kind of stuck since they have already comitted money to the final design and have bought most of the ROW. This project may get built eventually, but it will be much later than the 2008 date currently stated.

Also, don't be surprised if the final design doesn't look as good as the models they made.

[TheImmortal]

I wonder how much they are going to allow the cost to increase. I havn't checked the latest price but i believe it started around 350 million then went to 360, 370, and i think its at 380 million now. I bet if anything, by the time this project is finished it will be way over schedule and over budget. This is just a bad deal from almost any angle in my opinion.

[bubfloyd]

Also, don't be surprised if the final design doesn't look as good as the models they made.

Truly that would be The worst of all worlds. As it now stands, a committee called the "I-40 Enhancement Committee" has labored tirelessly to insure that the appearance of a completed new I-40 would be much more acceptable. Elements now in the design include a wide pedestrian bridge, decorative treatment of the concrete sides of the below grade portion, lots of landscaping, decorative railings on the underpasses etc. Also, OKC City Council passed an ordinance banning billboards along much of the new roadway.

Of course, ODOT could claim that the new highway is so important that all available funds must be used to construct a bare-bones corridor and ax all the eye candy. A new below grade eye sore woud be born unless State or City money found its way into the project. Not very likely with todays budgets.

[Patrick]

I have been with Tom all along. Like Tom, I've never really gotten my questions answered. Almost every city has crosstown bridges similar to ours, although not necessarily as long. Many are just as old. The only difference? They maintain theirs. We could do the same by simply redecking the crosstown for much less. But as Tom mentions, the would mean less money for local contractors and local business.

I'm not necessarily sure I agree with the conpiracy theory. I don't think they're purposely trying to destroy Union Station Rail Yard. I think they're just using that route because the rail right away is already cleared, so it would be the easiest to put a highway through. Problem is, they don't understand just how important that rail route is to the future of commuter rail transit in our city.

Do we need commuter rail transit now? No, of course not. Do we need to start planning for future commuter rail transit? Absolutely.

I'm not sure people really understand how valuable the Union Station Rail Yard is to our future as a progressive city. Maybe they understand and simply don't care.

Afterall, it all seems to be about money in the short term. Destroying the Union Station Rail Yard creates highway jobs now, and will create rail yard contruction jobs later. Who will be paying for all of this our kids' kids' kids!

[Jay]

What you have to understand is that most Oklahoma Citians see mass transit as a social program. Then you have the people out there like myself that think COTPA has tainted the city's mass transit system. To me COTPA is nothing more than shell game. They never have enough money and they always cut routes where their needed the most. They never cut routes that could go without bus service. Such as the nearly empty bus I see rolling down Memorial everyday.

I agree with all of you. We do need better mass transit system in our city. I support light rail and I think it would be an asset to our city. We just need to disolve COTPA before we do it. If COTPA is still in place when light rail comes to this city you can guarantee the light rail system will be in debt with in 10 years of its start date if not sooner.

Our cities mass transit system needs a serious overhall. We need better routes, longer operating hours (how many other major cities shut down service in the evening) and easier access. Its hard to convince someone to ride the bus when they have to walk eight blocks to a bus stop.

[Midtowner]

COTPA is utterly and completely incompetant.

I've said it before -- the Santa Fe Parking Garage, a 30 year old parking garage (should be a cash cow, right?) has never been in the black. This information coming from a friend of mine who has seen some COTPA bond applications.

[Patrick]

We're going to have to change the image of our bus system as well. Currently, it's viewed as mostly a service for the homeless population. Trying to solve this stereotype is going to be challenging.

[bubfloyd]

Oklacity75 Wrote: Our cities mass transit system needs a serious overhall.

And they can start with those butt-ugly rolling billboard buses. Those things have no customer appeal whatsoever. The little red trolley styled rigs are rough riding as heck, but at least you can see in the windows. There is also a smaller, lower to the ground bus that seems to be more the proper size and look.

Bus transit in OKC hasn't been any good since about 1965. Too much ground to cover and too few riders. Spraaaaaawl. City buses used to also be most of the school buses in the OKC district and that makes lots of sense to me today. I'm not sure when or why that went away. I went away for a few years around that time and when I came back in the early 70's. Bad bus system and hundreds of little yellow school buses.

[Patrick]

I agree with you. The current buses we use are too large. We need to purchase smaller buses.

Also, we need to make our bus system more rider friendly. Instead of having 1 transfer station downtown, we need transfer stations in each quadrant of the city, plus the downtown transfer station. It's dumb now that from Penn Square Mall to Quail Springs Mall you have to ride downtown, change buses, then ride to Quail Springs. A northwest transfer station in the Village area would solve these problems.

Adding bike racks on buses might be a plus as well.

Finally, as I already said, we need to change the overall image of our bus system. Right now it's more of a transportation system for the homeless.

Rising gasoline prices might help our cause.

Frankly, I'll admit though....I don't use our bus system. Why? It's inconvenient and the routes are confusing, plus some of the people riding our bus system are quite scary.

[bitstop]

April 28, 2005


Governor Brad Henry
Speaker Todd Hiett
President Pro Tem Mike Morgan
Mayor Mick Cornett
Oklahoma County Commissioners

Dear Gentlemen:

I was pleased to hear that Oklahoma will soon be providing more state funds for transportation. Now seems the right time for the state to commit funds for the I-40 Crosstown project in Oklahoma City, to avoid years of unnecessary delay.

As Transportation Director Gary Ridley told a group last week, the interstate portion of this project could be completed by September, 2008, IF the funding were there.* The problem is that the money is not there. The money is not there because nobody except the federal government has helped. The lack of any other commitment means the work will take years longer than it should.

Unfortunately, despite years of planning details of construction, a plan for funding has never been created.

The federal government has provided $180-million so far, and will provide more. But not a single penny of state or local money has been committed, despite the huge importance of this project. (As I sadly must describe it: The loose change in my pocket totals more than the state or community have provided for this project.)

I-40's re-location is actually two projects: 1) moving the interstate and 2) creating a local boulevard for downtown access. In the entire country, no other project of this scope is planned that uses solely federal funds. Typically, on a project such as this the federal share would be no more than 80% of the estimated $315-million interstate cost, but very little or none of the boulevard cost (about $45-million). Thanks to Oklahoma's Congressional delegation, we should do better than 80% of the interstate portion, but nevertheless, without non-federal participation the project will take years longer than it should.

I hear many excuses for inaction, but they cannot excuse years of neglect to develop a funding plan. The lack of action speaks louder than any words. Every time I hear about state funds used to repair bridges, I remember that the reason for the I-40 project is to replace a deficient bridge. And this bridge carries far, far more traffic than any of the bridges scheduled for state funding.

I'm disappointed at the "wait-and-see" attitude that some have adopted rather than making a commitment. That attitude justifies fears that the intent is to stall indefinitely, while state transportation dollars are spent elsewhere. Waiting for the federal highway bill before crafting a non-federal commitment is a bad approach.

Yes, further federal funds will be added from the highway reauthorization bill pending before Congress. But if nothing is done to supply state funds during this legislative session, it will delay the project by a year. Inflation has already added tens of millions of dollars to this project; waiting for the legislature to reconvene next year will add even more costs.

It's debatable whether Congress' bill will be completed before the Oklahoma Legislature must adjourn in late May. I personally consider it unlikely that the bill will be completed by that time, although I expect passage sometime this summer. But it doesn't matter. The bill cannot be expected to provide the entire $180-million that is still needed, nor the additional expense of further cost inflation. (And whatever amount it provides will be on a five-year payout basis, extending into Fiscal Year 2009.) If the I-40 project is as important as state and local leaders claim, it should not be delayed. We are on such a slow path that nobody can project when the project might be completed, except that it surely would be at least 2012.

We have exercised leadership in Washington to help the largest transportation project in state history. Please exercise leadership at the state and local level, and commit funds for this project now, before the Legislature adjourns and we lose another year.

Many times I have worked to bring people together to discuss this, yet no state or local official has been willing to act rather than to voice excuses for delaying action. My staff and I remain willing to meet with everyone involved, with a goal of action, not just discussion.

Very truly yours,

Ernest J. Istook, Jr.

Member of Congress



cc: Central Oklahoma legislators

OKC City Council

Civic Leaders

Area Mayors

[metro]

is this a joke??

[gtelmore]

Yes, indeed, friends.

Now, ANOTHER letter from good 'ol Utah Ernie -- from back in 1996, justifying his denial of a mere $!3 million of the roughly $25 million Oklahomans sent into the Federal Transit Trust Fund that year and didn't get back for establishment of a rail transit circulator downtown.

Where did the money go?

It can be reasonably argued that it went to Ernie's friends in Salt Lake City. Funding for OUR project was cut out of the very same Omnibus Appropriations bill that funded the $35 million starup for Salt Lake's TRAX light rail system. After all, they had to get ready for the 2002 Winter Olympics. (When I questioned Istook about this on KTOK Radio's Mike McCarville show, all Istook could say was, "Well, don't you want to go to the Olympics?)

Interestingly, Salt Lake citizens had reportedly tunred DOWN a "MAPS-like" proposal to tax themselves to improve their central urban area. Central Oklahomans has PASSED their own -- and, from that self-taxation, brought the appropriate matching dollars to get back their relatively small Federal Match for a modest rail transit start. But, as congressman Istook said in the next-to-last paragraph of the letter below, "...when a community taxes itself for economic development, it does not obligate taxpayers nationwide to provide further funds, especially for a new rail system that would be low in riders and high in cost."

Hmmmm. So Oklahomans ought to have to "pay" even if they already "paid" -- although Istook's Salt Lake friends got off a little easier. By the way, as has been the case in nearly every case of new rail transit across the West, the Salt Lake System has performed far above ridership projections, and the system is now being aggressively expanded.

Hmmmm.

Remember this, as well: One of the CHIEF REASONS the "D-Route" for the New Crosstown was chosen was because it was ALL supposed to be FEDERALLY FUNDED.

Now that Istook thinks he has us "on the hook," is he deliberately pulling the rug out from under us?

By the way -- remember that losing the Union Station yard would effectively take OKC out of the competition for cost-effective transit development for years to come.

Is this what Istook REALLY wants?

TOM ELMORE
_____________________________________


Transcript of letter from Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Oklahoma 5th District congressman to Rep. Frank Wolf, Chairman, House Appropriations Committee, Sub-Committee on Transportation,2356 Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC 20515, dated September 6, 1996

Dear Chairman Wolf:

Thank you for consulting with me about the requested special appropriation for a downtown Oklahoma City fixed-rail trolley, as the House-Senate conference begins on the Transportation Appropriations bill. The House bill did not provide funding; the Senate bill did.

I do not support this request, because I do not believe it merits special federal funding. Federal money might be used for the trolley if Oklahoma officials choose to use fully-discretionary money which they are already receiving, rather than using those funds on other projects. That would be their own decision with funds already under their control. Instead, the request is for special and additional federal money for the fixed-rail trolley, in addition to normal federal transportation funding.

Rather than be silent, I feel compelled to advise you of my position. If we ever expect to balance the budget, we must stop using the federal treasury for questionable purposes. Too often, when a project is questionable or makes no economic sense, the federal taxpayers are asked and expected to pay for it, and are stuck with the bill! I cannot in good conscience speak out and oppose waste on projects in other states and cities, if I ignore it in Oklahoma. Following a double standard preserves the system which has created our deficit and huge national debt. I feel a duty to advise you whenever any project under active review in your subcommittee is lacking in merit. I certainly oppose any other questionable projects in this or any other bill, but I can single-out only those with which I am familiar and informed. Wasteful spending will never stop unless all Members of Congress examine proposals for their district and state, and candidly report what they find. We are in the best position to obtain and analyze this information about events in our own communities, and we must do so.

This fixed-rail trolley project is not mass transit. The base daily ridership, according to the project's official study and report, would be only 640 passengers per day. By the year 2015, it would drop to only 630 per day. (A possible alternative route would have only slightly-different numbers.) Even by projecting more riders for special weekend or evening events, average daily ridership would still be only 757 passengers per day. By comparison, I know of no other federally-funded light-rail system with under 14,000 passengers per day.

The fixed-rail trolley is intended as a "circulator" in downtown Oklahoma City, running in a 2.7-mile loop along downtown streets which also carry auto traffic. Permanent steel rails would be installed into the pavement. Because the 2.7 miles is the circumference, not an end-to-end measure, passengers would be traveling only about one mile from their starting point to their destination, with nine stops in the loop. The study does not compare how long it would take to reach a destination, with stops along the way, with walking instead along the downtown sidewalks (or along the downtown pedestrian tunnels).

The projected costs keep rising, and the costs (and the ridership numbers) are often mixed-in with the numbers for a simultaneous expansion of the local bus system (using "trolley-style" buses), and with street-lighting and other amenities, which confuses and conceals the figures on the trolley itself. But the request is for $13 million in federal funding for the fixed-rail trolley (on top of federal funds used to develop the concept). The city reports this federal money would be 60% of the cost, but the rail trolley percentage seems unclear, because the calculations mix it with the other items. The main expenses are the purchase and installation of steel rails within the streets of downtown ($6.5 million), the purchase of rail trolleys ($2.9 million), plus construction of a maintenance facility ($2.7 million). These items alone total about $12 million. Street re-paving, shelter stops, etc., are additional.

Those who would ride the fixed-rail trolley could be equally well-served, and at far less cost, if trolley-style buses were instead used for this 2.7 mile downtown "circulator" route. These trolley-style buses would be the same method which the city proposes for the other portion of its "MAPS Transportation Link" from western Oklahoma City to downtown. They would be part of the existing mass-transit bus system, which already qualifies for federal assistance, rather than a brand-new rail system, with its high start-up costs and operating expenses. The project report already specifies that such buses would be necessary for special downtown area events, because the rail trolley would be inadequate for those needs. The trolley-style buses, because they can use any street, provide far greater flexibility than those which travel only on fixed rails, and for a very small fraction of the cost of the rail trolley..

If built, this fixed-rail trolley faces a doubtful future. It is projected to operate at an annual deficit of $312,000 to $381,000, depending on how high fares are set. (One report not suggests the deficit could be another $101,000 higher than this.) The study reports that the city would have to pay this subsidy from already-tight general revenues, or raise the city tax on hotels and motels, or extend the now-temporary MAPS sales tax, or place a tax on tickets to entertainment and other events in the downtown area.

These figures are all from official city submissions, or from the official October, 1995, study and report made by The Goodman Corporation for the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (which would own and operate the system). Because the key data is scattered through the report, it has been ignored or overlooked by others, and supporters have proceeded despite this data. I will therefore provide a memo detailing these and other facts, and where they are documented in the report.

I don't want Oklahoma's federal fuel taxes to subsidize mass transit in other parts of the nation, and I believe Oklahoma deserves a stronger share of federal transportation dollars. But this does not justify funding a new transportation system that does not qualify under any definition of mass transit. The voters of Oklahoma City approved local taxes to pay for major downtown redevelopment (the MAPS project), but the ballot did not specify this fixed-rail trolley project. And when a community taxes itself for economic development, it does not obligate taxpayers nationwide to provide further funds, especially for a new rail system that would be low in riders and high in cost.

In conclusion, I do not believe this project is cost-justified, nor a proper use of U.S. Taxpayers' money under the guise of "mass transit." The rail system is high cost and low ridership. I don't hesitate to support merited federal projects in Oklahoma, but I have a duty to be certain they are indeed merited.

Very truly yours,
(signed)Ernest Istook
Ernest J. Istook, Jr.
Member of Congress

[John]

Istook should be fighting tooth and nail for every cent he can get for Oklahoma.

Letters such as this make me sick.

[RichardR369]

I quit going to the same church as Istook because of his lying. All they talk about is Salt Lake City. They just talked about how they should've been celebrating the historical Mormon trek to Utah in services a couple of weeks ago. Nothing about Oklahoma history.

[Uptowner]

Well, obviously the Mormon schurch is HQ in alt Lake, so I'm not surprised.

[soonerguru]

Istook is a freaking psychopath. If the good-sense Republicans continue to vote for him, I will have nothing more to do with that political party.

Oklahoma continues to get screwed by this idiot, but for some, being a Republican is more important than being an Oklahoman or an American.

Give me David Boren any day. He would kick any Republican ass.

We have a bunch of extremist losers representing us in Washington. What an embarassment.

[PUGalicious]

soonerguru, it's for this very reason that I withdrew from the Republican party and am now a registered independent. Anymore, with either political party, politics reigns supreme at the peril of sound fiscal, domestic and foreign policies. Being faithful to your party is more important than any constituency.

[workman45]

I have to admit I have a problem finding enough common ground to rationalize being a member of either party.