Officials debate saving railyards vs. altering I-40

[The Old Downtown Guy]

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

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

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

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

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

[betts]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Old Downtown Guy]

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

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

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

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

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

Private Railcars, Railcar Charters & Private Rail Tours - RailServe.com or check this site out RailroadData.Com Railroad Links: Passenger Trains: Luxury Tours and Private Cars

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

[betts]

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

Private Railcars, Railcar Charters & Private Rail Tours - RailServe.com or check this site out RailroadData.Com Railroad Links: Passenger Trains: Luxury Tours and Private Cars.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Old Downtown Guy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[betts]

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

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

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

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

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

[bombermwc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ssandedoc]

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

[SouthsideSooner]

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

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

Oklahoma panel approves finishing new Crosstown Expressway | NewsOK.com

[The Old Downtown Guy]

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

[CuatrodeMayo]

I doubt that will happen.

[betts]

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

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

[OKCisOK4me]

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

How many times does this have to be said:

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

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

[Midtowner]

3.8 billion dollars!!

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

Oklahoma City Crosstown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

-- or both.

[Kerry]

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

[Midtowner]

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

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

[Midtowner]

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

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

[betts]

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

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

[Tom Elmore]

okcisok4me wrote:

How many times does this have to be said:

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

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

OKC does not have an east-west corridor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could that be what's worrying you?

TOM ELMORE

[Midtowner]

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

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

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

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

[Midtowner]

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

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

[Tom Elmore]

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

TOM ELMORE

[Midtowner]

It seems that someone forgot to carry the one somewhere

[Kerry]

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

[Midtowner]

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

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