Yeah and since when did you become an expert on the things you comment on? This is a forum...it's a place for people to express their opinions. Even when they are sarcastic and pointless like yours.

We can do everything we need to do with Santa Fe. No need for Union Station to be anything more than a landmark. The airport/MWC line can spur up to Santa Fe. The most important line, Edmond/Norman, would use Santa Fe...

Just like Union Station, Santa Fe is way to small for a modern facility. You guys are thinking way way way to small. A new cenral transit facility is going to be way larger than many of you imagine. Some of you (not singling anyone out here) are of the mind set that we need to rebuild what OKC once had. We need to build for the next 100 years, not the last 100 years.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

I realize Santa Fe would not work as is. It would have to be expanded and could potentially span from Sheridan all the way to the blvd. Part of it may even have to go underground. No one has done a true study of what it would take that I know of other than the OU architecture students, and all of their plans were massive and all of them involved Santa Fe NOT Union Station.

Thanks for the clarification BG918. My concern is that some people are over simplifying what it takes to run a rail system. Command and control, marketing, finance, legal, transit police, customer service, route scheduling, employee training, and on and on and on needs to be housed somewhere. The ideal place would be at the downtown transit station and not out on Memorial Road. Then there are connecting systems like commuter rail, lightrail, Amtrak, bus, taxi, electric trolley, walking, and even horse draw coaches that need space. It is going to take a large facility with multiple floors (some of which will need to be underground) to house all of that.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

From the JR:

Officials debate cost of losing rail yard versus altering Crosstown plan
by Janice Francis-Smith
The Journal Record September 23, 2008

OKLAHOMA CITY – Everyone asked to speak to state Senate members on Monday had opinions about what the state should do regarding the fate of the rail yard for Oklahoma City’s Union Station. What they didn’t have was an estimated cost to attach to their opinions.

Whatever it costs to alter the alignment of the Crosstown Expressway project will be a savings compared to what will be lost if the Crosstown project ruins Union Station’s yard, said Garl B. Latham, president of Latham Railway Services. Moving the proposed alignment for the new Crosstown just 300 feet would allow the new highway to avoid cutting through Union Station’s rail yard, taking out some of the tracks leading to the station.

Oklahoma Department of Transportation Director Gary Ridley disagreed. Delaying the Crosstown realignment project for the sake of again reworking the alignment is a dangerous proposition, he said, as the existing Crosstown structure should have been replaced years ago.

Latham worked for years for Dallas’ DART passenger rail system. Officials for Amtrak and the city of Dallas greatly underestimated how much room they would need to build a multi-modal transportation hub out of that city’s Union Station. The Dallas facility is close to the Hyatt hotel, which had sought to expand by purchasing more of the station’s property. Now the city would like to expand the train facility, but there is no more room.

“I would encourage anything that could be done,” said Latham. “It would be of no small significance to lose this asset.” A multi-modal hub would not only carry passengers, but would allow goods to be transferred from train to truck and vice versa – a feature impossible to build at Oklahoma City’s far-above-street-level Santa Fe Station. The Santa Fe Station lacks the land, the parking space, and many other amenities already in place at the Union Station.

Latham encouraged lawmakers to consider what future generations will need, as the price of gasoline is making train projects ever more attractive. Times have changed in the last 10 years, said state Rep. Wallace Collins, D-Norman.

“Back when gas was a dollar-something a gallon, well, who cares?” Collins said of the proposal to run the highway through Union Station’s yard. “We had a different outlook then.”

The future might require Oklahoma to build an intrastate passenger rail system; if and when that day comes, it would cost much more to rebuild a facility like Union Station’s than it would cost to preserve the station’s yard.

Marion Hutchison, of a citizens’ group calling itself OnTrac, or Oklahomans for New Transportation Alternatives Coalition, brought excerpts from a letter by former Dallas DART official Marvin Monaghan. In his letter, Monaghan wrote, “it would be unfortunate for them (Oklahoma City) to make the same mistake.”
Hutchison and Latham could not say how much it would cost to alter the alignment of the new Crosstown, or how much it would cost to upgrade existing tracks to make them suitable for passenger rail. Depending on the route chosen, how many miles of track are planned, and the extent of the project, the price could vary widely. But the state could today start with passenger trains that run at between 60 and 70 miles per hour on existing track for little money, Hutchison said.

Ridley said he could not estimate how much it would cost to realign the project at this stage. So far, $315 million has been committed to the project, which is expected to require another $180 million to complete. ODOT officials just spent an unexpected $1.4 million dealing with an unexpected environmental problem – an acid pit left over from a turn-of-the-century factory discovered right where some structural pillar supports must be built.

In 2005, the 4.5-mile Crosstown realignment project was expected to cost $360 million, but the price rises ever higher the longer the project takes.

Former state Sen. Dave Herbert said a proposal to build a brand-new high-speed rail line from Oklahoma City to Tulsa, capable of carrying trains moving at 180 mph, was estimated at $880 million. Oklahoma’s only passenger rail service, the Heartland Flyer, makes one trip to and from Fort Worth each day, and that service is subsidized by Oklahoma and Texas at $2 million each. Herbert pointed out that all public transportation systems are subsidized by the government.

“You could run that for 30 years before coming close to what we provided for an NBA team,” Herbert said.

http://journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=92296

Again this argument barely holds water because it assumes that Union Station will be our Intermodal Hub. They are right that it doesn't work at Santa Fe, but it doesn't work at Union either, because it will be right in the middle of the park. The station will have to be built from scratch somewhere on the N-S line.

It sounds like this Dallas guy is really just talking about land for a future rail yard. Unlike ELMORE, he is not arguing that some invaluable infrastructure exists. It does not. So if this isn't going to be our hub anyway, then it doesn't matter.

There's no infrastructure at OKC Union Station?

An 8-block-long, 200-foot-wide terminal facility grade-separated at arterial streets by beautiful, functional, traffic and pedestrian-friendly underpasses -- yet at-grade to access streets is "not infrastructure?"

I guess the three passenger platforms and their underground access tunnels are "not infrastructure," as well?

...and, by the way -- what color are the "Emperor's new clothes" today?

TOM ELMORE

The platforms are cracked, overgrown, and crumbling. There is only one set of tracks left. And who knows what shape the tunnels are in? What's there is not worth (1) further delaying the new Crosstown, and (2) completely throwing away the C2S plans and our chance at an iconic urban park.

WTF is this clown talking about. Does he realize we are talking about a passenger rail system and not an intermodal freight facility. What an ass-clown.

P.S. Earth to Ass-clown Latham - this entire operation is going to be in the middle of a city park.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

I'm guessing that he recognizes what a self-supporting passenger rail system requires -- Mail and Express Freight handling capability -- and understands why two-thirds of the floor space at the OKC Union Station terminal building is "Mail and Express handling facility..."

...and, by the way, it's not just functional, it's actually "iconic." Like the Biltmore Hotel and the Criterion Theatre -- obvious "icons" that became "targets" of Oklahoma City's "thoughtful leadership."

Things actually have to "be around for a while" to become "icons." Union Station is such a thing -- including its terminal facility, the Robinson and Walker Underpasses, etc.

As I was asking previously -- what color are the "Emperor's new clothes today" -- and how many "clowns" does he employ?

...or hadn't you noticed?

TOM ELMORE

Save it. God forbid we might have a functional railyard right in the heart of what will be Oklahoma City in 50 years. Once it's gone, it's gone for good and I wouldn't count on anyone rebuilding it in the near future.

Move the crosstown a bit. This strikes me as something that would be a ballsy, forward thinking move for the city.

Did I wake up in Bazzaro world? Now the supporters of Union Station are advocating that Union Station return to the days of freight processing in the freaking middle of a city park. There are so many thing wrong with the comments of Tom, the ass-clown from DART, and WSUcougz I don't know where to begin.

First of all, the rail facility at Union Station hasn't existed for 50 years so it is already gone.

Second, the City is not going to support a freight process facility in the MIDDLE OF A CITY PARK!!!!!!! Show me one city America that has even advocated such a thing.

Third, Tom cites the 3 bridges that carry the tracks around Union Station as an asset. Who gives a rats ass, the North/South line at Santa Fe station doesn't have an at-grade crossing for about 2 miles. But that doesn't matter anyhow because the city isn't going to support a freight facility in the heart of downtown.

Fourth, the railroad that owns the property doesn't want a rail facility there. Maybe some of you over looked this little nugget but the railroad is trying to get rid of the land, not build a useless rail yard on it.

In my head right now I am reliving the scene from Christmas Vacation when Clarks snaps after getting his Fruit of the Month Club membership.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

Ok Tom, enough with the quotation marks! There I said it! It's been driving me crazy FOREVER!!! You use quotation marks where they aren't needed in in seemingly every sentence you type!!!

I just want a light rail system. If the Union Station thing is such a hassle, I say build I-40 as planned. But if it is possible to build a light rail then let's use Union Station. Maybe they could build above ground tunnels through through the park for the tracks.

"TOM" loves to hear "TOM" talk.

They don't care about or want a city park. And, there will be no city park, or at least no usable city park. We'll have another Will Rogers park at best......a lovely park that no one goes to because it's in a location where no one wants to be or live.

Surely there is some compromise to this problem. Like I said earlier, can't we elevate the tracks and put a tunnel around then, decorate it with a mural, and still have the park? Just have underpasses under the track. Or bury the lines and make it a metro?

The problem is, it's not just raillines bisecting the park. First there's a multi-lane interstate. It's less of a problem because it was going to be built below grade, and walkers would have the lovely scissortail bridge to cross to get to the south park. But, if you add rail lines, bus lanes, trucking facilities and parking, which would occupy two to three blocks, at least, you've essentially created a tiny northern park, and a southern park that would require crossing several blocks of completely inhospitable infrastructure to reach the southern park. Then, you've essentially ruined the area for family living. Would you want to live by a rail station, a bus station, a trucking station and an interstate highway? And you've cut the CBD off from the river very effectively.

Now, there are raillines south of the river, and I believe a railyard. I don't know why that couldn't be used for commercial and heavy commuter rail. If passengers are going to have to take buses to the CBD anyway, they might as well site it where the structure doesn't blight the whole Core to Shore area. There can't be north-south rail running into Union Station anyway, because the CBD is north of union station and effectively blocks a direct route into the station. So, it's a lousy location for any of us who would want to travel north or south anyway.

why go to all that trouble when we can just make a nice new one south of bricktown when they tear those horrid grain bins down.

I don't really see freight processing happening. I'm supportive of commuter rail and agree that heavy rail is probably not a great idea for the area unless it can be buried or something.

You say the rail facility hasn't existed for 50 years, which, whether true or not doesn't address the most important thing which is that the right-of-way is there. I can't imagine such a thing being very easy to recreate somewhere else without a ton of cash.

Sorry, but my bs meter goes off when people start talking about destroying a potentially useful asset because it can just somehow be plopped down somewhere else. This is pure fantasyland talk - who's going to write the check in 5 years when the city is running a deficit? Further, this is a fantastic location for commuter rail into and out of OKC. What's bad about being dropped off at a historic, mission style station at a central park equidistant from downtown and the riverfront?

I'm 32 and I'll be dead by the time that happens.

The thing is, we're not talking about light rail at Union Station. It's heavy rail that is there. We've got a better right of way for light rail that's basically free: all the land vacated when the old I-40 is taken down. And again, it might be OK to be dropped off at Union Station if you're traveling east to west, but do we honestly know how many people want to travel east to west? If you're traveling north to south, there's no way to run the line to Union Station. So, you'd have to be dropped off at another station somewhere either east or west of Union Station, and then you'd have to transfer to the east west line to go to Union Station to catch your bus to go somewhere else. So, many of us ask why it wouldn't be logical to put a multimodal station at the intersection of north-south and east-west routes? A station that could be built to precise requirements, that would have the space necessary for buses, parking, etc, and that wouldn't require transferring lines. How many Oklahomans do you know who would be willing to ride a train from Edmond, get off east of Bricktown most likely, transfer to a east-west train, get off the train and wait for a bus to take them where they want to go? How many people will even be going downtown from Edmond, Norman, Yukon or Shawnee? Do we even know what the utililzation might be?

Until a couple of months ago, Atlanta had a nice light rail system that very few people used. They all sat in their cars on I-85 rather than inconvenience themselves to take MARTA. When gas prices went high enough, a few of them got out of their cars. If we start driving hybrids or electric cars, people will use them rather than rail. Count on it. We need a large number of people working, living or recreating downtown to justify a rail system. And you won't have people moving downtown to live near a commercial rail station. Core to Shore will not be a significant residential area if Union Station stays a station, mark my words.

"Then, you've essentially ruined the area for family living. Would you want to live by a rail station, a bus station, a trucking station and an interstate highway? And you've cut the CBD off from the river very effectively."

I'm guessing you've not spent much time in a "big" city. lol

Just wondering if anyone has looked at what it take to make the site ADA accessible(building and property), and to bring the site up to current building standards.