I swear to god Tom, your posts are more bunk than crunk. I believe you should take Steve's deal. Mike Morgan did. Then again, you're not on TV and don't really have anything legit to defend...

The Edmond Sun, Edmond, OK - ODOT should give more support

Um, ok, Tom, that's a link to a letter to the editor in the Edmond Sun.
I can only assume at this point there is some truth out there, some answers that you don't want out.
Now I'm really, really, really curious as to what you're all about Tom. Who is funding you? Are there ulterior motives we don't know about?

Steve: Hate to tell you this, but Tom doesn't respond to real journalists. He only lights up to AM radio talk shows and TV cameras.

He also doesn't realize that cement has already been poured.

Link: 40 Forward: Oklahoma's I-40 Crosstown Expressway

here's a solution....take the money that it would cost to lay tracks down somewhere else...what was it? $150 million? Put that into running the new i-40 on its current alignment behind union station but run it under the yard. Granted it will all have to be removed for supports to be put in and then be rebuilt over the highway which would be in a tunnel like environment and then every freakin body could be happy. Granted it's going to add another five years to the project but who cares? We're already three years behind schedule. I hate this argument and i wish they would just build the darn thing. Jesus... I hope the current crosstown collapses...just so washington will just say 'crap we should not have argued against this a long long time ago...

My work and that of my organization and colleagues speaks for itself. We have not stood "against a quality highway." We have stood for careful, reverent preservation and intelligent reuse of the OKC Union Station rail facility, which never needed to be threatened in order to have a quality road of any kind. We have, similarly, stood through the years for honest, open and accountable management of the state and national highway system, which is the only assurance of the greatest possible safety and efficiency of our public roadways.

My answers and those of my colleagues to any reasonable question regarding the value of OKC Union Station can be found in this and other forums and media going back more than a decade. These answers, facts and positions are validated by the experiences of other cities as communicated in relevant news articles and other related data. I seem, also, to remember, that someone here has written that nobody should necessarily believe anything I say just because I say it. I've never asked anyone to do otherwise.

My family, friends and colleagues support the work that NATI does -- because they believe it is important. The organization does not take money from any transportation business interest. Never has. Never will. We stand on our own integrity and, as previously noted, on our work.

TOM ELMORE

Who do you take money from?

This is the thread that will never die. Did we forget the 4 undeniable facts?

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station.
Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station.
Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed.
Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down.

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

I still love those facts!

Yep!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Tom, don't pretend to take the high ground here. You play evasive tactics at every opportunity and still refuse to answer the questions. I think I'll follow Kerry on stating the same facts with some elaboration

Fact 1 - Union Station is not currently used as a train station. Nor has it been for decades. Why is that? Because there's no need for it.

Fact 2 - There is not a plan by anyone to use Union Station as a train station. And here's the big one Tom. NO ONE has ANY plans to use Union Station for any sort of train station. So unless you plan on funding your own rail system then what's the big stink? Even a new light rail system doesn't plan on using it. We're more likely to see busses than light rail anyway because of the cost involved in rail.

Fact 3 - The 2 existing active rail lines passing by Union Station will not be removed. The station will still be useable if it ever comes up. 2 lines are plenty and a standard number for MUCH MORE urban environments. Last time I checked, 90% of the stations in DC were 2 line stations...not 4. Even in the core.

Fact 4 - Union Station will not be torn down. You've been trying to get people to think that the building will be torn down by telling half truths. You present the argument, "Save Union Station" leading people to believe it's going to be torn down...which it isn't. What you need to do is alter your campaign to what you are really doing...."Save the rail lines". You'll find much less support if you do that, which is I'm sure why you haven't been fully honest. You know people don't care about rail lines and you'd rather use shock than the truth.

There aren't any rail lines to save, either. I ran an errand downtown Friday and deciding to drive by Union Station to get a first hand look . I parked at the dead end at the tracks and walked out into the yard. The only two sets of tracks left are the two sets that will remain and the rest of the railyard is in complete disrepair, there are no other tracks left and it looks like it hasn't been touched in decades.

There's nothing there to save.

Unless I am mistaken as well, certainly as soon as you get several blocks away from Union station there aren't even any extra tracks in disrepair. I didn't actually get out of my car and walk it, but I drove as close as I could to the rail lines over by Broadway and also over by Classen, and I only saw one line for sure, perhaps two. So, as far as I can tell, there are not four rail lines leaving Union Station for other cities.

I was in Dallas in the 80's before DART got started. Back then Dallas Union Station wasn't being used as a passenger rail station either and its rail yard looked a lot like Oklahoma Union Station's does today. There were a lot of people who thought it was a useless facility and it was almost sold off for private development. Fortunately for Dallas that didn't happen. Now its the main hub for one of the best rail transit systems in the west. Just because Oklahoma City Union Station hasn't been used for passenger service for some time doesn't mean its not a good choice for a regional rail hub.

Also, the fact there are no plans to use Union Station as a passenger rail center has nothing to do with whether or not the facility is best suited to serve in that capacity. It's common knowledge that the reason there are no plans is (1) prior to the late 90's there was no serious consideration of any kind given to developing a regional rail transit system for the Oklahoma City metro area and (2) by the time COTPA began to study the issue, the decision had already been made by ODOT to relocate the Crosstown along the BNSF railroad right of way.

I've looked at information on ODOT's website. It clearly shows there will only be one active rail line remaining (Union Pacific) behind Union Station after the Crosstown is built. The other active rail line (BNSF) is being permanently removed and those trains will be rerouted through south OKC. Also, ODOT's information shows there will only be room for an additional single side track. With just one active line and one side track, you could use Union Station as a very limited rail stop for trains on the UP line, but that would be about it. Loosing the BNSF line is a big deal as far as I'm concerned. If you look at the maps, it's the only rail line that can provide direct passenger service to the airport. It's also the main active line between Tulsa and OKC, as well as OKC and Lawton. Eliminating the BNSF line from Union Station and forcing the rail service to the south of the new Crosstown will make developing a regional rail transit system that much more difficult and costly.

Finally, if you look at the state rail map, you'll see there are essentially three main rail lines: (1) E-W Union Pacific line...runs from Elk City to Weatherford to El Reno to Yukon to Oklahoma City to Harrah to Choctaw to Shawnee to Ft. Smith, (2) NE-SW BNSF line that runs from Tulsa to Oklahoma City to Chickasha to Lawton to Altus, and (3) N-S Sant Fe line that runs from Ardmore to Norman to Moore to Oklahoma City to Edmond to Guthrie to Wichita. The UP line and BNSF line run directly through Union Station. The Santa Fe line connects through Union Station by way of a short spur line. So, the fact is all three main rail lines could be serviced by Union Station.

Just my two cents for what its worth.

Well whether we agree on that evaluation or not, at least jazz gives some solid backing to his arguement. Tom could learn a few things.

I think you'll still find that there is little support for saving that use though. Whether it's one, two, or four lines doesnt matter. The main point is, we want I-40 and the time for arguing has past. The opportunity was there for discussion, and it past. The decision was made to go ahead and so those with the opinion to keep the lines were outvoted. That's how things work. It's time to let the crosstown project finish as planned. Any issues with the rail can be worked out when they are needed. And the way the mayor is talking, we most likely won't be seeing rail in Maps 3.

Indeed. Well argued, jazzman. At this point though, it's just too late to change this.

The fact remains that the rail yard is in disrepair and would require a lot of cash to rebuild. So why not build in a much better location? The junction of the N-S and E-W lines is near Bricktown and the future convention center site, and being a junction of these two lines makes it a perfect spot for our intermodal/multimodal hub.

Dallas' Union Station is much closer to downtown than ours. Ours, even after the C2S park is built, is more suited to just a regular stop than a full rail hub.

Okay, first off. It's not Union Pacific from East to West or vice-a-versa. West of Oklahoma City, it's Union Pacific to their North/South route through Enid, El Reno, Chickasha, & Duncan. So those tracks are good, but they're not that good. They're still jointed, not CWR (continuous welded rail) like BNSF's North/South route through the state. From just west of El Reno, the rails are owned by a company called Austin, Todd & Ladd, which runs up to Watonga and west to Bridgeport. West of Bridgeport to Hydro it is strictly State owned track. And from Hydro all the way out to Erick it is Farmrail Corporation. These short line entities usually only maintain something like a 90lb. limit on their rail lines, where as the big Class 1 carriers, like Union Pacific & BNSF maintain a weight limit of 135lbs. (which is almost extinct because newer freight cars are getting heavier and heavier. East of Oklahoma City it's joint owned BNSF/Union Pacific rails to Shawnee & then Union Pacific only on down to McAlester. East of there to Howe, Oklahoma, it's Arkansas Oklahoma Railroad. Same thing with the lines here.

Your info is correct on BNSF.

The NE/SW route is owned by a company called Stillwater Central which operates what used to be a state owned line temporarily between Oklahoma City & Tulsa. Yes, BNSF used to own the segment between Oklahoma City, Lawton, and then Snyder, Oklahoma, where it dead ends but that is run by Stillwater Central as well. Again, all jointed line.

My point is, if you want to have Union Station be the center of all traffic, all of these lines are all going to have to have major upgrades. Go to a big city that has light rail, heavy rail or whatever it may be and tell me they run on jointed rail lines......PLEASE.

There's some useful information for the argument. I rest my case...

OK4me:

Thanks for correcting my generalities. My fault for trying to overly simplify the nomenclature for discussion purposes. As long as we're clarifying things, I believe the section of the old Frisco line from Tulsa to just east of OKC is still owned by the State of Oklahoma and leased to Stillwater Central. And I thought BNSF still owned the line from OKC to Altus, but leased it to SLWC. But it really doesn't matter. Who owns vs. leases vs. operates the lines had very little, actually nothing, to do with my comments. The point I was trying to make is that there are three main active rail lines available for developing a commuter rail system in and around the Oklahoma City metropolitan area and all three of those, including the N-S BNSF line could be serviced by Union Station. And you're certainly correct on the need for rail upgrades. The state owned lines between OKC and Shawnee and OKC and Tulsa would need some serious capital investment before they could be used again for passenger service regardless where the rail hub is located.

While I agree that there is nothing to be changed with the I-40 crosstown plan now, I must take issue with the following:

Outvoted??? Who voted?...oh yeah. When did the people get to vote on the location of I-40 crosstown? I think you mean the folks at ODOT and elsewhere that decided which alignment to take. Heck, if my memory serves me correct, didn't the city choose the alignment that would have essentially made it a straight shot across? And where did that vote go?

Around here, indeed. That is the way things do work here.

This is also the way things work around here. How the mayor alone can decide what our MAPS3 tax dollars are spent on is astonishing. Are we really going to let this sort of behavior continue...come on guys! This is our city, not "his" city.

He'll likely eliminate public transit from the plan altogether, unless there are some Diesel or CNG buses involved, then he'll prolly make sure those are bought! Make that streetcar plan run on straight Gasoline and you've got yourself a streetcar as part of MAPS3 guaranteed!


We've got to stand up and quit taking this crap. If it went to vote and failed, then I'd be okay with removing it.

While I agree that the time Union Station has been unused has nothing to do with whether it is a good choice for a regional rail hub, the fact that it happened to be a station at one point in time also has nothing to do with whether or not it might be a bad choice for a rail hub.

Later in your comments you say that "the Santa Fe line connects through Union Station by way of a short spur line", which implies you think it's fine for people to change trains to get to their desired destination. The BNSF essentially runs east and west, which means that even relocated south it is going to intersect the Santa Fe line at some point regardless. That would be the location at which any presumed passengers using the BNSF line could transfer to the Santa Fe line. Most people would have to take some form of transportation from Union Station to get where they want to go as well, as there would be nothing there for them to see. It would be just as simple to transfer to a north-south train at the BNSF-Santa Fe intersection or pick up a bus or taxi as it would to do so at Union Station.

A short spur line between the Santa Fe and Union Station is nonessential, as there is virtually no one who would transfer lines from the Santa Fe to a spur line to get to Union Station. It's far more logical to disembark directly from the Santa Fe line, as it is closer to where most people want to be when they arrive in Oklahoma City: Bricktown, the CBD, the Ford Center.

That's my problem with Union Station. It's in an illogical location. Any east-west line intersects with the north-south line, which I believe has the potential to be the most heavily traveled, and it's the point of intersection that seems like the logical place to put a station.

this thread makes me dizzy, let it die already............

spin around three times in the opposite direction to counter act the dizzies. As for me, when a thread makes me dizzy, or worse, I tend to not worry with it any more and leave it to those who are interested, whatever their reasons may be.

sgray - The decision was made by ODOT, but the public was given ample opportunity to provide arguments for or against each route. There were open meetings held for YEARS where the topic was discussed. In the end, our govenment is set up in such a way that ODOT ultimately decided wich way to go. It can be argued up and down whether they are the best people to make that decision, but that's how things work around here. If we don't like it, anyone is welcome to try to change it through legislature. I won't pretend to back ODOT on their decisions on a great number of things, but don't act for a second like it was just decreed from on high overnight. It was a very involved process that was very open, and very public.

As for the mayor, yes he does get to decide what goes on MAPS 3, it's the mayors plan and always has been. Each portion of MAPS has been driven by the mayor of the time, so why shouldn't he decide. Like with most projects, just because the public decides they want to see a certain project happen, it doesn't mean that MAPS is the place that is going to fund it. Sometimes they are willing to put in projects the public doesn't understand the impact of. I would challenge anyone to argue that the public knows the needs of OKC than the leadership. OKC has had a great track record in the last 20 years with civic government....it is what's responsible for the good things that are happening. We're not fighting our city like Tulsa. I'm not sure what gripe you personally have with the city of OKC, but I've been very happy with the way they've been handling things lately.

There seems to be some inaccurate information that keeps getting repeated.

First is this notion that the route for the new Crosstown is what everyone wanted. The city council recommended alternative B..the chamber of commerce recommended alternative B...the hispanic community opposed the route...and obviously rail supporters opposed the route. Noboday I know favored the new route. It was essentially forced on us by ODOT. So, let's keep that part of the discussion honest. If your position is that the decision has already been made and it's too late to do anything about it, that's fine and I respect that. But let's not try to rewrite history and portray this as though the majority approved and embraced the route.

Next is this idea that nobody will use a rail transit system unless the hub is located within a block of their final destination. I've ridden the systems in Dallas, St. Louis, Denver, Seattle and others. No matter where the hub is located, everyone commonly transfers trains to get to their final destination. It's done by thousands of people everyday. If the system is designed right with simple across platform transfers...commuter to light rail or vice versa..and only one transfer is needed to get the majority of riders quickly to within easy walking distance of their final destination, hub location is not an issue. If your personal preference is that you'd rather not make a transfer or have to walk more than one or two blocks, that's fine too and I'll respect that as well. But let's not misconstrue how nearly all rail transit systems are designed and how most most rail transit riders use those systems.

Along that same line, there's been a lot of comments that a new hub needs to be built at the intersection of the N-S and E-W lines so that it is closer to Bricktown and the CBD. The N-S BNSF line, the E-W UP line and NE-SW BNSF/SLWC line all intersect just 3 blocks east of Union Station. A new hub location on the Co-op property where these intersect is not significantly closer to most final destinations than is Union Station. Here's the distances from Google Earth:

OKCUS to CBD: .8 mi
N-S/E-W to CBD: .8 mi

OKCUS to new Convention Center: .2 mi
N-S/E-W to new Convention Center: .25 mi

OKCUS to Myriad Convention Center: .6 mi
N-S/E-W to Myriad Convention Center: .5 mi

OKCUS to Bricktown: .75 mi
N-S/E-W to Bricktown: .6 mi

Not much of a difference in my opinion. Now if you're position is that the hub should be located further north near the Santa Fe Depot, that's fine too and I'd agree that would be closer to the CBD and Bricktown. But let's not imply that a hub location that close to the CBD and Bricktown is any nearer the intersection of the N-S and E-W lines than is Union Station.

A few other measurements for reference:

Dallas US to the center of CBD: .7 mi
OKC US to the center of CBD: .8 mi

Dallas US to Dallas Convention Center: .5 mi
OKC US to Myriad Convention Center: .6 mi

Again, not much difference in my opinion. Based on the success of the Dallas system, it's fairly obvious transferring trains or walking to get to a final destination is not an issue for the majority of rail transit users.