Jazzman:

Touche. Glad somebody on here has some knowledge regarding this subject. Considering how SLWC's route has now been altered, there is really only one line serviced by Union Station, that of course being UP's. But you knew that.

Don't you believe that our Union Station is way too small? Gotta work now, so I'll leave it at that. Peace.

Sorry for the long post guys, but I want to state my own views on this matter and I don't feel it really needs a dedicated thread.

"The decision was made by ODOT" That's pretty much the gist of it. I was right here, voicing my views at the time, as were many others and the city government itself. What good is having the people (who actually live in and pay taxes in OKC) come forward and state their wishes if, in the end, an entity outside of Oklahoma City is the one and only "decider"? It's like a slap in the face and definitely is a waste of our time. Dont pretend that for a moment ODOT hadn't already made up their mind before the people of and the city of OKC submitted their choice. And in all friggen honesty---why the heck would ODOT not want to honor the city's own alignment choice, unless their were some other motive? Obviously, what's done is done and it is what it is...

It's the mayor's plan, but OUR MONEY! And until he picks up my portion of the tab, I WILL have my vote counted to determine what the scope of the project is or I won't support it. I really don't see why you see mick as this person who knows better than the citizens "what we need"...and even more so, you refer to the "leadership" as some ultimate wisdom that we should bow down to or something! Now, I dont hate mick or anything like that, but come on! It almost sounds like something written by a really close friend of Mick's.


I'm sorry if I come off sounding like an a** here...I do respect your views and want you to know that...but I take major issue when folks refer to our elected officials as somehow being some greater-than-thou force that's more in-tune with 'our' needs than 'we' are. Mick, so long as he resides in OKC, is part of 'we'.

As a city, I feel that we are too agreeable and trusting and need to be more active and aggressive in pushing this city to be better. Folks need to voice their views on how stuff is to be done, and when the decision makers follow the will of the people, then they should receive a pat on the back. And when they clearly take their own path for some personal gain, they should receive the boot, in a most timely manner. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Anyways, back to the subject. Union Station

I think metro and others are right. Is there anything else this massive thread hasn't covered on Union Station?

So now there are only 3 "undeniable facts?"

I thought they were all "undeniable."

No Tom, there are four. Here they are again in case you don't remember:

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.

Actually, that one is fiction.

There are two main regional rail lines running by Union Station:

(1) Union Pacific line running from El Reno to OKC to Shawnee; and
(2) BNSF line which connects Tulsa to OKC to Chickasha to Lawton to Altus, and which by the way runs directly passed Will Rogers airport.

The UP line is the only line that will remain at Union Station. It will run on the north side of the new Crosstown.

The several mile section of the BNSF line from just east of Shields, past Union Station, and across the river to just west of the airpark will be abandoned.

That would eliminate the only existing direct rail line and transit corridor for easily establishing rail service between downtown and the airport, not to mention providing rail transit service for the future airpark development.

It seems strange to build a new convention center one block from Union Station and allow ODOT to eliminate the only existing rail line that could provide direct rail transit service for convention visitors from the airport to the doorstep of the convention center.

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

Why does it seem strange? There has never been passenger rail from the airport to Union Station and passenger rail at Union Station became extinct almost a half century ago because of lack of demand. The reasons that made that a reality have not changed.

Where is the demand for commuter rail? The closest comparison we have are commuter buses. What has the ridership trend been for Greyhound bus lines been over the last few decades? New technologies make old technologies irrelevant and obsolete. Mass transit doesn't do well where driving is convenient and affordable.

Again, am I blind or am I seeing something you and Tom don't see?!

[IMG]http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r170/OkStateBBall78/****ingjesus.jpg[/IMG]

Only UNION Pacific is behind UNION Station. Makes sense...hahaha

ding ding ding we have a winner ....

we have a huge (land size) city .. with little to no traffic issues ... thus not much demand for rail

And that's the point right there. We're not congested at all. What we call "rush hour" is NOTHING. So it takes 5 or 10 more minutes to get home at the most packed time of day.....think Dallas and then you have traffic....that's where it adds an hour on to your drive.

I'm still going to disagree with sgray on a great many things. We're all entitled to our opinions, but to feel like ODOT had some big conspriacy...no. You think they chose this option because it would take the rail lines? No. They made their decision and we're stuck with it, like it or not. It definitely wouldn't be the first time they went against what the civic govt. wanted....won't be the last either. And as for Mick....I'll stick with his ideas. I gurantee he sees a bigger picture than some shmoe off the street, so yeah I'm going to trust him on what HE wants to put in Maps 3. You can decide whether or not you agree by voting. He's got plenty pressure to determine what to include....and I still say the previous projects have been overwhelmingly successful. Yes lessons were learned, but you can't deny the life those projects gave to the city...and in a VERY fair and open manner.

Dallas' rush hour to other major cities is nothing as well.

[quote=sgray;215387]Sorry for the long post guys, but I want to state my own views on this matter and I don't feel it really needs a dedicated thread.



"The decision was made by ODOT" That's pretty much the gist of it. I was right here, voicing my views at the time, as were many others and the city government itself. What good is having the people (who actually live in and pay taxes in OKC) come forward and state their wishes if, in the end, an entity outside of Oklahoma City is the one and only "decider"? It's like a slap in the face and definitely is a waste of our time. Dont pretend that for a moment ODOT hadn't already made up their mind before the people of and the city of OKC submitted their choice. And in all friggen honesty---why the heck would ODOT not want to honor the city's own alignment choice, unless their were some other motive? Obviously, what's done is done and it is what it is...


QUOTE]

I was reporting on all this when it was happening. What I saw would seem to back this up. I never saw ODOT give the B3 alignment any real consideration. They were always pushing and angling for the chosen D alignment whenever I talked to them.

But at least they answered my questions, Tom.

Regardless, what I see in OKCisOK4me's photo is both east-west lines crossing the north-south line. Again, what is logical is to have a station at the point where lines converge, in order to minimize transfers for everyone. Since the photo doesn't continue west, I'm going to inquire as to whether the new line shown in the above photo continues on to the airport or merges with the old line at some point.

I'm going to disagree a bit with SoutsideSooner (in a friendly fashion), in that I think that we should not only look for what works, but plan for the future. I also think we have to think of efficiency. If we have well-planned transit that is easy to use and practical, we reduce the "one car-one person" extremely inefficient and wasteful mode of transit. I want our city to think carefully about what will work, as I do think that's the key to encouraging people used to driving cars to get out of them. We shouldn't use existing structures simply because they exist, because if mass transit is impractical, people won't use it. We should only use them if they're the best and most transit-friendly option.

I understand and appreciate the need for mass transit and as I've said before, I'll support and vote for a plan that is affordable and makes sense. I would support a well thought out streetcar system for downtown and improvements to our current bus system but commuter rail just makes very little sense to me.

Proponents like to point to the Heartland Flyer as an example of successful commuter rail and I believe it's a good example of how it doesn't make sense. It is great novelty for someone wanting to take a leisurely train ride but it isn't really a reasonable, affordable transportation option for the "masses".

A round trip ticket to Ft. Worth on the Heartland Flyer is $66.00 per person. http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak...fare&x=19&y=11. Last year the ridership was 68,000 passengers. Oklahoma and Texas each a pay 2 million dollar subsidy to keep it running for a cost of $59.00 per passenger. So the true cost of the trip is $125.00 per passenger with roughly half paid by the passenger and half paid by taxpayers. The round trip takes 8 and a half hours of travel time with the only option leaving at 8:25 in the morning and arriving back at 9:39 at night. It does virtually nothing to alleviate the need for roads or decreasing traffic congestion.

I would call it more of an amusement ride than a reasonable transportation option.

I don't think I've heard anyone claim it's a good example of commuter rail... but I agree that it's lack of speed really knocks it out of any competition with autos. I love riding the train because I don't have to drive, I can use my lap top and relax in quite spacious seating, but I don't like it because it can take quite a while.

It is very indicative of the only kind of commuter rail that would ever be even close to affordable in Oklahoma. Anything faster or requiring building dedicated rail would be ridiculously expensive.

A dedicated light rail line linking downtown to Norman and Edmond would cost over 2 billion dollars and that would be for a system that has a top speed of about 55 miles per hour.

The cost of high speed rail (+ 90 mph) is astronomical. In 2000, development of a Florida high-speed rail service was approved by voters. Four years later, concerns about construction costs estimated at $20 billion to $25 billion drove voters to repeal it, ending plans for a Tampa-St. Petersburg-Orlando system, as well as a proposed second link from Orlando to Miami.

20 to 25 BILLION!.....and Tampa and Orlando are only 85 miles apart.

Actually, I will have to backtrack and say I agree completely with you on this. I think a streetcar and bus system is far more important than any sort of rail at this point in time. As far as commuter rail goes, we need to have enough commuters going to a few places to make it practical. Manhattan has people coming in to work there from New York state, Connecticut and New Jersey, in addition to it being available for other types of transit besides commuter transit. Were we to have a significant portion of our workforce working downtown or at the adjacent Health Sciences Center, including people from Shawnee, Midwest City, Yukon, El Reno, Norman, etc, then commuter rail would be logical. Right now, I suspect it's not. But, if we think that may change in the forseeable future, then I think now is the time to start planning for the future. The first thing I would like to see in the future, however, is a commuter rail system from Norman to Guthrie, with a bus system extending radially from stops along that line. I suspect light rail to the airport would not be cost effective, but it would be interesting to see the studies. I'd like to see how people actually living in the metropolitan area utililze rail before committing to anything more than that.

Perhaps that's what was happening when transit money was spent in OKC for "riverboats?"

Maybe they were trying to see how people "actually living in the metropolitan area" would use -- riverboats -- before they did anything else?

Oklahomans need reasonable, practical and useful alternatives to "highways only" -- and we need them now. There's substantial transit money available to use -- but none to lose.

We don't need our transit dollars wasted on nonsense. We can't afford to allow asphalt lobbyists masquerading as "secretaries of transportation" to deliberately put real, rapidly and economically available multimodal transportation further out of reach by the calculated destruction of the best existing rail assets in the West.

We can't afford it. Our children and grandchildren can't afford it.

Oklahomans all across the state need these services -- and we need them now.

TOM ELMORE

We have them...they're called airplanes.

I agree with these sentiments...commuter rail went out of business due to a lack of demand over a half century ago. Those who don't learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them.

We haven't "needed" them for over half a century. Why do we need them now?

Why won't you answer Steve's questions, Tom? Why are you afraid of the press? What do you have to hide?

I agree, but I call the alternatives busses and trollies. Cheap, flexible, available

How many Oklahomans across the state? How many people from other cities will use rail every single day to come to Oklahoma City to work or play who already do so by car? How many new people per day can we expect if we make those services available? How much are these people across the state willing to pay for it?

Every time a gallon of motor fuel is purchased in Oklahoma, 2.86 cents of the federal fuel tax goes to the Federal Transit Trust Fund. Oklahomans thus send around $72 million per year to fund transit.

Most able-bodied Oklahomans pay -- and pay -- to fund transit nearly every day.

$72 million per year would be a good start for modern transit development in the state -- if we can keep the highways-only crowd from destroying our existing railway infrastructure.

But what happens to that money in Oklahoma?

Recently, some of it bought "riverboats" -- at the hands of folks who apparently never read "The Ant and the Grasshopper...," and who appear to arrogantly assume that "things will go right back to the way they were before" when the nation comes out of its current economic trouble; folks who would probably agree with the sensitive and erudite editorial writers at the "state's largest newspaper" that professional basketball is the "greatest thing ever to happen to their city."

It apparently never occurs to them to consider that these days -- of "$2 Unleaded" -- might just be the last "Indian Summer" of the illusory, expensive and fuel-hungry "50s culture."

Perhaps they don't have elderly parents one-hundred-or-more-miles-away from OKC or Tulsa who can no longer drive automobiles, but need regular medical care in the metros. Perhaps they can never envision themselves unable to "sail down Route 66, top down, wind in their hair..." Of course, that would mean that they're not particularly observant or thoughtful -- fine examples of a generation seemingly proud of its all-too-characteristic "irreverence."

The folks out in the hustings around the state understand that services "cost money."

It's Oklahoma City, particularly -- and apparently at least a few "Oklahoma Citians" -- that continue to, f'rinstance, push urban-style, residential sprawl out into the tinder-dry scrub without even "providing enough fire hydrants to fight that kind of fires."

This is a city that hasn't, for many years, been able to afford infrastructure maintenance in its historic center -- a city that doesn't even have "sidewalks" in many of its long standing neighborhoods (its much-beloved children have been walking to school in the streets all these years), but which, like Ado Annie, "jist cain't say no" to the wafer-board developers. But a few of its apparently more "self congratulatory" now demand to know whether the smaller towns and rural dwellers are "prepared to pay" for basic transportation and essential strategic redundancy serving public convenience and necessity.

...all of which resoundingly recalls that even the best possible answers to meaningless questions are not particularly useful.

TOM ELMORE

Tom, if you're done insulting us, then please answer Steve's questions.

What I see is a special interest group beating its own drum. This is a serious case of political masturbation, one small group of people praising their own ideas and refusing to interact with the rest of society. You throw out half-truths and statistics that don't apply and pretend that we're all idiots for not following you along.

But enough of this. What this ultimately comes down to Tom, is you have the burden of proof. YOU need to convince US. So far you haven't done it, and aren't even close. You're the one who wants us to stop construction of the new Crosstown. You're the one who wants us to spend billions on a new rail system. You're the one who not only wants to change the status quo, but send OKC in an entirely different direction.

The thing you don't seem to realize is, you have that opportunity right here, right now. If this was a court case, then you're up with your closing argument right now. You have our attention. You have the floor. But up to this point, you've only repeated the same talking points that haven't yet convinced us. You've refused to answer our questions. You've insulted us. You've ignored our concerns. That's fine. That's your right.

But ultimately this question goes to the jury. And your case isn't looking good Tom. Not good at all. So go ahead and ramble, refuse to address our concerns, insult us as you will. I once knew a kid back in school who would ask people for help, or for a favor, and then if they refused, he'd lose his temper and call them names (which just resulted in people not wanting to help him even more). Now I know what became of him.

Tom, you seem to have a lot of time to post on this site. It seems to go against your insistence you don't have time to answer my questions. I don't think they're meaningless. I worked on them. And it seems like there are others on this site who want to see them answered.
Here's my final question to add to the list: Tom, why should anyone take your questions seriously if you won't answer questions directed at yourself? Could Gary Ridley get away with calling my questions "meaningless"?

I just looked at the construction photos on ODOT web site - it appears contruction is full speed ahead. Unless ODOT plans to put in some kind of 90 degree turns it looks like the freeway will pass right by Union Station as planned.

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

Tom, why don't you quit being a moron and answer steve's questions, everytime that you post on here, you keep rattling on and on and on about this and that, JUST ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS MAN!