Well, that's what editorials do. They take positions and defend them, right or wrong, agree or disagree, that's what they do. I like that the Oklahoman allows us to post comments and that as to that editorial, the last time I looked, many of those comments pointed out the general hypocrisy of the notion of hand-wringing because of the fact that a certain mode of transportation will require subsidies (hint: they all do).

The Oklahoman is pro-roads though, and that's just fine. Roads are our main mode of transportation, and for the foreseeable future, that'll continue.

God knows the Oklahoman has been involved in shady goings-on in the past (and you know I know and I know you know I know), but I don't think this is one of those things.

Tom, you've got Midtowner defending The Oklahoman... are you sure you're effectively communicating here? Just out of curiousity - ifi you could build a passenger rail hub anywhere in the city, would the best place be at the Union State (if the site didn't exist)? If so, why when downtown's offices, retail and residential are blocks away?

> you've got Midtowner defending The Oklahoman...
> are you sure you're effectively communicating here?

ROTFLOL

He's just pissed that he lost and has to come up with something to keep pissing and moaning about. The fact he uses editorials instead of actual investigative journalism shows how much his side was worth in the first place. If the evidence for support doesn't exist, then perhaps the hypothesis was incorrect Tom.

Not really... Where you stand on this is a matter of opinion, so editorials, being one of the more effective means of disseminating opinions seem to be a good option. Maybe you can clue me in on an 'investigatory' news article which concludes objectively, and after investigation that in fact, Union Station's highest and best use is as a mega-gazebo in the middle of OKC's future central park, but I really doubt it.

This is all about whether you think the city fathers have a 100% good plan when it comes to core to shore, and by that, particularly, I mean a good plan not involving Union Station as a multi-modal hub.

It's a subjective inquiry, not an objective one really, unless you want to say "objectively" that ODOT and the relevant people have done all the stuff they need to do to get the I-40 alignment condemned and cleared as previously ordained and that "objectively," there's not much use hand wringing anymore because what's done is done. That's pretty much where I'm at. As far as I'm concerned, once the relevant administrative body promulgated their ruling, didn't do anything blatantly arbitrary and capricious and essentially supported their decision with findings based upon the record before it, it was game over... time to move on... time to figure out what we can do for public transit in OKC instead of Union Station, because even if it was our best hope for something soon, it's basically off the table at this point. Yes, I realize there's a motion to reconsider pending, but honestly, it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. It was a waste of money as far as I'm concerned. In fact, it's a procedural motion, which in my opinion is used way too much because lawyers don't really understand how it works and when it should be used. More often than not, all you do is piss off the reviewing court, because in essence, you just told them that they did their job wrong, so unless you have something new to add or something you're quite sure they missed, the 'ol "the decision was not fair" schtick isn't going to bring about any positive developments in your client's case... but I digress.

The point is, Tom, everyone, this thread is/should be over, done, fini. The fate of the BNSF line is sealed, the fate of Union Station is sealed with it. We can all now agree that the question to be asking now is "What now?" rather than yammering on about the highest and best use of a building when that use is irrevocably decided (at least insofar as its transit possibilities).

Editorialize all you want though, it ain't gonna change nothin'.

Anybody watch the latest city council meeting from June 9? There were 3 conspicuous citizens speaking to the council in favor of commuter rail and "saving" Union Station. They mentioned Tom Elmore as some sort of "encyclopedia" of rail and spoke as if the city has made certain plans to demolish Union Station and never consider any form of mass transit in the future.

Just wondered if anyone caught this and their response to it. We certainly need citizens to speak up on behalf of mass transit...but I'm not sure if Mr. Elmore's plan is the way to go.

Well if they spoke about demolishing the station, then they're just fearmongering because that's not going to happen. It's on the national register, which means it's not going anywhere whether someone would want it to or not.

And midtowner, by investigative journalism, I mean that wich involves actually researching a story. It's months of work versus a few minutes of online reserach and a few phones calls before the 10pm news. It's been a long time since we've seen actual good journalism in the world. The days of actually putting yourself to work to find out truths died out long ago in favor of the ratings game. "Scare 'em to reel 'em in".

What I was really talking about was finding hard evidence of the topic...NOT editorials. We can editorialize (like we do here on the forum) till the cows come home. It's each individual's opinion and that's it. Tom refused to aknowledge the other side, which means he never had any intention admitting that he might be wrong. You have to be willing to concede that the other side might be right before you go blabbing to the world. Not to mention the fact that he and his group used hands down inaccurate and WRONG information and lied to the public on countless occassions. Then we're supposed to just believe his point of view without questioning it....nope.

Had OnTrac actually gone about thier fight in a legitimate and correct way, maybe they would have stood a chance. But the folks involved saw through their lightweight cover from the get go. If you want to make an arguement about the viablity of the place while utilizing all 4 lines, then you need to do the research to show the pros and cons of each aspect of it. Meaning, find some examples of how removing a line caused issues and see if it is relatable to our situation. If not, then don't ignore it (again you have to be able to admit if you might be wrong). Compare inter/multi/whatever modal possibilties. Would the station make more sense in conjunction with one type or another given all possiblities of the outcome (ie 2 or 4 lines). Could additions be built later to accomodate other uses (ie more covered platform for bus use)?

The list goes on and on and on....the problem is, they didn't do this. They chose to do other things instead of actual research. Tom might have a great deal of rail knowledge, but objective, he is not.

http://newsok.com/public-transit-sho...rticle/3379049

Co-chair of ACOG's new transit steering committee? Truck stop baron Tom Love -- longtime sidekick of Neal McCaleb.

During the Keating administration, with McCaleb serving simultaneously as Secretary and Director of both ODOT and Turnpikes, Love sat on the state Transportation Commission, first as a regular member, then, later, as chair. It was during this time that ODOT determined to unnecessarily destroy the OKC Union Station rail yard, undercut THE HEARTLAND FLYER's shot at self-support, and, of course, ramrod the infamous BILLION DOLLAR HIGHWAY PACKAGE, after which heavy truck traffic and unfunded highway maintenance requirement skyrocketed.

Since then, Love has served with McCaleb at the top of "Oklahomans for Safe Bridges and Roads" (an attempt to raise, chiefly, the driving public's fuel taxes to pay for overwhelmingly-truck-inflicted-damage-to-public-roads) and "TRUST," which insists that all transportation funding and any other money they can borrow or steal should go solely to roads.

ACOG, plainly, may be counted on -- to carry water for the highway lobby, as it has always done, and to deflect, diffuse and frustrate legitimate citizen efforts to improve the regional transportation system.

Well that's one persepective on the matter. And very old news.

Here's an interesting blog about demolished train stations.

The Infrastructurist - Demolished! 11 Beautiful Train Stations That Fell To The Wrecking Ball

Doesn't that imply that we're tearing down Union Station, which is absolutely not going to happen.

Was at city council today. Odot came to the meeting and the Union Station folks.

No, I just thought it was an interesting piece on some "lost" history.

> Odot came to the meeting and the Union Station folks.

Which team did Ben Stiller captain?

Anybody catch Mr. Elmore at City Council this week? Here's my summary: lots of cheap shots at ODOT and a generally apocalyptic tone suggesting that ODOT's evil empire has conspired to destroy us all. Can someone please show up to city council and offer the missing perspective that has been expressed on this forum? I'm not the best spokesperson, but someone needs to give the council members a 3rd option.

There is no real need -- most everyone sees through a cheap shots approach as being what it is. For good or ill, these days Tom's present reputation precedes him, and that's kinda too bad and too good all at the same time -- one one hand, it eliminates any realistic concern that many will take what he says very seriously, but, on the other, it also means that most will ignore his ideas whether they do or do not have merit. Tom doubtless has some good thoughts, but because of the way he has presents himself any such good thoughts will not likely receive serious consideration. But, fact is, that's what happens when one chooses a path or technique of using cheap shots and one assumes a posture of being above everyone else in their opinions should they deign to disagree.

I'm sure that Tom has a genuine interest in the city, just as I'm sure that David Glover did in his vocal opposition to the March 4 Ford Center vote and their methods were not dissimilar ... even though Tom's litigious approach to solution-finding takes him several steps beyond David who did not take such a course.

Back in the days that Amtrak service was restored to OKC, Tom was involved in that process, and I'll give him credit for that. He is not without a positive record in days gone by ... it's just that he's not seen as having taken such a path lately.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

Yes, yes, yes. When Tom opened his comments yesterday I immediately hit "mute". When you start by saying the same thing 3 or 4 times, it's not going to be good.

Work took me away from the rest of the Council meeting, but I heard that David Streb, from ODOT, and Marion Hutchinson, from OnTrac, both made great comments regarding Union Station's rail yard. Streb noted that, unfortunately, Union Station was one of many, many concerns when selecting the route. Worries about splitting the Latino community in particular took much more precedent in the decision days (Streb may have not noted that, but that's what he was hinting at). Unfortunately for the rail yard, the only person fighting for Union Station back then was Tom Elmore... and one voice amongst many (and an abrasive one at that), is not an easy sell. If Marion Hutchinson had been vocal back then, however, it might be a different story today...

Yeah, Marion Hutchinson is obviously a hired gun for the Union Station folks. And the council members were citing the work of OnTrac as if it were some independent consulting group. One glance at their website screams special interest group. I still think the city council members need to be briefed on the multiple perspectives on this issue, not the simple dichotomy so often presented. I want them to hear other folks like myself who are for rail/mass transit but believe Union Station can be preserved better as an architectural jewel of the new central park...and let's build a modern transit hub where it needs to be.

That's just it... it's past the City. ODOT and the Governor are in control. Council can pass a resolution of support or un-support, but unless they have some extreme control behind scenes, they are out of play. The State is funding the project and the State now owns the ROW, so it's their call.

YouTube - Bombardier JetTrain Rare Video

I've never seen another video clip of the Bombardier Jet Train power unit in operation. A couple of things are remarkable about this one: (1) How quiet the unit is, (2) That it is drawing a train of conventional, single-level Amtrak passenger coaches. Apparently, the units can handle just about any available coach combination, including advanced, Amtrak/Acela type high speed train sets.

As you may recall, this single unit, a development of Bombardier / Amtrak's "Acela" High Speed Rail technology, would allow advanced passenger service on existing US rail lines. It could draw the Acela-type High Speed train sets which tilt into curves -- without requiring electrification of lines. It carries its own electrical generating equipment, powered by a 5,000 hp jet engine. JetTrain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jet-powered train could speed across nation. Category: News from The Berkeley Daily Planet - Wednesday October 16, 2002

ODOT, plainly not a credible source for railway information, insists that reasonable passenger train speeds on lines like the state-owned, former Frisco, OKC-to-Tulsa line, would cost "billions and billions." Could Jet Train technology operate on such corridors without over-the-top infrastructure upgrades?

This is a reasonable question for those who wish to be reasonable. Of course -- "getting reasonable" might make Oklahomans ask why ODOT has insisted on the entirely unnecessary destruction of the OKC Union Station rail yard, the capital city confluence of our key state rail lines.

More than this, however, is anybody in Oklahoma interested in the prospect of developing and manufacturing such technology here in our state -- for promotion and sales to the world?

TOM ELMORE
Tel: 405 794 7163

Tom, do you respond to a single comment on this forum? It seems you just like to post random articles. We might have a more productive discussion of ideas if you related to the rest of us in a more direct manner.

What would you like to talk about, krisb? Shall we discuss facts and realities -- or shall we spend our energies jumping to wild conclusions arbitrarily misrepresenting the work of our fellow citizens? (re: Post 943, above....)

You can talk to me on this forum, or otherwise. My telephone number is 405 794 7163.

Tom, I applaud you for remaining consistent to your beliefs, however, this fight has been lost long ago. Perhaps at this point in time your efforts would be better spent working with the City on a new line, as Union Station railyard for the most part will be destroyed. I'm not saying it was the best solution. I think ODOT definitely screwed us on several things with this new I-40 and the downtown boulevard. Let's move forward and do what we can to make sure we don't screw up what mass transit we will get. Union Station is going to be used for a multi-use facility.

On page 35 at the bottom on 5/8/09 you said:

"I'll answer your questions in detail, Steve, when I get a few minutes -- which might be a few days."

It has been two months, so answer the questions already:


1. Do you agree that the Union Station Building will be left standing as part of the Interstate 40 reconstruction? Or do you have proof that the state and city are lying about this building's fate?

2. ODOT engineers have provided plans showing there will still be room for rail lines if this ever becomes an intermodel station. Can you prove them to be wron

1. The Union Station building, alone, devoid of its purpose and its enabling infrastructure, is not the question. Never has been the question. Only people who don't understand the question would be diverted by it. "Union Station" is the Union Station complex -- the rail yard, the underpasses, the underground platform access tunnels. The terminal building, in and of itself, was never the "triumph." The yard, the direct street access on Hudson and Harvey and flanking, arterial Robinson and Walker Avenue underpasses were the solution to the problems that brought its development about.

OKC purchased the terminal building in 1989 with Federal Transit Administration grant money for the express purpose -- detailed in reams of supporting paperwork -- of establishing a transit center there. It has never been used for anything but COTPA offices.

Now there's glib talk about using this structure, purchased with transit dollars to be a transit center, for something else.

Did "the city" lie?

ODOT insisted for years that what it called "Union Station" would not be harmed by the New Crosstown project. We said otherwise. ODOT's plan plainly calls for the complete excavation of the yard, the destruction of at-grade terminal access on Hudson and Harvey and the removal of direct rail access northeast and southwest, including a line to the airport.

John Bowman, who's gotten all-too-used to deliberately deceiving the folks who fund his paychecks admitted years ago, "Well, after we're done Union Station can never be a hub...."

Who was telling the truth -- and who was lying?

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me...." goes the old saying.

Perhaps OKC folks enjoy being fooled.

2. A single rail line does not a transit hub make. It's another absurd question -- a "Daily Oklahoman question" -- playing into and supporting ODOT's determination to deceive. Deliberately diminishing the facility as a multimodal center by cutting it off from the airport and second largest state metro is just part of the reason the mayor of one of the West's "New Transit" cities has called the plan "insane."

ODOT has insisted since the "comparative route study," clearly another false-front misdirection play from this agency, that OKC Union Station was worth "zero."

The intrinsic value of Union Station is and has always been self-evident -- certainly to real transit and transportation experts and civic leaders all over the West. Their statements about it are on the record, and are manifestly spot-on.

As Gary Ridley told me years ago, "Well, Tom, there was a time when we didn't even have to ask you what you thought...."

If that's acceptable to Oklahoma taxpayers, then we all ought to feel like we're "in heaven."