Officials debate cost of losing rail yard versus altering Crosstown plan
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.

We can't keep stopping everytime someone complains about the alignment of the crosstown to re-examine its location. The freakin bridge that the current I-40 is on is going to collapse one of these days. Why can't people realize this? Oklahoma City has so much land at its disposal...We are one of the largest cities in the freakin country. Move the station and be done with it. I agree that trains are important. But so is replacing this bridge.

My complaint....if they had a problem with this, they should have voiced their concerns back when the project was being designed, NOT after construction had begun.

And, if they did voice their opinions and they were overridden, then shut the crap up.

bombermwc, two things:

1.) people did voice their concerns back then, no one wanted to listen, furthermore, we were all told what "we wanted" by Earnest Istook and ODOT, while at the same time, he had no problem getting SLC money for their light rail projects. We were told what route (out of the 4-5 options) we wanted.
2.) As the article stated, the economics were different back then, no one cared about rail here or in places much larger. At least Dallas, Denver, Portland, etc. all had the foresight to see this crisis coming one day. Gas was $1 something a gallon, now it's $5 in some parts of the US and trends only predict it to rise as supply/demand economics kick in on a worldwide scale. People are thinking more and more about mass and alternative transit now than they were 7 years ago.

We can't keep stopping everytime someone complains about the alignment of the crosstown to re-examine its location. The freakin bridge that the current I-40 is on is going to collapse one of these days. Why can't people realize this? Oklahoma City has so much land at its disposal...We are one of the largest cities in the freakin country. Move the station and be done with it. I agree that trains are important. But so is replacing this bridge.

OR, we could salvage infrastructure we already have in place and mitigate both construction costs of a rail system AND maintenance costs on our new road in the future by controlling the growth of traffic on it with a new system.


My complaint....if they had a problem with this, they should have voiced their concerns back when the project was being designed, NOT after construction had begun.

And, if they did voice their opinions and they were overridden, then shut the crap up.

OR, we can continue to make sure that we do not simply follow one mistake with another one. Until it is built, there is still opportunity to make sure we implement the right infrastructure for Oklahoma City's future instead of just accepting the one that is forced upon us.

Obviously, we need the new road, but Oklahoma City really needs to stop accepting the compromises forced upon it if it wants to continue to mature into a competitive market. We miss opportunity after opportunity because we "take what we can get". No doubt, concerns about the loss of our rail yards were voiced to the commission and they ignored it. If anything, funding and planning delays by the committee and congress are what have allowed this debate to continue and as long as they continue to drag their feet, I hope that we continue to ask for the best possible project that gives Oklahoma City the most transportation and infrastructure opportunities at the best cost.

Really, if one thinks that we will ever include rail in our transportation portfolio, then one should very much be in favor of trying to salvage what we have. The cost of creating a system from scratch could very well create a barrier to entry that keeps the possibility of an Oklahoma City metro rail system as just a pipe dream for many more years, which, I suspect, is actually the goal of some people behind the planning...

If this movement to stop/reduce the new I-40 succeeds, I think I am going to start a campaign to save old big box stores. People just love those old useless places. The memories of people waiting in line to buy things and getting angry at retail minions have to count for something.

"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. "

And completely ruins the aesthetic value of parks north and south of the station. In fact, if we do this, I say screw the park. Why spend money on something no one will visit? Let's leave the Core to Shore area warehouses and concentrate on making some other part of our city beautiful because it's not going to happen there, and we're not going to get people to move there. The Convention Center and a couple of hotels would work if they faced the Myriad Gardens rather than the trucking zones. Why relocate I-40 at all? If we're going to use Union Station for heavy rail and commercial rail, we have no need to spend money trying to make I-40 attractive.

Really, if one thinks that we will ever include rail in our transportation portfolio, then one should very much be in favor of trying to salvage what we have. The cost of creating a system from scratch could very well create a barrier to entry that keeps the possibility of an Oklahoma City metro rail system as just a pipe dream for many more years, which, I suspect, is actually the goal of some people behind the planning...

No one here is saying we don't need rail. There is nothing to save at Union Station. There aren't rows and rows of tracks, there is no usable infrastructure. IF we were actually going to use Union Station as a hub, then it would be worthwhile to save the land for a future railyard, but we are not. The C2S masterplan does not call for a transit hub at Union Station. Such would ruin the entire C2S plan. The station will go further east near bricktown.

And completely ruins the aesthetic value of parks north and south of the station. In fact, if we do this, I say screw the park. Why spend money on something no one will visit? Let's leave the Core to Shore area warehouses and concentrate on making some other part of our city beautiful because it's not going to happen there, and we're not going to get people to move there. The Convention Center and a couple of hotels would work if they faced the Myriad Gardens rather than the trucking zones. Why relocate I-40 at all? If we're going to use Union Station for heavy rail and commercial rail, we have no need to spend money trying to make I-40 attractive.

A matter of opinion, I suppose. I, for one, think it would not only be pretty cool to have train service coming in and out of central park, but that it would end up being one of the most unique and beloved things about OKC in the long run. Maybe not heavy rail, but definitely a passenger line.

Perhaps what developers... er I mean "city officials" are concerned about is the fact that they won't be able to sell off nearly as many lots with ridiculous /sq. ft. costs, and that perhaps with a noisy train running through the middle of their planned low-rise brownstones, etc., potential buyers might balk at the noise level.

All legitimate concerns, of course. For the developers, no question about it, moving the alignment would be bad. For the rest of the city? It's not the tracks which would be saved, it's the right-of-ways and their utility which would be saved.

Rail is coming. If not in the next 5 years, then within the next 20. As a matter of public policy, America simply cannot maintain its current level of energy consumption for the foreseeable future. There will have to be cuts.

As a city, we can either be proactive or be a step behind. Our decision, in my opinion, is going to have a huge impact on the future viability of our economy.

A matter of opinion, I suppose. I, for one, think it would not only be pretty cool to have train service coming in and out of central park, but that it would end up being one of the most unique and beloved things about OKC in the long run. Maybe not heavy rail, but definitely a passenger line.

wsucougz - the station and 2 sets of track will remain after I-40 is done. Tom and his group want put in 8 sets of track in the middle of a park. Several years ago I had the misfortune of seeing a video of woman crossing several sets of tracks. She was running across a small freight yard to catch a passenger train. She ran from behind a park train and stepped right in front of a freight train. It wasn't pretty. I don't even know if you can mix pedistrains and frieght processing in this country.

I, for one, think it would not only be pretty cool to have train service coming in and out of central park,

Totally agree. Why wouldn't we want a park right at the transit hub?

How is this limited to freight. Every discussion on this topic involves passenger trains. A transit bub, with unions station as the hub, in the C2S district next to a park would be world class, imo.

BDP - you need to pay more attention to Tom and his group. They want heavy freight at Union Station just as much as they want passengers.

wsucougz - the station and 2 sets of track will remain after I-40 is done. Tom and his group want put in 8 sets of track in the middle of a park.

EXACTLY!
We get a new crosstown... AND we still have two tracks for rail of some kind. I still can't undersand what the fuss is about. Why do some think we need 6 extra tracks in order for Union Station to still be used?

We don't. Some kind of rail line going through there is one thing, but ELMORE wants freaking Penn Station smack in the middle of a park, which ultimately means no park. It wont happen if he gets his way.

We can't keep stopping every time someone complains about the alignment of the crosstown to re-examine its location. The freakin bridge that the current I-40 is on is going to collapse one of these days. Why can't people realize this? Oklahoma City has so much land at its disposal...We are one of the largest cities in the freakin country. Move the station and be done with it. I agree that trains are important. But so is replacing this bridge.

Unfortunately your unconsidered and seriously flawed opinion is shared by far too many people, including the Director and engineers at ODOT.

Yes OKC has over six hundred square miles of land within its boundaries, but it has very few building sites with a view of our downtown skyline . . . makes these sites more valuable than sites in the middle of a wheat field on the city fringe. OKC has very little land surrounding a major park . . . valuable land again. OKC has more and more urban trails running through its neighborhoods and the mere presence of those trails makes those neighborhoods more attractive to buyers. OKC has no fixed rail transit stations, but it could have and should have as they are a development magnet of the highest order.

OKC has only one Union Station and rail yard sitting on the site it is sitting on and once its gone . . . its gone forever . . . . train stations are immovable. It's like the heart beating in your chest . . . without the heart, the veins and arteries are useless.

If rail transit came and went from Union Station, the adjacent and nearby land and related development would be valued at two, three, four, who knows how many times as much as the same land absent passenger rail transit at Union Station.

. . . . Several years ago I had the misfortune of seeing a video of woman crossing several sets of tracks. She was running across a small freight yard to catch a passenger train. She ran from behind a park train and stepped right in front of a freight train. It wasn't pretty. I don't even know if you can mix pedistrains and frieght processing in this country.

Interesting you should mention that Kerry, since the plan is to remove the existing grade seperated rail crossings at Robinson and Walker and replace them with crossings at grade . . . in the street. Not too progressive.

OKC has only one Union Station and rail yard sitting on the site it is sitting on and once its gone . . . its gone forever . . . . train stations are immovable. It's like the heart beating in your chest . . . without the heart, the veins and arteries are useless.

Ahh... I'm getting all misty...


If rail transit came and went from Union Station, the adjacent and nearby land and related development would be valued at two, three, four, who knows how many times as much as the same land absent passenger rail transit at Union Station.

Again... Union Station can STILL be used. There will STILL be the building. There will STILL be usable tracks.

Interesting you should mention that Kerry, since the plan is to remove the existing grade seperated rail crossings at Robinson and Walker and replace them with crossings at grade . . . in the street. Not too progressive.

Ughh... the rail line will be at grade with the crosstown.... both of which will be BELOW grade with the surface streets.

wsucougz - the station and 2 sets of track will remain after I-40 is done. Tom and his group want put in 8 sets of track in the middle of a park. Several years ago I had the misfortune of seeing a video of woman crossing several sets of tracks. She was running across a small freight yard to catch a passenger train. She ran from behind a park train and stepped right in front of a freight train. It wasn't pretty. I don't even know if you can mix pedistrains and frieght processing in this country.

2 sets of track will remain, but the east/west line will be severed, making the 2 sets kind of a stub, right? Will this limit their ability to be very useful?

OKC has only one Union Station and rail yard sitting on the site it is sitting on and once its gone . . . its gone forever . . . . train stations are immovable. It's like the heart beating in your chest . . . without the heart, the veins and arteries are useless.

I fail to see how Union Station is made better by being a train station. Especially considering it's in a location far inferior to other potential sites for stations.


If rail transit came and went from Union Station, the adjacent and nearby land and related development would be valued at two, three, four, who knows how many times as much as the same land absent passenger rail transit at Union Station.

Not valuable to me. No valuable to potential residents. If it's being used for trucking and commercial rail, the adjacent property will be warehouses. No park.

Oklahoma City has the chance to reinvent itself (sorry to borrow the phrase). We have a chance to take a blighted area that no one even sees because there's no reason to go there and build an iconic park, to make it a place people want to live and recreate, to dine and work. This is an ugly city, and to make it a place more people want to live, we need to beautify it, we need community spaces in our downtown for people to gather, to build a community and make memories. Leisure time is treasured by people, and we have the chance to give people a central place in our city to spend their leisure time. Or, we can sacrifice it to the concept of mass transit that hasn't even been studied properly. We don't even know who would use this line, if there are enough potential users to make it economically feasible.

I'm firmly behind making this a city people want to visit and live in, AND studying transporation needs thoroughly before we assume we know what people will want and use.

I take warm solace in the fact that no amount of complaining is going to change the momentum of this project.



/Alexis de Tocqueville should have investigated the tyranny of the minority

maybe once this iconic park is being developed, they will find some old acid sludge pits right in the middle. who would want to live by that?

History has a message for us and it is that in matters where the government, large institutions, private corporations etc. have been dishonest in their actions, when they have misled the public, when they have manipulated and distorted information to serve an interest that is not the public interest and a small group of citizens has rallied to the challenge of taking them to task; and the small group of citizens has stopped the forward progress of the ill-conceived enterprise, held it at bay for a time and then had the strength and determination to push the public discourse in the direction that indeed serves the public interest, the small group of courageous, tireless, vigilant citizens have always . . . . always . . . . succeeded in rescuing their vision of the public good from the jaws of the destruction.

The small band of dedicated stalwarts that believe the future of Oklahoma is best served by maintaining the strong rail transportation presence based in the potential of the Union Station rail yard infrastructure has held their ground and turned the tide. Now we may see what all the real options and opportunities are.

We can make all the comments we want from the sideline, but that is indeed where we sit . . . . on our lazy asses . . . on the sideline. We are not in the fray and we have no say in the outcome.

Council passes rail resolution
By Carol Cole-Frowe

Norman councilmembers unanimously passed a resolution in support of preserving the state's chance for an intermodal rail system and preservation of the Union Station rail yard at their regular Tuesday evening meeting.

The resolution requests Gov. Brad Henry to appoint a special commission to consider future rail transit options in the Oklahoma City area, future uses of Union Station and its rail yard and alternative routes for the Interstate-40 Crosstown Expressway.

It states that the rail yard "lies at the center of the state's unique network linking the state's major towns, Tinker Air Force Base and Will Rogers World Airport and is the last grand urban passenger rail yard in the west that remains virtually unused with all of its original space and much of its essential infrastructure intact, including numerous tracks connecting every corner of the state."

Ward 7 councilmember Doug Cubberley said with current fuel prices and increased regulation of ozone levels, the atmosphere has changed in favor of alternative transportation.

Marion Hutchison, communications director of OnTrac, a group trying to preserve the rail yard, told councilmembers the Union Station rail yard is a "big economic driver."

"We really can't afford to be left behind," Hutchison said. "This really is an irreplaceable state asset."

He said nobody is arguing that the I-40 Crosstown Expressway needs to be relocated.

"I don't think anyone will argue with that," Hutchison said.

But the Crosstown's current relocation site would eliminate most of the rail yard.

Hutchison said the proposed relocation could move about 300 feet south without drastically affecting its right-of-way acquisition, which is one of the major expenses involved in relocating the interstate.

"Essentially what we looked at was what was the simplest alternative," he said.

He said the right-of-way in the area already has been cleared.

"This is not a proposal that is in any way negative to the current (ODOT) proposal," Hutchison said. "But this allows us to save the current infrastructure."

He acknowledges that the revamping of the engineering for the project would cost money.

"We feel like it would be worth it in the long run," Hutchison said, noting that other cities have spent up to $500 million to establish a rail yard.

Ward 2 councilmember Tom Kovach said one advantage to ODOT would be that if they were to slightly move the Crosstown to save the rail yard, it would nullify a ruling by the Federal Surface Transportation Board blocking the vacating of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail lines. The ruling came as a result of a lawsuit by Ed Kessler, a longtime rail proponent and an advocate for Union Station rail yard.

Hutchison said central New Mexico's rail system had more than 1 million riders in two years, with a similar or less density compared to Oklahoma City.

Tuesday evening's vote was a far cry from the previous attempt about four years ago, when the measure failed on a 4-4 vote. That time, ODOT officials sat in the front row of council chambers and fought city officials and proponents on the vote.

Kovach said the fight is far from over to save the rail yard. He recommended supporters write legislators and other state leaders.

"We need a public and political commitment," Hutchison said.
The Norman Transcript - Council passes rail resolution (http://www.normantranscript.com/localnews/local_story_268002917)

Of course, if they were to take the train from Norman, they'd have to transfer to get to Union Station, and then take a bus to wherever they want to go. Sounds good in theory, but how many of the councilmen would really do it?

This has been the story I have been covering for the last 2 days here is a link to the stories...

Group wants i40 Moved to save railroad tracks. (http://www.koco.com/video/17534992/index.html)

Norman joins battle to save the Union rail station in OKC (http://www.koco.com/video/17543901/index.html)

In your interview, did the ODOT official ever explain the "why" as to why we can't stop and study?

I think his assertion that "they" are trying to stop the crosstown completely is ludicrous. This is potentially a pivotal moment in the city's growth -- when crude is $500/barrel, will we be glad that ODOT plowed our best shot at a multimodal hub under?

...will we be glad that ODOT plowed our best shot at a multimodal hub under?

Union Station is not our best shot at a multimodal hub.

Midowner....yes we will be glad because as Kerry says, It's NOT the best option.

It seems that the train lovers are not fully think this through----Maybe I'm wrong...

Realistically a metro rail system is a pipe dream that does not fit with this city. The people that think they would want a rail system would hardly use it, just as they also hardly ride buses.

OKC will never mitigate traffic on I40 by a rail system. Never. I40 is a major interstate highway..I don't need to explain that. Most damage on roads is caused by big rigs. Big rig traffic will only increase over the years.

Lastly, an area where trucks are off and on-loading to and from trains would be a dirty and noisy area (edit: this would INCREASE big rig traffic on I40), making expansion southward (C2S) a lot less attractive. So the area that is currently an armpit (as opposed to a "heartbeat", as someone stated), would essentially stay an armpit, further discouraging people from wanting to take trains at Union Station.

Am I off here????

proud2besooner, no one takes the buses, because they were never designed effectively in the first place. lack of routes, poor routes, inconsistent and inconvenient stop times, poorly identified stops, stop times not advertised, transit system not advertised, super long wait times, the system was set up for failure before even being implemented. you can't take the cities approach saying that the bus system doesn't work because not enough people are riding it and sound educated on the topic. despite all the poor planning problems, I believe ridership is up 40% this year. Ironically, gas prices are/have been near all time highs, ironic?

proud2besooner, no one takes the buses, because they were never designed effectively in the first place. lack of routes, poor routes, inconsistent and inconvenient stop times, poorly identified stops, stop times not advertised, transit system not advertised, super long wait times, the system was set up for failure before even being implemented. you can't take the cities approach saying that the bus system doesn't work because not enough people are riding it and sound educated on the topic. despite all the poor planning problems, I believe ridership is up 40% this year. Ironically, gas prices are/have been near all time highs, ironic?

Ok, let's say you guys are super pumped about the rail yard, and are itching to ride it. Then you realize it's a dirty noisy place, in a dirty noisy place (maybe crime ridden?) where big rigs are navigating through. You still want to ride?

Next, I40 gains all those new big rigs in addition to the millions it gets already. Traffic problems are often caused by big rigs trying to navigate on and off interstates, plus they tear up the roads.

I have yet to see it. Core to shore would open up a new urban life in OKC, and some of you want to kill it with this Union Station deal. C2S itself could get a lot of cars off the streets. We need the crosstown moved ASAP, and you want to stall it (endangering peoples' lives) for this Union Station deal. I just don't think some people are really thinking about things, and are living in a dream world imagining riding a train of some sort to work every day. Ain't gonna happen.

Midowner....yes we will be glad because as Kerry says, It's NOT the best option.

Well thank God someone cleared that up for me with another conclusory statement unaccompanied by a "why."

Kerry, you must do PR for ODOT on the side :)

proud2besooner, no one takes the buses, because they were never designed effectively in the first place. lack of routes, poor routes, inconsistent and inconvenient stop times, poorly identified stops, stop times not advertised, transit system not advertised, super long wait times, the system was set up for failure before even being implemented. you can't take the cities approach saying that the bus system doesn't work because not enough people are riding it and sound educated on the topic. despite all the poor planning problems, I believe ridership is up 40% this year. Ironically, gas prices are/have been near all time highs, ironic?

OKC is one of the consistently worst cities of its size in nation as far as public transportation goes.

Folks predicting the failure of ANY public trans project based upon the failure of our existing infrastructure have an extremely faulty premise -- that an inadequate and highly inconvenient mode of public transportation can predict the success/failure of an adequate and convenient mode.

OKC is one of the consistently worst cities of its size in nation as far as public transportation goes.

Folks predicting the failure of ANY public trans project based upon the failure of our existing infrastructure have an extremely faulty premise -- that an inadequate and highly inconvenient mode of public transportation can predict the success/failure of an adequate and convenient mode.

Yes, but people championing the cause of Union Station have a faulty premise as well -- that Union Station would be a convenient part of a greater mass transit system.

I would LOVE for this city to have a world class rail system. I miss riding the subway. It makes it possible to drink until you can't walk anymore and still get home safely and legally. :) But a system such as this will require massive planning on the order of the entire C2S plan. It is not something we can half-ass together, and it is not something that can be adequately served by pumping up Union Station.

Some here have correctly pointed out that building an entire new station and buying new right-of-ways will be incredibly expensive. Yes. Yes it will. If we want to do mass rail transit correctly, it will easily cost more than the I-40 relocation. Sinking money into Union Station to attempt to "save" mass transit is a loser plan. It will only continue the OKC tradition of ineffective, inconvenient, unused mass transit.

Yes, but people championing the cause of Union Station have a faulty premise as well -- that Union Station would be a convenient part of a greater mass transit system. . . .

Those championing the Union Station hub plan have sited many examples of how other cities have used existing infrastructure to good advantage. Could you give us some similar examples that support your opinion?

Majority of new multi-modal hubs, if that is what we are looking at here, are typically being constructed near or on grounds of existing airports. This way they can tie all manners of transportation together - air, bus, rail, etc. Last I checked you had a rail line that comes in on the west side of the airport next to Metrotech where there is a nice big empty plot of land. Yeah the rails and area will need some improvements, but negotiating passage on existing rails to downtown will provide a fairly quick link there.

Not everything has to be based downtown. Having this true multi-modal hub at WRWA, you open it up to developing the airport even more with freight. As far as I know, WRWA is the only FTZ in the metro area and that is something to exploit. Plus if you have light rail of whatever version running from the airport, people can get off their flights and to downtown in 20-30 minutes and be dropped off at the Santa Fe station or Union Station if they want to open that. Relocating Amtrak to WRWA may be an option in this, but it also may just be as easy as providing connecting opportunities between Santa Fe and WRWA.

Those championing the Union Station hub plan have sited many examples of how other cities have used existing infrastructure to good advantage. Could you give us some similar examples that support your opinion?

A link about Denver or some other city using a pre-existing structure really doesn't tell us anything about OKC. Yes, some cities have old infrastructure that is still in a good location. If Union Station was several blocks north and in amongst the downtown area, I'd say it could be something we could work with. Unfortunately, it is not.

Now, I went and saw the station. It is a beautiful building. It's just in a terrible area. No one outside of Robocop would want to get off of a train at Union Station with the area in its current condition. So before Union Station becomes anything remotely useful, people need a reason to go there.

Oklahoma City is wonderfully accessible by car. We can get around quickly and easily without resorting to mass transit. So mass transit in OKC needs to be similarly convenient.

Union Station has a number of disadvantages. First, it can't be the center of any major passenger system, because you can't run a north/south track through there. It's too far from downtown to be at all convenient. It also is in the heart of a major planned redevelopment area.

For Union Station to be a viable part of a mass transit system, you'll first have to have an actual planned mass transit system. Right now, that entire area is going to be bulldozed. You'll have to stop any reconstruction so you can figure out how many rail lines you want to run through the area. You'll also have to significantly alter the major freeway that is currently under construction. The problem is, there is no real plan in place. We'd be delaying two major projects in order to save one train station that currently has no proposed use.

We'd be delaying two major projects in order to save one train station that currently has no proposed use.

The definition of obstructionism.

The small band of dedicated stalwarts that believe the future of Oklahoma...

Just because you've been around for a while or whatever does not mean you can disrespect me and other regular citizens on this board who disagree with you. I am not tied to big government or evil corporations or whoever you believe is against you. Time for a reality check, Mister!

Lastly, an area where trucks are off and on-loading to and from trains would be a dirty and noisy area (edit: this would INCREASE big rig traffic on I40), making expansion southward (C2S) a lot less attractive.

Am I off here????

No, you are dead on.


Well thank God someone cleared that up for me with another conclusory statement unaccompanied by a "why."

The why has been detailed over and over again in these threads.

Okay, here's my conclusion build the new I-40. Preserve Union Station as a community center/museum/multi-purpose use. I like one of the posters idea turning Will Rogers World Airport into a main transportation hub. Keep the bus hub downtown, and add a light rail system connecting Bricktown, downtown, and WRWA. In the meantime build tracks from Edmond and Norman to the airport, maybe find a way to use the rails in place at Santa Fe.

Ugh, the only thing that bothers me is that downtown OKC needs a central hub station. I don't know of any city that turns the airport into the central hub, everyone is going to want to go downtown not to the airport. Maybe a central hub could be built east of Bricktown near the Steel alley.

Just because you've been around for a while or whatever does not mean you can disrespect me and other regular citizens on this board who disagree with you. I am not tied to big government or evil corporations or whoever you believe is against you. Time for a reality check, Mister!

thanks for this i 100% agree ..

and his "small band" .. are guy with at least as much if not more "agenda" then any "big business" ... they don't care about the future of OKC .. they care about rails and that is it ..

The hub is planned for the east end of Core 2 Shore where the E-W and N-S tracks meet. This STILL utilizes existing infrastructure but is in a much more logical place.

If the I-40 realignment project were being designed today, taking into account all that we know today, the Union Station infrastructure would have a very good chance of being incorporated into the design. The project has had to be redesigned once due to the roadway being raised to nearly at grade rather than well below grade as the original plan was proposed to the public . . . there was no big outcry from ODOT about all that extra engineering, so taking the time to consider a most comprehensive transportation solution . . . one that best serves the public interest, rather than just stubbornly staying the present course, seems only prudent to me.

Of course, my personal assessment of this situation is quite biased due to the numerous bad City and State Government decisions I have witnessed over the fifty odd years I have been paying attention to what goes on around this city and state. Anyone willing to look around can see the results of the poor decisions and policies put in place over the past several decades. Many of these decisions are virtually irevocable and enormously far reaching.

* Annexing thousands of acres of farm land into OKC.
* Widening some downtown streets to resemble expressways.
* Tearing out sidewalks when arterial and neighborhood streets were widened.
* Not putting sidewalks in as a matter of course in new development.
* Tearing out the trolley and Interurban rail transit network.
* Not going forward using 100% MAPS funds with the small fixed rail trolley project that Ernest Istook scuttled.
* Having only minimum landscaping standards that are at the very bottom compared to comparable sized cities around the country.
* Having one of the most premissive and poorly written sign ordinances in the country.
* Changing downtown streets to one way for no real purpose.
* Urban Renewal's swath of destruction through downtown eliminating hundreds of buildings.
* Permitting thousands of unsightly billboards to be erected.
* Ignoring the obvious needs of Public Schools.

There are dozens more examples of equally thoughtless public works projects and policy decisions, often driven by interests not in concert with the public good, which have wrecked havoc on this community, stretched its resources to the breaking point and will adversly effect our overall quality of life for years to come. So, taking a harder look at the design of the I-40 realignment project in light of our present day needs and current conditions, doesn't seem to be an unreasonable thing to do . . . in my estimation.

OldDowntownGuy,

I'm not saying that everything this city has done has been perfect. Obviously, there have been mistakes made in the past (and even in the present) that affect this city to this day. I'm not even saying that something couldn't be done with Union Station to renew its rail service.

All I'm saying (and I think what the rest of the posters here are saying) is that there's nothing that can be done with it now. If the I-40 realignment were being planned today, and if the C2S plans were currently being drawn up, I'm sure Union Station might have a bigger piece other than as a tourist attraction.

But they aren't.

I-40 is being built right now. I drive on the shaky old Crosstown every day after work. Rather than pay attention to the road, I watch the construction crews out there. Any changes now will drive up the price enormously.

The issue at hand really is not whether or not to change the I-40 plans, but rather, should Union Station be our primary rail hub? The answer to that is what is really driving this thread. As the plans go (both I-40 and C2S), it can be a rail stop, it just can't be a major intermodal hub with freight rail, heavy commuter rail, buses, and extensive parking facilities.

It appears to me that you are simply taking the small, narrow, short term view hoyasooner, but I'm sure you think otherwise. There are litterly stacks and stacks of documents related to this issue. I have been through a lot of it over the past few years and I doubt that you have done much research. You are entitled to your opinions and I appreciate your sharing them on this forum.

I too have witnessed a number of civic decisions that seem to have been made with just a touch of malice in mind. I believe that these decision makers think the best defense is a good offense. I question the logic of the location of the new crosstown. At best, it represents an absence of forethought and a disregard for civic assets. At worst, it was planned to eliminate the possibility of light rail service on these particular tracks. For what reason, I do not know.

As I remember, there was quite a lot of outcry from civic groups begging the planners of the crosstown to preserve the possibility of making Union Station a transit hub. Could they not have moved the freeway a few hundred feet to the south? Would that have driven the cost up so high?

OKC, as in every city in which I have lived, has a history of screwing its citizens to make a buck. I think this situation is no different. The railroad tactics (pun intended) used by the city to force this project ahead have a foul smell to me.

Lightrail cannot use the existing lines at Union Station. It is a violation of federal law. Lightrail is just that- light rail. It cannot use tracks that connect in any way with freight traffic.

Light rail is just -- what?

Check this technology, reportedly chosen by Austin, Texas as a starter mode: Colorado Railcar - DMU (http://www.coloradorailcar.com/double-deck-dmu-home.htm)

Meets every FRA standard for mixed traffic use, as do the even less expensive Rail Diesel Cars that were used in the DFW Metroplex to begin Trinity Railway Express Service.

Disingenuous, quibbling, deliberately hair-splitting misuse of rail transit terminology is an old Istook trick.

Hopefully, Oklahomans have had a belly full of that.

TOM ELMORE

Just because you've been around for a while or whatever does not mean you can disrespect me and other regular citizens on this board who disagree with you. I am not tied to big government or evil corporations or whoever you believe is against you. Time for a reality check, Mister!

I have disrespected no one here jbrown, nor suggested you or anyone else has any ties to government, (evil . . . your term) corporations or otherwise. I really don't believe that I am parinoid in the least; my experience is that great numbers of very important decisions that spend lots of public money are made as a result of pressures from interests other than that of the general public, or from poor planning and ignorance . . . Surely we can agree on that.

You are free to think that ODOT did a good job of advising the public and Oklahoma City officials about the choices and ramifications, both good and bad, related to the various options considered for realigning I-40, but, you will have a difficult time convincing me. I have watched this process pretty closely since it began and it has been seriously flawed from the outset.

If you want to take the time, you can find numerous news articles and other information going back to 1996, when this all began by doing google searches using various forms of "Oklahoma I-40 Realignment D Option".

Flawed is clearly in the eye of the beholder. We've got differing opinions, it's clear. There are those who want rail at any cost, and those who want aesthetics at any cost, and probably people with opinions somewhere in between. It doesn't make any of us right.....just opinionated. I know what my visions and hopes for Oklahoma City are, and they are in conflict with those of others. I just hope those who want rail at any cost actually have a vision, and a plan to make Oklahoma City a better place in which to live, work and recreate, and a place other people might want to visit. They are all important, and considering all of these factors should be all of our goals, no matter our bias.

I don't know what you mean by "rail at any cost" exactly betts. Oklahoma already has rail and is in the process of expanding its passenger service to Kansas City . . . clearly a positive step. Freight rail use continues to grow in Oklahoma as well. None of my friends and acquaintances want anything other than good things for OKC, and yes our approaches are varied. Rail is a much more fuel efficient way to move both freight and passengers (on reasonably full trains) and much safer than driving down the interstate. Rail transit has a long history of success in more densely populated areas and is slowly growing in popularity across the country.

As far was my stating that the process that brought us the "D-Option" was flawed, I stand by that belief whole heartedly. Whether by intent or neglect, the relocation of I-40 was a pure highway only plan and absolutely no consideration was given to the valuable rail infrastructure at Union Station. Granted, in 1996, there was only the beginning of the reemergance of interest in passenger rail, but planning transportation systems (Oklahoma Department of Transportation not Department of Highways) should be a comprehensive process, free from the influence of special interests, which it wasn't.

So, we move on from here and I look forward to public discourse continuing.

Light rail is just -- what?

Check this technology, reportedly chosen by Austin, Texas as a starter mode: Colorado Railcar - DMU (http://www.coloradorailcar.com/double-deck-dmu-home.htm)

Meets every FRA standard for mixed traffic use, as do the even less expensive Rail Diesel Cars that were used in the DFW Metroplex to begin Trinity Railway Express Service.

Disingenuous, quibbling, deliberately hair-splitting misuse of rail transit terminology is an old Istook trick.

Hopefully, Oklahomans have had a belly full of that.

TOM ELMORE

Nice try Tom but you realize Colorado Rail Car has only sold one DMU and it was 5 years ago. The web site you linked to is now a shadow of its former self and has not been updated since May 2005. I once had hopes for Colorado Rail Car (if you do a search of OKCTalk you can see I was pushing them along time ago) but their model is flawed for some reason. Just for fun check out Skytran. It is another rail idea that never took off. Maybe you can try pushing it on OKC also.

Unimodal, Inc (http://www.unimodal.com/)

I don't know what you mean by "rail at any cost" exactly betts. Oklahoma already has rail and is in the process of expanding its passenger service to Kansas City . . . clearly a positive step. Freight rail use continues to grow in Oklahoma as well. None of my friends and acquaintances want anything other than good things for OKC, and yes our approaches are varied. Rail is a much more fuel efficient way to move both freight and passengers (on reasonably full trains) and much safer than driving down the interstate. Rail transit has a long history of success in more densely populated areas and is slowly growing in popularity across the country. .

I don't know if you are a "rail at any cost" person. But there are people who are. I'm married to a train nut, although of the milder variety, so I know whereof I speak. There are people who could care less about any visions for reinventing OKC, for removing urban blight, for creating public parks, for thinking about ways both rail transit AND creation of a beautiful downtown can occur. Those people are in favor of rail at the price of removing the opportunity to take Oklahoma City from a boring, flavorless city to one that people from other cities admire and people here can enjoy. I am all in favor of rail to move freight, and I'm all in favor of rail travel. I've probably traveled by rail more than virtually anyone here, because I took the train to and from college in Denver and to and from graduate school in Ann Arbor. I spent my childhood taking the train from Minnesota to Nebraska and back every summer to visit my grandmother. I love trains and train travel.

But, I also believe that the line behind Union Station is not the be all and end all of rail transit. I'm pretty sure the line behind Union Station has about as little rail traffic as any existing line around. Therein lies my puzzlement. If we're not using it now, and BNSF doesn't want it, why is it such a vital line? If we don't even know if we'll need it for heavy commuter rail traffic, because we still haven't even established whether there's need for commuter traffic on it, why is it so important? We already know it's not a light rail line, and light rail would have to be added, at additional cost. Isn't there a east-west line south of the river that is active? How would the Union Station line supplant or supplement it? Is that even desirable? Is it worth ruining our Core to Shore plans, the one thing I've been really, really excited about since MAPS was proposed. The plan that takes my breath away, because it's one of the most ambitious plans for completely recreating a city I've ever seen. This line would not be involved in extending rail travel to Kansas City, and the Santa Fe station has been perfectly adequate and better located for Amtrak travel. Do we really need commercial freight moved on that line, rather than existing lines that are already moving freight?

No one has ever said a thing about destroying Union Station. We all realize what a treasure it is. But it won't look so pretty with all the add-ons that would need to be done to make it a multi-modal station and commercial depot, with the trucking freight bays, bus bays, parking surrounding it, etc, that exist at a multi-modal station.


As far was my stating that the process that brought us the "D-Option" was flawed, I stand by that belief whole heartedly. Whether by intent or neglect, the relocation of I-40 was a pure highway only plan and absolutely no consideration was given to the valuable rail infrastructure at Union Station. Granted, in 1996, there was only the beginning of the reemergance of interest in passenger rail, but planning transportation systems (Oklahoma Department of Transportation not Department of Highways) should be a comprehensive process, free from the influence of special interests, which it wasn't.

So, we move on from here and I look forward to public discourse continuing.

And again, I don't see the rail infrastructure at Union Station as particularly valuable, for all the reasons outlined above. I do support the plan to move an elevated highway to ground (or below ground level), in an attempt to decrease the need for maintenance, improve aesthetics significantly, and open up more land for development near our CBD. I would be fine with moving the highway south of the river, but regardless, I don't want to see our beautiful Union Station ruined by making it a commercial rail depot.

I also don't think that anybody has mentioned that in the CURRENT ODOT plan, they are re-routing one line, and two lines behind Union station will remain. The ON-TRAC folk are wanting the space reserved for 6+ lines. I have climbed around the tracks back there, and 2 lines are generous, the other rail lines back there are a mess, and will need significant investment to make them more than the class D lines they are now. The current set of active tracks are Class B and only rated for 50(ish) mph. The other issue is that if they do manage to persuade ODOT to shift the crosstown south, it will almost certainly mean that ODOT will have to absorb Little Flower Church and many other historic buildings to make way for the overpasses for the new I40.

Since I am a very visual person I am having trouble understanding what the On-Trac group is wanting and if they are totally against the Core to Shore plan?
I am with Betts on this one that this is our chance to transform this city in a way that may never come along again. I think we have to have a reason for people to come to the center of town in the first place, an attraction if you will. I envision a grand public space that will spur development along the river which will in turn give people a reason to use the rail in the first place. I understand the On-Trac's vision as well that the right of ways are here and will be much easier to use now before they are plowed under. I am just confused how their plans will affect the park or if it is their goal to not even have the park.

It's interesting to see how much debate this issue continues to create. I've also been busy covering the railyard fight recently. Garl Latham (OnTrac's Hired Rail Consultant) is adamant that Union Station is the only realistic spot for an intermodal transit center. However, he admits most of the existing infrastructure will need to be replaced.

ODOT's Project Engineer, John Bowman, said he didn't see OnTrac's proposal to shift the crosstown south until Monday's senate hearing. He couldn't tell me why. Latham also couldn't explain why the group hadn't approached ODOT before.

What are your thoughts about this? Will Norman, El Reno and Chickasha's votes matter? And ultimately, will Governor Henry really intervene?

Jordan Williams
Reporter, KOCO-TV 5