View Full Version : Urban Transportation OKC 2020



Pages : [1] 2

bubfloyd
04-06-2005, 03:38 PM
For years now, we in OKC have been wedded to the plan to relocate I-40 several blocks to the South and replace much of the existing I-40 with an at grade boulevard. “The D Option”. The process by which the overall design was arrived at was bathed in an aura of public input. And, there was considerable public input, press releases, copies of plans distributed, models displayed etc. But many of the facts that have come to light in the past few years as ODOT, OKC and The US Congress wrangled with the financing of this very expensive five miles of highway, were not disclosed or publicly discussed

What is becoming more and more clear, in my feeble mind at least, is that although this new stretch of roadway will remove most of the present I-40 eyesore and allow downtown to expand nicely to the south, the current design will require that a very functional railyard, that would be the envy of Dallas, Denver and Salt Lake City will be destroyed. And, in the process, the opportunity to easily and inexpensively develop a first rate urban transportation system with Union Station as its hub will be lost. The Union Station and its associated multi track railyard could form a transportation hub for light rail, heavy rail, street cars, busses, taxies etc. with existing rail links to Will Rogers Airport, The OKC Zoo area and much more.

When I-40 first hit the drawing boards several years ago, MAPS was only a twinkle in Mayor Norick's eye and only the homeless lived in Downtown OKC. In 2005 we see a major urban revitilization well under way and thousands of OKCityians will take up residnece downtown over the next few years. The game has changed. The need for a more diverse and effective urban transportaion system is now becoming a topic for discussion and OKC DOT is doing a new study. But the door to the Hub, Union Station, will soon be closed and locked. The Union Station building will remain, but the rail yard will be only a memory.

One of the most knowledgable and articulate individuals on the subject of transportation in general and rail transportation in particular, living in Oklahoma City, or anywhere for that matter, has to be Tom Elmore. Tom is sometimes way over the top but his case for Union Station and what its loss will mean to the future urban growth of OKC is right on target. Tom can be heard on AM 1520 tomorrow morning beginning at 7AM. Below is a copy of the text from an e-mail from him letting me know about the upcoming broadcast. I guarantee that it will be interesting and informative. Tune in and join in.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From Tom Elmore:

I'm scheduled to appear on KOKC Radio's Steve Summers show tomorrow morning at 7:00 am. KOKC is at 1520 AM, formerly known as KOMA. The plan is to discuss the future of Union Station, transit and the "New Crosstown."

In preparation for the show the host accompanied me on a tour of Union Station yesterday morning. As we walked down the ramp into the passenger tunnels, three guys with Poe and Associates were walking out. Undoubtedly, they were down there plotting the destruction of the tunnels.

We further noticed that behind the station the path of the highway appears to be staked. The stakes have yellow marker ribbons with elevations written on them.

I don't know the exact portent of all that, as to a time frame for ODOT's intended destruction. I wouldn't be surprised to find the ODOT folks straining every nerve and every available dollar to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible thinking "that'll end the argument." After all, the current Crosstown deck needs an asphalt overlay to stabilize it for interim use, and I don't think they're gonna do that until they believe they've shut the detractors up once and for all. Leaving the Crosstown deck as it is now offers the prospect for "media events" occasioned by the predictable falling chunks of concrete. Not particularly dangerous, but valuable in convincing the public that it's all "about to fall down" -- part of the big lie that is Oklahoma's own "Little Big Dig," the "New Crosstown project."

Listen in tomorrow morning if you can.

TOM ELMORE

Sooner&RiceGrad
04-06-2005, 03:48 PM
Welcome to OKC Talk!

I am glad you brought this up. This is worth a very good debate.

Now, currently we see NO future prospects of light rail surfacing, yet we do see prospects of Downtown moving South. Look, I see it as both would be nice. Although I don't see Union Station necessary for urban rail to take shape in OKC. I don't think that the existing rail yard is the envy of Dallas & Denver either... or is this something that is going to be built?

Unfortunately I haven't heard about this. But I do completely support the relocation of I 40. I also think the boulevard would provide easier access to downtown, something we need.

And just why do we need urban rail anyway? Isn't it supposed to help our downtown, and provide easier access to it? Keepingthat option open, according to Tom Elmore, means we have to abbort our Little Big Dig which would do just that.

soonerguru
04-06-2005, 03:59 PM
SoonerGrad,

One thing to keep in mind is that Istook has made it clear that we will have rail over his dead body only.

I've visited the Union Station site and it is absolutely phenomenal. It might be the most beautiful bldg in all of downtown OKC. I've also toured the rail yard and it is absolutely set up for urban rail right now.

Why would we want to destroy infrastructure that could be put to use for later rail service?

I'm not certain what they're destroying or not destroying but I've heard both scenarios. This is enough of a concern that we should probably pay attention to what's happening before it's too late.

One of the best arguments OKC currently has to eventually provide rail service is we have existing infrastructure. It wouldn't be as costly for us to build it as it was for Dallas and other cities to build infrastructure that wasn't there, get right of ways, etc.

Midtowner
04-06-2005, 04:09 PM
SoonerGrad,

One thing to keep in mind is that Istook has made it clear that we will have rail over his dead body only.


That's not what I got -- and I researched it rather throroughly. He commissioned COTPA to do a study, COTPA spent $500,000 on a study, COTPA reported that currently, light rail would be a money pit for Oklahoma. Istook then, according to his fiscally conservative principles voted against it. I'm not sure what kind of feasibility studies were done in Salt Lake, but that's not even really germane to this topic.



I've visited the Union Station site and it is absolutely phenomenal. It might be the most beautiful bldg in all of downtown OKC. I've also toured the rail yard and it is absolutely set up for urban rail right now.

Why would we want to destroy infrastructure that could be put to use for later rail service?


I concur, the research I did said it would cost about $20-$40 milloin/mile to build light rail. At that cost, it's insane to destroy perfectly good infrastructure, if indeed that's what we have.

This isn't the site I originally got that info, but it has some info that you might enjoy on light rail:

http://www.tucsonlightrail.org/vsfreeways.htm



I'm not certain what they're destroying or not destroying but I've heard both scenarios. This is enough of a concern that we should probably pay attention to what's happening before it's too late.

One of the best arguments OKC currently has to eventually provide rail service is we have existing infrastructure. It wouldn't be as costly for us to build it as it was for Dallas and other cities to build infrastructure that wasn't there, get right of ways, etc.

I agree on the "eventually". I would like it to be a more assured thing that it wouldn't be a money pit. If it were fast (and if I didn't live only 1.5 miles from work), I would probably use light rail, especially if I had to commute downtown from someplace like Edmond.

That'll probably never be a reality for me though as I need transportation once I get to work, and I always will (to and from the courthouse):D

Sooner&RiceGrad
04-06-2005, 04:12 PM
I wouldn't mind it being put in the medians of streets in downtown, that would be efficient. Or we could probably wipe out a few streets and have a like a pedestrian mall with a light rail line, like in Houston.

And actually, Istook, while being influential in I 40's relocation, does not rule OKC. And will not 10 years from now even be elected. Someone better might come along.

I would love to see urban rail. But I think I 40 needs to be relocated more. I also think we can have both.

And, Union Station's beauty is irrelevant. The plans for relocation don't even touch it so... yeah.

Sooner&RiceGrad
04-06-2005, 04:17 PM
Great link!

Midtowner
04-06-2005, 04:19 PM
I wouldn't mind it being put in the medians of streets in downtown, that would be efficient. Or we could probably wipe out a few streets and have a like a pedestrian mall with a light rail line, like in Houston.


Which downtown are you referring to? There are only a few streets I can think of that even have medians -- Couch (because of the park there), E.K. Gaylord, and some of Broadway. The rest of the streets are too narrow for a median with the possible exceptions of Hudson and Walker -- and really, even then, it'd be a squeeze.



And actually, Istook, while being influential in I 40's relocation, does not rule OKC. And will not 10 years from now even be elected. Someone better might come along.


Not to mention, he's lost his seat of power, and is quickly becoming an irrelevant force in the House. We are/will be soon returning to donor status.



I would love to see urban rail. But I think I 40 needs to be relocated more. I also think we can have both.

And, Union Station's beauty is irrelevant. The plans for relocation don't even touch it so... yeah.

You missed his point. He was saying that Union Station would be a wonderful facility to have both because it is beautiful, and also because it is already functionally prepared to handle that kind of load -- which is not something I'm sure of. Does light rail use the same gauge track as is in that yard presently? There are other concerns, but that is what he was shooting for.

Yeah, I-40 does need to be relocated, but I concur, the current placement has created some real question marks for me.

Sooner&RiceGrad
04-06-2005, 04:24 PM
Well actually I understand that it does. I'll have to look it up to be sure, I did just post that I was ignorant to it.

http://images.ibsys.com/2004/0102/2737325_200X150.jpg

I think we'll find space, like Houston did. LOL

Midtowner
04-06-2005, 04:57 PM
Houston has the 7th largest downtown in the world (or so I've read). We ain't Houston.

Sooner&RiceGrad
04-06-2005, 05:04 PM
Yeah. I just posted that b/c Houston did not have much space either.

renffahcs
04-06-2005, 05:26 PM
Does OKC have any abandon freight lines. Fort Worths line, Trinity Railway, is on the old Rock Island Line. The second line will be the old Cotton Belt Line. Yes, it is commuter rail instead of light rail but who cares. Since I don't live in OKC I am just asking if this would be an alternative to constructing new rail and right of ways?

Sooner&RiceGrad
04-06-2005, 05:47 PM
Well. None that are abandoned to my knowledge, but there may be something in Capital Hill. They wouldn't deserve (LOL) rail anyway.

The Old Downtown Guy
04-06-2005, 06:07 PM
There is still lots of buried rail in OKC, but I don't think that is the issue that bubfloyd was trying to point out and that Tom Elmore has been harping on for years. The Union Station's rail yard could serve as the hub to link more than just on light rail line to another. If The City started today; planing a rail link to the airport it might be running by 2010. But a transportation hub is not just where you go to get on a light rail system. You get off rail there and catch a shuttle to your downtown hotel, a cab to your business meeting in far west OKC or get on one of the little rubber tired trollys that carry tons of folks today. It's not just about light rail and fixed rail trollys. Who knows, mono-rail might come back. Light Rail like in the photos of Houston is only one component. The important issue is that with the beginning of construction of the new I-40 as it is presently designed, the Union Station rail yard is history.

Also, Rep. Istook is already history. Remember, he lost his position on the Transportaion Appropriation Committee. I will be very suprised if Oklahoma accumulates the Federal dollars to build that project in twenty years. But, I am guessing that they already have the money to level the Union Station rail yard.

As a businessman, when conditions change dramaticly, like what is going on in downtown, I back up . . look around . . and adapt to the new situation. At this late date, it will take a lot of pressure from OKC and a lot of creative thinking by ODOT to get changes to the I-40 plan that would result in retaining any part of the rail yard.

I'll have the radio on in the morning to see what Tom has to say.

Sooner&RiceGrad
04-06-2005, 06:11 PM
Well I have enough earsore when I get into work...

Can you improve on what you said about the Union Station rail yard being history?

HOT ROD
04-06-2005, 07:05 PM
[QUOTE=soonerguru]SoonerGrad,

One thing to keep in mind is that Istook has made it clear that we will have rail over his dead body only.
[QUOTE]

Then its time for a big dig for Istook, and put him in it!

Sooner&RiceGrad
04-06-2005, 07:51 PM
... t'would cost too much. Let's just dump him in the Oklahoma River and noone will notice.

travis
04-06-2005, 08:59 PM
I have had mixed feeling about this for awhile. I believe that the current I-40 bridge needs to be replaced eventually; not because it is about to fall down, but because it does not meet current highway design standards. It has narrow lanes, no shoulders, and short merge lengths with the on-ramps. If the bridge were about to fail, why is a section of it being kept for use with the future boulevard. I don't know why it can't be kept in it's current location and widened to the south. Put it below grade for asthetics and noise reduction; allowing the cross street to go over it at grade. i know there are some problems with access, but these could be addressed through the use of frontage roads.

I am really not sure how the new location will work. I have yet to see any detailed plans, but I believe most of it is supposed to be below grade paralleling a rail line. To provide adequate clearance for the overhead cross street bridges, the rail line will have to be very deep, or the cross streets will have to be raised high. The rail line also can't handle steep grades (anything over 1%) like a highway. Other rail lines are being rerouted, raising the cost.

I am not sure of the future of rail transit in OKC, but the railyard should be considered an option. There are direct lines there to almost every corner of the metro area. Even if one or two lines are kept at the station, I think the line to the south west, right by the airport, will be severed. I don't know what the previous study involved, but I would be wary of anything done by COPTA. Also, I believe there is a conflict of interest with the current transit study being performe. Carter-Burgeis is a very reputable engineering firm, with a lot of experience with rail design, but they are also designing a section of the new I-40.

okcpulse
04-06-2005, 11:52 PM
... t'would cost too much. Let's just dump him in the Oklahoma River and noone will notice.

I've always respected you Sooner&Rice. Now it's just flat out admiration. I've shared that single thought all along!!!

Patrick
04-07-2005, 02:00 AM
When we put together OCART several years ago, Tom Elmore attended several of our meetings, and I got to know him fairly well. All I have to say, is the guy definiterly knows what he's talking about, and city leaders have basically given him the silent treatment. One of these days when we actually do have to build a commuter rail system, the city leaders of that die will curse the city leaders of today for wanting to destroy the Union Station Rail Yard. It isn't Union Station itself that's so valuable. It's the rail yard. You'd have to go looka tit to see what I mean....the number of tracks, the tunnels underneath the tracks, the elevation, etc. are all perfect for a commuter rail hub!

That yard is actually worth millions and our city leaders just don't understand that, or they don't care. Our children will care someday when they're having to pay $100 mill to replace what we destroyed to relocate I-40.

Mick Cornett, if you're reading, listen to Tom Elmore. The guy knows what he's talking about, and we as a city are about to make a huge mistake that will damage the future of rail transit in our city forever.

TheImmortal
04-07-2005, 09:32 AM
I also believe the city is making a huge mistake my destroying this railyard. But honestly what can we do? well raise public awareness of course. I know there are a few groups out there with sites that are doing this. i dont have the exact links at the moment but will try to ge them up here sooner or later. I think light rail is going to be huge in OKC, especially say in 20 or 30 years. And like everyone else has said, the city will kicking itself in the foot for doing this. I think the development that could occur in between the new boulevard and new I-40 would be a definite plus, but i dont think it would be better in the long run than having to build a whole new hub 30 years from now. The infrastructure is in place, so lets take advantage of it. But the bottomline is I think public awareness about this issue needs to be considerbly more present in the media and this issue needs to be exposed as much as possible. I think the rail yard can be saved. But not without the issue being brought to the full attention of the public.

HOT ROD
04-07-2005, 07:02 PM
why didnt the city use Union Station for AMTRAK? It sounds like a much better place for it (as it has a rail-yard) than Santa Fe. They should have used Union and turned Santa Fe into a museum!

Sooner&RiceGrad
04-07-2005, 07:08 PM
http://www.flroads.net/tb/fl618/fl618-from_fl60eb.jpg

The point stands. The thing needs to be knocked down.

And thank-you, Pulse. Never really knew much about you, but I knew you were a decent member here. I just like to raise ruckous occasionally.

metro
04-08-2005, 09:37 AM
I dont understand why you think it needs to be torn down? Engineers, ODOT and others have said many times its structurally sound it just needs repairs and re-decking. Many larger downtowns have interstates intersecting their downtowns and they are raised as well. We can still develop our downtown southbound without tearing down our infrastructure. Keeping the rail yards is far more crucial than relocating our highway.

Sooner&RiceGrad
04-08-2005, 03:06 PM
No, we can't move downtown South. You don't put a decrepit freeway like that in the middle of a downtown.

Sooner&RiceGrad
04-08-2005, 04:22 PM
Here's what light rail in OKC would look like:

http://www.keyokc.com/0202/trolley2.jpg

Midtowner
04-08-2005, 07:06 PM
Here's what light rail in OKC would look like:

http://www.keyokc.com/0202/trolley2.jpg


I see one of our current rubber-tire trollies in that picture.

gtelmore
04-08-2005, 10:52 PM
Check Gomaco Trolleys on the web to see the new vintage trolleys they sell and to see the detail on the system Little Rock is now installing. That's right -- Little Rock, less dense than OKC.

Vintage trolleys are a good start. That's what the proposed 1996 2.7 mile circulator in Downtown / Bricktown might have used and it's not only cheaper than light rail but has tremendous charm. Extend that circulator down Harvey and up Hudson, linking it to Rail Diesel Cars like those used by DART Trinity Railway Express at Union Station, or even the newer Colorado Rail Car DMUs (check the net on those) and we could immediately establish rail service linking Will Rogers Airport to Downtown (former Frisco line -- whose link to Union Station would be entirely destroyed by the "New Crosstown") -- also serving Farmers Market, Stockyards, Wheatland, Mustang, Tuttle / Newcastle, Chickasha, Lawton/ Ft. Sill and Altus / Altus AFB. Link an interim rail stop at Airport Freeway / S. Meridian to the WRA terminal using a motor trolley or shuttle bus. This can be done NOW.

Folks -- the argument about the effectiveness and acceptability of rail transit is over. Phoenix, Little Rock, Austin, and other Westerm cities are going with it. They've LEARNED from St. Louis, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Denver and Salt Lake.

The key is this: If you HAVE a rail network, USE it. That TRUMPS "density" arguments. Strange, isn't it, that we "have the density to carry $40 billion in unfunded highway maintenance need around on our shoulders," and we "have the density to pay $2.16 a gallon for gasoline," and we "have the density to pay $500 million for 5 miles of unnecessary new expressway," but we "DON'T" have the density to establish universally accessible transport using existing assets!?! It's a bunch of diversionary doublespeak and always has been.

Here's the simple truth - NO OTHER CITY IN THE WEST would now do what we're about to do with an asset like OKC Union Station. No city, that is, except ours.

Rail transportation CREATES new densities. It raises property values and revitalizes old urban neighborhoods and business areas. It increases mobility with no down side. It brings people -- without their cars, and without new parking need, street congestion and pollution. As XD John Landrum of Dallas' seminal McKinney Avenue Transit System (vintage trolleys started on 1887 rail lines in McKinney Avenue 15 years ago...), "our trolleys have created a restaurant row where there wasn't one before and brought in $100 million in new commercial development; the message is clear: pick a place you want economic development and put rail service in there!"

There's a reason Mayor Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake pleads with other cities not to make the mistake Salt Lake made in the presumptuous, precipitous destruction of its historic Rio Grande and Union Paciific Rail Yards prior to the coming of TRAX. They're "working around it now" -- but at high, high cost, and what they develop will NEVER be as good as what they had.

ODOT's policies and "leaders" over the last 20 years have put us into $40 billion of unfunded highway maintenance need. What they propose today is MORE of what they've always done. There's no excuse for that to be sure -- but what excuse is there for a citizenry that would blindly continue to follow such people?

Our children and grandchildren will surely note that whatever decision we make about the Union Station yard will have been made in the face of overwhelming data urging its preservation and reuse, in the "post 9-11-01 world," and in an era of the highest retail gasoline prices on record. We have no excuse -- and history will offer us no hiding place.

TOM ELMORE

metro
04-09-2005, 11:59 AM
No, we can't move downtown South. You don't put a decrepit freeway like that in the middle of a downtown.

What is your factoidal backing for this statement? I know plenty of downtowns that have old decrepit highways like ours that have expanded with no problem. Take a look at Tulsa, Memphis, Nashville, Greenville/Spartanburg, and lots of other eastern cities that were overbuilt too fast. Heck, even downtown Atlanta has parts of their highways downtown that aren't ideal like ours. The fact is we can expand south without a new highway. As a matter of fact, I would bet money that it will. You don't think our city will expand south now with the river project being completed? Last I checked it already has and will continue to as more and more projects continue to come that area. Especially when alot of the junk yards and vacant properties are cleaned up and/or raised. Bricktown already has expanded southbound past the "decrepit highway" with the Land Run Monument and OKC Rocks as well as soon to be riverboats similar to the canalboats. The opportunity is there already!

gtelmore
04-09-2005, 02:57 PM
Funny thing about Sooner and Rice Grad's photo of a motor trolley on Mickey Mantle Way -- that street was designed to incorporate a single track trolley rail line when it was recently rebuilt. I worked for the railway construction contractor involved in the project back about '98 -- and our outfit had the contract to lay the track. After several delays, we were called to bring the materials for the construction. The welded segments (comprised, each, of two 39' rails welded into 78' sticks) were loaded on a rented telescopic trailer and sat behind the idling tractor in our yard while we drove the route in one of the pickups to make certain the way was clear. Once in Bricktown, we checked in with the main contractor in his trailer. There, several ashen faced men turned to tell us, "sorry, guys, this project was just cancelled 15 minutes ago." "Who cancelled it?" my boss asked. No answer. "I'm betting Ernest Istook cancelled it," I said.

That was it. Job over. I heard later that it cost more to fill up the channel designed to receive the railroad track with whatever it was stuffed with before being paved and bricked over than laying the rails would have cost. Note the "alcove" or indention in the curb there in front of the Ballpark. That was supposed to be a REAL trolley stop.

Later, I heard on very good authority that a fomer COTPA director had publicly admitted it WAS, indeed, Istook who shot down the attempt to lay that short rail line -- apprarently threatening that if the city did that with local money, it would niver get a sniff of federal funding. Of course, that was a lot of baloney -- but, once again, Istook bluffed and blustered successfully and faint-hearted city leaders backed down.

One thing Istook has always understood: If Central Oklahomans ever get one opportunity to experience rail transit in their own city, it will go just as it has gone in every other Western city trying it over the last 15 years -- gangbusters. This he has consistently prevented -- making certain Oklahomans continue to contribute money to the Federal Transit Trust Fund that they don't get back and can't successfully compete for. This benefits his very good friends elsewhere, and that's apparently the congressman's primary job, as he sees it.

So, in the matter of an efficient, universally accessible and strategically redundant transportation system, Oklahomans are strung up among competing sets of self-interested power structures -- the anything-for-a-quick-buck developers, the better-to-rule-in-hell-than-serve-in-heaven highway lobby, and Utah Ernie Istook and his very good friends.

The latest Utah rail project links the Salt Lake metro workforce to Hill AFB, the "third Air Logistics Center" via commuter rail. As the world changes, an inevitable question at some point regarding "Military Base Closing and Realignment" will be, "how will you ensure workforce access to our base in the event of a worldwide curtailment of oil supply?"

Our Utah neighbors are building their answer right now -- even as their friend Istook strains every nerve to destroy ours. Check local rail maps. You'll see an exsiting line from OKC Union Station's yard through the old neighborhoods of Midwest City right into the north side of Tinker AFB, the state's largest single employer. If you know Tinker folks, ask them about their daily competitions with Hill AFB for contracts.

By the way, Altus AFB, Ft. Sill and Vance AFB are all linked to Tinker by existing rail lines -- via OKC Union Station.

As to the fate of Altus and Vance, it's getting very late; however, the Joint Chiefs and others have said that the smaller bases with more redundant missions which stay will be strongly influenced by "quality of life" for the families that live on those bases.

I asked an official of the Altus Chamber is they ever bother to talk to the rank and file at Altus AFB. She seemed to indicate that they don't. They talk to the commaders and other big shots. I noted to her what's been said about the value of quality of life boosts for the military families. I then said -- if you'd talked to them, you'd have found that many have lived in Europe, Japan and Britain. Generally, they miss one thing about living in those places -- and that's the rail services. They can't afford a half-dozen cars -- but fast, inexpensive rail access to metropolitan centers and other places would make a tremendous difference in their lives, as it would for all other residents of your area. The fate of OKC Union Station very definitely affects that prospect.

But, hey -- that's OK, isn't it? As the executive director of Oklahoma Good Roads and Transportation said at a recent meeting of the Oklahoma Economic Roundtable, "when you're a highway contractor, ANY highway project is a "GOOD" highway project..."

TOM ELMORE

HOT ROD
04-09-2005, 04:43 PM
Gtelmore,

You should run for office! We need progressive, outspoken (in a good way), knowledgeable, visionary people like you to counter the conservative, good ole-boy system in place.

I hope your views about our airport are as passionate and visionary as they are about rapid transit. Please consider, it would be great to have you, Metro, and MrAnderson in some leadership office - Municipal, DowntownOKC Inc, OKC Chamber, OKC Airport. What would really be awesome would be to have you guys in all four!

Pete
04-09-2005, 04:54 PM
I'd love to see OKC get some sort of light-rail system but I don't see anyone mentioning a possible link to Norman/OU.

I've long thought that the OKC/OU connection has been vastly underutilized from the perspective of both entities.

Having OU as part of OKC's MSA is one of it's greatest assets, especially since it's an up-and-coming university.


Ideally, I'd like to see a link from UCO down to the NCB&WHM, the zoo & Omniplex, state capitol, HSC, Triangle, downtown/bricktown, Capitol Hill and ultimately Norman/OU, South Campus/National Weather Center.

East/west should include the airport, Dell, fairgrounds, new developments on the Oklahoma River, Union Station, Native American Center, Tinker, etc.

HOT ROD
04-09-2005, 05:00 PM
Definitely agree.

I think another route should be the old interurban line, which ran down Classen Blvd. That would be a great way to revitalize the inner city as a tourist attraction, with stops at Little Asia, Paseo, and the Plaza districts along with venerable OKC university, the NW Expressway Business District, Penn Square, Nichols Hills, and Midtown OKC to Downtown CBD and then on to Bricktown.

Maybe then extend it from Bricktown up to the Health Sciences Centre then to the Capital District.

In addition to the commuter lines Malibu listed, I would love to see the return of the interurban line, as a light rail or heritage trolley.

Pete
04-09-2005, 05:04 PM
Yes, that area straddling either side of Classen is one of the best parts of OKC and has suffered the most from the ridiculous urban sprawl and rush to live in the middle of cow pastures.

Beautiful trees, historic homes, etc.


Also, a connection to the new and improved St. Anthonys would be awesome.

HOT ROD
04-09-2005, 05:08 PM
Yes Malibu,

St Anthony is in midtown which is along or close (I forget how close) to Classen and the old interurban route.

Gtelmore, you may want to correct me.

gtelmore
04-09-2005, 06:41 PM
Thanks, for my part, for the good words. My aviation experience, other than 7 years traveling seven states for an east coast company back in the mid-80s to early 90s is limited to private pilot training in the 70s and a lifelong passion for the history of aviation development and especially military aircraft. My dad taught me to draw when I was a little boy drawing WWII-era naval aircraft. He'd been a WWII era NCO Helldiver crewman -- and went on to be the printing and graphics guy for the Noble Foundation in Ardmore for 40 years. At airshows or sometimes just watching some stray plane fly overhead I automatically start chattering "type, subtype and manufacturer" names, letters and numbers once my eyes lock onto the shapes imprinted on my brain both by dad and all those CB Colby books from the Ardmore Library 40 years ago

Anyway -- glad to listen to your views about the Airport. Always glad for new information. Air and access to air terminals both for people and freight are certainly a big part of any modern multimodal plan.

Are you familiar with the former Frisco rail line that parallels SH 152 west of I-240 / 44? For many years, a spur came off of that line directly into the Monroney FAA Center. I've heard lately that some of it's been taken out, but it could probably be replaced. Check any local map for a look at the main line. From the north portal to Will Rogers Airport at S. Meridian and Airport Freeway, it's literally a perfectly straight "rifle shot" along the line via a historic overpass north of SW 10th over May Avenue, across Agnew in the middle of the Stockyards area then roughly paralleling Exchange over the river, where it turns slightly to the West to meet Union Station. From there, the line extends back across the river, running along the north side after it passes under I-35 and then turning to the northeast -- via Jones, Chandler, Stroud, Bristow, Sapulpa and Tulsa (the northeasterly segment is owned by the State).

The "New Crosstown plan" would destroy the westerly river bridge, cutting the direct rail link from Union Station to the Stockyards and Airport. Of course, that line extends to the southwest to Wheatland, Mustang, Tuttle-Newcastle, Chickasha, Lawton-Ft. Sill and Altus, Altus AFB, linking to the old Ft. Worth and Denver BNSF line at Quanah, Texas.

Irreplaceable? Yep.

Back sometime last year, a documentary histortorian working for Parsons Brinkerhoff engineering was working on the required "preservation effort" in the "New Crosstown" corridor (photographing and writing detailed descriptions of assets like the Robinson and Walnut Street underpasses before they're destroyed). He was interviewed by the DAILY OKLAHOMAN's Ann DeFrange. Clearly appalled, he "slipped" and made a candid statement borne of years of experience working in such efforts -- something like, "well, highway builders don't CARE what they destroy."

Eyoww! Holy cow! The TRUTH!

Because that little bit of light was allowed to slip under the wall of carefully calculated nonsense and doubletalk that ODOT had erected during its "route study," the historian's pay was apparently threatened until he RE-interviewed with Ms. DeFrange and more or less apologized for his "terrible error." God forbid that a man being paid with the taxpayers' money to benefit the self-interested bigshots SLIP and tell the awful truth!

What was really hilarious was watching ODOT's "spokeslady" fall all over herself trying to plug the small hole that "light" was beaming through. Terrible thing trying to "serve the public" these days. "Protecting them" from the truth is sometimes an unexpectedly bumpy ride.

TOM ELMORE

gtelmore
04-09-2005, 07:19 PM
Re: Rail service to OU

I try very hard to persuade folks to discard the term "light rail" as a general description. "Rail transit" is a more accurate term. All new, electric "light rail" is very, very expensive and requires dedicated rail lines, ie, can't share tracks with freight or heavier passenger modes. For that reason, guys like Istook can talk about "how VERY expensive rail transit is..." while blurring the technological lines.

Look at Colorado Rail Car "DMUs" on the net. These are fabulous, new-tech self-propelled, Federal Railroad Administration mixed-traffic approved, diesel passenger cars that could be used right now on our existing standard rail lines (Union Station to WR Airport, Mustang, Lawton / Fairgrounds, OSU Tech, I-40 Meridian, Yukon, El Reno, Calumet, Weatherford w/ links to Enid / I-44 corridor to Tulsa, I-40 corridor to Shawnee, Seminole, Holdenville, McAlester -- AND, BNSF mainline to Moore, Norman, Purcell(and/or north on the same line to Edmond, Guthrie, Ponca)/ Midwest City, Tinker, and -- oh yeah, and the historic former KATY line through Bricktown, the neighborhoods of the near NE near the Health Sciences Center, the NE Museum district, Lincoln Park and the Zoo/Omniplex/Remington Park.

These might actually be seen initially more as hybrid local-regional commuter lines than as immediate candidates for all-new electric light rail.

The old electric Interurban lines to Norman, and Guthrie are now occupied by I-35 south and the Broadway extension to the north. Sharing the heavily-used BNSF freight main (the line to Norman) might be a real negotiating job, but it could probably be done. That line links to Union Station and its lines, and, of course, is used by the Heartland Flyer today.

As to the Classen trolley line -- yes, it ran up what is now Classen to Belle Isle. Some of that track is probably still under the pavement. Check McKinney Avenue Transit Authority on the net to see what can be done with old trolley track. It's nearly unbelievable what they've achieved. A fellow who has an antique car parts business on east Main is very knowledgeable about where the old trolley tracks still remain under the asphalt.

Old trolley lines could be revitalized with "new vintage trolleys" far more cheaply than all new "light rail."

Light rail is GREAT -- but the start up is expensive, and REALLY expensive when new rights of way have to be purchased. So -- to get there, I'd say it's important to start with what's available on the standard rail lines (which is why I talk so much about the east-west lines lying directly through the Union Station yard) to get the voting public on-board.

The first segment of DART Rail -- mostly comprised of REAL, very leading-edge light rail running on all-new tracks constructed on old freight rail rights of way and some downtown street running (West End, Pearl Street, etc) -- was built, NOT with federal funds (no wrangling with congressmen), but with a local penny sales tax. Suburbs that wanted in on it had to equal that. The suburbs that DIDN'T now wish they had!

So - my argument would be that we use the fabulous rail network we have as inexpensively as possible to get the central Oklahoma public committed to the idea -- and then THEY will demand that a true, multimodal transit network be fleshed out with a mix of light rail, vintage trolley and connecting bus services. Union Station is the key -- because it is simply the best potential hub in the West, and it's SITTING THERE, begging for intelligent reuse!

Until the middle class is committed, transit goes nowhere. The middle class won't ride buses. They LOVE trains. When the trains connect to buses in the outer reaches of the system, bus ridership rises. When the middle class experiences quality transit, it wants MORE -- and has the political clout to GET more. This pattern has played out over and over again in Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake, etc.

Union Station would be the marshalling point -- in exactly the right place -- for intericty passenger trains, diesel mainline regional commuter trains, local light rail, local transit bus and intercity bus services like Greyhound. It's indispensible.

Sorry to go on and on so -- but I hope this helps.

TOM ELMORE

xrayman
04-09-2005, 09:34 PM
I try very hard to persuade folks to discard the term "light rail" as a general description. "Rail transit" is a more accurate term. All new, electric "light rail" is very, very expensive and requires dedicated rail lines, ie, can't share tracks with freight or heavier passenger modes. For that reason, guys like Istook can talk about "how VERY expensive rail transit is..." while blurring the technological lines.

I agree, Tom. Good luck as you continue your fight. I only wish we could dump Istook in '06. A serious primary challenge is a real possibility. The man is arrogant, rude, and deserves to get the boot. It just amazes me what a jerk he is to constituents - in even public settings! He has no shame and forgets who pays his salary. Pompous little jerk may be packing his bags sooner rather than later.

Keep up the fight for rail!

bubfloyd
04-11-2005, 11:39 AM
Not totally on this thread's topic, but too many threads spoil the broth.

I attended the Heartland Flyer rally at the State Capitol this morning (about 150 in the crowd) and listened to several mayors and others speak to the need to fund Olahoma Amtrak into the future. There is a bill in the works that would go out 15 years. There is documented returns of over $29 Million to date on the OKC to Fort Worth line and ridership of over 300K. The Fed investment that got it up and running was a little over $23 Million. The annual cost to keep it on track is $3.9 Million. The same cost as constructing 1/4 mile of urban highway. Also, the big pitch is to extend the line through Gutherie and on to Kansas with it's nationwide connections. Mayor Cornett is really on board and working hard to keep this line running. If this seems as no-brainer to you as it does to me, write and/or call any frinds you have in the House and Senate to support this effort. And call or drop Mick a line to express your appreciation for his very up front leadership on this vital issue.

Patrick
04-11-2005, 11:42 AM
Not totally on this thread's topic, but too many threads spoil the broth.

I attended the Heartland Flyer rally at the State Capitol this morning (about 150 in the crowd) and listened to several mayors and others speak to the need to fund Olahoma Amtrak into the future. There is a bill in the works that would go out 15 years. There is documented returns of over $29 Million to date on the OKC to Fort Worth line and ridership of over 300K. The Fed investment that got it up and running was a little over $23 Million. The annual cost to keep it on track is $3.9 Million. The same cost as constructing 1/4 mile of urban highway. Also, the big pitch is to extend the line through Gutherie and on to Kansas with it's nationwide connections. Mayor Cornett is really on board and working hard to keep this line running. If this seems as no-brainer to you as it does to me, write and/or call any frinds you have in the House and Senate to support this effort. And call or drop Mick a line to express your appreciation for his very up front leadership on this vital issue.

Hey bubfloyd, for once someone finally got the mayor's true feelings on this! Thanks! For sometime now a few members on this forum have been putting down our mayor for not doing more to fight to save Amtrak! The mayor has told me personally his opinon on the matter, but others have blown it off.

bubfloyd
04-11-2005, 01:42 PM
Patrick wrote: For sometime now a few members on this forum have been putting down our mayor for not doing more to fight to save Amtrak! The mayor has told me personally his opinon on the matter, but others have blown it off.

My sense is that The Mayor has given this a lot of thought and has laid his groundwork before going public. He is a sharp guy with a good feel for the politics in an issue like this. He has now weiged in and I don't think that would be the case unless he saw a good chance to post it in the W column.

Sooner&RiceGrad
04-11-2005, 02:33 PM
OK, thank you Tom.

Well, it seems we have no choice. But, let's debate this: If we keep the freeway in place, will it hurt our vision for an upscale-urban riverside?

Patrick
04-11-2005, 03:41 PM
My sense is that The Mayor has given this a lot of thought and has laid his groundwork before going public. He is a sharp guy with a good feel for the politics in an issue like this. He has now weiged in and I don't think that would be the case unless he saw a good chance to post it in the W column.

For once someone finally got this right, BEFORE attacking the mayor. As I said before, we've had several people on this forum attack the mayor for not doing anything to further Amtrak or other rail options. I've tried to inform people that he works on a lot of the groundwork behind the scenes before revealing it to the media. For some reason, some people simply don't understand how local government works.

Patrick
04-11-2005, 03:42 PM
OK, thank you Tom.

Well, it seems we have no choice. But, let's debate this: If we keep the freeway in place, will it hurt our vision for an upscale-urban riverside?

I'm not Tom, but you do have a good point. It is true that the new highway will probably actually help improve the Riverside neighborhood, by attracting new business to the area. But, at the same time, I'm afraid moving the highway might draw business away from downtown.

Sooner&RiceGrad
04-11-2005, 04:04 PM
Well. I now see this as simillar to MAPS. We must continue to be progressive as we were then. Just b/c we have light rail, it does not mean gay marriage will be on it's way!

We have to preserve our urban districts, and vote for light rail when the issue comes up, and hopefully soon, b/c MAPS was just one part of the fight. We have to continue the spirit of urban renewal set by MAPS, and vote for ANOTHER tax to cover what will undoubtly be a large deficit, b/c we all know light rail/commuter does not come cheap.

gtelmore
04-11-2005, 04:25 PM
Great rally this morning. Evan Stair and his PRO (Passenger Rail Oklahoma) deserve much praise. Evan has worked tirelessly out of the spotlight for years talking to mayors up the line and working for expansion and improvement of FLYER service. He's a young family man who has spent a great deal of his own time and money to keep the Norman depot open on weekends -- providing refreshments and in and unobtrusive and friendly way urging passengers to make sure and write their elected officials. He then provides paper and pens, envelopes and even postage. He's encouraged thousands of letters on the subject. Super, super guy.

Then there's Mayor Cornett. Very refreshing to hear such a leader speaking out so clearly on the need for FLYER expansion and better transport.

Meanwhile, regarding Riverside -- I don't think we have to "destroy it to save it." The kind of transportation system we could build around Union Station moves PEOPLE safely, quickly and comfortably -- without having to accomodate more automobiles. The biggest thing to hit urban Dallas and Denver in the last 50 years is RAIL TRANSIT. That's the news in those cities. It compliments existing transport with tremendous new capacity that doesn't increase street congestion, doesn't require parking and serves EVERYBODY, not just auto operators.

Consider, also, that (f'rinstance...) DART Rail is built to a 100 year service life standard -- 5 complete Interstate-class highway pavement service lives. It will require no significant maintenance for 40 years. The rail cars themselves go for 50 years, get overhauled and go for another 50. No more expensive to build than highways, far cheaper to maintain, cleaner and more people friendly. Why wouldn't wise leaders WANT that kind of capability paralleling our streets and highways? Why wouldn't that add a dimension to Riverside and any redevelopment between downtown and the River projects superior to "new highways?"

TOM ELMORE

Patrick
04-12-2005, 12:26 AM
Tom, I don't think too many of us disagree with you here. You're words are music to our ears. I've personally agreed with your views for years now. Problem is, greed is involved, and regardless of how many facts you present, it's the greed in our state leaders that override the facts. A great first step would be to replace both Inhofe and Istook.

HOT ROD
04-12-2005, 11:30 PM
Patrick:

I have to stand corrected about my comments regarding Mayor Cornett. I see that he does have a true passion for Oklahoma City and is willing to go to bat for our resources, transportation included.

Then again, I do stand by what I said, that OKC needs to have strong leadership that will be a positive voice for the city.

The fact that Cornett did this in a rather eloquent and professional manner not only shows he is a classy mayor that cares about our city but it also proves my point that large cities need outspoken powerful leaders in order to be progressive and successful! :)

It looks like the Amtrak service will be saved! Now, I want to hear what Cornett thinks about our airport and air service. One great move would be to call no confidence on the current board and nominate a new progressive Airport Trust, of which he would CHAIR!

Continue the Renaissance!

gtelmore
04-13-2005, 10:29 AM
Note to Christy Everest, Ed Kelley, OKLAHOMAN Editorial writers:

I'd be glad to lead the OKLAHOMAN editorial board on a tour of the "OKC UNION STATION they're not gonna destroy."

Is the job of the press to enlighten the public -- telling them the WHOLE truth -- or exploit their darkness? What IS the OKLAHOMAN's tie to the "New Crosstown" project? What are you "protecting?"

Shame on you.

TOM ELMORE
Tel: 794-7163
_________________________________________

Yiddish proverb: A half-truth is a whole lie.
_________________________________________________

Page 16A, DAILY OKLAHOMAN 4-13-05; Letters -
"Save the station"

Everyone with an interest in history should insist that the planned Interstate 40 relocation be looked at with improvements in mind. Specifically, the Union Station and its rail yards should be spared, not bulldozed and paved over. In the 1960s and 70s, the magic of urban renewal swept the country, supported by federal funding, and wiped out much of downtown Oklahoma City. What short-sightedness! Now we get all worked up about Bricktown and the Skirvin but it's too late for the rest of downtown. Let's not let the old Union Station disappear. It is architecturally and historically a site that must be preserved, along with all that the nearby railways might offer.

Sam Williamson / Oklahoma City

OKLAHOMAN NOTE: There are no plans to demolish Union Station as part of the I-40 realignment project.

Patrick
04-13-2005, 11:19 AM
The Oklahoman is completely missing the point here......there aren't plans to destroy Union Station but there ARE plans to destroy the Union Station Rail Yard. The Oklahoman comment leaves you to believe that the comments from the writer are not true, when they are true, if you interpret them correctly.

Steve Lackmeyer, if you're reading, tell your bosses and the editor that wrote this that they're full of cr@p.

gtelmore
04-14-2005, 08:12 PM
In a recent response to a written query about both the accuracy and motivations of OKLAHOMAN editors in their "editorial note" below Sam Williamson's letter (4-13-05), the paper's chief editorial writer insisted that the note ("There are no plans to demolish Union Station as part of the I-40 realignment project...") was "exactly correct." "There are no plans to bulldoze Union Station. The station is the station, the railyard is the railyard," he said.

In fact, the historic record, no less than simple observation, will inescapably confirm the truth of the matter -- which is not subject to the arbitrary whims of newspaper people. As a grand station facility, Oklahoma City Union Station was an entirely new development in the late 1920s, carefully designed to remedy a very specific problem. That problem was NOT "lack of terminal building space," but that all east-west rail lines and multiple rail passenger yards lay at street level in the heart of downtown; conflicts between rail and street traffic had become overwhelming. The solution was the elegant, grade-separated Union Station rail yard and its arterial street underpasses at Robinson and Walker (which are no less architectural treasures than the spectacular terminal building).

The key, defining design element of Union Station is NOT its terminal building, but, rather, its street-level yet grade-separated yard. Every other element complements and serves that aspect. The entire development and all of its parts were designed and built together, all indispensable to the integrated complex, the value of which is plainly much higher than the sum of its elements. Without the yard, the passenger and freight tunnels and the Robinson and Walker underpasses, there would have been no reason to build the facility. Alone, the terminal building could not have answered the trouble; it would only have "moved the trouble," precisely as the notoriously shortsighted leadership at ODOT is seeking to do today with their "New Crosstown" plan.

The very WORD "Union" has a precise meaning. They called it "Union Station" because it brought together the trains of more than one rail company, just as it could bring together multiple modes today. The elegant 12-track, 6-block long yard is what allowed "Union Station" to "unite" not only multiple companies but multiple trains, multiple modes and multiple missions (passenger, mail and express) with the people and commerce of Oklahoma. None of this is possible with "one track in a ditch."

The painstaking creation of a grand urban rail terminal conveniently and safely accessible at street level both for passengers and specialized freight, but also allowing unimpeded flow of arterial street traffic was a great, great triumph. On the day the station opened, according to my late friend Wilburn E. "Steamboat" Deason (who was there), special locomotives of both the Rock Island and Frisco Railroads constantly steamed back and forth through the yard and over both of the underpasses all day with crowds of eager riders, whistles blowing, banners waving -- making the point to the public, both at the station and on the streets, that the dream that motivated Union Station's development had been achieved. The problem had been solved.

Some say we inherit the time in which we live from our forebears. Others say we borrow it from our children. The enormous travesty of ODOT's plan for the functional destruction of Union Station is this: It would blindly desecrate this elegant, irreplaceable and PAID FOR gift of our great grandparents' generation in order to keep our unborn offspring in massive unfunded highway maintenance debt for generations to come -- all to stuff the pockets of a few developers and highway builders for a very short time today. Meanwhile, the "New Crosstown" would actually recreate some of the problems Union Station solved, putting the Walker and Robinson rail crossings of the BNSF/ Watco line back on the ground south of the river.(!)

As I've said, the historic record and simple observation will confirm what I've reported in this message. The facts speak for themselves. Newspaper people don't get to define long-understood technical terms to suit their own purposes. However, their attempts to do so may well shed quite a bit of light on what those purposes are.

Tom Elmore
794-7163
__________________________________________________ __

Page 16A, DAILY OKLAHOMAN 4-13-05; Letters -
"Save the station"

Everyone with an interest in history should insist that the planned Interstate 40 relocation be looked at with improvements in mind. Specifically, the Union Station and its rail yards should be spared, not bulldozed and paved over. In the 1960s and 70s, the magic of urban renewal swept the country, supported by federal funding, and wiped out much of downtown Oklahoma City. What short-sightedness! Now we get all worked up about Bricktown and the Skirvin but it's too late for the rest of downtown. Let's not let the old Union Station disappear. It is architecturally and historically a site that must be preserved, along with all that the nearby railways might offer.

Sam Williamson / Oklahoma City

OKLAHOMAN NOTE: There are no plans to demolish Union Station as part of the I-40 realignment project.

Patrick
04-15-2005, 12:22 AM
Guys, I think it's pretty obvious that we need to jump on the band wagon to try to save the Unino Station Rail Yard. The highway could easily be realigned at that point to preserve the rail yard. I challenge you to contact our mayor at mayor@okc.gov. This is important for the future of our great city.

Midtowner
04-15-2005, 06:24 AM
Guys, I think it's pretty obvious that we need to jump on the band wagon to try to save the Unino Station Rail Yard. The highway could easily be realigned at that point to preserve the rail yard. I challenge you to contact our mayor at mayor@okc.gov. This is important for the future of our great city.

The thing is Patrick, and I'm playing devil's advocate here -- what is the reason that they chose to destroy the railyard in the first place? It's hard to know why this is without the other side giving their story. I'm very concerned that they don't feel like the need to give their story. That tells me that they don't want to be accountable to the people that are footing the bill here.

Patrick
04-15-2005, 11:44 PM
The thing is Patrick, and I'm playing devil's advocate here -- what is the reason that they chose to destroy the railyard in the first place? It's hard to know why this is without the other side giving their story. I'm very concerned that they don't feel like the need to give their story. That tells me that they don't want to be accountable to the people that are footing the bill here.

Actually, the other side has already given their story. They feel this is the best place for the highway, and they don't see a need for commuter rail in our city, now or ever. Thus, they don't see the need for the rail yard.

It might be a little more costly to move the highway a bit further south to avoid the railyard because it would take it out of the railway righ tof way, so they'd have to condemn more property.

But, Tom brings up a good point...simply redecking the existing crosstown would have been cheaper than relocating it. If they really wanted to put in on the ground, I still don't understand why they couldn't have left it where it is now, and simply rebuilt one side at a time! I asked Jack Money several years ago why they couldn't keep it in the current location, and he really didn't have an answer.

Pete
04-16-2005, 12:24 PM
I believe there were many issues that needed to be resolved other than just re-surfacing, such as: adding more lanes/capacity, adding shoulders, lengthening on and off ramps, etc.


Also, an elevated highway in the exteme heat and cold of Oklahoma means a maintenance nightmare. As long as I can remember, that stretch has always had problems.

gtelmore
04-16-2005, 04:05 PM
The Crosstown needs to be completely redecked. Done with modern, corrosion resistant materials which were not available at its orignal construction, and reengineered to modern ramp standards and so forth, the highway would become, essentially, new -- probably for about $50 million, which we have in hand today.

As to adding lanes and capacity, I ask very simply, "why?" When you add lanes, you induce traffic to abandon other routes in favor of the new "funnel." You absolutely ensure more through-truck traffic. Meanwhile you increase air pollution, danger, noise and in this post-9-11 era probably security risks as well.

One friend with a long background in the travel industry (he's also a seasoned civil engineer) from Midwest City asks an entirely rational question: Do we really NEED a "Crosstown Expressway" at ALL?

When the Crosstown (the "Stanley Draper Expressway," opened in 1966) was built, there was no I-240 or I-44, and certainly no Kilpatrick Turnpike. Why do we WANT through, cross-country truck traffic induced to come directly through the heart of downtown? Why do commuters NEED to use the Crosstown who don't work or have business down there? Why would discouraging extraneous traffic with no business downtown be a bad thing?

Bricktown, etc, etc, would hardly be visible from the "New Crosstown" at all. It'll be mostly running in a nominally 14-foot-deep ditch!

Why would simply declaring the I-240 route from the fork in the road east of Tinker AFB to also be the new I-40 route, at least for heavy, through trucks, be bad? Along with that, it might be a really good thing just to do away with the Crosstown as an Interstate route altogether, replacing it only with the proposed new "Boulevard" on the path of the current structure. No "division," psychological or otherwise, after that between north and south downtown.

If, however, we absolutely MUST have an Interstate highway bisecting our downtown, why isn't where it is as good as where they want to put it? Why is an elevated highway "more of a barrier" than a long, 10-lane wide ditch? (Plainly -- PLAINLY -- it ISN'T, at all!) Why isn't LIMITING the amount of traffic using it by deliberately keeping it at current capacity a better thing for downtown? As I've noted -- send the heavy trucks which comprise one-third of the daily traffic AROUND on better bypass routes, and you put the Crosstown back into design parameters on daily traffic counts!

Elevated highways are "bad," you say? Why did they build so much of the Centennial Expressway up in the air? Why is so much of the Ft. Smith Junction built that way? Any and every bridge in the state is essentially similar -- and some have to be longer than others.

These questions have not even really been ASKED, let alone seriously pondered, because, as Garner Stoll said, the "fix was IN" on the "D" Route before the whole business started. That's one of those well-known "open secrets" among the "engineering community."

Let me remind you, however, that the elevation stakes outlining the perimeter of the prospective excavation for the new highway are already driven around the Union Station yard. Call the Governor today. He can stop this thing -- and is probably about the only man who can. Of course, strong words from the Mayor and City Council might well have an immediate effect, too.

TOM ELMORE

Pete
04-16-2005, 05:49 PM
If the fix was indeed in, why? Who benefitted from this?



Also, how do you redirect trucks from an interstate highway to other roads? Aren't interstates funded specifically to carry interstate traffic??

And how is diverting traffic to I-240 (with capacity issues of it's own) or other more suburban roads a better solution?

And finally, as I recall there is virtually no shoulder or center median on that stretch (or at least most of it) and I was once in a bad accident because there was simply nowhere to go.

I drove I-44 to downtown every day for 7 years and always hated that section because I though it was extremely unsafe.


When I initially heard of the plan for the new route, I didn't understand why. But after more thought it seems like a good idea to me.

gtelmore
04-16-2005, 10:12 PM
When you speak of "the plan for the new route," do you refer to the "D" Route for the "New Crosstown?"

As you say -- the urban segment of I-44 is dangerous -- but it wasn't all that long ago that
I-44 was "new." Much was promised when people's land and homes were being taken away from them that was never delivered. Aside from the minimal shoulders, etc, "people-friendly" aspects like adequate sound attenuating walls between the road and the neighborhoods ripped up to make way for it -- were never provided -- so those who live near the road get not only the danger, but the constant din and racket. (Ever have a flat or try to help somebody else chage a tire along I-44? I have. I was still shaking when I got home --and I'm pretty hard to rattle!)

I-240 between May and I-35 has been "re-engineered" since I-44 was completed. "Compromises" had to be made -- and WERE made. Then there's I-35 south, massively over time and over cost -- ultimately to add only one new lane each direction. Or we could discuss the "NEW, improved Ft. Smith Junction..." Amazing that the story's always the same.

Let me assure you -- whatever the final outcome, the contractors got their money and went home.

Garner Stoll warned that the claimed cost of the "New Crosstown" was always massively understated. He was absolutely right (one of the reasons OKC government ran him off...). They sold it as a "$236 million project," but the "projected cost is now up to "$360 million" -- and the first spade of earth on actual construction has not yet been turned. It's well known that the price of steel and other key materials has minimally tripled since THAT "projection" and yet the figure is still ostensibly the same -- only they don't have half of the funding for THAT number available. Remember -- it was sold as a project that would ALL be federally funded, back in the "good old days." It's probably minimally a one-half billion dollar project or more -- and the money simply isn't there for it. But you believe it will necessarily somehow end up a "safer, better highway" -- which is to say "superior to every other in the metro?"

Sorry -- I don't buy it. When the project is completed (if it ever really is, that is...) we won't only NOT have a better highway system, we also won't have the superior, irreplaceable rail yard -- probably the only major transport facility in the state that actually WAS "overengineered."

But I think the thing that REALLY bugs ODOT and its hangers-on about Union Station is that it's actually PAID FOR. Think about that! That's just not the way they do things! It must also be danged annoying to them to see the fine condition of the 75-year-old Robinson and Walker underpasses -- which were actually built to last, not to "be regularly replaced to keep the money flowing to the contractors..." (Compare them to the 39 year old Crosstown or any other ODOT bridge in the state. They are absolutely, oeverwhelmingly superior in every way -- by orders of magnitude -- and BEAUTIFUL, to boot!)

There is simply no way around it -- the state's roads are a terrible mess -- and the unfunded cost of that mess is apparently growing in excess of 40% a year. So comes the question -- is the answer to that mess to let the people who created it continue to do the same things they've always done -- and allow them to destroy superior, pre-existing infrastructure to do it? There are no "good answers" any more to our roadway problems. But there ARE obvious improvements that can be made to the overall transport system if we take a restrained, conservative view of existing assets -- and maximize their usefulness instead of letting the concrete cowboys destroy them.

How do you divert trucks to other routes? Put up signs saying "use the bypass." Enforce it. If it's OK for OKC to fill its coffers with ticket-writing jags on the "New Broadway Extension -- a road designed to a 70 mph standard with artifically low 60 mph speed limits -- then why isn't it OK to make the truckers tow the mark? Actually, bypassing the Crosstown would be a great help to truckers -- because it avoids the treacherous Ft. Smith Junction, and, of course, the Crosstown. With all the big talk about "Intelligent Transportation System" management, why not use the digital ITS signs to tell truckers "go around....?" Isn't that what ITS is supposed to be about? Moreover -- why would you allow the misuse of the Crosstown bridge by swarms of daily trucks far heavier than it was really designed to carry while ignoring superior routes better for the taxpayers and better for the truckers? (The ever-sparkling Neal McCaleb explained this to a Channel 25 news man at a Crosstown meeting at the Civic Center several years ago: "Because that traffic adds to the vitality of downtown" he told the newsman. This lightning stroke of glib rhetoric so dazzled the newsman that he had to stride proudly back over and tell ME (you would have thought he'd just heard Moses speak from Sinai or something...) -- grinning broadly -- what McCaleb had said. "Great, " I said. "What does that MEAN -- and why are people like you so impressed by such absolute nonsense?" The newsman, suddenly crestfallen, turned on his heel and walked away.

"If the fix was in, who benefitted from it?" you ask. That's a really, really good question. We'll all know soon enough if the project gets underway. Meanwhile, the "usual suspects" are involved and profiting from the project itself -- while ensuring that any new rail system that's eventually built will cost 50 times as much as simply using what we already had.

Think about it.

TOM ELMORE

Patrick
04-25-2005, 12:56 PM
This pretty much sums up what Tom Elmore has been trying to tell us.

This is from downtownguy's site, originally pulled from Charles Hill at Dustbury:

"And I'm still vexed about the destruction of the Union Station railyard, which insures that if they ever do decide to build a passenger-rail system in the city, it will cost a whole lot more, since they will have to recreate all that infrastructure from scratch. There are philosophical reasons to dismiss rail transit — mainly, almost all such systems built recently are heavily subsidized because they don't earn back their costs in fares — but you could scrap the bus system for the same reasons, and nobody (well, maybe your friendly neighborhood hard-core libertarian) is arguing for discontinuing the buses. (Chris? Jacqueline?)"

bubfloyd
04-26-2005, 09:27 AM
Patrick Wrote: There are philosophical reasons to dismiss rail transit — mainly, almost all such systems built recently are heavily subsidized because they don't earn back their costs in fares

There is nothing more subsidized than highways, which have become little more than transportation corridors for the trucking industry. Trucks cause nearly all the wear and tear on highways and don't even come close to paying their own way in fule taxes. Trucks now clog the interstate system and make passenger travel increasingly dangerous. More and more trucks on the highways are hauling fast food restaurant supplies and "stuff" for WalMart and other demartment stores and we all pay the hidden shortfall in construction and maintainence on April 15th. Subsidizing the McDonalds and WalMarts of the USA is not something that most people would do willingly. Unfortunately, the same political pressures that keep these subsidisies under the table are the same ones that promoted the "D" option and failed to give the general public all the relevent information about what would be lost in the process. Namely the Union Station rail yard.

gtelmore
04-26-2005, 11:16 AM
Bubfloyd is absolutely on target.

The Oklahoma Railway (trolleys and interurbans) was a private company operating under a public franchise for nearly 50 years. It struggled through periods of famine and overwhelming demand -- but, finally, following WWII, fell victim to a nationwide effort by the highway / auto / oil lobby -- which painted all such systems as "quaint" and "outdated" by cheap-oil-sodden, postwar standards. Ultimately, even many of the rock-solid commercial freight railroads were pulled down by a combination of their own bad management (which seemed, itself, to buy the idea that its own technology was "outdated") and the provision of public roads to heavy trucks.

In short, the governments and politicians that preach "free enterprise" have made free enterprise and real competition in surface transport nearly impossible -- but the "political faithful" out here in the hustings who lionize, idolize and follow those knotheads around like dumb little puppy dogs just keep buying their hyper-expensive line of bull.

And the costs of keeping up "public roads" are not nearly the only costs associated with them. Some years back, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety published a study concluding that the monetary costs, alone, of yearly highway deaths on US roads exceed the annual negative effect of the national debt. But that's "OK," isn't it?

While the morning OKLAHOMAN gave center- front page dominance to a full-color photo of the terrible Japanese commuter train crash (73 dead, they say), not mentioned was that today and EVERY day, US highways produce roughly 120 deaths. However, that's "the norm," as was the daily sacrifice of infant children to idols of Moloch by the heathen tribes of Old Testament times. "Just the price of doing business..." and all that.

Maybe OKLAHOMAN editors thought the Japanese train crash deaths notable not just because such incidents are so rare, but because the dead were plainly sacrificed to "a strange god..." After all -- the nerve of those people: Think of all the auto-insurance premiums, oil, gas, tire and maintenance charges -- everything from "deodorizing fuzzy dice" to "custom body work" the people who regularly ride those trains DON'T pay. In America, they might be seen as "slackers" not holding up "their part" of the contemporary social contract centered around "automobile ownership..." (And what about those "helicopter-flying tort lawyers?")

Sorry to get off into such rambling, but many literary and historical analogies to the mess we're in often come to my mind. "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it," goes the old saw. If the "New Crosstown" doesn't remind you of "Urban Renewal," then you need to do a little more reading.

It's really quite simple: Within its service profile, nothing can match rail. Nothing is close -- in carrying capacity, in safety, in fuel efficiency, in maintenance costs. Rail has nothing to prove. It was all proven many years ago. Rail transport stood on its own, building the country and repaying public support of its creation many, many years before the Interstate Highway era.

If it is a "given" that government just HAS to be forever in the middle of the competitive equation in surface transport, mucking up the works with perpetual subsidy of the least efficient modes to the detriment of all others -- then shouldn't the people DEMAND, minimally, equality of subsidy? Trouble is, we live in a nation of people who really believe "the cars they drive say all that need to be said about them." Ironically, that's actually generally truer than they'd care to believe.

One more observation: I'm always amused in talking to public officials and their assistants when the old "population density" argument raises its head. Strange, isn't it, that we apparently "HAVE" the "population density" to support $40 billion in unfunded highway maintenance need here in Oklahoma; we "HAVE" the density to pay 2.16 cents for a gallon of gasoline; we "HAVE" the density to pay (perhaps now) three-quarters of a billion dollars for 3.96 miles of unnecessary urban highway; we "HAVE" the density to support endless maintenance charges on infrastructures involved in infinite sprawl development; we "HAVE" the density to allow hordes of heavy trucks paying 20 cents on the dollar against road damage they do to savage our public highways -- but we "DON'T" have the "density" to thoughtfully, conservatively reuse historic, elegant and irreplaceable infrastructure to provide cheap, fuel-efficient, strategically redundant and universally accessible transport for all our people!

When they give me that typical "gotcha" grin and say the words "population density," I grin back and say -- "do you really want to use that argument?"