Here's the story from the Norman Transcript (12/28) ... maybe already posted here but I didn't see it ... http://www.normantranscript.com/localnews/local_story_362004948?keyword=secondarystory

Groups file challenge to OKC rail abandonment

The Norman Transcript

Common Cause Oklahoma, others challenge rail line in effort to save light rail infrastructure

By Melissa A. Wabnitz0

Transcript Staff Writer

A Washington, D.C., attorney, working on behalf of several central Oklahoma organizations, has filed a challenge to the Oklahoma Department of Transportation's Crosstown highway relocation project by objecting to the legality of BNSF Railway Company's line abandonment.

If the 2.95-mile stretch is permitted to remain abandoned, said Fritz Kahn, an attorney working on behalf of Common Cause Oklahoma, North American Transportation Institute and the Bio-Energy Wellness Center in Oklahoma City, construction would be allowed to proceed on a 10-lane Interstate 40 extension.

Backing organizations claim that to make way for the construction much of the infrastructure that would allow for the future development of a rail system would be destroyed, including a direct route to Will Rogers World Airport from Union Station in downtown Oklahoma City.

O. Gail Poole said Union Station serves as an "irreplaceable hub."

"We aren't against the Crosstown project per se, but just the route they are taking," said Poole, of Norman, one of the individuals supporting Kahn's efforts. "The fact is the route was decided before the plans (for the Crosstown extension) were ever made public, at least that's what Garner Stoll, former Oklahoma City Planning Department Director believed, as do many others."

The extension's route, tagged "Alternative D," also would reduce public access to the renovated Oklahoma River as well as cause problems for pedestrians crossing the grade-level train tracks at the 2100 block of South Robinson and Walker Streets, said State Rep. Al Lindley, D-Oklahoma City, in support documents filed in the railroad governing board's Surface Transportation Board in Washington, D.C.

The legal wrangling began Nov. 7, just days shy of the BNSF's approved abandonment date, when Kahn submitted a formal protest to the Surface Transportation Board. Though the line abandonment was approved in late November, Kahn has kept up his effort to fight the Surface Transportation Board's decision. Most recently, Kahn submitted documents to the board Dec. 23 detailing company names and situations he claims directly contradict BNSF's statements that the abandoned lines weren't used by local traffic.

"I came in on the 24th hour," Kahn said. "But what we were saying is that the notice to abandon the line should be vacated ab initio, because it contains false and misleading information."

John Bowman, project manager for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, said a main line and a spur will be allowed to remain at Union Station. Additionally, Bowman said, a Union Pacific rail line will be moved south of the station to allow for the installation of a second useable line in the event passenger rail activities return.

"The lines do tie up to nationwide ones," Bowman said. "As a matter of fact, by upgrading the Packingtown Lead we'll allow easier access to the Bricktown area."

Union Station's potential to be used as a passenger rail system "won't be destroyed," Bowman said. "But if you look at all of the studies conducted looking at the possibility of high-speed passenger rail in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, all of those studies have recommended Santa Fe Station as being utilized for that, not Union Station."

Poole said compared to the 11-track Union Station, using neighboring Santa Fe Station as a possible rail hub is "ridiculous." Besides offering fewer tracks, Santa Fe Station is centered downtown, where there is neither possibility for parking nor easy access on the elevated train tracks, he said.

Another criticism of the proposed Crosstown extension route, dangerous street-level crossings, "is not a legitimate complaint," said Bowman. "As a whole, we're decreasing the possibilities for those types of accidents to occur."

Poole said the groups seek, above all, a second look at the proposed route by an independent panel. If the full funding is approved in next year's legislative cycle, Bowman said, the project could be completed as early as January 2009.

"In the event the line abandonment is nullified by the Surface Transportation Board, some of the people in Oklahoma who did not get to participate in the board proceedings previously will do so," Kahn said. "It could sway the board to discontinue the project or possibly impose more rigorous conditions."

"Let's just stop for the next few months and appoint an independent committee to to see if the route is as destructive to Oklahoma's transportation future as it appears to be," Poole said. "And if the panel looks at it, studies it and says, 'Well, it's a perfectly well-thought-out-plan, then we'll shut up and we'll get out of the way -- we've been saying this for years."

Although I'd rather see the Crosstown built elsewhere to preserve the Union Station Railyard, it's pretty much already a done deal. I hate to see Tom Elmore and others join this suit. They're only using Moshe Tal type measures.

The court case will only succeed if what ODOT and company are doing is illegal or unfair.

If that is the case, why would you not want them to succeed? Moshe Tal type measures are called for when you get screwed by the good 'ol boys. Unfortunately, those measures are all the common man has at his disposal.

Very True.

But I disagree that the rail yard is needed for light rail in OKC; Commuter Rail - YES!! But not light rail.

You dont need a focal station for light rail, unlike Heavy Commuter Rail. For light rail, you just need stations (more akin to bus stops) and transfer points. For example, Portland OR has the most advanced light rail system in the nation and they have light rail stations (stops), NO train station!!! We have light rail under construction here in Seattle - again, no focal train station - but stops!

And, Id argue that OKC does not need the full rail yard for Commuter Rail either, thus the freeway project could proceed since it only takes out a small portion.

Maybe a compromise could be made? Perhaps a portion of the roadway could swerve over to miss the yard OR Perhaps the roadway could be built UNDER the rail yard???

Other than that, I dont think the yard is essential for light rail (OR Commuter for that matter).

I think the point is that we have serviceable lines that would not be so after the I-40 relocation. I spoke with Tom at length a couple of months ago, it seems that some of the things that ODOT has taken possession of (like train tracks belonging to rail companies) it has no power to take possession of, or arguably does not at least.

I haven't seen the suit, but I would think that it might be predicated on something like that.

What's ODOTs argument against building a bridge? I haven't even heard that discussed. If they're already spending more than 300 million, it can't hurt to build a bridge over some train tracks.

^ My limited understanding of the project is that it is all below grade highway (which all large highways should be) which would make it impossible to build a bridge over an at-grade rail yard. I do hope at least part of the yard can be saved because I can see commuter rail working better in OKC, at least in the near term, than I can LRT.

totally agreed! with an exception.

I think an LRT based peoplemover would be a great asset downtown. Like Portland's Streetcar system, it would circulate throughout the popular areas of downtown and add life to the neighbourhoods.

The light rail trolley could also go toward the adventure district, but there is already planning under way for a vintage passenger train (Heavy Rail) for that.

I agree Commuter Rail will work in OKC, Im just not so sure we need it now. But with downtown growing, sure! You bet we will get the "traditional" big city commuting pattern soon and Commuter Rail (especially N-S Edmond and Norman to downtown) will definitely be necessary - and it makes sense to retain a portion of the yard. No question.

But my argument was that we dont need it for LRT, and I think a circular system is more needed than commuter at this point.

I am surprised there isn't already a plan in place to start commuter rail from Norman to downtown, it seems like a no-brainer to me and wouldn't be all that expensive either (probably less than half the cost of the Crosstown project). I mean we already have the tracks in place, the stations are there but would probably need some upgrades, now all we need are the trains. Reasons a Norman-downtown commuter rail line would be successful:

-thousands of Norman residents work in downtown OKC and could use the rail for a quicker and less stressful morning/evening commute

-if the bus/trolley connections are improved and expanded from the downtown station even more people in Norman (and also Moore and south OKC) would use it to get other places around downtown like the Capital area and Penn Square Mall

-many OU medical/nursing students take classes at the HSC but still live in Norman and this train would be HEAVILY used by these students

-OU students like to go downtown for the restaurants, sporting events, and concerts but don't like fighting traffic on I-35 or finding parking in downtown; a train solves both problems and would especially be helpful for those who go to the bars in Bricktown and don't want to drive or take a taxi back to Norman

-I realize there is construction right now, but I-35 traffic has really gotten bad and even once everything is finished it will still be very congested during the rush hour; the train is a good alternative that would probably be faster considering if you drive you have to find a place to park

The point that Tom Elmore has been trying to get across is that Union Station and its associated railyard form an intermodal facility that allows for the connection of all forms of transportation. It's not just about light rail or comuter rail or trolleys etc.. It could be the hub of an interactive transportation network.

So, a business traveler arrives on an airplane at Will Rogers and hops on the light rail to Union Station where he/she gets into a cab, trolley or shuttle to the hotel, or transfers to a computer rail line to Guthrie. The interconnectivity is the important ingredient that will be lost by removing most of the tracks from the rail yard.

DTG: I agree, but all is not lost.

You see, the great thing about tearing up the rail yard that we already have is that when the time comes to build a new one, O.D.OT., the City Council, the County, etc. get to pay their buddies and contributors millions of dollars to build a new one!

Everybody wins!

(except for the taxpayers)

Midtowner, I am not comforted by strong possibility that you're on target.

DTG: I agree, but all is not lost.

You see, the great thing about tearing up the rail yard that we already have is that when the time comes to build a new one, O.D.OT., the City Council, the County, etc. get to pay their buddies and contributors millions of dollars to build a new one!

Everybody wins!

(except for the taxpayers)

Yup, you're right on.

Tom Elmore is fighting for the tax payer. Unfortunately, few people see that.

By the way, it would have been possible to build the highway in another location.

Part of the rail yard will be saved, but a reduced size Union Station railyard won't really be useable for the ideas Tom Elmore is discussing.

City leaders in Dallas have already warned our govts. They refuse to listen.

What's the latest on this I-40 project, seems like it is taking forever and a day to get going.

I believe that we're still lacking full funding, but contractors have been ordered to proceed as if we do. It's basically going to put the city/county/state into a position where whether or not we have the money, the money will be owed. The contractors will be paid -- possibly with interest and attorneys fees attached.

That's what I've heard anyhow.

Supposedily Mick Cornett and Brad Henry have said the city and state respectively will fill in the gap. That's to be seen. Maybe Istook needs to go back to work and get us some more money.

They've definitely begun working on it. I've seen a lot of changes just over the last month near Regatta Park. I imagine by the time they get very far along we will have the money. It's not like it's going to be done in 9 months.

I'm just disappointed they are still going with Route D just because it is cheaper. It is definitely not in the city's best interest.

What were the other routes?

a,b,c, and of course alternate D, which was sadly chosen

I know there were routes A, B, C, and D. I meant where did the alternate routes actually go? Is there a place I can see the maps or something?

If you follow this link, you'll see a graphic that shows the location of the various options:

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/public-info/i40-okc/press/I-40_Crosstown_History.pdf

Thanks Malibu.

I haven't seen any new developments on the legal action. Perhaps Doug Loudenbeck knows a little more.

In retrospect, the process that resulted in ODOT selecting the D option was flawed. Information related to rail infrastructure and future transportation options that would only be possible at Union Station using the rail yard that will be destroyed were not presented to or discussed with the public. It has always been a highway only plan, not a comprehensive transportation plan.

As is too often the case with government, the process was manipulated to look like there was public input when in reality, (IMO) the D option was chosen behind the scenes and then made to look like the public had actual input into the decision making process. Going back and reading the original newspaper article and the comments that resulted is a worthwhile process. It's easy to forget what the actual information was that started this discussion.

The boulevard that replaces the existing elevated portion of I-40 was always portrayed as a nicely landscaped urban thoroughfare ripe for new downtown development. Now, ODOT is only budgeting enough money for a plain jane four lane street and expecting OKC to pick up the tab on upgrading it to what was presented all along. Also, much of the funding for the landscaping and design amenities has been removed. There is never sufficient contingency funding included in these highway project budgets to cover the cost increases that always happen between the time the project is designed until it goes into construction. The first thing to go is the eye candy.