[Announce] Our last chance to save Union Station's rail yard

[bwaldrop at cox.net]

This email is for subscribers to announce at justpeace.org who live in Oklahoma.

Our last chance to save the Union Station rail yard is upon us.

Below is an email from my friend Ed Kessler listing 21 reasons why destroying the rail yard at Union Station is a bad idea.   He is asking everyone to call the governor and their legislators and ask that a special governor's commission be organized to examine the situation -- publicly -- and  make a report on its findings.

I encourage everybody to take this last chance to save this important heritage work of sustainable transportation infrastructure in Oklahoma City.  

Bob Waldrop

> From: "Ed Kessler" <ekessler at okiemail.net>

> Dear Colleague,
> 
> > The situation with regard to proposed replacement of the rail yard at Oklahoma City's Union Terminal has taken a very serious turn, and it is possible that crews to remove the main line and rail yard will be emplaced by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation soon after February 25th.  This possible debacle is a consequence of a ruling from the Surface Transportation Board that was published on the Internet on January 26th.  An appeal was sent on February 5th to the STB, but the outcome of the appeal is problematic.  Do only the Oklahoma Governor and Legislature now have the power to save our State?
> > 
> There was a meeting of three Common Cause representatives with two of our Governor's representatives on December 13th, and we asked that the Governor appoint an independent commission/committee to evaluate and report on the situation prior to any track removals.  This seems to us to be a minimal thing to do, especially because so very much is at stake.  No word from the Governor's office has since been received, and it seems to us unlikely that such a commission/committee will be appointed unless there is a groundswell for this from public opinion.
> 
> > Please call the Governor on his "hotline" (1-405-521-2342 - if calling from the OKC area, do not include 1-405), and ask that a commission/committee be appointed as described above.  Here are 21 reasons for not implementing the present Crosstown plan, from which you might pick and choose for use during your conversation with the Governor's office.  Our 21 reasons show that our State government's present course is a massive betrayal of the public interest.  We think that the primary purpose of this largest proposed construction project in our State's history is to provide a large funding source for highway contractors.  It is important to know that we are not against roads - like everyone else we depend on our cars, but we want and need transportation alternatives that are energy efficient, that meet the need to confront global warming and resource depletion issues, that serve the elderly and handicapped who are increasingly locked into their homes, and that serve workers whose wages are insufficient for purchase, maintenance, and insurance on a private car.
> 
>  
> 
> Special note to reader - The following message is long, and we know that almost everyone is overwhelmed with issues and short of time.  You need not read it all, but take five minutes to call the Governor's office and ask for an investigatory commission, and call your legislator and ask for legislation to place a hold on the Crosstown process.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  By letter dated July 27, 1989, signed by then Director Neal A. McCaleb of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, the Central Oklahoma Parking and Transit Authority was supported in its acquisition of the Union Station terminal in Oklahoma City at a cost of about $2 million, with $1.6 million coming from the federal government.  This was to be "a means of providing a central focal point for existing public transportation and potential future rail service for central Oklahoma", but the Terminal has never been so used.  Why has such use not occurred and why doesn't our government contemplate such use?  Why does Mr. McCaleb now campaign around our State and seek effective cancellation of the use that he endorsed in 1989?  These questions and others that follow should be explored by the Governor's Committee.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  As a former transportation hub with lines at street level from Oklahoma City and from intermediate towns to Tulsa, Lawton, Altus, Will Rogers World Airport, Shawnee, Yukon and others, and with access to tracks via underground tunnels, the facility is admirably suited to serve that function again at low cost.  The Terminal itself is in excellent condition and is on the National Register of Historic Places, and the railyard and facilities for passenger access to it could be renovated at low cost.  Tom Elmore, Executive Director of the North American Transportation Institute, put it best: "Why, in the post 9-11-01 world, would Oklahoma officials insist on the unnecessary destruction of the finest potential rail and transit center in the West to make way for a 4-mile, half billion dollar road?"  This statement gains much more credibility today, with looming global warming and energy security as major issues.  Replacement of the Union Station rail yard by a 10-lane depressed highway would not be a proper celebration of our Centennial Year!
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  Money and engineering in reliable combination can go very far, but, Why would we require future purchase of rights of way, a building for an intermodal hub and new space for "park and ride" facilities when fully worthy facilities already exist?  The projected cost of the Crosstown Highway itself, given ODOT's announcement of the recent 35 to 40% rise in highway construction costs, is more than half a billion dollars!  
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  In a report dated February 2, 1999, former Oklahoma City Planning Director, Garner Stoll, roundly condemned the selection of the railroad right-of-way for a new highway, called it the most expensive of the options available, and stated that the route was selected in advance of study!  Mr. Stoll is now planning director for Parker, Colorado, a suburb of Denver, where rail transit is being implemented rapidly.  We believe that a principal reason for Mr. Stoll's discharge from Oklahoma City related to his wish for better control of sprawl here as well as to his opposition to the proposed Crosstown highway route.  Another transportation expert who has written and spoken eloquently in opposition to the Crosstown project is Malise Dick, formerly with the World Bank and a consultant to transportation projects worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Our State and country can't afford to choose the most expensive option over others that can do the job as well or better while preserving some of the best passenger rail assets in western United States.  Any money already received for this project should be reprogrammed as was done with the "Bridge to Nowhere".  Oklahoma should not be allowed to help break the budget with its own "Bridge to Nowhere". 
> 
> 
> 
> 6.  Section 1204 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, which authorized funding for highway construction in the States, called for enhancement of multimodal transportation, protection and enhancement of the environment, and energy conservation, and increased accessibility and mobility options available for people and for freight.  However, inspection of Figure 3-2 in the Environmental Impact Statement, which is an evaluation worksheet dated September 26, 1996, shows that the former calls were not considered and that the latter options were improperly considered.  Thus, for example, under impact to rail freight operations, Alternative D, the selected route, is shown as an excellent choice.  However, this seems true only with respect to long distance hauling of commodities, and not to service to local business, which has been using the line for freight.  If proper consideration had been given to Section 1204, the selection ranking would have changed and one of several better alternative routes would have been chosen.  And there would have been a court case were it not for a truly remarkable feature of Section 1204:  "The failure to consider any factor specified in paragraph (1) [of 1204] shall not be reviewable by any court... in any matter affecting a transportation plan, a transportation improvement plan, a project or strategy, or the certification of a planning process."
> 
> 
> 
> 7.  Whatever reasons existed for a change of course ten years ago, they are markedly amplified today.  Travel by car is expensive - latest estimates are about $6000 annually per car for purchase, maintenance, insurance, and fuel - and inefficient in their use of energy and land, both in increasingly short supply.  We need energy-efficient public transportation as an alternative to roads and highways in order to meet the threats of global warming, resource depletion, and ongoing and oncoming wars over oil!  And it is important to remember that we are speaking of choice and alternatives - automotive transportation for individuals and freight transportation by truck will remain important in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 8.  The Crosstown project envisions the tearing down of the present elevated highway and replacing it with a street-level boulevard, but it is demonstrable that for only one fourth the cost of the proposed 10-lane highway along railroad right of way, the present highway could be redecked and somewhat reinforced to provide future decades of service.  The balance of funds should be reprogrammed to help provide a well-balanced transportation system that includes coordinated use of trains and buses.  However, a leading executive in our State told me that the reason that this alternate proposal has not been accepted is that it is too cheap!  The real objective of our leadership, he has said, is to spend more money and thus to give massive support to highway interests.
> 
>  
> 
> 9.  During the year 2000 the firm Carter Burgess produced a study on high speed (160 mph) rail between Tulsa and OKC and concluded that the price for implementation would be about $850 million (and doubtless higher today!).  However, the report made no mention of the cost for speeds similar to highway travel, i.e., 60 mph.  A simple engineering calculation indicates that costs to upgrade existing tracks for the latter would be about $200 million.  Why did Carter Burgess not examine this prospect?  When asked, authors explained that they had been told to restrict the study to the high-speed case.  But consider this:  There are intermediate towns that should be served by an OKC - Tulsa  rail link, as noted by Jim Townsend, item (18) below.  The train would hardly move at high speed when it would slow down for a stop.  The train would travel between Tulsa and Oklahoma City in the same time as a car, but the time of passengers on the train could be constructively used!  Advantages of very high speed on the Tulsa-OKC existing route are marginal in the near future, although we may think of a four-track line in the year 2100 with tracks for both express and local stops, as provided today in many well-developed places!  But a further important point is that the numerous studies that have been made are not nearly as valuable as they might be, because they have been tilted to project limited advantages for alternates to the automobile and to make it seem that removing the vital existing reusable link at OKC's Union Station is acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 10.  On March 9, 2004, the Norman City Council debated a proposal to send a letter to the Governor asking that he appoint an impartial commission/committee to evaluate the Crosstown proposal.  A critical element in the debate was concern for a perceived threat by ODOT Director Gary Ridley to withhold money from Norman projects should the Council vote to send such a letter.  Soon after, at a meeting of about ten persons at the Oklahoma Memorial Union, then Mayor Ron Henderson was asked why he had voted "no".  He said that his negative vote was cast because of his concern that Norman would lose money for the Legacy Trails Project if he were to vote "yes"!  Still later, in private conversation, Mr. Ridley said that his threat (made at a February meeting of the Council at the Union Terminal building) was only a joke.  But even if it was a joke, it was  mistakenly taken seriously, Why didn't Mr. Ridley make a public statement to that effect or broadcast the error to all Council members?  The effect of his threat led to a 4-4 vote by the Norman Council, one vote short of passage.
> 
>  
> 
> 11.  During late 2005 the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Stillwater Central Railroad companies filed with the Surface Transportation Board for abandonment of the two and a half mile segment of rail line that passes through the Union Terminal.  The filing alleged that there had been no business on the line for two years, the minimal time necessary for non-activity to justify abandonment under STB rules.  But responses indicated that there had been recent business, and, in fact, affidavits were filed alleging that ODOT had made certain payments to move business off of the line.  Fraud in abandonment proceedings, under STB rules, calls for suspension of the abandonment proceeding for two years.  Nevertheless, in the Decision published on January 26, 2007, the STB sustained abandonment.  To our knowledge, the allegations of fraud have not been investigated, but we think that there should be an investigation.  The STB decision was apparently based on certain technical details that were improperly addressed by petitioners, owing to the fact that they were just citizens and unacquainted with some important procedural requirements.  We have also been told that several excellent letters sent to the STB in opposition to abandonment, including at least two letters by Oklahoma legislators, were of no significance with respect to the STB decision!  The STB is not concerned with local impact except within the framework of its Rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 12.  With ODOT support, Oklahoma City entered a contract last year in the amount of $387 thousand with the URS Corporation of San Francisco for the planning of land use after the ODOT-proposed Crosstown highway is constructed as projected by ODOT.  In view of action pending with the Surface Transportation Board in Washington, D.C. at that time, this is a continuing illustration of the deeply flawed, and perhaps fraudulent nature of the Crosstown process.  Did the promoters of the contract know that the Surface Transportation Board would rule in their favor even in the face of allegations of fraud concerning the railroad abandonment issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 13.  Similarly, ODOT has contracted to spend about $8 million for a temporary bridge and about $15 million for upgrading an inferior rail line (the Packingtown Lead) to provide an alternate route for through freight service after completion of the proposed new Crosstown Highway.  How did ODOT know that the STB decision published on January 26th would be supportive?  How did ODOT know that the expenditures would not be thoroughly wasted?
> 
> 
> 
> 14.  During summer 2006, a "Core to Shore" committee was established with membership drawn from Oklahoma City leaders.  Chair is Mayor Mick Cornett and Vice-Chair is Dave Lopez, President of the American Fidelity Foundation.  This Committee is complementary to the contract described in (12), above.  Its announced purpose is to plan use of the land between the present Crosstown I-40 and the north shore of the (newly-named) Oklahoma River on the assumption that the proposed new highway would be constructed along the railroad right-of way and that the present I-40 would be leveled and replaced by a street-level boulevard.  On December 13th, a meeting to discuss this was attended by about 200 citizens and city and state officials at the Cox Center in Oklahoma City.  It was immediately evident at the meeting that public comments about the basic guiding assumptions were not welcome and not well received.  Mid-level officials distanced themselves from these assumptions, saying in private conversations that they were functioning on the basis of firm guidance received from ODOT and from the Oklahoma City hierarchy.  The present I-40, although fitted with numerous underpasses was treated as a barrier to development, but the proposed 10-lane depressed highway was treated as no barrier at all!  Citizens, rather than being informed by impartial discussion were directed by special interests and mal-informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 15.  On July 25, 2006, during a discussion of Crosstown issues with Secretary of Transportation Phil Tomlinson in his office, he asked why, given the large amount of money already spent, was there continuing opposition to the State's proposal.  And since construction had not started, I asked, "What large amount of money?"  Mr. Tomlinson replied that about $100 million had already been spent on acquisition of right-of-way (which is enormously wider for a ten-lane highway than the usual one hundred feet with a two-track rail line).  I expressed approval, and said that all of that money and more could be recovered during the course of development of the acquired land in support of the purpose for which the Union Terminal was originally acquired!  Imagine the hustle and bustle that would attend an active intermodal transportation center with service to almost all parts of our State!  Mr. Tomlinson did not respond to this comment.
> 
>  
> 
> 16.  Why is Oklahoma so far behind, perpetually, in so many important areas?  Other U.S. cities are moving pell-mell to implement alternative transportation, both rail and bus (buses are needed to meet trains and also to cover independent routes).  Among other cities apart from those with well-established lines on east- and west-coasts, are Dallas/Ft. Worth, Austin, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Denver, St. Louis, Atlanta, Little Rock, and Minneapolis. While we are told that rail service here is at least ten years away (a rail link from Union Terminal to Will Rogers Airport could be available within a few months if the Terminal rail yard is not destroyed), Albuquerque saw implementation of six commuter trains last year, and rail service between Albuquerque and Santa Fe is scheduled for start next year!  In the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, the DART system is being rapidly extended to the north and economic development is burgeoning along the tracks.  And all the while, we are told that we are too spread out although our population was thinner fifty years ago when this region supported a thriving rail service!  Oh, yes, while other cities are scrambling to install rail, Oklahoma officialdom is intent toward being the last place in the United States to replace working railroad tracks with an unneeded and dreadfully costly highway, and this in our Centennial Year, as noted in item (2), above.
> 
>  
> 
> 17.  We are told sometimes that we don't have money for rail service.  What a sad joke!  What a lie!  The truth is that we can't afford to maintain what we have!  By ODOT's own estimates, we have tens of billions of dollars of unfunded maintenance on our highways, and instead of plans to provide attractive alternatives to highway travel, which would reduce traffic, traffic accidents, maintenance costs, and improve the lives of families who can hardly afford to pay thousands of dollars annually to maintain needed cars, we continue to promote and increase highway travel!  Our Legislature should focus less on tax cuts in this low-tax State and focus instead on devoting our flush of oil and gas revenues toward development of an energy-efficient infrastructure that would contribute to future energy security in our State and Nation and help our descendants when oil and gas are greatly diminished.  China has recently completed a 2400-mile railway that connects major cities in eastern and central China with Tibet - the ties on this rail line are of highest quality - all concrete!  In Europe one can go by rail almost everywhere, safely, speedily, and at modest cost, and, where appropriate, buses meet trains to take passengers to their final destinations.  London to Paris in two and a half hours!  We are told that we can't afford decent rail while poor little Viet Nam recently announced plans to spend $33 billion on a thousand-mile high speed rail line to connect north and south!!  What is the matter with us??
> 
> 
> 
> 18.  Jim Townsend, a former Corporation Commissioner, legislator, consultant to Oklahoma Governors, and railroad engineer, has written in the latest Newsletter of Common Cause Oklahoma: - The state of Oklahoma owns the rail line between Oklahoma City and Tulsa..  With very little cost compared to highway construction, 60 mph passenger rail could become a reality.  Operation on time, with new equipment, rail passenger transportation could provide express and commuter service to more than half of the state's population..  Senior citizens and Oklahoma's handicapped would realize an independence that hasn't existed since we had scheduled passenger trains and the trolley system fifty years ago.   Union Terminal in OKC is very important for this plan to work..  It could serve OKC, Edmond, Norman, Shawnee, El Reno, Altus, Lawton, Chickasha, Jones, Stroud, Sapulpa and Tulsa...  A great economic significance of a revised plan to use the Terminal as announced at its purchase in 1989, would be the security such usage would provide for Tinker Field, Fort Sill, and Altus Air Force Base against future base closings.  Workers could use dependable rail transportation, and the fuel efficiency of rail reduces U.S. demand for foreign oil.  Salt Lake City has under construction, at this time, light rail public transportation to Hill Air Force Base, which is a major competitor to Tinker Field.
> 
> 
> 
> 19.  Gail Poole, an accomplished artist and former candidate for mayor in Norman, has written in the latest Newsletter of Common Cause Oklahoma: - ..it becomes evident and indeed urgent that we reintroduce the most efficient form available for passengers and freight, especially for distances up to about 600 miles.  We have attempted time after time, to stop our Oklahoma Department of Transportation (it should be called Dept. of Highways), from destroying the functionality of the Union Station in Oklahoma City.  At each turn in the road and at each meeting we've attended and spoken, easily numbering in excess of 100 between us,  [referring to several activists] we've been met with "stonewalling" and bogus replies to our questions.  Often times it was difficult to gain the floor to speak our minds, in addition to simply finding out where and when the meetings were to be held.  Many were held at obscure locations around the state and at hours difficult for working people to attend.  .. Oklahomans don't seem to be worrying about mass-transportation even though OKC is consistently edging closer and closer to the air pollution limit defined by the Environmental Protection Agency.  Zach Taylor, Exec. Dir. for the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments, recently said that once OKC exceeds that limit, there will be no more industry or federal highway money until the levels are well back into the safety zone with assurances of remaining there.  But the plan for a ten-lane high speed highway along the route of existing railroad tracks will only exacerbate OKC's air pollution and public health problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 20.  There have been recent expressions of interest in Tulsa for implementation of rail between Tulsa and Broken Arrow, Springfield, Mo. and St. Louis, Kansas City, and Oklahoma City.   As noted in items 16 and 19, above, there is an existing rail line between Tulsa and Oklahoma City (other existing lines also).  It is owned by the State of Oklahoma and is used for occasional freight.  If this line were upgraded for passenger rail at highway speeds, it would be a tremendous benefit to both Oklahoma City and Tulsa and to intermediate communities as described by Jim Townsend in (18), above.  This rail line presently passes through the Oklahoma City Union Terminal rail yard and continues to Lawton and Altus with branches to Will Rogers Airport and to many other communities in central Oklahoma.  Grade-separated crossings on the final approach to the Union Terminal are tremendously advantageous to this route.  If the railyard is replaced by a highway, the grade-separated crossings would not be available for alternate approaches and crossings at grade are very dangerous.  ODOT has suggested that the Santa Fe Depot in Oklahoma City would be a suitable terminus for Oklahoma City-Tulsa traffic, but this station is small, elevated, and without sufficient room for parking.  Most serious, trains traveling between this station and Tulsa would have to cross freight tracks in Oklahoma City that are now carrying up to forty trains daily!  Of course, grade separated crossings can be constructed, but the present cost is up to $20 million each, and Why, Why, Why would we, with any reasonable vision of a future where automotive fuel is very expensive and transportation efficiency is a necessity, want to increase automotive travel and greatly increase the future cost of alternates to the automobile?
> 
> 
> 
> 21. Planet Earth and its human population are at a critical juncture in many ways.  We are faced with a multiplicity of serious issues that are brought to us by the fruits of science and technology, and political considerations rather than sound science too frequently determine decisions with outcomes awesome in comparison to those of years ago.  Our subject here involves a linkage between global warming and resource limitations.  In allowing special interests to dominate policy decisions, reduce democracy, and screen the public out, we are helping to seal an awful fate for humanity as a whole.  The Union Terminal rail yard in Oklahoma City is at the core of one of our major issues.  Government officialdom and civic leaders have never explained why replacement of the Union Terminal rail yard is a good idea!  They have never explained why Garner Stoll, Malise Dick, Tom Elmore, and Jim Townsend are wrong!  Removal of the rail yard will be enormously damaging; its removal makes no sense, no sense at all.  It must be retained.  Please help!  Call the Governor's office - (1-405) 521-2342 and ask that an independent commission be convened to examine this situation and ask your legislator to help place a hold on the project pending the commission's report!!  Don't let Oklahoma be the last place on Planet Earth to replace a remarkable asset for energy-efficient transportation with increased highway travel!
> 
>  
> 
> Ed Kessler
> 
>