By Edwin Kessler

Editor’s note: This is the second part of a commentary submitted by Ed Kessler of Norman. The first part was published in Saturday’s Transcript.

There were many convincing responses that urged change to the route of the new highway in order to preserve the Union Terminal rail yard. The new public interest organization, Oklahomans for New TRansportation Alternatives Coalition, joined the Oklahoma Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Norman Chapter of the League of Women Voters, the Norman Sustainability Network, The cities of El Reno, Lawton, Norman, Oolagah and Shawnee, the Oscar Romero Catholic Worker House, legislators and citizens in opposition to the proposed Crosstown route.

Nevertheless, in a decision served May 20, the Surface Transportation Board ignored all public inputs, and in their very own words, “the need is far too speculative to overcome the valid and immediate public purpose of relocating the I-40 highway.” And this in spite of the 1989 letter, contradictory statements by ODOT Director Gary Ridley, the national security threat represented by our country’s dependence on foreign oil, clear indications of decline of the automobile, and the many falsehoods and deceptions that have been characteristic of the Crosstown process since its beginnings. Particularly galling is STB’s statement, “…an exemption will foster sound economic conditions and encourage efficient management….” The STB decision is essentially a deregulation or loosening of rules that otherwise govern BNSF.

The STB is a powerful agency, and it is legally empowered to render exemptions. As the board stated in its decision: “The board may grant exemptions on its own initiative,” and it did. Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma knew of the decision two or more weeks before it was rendered, suggesting that his office had let it be known that he favored approval of the ODOT proposal and that, for all of its alleged independence, the board bows to political pressure. Well, the New Jersey Congressional delegation is fully angered by the STB decision for Oklahoma, because of its possible impact on issues in New Jersey.

Most strangely, the decision has flagrantly violated several mandates to the STB presented in 49 U.S. Code 10101. These call for promotion of beneficial competition among rail carriers and various modes of transportation; promotion of reduced congestion and smooth flow of rail traffic; promotion of effective freight service and promotion of public safety and convenience.

An ONTRAC filing with the Surface Transportation Board documents the violations. Local monopoly by the BNSF is increased, and rail traffic on the Chickasha Line has been delayed up to five hours because of the requirement that traffic must now be cleared to cross the North Canadian River on one mile of the already congested N-S BNSF line. Public safety is reduced by proposed permanent elimination of grade-separated crossings of the Chickasha Line at Walker and Robinson in Oklahoma City and their substitution by at-grade crossings on the same streets at the Packing Town Lead. Although the at-grade crossings were improved with about $35 thousand taxpayer dollars provided by ODOT, the substitution of at-grade crossings for grade separated crossings is a blow to public safety and contrary to both state and national policies begun by the 1994 safety initiative of the Federal Railway Administration.

Why does practically every Oklahoma citizen who learns about this issue oppose the Crosstown plan? It is because the choice of route would permanently handicap future rail service for passengers, freight, and mail in Oklahoma and because energy-efficient rail transportation is assuming ever more importance at this time of increasing concern about global warming and resource limitation issues. Our State owns nearly 900 miles of rail line and most converge at Union Terminal, which until the mid-20th century was a hub for passengers, mail and package freight, and remains in excellent condition. Opponents seek transportation suited to today’s conditions: sustainability, reduced highway congestion, reduced carbon dioxide emissions and increased efficiency of energy usage. Such objectives are of increasing concern today and intertwined issues of resource depletion and global warming are ever more clearly perceived. The Crosstown highway has become the most important issue for Oklahoma of recent decades.

We need to ask and try to answer very big questions, Why? Why do the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments and our governor not respond to petitions by the City of Norman and four other Oklahoma cities, to our governor and to the Surface Transportation Board?

Why does Oklahoma City-based Alliance for Public Transportation focus so completely on buses and never mention the Union Terminal? Why has response been so delayed to results of surveys showing a strong public wish for better public transportation? Why are unanimous opinions of authorities disregarded? Why do we have so many studies and surveys with few results? Why is essential information on this matter concealed from public view? Why is Oklahoma more than a decade behind other cities, e.g., Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City, in development of energy-efficient public transportation by rail?

Answers in significant part lie in findings publicized by former Oklahoma legislator Wanda Jo Stapleton last April 25 in The Oklahoma Observer, and elsewhere — findings of large financial contributions by highway and petroleum interests to political campaigns, reflecting the continuing broken nature of the political system in this our country. Are these influences in the real long term interests of the contributors? There are other thoughts concerning land purchases and ownerships.

In 1949, several companies apparently led by General Motors, were convicted of conspiring to monopolize the provision of parts and supplies to subsidiary companies, which bought electric railway systems and then replaced electric cars with buses. In the words of E. J. Quinby, president and founder of the Electric Railroader’s Association, this had been part of “an organized campaign to deprive the American public of their splendid electric railway systems…” The campaign was successful, though GM and some other companies were convicted, with the conviction confirmed on appeal in 1951. We note that General Motors is bankrupt today.

What was General Motors’ vision in the early 20th century that led that company to conspire with others to remove trolley tracks? What is the vision of Oklahoma leadership today, impelling toward permanent removal of the “best in the west” capability for public transportation by rail? And how will Oklahoma and our Nation fare in a future greatly influenced by powerful “highways only” lobbies, although liquid fuels will become scarce and expensive? Opponents of the current plans to destroy the rail yard do not oppose highways, but they oppose “highways only.” Modern public transportation starts with a national rail system. Oklahoma could be its hub. The economic and quality of life benefits would be tremendous.

This is a small fraction of available information. For more information, e-mail the author at kess3@swbell.net.