Has anyone traveled the Amtrak that goes through Tulsa? Is the station nice? Does it need renovation? And when were they going to announce that Amtrak finally opened a route to Tulsa?!
You know what.... that is a bus route that Amtrak offers to get to Kansas City. Whatever happened to bringing the train here? Has anyone at Amtrak mentioned the possibility of bringing it back to the city? I have been through towns 1/20th the size of Tulsa, and they have an Amtrak. What is wrong with this picture?
Yeah, it's a bus that shuttles you to either OKC or to KC
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/News_Release_Page&cid=1093553994292&c=am2Copy&ssid=180
My understanding was there was a push to bring Amtrak to Tulsa funded by a gas tax. When gas prices rose, the idea died.
I wish it were revived. I know enough people who commute to OKC at least one or two times a week, who would love the oppurtunity to take the train instead of drive.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
My understanding was there was a push to bring Amtrak to Tulsa funded by a gas tax. When gas prices rose, the idea died.
I wish it were revived. I know enough people who commute to OKC at least one or two times a week, who would love the oppurtunity to take the train instead of drive.
Don't even get me started on this. We were promised that Tulsa would get the rail if we all supported the initial line from Fort Worth to OKC. Now they had to ask the state to support this line with 2 million more dollars to service OKC. It burns me how often Tulsa is slapped around by the state and a majority of state funds go to OKC.
quote:
Originally posted by sportyart
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
My understanding was there was a push to bring Amtrak to Tulsa funded by a gas tax. When gas prices rose, the idea died.
I wish it were revived. I know enough people who commute to OKC at least one or two times a week, who would love the oppurtunity to take the train instead of drive.
Don't even get me started on this. We were promised that Tulsa would get the rail if we all supported the initial line from Fort Worth to OKC. Now they had to ask the state to support this line with 2 million more dollars to service OKC. It burns me how often Tulsa is slapped around by the state and a majority of state funds go to OKC.
Seriously, a city our size has done a helluva job on our own. Considering Tulsa is not that much smaller than OKC, we've supported ourselves nicely. Imagine if funding were actually poured into our town..
quote:
Originally posted by Johnboy976
Has anyone traveled the Amtrak that goes through Tulsa? Is the station nice? Does it need renovation? And when were they going to announce that Amtrak finally opened a route to Tulsa?!
Amtrak doesn't go through tulsa. There is an amtrak billboard advertising the heartland flyer but the closest it comes is OKC. You have to ride bus to OKC or KC to get on amtrak.
Roby, you make a good point. Tulsa has done really well without state support. Oklahoma fails to give much to us... ever. No wonder a few decades ago Tulsa and Northeastern Oklahoma proposed migrating to Kansas (although not the greatest state to move to... perhap Missouri). But Sporty's right with his being frustrated, though. We get shafted all the time. We simply need the government to foot our bills for once. I would love to see Amtrak brought to Tulsa. Spend a couple million on a nice station, something that people will remember. Create it with a design that screams "Tulsa," such as art deco. Then the other couple of million to set up routes. To me this seems more than feasible. The local government either needs to make another proposal to the people of the city, or they need to start bugging the governor to get off his keister and help us out for once.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Johnboy976
Has anyone traveled the Amtrak that goes through Tulsa? Is the station nice? Does it need renovation? And when were they going to announce that Amtrak finally opened a route to Tulsa?!
Amtrak doesn't go through tulsa. There is an amtrak billboard advertising the heartland flyer but the closest it comes is OKC. You have to ride bus to OKC or KC to get on amtrak.
Yeah, I think that's how I originally answered.
Missouri Department of Transportation has started discussion with Amtrak about bringing service down from St. Louis to Springfield.
http://ozarksnow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060615/NEWS01/606150369
http://www.ky3.com/news/3051856.html?autovid=Y
http://www.modot.org/newsandinfo/District0News.shtml?action=displaySSI&newsId=4006
http://www.modot.org/newsroom/documents/rail_pass_cur_prop_060106.pdf
This same rail line continues over good BNSF track 180 west miles to Tulsa. This could be a way to get service to T-TOWN in the near term while support builds for high speed service to Texas via OKC.
Matt
www.oklahomarail.org
I can't think of a reason why the state should not go for this service from OKC through TULSA and on into springfield. COME ON TULSA REPS, GET THIS DEAL DONE!
quote:
Originally posted by sportyart
I can't think of a reason why the state should not go for this service from OKC through TULSA and on into springfield. COME ON TULSA REPS, GET THIS DEAL DONE!
Who should we all push to try and get this going? Surely there is a pointman we could all send emails requesting they check into this?
We should start by getting Mayor Taylor on board.
However that is just a strategy to get the Tulsa and northeast Oklahoma state representatives and senators to support it.
The legislature ultimately decide where the state's transportation dollars get spent. Tulsa is fortunate in that the chair of appropriations and the subcommittee chair of House transportation appropriations are both from here.
They can get it done, if they want to.
The Heartland Flyer has been serving OKC for 7 years now as of this week. Here is the chance for Tulsa's reps to deliver.
Here is audio from the Missouri DOT on the proposed service to Springfield. (//%22http://www.modot.org/newsroom/R100172.MP3%22)
He wrote: What would be the purpose besides pandering to nostalgia?
I don't recall mentioning nostalgia.
But since you brought it up, maybe you are having nostalgia for $1, make that $2 gallon gasoline.
Since you seem to want a drive-only transportation system, maybe you are having nostalgia for the motor car. That is 115 year old technology.
Passenger rail is:
- Quality of life in the form of travel choice
- Mobility for the hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans who can't drive because of age, disability, or economic circumstance
- Greater transportation safety by accomodating market share in a mode that is significantly safer than highway travel
- Great energy security for America by preserving mobility in the face of scarce energy resources
quote:
Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
He wrote: What would be the purpose besides pandering to nostalgia?
I don't recall mentioning nostalgia.
But since you brought it up, maybe you are having nostalgia for $1, make that $2 gallon gasoline.
Since you seem to want a drive-only transportation system, maybe you are having nostalgia for the motor car. That is 115 year old technology.
Passenger rail is:
- Quality of life in the form of travel choice
- Mobility for the hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans who can't drive because of age, disability, or economic circumstance
- Greater transportation safety by accomodating market share in a mode that is significantly safer than highway travel
- Great energy security for America by preserving mobility in the face of scarce energy resources
Son, yer talkin' to da wrong person about car driving. I am actually counting on $6/per gallon and a new career as a pedi-cab driver.
Hey Paul, Vinita called, they want their Santa suit back....
By the way. We agree on something. Pedi cabs and jitneys have their place.
quote:
Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
By the way. We agree on something. Pedi cabs and jitneys have their place.
I am all for outlaw jitneys. MTTA don't deserve the monopoly to provide piss-poor service. And, then, the outright unmitigated gall tryin' to sweeten it up with a stoooopid concert series to kiss up. Hey, Boatwright, get real ALREADY.
The city doesnt have a monopoly. There is this privately owned thing called a "TAXI service". If you think a bus service will be profitable, work to start your own and give the kind of service you think would be better.
quote:
Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
The city doesnt have a monopoly. There is this privately owned thing called a "TAXI service". If you think a bus service will be profitable, work to start your own and give the kind of service you think would be better.
Uh. Mr. Artist, you need to review the City ordinance regarding fixed route bus services. A private competing bus service is illegal by ordinance.
First review the enabling ordinance for MTTA (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/Title39-9.asp%22)
Taxi service is not competition, because it is not a fixed route service. It is considered a for-hire service, governed by a completely different enabling ordinance. Say a chinaman gets cute and tries to operate a pedi-cab service. He would have to abide by the said ordinance or risk p-cab impoundment. Not fun.
There's a p-cab service in the area. But, it's not in Tulsa. Guess where? Said chinaman is quietly watching how the City's p-cab nazis treat Mr. Henretty. So far, it's been pretty shabby. Lotsa foot-draggin' and all dat crap.
And, out over yonder eastside, there is actually a couple of outlaw competition to the MTTA. Various enterprising persons of the Latino persuasion operate them. You know who you are. Si Se Puede.
Believe it or not, they are makin' bank, not large enough to attract attention, but, enough to make rent, without the public handout, without the stooopid concert series, unlike the MTTA, which relies on public subsidies of approximately 200 clams per user. So you say, who's kiddin' whom?
The fact of the matter is until there's lotsa honky bodies hangin' outta the MTTA buses during rush, dangerously overcapacity for a Gillig, there's no real public support for LRT. Just a bunch of lip service during election time. So, GIT REAL.
use claim ta be da pimps,but all I sees ya pimpin,be B.S> dat nobodys wantsta here fool!SHIZZLE_DEEEP_SHIZZLE
quote:
Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay
What would be the purpose besides pandering to nostalgia? Consider the subsidy to transit users, just a little north of 200 clams per month, per user.
My goodness, that's a car payment. Simply give a car to every charity case that needs one, and do away with MTTA, Amtrak, and every other American public transit system.
Your suggestion is oversimplified and you are overlooking the cost of owning a car so that your theory would work. After giving every charity case a car, who is going to pay the insurance for them to legally keep the car on the road? How about all the gas to use the car?
And I know you realize that our transportation system is subsidized now. If we had to really pay for the roads instead of them being subsidized by the government, then you'd see people giving up their cars. We complain about Amtrak not supporting itself, but no one thinks about how much we spend to expand our highway system without any outcry that all roads must be turnpikes. And with gas prices increasing with no sign of having prices go below $2 ever, cities offering a rail system which goes faster than any bus will be able to travel will be the cities that are considered the most "livable".
quote:
Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
The city doesnt have a monopoly. There is this privately owned thing called a "TAXI service". If you think a bus service will be profitable, work to start your own and give the kind of service you think would be better.
Uh. Mr. Artist, you need to review the City ordinance regarding fixed route bus services. A private competing bus service is illegal by ordinance.
First review the enabling ordinance for MTTA (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/Title39-9.asp%22)
Taxi service is not competition, because it is not a fixed route service. It is considered a for-hire service, governed by a completely different enabling ordinance. Say a chinaman gets cute and tries to operate a pedi-cab service. He would have to abide by the said ordinance or risk p-cab impoundment. Not fun.
There's a p-cab service in the area. But, it's not in Tulsa. Guess where? Said chinaman is quietly watching how the City's p-cab nazis treat Mr. Henretty. So far, it's been pretty shabby. Lotsa foot-draggin' and all dat crap.
And, out over yonder eastside, there is actually a couple of outlaw competition to the MTTA. Various enterprising persons of the Latino persuasion operate them. You know who you are. Si Se Puede.
Believe it or not, they are makin' bank, not large enough to attract attention, but, enough to make rent, without the public handout, without the stooopid concert series, unlike the MTTA, which relies on public subsidies of approximately 200 clams per user. So you say, who's kiddin' whom?
The fact of the matter is until there's lotsa honky bodies hangin' outta the MTTA buses during rush, dangerously overcapacity for a Gillig, there's no real public support for LRT. Just a bunch of lip service during election time. So, GIT REAL.
I kind of guessed I should have elucidated my point rather than try to show an example... So here goes.
This conversation was about AMTRACK and different routes and possibilities to and from different cities. My response about Taxis to your MTTA response was to show similar irrelevance. Apparently that was lost in your self centered universe. Actually I would say your connection of an AMTRACK service, from St Louis to Tulsa, to the MTTA was less far more a stretch than my connection of the MTTA to a Taxi service. Wouldnt AMTRACK be governed by a different enabling ordinance than MTTA? Would AMTRACK be competition with the MTTA?
As for a city ordinance being in the way of a competing bus service. Puleeeze, like your one to suddenly think all current city ordinances should be written in stone and unchangeable. Or are we only supposed to consider any changes you want as reasonable and any notion at all by anyone else warrants a "GET REAL" response?
If you like what your getting, keep doin what your doing. Is it working for ya Paul?
Dat bike ridin pimp sho gots sum screws being loos in da head he got_SHIZZLE_LOONI_SHIZZLE
(Please converse in a way more easily understandable. Thanks.)
(EDIT)
I want to ride trains and I don't care if Amtrak runs it or some private group. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it regardless of your opinion. Travelling on turnpikes, even well maintained ones, simply isn't as cost efficient as rails in the big picture. Driving to OKC is a collosal waste of energy, land and time. In your mind all those people riding trains on the coasts are just nostalgic?
(EDIT)
quote:
Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
Your suggestion is oversimplified and you are overlooking the cost of owning a car so that your theory would work. After giving every charity case a car, who is going to pay the insurance for them to legally keep the car on the road? How about all the gas to use the car?
And I know you realize that our transportation system is subsidized now. If we had to really pay for the roads instead of them being subsidized by the government, then you'd see people giving up their cars. We complain about Amtrak not supporting itself, but no one thinks about how much we spend to expand our highway system without any outcry that all roads must be turnpikes. And with gas prices increasing with no sign of having prices go below $2 ever, cities offering a rail system which goes faster than any bus will be able to travel will be the cities that are considered the most "livable".
You are correct. SOV is heavily subsidized in the form of urban sprawl, the constant road widenings, and of course the ubiquitous zoning codes that dictate the size of parking lots. Not to mention the tax revenue lost to right-of-ways used for streets and highways.
The day that cities will be considered "livable" is the day when redneck NASCAR meth fiends from Sand Springs can't afford gasoline. I am waiting patiently for that day.
Remember that Tulsa had a 28% increase in bus ridership since the gas has risen recently. If we are going to focus on all rail, we should take that statistic into account as for showing that gas is getting to a limit that most cannot afford without altering their lifestyle significantly.
I always used to think that the reason we didn't have much in the way of mass transit was that "well, we're such a young nation...we developed along with cars." Ha! It seems that in the early 1900's we had the best, most efficient mass transit system in the world (trains and electric trolley systems). This includes cities such as L.A. and...even Tulsa.
If you haven't heard about how GM (with help from Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, etc) bought up all the local trolley lines and systematically, intentionally destroyed them...I suggest you check out a video at the library. It's called "Taken for a Ride." If you believe that mass transit and walkability are critical quality of life issues (I do), it will make your hair catch fire. (Much like what happens when you think about W putting Inhofe in charge of the Environmental committee in the Senate...)
An interesting side story is about how the highway construction lobby got busy in the 50's obtaining fed funds for road building (Hey, thanks, department of defense!)...and how grassroots activists in DC and San Francisco saved their cities from being filleted by freeways. (Ever pondered how many gorgeous old homes and buildings were destroyed for our own inner-dispersal loop? And how neighborhoods were cut in half by this automotive iron curtain?)
I strongly support OKC-Tulsa commuter or high speed rail. But it should be considered part of a future phase.
Requiring rail service west beyond downtown Tulsa to Oklahoma City could be a deal breaker in the short term if this Missouri Amtrak thing "gets legs."
Why?
Engineering cost barriers starting at about Greenwood. Probably a minimum of $30 million just to make a slow speed service possible.
Lets get done what is politically possible now.
Was using the highway system for landing planes a military strategy? Never heard that. The telephone poles, narrow width, rails etc. wouldd make that a sketchy proposition. And using tanks on roads that have weak substructures would also be temporary. These roads can't even handle car traffic. Maybe in Colorado Springs because of NORAD but the rest of the country, no. Not like the Roman roads in Europe.
More likely, in the case of the domestic defense, we would use a large quantity of light armored, quick, manueverable troop carriers and helicopters. BTW, how do we move our tanks currently for deployment to staging areas? BY RAIL!
So we got a gift from GM et.al. for killing the corrupt railroad robber barons? How so? We replaced one set of corrupt businessman political alliances with another. Cynical view. Generally I like cynicism but you abuse it. Unless you owned stock in the emerging robber baron industries, it was a net negative for the country.
(EDIT)
I think I saw that same episode on the History Channel. I remember hearing somewhere that the highways were designed as emergency runways in case of damage to existing structures on military bases, but I found this link from the DOT and I can't see where it discusses the topic.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/history.htm
Paul I think the nostalgia thing is only in your head not in anyone elses lol. I wasnt around when there were trains or trolleys in the Tulsa area. Never had a train set. Never even ridden one other than the Tube or subway. I have no interest in or memory of trains what so ever. Nostalgia for trains? Just how old are you lol?
As for the "Is it working for you" comment. What I was talking about was your message, what you want changed or done in Tulsa. At least I am thinking you do want something? You want people to vote for you anyway. I would also assume you would want people to understand you and stand with you for whatever cause or change your advocating. Dont look like you are just riding around town to simply get from one place to another, seems you want some sort of attention. Is there a purpose to that attention? Or is it just to get attention period?
Often you seem like an intelligent person who wants positive changes to take place. Who has ideas. But then I hear comments that quite frankly turn me off from listening to you and even make me angry at you. Not a good way to garner support. I mean you cant have it both ways. One cant have a cause or motivation to do something and make others not like you and expect them to want to help you or care about your cause. Actually you make me feel like I want to do just the opposite of whatever it is you want.
You say you dont care weather people like you or not or whether they like what you say. But it seems like you keep wanting attention and for people to listen.
I have seen so many people with causes. The little girl in New Orleans who got money and books to open the library near her house comes to mind. So many people find a message and a way to make their cause succeed and come to fruition.
Do you have a message? Is there something you want? And is what your doing getting you there? Or are you just a nut case aimlessly ranting about whatever? I dont know.... I actually feel odd talking to you. I keep expecting someone to take me aside and calmly, sincerely tell me your not all there in the head. And trust me I would believe them.
The only thing that pops into my mind for a reason for what you do is that you may have at one time tried to get things done "through the system" so to speak. But that it didnt work for you so out of frustration you have lashed out in this direction thinking it will work for you?
Frankly whatever it is your after, I for the life of me cant figure it out. Other than your just a nut case with an "attention seeking" disorder of some sort. Or is that really all you want people to think about you and what you say? If most people had put as much time and effort into something as you seemingly do, they would have succeeded at it by now.
If you like what your getting, keep doing what your doing.
Please stay on topic. Personal attacks are not tolerated, especially when multiple people pick on one target.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I think I saw that same episode on the History Channel. I remember hearing somewhere that the highways were designed as emergency runways in case of damage to existing structures on military bases, but I found this link from the DOT and I can't see where it discusses the topic.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/history.htm
It is an urban legend that they were designed that way but as Paul pointed out, they have been converted for aircraft use many times in history and likely the feds have documented plans for doing this if needed in the future.
In case of war, rail is good for moving a lot of stuff at once. However by truck you can be covert and fast.
So, again, how to get people on board with this project?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Was using the highway system for landing planes a military strategy? Never heard that. The telephone poles, narrow width, rails etc. wouldd make that a sketchy proposition. And using tanks on roads that have weak substructures would also be temporary. These roads can't even handle car traffic. Maybe in Colorado Springs because of NORAD but the rest of the country, no. Not like the Roman roads in Europe.
More likely, in the case of the domestic defense, we would use a large quantity of light armored, quick, manueverable troop carriers and helicopters. BTW, how do we move our tanks currently for deployment to staging areas? BY RAIL!
So we got a gift from GM et.al. for killing the corrupt railroad robber barons? How so? We replaced one set of corrupt businessman political alliances with another. Cynical view. Generally I like cynicism but you abuse it. Unless you owned stock in the emerging robber baron industries, it was a net negative for the country.
(EDIT)
Why was I edited? Especially since Artist said virtually the same thing only several paragraphs longer. What I said needed to be said to Pimp boy in plain language. There was no cursing or name calling. Quite arbitrary.
quote:
Originally posted by Editor
Please stay on topic. Personal attacks are not tolerated, especially when multiple people pick on one target.
Lacking an adequate response as to how responding to a man who calls entire communities redneck meth fiends and individuals crack heads one has to wonder what you do tolerate. Explain yourself or lose even more posters.
I now employ the Ingore funtion for pimpthistownvotepaultay and H.Noodleman, his alter-ego. Keeps you from having your head explode.
Amtrak is dying a slow death. It is obsolete in its present state andn should either be shut down completely or completely overhauled and privatized which would cost billions. Amtrak is subsidized by the government over 1 billion a year to make up for its losses. It is poorly run, and continues to cut back on services which only compounds their problems. To effectively compete with air travel, they need to offer the same or better frequency of service (like in Europe) and Amtrak is far from doing that.
The reasons are political. The government sets aside just 521 million yearly for Amtrak, compared to 28 billion in highway funding. Amtrak continually pleads with congress for money to upgrade tracks and trains and never gets it. They are looked at as the poor bastard stepchild of the transportation family.
So in other words, don't hold your breath on Amtrak expanding service to Tulsa (or anywhere) in the forseeable future.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Amtrak is dying a slow death. It is obsolete in its present state andn should either be shut down completely or completely overhauled and privatized which would cost billions. Amtrak is subsidized by the government over 1 billion a year to make up for its losses. It is poorly run, and continues to cut back on services which only compounds their problems. To effectively compete with air travel, they need to offer the same or better frequency of service (like in Europe) and Amtrak is far from doing that.
The reasons are political. The government sets aside just 521 million yearly for Amtrak, compared to 28 billion in highway funding. Amtrak continually pleads with congress for money to upgrade tracks and trains and never gets it. They are looked at as the poor bastard stepchild of the transportation family.
So in other words, don't hold your breath on Amtrak expanding service to Tulsa (or anywhere) in the forseeable future.
Question: Do you think that gas prices increasing is going to affect our mode of travel anytime soon? I keep hearing everyone talk about the price of gas not going back down, so the paradigm has shifted.
"NAPLES, Florida (Reuters) - Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank President Jack Guynn on Monday urged U.S. elected officials to face up to long-term fiscal problems and said the world will have to get used to higher oil prices.
"I think one of the things we've realized is that whether it's demand or whether it's sabotage and natural disasters like the hurricanes that put pressure on the supply of oil, it looks like we all need to be thinking about long-term oil prices that are very different to what we assumed as recently as three or four years ago," Guynn said.
"And it's clearly become a major point of discussion as we think about the economy and so forth, and yet I think it's amazing that our economy -- at least in the past several years -- even at the current price of oil has fared as well as it has," he added.
In his speech, which largely mirrored one he gave on June 7, Guynn said U.S. core inflation, excluding volatile food and energy costs, has moved up to, or beyond, the upper end of the range he considers acceptable "over time."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/economy_fed_guynn_dc
Nastalgia has nothing to do with this discussion, though it keeps being thrown out there like saying it enough makes it a fact.
I, like others here, are too young to remember trolleys in Tulsa to be nastalgic about anything. I think we are just more pragmatic about the future.
Airlines will be adjusting their prices to reflect gas prices as well. So it seems more and more like other modes of transportation are going to have to be seriously considered in the near term and not twenty years down the road.
Europe has rail service because gas is priced so high there and not artificially low like we keep it here in the United States.
Now, as a city, do we try to get ahead of the curve and provide our citizens with other avenues of service, seeing that as much as people hate the busses we still saw a 28% jump in people riding them or do we sit back with our hands under our rearends and do nothing because we believe it's for naught? Every city who has started a light rail recently has seen their passenger numbers increase.
And to be linked by passenger rail to the Amtrak system would be a benefit because whether we want to believe it or not, high gas prices is going to bring about the death knell to car travel, just read the Tulsa World lately about people vacationing closer to home because of the high gas prices.
Please keep in mind that as far as Oklahoma is concerned, and the proposed Missouri service, Amtrak is simply an operator.
Their monopoly status was revoked in 1997.
But only Amtrak has the 1970 agreement with the railroads to operate at incremental cost and with priority.
You could have anyone run the trains, but for a practical matter it is going to be Amtrak.
Contact me if you want to help put together a meeting about getting train service to Tulsa. (//%22matthew.dowty@oklahomarail.org%22)
I know one city councilor in particular who wants supports rail.[:)]
Unfortunately the gap between "wanting to support" and "supporting" is about as big as "wanting to win the lottery" and "winning."
I'm sure if you got something started, forumers would be on it like a volume-gifted young person on a ring-shaped fried cake.
quote: To effectively compete with air travel, they need to offer the same or better frequency of service (like in Europe) and Amtrak is far from doing that.
I don't believe they can compete with air travel for long haul. My brother in law just checked on travel from Minneapolis to the West coast on Amtrak and was stunned. Over $1200 per person. But one is more of an experience, the other is just a trip.
They can be competitive in targetting regional travel as has been proposed. The railroads have always had problems with identifying their market.
To clear up any misconceptions about rail fares the roudtrip fare Oklahoma City to Fort Worth is around $48-60. Less than the cost of fuel for your SUV and way less than the IRS/AAA fully allocated cost of driving.
Roundtrip Amtrak coach Minneapolis-Seattle is showing $268 so I am assuming the $1,200 he was quoted was a first class fare which includes four days of meals, a private shower, and a bed.
If the per mile fare for Tulsa-Saint Louis is the same 12 cents/mile as OKC-FTW, than a ticket to Saint Louis would be about $50 each way.
Matt
Agreed, waterboy. Identifying the right market is the key for them.
Passenger rail is highly unlikely to make even the tiniest dent in long-haul trips, regardless of the cost of plane tickets. Travelers would sooner stay home than ride a train halfway across the country. The potential exception is luxury travel, but that's a small, small market. No dice.
Regional travel seems the best bet... especially if high-speed train infrastructure was ever developed. Taking the train from Tulsa to Dallas would be palatable if it was a relatively fast trip and much less expensive than a flight. Passenger rail has to be positioned in that middle ground -- significantly faster than a car trip, significantly cheaper than a plane trip (which might be possible as fuel prices rise).
If a person could leave downtown Tulsa and be in downtown Dallas 240 miles away in about 2.5 hours (about 100mph) at a cost of around $40 each way... that would be a hard deal to beat. By the time a person rented a car at the airport and drove to downtown Dallas and then back to the airport, the total travel time wouldn't be that significantly different compared to a plane. Compared to driving, that train ride would shave 1.5 hours off the drive each way and probably not cost too much more than a couple tanks of gas.
Just as a frame of reference, I checked the Heartland Flyer from OKC to Ft. Worth. The roundtrip only cost $53 (it's $29 one way and $24 the other). The cheapest flight on Southwest is $79 each way, or $160 roundtrip. So I think my $80 roundtrip estimate isn't a bad price if it was a high-speed rail line.
Therein lies the problem. The Heartland Flyer trip takes 4 hours and 15 minutes to cover 200 miles. So the price is right, but the train ride takes longer than driving!
High-speed regional trips at medium prices would seem to me to be the idea.
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
Agreed, waterboy. Identifying the right market is the key for them.
Passenger rail is highly unlikely to make even the tiniest dent in long-haul trips, regardless of the cost of plane tickets. Travelers would sooner stay home than ride a train halfway across the country. The potential exception is luxury travel, but that's a small, small market. No dice.
Regional travel seems the best bet... especially if high-speed train infrastructure was ever developed. Taking the train from Tulsa to Dallas would be palatable if it was a relatively fast trip and much less expensive than a flight. Passenger rail has to be positioned in that middle ground -- significantly faster than a car trip, significantly cheaper than a plane trip (which might be possible as fuel prices rise).
If a person could leave downtown Tulsa and be in downtown Dallas 240 miles away in about 2.5 hours (about 100mph) at a cost of around $40 each way... that would be a hard deal to beat. By the time a person rented a car at the airport and drove to downtown Dallas and then back to the airport, the total travel time wouldn't be that significantly different compared to a plane. Compared to driving, that train ride would shave 1.5 hours off the drive each way and probably not cost too much more than a couple tanks of gas.
Just as a frame of reference, I checked the Heartland Flyer from OKC to Ft. Worth. The roundtrip only cost $53 (it's $29 one way and $24 the other). The cheapest flight on Southwest is $79 each way, or $160 roundtrip. So I think my $80 roundtrip estimate isn't a bad price if it was a high-speed rail line.
Therein lies the problem. The Heartland Flyer trip takes 4 hours and 15 minutes to cover 200 miles. So the price is right, but the train ride takes longer than driving!
High-speed regional trips at medium prices would seem to me to be the idea.
Again, the problem is that Amtrak is losing money at an alarming rate, and cannot afford to upgrade its trains, rails or services offered. Who is going to pay for these new high speed trains and the rails to run them on? The government, as well as the vast majority of Americans have already made it clear they are unwilling to pay for it.
The more Amtrak tries to cut back to try and save themselves, the more they keep losing. Amtrak needs to stop relying on government subsidies and focus on profit making before any progress will happen.
Also, Amtrak needs to let go of their long distance routes and focus on multiplying the trains and improving service on their short distance routes in order to compete with bus and air. Any new development in Amtrak should be done very carefully and in high density/highly traveled corridors.
Also keep in mind that the majority of people that live in the area would have to use it in order for it to be successful and profitable.
For example, about one in every three users of mass transit in the United States and two-thirds of the nation's rail riders live in the New York Metro area. The rest of the country is simply addicted to their cars and has been for over the past half century. Thats a tough habit to break, even with the current gas prices. I haven't noticed a difference in driving habits. Traffic pretty much seems the same to me.
Take Britain as another example. They have in recent years invested 14.5 billion in improvements, and added another $30 billion as as a provision for "any horrible eventuality". A small country with a population of 60 million people can afford to invest $14.5 billion extra into its already good rail system. But the US - with an affluent population nearly five times larger - is currently unwilling to even loan $200 million to its failing system.
Here's an exerpt from an article by Jennifer Hattam in the current issue of the Sierra Club magazine, re: rail transit in Salt Lake City:
Biggest Transit Turnaround: Salt Lake City
(population 178,605)
The last time a rail system ran through Utah's capital, Harry Truman was in the White House. When a modern light rail was proposed in the early 1980s, the idea wasn't warmly received. "People said no one would use it, that folks in Utah would not give up their cars," recalls Sierra Club organizer Marc Heileson. Opponents showed up at the 1997 ground breaking with combative banners like "You can pry my steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers." Even supporters didn't have very high hopes, projecting that the system would draw only 22,000 daily riders by 2020.
Environmentalists, transit officials, and city boosters secured federal funds that allowed the first Trax line to open in December 1999 despite the opposition. Now the 19-mile system is drawing more than 58,000 riders a day--and changing the city's pattern of development from auto-dependent sprawl to denser mixed-use neighborhoods. More people than ever live downtown. "Areas that are near a Trax stop are now more valuable to develop, not less," says Heileson, who wants to see the system expand into the still-sprawling suburbs. If they build it, people will likely come: Forty-four percent of Trax's initial riders were new to mass transit. "That means almost half of those people got out of their cars and jumped on the train," says Heileson. "If you can do that in Salt Lake City, you can do it anywhere."
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Here's an exerpt from an article by Jennifer Hattam in the current issue of the Sierra Club magazine, re: rail transit in Salt Lake City:
Biggest Transit Turnaround: Salt Lake City
(population 178,605)
The last time a rail system ran through Utah's capital, Harry Truman was in the White House. When a modern light rail was proposed in the early 1980s, the idea wasn't warmly received. "People said no one would use it, that folks in Utah would not give up their cars," recalls Sierra Club organizer Marc Heileson. Opponents showed up at the 1997 ground breaking with combative banners like "You can pry my steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers." Even supporters didn't have very high hopes, projecting that the system would draw only 22,000 daily riders by 2020.
Environmentalists, transit officials, and city boosters secured federal funds that allowed the first Trax line to open in December 1999 despite the opposition. Now the 19-mile system is drawing more than 58,000 riders a day--and changing the city's pattern of development from auto-dependent sprawl to denser mixed-use neighborhoods. More people than ever live downtown. "Areas that are near a Trax stop are now more valuable to develop, not less," says Heileson, who wants to see the system expand into the still-sprawling suburbs. If they build it, people will likely come: Forty-four percent of Trax's initial riders were new to mass transit. "That means almost half of those people got out of their cars and jumped on the train," says Heileson. "If you can do that in Salt Lake City, you can do it anywhere."
See, the only problem with that example is that Tulsans are generally too hard-headed and refuse to learn a single lesson from any other city. Doesn't this make Salt Lake City just the latest in a long line of cities where mass transit has done well in spite of the fact everyone said "it'll never work here"?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I now employ the Ingore funtion for pimpthistownvotepaultay and H.Noodleman, his alter-ego. Keeps you from having your head explode.
I sho aints no part of dat fools head!He be crazy dat pimp boy be!Dont say Homer be ins on his foOl heads_SHIZZLE_NUTCASE_SHIZZLE
AZBADPUPPY,
This isn't about profits. Its going to require Oklahoma state government to spend money. Just like is done for the OKC service, like Missouri is doing for its service, and California, and Illinois, and so forth.
Its about moving people. It is about preparing for a time when people will wax nostalgic for 2006's "cheap" gas. Its about quality of life. Its about generating activity around cbd-based train stations.
With each successive improvement, a level of support will develop for the next level of investment.
At some point, in the busiest corridors, there may be an opportunity for private sector operators to operate at profit if they don't have to pay for the full cost of the track (kind of like truckers and the airlines).
oklahomarail.org (//%22http://www.oklahomarail.org%22)
Congressional transportation project earmarks of all kinds are down in the state. Article about it in the Daily Oklahoman the other day.
Maybe the Senator Tom Coburn effect?
The controversial OKC I 40 project might sit unfinished for years with a junior member representing the capitol city down there.
Rail will have to be primarily funded by the state. City might be asked to help with the TEA-LU Enhancement grant 20% local match on the station. But that's down the road. Just need their moral support right now. Will come in handy getting the legislature on board.
Federal formula funds may be available for the grade crossing work.
That's o.k. Thanks to revenue from the gross production tax (natural gas mainly) we can afford it.
quote:
Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
Therein lies the problem. The Heartland Flyer trip takes 4 hours and 15 minutes to cover 200 miles. So the price is right, but the train ride takes longer than driving!
If you are taking the train for the speed, you are completely missing the whole point. That why I actually prefer Greyhound over Southwest. Better class of people.
I think you missed my whole point, Paul. I was trying to identify why more people didn't take the train in spite of the fact the fares are so cheap. When you can drive it faster and have your own car in your destination city, taking the train is only going to be done for the "experience", and that's a small market.
quote:
Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
I think you missed my whole point, Paul. I was trying to identify why more people didn't take the train in spite of the fact the fares are so cheap. When you can drive it faster and have your own car in your destination city, taking the train is only going to be done for the "experience", and that's a small market.
Believe it or not, there's actually an emerging, albeit still small, market called transportertainment, commanding premium fares. For example, the murder mystery train tours are in this category.
Instead of the stoopid concert series, stationary, at the Denver station, Bill Cartwright might put a roving mariachi band on a couple of buses, which would most certainly make the local, maybe even national, evening news. Think outta dat crummy box on four wheels, people.
If worked right, it could be a very profitable niche for some enterprising, over-pampered trust fund slacker.
I understand your position, but what you're suggesting is to make rail transit more niche, whereas we were brainstorming on how to make it more mainstream.
While the niche for those traveling for the sake of traveling is small, Amtrak could do a better job promoting and enlarging that number. The Eurail pass in Europe is designed for college students--without cars--who want the freedom to roam the country & see various sites on their own schedule. Amtrak has a few deals for international travelers, but nothing along the lines of the Eurail.
I have taken Amtrak on a long journey--from DC to Florida. This was shortly after riding the train in Europe, and there was no comparison. I understand that most of Amtrak's tracks are owned by freight companies, so anytime we came in conflict with a freight train, the freight train had the right of way. We had to stop multiple times and wait. Consequently, our train was over 3 hours behind schedule.
I agree with AverageJoe, we should focus on regional travel first; perhaps someday we can move on from there. I disagree, though, about the heartland flyer. If I could take a train to Dallas in 4 hours, I would do it over a airplane always, especially if the train went downtown. Really, after driving to the airport and parking, going through security, renting a car at your destination, and driving downtown, the difference is probably an hour at best.
quote:
If I could take a train to Dallas in 4 hours, I would do it over a airplane always, especially if the train went downtown. Really, after driving to the airport and parking, going through security, renting a car at your destination, and driving downtown, the difference is probably an hour at best.
Here, Here... 5 years ago before the current security situation I would have said no, but with travel security making flight as inconvenient as it is now....
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
While the niche for those traveling for the sake of traveling is small, Amtrak could do a better job promoting and enlarging that number. The Eurail pass in Europe is designed for college students--without cars--who want the freedom to roam the country & see various sites on their own schedule. Amtrak has a few deals for international travelers, but nothing along the lines of the Eurail.
I have taken Amtrak on a long journey--from DC to Florida. This was shortly after riding the train in Europe, and there was no comparison. I understand that most of Amtrak's tracks are owned by freight companies, so anytime we came in conflict with a freight train, the freight train had the right of way. We had to stop multiple times and wait. Consequently, our train was over 3 hours behind schedule.
I agree with AverageJoe, we should focus on regional travel first; perhaps someday we can move on from there. I disagree, though, about the heartland flyer. If I could take a train to Dallas in 4 hours, I would do it over a airplane always, especially if the train went downtown. Really, after driving to the airport and parking, going through security, renting a car at your destination, and driving downtown, the difference is probably an hour at best.
I'm in agreement. If a regional train gets me there as quickly as my car and I don't have to drive those hours, I'm all about taking the train. That's why a Saint Louis to Tulsa train would be a good start. I'm sure Amtrak could promote the train as a gateway for Branson and lure in some business as well.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
If I could take a train to Dallas in 4 hours, I would do it over a airplane always, especially if the train went downtown. Really, after driving to the airport and parking, going through security, renting a car at your destination, and driving downtown, the difference is probably an hour at best.
Here, Here... 5 years ago before the current security situation I would have said no, but with travel security making flight as inconvenient as it is now....
But we have to consider that when taking the train, one still has to drive to the train station, park, and more than likely go through some measure of security screening. The real time saving is the downtown-to-downtown linkage. So a four hour train ride wouldn't work -- a person could drive there faster, which is a marketing loser.
Faster than driving + cheaper than flying = passenger rail success.
(http://img434.imageshack.us/img434/7110/monorail11sj.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
If I could take a train to Dallas in 4 hours, I would do it over a airplane always, especially if the train went downtown. Really, after driving to the airport and parking, going through security, renting a car at your destination, and driving downtown, the difference is probably an hour at best.
Here, Here... 5 years ago before the current security situation I would have said no, but with travel security making flight as inconvenient as it is now....
But we have to consider that when taking the train, one still has to drive to the train station, park, and more than likely go through some measure of security screening. The real time saving is the downtown-to-downtown linkage. So a four hour train ride wouldn't work -- a person could drive there faster, which is a marketing loser.
Faster than driving + cheaper than flying = passenger rail success.
So basically super highways of rail service. The Country would have to build a whole new rail line between all major cities. I could see a huge argument from smaller communities saying that they would be left in the dust. Though I could also see just pointing to major to mid major airports and saying it's the same. Does anyone know the cost per mile of rail to build for high speed rail service?
Walk through the coaches of most Amtrak trains, ESPECIALLY the long hauls, at 3 a.m. and you will see the majority are not on "joy" rides or "transportainment." It doesn't matter what Southwest is charging if your traveling from Purcell, Okla to Yuma, Ariz. and you don't have a car or one that is roadworthy.
My point was that you start with "the possible" now and build up to "super trains" over time.
quote:
As a reminder. We are discussing this because the state of Missouri has entered into formal discussions with Amtrak towards establishing train service from Saint Louis to Springfield. This same Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway line continues on to Tulsa. Some of us have asked local officials to become involved and get the parameters of these talks to include service into Oklahoma. It is understood the two states would have to share in the capital and operating costs.
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
Walk through the coaches of most Amtrak trains, ESPECIALLY the long hauls, at 3 a.m. and you will see the majority are not on "joy" rides or "transportainment." It doesn't matter what Southwest is charging if your traveling from Purcell, Okla to Yuma, Ariz. and you don't have a car or one that is roadworthy.
My point was that you start with "the possible" now and build up to "super trains" over time.
quote:
As a reminder. We are discussing this because the state of Missouri has entered into formal discussions with Amtrak towards establishing train service from Saint Louis to Springfield. This same Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway line continues on to Tulsa. Some of us have asked local officials to become involved and get the parameters of these talks to include service into Oklahoma. It is understood the two states would have to share in the capital and operating costs.
I agree with you.
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
AZBADPUPPY,
This isn't about profits. Its going to require Oklahoma state government to spend money. Just like is done for the OKC service, like Missouri is doing for its service, and California, and Illinois, and so forth.
Its about moving people. It is about preparing for a time when people will wax nostalgic for 2006's "cheap" gas. Its about quality of life. Its about generating activity around cbd-based train stations.
With each successive improvement, a level of support will develop for the next level of investment.
At some point, in the busiest corridors, there may be an opportunity for private sector operators to operate at profit if they don't have to pay for the full cost of the track (kind of like truckers and the airlines).
oklahomarail.org (//%22http://www.oklahomarail.org%22)
I am not disagreeing with you- in theory. What the problem right now as I stated before is the lack of support from the government and from the majority of Americans to have a decent rail system. You mentioned the airlines- they received over 11 billion dollars in bailout money after 9/11. Amtrak- not one penny.
Interstate rail travel is dying because we as a country have decided it is not important enough to support. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
quote:
Interstate rail travel is dying because we as a country have decided it is not important enough to support. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I am sorry. Your comment just doesn't fit the facts.
Amtrak ridership increased in eight of the last nine years. The Fiscal 2005 level of 25.4 million is up 29% from 1996.
Similarly, the yield (average revenue per passenger mile) rose in ten of the last eleven years, with the FY 2005 level up 65% from the 1994 level. Amtrak is not "buying" ridership with cheap fares.
Long distance trains are well-used. They accounted for 47% of Amtrak's passenger-miles last year (a passenger-mile is one passenger carried one mile). The average long distance train carried 356 passengers per trip.
After dropping the first couple of years, ridership on the OKC-FTW service has been growing each year since 2002.
New services are funded and will happen over the next 6-36 months in Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington state.
There is $400 million for intercity passenger rail in "The Governator's" bond issue in California.
Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia all are at various stages of planning for additional intercity trains. And New Mexico will be inaugurating about 40 miles of service from Belen to ABQ to Bernallilo in 3 weeks.
Oklahoma peak oil/transportation discussion group (//%22http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/Transport_Oklahoma/%22)
//www.oklahomarail.org
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
quote:
Interstate rail travel is dying because we as a country have decided it is not important enough to support. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I am sorry. Your comment just doesn't fit the facts.
Amtrak ridership increased in eight of the last nine years. The Fiscal 2005 level of 25.4 million is up 29% from 1996.
Similarly, the yield (average revenue per passenger mile) rose in ten of the last eleven years, with the FY 2005 level up 65% from the 1994 level. Amtrak is not "buying" ridership with cheap fares.
Long distance trains are well-used. They accounted for 47% of Amtrak's passenger-miles last year (a passenger-mile is one passenger carried one mile). The average long distance train carried 356 passengers per trip.
After dropping the first couple of years, ridership on the OKC-FTW service has been growing each year since 2002.
New services are funded and will happen over the next 6-36 months in Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington state.
There is $400 million for intercity passenger rail in "The Governator's" bond issue in California.
Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia all are at various stages of planning for additional intercity trains. And New Mexico will be inaugurating about 40 miles of service from Belen to ABQ to Bernallilo in 3 weeks.
Oklahoma peak oil/transportation discussion group (//%22http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/Transport_Oklahoma/%22)
//www.oklahomarail.org
Amtrak's ridership would have to multiply several times before it is considered successful, and that will not happen because of the poor management and lack of services.
Also, I was referring specifically to Amtrak and interstate rail, not intercity rail, or light rail, and the federal governments role, not individual states. The Bush administration last year tried to cut all funding which would effectively shut Amtrak down completely, except for maybe its Northeast corridor routes.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2006429&page=1
About 5 years ago I took the train from OKC down to San Antonio. The ride down to Fort Worth (Not Dallas because the Heartland Flyer does NOT go through Dallas) was for the most part pretty nice. The rail goes through some places where cars can't like the Arbuckle "Mountains". The only problems that I had on the trip were some of the other passengers. It's like being on a big bus if anything for me to compare it too. When we got to the Fort Worth terminal, we were supposed to have only a 3 hour layover until we caught the Texas Eagle. During that 3 hour layover, we decided to spend the time looking around downtown Fort Worth, and having lunch at the stockyards. This was right after the tornado had hit downtown, and so not a lot was open, but it was nice walking around in a downtown environment. That layover turned into 4, then 5, then 6, then 7, and then 8 hour layover. All this due to "heat causing the rails to expand" causing the train to travel slower. We had originaly booked coach passage on the Texas Eagle, but decided to upgrade to sleeper sense we were going to be arriving in San Antonio at 2 in the morning. The way back was a lot easier, as we both had meeting back in Tulsa, took a flight so missed the delays of expanding rails.
Even though my experience on rail travel in Texas was slightly tainted, I decided to take the train from Seattle while I was there on business to Vancouver for a short personal vacation. The only difficulty I had the whole time was just trying to find the rail station. But once found it was simple to drop of my luggage, wait in the terminal, and get aboard. The rail service was wonderful, the views were spectacular, and really enjoyed the trip. It was worth it!
I have traveled on (4 continents) by car, airplane, seaplane, motor boat, sailboat, ferry, train, horse, donkey, elephant, rubber raft, hot air balloon, bicycle, tuk-tuk, motorcycle, helicopter, city bus, chicken bus, monorail, 18-wheeler, and in the bed of an El Camino. In my opinion NOTHING beats rail travel for overall comfort. You have lots of space, you can get up and walk around (try that in your Chevy Suburban or a 737), you won't get motion sickness, there are dining cars, and you can sleep in a bed overnight.
Trains are the most luxurious way to go (unless, I suppose, you can afford a private jet). If more people would try it (especially in countries where it's well-funded and efficient) they would love it and would never want to travel any other way.
And don't even get me started on people who complain about costs/subsidies of rail. We just allocated most of our 3rd penny sales tax money to road projects. Nationally, we spend billions on city streets, highways and bridges every year w/o batting an eye.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
I have traveled on (4 continents) by car, airplane, seaplane, motor boat, sailboat, ferry, train, horse, donkey, elephant, rubber raft, hot air balloon, bicycle, tuk-tuk, motorcycle, helicopter, city bus, chicken bus, monorail, 18-wheeler, and in the bed of an El Camino. In my opinion NOTHING beats rail travel for overall comfort. You have lots of space, you can get up and walk around (try that in your Chevy Suburban or a 737), you won't get motion sickness, there are dining cars, and you can sleep in a bed overnight.
Trains are the most luxurious way to go (unless, I suppose, you can afford a private jet). If more people would try it (especially in countries where it's well-funded and efficient) they would love it and would never want to travel any other way.
And don't even get me started on people who complain about costs/subsidies of rail. We just allocated most of our 3rd penny sales tax money to road projects. Nationally, we spend billions on city streets, highways and bridges every year w/o batting an eye.
Trains are absolutely the best way to go- in countries where coverage is good and service is efficient & the govt and people actually support it and use it.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
In my opinion NOTHING beats rail travel for overall comfort. You have lots of space, you can get up and walk around (try that in your Chevy Suburban or a 737), you won't get motion sickness, there are dining cars, and you can sleep in a bed overnight.
Trains are the most luxurious way to go (unless, I suppose, you can afford a private jet). If more people would try it (especially in countries where it's well-funded and efficient) they would love it and would never want to travel any other way.
And don't even get me started on people who complain about costs/subsidies of rail. We just allocated most of our 3rd penny sales tax money to road projects. Nationally, we spend billions on city streets, highways and bridges every year w/o batting an eye.
Government and private business has spent years and billions of dollars promoting private transportation (cars) at the expense of efficient mass transit (trains, trolleys, interurban rail) which is probably the main reason we are so dependent on foreign oil today. If federal and state governments were half-way concerned about lowering consumption of foreign oil, they would triple or quadruple gasoline & diesel taxes and give the money to upgrade and expand rail. I guess we have just made our bed so we have to lie in it, at least for the time being.
The only time I have ever taken AMTRAK was on the line from DC to NYC, and that is mostly just big "cattle cars" hauling students and business travelers. In the past 5 years, has anyone taken the train for a long-haul pleasure trip, say from Chicago to LA, or NYC to Miami, with private compartment sleeping/bathing accommodations? How were the compartments, as to cleanliness and good service? I know private accommodations on AMTRAK are not cheap, but this is something I have always wanted to do and at the rate the government is funding AMTRAK, this option may not be available in the future.
I think this would the way to go with a new rail line through oklahoma:
(http://www.law.utulsa.edu/users/larrycurtis/amtrak.jpg)
Whats the cost per mile to put in passanger rail, and whats the cost per mile to put in high speed rail?
Here are the most likely rails to be used for the train traffic. I personal think it would be a good idea to go through Neosho then through Joplin. Joplin has about three times more people 46,830, while Neosho has 10,961, but its only 23 miles from each other. The Neosho rout would be a lot shorter ride for those coming too and going from much larger cities.
(http://www.law.utulsa.edu/users/larrycurtis/railroad2.jpg)
quote:
The only time I have ever taken AMTRAK was on the line from DC to NYC, and that is mostly just big "cattle cars" hauling students and business travelers. In the past 5 years, has anyone taken the train for a long-haul pleasure trip, say from Chicago to LA, or NYC to Miami, with private compartment sleeping/bathing accommodations? How were the compartments, as to cleanliness and good service? I know private accommodations on AMTRAK are not cheap, but this is something I have always wanted to do and at the rate the government is funding AMTRAK, this option may not be available in the future.
I travel at least a thousand miles a year on Amtrak and am a member of their frequent traveler program. I can't ever recall any Amtrak experience being like a "cattle car". Granted some of the equipment is getting tired and customer service is uneven, but mostly its an enjoyable way to get where you are going. Coach seats on American trains are similar to domestic first class on an airline. Wide 2 x 2 seats with foot rests. Long hauls train seats have leg rests as well. No center arm rest though and the 1970s design is pretty weak as far as lower lumbar support. I suggest you bring a little pillow. Sometimes these are provided on the longhauls. The seating on the newer "California Cars" and ACELA EXPRESS in the northeast seems to have overcome these problems.
If it is in your budget, getting a sleeper compartment is clearly the way to go for overnight trips. You get meals included in the first class fare, a real bed, privacy when you want it, and a little more attention from the crew. When you do want to socialize (and the train tends to stimulate that), go to the lounge or leave your sliding door and curtain open. Also, dining car seating is "community". This means the steward will have others join you at your table. Its actually kind of fun that way. I always just ask "So where are you headed?" and the conversation takes off from there.
Check with me off list if you want to know anything else. (//%22matthew.dowty@oklahomarail.org%22)
If this St. Louis-Springfield-Tulsa proposal gets going, it will have to route via Neosho.
The track through Joplin is 10-25 mph branch line status at best. The route through Neosho is 50-60 for freight today. With grade crossing protection upgrades and adjustments, a top speed of 79 should be achievable.
Look at the bright side, it puts it that much closer to the booming northwest Arkansas region.
Tulsa World letter to the editor in favor of the Saint Louis-Springfield-Tulsa Amtrak route proposal (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=060625_Op_g2_letters4%22)
i would be all over a train ride to saint louis and then on to chicago... we go to colorado at least three times a year to go snow boarding/fishing... and every time i talk to my buddy in omaha, he brags about the overnight sleeper train ride they take with the whole famdamnily and how much "fun" the "actual trip" is...
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
QuoteAgain, the problem is that Amtrak is losing money at an alarming rate, and cannot afford to upgrade its trains, rails or services offered. Who is going to pay for these new high speed trains and the rails to run them on? The government, as well as the vast majority of Americans have already made it clear they are unwilling to pay for it.
The more Amtrak tries to cut back to try and save themselves, the more they keep losing. Amtrak needs to stop relying on government subsidies and focus on profit making before any progress will happen.
Also, Amtrak needs to let go of their long distance routes and focus on multiplying the trains and improving service on their short distance routes in order to compete with bus and air. Any new development in Amtrak should be done very carefully and in high density/highly traveled corridors.
Here's a great article by Christopher Ott about how everyone expects rail transport to pay for itself, but nobody mentions the enormous government subsidies given to airlines, the highway system, and automotive industries: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1112
Here are some exerpts: "The implication that Amtrak is exceptional in the transportation industry in its reliance on government subsidies, however, is troublesome--and ironic, given the recent well-publicized bailout for U.S. airlines. On top of $13 billion in federal aviation spending for fiscal year 2002, Congress approved a $15 billion package of airline aid within two weeks of September 11.
"...in the United States, few people realize that direct taxes on automobiles and gasoline barely cover two thirds of the cost of road building, maintenance, administration and safety.
"Additional social costs of car and air travel--including accidents, lost time, and loss of quality of life--are obvious to planners and economists, and are increasingly counted as a real drag on the economy. The social costs of car travel in 11 countries studied is nearly twice that of air travel and seven times that of trains.
"Stephen Goddard, in his 1994 book Getting There: The Epic Struggle Between Road and Rail in the American Century, found that hidden subsidies for drivers amount to well over $2 for every gallon of gasoline sold."
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
(EDIT)
I want to ride trains and I don't care if Amtrak runs it or some private group. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it regardless of your opinion. Travelling on turnpikes, even well maintained ones, simply isn't as cost efficient as rails in the big picture. Driving to OKC is a collosal waste of energy, land and time. In your mind all those people riding trains on the coasts are just nostalgic?
(EDIT)
Problem is, passenger rail service isn't cost-efficient nor self-sustaining. That is why Amtrak has been heavily subsidized for years- since it's inception in 1970. I'm really surprised no one has mentioned the subsidies on here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8410479/
Government subsidies mean each and every one of us is paying part of the fare for riders on Amtrak. Creating a Tulsa to OKC route would just require more subsidies, and IMO more wasteful gov't spending. As it is now, they are already looking to cut 18 routes just to keep subsidies at $1.2 billion.
Time-wise Amtrak is a logical solution to avoid the congestion in the Northeast and Southern California. I don't see where scheduled rail transportation from Tulsa to OKC would be a benefit, as it would limit when you could come and go from OKC, then how do you get around once you are there?
They have good transportation infrastructure to get you around the city, say if you went from NYC to Boston, you can take local rail to your ultimate destination. No such thing here, especially if your ultimate destination is in the suburbs.
I'm sure overall, it helps with polution and cutting fuel consumption on the coasts, but out here, it's just not practial. There's not near the ridership demand to create a schedule of enough trains running back and forth to make it convenient.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
(EDIT)
I want to ride trains and I don't care if Amtrak runs it or some private group. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it regardless of your opinion. Travelling on turnpikes, even well maintained ones, simply isn't as cost efficient as rails in the big picture. Driving to OKC is a collosal waste of energy, land and time. In your mind all those people riding trains on the coasts are just nostalgic?
(EDIT)
Problem is, passenger rail service isn't cost-efficient nor self-sustaining. That is why Amtrak has been heavily subsidized for years- since it's inception in 1970. I'm really surprised no one has mentioned the subsidies on here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8410479/
Government subsidies mean each and every one of us is paying part of the fare for riders on Amtrak. Creating a Tulsa to OKC route would just require more subsidies, and IMO more wasteful gov't spending. As it is now, they are already looking to cut 18 routes just to keep subsidies at $1.2 billion.
Time-wise Amtrak is a logical solution to avoid the congestion in the Northeast and Southern California. I don't see where scheduled rail transportation from Tulsa to OKC would be a benefit, as it would limit when you could come and go from OKC, then how do you get around once you are there?
They have good transportation infrastructure to get you around the city, say if you went from NYC to Boston, you can take local rail to your ultimate destination. No such thing here, especially if your ultimate destination is in the suburbs.
I'm sure overall, it helps with polution and cutting fuel consumption on the coasts, but out here, it's just not practial. There's not near the ridership demand to create a schedule of enough trains running back and forth to make it convenient.
The subsidies have been mentioned numerous times throughout this thread.
So any new news, meeting, ideas...anything?
I've heard a lot of news stories lately talking about building more "super highways" in the US. It seems the interstate highway system just isn't big/wide/fast enough. (Either that, or a handful of influential people have family in the construction/oil/automotive business...) In fact, just today there was a guy on NPR talking about how we should be able to drive coast-to-coast at 100 MPH. To do this would, of course, require building our own American version of the Autobahn.
As Spock (Mr. not Dr.) would say, "That is not logical."
If you think rail is expensive, think about the costs involved in building these "super highways." Right-of-way, labor, materials, environmental impact, etc. Then think about how silly it is to promote even MORE automotive traffic at this point in history. (And just imagine the kind of gas mileage you'd get at those speeds. What's that formula? Every 5 MPH over 60 is like paying an additional $.20 per gal of gas. So add $1.60 to the current price. That sounds efficient!)
If people really care about traveling cross country at high speeds (on land), we need to invest in the infrastructure for bullet trains, which would easily top the 100 MPH speeds using a fraction of the fuel, taking up a fraction of the real estate, and emitting a fraction of the pollution per passenger.
In Europe, some of the trains have the ability to load your car onto the train,and you sit in coach, then at your destination, you and your car are unloaded.
quote:
Originally posted by robbyfoxxxx
In Europe, some of the trains have the ability to load your car onto the train,and you sit in coach, then at your destination, you and your car are unloaded.
That might be one of the more brilliant ideas I've ever heard. Seriously.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
(EDIT)
I want to ride trains and I don't care if Amtrak runs it or some private group. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it regardless of your opinion. Travelling on turnpikes, even well maintained ones, simply isn't as cost efficient as rails in the big picture. Driving to OKC is a collosal waste of energy, land and time. In your mind all those people riding trains on the coasts are just nostalgic?
(EDIT)
Problem is, passenger rail service isn't cost-efficient nor self-sustaining. That is why Amtrak has been heavily subsidized for years- since it's inception in 1970. I'm really surprised no one has mentioned the subsidies on here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8410479/
Government subsidies mean each and every one of us is paying part of the fare for riders on Amtrak. Creating a Tulsa to OKC route would just require more subsidies, and IMO more wasteful gov't spending. As it is now, they are already looking to cut 18 routes just to keep subsidies at $1.2 billion.
Time-wise Amtrak is a logical solution to avoid the congestion in the Northeast and Southern California. I don't see where scheduled rail transportation from Tulsa to OKC would be a benefit, as it would limit when you could come and go from OKC, then how do you get around once you are there?
They have good transportation infrastructure to get you around the city, say if you went from NYC to Boston, you can take local rail to your ultimate destination. No such thing here, especially if your ultimate destination is in the suburbs.
I'm sure overall, it helps with polution and cutting fuel consumption on the coasts, but out here, it's just not practial. There's not near the ridership demand to create a schedule of enough trains running back and forth to make it convenient.
The subsidies have been mentioned numerous times throughout this thread.
And it's also been mentioned that all forms of transportation are subsidized. Just try to buy a tank of gas without paying the federal fuel taxes sometime...
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by robbyfoxxxx
In Europe, some of the trains have the ability to load your car onto the train,and you sit in coach, then at your destination, you and your car are unloaded.
That might be one of the more brilliant ideas I've ever heard. Seriously.
It is a brillian idea--though in Europe, the cars tend to be quite a bit smaller. Don't know how many Ford Explorers you can get on a train. I guess those who drive mega-SUVs are not that likely to use mass transit anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by robbyfoxxxx
In Europe, some of the trains have the ability to load your car onto the train,and you sit in coach, then at your destination, you and your car are unloaded.
That might be one of the more brilliant ideas I've ever heard. Seriously.
It is a brillian idea--though in Europe, the cars tend to be quite a bit smaller. Don't know how many Ford Explorers you can get on a train. I guess those who drive mega-SUVs are not that likely to use mass transit anyway.
AMTRAK has a train like this where you can take your car along, I think it is called the Auto Train. It runs mostly along the east coast, like between Washington DC and Orlando or Ft. Lauderdale FL, I think. As far as I know, it is still in operation.
quote:
So any new news, meeting, ideas...anything?
Things are starting to happen. But these efforts take time and dedication.
At least one elected official is now working on the issue.
I have collected some names of those of you who have been interested enough to contact me (//%22matthew.dowty@oklahomarail.org%22).
Let's start thinking about a date in early August to get together. Maybe at the Central or Allie Beth Martin library meeting room?
quote:
Problem is, passenger rail service isn't cost-efficient nor self-sustaining. That is why Amtrak has been heavily subsidized for years- since it's inception in 1970. I'm really surprised no one has mentioned the subsidies on here.
If your hung up on transportation subsidies, you are going to have to cease using probably 85% of the roads in Oklahoma and start hiking on the indian trails. You won't be able to catch a ride on Amtrak or transit either [8D].
Except for SOME of the turnpikes and the most heavily traveled roads, most just couldn't be built or, more importantly today, maintained without cross-subsidies.
The Legislature seems to be moving away from a user fee financed transportation system. The diversion issue was way overblown anyway. Almost all motor fuel tax revenue goes to transportation. Car tag fees do not. But then they never did. How could they? Big trucks only pay something like $20 for their tags.
We need safe roads and credit is due to the Legislature for making progress on that. Even if it is being done with general revenue.
Here's an excerpt from the meeting agenda for this week's Incog meeting (8/31/06):
3. Study of Passenger Rail Service from Tulsa to Saint Louis Missouri
In March of 2001, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT)completed a study of high speed passenger rail service that considered the Tulsa to Saint Louis connection among others. That study determined that with the appropriate capital improvements, a Tulsa to Saint Louis line would take between 8 and 9 hours serving approximately 500 travelers. The Destination 2030 transportation plan incorporated the findings of the ODOT study including the observation that service from Tulsa to Saint Louis would be more feasible if the line from Springfield to Saint Louis was improved. In June, the Missouri Department of Transportation has requested Amtrak to study the implementation of passenger rail service from Saint Louis to Springfield, Missouri. Staff recommends the Policy Committee consider a resolution encouraging ODOT to request Amtrak to study the Tulsa to Springfield line concurrently or as part of the Springfield to Saint Louis study.
~~~
I made two trips to St. Louis this summer by car. I would have loved to take the train instead! After driving for hours, dealing with bridge repairs, road construction, and traffic, I was fantasizing about being able to take the train...rather than being cooped up in my little car. And even though I drive a very fuel-efficient car, it still cost me about $80 round trip each time, just for gas.
I want to support this effort to consider a Tulsa to St. Louis route. (Indeed, I would support almost any rail option of any kind! Rail travel is by far the most comfortable, pleasant form of transportation...and it makes environmental sense as well.) Any ideas of how to show my support? I've already emailed INCOG, but haven't heard back.
Ponder, just call INCOG and ask for Tim Armer (584.7526??). He heads the transportation department. He will have a list of 'must-contacts'.
I too would love to have this service as well. I don't like the idea of 8-9 hrs. to make it to St. Louis when vehicles take 5.5 hrs. and air will get you there in 1 hr. but I guess we have to start somewhere.
For Oklahoma, it just seems to make sense that if you are going to look at a link between Tulsa and Springfield, you might as well extend that all the way to OKC.
I cringe at the thought of referring you to any of our representatives in DC but... Istook, who appeared to be Rail transits most ardent detractors at least will be out of there, and if we are fortunate not in our Capitol. Imhoff may not be much better. Dan Boren's office may be worth contacting. While his district may not include Tulsa County he does rep. counties that the rail line would serve: (http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g82/ourtulsa/home_map_f12.gif)
He may also understand the benefits of alternatives to road construction and the potential economic impact of linking a portion of his district to a larger existing transportation network.
here is a link to his office: http://www.house.gov/boren/index.shtml
Hey thanks for the INCOG intercity rail update!
This effort has momentum now. Councilman Westcott is on a roll.
I wonder how much time ODOT should be given to respond to Tulsa's request?
Maybe they already have agreed to it. I don't know.
The study shouldn't be controversial.
But if ODOT delays, I have an idea why.
It is time for negotiation of the state's annual contract with Amtrak. They are short about a million dollars to cover the cost. So they may feel uncomfortable asking for a study to increase service when they are scrambling to fund the existing one.
But, IMO, one of the key reasons they have had difficulty getting the program funded properly is its lack of geographic scope.
quote:
For Oklahoma, it just seems to make sense that if you are going to look at a link between Tulsa and Springfield, you might as well extend that all the way to OKC.
Of course you are correct.
If done right, a Tulsa-Oklahoma City commuter rail link would become one of the busiest passenger rail routes in the southwest.
But the track capital costs west of downtown Tulsa go up dramatically. Well beyond what political capital there is available today.
Let's get this segment going and leverage that into support for a quality link to OKC in the future, probably in conjunction with a Turner Turnpike rebuild.
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
Hey thanks for the INCOG intercity rail update!
This effort has momentum now. Councilman Westcott is on a roll.
I wonder how much time ODOT should be given to respond to Tulsa's request?
Maybe they already have agreed to it. I don't know.
The study shouldn't be controversial.
But if ODOT delays, I have an idea why.
It is time for negotiation of the state's annual contract with Amtrak. They are short about a million dollars to cover the cost. So they may feel uncomfortable asking for a study to increase service when they are scrambling to fund the existing one.
But, IMO, one of the key reasons they have had difficulty getting the program funded properly is its lack of geographic scope.
Thank you for all your hard work Matt.
Meeting on Tulsa Amtrak service
Thursday, October 5th, 7:00 p.m.
Conference Room
Tulsa Central Library - Fifth & Denver
Getting Tulsa Online for the Future
Update on status of proposal
Brainstorming on citizen participation and advocacy
Oklahoma Passenger Rail Association
Finally!!!!
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=116025
I love mass transit, and trains are the only way to go. Seriously, it's so much better than driving. When I lived in Germany (early 80s) I didn't have a car and didn't miss it - in fact I hated driving for a long time after returning to the states.
Bumping this thread to see if anybody's heard anything about Amtrak in Tulsa.
I've done some research and it seems the Tulsa-OKC line isn't very feasible.
quote:
The second-hand word I've heard is that the line from OKC to Tulsa (ex-Frisco, I think, now owned by the state of Oklahoma) is unsuitable for anything over thirty miles and hour. The interstate between the two cities is a very heavily used turnpike, opened in 1953 and probably in need of a major upgrade (although I've never picked up from the local media that that is in the near-term works). The logical thing would be to include new rail construction in any rebuilding of that. In the mean time, few people would choose a three to four hour train over 75 mph on the Turner Turnpike.
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,1295750
It also looks like the Springfield, MO to St. Louis line isn't very feasible. Because of the terrain through the ozarks the trip would take six hours. Ridership also wouldn't be very high.
http://www.modot.org/othertransportation/rail/documents/ATK-07-060Springfield-SWMissouri.pdf
The track from Tulsa to Springfield is being upgraded but a Springfield-Tulsa line wouldn't be of much value if it wasn't part of an OKC-St. Louis line.
So from that information it doesn't look too likely that Tulsa would get an Amtrak train. But there has been a study commissioned to explore connecting OKC to Newton, KS (near Wichita), where you could take the train to Kansas City (then on to St. Louis, Chicago, or many other places). That would be a vast improvement for train travel in Oklahoma.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/News_Release_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1178294134255
http://www.northflyer.org/resources/NFA-KDOT-Minutes-08-03-14.pdf
Air travel is gonna be increasing significantly in price. It's not sustainable as it's priced now. Car travel is already increasing significantly in price. Greyhound is worthless.
Megabus serves Kansas City, Memphis and St. Louis. Maybe it'll come here soon. A new megabus type service started between Boston and NYC. Boltbus has free onboard wifi. Maybe it'll come here someday.
http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2008/04/new_york_or_bus.html
Regardless we need some type of travel option other than air and driving.
quote:
Originally posted by TheTed
Bumping this thread to see if anybody's heard anything about Amtrak in Tulsa.
I've done some research and it seems the Tulsa-OKC line isn't very feasible.
Quote
The second-hand word I've heard is that the line from OKC to Tulsa (ex-Frisco, I think, now owned by the state of Oklahoma) is unsuitable for anything over thirty miles and hour. The interstate between the two cities is a very heavily used turnpike, opened in 1953 and probably in need of a major upgrade (although I've never picked up from the local media that that is in the near-term works). The logical thing would be to include new rail construction in any rebuilding of that. In the mean time, few people would choose a three to four hour train over 75 mph on the Turner Turnpike.
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,1295750
What is involved in upgrading the track from OKC to Tulsa? Would upping the capacity from 30 m.p.h. to 70 m.p.h. require completely new track? Do you happen to know how the cost of upgrading track compares to highway maintenence costs?
I know nothing other than what I've read. I don't want to let this issue die. Gas prices aren't going down.
The most recent article I could find is from 1/07, but it sounds like we're not even gonna spend the money to study extending the Heartland Flyer from OKC to Tulsa.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070125_Ne_A10_BAlaw1761
The OKC-Newton KS link sounds like the most promising plan to strengthen our state's presence on the Amtrak map.
Tulsans could drive to OKC or to a proposed station in Perry and catch the train to Wichita, Topeka, Lawrence, Kansas City or any number of other destinations.
But even that sounds like it'd be tough to pull off. Oklahoma would have to devote more money to Amtrak. And Kansas has to remove a constitutional restriction on using state money to supplement Amtrak.
quote:
Originally posted by TheTed
I know nothing other than what I've read. I don't want to let this issue die. Gas prices aren't going down.
The most recent article I could find is from 1/07, but it sounds like we're not even gonna spend the money to study extending the Heartland Flyer from OKC to Tulsa.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070125_Ne_A10_BAlaw1761
The OKC-Newton KS link sounds like the most promising plan to strengthen our state's presence on the Amtrak map.
Tulsans could drive to OKC or to a proposed station in Perry and catch the train to Wichita, Topeka, Lawrence, Kansas City or any number of other destinations.
But even that sounds like it'd be tough to pull off. Oklahoma would have to devote more money to Amtrak. And Kansas has to remove a constitutional restriction on using state money to supplement Amtrak.
The turnpike authorities in OK and KS would likely be against Amtrak expansion on their routes. I-35 is a freeway in OK, but becomes a toll road in KS. I-44 is a toll road in OK. If the turnpike authorities in OK and KS have a potential to generate revenue from rail expansion, then maybe they will help give this some attention. We need to figure out how much it costs to expand the Heartland Flyer, and compare the cost to roadway improvements. If the H. Flyer reduced roadway traffic between OKC and Tulsa by 15% or so, that may be significant enough to warrant some cost decreases in road construction. However, Amtrak doesn't reduce the amount of semi trucks on the road, which really wear out the roads the most. Semis also provide the most revenue per unit to the turnpike authority. Maybe if the whole rail system was spruced up, there could be implications for increased freight trains as well. Rising gas prices have already caused freigt train usage to increase quite a bit, according to a logistics seminar I watched. It seems like there are a lot of questions here that aren't being asked by the right people.
So, would the Broken Arrow to Tulsa Train have anything to do with benefiting AmTrak?
quote:
If the turnpike authorities in OK and KS have a potential to generate revenue from rail expansion, then maybe they will help give this some attention.
Why can't OTA be in control of rail. They could build a whole new line (or pair of lnes) between OKC and Missouri in the rights-of-way of the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes and generate revenue from its use. One of the lines between OKC and Tulsa could be designed for high speed rail. Allowing OTA to have control also means that this might actually get done in our lifetimes.