Or we are going to be bypassed yet again. (//%22http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?s=8345147%22)
Considering MSA populations, I think an OKC-Tulsa-KC line would have higher ridership than the proposed OKC-Wichita-KC line.
Wichita's MSA has 200,000+ fewer people than Tulsa's, and TONS of people travel between Tulsa and OKC already.
If the line were built between OKC and Tulsa, it could be used by Tulsans attending Sonics games, or by OKC coming to events at the BOk Center... Think of number of people who travel between Tulsa and OKC on a daily basis as it is... ah, the ridership!
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
Considering MSA populations, I think an OKC-Tulsa-KC line would have higher ridership than the proposed OKC-Wichita-KC line.
Wichita's MSA has 200,000+ fewer people than Tulsa's, and TONS of people travel between Tulsa and OKC already.
If the line were built between OKC and Tulsa, it could be used by Tulsans attending Sonics games, or by OKC coming to events at the BOk Center... Think of number of people who travel between Tulsa and OKC on a daily basis as it is... ah, the ridership!
That is the kind of thing we need to be telling the officials. Goodness knows that they wouldn't figure it out for themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
Considering MSA populations, I think an OKC-Tulsa-KC line would have higher ridership than the proposed OKC-Wichita-KC line.
Wichita's MSA has 200,000+ fewer people than Tulsa's, and TONS of people travel between Tulsa and OKC already.
If the line were built between OKC and Tulsa, it could be used by Tulsans attending Sonics games, or by OKC coming to events at the BOk Center... Think of number of people who travel between Tulsa and OKC on a daily basis as it is... ah, the ridership!
I agree. I would use it!
But how would we afford hundreds of millions of dollars for roads if we spent a couple million a year on Amtrak?
quote:
Originally posted by TheTed
But how would we afford hundreds of millions of dollars for roads if we spent a couple million a year on Amtrak?
millions? I could have sworn they said billions on the news yesterday.
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
Looking at Amtrak's current route system map, the OKC to Wichita link makes more sense.
However, much of Amtrak's current route system does not make sense.
http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/national.pdf
OKC-TULSA-KC would make a lot of sense.
Amtrak is heavily subsidized and not particularly well run. One new city councilor tried traveling green and wanted to take the train to Austin and ride his bike in Austin. Amtrak wouldn't let him bring his bike on the train.
Reality check...
Tulsa became "out of the way" the day the bureaucrats decided I-35 would run through Wichita instead of through Tulsa. We are officially screwed for all of perpetuity.
Effing sucks.
quote:
Originally posted by bacjz00
Reality check...
Tulsa became "out of the way" the day the bureaucrats decided I-35 would run through Wichita instead of through Tulsa. We are officially screwed for all of perpetuity.
Effing sucks.
Eh, it's not as bad as you say. I-44 is a major connector from points north and east. Folks heading from Chicago or NY/DC towards the West Coast typically pass through St. Louis and then Tulsa on their way to LA or SF.
But, yes, Tulsa is not getting Amtrak. Too expensive to refit the lines and not the state's priority.
quote:
Originally posted by bacjz00
Reality check...
Tulsa became "out of the way" the day the bureaucrats decided I-35 would run through Wichita instead of through Tulsa. We are officially screwed for all of perpetuity.
Effing sucks.
Hardly...I-35 to Wichita has little traffic.....I-44 is the gateway to the east....
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
Wichita's MSA has 200,000+ fewer people than Tulsa's, and TONS of people travel between Tulsa and OKC already.
Just to be nerdy, Tulsa's MSA has 309,303 more people than Wichita's.
I definitely agree with everyone that posted about the KC - Dallas route going through Tulsa. There already is not an existing interstate highway that goes directly between KC and Dallas, which would seem like a good reason to install rail service.
Another ridiculous thing I noticed is that there is no direct line from Dallas to Houston. We're talking about two metro areas that comprise over 11 million people!
Amtrak also does not serve Nashville, Louisville, or Las Vegas at all. It just seems to me that Amtrak does a very poor job of recognizing market potential. To me, passenger rail is all about providing transportation to places that are two close to fly to, and too far to drive to. Or, passenger rail is simply an alternative to driving, and gas prices. If you look at their route map, there are several major cities near each other that are not directly connected.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Just to be nerdy, Tulsa's MSA has 309,303 more people than Wichita's.
Well, not to be nerdy, but I believe that 309,303 falls within the range of 'greater than 200,000'....
[:P]
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Just to be nerdy, Tulsa's MSA has 309,303 more people than Wichita's.
Well, not to be nerdy, but I believe that 309,303 falls within the range of 'greater than 200,000'....
[:P]
I see that I overlooked your plus sign. My bad.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
Wichita's MSA has 200,000+ fewer people than Tulsa's, and TONS of people travel between Tulsa and OKC already.
Just to be nerdy, Tulsa's MSA has 309,303 more people than Wichita's.
I definitely agree with everyone that posted about the KC - Dallas route going through Tulsa. There already is not an existing interstate highway that goes directly between KC and Dallas, which would seem like a good reason to install rail service.
Another ridiculous thing I noticed is that there is no direct line from Dallas to Houston. We're talking about two metro areas that comprise over 11 million people!
Amtrak also does not serve Nashville, Louisville, or Las Vegas at all. It just seems to me that Amtrak does a very poor job of recognizing market potential. To me, passenger rail is all about providing transportation to places that are two close to fly to, and too far to drive to. Or, passenger rail is simply an alternative to driving, and gas prices. If you look at their route map, there are several major cities near each other that are not directly connected.
As far as Dallas-Houston goes, I'd blame that on that state of Texas. A few million dollars in subsidies and that state would have much better service.
Instead they rely on the long-distance Texas Eagle, which is usually hours late and doesn't go through Houston. A few million in state subsidies and Texas could connect all its big cities with a train that doesn't originate thousands of miles away and therefore is much more likely to run on time.
Look at what Illinois has done, increasing the subsidies to double the frequency of several trains. There are now four trains in each direction between Chicago and St. Louis plus the Texas Eagle.
There are also two trains in each direction between Chicago and Carbondale in addition to the City of New Orleans.
A train from Chicago to the Quad Cities and on to Iowa City also seems like a definite possiblity.
There's also been talk of a Chicago-Rockford-Dubuque line.
Amtrak linking Tulsa to OKC would be great for both cities. I would definitely visit OKC more often if I didn't have to drive on the Turner Turnpike.
It would have to be an express route, though. No little pesky stops on the way. It would need to zip between the two downtown areas...and get you there as fast (or faster) than by car. It would also need to run fairly frequently to be efficient.
I think a rail connection between the two cities would also help Tulsans get more involved in state politics. If you could take your laptop and do work on the ride back and forth, it woudn't be such a drain on productivity to get to and from OKC. (That's one of the great things about rail...you're free to work, read, relax, sleep, and/or walk around while you travel. Cars really suck by comparison to a good rail system.)
I remember hearing a conversation about the desirability of a rail connection between Tulsa and Wichita related to the aerospace industry. I don't know enough about that to speak intelligently, but I think it had to do with connecting the cities with passenger and freight rail systems to increase synergies between the two cities' industries. It would cut down on travel time because it would be the shortest distance between two points (b/c it would follow the hypotenuse of the triangle rather than the two sides, 412 to I-35).
Establishing a link from Oklahoma to the Chicago-Los Angeles train through Wichita to Newton is important.
But so is getting Tulsa, the fifth largest MSA without passenger rail, onto the Amtrak system.
These gasoline prices are scaring business people in Branson and there is once again interest in Saint Louis service that could continue on to Tulsa.
OKC-Tulsa will be not be cheap, but nothing worth doing ever is.
Kansas City is problematic because you need a state funding partner. Kansas is just now getting interested in rail and the attention is on linking Kansas City, Topeka, Wichita and Oklahoma City with a day train. Tulsa service via Fort Scott and Baxter Springs is less of a priority for them.
In the Oklahoma legislative session that just ended there was a bill (HB 2790) that would have funded these important projects with existing car tag fee revenue. But the chairman wouldn't allow it to be heard. There will be another attempt next year.
Let's get Tulsa a train. Contact me. (//%22matthew.dowty@oklahomarail.org%22)
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
Establishing a link from Oklahoma to the Chicago-Los Angeles train through Wichita to Newton is important.
But so is getting Tulsa, the fifth largest MSA without passenger rail, onto the Amtrak system.
These gasoline prices are scaring business people in Branson and there is once again interest in Saint Louis service that could continue on to Tulsa.
OKC-Tulsa will be not be cheap, but nothing worth doing ever is.
Kansas City is problematic because you need a state funding partner. Kansas is just now getting interested in rail and the attention is on linking Kansas City, Topeka, Wichita and Oklahoma City with a day train. Tulsa service via Fort Scott and Baxter Springs is less of a priority for them.
In the Oklahoma legislative session that just ended there was a bill (HB 2790) that would have funded these important projects with existing car tag fee revenue. But the chairman wouldn't allow it to be heard. There will be another attempt next year.
Let's get Tulsa a train. Contact me. (//%22matthew.dowty@oklahomarail.org%22)
Tulsa fell in line for OKC to get Amtrak with a "your next" promise. Once again, a promise is not kept and Tulsa is supposed to support a connection to Newton for OKC because Kansas is behind it? No more state funding for Amtrak from Oklahoma till Tulsa is included. Tulsa simply cannot support OKC projects and not see any benefits coming this direction; Tulsa will writher on the vine while waiting for the state to support an area that provides 60% of state income taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by bacjz00
Reality check...
Tulsa became "out of the way" the day the bureaucrats decided I-35 would run through Wichita instead of through Tulsa. We are officially screwed for all of perpetuity.
Effing sucks.
Hardly...I-35 to Wichita has little traffic.....I-44 is the gateway to the east....
Tell that to the Big XII ... the day we get the Big XII basketball tournament in Tulsa, I will be convinced that Tulsa isn't really out of the way. Bottom line is that OKC, Dallas and KC are the true big league towns and they are directly connected via interstate highway. Without an interstate directly to K.C. we are perceived as out of the way. Call us "gateway to the East" or whatever, but sentimentality won't change reality.
Look I live here and have my whole life. I want bigger things for us, but we continue to get pushed over by big brother in every possible way. No federal funds for roads, no state funds for roads. As long as D.C. continues to let the K.C. to Tulsa corridor go without federal funding (read: interstate), then Tulsa continues to be a joke and a blip as people "pass through" from East to West.
quote:
Originally posted by bacjz00
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by bacjz00
Reality check...
Tulsa became "out of the way" the day the bureaucrats decided I-35 would run through Wichita instead of through Tulsa. We are officially screwed for all of perpetuity.
Effing sucks.
Hardly...I-35 to Wichita has little traffic.....I-44 is the gateway to the east....
Tell that to the Big XII ... the day we get the Big XII basketball tournament in Tulsa, I will be convinced that Tulsa isn't really out of the way. Bottom line is that OKC, Dallas and KC are the true big league towns and they are directly connected via interstate highway. Without an interstate directly to K.C. we are perceived as out of the way. Call us "gateway to the East" or whatever, but sentimentality won't change reality.
Look I live here and have my whole life. I want bigger things for us, but we continue to get pushed over by big brother in every possible way. No federal funds for roads, no state funds for roads. As long as D.C. continues to let the K.C. to Tulsa corridor go without federal funding (read: interstate), then Tulsa continues to be a joke and a blip as people "pass through" from East to West.
The ISTEA states that Oklahoma can submit U.S. Highways 69 and 75, from the Texas state line to Interstate 40 at Checotah, Oklahoma, as an interstate whenever it's ready for it. When do you think OKC will be ready for that?
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
It would have to be an express route, though. No little pesky stops on the way. It would need to zip between the two downtown areas...and get you there as fast (or faster) than by car. It would also need to run fairly frequently to be efficient.
If you don't take checked luggage, stops only have to be 5 minutes apiece. It's not like a plane where everyone has to be seated and buckled in before you get going again, so a couple or even four stops along the way wouldn't be bad. If there was enough ridership, there could also be express trains that don't stop at all, but given that there's basically no way to get enough funding to do more than 70mph rail, I don't know how much time you'd really shave off.
It would be good for the state if we could get electrified high speed rail between OKC and Tulsa, though. Even at relatively slow Acela (130-160mph) speeds, you'd really cut down on the travel time between the two cities. Similar service to Dallas could put you down there in two hours or so, even going by way of OKC. Or in the longer term, how about 4 hours to Houston?
Not that we shouldn't look to the north and east, I just see and hear of more people wanting to go south.
The U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee just passed this. (//%22http://transportation.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=657%22)
Helpful towards getting the entire Tulsa-OKC-DFW infrastructure up to shape. Could be used for other routes as well.
Contact me (//%22matthew,dowty@oklahomarail.org%22) to help get Amtrak service for Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
Establishing a link from Oklahoma to the Chicago-Los Angeles train through Wichita to Newton is important.
But so is getting Tulsa, the fifth largest MSA without passenger rail, onto the Amtrak system.
These gasoline prices are scaring business people in Branson and there is once again interest in Saint Louis service that could continue on to Tulsa.
OKC-Tulsa will be not be cheap, but nothing worth doing ever is.
Kansas City is problematic because you need a state funding partner. Kansas is just now getting interested in rail and the attention is on linking Kansas City, Topeka, Wichita and Oklahoma City with a day train. Tulsa service via Fort Scott and Baxter Springs is less of a priority for them.
In the Oklahoma legislative session that just ended there was a bill (HB 2790) that would have funded these important projects with existing car tag fee revenue. But the chairman wouldn't allow it to be heard. There will be another attempt next year.
Let's get Tulsa a train. Contact me. (//%22matthew.dowty@oklahomarail.org%22)
The state of Oklahoma has to start living up to it's commitments to Tulsa and the state outside of Oklahoma City. The state promised Tulsa rail service next after the Oklahoma City-DFW link. That has the be the first priority before expanding Oklahoma City's service to the north.
What will the impact be to the existing turnpikes? Isn't that revenue going to decrease should rail prosper? I'm sure it figures into the math somewhere. I know those who make their living off the budgets for road repair, construction, and maintenance would fight it.
My fondest memories of travel are taking the train from downtown Union Station to KC to watch the A's play the Yankees in the early sixties. Surely those tracks are still there.
Councilor Rick Westcott responds (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080528_11_A15_spancl868179%22)
Tulsa and OKC connected by rail IS LONG OVERDUE!!! We have so much to gain by connecting these 2 vibrant Oklahoma communities. Both are growing...both have thriving BIG businesses. An express rail would open up so much. That damn turnpike has out lived its usefulness and most people I know absolutely DREAD the drive. I'd rather be catching up on a book or getting some work done during the hour and a half each way.
THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN! WHAT CAN WE DO!!!!????
Tulsa is full of people who say "we want rail to connect OKC - TUL & KC...but we're not organized and we're not taking action.
Meanwhile, a group called the "Northern Flyer Alliance" has set out to obtain city resolutions from all the communities that line their prefered route: from Ft. Worth to KC via OKC (a route that includes Guthrie, Perry, Wichita, Topeka, etc...but not Tulsa). They give presentations to civic organizations, cities and legislative bodies.
They are organized, and getting their word out. We grumble and complain but do nothing.
Rick Westcott cares, but can't do it alone. If Tulsa is serious about this, we're going to have to get off our butts and make it happen. We can't just sit around crying "that's not fair!"
Here's the deal--from everything I understand, Tulsa passenger rail connections are pie-in-the-sky because of the current routes and conditions of the existing rail. Someone more knowledgeable should correct me if I'm wrong, but I was thinking OKC-Tulsa-KC rail just wasn't really cost feasible.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Here's the deal--from everything I understand, Tulsa passenger rail connections are pie-in-the-sky because of the current routes and conditions of the existing rail. Someone more knowledgeable should correct me if I'm wrong, but I was thinking OKC-Tulsa-KC rail just wasn't really cost feasible.
I have read that the existing rail between Tulsa and OKC would require re-routing as well as upgrades to the track to make it acceptable for (approx) 80 MPH travel. That is what makes it economically unfeasible, for now.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Here's the deal--from everything I understand, Tulsa passenger rail connections are pie-in-the-sky because of the current routes and conditions of the existing rail. Someone more knowledgeable should correct me if I'm wrong, but I was thinking OKC-Tulsa-KC rail just wasn't really cost feasible.
I have read that the existing rail between Tulsa and OKC would require re-routing as well as upgrades to the track to make it acceptable for (approx) 80 MPH travel. That is what makes it economically unfeasible, for now.
When does a project become economically feasible? Do you think if Northeast Oklahoma accepts that we'll be left out of the Amtrak route for now while they build a track through Wichita for OKC that they'll find money later to add Tulsa to the system?
Tulsa has to get serious about having alternative methods of travel besides having a car or it will become increasingly more expensive to live in the area in these times of ever increasing gas prices.
Tulsa has to quit being so willing to fund Amtrak with our tax money when there is no benefit coming to this area. If Tulsa keeps lying down while OKC gets the benefits of state taxes for Amtrak and pro sports handouts, then this area is simply funding the progress of OKC while dying a slow death itself.
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Here's the deal--from everything I understand, Tulsa passenger rail connections are pie-in-the-sky because of the current routes and conditions of the existing rail. Someone more knowledgeable should correct me if I'm wrong, but I was thinking OKC-Tulsa-KC rail just wasn't really cost feasible.
I have read that the existing rail between Tulsa and OKC would require re-routing as well as upgrades to the track to make it acceptable for (approx) 80 MPH travel. That is what makes it economically unfeasible, for now.
When does a project become economically feasible? Do you think if Northeast Oklahoma accepts that we'll be left out of the Amtrak route for now while they build a track through Wichita for OKC that they'll find money later to add Tulsa to the system?
Tulsa has to get serious about having alternative methods of travel besides having a car or it will become increasingly more expensive to live in the area in these times of ever increasing gas prices.
Tulsa has to quit being so willing to fund Amtrak with our tax money when there is no benefit coming to this area. If Tulsa keeps lying down while OKC gets the benefits of state taxes for Amtrak and pro sports handouts, then this area is simply funding the progress of OKC while dying a slow death itself.
I think it's time for TulsaNow and Co. to call their state senators/house reps. Tulsa - OKC Amtrak service wouldn't just benefit Tulsa, it would benefit OKC and the entire state. Mayor Taylor and OKC's Mayor Bennett need to endorse the route and put pressure on the state. The OKC and Tulsa metro areas comprise about 60% of the state's population, and probably contribute a much higher percentage of the state's GDP. Perhaps a partnership between Amtrak and the Okla. Turnpike Authority could be forged to share cost and revenue sharing. That's my idea, anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
When does a project become economically feasible? Do you think if Northeast Oklahoma accepts that we'll be left out of the Amtrak route for now while they build a track through Wichita for OKC that they'll find money later to add Tulsa to the system?
The generic answer is that a rail system between OKC and Tulsa will become economically feasible when the projected income will rise to a level where the public is willing to subsidize the rest.
The numbers I have found so far range from $100 Million to $900 Million. The projects' costs range from just fixing the rails to accept high speed (over 80 mph but under 115 mph) trains to covering the whole thing including diesel locomotives. One estimated cost to upgrade the rails between OKC and Newton, KS was about $5 Million.
If I can find anything more definitive, I'll post it.
I would like to see rail between OKC and Tulsa as a first step to continue NE to either Kansas City or St. Louis. OKC is really too close to fly on the airlines.
Given that the City of Tulsa is talking about spending $120 Million to widen 5 miles of city streets (from 2 lane to 4 lane)... $100 Million to connect Tulsa to OKC (about 110 miles of rail travelling between 80-110 MPH) sounds like a huge bargain to me!
I don't know if the $5 million figure is a low-ball or not. Are the tracks really that perfect between OKC and Newton? Or is that just one of those "pudding" estimates to make the project sound good enough to commit to the project?
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Are the tracks really that perfect between OKC and Newton?
Give me a hacksaw, and I can make it not so... [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Given that the City of Tulsa is talking about spending $120 Million to widen 5 miles of city streets (from 2 lane to 4 lane)... $100 Million to connect Tulsa to OKC (about 110 miles of rail travelling between 80-110 MPH) sounds like a huge bargain to me!
I don't know if the $5 million figure is a low-ball or not. Are the tracks really that perfect between OKC and Newton? Or is that just one of those "pudding" estimates to make the project sound good enough to commit to the project?
With $4+ per gallon gas and the costs of maintaining the road connections, it should be getting easier to justify a train link through a mix of public funds and fares. The amount I'm willing to pay for a ticket keeps going up, especially if I can be productive or simply relax along the way. Plus, I want to take the train to the Grand Lake.
We're not gonna have much of an airport if things continue down the path we're on. Not as many flights and they'll all cost a lot of money.
We definitely do need Amtrak here but it doesn't seem like there's much momentum to get it done. We also need a Megabus type bus service that's direct and not full of convicts and homeless folks.
If the state has a tight budget and they see that OKC can get rail for 5 mill but it would cost 100mill or more for Tulsa and OKC to get it... If I were sitting there in OKC I know what I would go for.
So basically we would be asking for 100 mill and OKC 5 mill. The first thing that keeps popping into my mind is, "dang If we are going to be asking for 100 mill, I can think of other things to spend that on in Tulsa that would benefit our economy and more people here." How about a commuter rail line between Tulsa and BA?
I would say put up a fight for Tulsa to get Amtrack and block the other route, if it doesnt look like its going to go our way, issue them a better offer. OK, you get your rail route your way, but we want something in return. Instead of 100 mill for Amtrack we want 50mill for a commuter line here and perhaps some for the OU/Ardent hospital thing downtown.
Either way we shouldnt just let this go unfought, and frankly I would rather have 50 or 60 mill for stuff IN Tulsa than have the state spend 100 mill or more for Amtrack. I think we would be getting the better deal. Getting commuter rail in the city would be better development wise and economically for Tulsa and its citizens.
I have ridden Amtrak a few times for trips as short as 4 hours and as long as 24 hours. I've found Amtrak's service to be lacking -- the trains are infrequent, tardy, and slow. The system is not efficient, especially in this part of the country.
Lets say they could cost about the same, I wonder what the projected daily ridership numbers would be for Tulsa Amtrack, versus a Tulsa BA commuter line? Which would have a greater economic impact for Tulsa? Which could possibly spur more TOD? How many riders do they get per day with the Oklahoma Flyer?
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
I have ridden Amtrak a few times for trips as short as 4 hours and as long as 24 hours. I've found Amtrak's service to be lacking -- the trains are infrequent, tardy, and slow. The system is not efficient, especially in this part of the country.
It is often that way in the parts of the country where they only have trackage rights over freight roads. Along the NEC, they're usually on time and come often. Same in California, from what I hear and read, although I've never experienced it myself.
Now, on the trains in the middle of the country where if they miss their window they may get stuck behind some freight train rolling along at 30mph, they are often late. They could do a lot better if they had the proper funding, but nobody wants to do that, since they can drive on the (supposedly) free road.
If it weren't for the infrequent and late part (although my last few trips by air have also involved much lateness, the last one a total of 16 hours of delays) I'd much rather take the train than drive. I can work, read, sleep, or whatever else on the train. I can't do that when I'm driving a car.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
I have ridden Amtrak a few times for trips as short as 4 hours and as long as 24 hours. I've found Amtrak's service to be lacking -- the trains are infrequent, tardy, and slow. The system is not efficient, especially in this part of the country.
It is often that way in the parts of the country where they only have trackage rights over freight roads. Along the NEC, they're usually on time and come often. Same in California, from what I hear and read, although I've never experienced it myself.
Now, on the trains in the middle of the country where if they miss their window they may get stuck behind some freight train rolling along at 30mph, they are often late. They could do a lot better if they had the proper funding, but nobody wants to do that, since they can drive on the (supposedly) free road.
If it weren't for the infrequent and late part (although my last few trips by air have also involved much lateness, the last one a total of 16 hours of delays) I'd much rather take the train than drive. I can work, read, sleep, or whatever else on the train. I can't do that when I'm driving a car.
I don't care much for driving or for being in a car as a passenger for long periods of time. For trips of about 300 miles or more, I prefer to fly. In some cases, the alternative of Amtrak is nice to have.
I've ridden Amtrak between Portland and Seattle a number of times. Service has been hit and miss -- sometimes frustratingly slow, and I think in my case it was always caused by Burlington Northern freight traffic north of Vancouver, Washington. Public bus transportation in both Portland and Seattle was good enough that I was able to go anywhere I wanted to go from each train station. The train fares were incredibly cheap, also. I think once I made a Portland-Seattle round trip for $24. The last time I made that journey was in October 2004, and I don't recall if the train was delayed or not.
When I lived in western Kansas, I was able to walk a few blocks to an Amtrak station and then travel east to Lawrence to visit family and friends. The trip took about 6 hours each way, as I recall. Driving took approximately the same amount of time. Also, if I'm not mistaken, there was only one train in each direction per day, and it was always a nighttime journey through Kansas.
I've taken other trips on Amtrak, but those are the routes most familiar to me. For the seven years prior to relocating to Tulsa, I lived in cities with Amtrak service. IMO, Tulsa is no worse off not having Amtrak. I think it would be a waste of money to force the issue. As gas prices rise, I might change my opinion in the future.
Amtrak service has some of the same challenges as commuter rail or light rail service, but on a different scale:
1. The trains operate on a fixed route. With a car, the choices of where to go are so very much greater.
2. The trains operate on an infrequent schedule. With a car, the choices of when to go and how long to stay before returning are so very much greater -- nearly unlimited in most cases.
3. The trains stop at a limited number of pre-determined places. If your origin and destination are near train stations, or if you can take your bike on the train and use it to get where you need to go, or if there are good intermodal mass transit connections near the train stations, then taking a train can be a good option. With a car, the freedom of driving to an exact location is so much greater, especially if the train stations are spread out.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
2. The trains operate on an infrequent schedule. With a car, the choices of when to go and how long to stay before returning are so very much greater -- nearly unlimited in most cases.
3. The trains stop at a limited number of pre-determined places. If your origin and destination are near train stations, or if you can take your bike on the train and use it to get where you need to go, or if there are good intermodal mass transit connections near the train stations, then taking a train can be a good option. With a car, the freedom of driving to an exact location is so much greater, especially if the train stations are spread out.
#2 isn't really an issue at all, as it could easily be fixed if we got off our duffs and spent some more money on rail service in this country. From the look of things, if we want to keep frequent air service, we're going to have to increase our subsidization of that mode of transport beyond our current "build them airports and pay for air traffic control" scheme. Fuel is getting so expensive that the airlines are having a very hard time. Nobody wants to pay what it really costs to operate a flight.
#3 is the same for any sort of group transportation. Airline flights make predetermined stops at a limited number of places. In many parts of the country, a very limited. I've been to more than one city where there is only one flight a day.
As far as reaching a final destination, there are several options that will usually end up being cheaper than driving your own car. Basically those that people do when they fly: Taxis and auto rental.
Besides, how are we going to improve the limited destinations and times without expanding the system to gain more destinations and more riders?
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
2. The trains operate on an infrequent schedule. With a car, the choices of when to go and how long to stay before returning are so very much greater -- nearly unlimited in most cases.
3. The trains stop at a limited number of pre-determined places. If your origin and destination are near train stations, or if you can take your bike on the train and use it to get where you need to go, or if there are good intermodal mass transit connections near the train stations, then taking a train can be a good option. With a car, the freedom of driving to an exact location is so much greater, especially if the train stations are spread out.
#2 isn't really an issue at all, as it could easily be fixed if we got off our duffs and spent some more money on rail service in this country. From the look of things, if we want to keep frequent air service, we're going to have to increase our subsidization of that mode of transport beyond our current "build them airports and pay for air traffic control" scheme. Fuel is getting so expensive that the airlines are having a very hard time. Nobody wants to pay what it really costs to operate a flight.
#3 is the same for any sort of group transportation. Airline flights make predetermined stops at a limited number of places. In many parts of the country, a very limited. I've been to more than one city where there is only one flight a day.
As far as reaching a final destination, there are several options that will usually end up being cheaper than driving your own car. Basically those that people do when they fly: Taxis and auto rental.
Besides, how are we going to improve the limited destinations and times without expanding the system to gain more destinations and more riders?
#2 is a significant issue. Passenger rail is not inexpensive to operate and maintain. Private passenger rail service in most of the nation was out of business by the 1960s. That's why Amtrak was created.
Let's say train service began immediately between OKC and Tulsa, with frequent headways not dependent on demand. Both Tulsa and OKC are sprawling. How do people get to the train station in each city, and how do they get to wherever they want or need to go in each city? Most of the Amtrak trains I've ridden travel at about the same average speed as highway traffic. Higher speed trains require better tracks, which means higher costs. I agree that sitting on a train is nice, especially if you want to read or relax, but once in OKC or Tulsa, what do the train passengers do? Do they wait for a bus or light rail? Those vehicles have headways also. Do they rent a car? Do they catch a taxi? All of these activities take time and money.
It's possible to improve many things by spending more money on them, but the reason we don't have more transportation choices now is that there isn't the demand for them. Personal vehicles and highways are very expensive, but they give people enormous freedom of movement. With a car, the driver determines the departure and return times, which are basically
anytime the driver wants to go, not based on a train or bus schedule.
Increasing supply can sometimes increase demand or ridership, but with a subsidized transportation system, who decides when enough is enough? How much are we willing to fork over so some people can ride a train with frequent headways? With cars, individual drivers decide.
#3 isn't really the same for comparison I'm making here, which is travel between someplace in Tulsa (not necessarily the train station) to someplace in sprawling OKC. Cars can go nearly anywhere in both cities because our infrastructure is set up to accommodate them, and that's the kind of tremendous flexibility for which millions of people are willing to pay dearly. Amtrak would have a very limited number of destinations. For many (or most) people, it just isn't worth the hassle.
Public opinions shift over time. Someday, passenger rail may become a popular and more viable transportation choice. But cars are really in a class of their own because of the great freedoms they provide.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Let's say train service began immediately between OKC and Tulsa, with frequent headways not dependent on demand. Both Tulsa and OKC are sprawling. How do people get to the train station in each city, and how do they get to wherever they want or need to go in each city? Most of the Amtrak trains I've ridden travel at about the same average speed as highway traffic. Higher speed trains require better tracks, which means higher costs. I agree that sitting on a train is nice, especially if you want to read or relax, but once in OKC or Tulsa, what do the train passengers do? Do they wait for a bus or light rail? Those vehicles have headways also. Do they rent a car? Do they catch a taxi? All of these activities take time and money.
It's possible to improve many things by spending more money on them, but the reason we don't have more transportation choices now is that there isn't the demand for them. Personal vehicles and highways are very expensive, but they give people enormous freedom of movement. With a car, the driver determines the departure and return times, which are basically anytime the driver wants to go, not based on a train or bus schedule.
Increasing supply can sometimes increase demand or ridership, but with a subsidized transportation system, who decides when enough is enough? How much are we willing to fork over so some people can ride a train with frequent headways? With cars, individual drivers decide.
#3 isn't really the same for comparison I'm making here, which is travel between someplace in Tulsa (not necessarily the train station) to someplace in sprawling OKC. Cars can go nearly anywhere in both cities because our infrastructure is set up to accommodate them, and that's the kind of tremendous flexibility for which millions of people are willing to pay dearly. Amtrak would have a very limited number of destinations. For many (or most) people, it just isn't worth the hassle.
Public opinions shift over time. Someday, passenger rail may become a popular and more viable transportation choice. But cars are really in a class of their own because of the great freedoms they provide.
The reason I say #2 isn't an issue is that once you've built the track, running an extra train or four isn't very expensive. Sort of like building a road and putting four buses on it instead of two.
As far as driving a car around town, fine. Even if it costs me $30 round trip for the ticket I still have money left over to rent a car and drive around town (or spend $70 on taxi fare), or I could ride the bus.
Maybe I'm strange, but given the choice of spending $100 in gas and maintenance on my car to drive to OKC and back or spending $100 on a ride to OKC on the train plus a rental car or taxi fare or whatever, I'll take the train unless the times are just incredibly inconvenient. If they can do 4 roundtrips a day, I'd be taking the train every time.
And to get to the train station? Taxi, bus, private car. The same ways I get to the airport.
quote:
How much are we willing to fork over so some people can ride a train with frequent headways? With cars, individual drivers decide.
No, the amount of money we're willing to pour into road construction, expansion, and maintenance decides that. Granted, if a particular person wants to drive from Tulsa to OKC at 2 in the morning, they'll be better served by taking their private vehicle. The majority who need to make the trip during the day would be served as well by a train.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
The reason I say #2 isn't an issue is that once you've built the track, running an extra train or four isn't very expensive. Sort of like building a road and putting four buses on it instead of two.
I agree to an extent. But why are there no trains at all running between Tulsa and OKC now? Why don't buses in Tulsa run more frequently? The reason: Lack of demand. Amtrak is not a profitable venture, and no other entity can force passenger rail service to be a profitable venture here because there isn't enough demand for it.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
As far as driving a car around town, fine. Even if it costs me $30 round trip for the ticket I still have money left over to rent a car and drive around town (or spend $70 on taxi fare), or I could ride the bus.
How much time and money does it take to do all of this? You might be willing to spend the time and money, but I'd bet most Tulsans and Okla Citians wouldn't.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
Maybe I'm strange, but given the choice of spending $100 in gas and maintenance on my car to drive to OKC and back or spending $100 on a ride to OKC on the train plus a rental car or taxi fare or whatever, I'll take the train unless the times are just incredibly inconvenient. If they can do 4 roundtrips a day, I'd be taking the train every time.
I don't think you're strange. I avoid driving when possible. If Amtrak ran between Tulsa and OKC, I'd most likely ride it myself, especially if I needed to go somewhere near one or both of the train stations. But I don't expect for the vast majority of the population to subsidize my trip.
I've taken Amtrak enough times to have lost count. It's not always that easy. It's not always that pleasant. And where I lived in Kansas, the times were incredibly inconvenient.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
And to get to the train station? Taxi, bus, private car. The same ways I get to the airport.
Again, time and convenience are factors here. Perhaps not for you, but they are for me. It takes me about 90 minutes to drive to OKC on the Turner Turnpike. Usually, I don't enjoy it. But if I had to wait for a bus or taxi to go to the train station (and there is usually some waiting involved in the process), then wait for a train which may or may not be running on time, then spend about 90 minutes on the train, then wait for bus or taxi or arrange to get a rental car, then the time hassle wouldn't be worth the train ride.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
How much are we willing to fork over so some people can ride a train with frequent headways? With cars, individual drivers decide.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
No, the amount of money we're willing to pour into road construction, expansion, and maintenance decides that. Granted, if a particular person wants to drive from Tulsa to OKC at 2 in the morning, they'll be better served by taking their private vehicle. The majority who need to make the trip during the day would be served as well by a train.
Poor phrasing on my part. I meant that individual drivers of cars nearly always get to decide when they depart, every second of every hour, 24/7. Trains and taxis and rental cars and buses give travelers very limited options on departure times, and each change of transportation mode compounds the waiting.
Generally, I enjoy rail travel. I've taken numerous trains in Europe, and I've seen lots of the western United States from Amtrak trains. But IMO, the benefits of Amtrak do not justify the costs.
Sounds like Tulsa can kiss it goodbye...and fund it, too!
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080917_12_OKLA687402
Nice little editorial about how much Tulsa will pay while being bypassed for towns like Edmond and Perry:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?articleID=20080919_61_A16_hEDITO44096
Congress just passed a railroad bill (//%22http://www.aar.org/IndustryInformation/RailSafety/HR%202095%20Rail%20Safety%20Bill/HR_2095_FRA_RailSafetyAct.aspx%22)(H.R. 2095) Wednesday night.
The bill addresses many critical topics facing the U.S. railroad system. Senator Tom Coburn had been holding up the bill. However concerns about rail safety because of last month's train collision in Los Angeles caused Senate leadership to schedule a cloture vote to circumvent his hold.
For the first time competitive grants are authorized to allow the states to match their own funds with federal dollars for track projects.
This will help facilitate further passenger rail development in Oklahoma.
Up until now, a state could count on getting as much as 4 federal dollars for each state dollar for approved highway projects while getting zero for intercity rail.
The bill addresses in a number of ways, Amtrak's on-time performance problem.
The bill also directs the Federal Railroad Administration to develop a "Request for Proposals" to encourage private sector development of rail corridors.
If Amtrak fails to improve the performance of its national system trains, the federal government could ask the owning private railroad to assume the operation of individual trains and be given the funding and equipment otherwise used by Amtrak.
By requiring the railroad industry to install "Positive Train Seperation" equipment, many stretches of track currently restricted to 79 mph may allow higher speeds, since the lack of cab signaling and train control is a prime reason trains are so restricted.
Most of Amtrak's fleet is already certified for 100 mph+ operations. Its the track and signals or lack thereof that hold it down.
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
Congress just passed a railroad bill (//%22http://www.aar.org/IndustryInformation/RailSafety/HR%202095%20Rail%20Safety%20Bill/HR_2095_FRA_RailSafetyAct.aspx%22)(H.R. 2095) Wednesday night.
The bill addresses many critical topics facing the U.S. railroad system. Senator Tom Coburn had been holding up the bill. However concerns about rail safety because of last month's train collision in Los Angeles caused Senate leadership to schedule a cloture vote to circumvent his hold.
For the first time competitive grants are authorized to allow the states to match their own funds with federal dollars for track projects.
This will help facilitate further passenger rail development in Oklahoma.
Up until now, a state could count on getting as much as 4 federal dollars for each state dollar for approved highway projects while getting zero for intercity rail.
The bill addresses in a number of ways, Amtrak's on-time performance problem.
The bill also directs the Federal Railroad Administration to develop a "Request for Proposals" to encourage private sector development of rail corridors.
If Amtrak fails to improve the performance of its national system trains, the federal government could ask the owning private railroad to assume the operation of individual trains and be given the funding and equipment otherwise used by Amtrak.
By requiring the railroad industry to install "Positive Train Seperation" equipment, many stretches of track currently restricted to 79 mph may allow higher speeds, since the lack of cab signaling and train control is a prime reason trains are so restricted.
Most of Amtrak's fleet is already certified for 100 mph+ operations. Its the track and signals or lack thereof that hold it down.
I've heard that the tracks between Tulsa and OKC need a LOT of improvement to get to approval for even 80 MPH. I'd like to see it happen but it appears to be more than a paperwork approval.
ODOT's consultant recommended building a new alignment next to the Turner Turnpike from Sapulpa to around Jones if the goal is travel time below 2 hours and 15 minutes. Upgraded existing trackage or rights of way would be used to access downtown Tulsa and Oklahoma City.
Such a project could be eligible for several of the new programs under the new railroad law, if the funds are actually appropriated.
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
Congress just passed a railroad bill (//%22http://www.aar.org/IndustryInformation/RailSafety/HR%202095%20Rail%20Safety%20Bill/HR_2095_FRA_RailSafetyAct.aspx%22)(H.R. 2095) Wednesday night.
No, the "Railroad Bill" was that train-load of suck known as the "Bailout".
[;)]
Come on Conan, don't "derail" this thread!
My concern is that it sounds like the State of Oklahoma (and all the little towns along the proposed line) wants to connect Amtrak service from OKC to Newton, KS...totally bypassing Tulsa. This would effectively mean that Tulsa and the Tulsa metropolitan area would be footing half the state dollars, but wouldn't get any of the benefits.
Does the new federal bill change any of this for us?
The federal legislation makes Tulsa intercity rail service more likely because the state would have a funding partner to upgrade track, improve signal systems, and build or restore stations.
Amtrak will also get funding to expand its fleet of passenger cars.
The carrier lacks the fleet to initiate all the trains the various states now want to run.
The Secretary of Transportation recently awarded these small grants to states for improvements and studies. Note Missouri's grant. Also note the Tuscon-Phoenix study. Two sprawling cities of the sunbelt located about as far apart as Tulsa and Oklahoma City. (//%22http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/press-releases/207%22)
If this becomes a Tulsa vs. OKC issue the likely result is no expansion anywhere.
I have seen some evidence that the Tulsa Chamber places more importance on OKC not getting more Amtrak service than Tulsa getting its first service.
There needs to be a unified plan with an iron clad law that guarantees funding for northeastern Oklahoma rail service, regardless of who gets expansion first.
Such a bill was introduced in the House last year but couldn't get by the appropriations committee chairman from Edmond.
The OKC-Wichita-Kansas City connection and additional frequencies all have merit.
So does getting Tulsa connected to the national system. Service to Oklahoma City and the DFW metroplex will be of paramount importance, but service to Springfield and Saint Louis may actually be more affordable in the near term, besides offering superior access to the rest of America.
Thanks for the info, Transport!
Swift rail between the two major markets in Oklahoma could be significant. I'm thinking in terms of connecting the markets. I would hope that we could shoot not just for basic at best service but superior service such that it could be reasonable for me to suggest going to OKC for an evening show and being back in Tulsa by that night without ever having to get in a car...and it would work in the opposite direction. Those in OKC would have the option of hopping on a quick rail ride up to Tulsa for a show or event or a night out. I am really hopeful that we can shorten the time between the two cities such that we really could consider ourselves part of one market.
I think we've got a significant friend of rail in the House now with the election of Seneca Scott...
Personally, I don't mind Oklahoma attempting to connect existing rail to the north through Wichita. But on a map it makes less sense than providing a connection up through Tulsa onward to KC and St. Louis (via Springfield). You connect more people that way. ...Maybe it's an attempt to establish some sort of minor rail hub in OKC such that one would have to converge on OKC in this region in order to move by rail toward other regions...thereby pre-empting such a hub in Tulsa where two trains daily would come through from KC and St.L...just a conspiratorial thought.
I agree.
Did a little web research on Mr. Scott and yes it sounds like there may be another friend of rail for Tulsa there to join Mr. Wescott.
Anybody know any other officials who might actively help?
What would the estimated average, daily ridership numbers be for a Tulsa to OKC line versus a Tulsa to BA line be? And what are the costs of each?
From what I could find the Heartland flyer, from OKC to Fort Worth,,,whose ridership has been way up due to the higher oil prices, has averaged around 400 a day lately at best. I would expect the daily ridership from Tulsa to OKC to be a bit less. I know there were some ridership estimates for the Tulsa to BA line but cant find them at the moment. But from what I am guessing, the BA to Tulsa line would be used by a looot more people.
If the state insists that it would take about 250 mill to do the line through Tulsa. I would at least say, ok, we wont put up a big stink if you want to do the other line... IF you let us have 100mill for the commuter line IN Tulsa.
Just thinking about whats going to cost less and also be more useful to more people. And a commuter line could help spur TOD development in Tulsa. Seems to me to be more economically advantagious to Tulsa and would make Tulsa a more attractive place to live. If we could afford to do both, great. But if money is a bit tight, I would choose to invest in the commuter line at this point.
Why insist on mixing the intercity and commuter rail issues up?
They both need to happen.
Sure they both use the same technology, but the markets and needs society is trying to service are different.
The available federal funding comes from different sources with differing requirements.
Comparing ridership between the two is comparing apples to oranges.
Carrying 400 weekday commuters between B.A. and Tulsa would generate about 16,000 daiy passenger miles worth of transportation value for the taxpayer.
Carrying 400 intercity and commuter passengers between Oklahoma City and Tulsa would generate 96,000 passenger miles worth of societal transportation value.