Please come join us Monday, November 10th, 7:00 pm at the Starbucks at 35th and South Peoria.
We will be meeting to try and get something going on Tulsa/NE Oklahoma Amtrak service. The city is the 5th largest in the nation not on the rail passenger network.
i'll be there...
How much will it cost?
How many people are likely to use it?
Would a similar amount of money used instead for commuter rail within the city result in more benefits? (As in; Which would have the higher daily ridership numbers, commuter rail or amtrak? Which would be more likely to spur TOD? etc.)
There is the Heartland Flyer that runs from OKC to Ft Worth. Stops along the way include downtown Ardmore. The need a few more stops including one at Lake Country Speedway and other points of entertainment and interest.
Track runs along the highway at some places, but takes a jaunt across some very senic areas as well.
Up side is the low costs, down side is the schedule and lack of multiple trains running cross schedules. A link over to Tulsa via Train would be a major addition to this line. Expecially if they include some platforms and stops at the local entertainment districts, venues and attractions along the line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Flyer
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
How much will it cost?
How many people are likely to use it?
Would a similar amount of money used instead for commuter rail within the city result in more benefits? (As in; Which would have the higher daily ridership numbers, commuter rail or amtrak? Which would be more likely to spur TOD? etc.)
I think these are the wrong questions, Artist. This isn't a question of deciding what's best -- the decision has already been made. This is about lobbying for what is fair. We already pay for Amtrak service in Oklahoma and it doesn't stop in Tulsa even though it makes perfect sense to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
How much will it cost?
How many people are likely to use it?
Would a similar amount of money used instead for commuter rail within the city result in more benefits? (As in; Which would have the higher daily ridership numbers, commuter rail or amtrak? Which would be more likely to spur TOD? etc.)
See, these questions have already been asked and shown that the whole thing is not economically viable.
the problem is a few people refuse to believe that and insist that we need more taxpayer dollars to throw at perceived inequities and problems. (ie. if bankers get 700 Billion and still get bonuses, then my little Tommy should get a train.)
All transportation choices are not "economically viable". Tulsa has identified $2 billion in road repairs just to get our roads back to a passing grade. That is $5,000 per Tulsa citizen.
Travel by train is way more efficient than continually building roads that crumble.
I dont know exactly how the funding works and from where the money comes. But that is part of my question. Here is some of where I am coming from on the issue though... The study that Kansas is doing to figure out the costs for the OKC-Newton line will be done in 2009, but estimates put it at around 5 mill. The estimates I have seen for doing the OKC to Tulsa line are around 110 mill and then more to connect that on north of Tulsa. Both are likely to cost more since those are indeed estimates and very old ones. Yes we are already paying for Amtrak, the Heartland Flyer, and we would be paying more for any extension. If the state is going to be paying 110 mill for a Tulsa line, plus yearly maintenance, plus more if we want to connect that to Kansas (one estimate was about 20 mill) and then persuading Kansas to pay more to connect where the Oklahoma/Tulsa line stops on to cities in their state versus the cheaper route they have mapped out bypassing Tulsa... Your starting to talk about the state (aka us) spending a similar amount of money (in a really tight budget climate) that I would rather them spend on a line IN Tulsa which would have a better economic impact on our city and be used daily by far more Tulsans. The state could pay for both the OKC/Newton line and a Tulsa commuter line for less than the OKC/Tulsa/Kansas line. (could be a great bargaining chip to get some funds for Tulsa)
Btw, how much would it cost to do a spur from Tulsa to the OKC/Newton line?
If anything we should be getting a study of our own done, like Kansas is doing, to show how much it would actually, likely cost to do the OKC/Tulsa/Kansas line. Or just the OKC/Tulsa segment if thats all we want. And wait until thats done before the state decides to possibly go ahead with the Newton line.
Again, if it costs much more to do the Tulsa line,,, we can still raise a fuss, its a good argument to have Amtrak to Tulsa. But then throw them the less expensive option of having them pay for the commuter line in Tulsa instead of paying for the more expensive line through Tulsa. The state could get its northern Amtrak line and we could get the commuter line, both for less than what we would likely be paying for the other line,,, and I think we would be the better for it.
One other possibility though. Where exactly would an OKC/Tulsa line run? Would it go downtown? If its connected on to Kansas, what line would that use?
If it goes downtown arent we already looking at trying to get that "starter segment" paid for there by ourselves? If this is a way to get the state, and some federal matching, to pay for that... Plus if the line is to be connected on to Kansas, where would that line be? Could both an improved passenger line crossing the river, in downtown, and on to the north be used as commuter line "the starter line we have been wanting" when the Amtrak is not using it?
If so then that could be used as a bargaining chip to persuade the state to pony up the money to do that Tulsa line for it could do double duty as passenger and commuter line. It will cost more, but it would do more. Though getting Kansas on board for the more expensive route on their end may be tricky if we want to connect up north.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I dont know exactly how the funding works and from where the money comes. But that is part of my question. Here is some of where I am coming from on the issue though... The study that Kansas is doing to figure out the costs for the OKC-Newton line will be done in 2009, but estimates put it at around 5 mill. The estimates I have seen for doing the OKC to Tulsa line are around 110 mill and then more to connect that on north of Tulsa. Both are likely to cost more since those are indeed estimates and very old ones. Yes we are already paying for Amtrak, the Heartland Flyer, and we would be paying more for any extension. If the state is going to be paying 110 mill for a Tulsa line, plus yearly maintenance, plus more if we want to connect that to Kansas (one estimate was about 20 mill) and then persuading Kansas to pay more to connect where the Oklahoma/Tulsa line stops on to cities in their state versus the cheaper route they have mapped out bypassing Tulsa... Your starting to talk about the state (aka us) spending a similar amount of money (in a really tight budget climate) that I would rather them spend on a line IN Tulsa which would have a better economic impact on our city and be used daily by far more Tulsans. The state could pay for both the OKC/Newton line and a Tulsa commuter line for less than the OKC/Tulsa/Kansas line. (could be a great bargaining chip to get some funds for Tulsa)
Btw, how much would it cost to do a spur from Tulsa to the OKC/Newton line?
If anything we should be getting a study of our own done, like Kansas is doing, to show how much it would actually, likely cost to do the OKC/Tulsa/Kansas line. Or just the OKC/Tulsa segment if thats all we want. And wait until thats done before the state decides to possibly go ahead with the Newton line.
Again, if it costs much more to do the Tulsa line,,, we can still raise a fuss, its a good argument to have Amtrak to Tulsa. But then throw them the less expensive option of having them pay for the commuter line in Tulsa instead of paying for the more expensive line through Tulsa. The state could get its northern Amtrak line and we could get the commuter line, both for less than what we would likely be paying for the other line,,, and I think we would be the better for it.
Come to the meeting tonight and discuss that option.
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I dont know exactly how the funding works and from where the money comes. But that is part of my question. Here is some of where I am coming from on the issue though... The study that Kansas is doing to figure out the costs for the OKC-Newton line will be done in 2009, but estimates put it at around 5 mill. The estimates I have seen for doing the OKC to Tulsa line are around 110 mill and then more to connect that on north of Tulsa. Both are likely to cost more since those are indeed estimates and very old ones. Yes we are already paying for Amtrak, the Heartland Flyer, and we would be paying more for any extension. If the state is going to be paying 110 mill for a Tulsa line, plus yearly maintenance, plus more if we want to connect that to Kansas (one estimate was about 20 mill) and then persuading Kansas to pay more to connect where the Oklahoma/Tulsa line stops on to cities in their state versus the cheaper route they have mapped out bypassing Tulsa... Your starting to talk about the state (aka us) spending a similar amount of money (in a really tight budget climate) that I would rather them spend on a line IN Tulsa which would have a better economic impact on our city and be used daily by far more Tulsans. The state could pay for both the OKC/Newton line and a Tulsa commuter line for less than the OKC/Tulsa/Kansas line. (could be a great bargaining chip to get some funds for Tulsa)
Btw, how much would it cost to do a spur from Tulsa to the OKC/Newton line?
If anything we should be getting a study of our own done, like Kansas is doing, to show how much it would actually, likely cost to do the OKC/Tulsa/Kansas line. Or just the OKC/Tulsa segment if thats all we want. And wait until thats done before the state decides to possibly go ahead with the Newton line.
Again, if it costs much more to do the Tulsa line,,, we can still raise a fuss, its a good argument to have Amtrak to Tulsa. But then throw them the less expensive option of having them pay for the commuter line in Tulsa instead of paying for the more expensive line through Tulsa. The state could get its northern Amtrak line and we could get the commuter line, both for less than what we would likely be paying for the other line,,, and I think we would be the better for it.
Come to the meeting tonight and discuss that option.
I will try to be there. I have to run to OKC and back to meet with a client there today. [:P]
If the extra $$ is about the east/west BNSF being too busy to share tracks, then give us a Ft. Worth/Tulsa/Newton. Isn't that Union Pacific?
I can live without the link to OKC for a few years, if necessary. What I can't stomach is the creation, and now the proposed expansion, of Amtrak service in Oklahoma when it continues to ignores more than 1/3 of the people paying the bills for it. It's total rubbish.
I would love to ride a train to Newton, Kansas instead of going to Oklahoma City. That is beautiful country. Is there a straight shot existing line?
That would also be a faster way to get west along existing Amtrak routes. Why would I want to go west to OKC, then south all the way to the bottom of Texas, then west along the U.S./Mexican border all the way to California?
Why would I want to go to Texas? I am from Oklahoma...Texas is beneath me.
Update: Provided he can mitigate a scheduling conflict, Councilor Rick Westcott will be joining us.
No guarantees but he wants to be there if he can.
Let me revise that. I was thinking Newton was near Lawrence.
If I don't make it tonight, then somebody push doing a feasibility study from Tulsa to KC on the UP.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
If the extra $$ is about the east/west BNSF being too busy to share tracks, then give us a Ft. Worth/Tulsa/Newton. Isn't that Union Pacific?
I can live without the link to OKC for a few years, if necessary. What I can't stomach is the creation, and now the proposed expansion, of Amtrak service in Oklahoma when it continues to ignores more than 1/3 of the people paying the bills for it. It's total rubbish.
That is exactly the point.
Isn't the plan to eventually connect OKC and Kansas City? If so, it makes so much more sense to route through Tulsa than through Perry.
quote:
Originally posted by marc
Isn't the plan to eventually connect OKC and Kansas City? If so, it makes so much more sense to route through Tulsa than through Perry.
Yes, OKC-Tulsa-Joplin-KC makes much more sense, IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by marc
Isn't the plan to eventually connect OKC and Kansas City? If so, it makes so much more sense to route through Tulsa than through Perry.
Yes, OKC-Tulsa-Joplin-KC makes much more sense, IMO.
I agree completely. But with the cost difference,,, will OKC and MO go for it? Especially if Kansas is willing to pay for their section from Newton on up. Its simple and practically free one way, its quite another story the other.
Anyone have any idea of what the sentiment is for MO or Kansas to the "Tulsa" line? Wont do us much good to dream up lines going to Joplin and KC if they dont want to do it right now, "its not just the people in OKC we are having to convince here" and the Oklahoma legislators arent going to spend money on rail going north only to have it stop at the border.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
the Oklahoma legislators arent going to spend money on rail going north only to have it stop at the border.
Certainly, but even if it doesn't go beyond Tulsa, getting passenger rail in Tulsa is a reasonable goal. You are right that we need to consider whether the money would be more beneficial for commuter rail.
On that point, though, we need to consider who we're really helping. The proposed BA line really only helps BA. Tulsa benefits only by reduced pollution and congestion along one particular highway, and may in fact be harmed by making it difficult or impossible for commuters from BA to stop and patronize businesses in Tulsa on their way home.
We might get lucky and make downtown a more attractive location to locate an office, which is a goal in and of itself.
The biggest benefit I see is just in getting people used to the idea of traveling by rail.
Ok, just got back from the meeting and going to throw out some thoughts and notes.
First off there doesnt seem to be any concrete plan or political consensus to do any rail from OKC to Tulsa or from Tulsa to anywhere. Even the OKC to Newton and Kansas thing seems to be just an idea with little likelihood to happen unless support somehow grows for it. There are however a good number of people, and a few politicians, who think that rail could be of some benefit to the Tulsa area. So part of what the meeting was about was looking at the various options, get conversations going, and figuring out ways to drum up more political will and support to get some sort of passenger rail going. If thats what we agree we want, that it is a worthwhile thing to spend our money on.
Here are a few tidbits and various options to consider weighing...
1. Tulsa to KC, tricky to do because of the politics in KC. KC doesnt want to spend the money on it and would rather spend money to connect to cities like Wichita. Basically, unlikely to happen.
2. Tulsa to St Louis. More doable, more political will to do it in MO, and would be relatively inexpensive for Oklahoma to do, costing about 12 mill from Tulsa to the border. Negative, would be an 8-10 hr trip, positive,,, is inexpensive and would connect Tulsa to the rest of the Amtrak network. Also, to consider, not as likely to get federal matching funds as an OKC to Tulsa line.
3a. Tulsa to OKC. About 2.5 hours and the feeling seems to be that when Amtrak comes out soon with their new study for the corridor, the price could be 200-250 millionish. But... if Obama does the "infrastructure as investment/economic stimulus" thing, the feds. could pay a good chunk of that. But...Inhofe et al, likely to shoot down any federal spending, even if the only place they can stop it for sure is in our state.
3b. Tulsa to OKC. About 50 minutes. 1 billion dollars for new high speed rail. Can possibly be done since Tulsa to OKC is already designated as a high speed corridor option. Fed gov could pay up to 80%. But... how likely would Inhofe go for that one? lol NOT! Even IF we could get the state legislators on board.
4. Passenger rail, and doesnt have to be Amtrak, from Tulsa to wherever, doesnt have to be solely for that purpose, for we can piggyback some Tulsa commuter line infrastructure on top of that. Or another way of seeing it is that we could start commuter rail here in Tulsa and have Amtrak piggyback on top of that. I believe someone said that if you add BA and make it a BA-Tulsa-OKC line, you increase ridership by 25%.
Basically whatever we choose to do, those options or something completely different. We are going to have to put some effort into lobbying in OKC, write letters, organize, etc. and push for it to happen. Do we want to do that? Is it worth it? How do we "show its worth it", whatever "it" is? What project would we want to push for? Which idea is best? Which is most likely to be politically doable?
Thanks for the information. I was disappointed that I wasn't able to attend, but I got some work piled on me at the last minute. Very interesting ideas...
Here's something to think about. The Turner, Kirkpatrick Turnpike and Creek Turnpikes are being studied to consider adding lanes...at a cost of $400 million.
http://newsok.com/toll-roads-some-may-widen-in-years-to-come/article/3315905
http://newsok.com/turnpike-expansion-sought-despite-sagging-revenue/article/3313861
Here are some other thoughts:
The Turner Turnpike was built between 1947-1953. It cost $100 million at the time. (What would that be in today's dollars?) How many billions have gone into maintenance since then?
In 2000, between 20,000 and 28,000 vehicles traveled the Turner Turnpike each day. It's currently an 1 1/2 hour drive. What would be the value of time saved to millions of people each year, if a high speed train could connect Tulsa to OKC with a 30 minute ride?
Every semi-truck causes as much damage to the road as 300 cars. How much could be saved, if more trains could carry not just passengers but freight as well?
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Here's something to think about. The Turner, Kirkpatrick Turnpike and Creek Turnpikes are being studied to consider adding lanes...at a cost of $400 million.
http://newsok.com/toll-roads-some-may-widen-in-years-to-come/article/3315905
http://newsok.com/turnpike-expansion-sought-despite-sagging-revenue/article/3313861
Here are some other thoughts:
The Turner Turnpike was built between 1947-1953. It cost $100 million at the time. (What would that be in today's dollars?) How many billions have gone into maintenance since then?
In 2000, between 20,000 and 28,000 vehicles traveled the Turner Turnpike each day. It's currently an 1 1/2 hour drive. What would be the value of time saved to millions of people each year, if a high speed train could connect Tulsa to OKC with a 30 minute ride?
Every semi-truck causes as much damage to the road as 300 cars. How much could be saved, if more trains could carry not just passengers but freight as well?
30 min to OKC from Tulsa would be a
really high speed train. It's approximately 100 miles. That would be an average of 200 MPH.
The recent extention to the Gilcrease cost $55 Million for about 3 mi. 100 mi at that rate would be $1.8 Billion.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Ok, just got back from the meeting and going to throw out some thoughts and notes.
First off there doesnt seem to be any concrete plan or political consensus to do any rail from OKC to Tulsa or from Tulsa to anywhere. Even the OKC to Newton and Kansas thing seems to be just an idea with little likelihood to happen unless support somehow grows for it. There are however a good number of people, and a few politicians, who think that rail could be of some benefit to the Tulsa area. So part of what the meeting was about was looking at the various options, get conversations going, and figuring out ways to drum up more political will and support to get some sort of passenger rail going. If thats what we agree we want, that it is a worthwhile thing to spend our money on.
Here are a few tidbits and various options to consider weighing...
1. Tulsa to KC, tricky to do because of the politics in KC. KC doesnt want to spend the money on it and would rather spend money to connect to cities like Wichita. Basically, unlikely to happen.
2. Tulsa to St Louis. More doable, more political will to do it in MO, and would be relatively inexpensive for Oklahoma to do, costing about 12 mill from Tulsa to the border. Negative, would be an 8-10 hr trip, positive,,, is inexpensive and would connect Tulsa to the rest of the Amtrak network. Also, to consider, not as likely to get federal matching funds as an OKC to Tulsa line.
3a. Tulsa to OKC. About 2.5 hours and the feeling seems to be that when Amtrak comes out soon with their new study for the corridor, the price could be 200-250 millionish. But... if Obama does the "infrastructure as investment/economic stimulus" thing, the feds. could pay a good chunk of that. But...Inhofe et al, likely to shoot down any federal spending, even if the only place they can stop it for sure is in our state.
3b. Tulsa to OKC. About 50 minutes. 1 billion dollars for new high speed rail. Can possibly be done since Tulsa to OKC is already designated as a high speed corridor option. Fed gov could pay up to 80%. But... how likely would Inhofe go for that one? lol NOT! Even IF we could get the state legislators on board.
4. Passenger rail, and doesnt have to be Amtrak, from Tulsa to wherever, doesnt have to be solely for that purpose, for we can piggyback some Tulsa commuter line infrastructure on top of that. Or another way of seeing it is that we could start commuter rail here in Tulsa and have Amtrak piggyback on top of that. I believe someone said that if you add BA and make it a BA-Tulsa-OKC line, you increase ridership by 25%.
Basically whatever we choose to do, those options or something completely different. We are going to have to put some effort into lobbying in OKC, write letters, organize, etc. and push for it to happen. Do we want to do that? Is it worth it? How do we "show its worth it", whatever "it" is? What project would we want to push for? Which idea is best? Which is most likely to be politically doable?
Thanks for the thorough and thoughtful report, artist.
Setting aside the rail discussion for a moment, I think you succinctly describe the problems Tulsa has in getting attention and also how to overcome them.
The main problem is that we NEVER ask. Hey, Transport_OK, is this group worthy of participation? http://ontracok.org/index.htm
?
They're active and seem to understand grassroots machinery (action alerts, legislator as member, etc.) What are they trying to accomplish and are they supportive of AmTrak from Tulsa to St. Louis? There may be no need to reinvent the wheel.
It looks like they are single issue, but maybe not.
Anybody seen this study?MODOT talking about Amtrak STL/Springfield (//%22http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,1181003%22)On STL/SPG Here we go (//%22http://morail.org/othertransportation/rail/documents/ATK-07-060Springfield-SWMissouri.pdf%22)...kinda not too encouraging:
quote:
The report requested by MoDOT found strategic merit to the proposed route,
including serving the state's third largest metropolitan area, tourism potential, and
connections to Amtrak's national rail service. However, it would also require an initial
significant capital investment and ongoing state operating support. The lack of a
competitive trip time versus that of automobiles and a lower than expected ridership
projection were also cited as concerns.
Complete Study (//%22http://morail.org/othertransportation/rail/documents/MissouriDOT-SpringfieldtoStLouisServiceReport051607WebEdition.pdf%22)
Okay, I'm confused. Why does Amtrak from OKC to Tulsa cost $200+ million while the proposed Amtrak route from Springfield to St. Louis has an initial cost of Jack Squat?
They are both on BNSF; both have about 12 trains a day, which is relatively low; and the SPG/STL route is actually 150 miles longer than OKC/TUL and much less straight.
I thought excessive freight volume might have something to do with it, but according to the study, the STL/MCI route runs on a UP track with 60 coal trains a day. So, that can't be an excuse, at least, not an acceptable one.
Can someone explain this to us? Why is it so expensive to get TUL/OKC?
It's not clear from posts in this thread how the meeting turned out or what the follow up plan is. I hope this is successful and I would like to help.
Nothing is doing more to doom Tulsa to "no count" status that the fact we are falling further and further behind in basic infrastructure issues like better connections to money center cities.
A couple of weeks ago I had to get down to Dallas in a hurry and I ended up spending a lot of time sitting at traffic lights in Glenpool and Ada and slowing down for numerous other speed zones. It was extremely irritating to me that we don't have uninterrupted interstate freeway from Tulsa to Dallas. That extra 40 minutes or so of travel is the kind of difference that costs money and makes a business decide to locate in OKC instead of Tulsa.
I don't understand why Tulsa isn't doing everything possible to foster these basic infrastructure upgrades. But in the absence of that it is important for citizens to recognize our future as a viable city depends on infrastructure improvements and demand that our leaders get something done.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Okay, I'm confused. Why does Amtrak from OKC to Tulsa cost $200+ million while the proposed Amtrak route from Springfield to St. Louis has an initial cost of Jack Squat?
They are both on BNSF; both have about 12 trains a day, which is relatively low; and the SPG/STL route is actually 150 miles longer than OKC/TUL and much less straight.
I thought excessive freight volume might have something to do with it, but according to the study, the STL/MCI route runs on a UP track with 60 coal trains a day. So, that can't be an excuse, at least, not an acceptable one.
Can someone explain this to us? Why is it so expensive to get TUL/OKC?
I think part of the difference is that the Tulsa to St Louis route isnt being upgraded as much, if at all. The consequence of that is it would take a lot longer to ride the rail to St Louis than it would to drive. In other words, yes indeed we would be connected to Amtrak,,, But who would ride it? The current bus would be quicker and cheaper. Plus the 12mill I gave was only the cost for doing Tulsa to the border, not from the border to St Louis, and again, not doing any real upgrades. I also have a feeling that the 8-10hour time given would have included that the St Louis side of things have the more expensive improvements which is not likely to happen as has been shown, so it would actually take even longer to get from Tulsa to St Louis.
From what I understand, the Tulsa OKC route needs lots of improvements in order to get it to the 2.5 hour time scale. We could possibly get Amtrak from OKC to Tulsa and it not cost as much. But who is going to take the train to OKC if it takes 5 hours or more to get there?
For that matter, how many are going to want to
take 2.5 hours to get to OKC when a bus trip would be quicker? You could probably buy some snazzy buses and pay for 5 or so dedicated round trips a day between OKC and Tulsa, for less than the cost of the yearly maintenance of the Amtrak line.
Basically you may be comparing apples to oranges. One route may include more improvements, the other not, in their estimates. The cost is related to speed. You could get to either city for "Jack Squat" if your willing to take forever doing it. The faster you want to go, the more improvements it takes, and thus more cost.
There have been several posts about the possibility of Tulsa-Kansas City and we discussed it briefly at the meeting.
This one is down the road a bit unless Oklahoma pays all/most of the bill or the route is part of a new national system route (say MSP-KCY-TUL-DFE-HOU) that is fully or mostly federally funded.
That is because Kansas, when they do begin funding an intercity passenger rail program, is going to naturally focus on linking their biggest population centers, i.e. Kansas City-Topeka-Wichita.
It will be down their priority list a ways to address service down the eastern tier of their state.
There are a couple of routing options on this one. The tracks are in reasonably good shape for a couple of them. The most direct route though through Bartlesville and Chanute has about 70 miles of track missing though they did have the forethought to preserve the right-way.
This post will try and address all Oklahoma train issues related to Missouri.
Missouri already has a formal relationship with Amtrak as it has funded service on 1 of their 3 routes for 29 years. It is generally easier to get a state that already has an Amtrak program going to the table, than one that doesn't.
Unlike other states, the Missouri program has struggled because of on time performance problems on the traffic-clogged KCY-STL crosss-Missouri route.
After barely funding the operating grant for years, the Missouri General Assembly recently appropriated $5 nillion, which was later matched with $3 million in federal to address capacity issues on that line.
Springfield is the state's third largest city and the Branson entertainment resort area is one of the biggest draws in the nation. Springfield does not have low fare air service and somee leaders are concerned that Branson will suffer if the energy crisis re-asserts itself. So interest in rail passenger service continues.
The Saint Louis-Tulsa route (which really would be an extension of the Chicago-Saint Louis Lioncln Service soon-to-be 120 mph high speed corridor) has excellent demographics, the track is in good condition but the alignment, partiularly in Missouri, has lots of curves which will probably result in a TUL-STL travel time of 8-10 hours with improvements.
The 2006-2007 Saint Louis-Springfield study:
In 2006 Missouri asked Amtrak to evaluate AGAIN, a low-cost start-up of service from Saint Louis to Springfield. Planners were to assume only capital expenditures absolutely essential to starting service would be made. Therefore the study did not identify grade crossing equipment or signal improvements necessary to get the 6.5 hour freight travel time down.
IMO the only thing useful from that study is the STL-Springfield operating grant requirement estimate of $3.4 million/year. This won't change a great deal even if the train is faster. For comparison the "Heartland Flyer" operating grant is $4.3 and the two other "Missouri Service" trains average $3.5/each. My guess is extending the train to Tulsa (423 miles) would result in an operating grant requirement for the full route of $5.5 million split by some formula between the two states.
This reply will address federal funding.
The situation with federal funds has changed dramatically in just the last few weeks impacted by:
- THe creation of a new federal rail law
- The election
- Economic changes
HR 2095 was signed into law by President Bush on October 16th. Among many other things, this bill authorizes up to 80% federal funding of capital expenses that meet certain criteria in the new law. Capital expenses are things like track, signal, stations, and rolling stock. The secretary of transportation selects the winning proposals and those with a higher state percentage have a greater chance of being awarded.
There are several categories but the main two are:
- Capital assistance for intercity passenger rail service
- High Speed rail corridor program funds
The latter is intended for projects that will allow trains to reach at least 110 m.p.h. and are designated.
The election matters because both senators Biden and Obama have strong pro-rail voting records, included pro-rail messages in their campaign platforms, and of course Joe Biden commutes on Amtrak every weekday. The real test comes with who they pick for transportation secretary and what their first federal budget looks like. Will they recommend actually appropriating the authorized funds discussed above?
The economy matters for at least two reasons.
Tax revenues are no doubt declining. Where will the money come from? California voters just approved nearly $10 billion in general obligation bonds for high speed rail, but I doubt they could sell those right now.
On the other hand, there is talk of a new New Deal where the federal government would launch a program of public works spending to create jobs for the unemployed and give manufacturers orders for something to build. Rail projects are frequently menmtioned as a good use of such a program.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
[
The main problem is that we NEVER ask. Hey, Transport_OK, is this group worthy of participation? http://ontracok.org/index.htm
?
They're active and seem to understand grassroots machinery (action alerts, legislator as member, etc.) What are they trying to accomplish and are they supportive of AmTrak from Tulsa to St. Louis?
Right now their main focus is keeping dozers from ripping through the Oklahoma City Union Station tunnels and track footprints.
They are pro-Tulsa in that of the two existing station buildings, OKC Union Station is better located operationally for Tulsa than the Santa Fe Station Amtrak uses is.
Tulsa-Oklahoma City discussion
Terminology:
The route is at the notheast end of the north leg or spoke of the federally-designated South Central Corridor. (//%22http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/647%22).
The line is also sometimes called the "Sooner Sub" or "Sooner Subdivision" because that was the name designation assigned by Burlington Norhern Santa Fe from Sapulpa to Oklahoma City. Stillwater Central Railroad leases the line and retains that designation for it. From Tulsa through Sapulpa to Madill, the designation is "Creek Subdivision".
Most, but not all, intercity service proposals for Tulsa include or are substantially about service to Oklahoma City.
At the meeting there was a handout showing that Tulsa-Oklahoma City travel corridor is in the top 50 in the nation for annual local traffic.
The reason capital costs are so high for TUL-OKC is history going back more than a century.
The line was built by the FRISCO from Tulsa and Sapulpa and reached Oklahoma City in 1897. The FRISCO was not a rich railroad like the Santa Fe or Union Pacific and the line was not engineered to a high standard. Rather than cutting through hills and using the removed earth to create "fills" across low ground, they used the natural lay of the land as much as possible meaing lots of curves around hills and valleys rather then straight road bed right through them.
I only am aware of one curve that was ever somewhat straightened out on the Sooner from its original 1897 alignment.
After passenger service from Saint Louis through Tulsa to Oklahoma City was discontinued in 1966, the railroad downgraded the main line around Cherokee Yard into a 20 mph arrival track to store freight trains until they are classified over the "hump". A replacement will have to be constructed.
The route was of importance to Burlington Nothern and througout the 1980s was kept in excellent condition from a maintenance point of view. However the signal system was removed in 1984.
After Burlington Northern and Santa Fe merged in 1995, company officials deemed it surplus and began routing trains between Oklahoma City and Tulsa via Pawneee, Perry, and Guthrie. At that point the railroad quit maintaing the Sooner Sub. In 1997-1998 BNSF sold the Sooner Sub and a branch to Stillwater to the State of Oklahoma for about $6 million. The state leased the lines to the newly formed Stillwater Central. Despite the contract with the state saying otherwise, SLWC only maintains the track for 25 mph today.
Because of congestion elsewhere, BNSF again runs traffic across the line at 1-4 trains/day and SLWC runs 1/day. So far BNSF has been unwilling to help restore the line at least to the condition it was in when they owned it.
The line has been studied comprehensively for passenger operations twice. By Parsons Brinkerhoff in 1989 and by Carter Burgess in 2001.
Depending on the levels of investment, number of stops, and equipment the present alignment would support running times of about 2:10-3:00 hours.
The capital costs will range from $50-300 million.
Carter Burgess recommended to the state that a new high speed line be built next to the Turner Turnpike for about $1 billion (2001 dollars) that could acheive a non-stop time of 50-55 minutes.
The reason for the extreme capital cost difference for conventional service between this line and others can be summarized as:
- History-frugal engineering budget in 1897
- Ownership changes-maintenance deferred after railroad merger mania of the 1990s
- Bypass track needed in West Tulsa
- Signal system needs to be installed
For intercity travel, the evidence is that for the people who are willing to give the train a try or who use it already, 90% won't give the bus consideration, regardless of price or travel time. They will just drive, fly, or stay home. Its about perceptions.
If you came up with a nice bus with lots of room and charged far less than they do now $17-21 TUL-OKC for a very cramped seat and then educated the public about it, you might get a significant number of takers, but still far less then a frequent train.
MegaBus is or was running between STL-KCY and CHI-STL but Amtrak ridership is growing fast anyway.
A segment of the travel market will accept travel times SLIGHTLY longer than driving. The Missouri Service trains take 5.5 hours to transverse the state, the Heartland Flyer takes 4.25 hours to go 210 miles.
Either capital in the lower tens of millions (full route) is identified for STL-SPR-TUL, or it doesn't happen. I don't think you have to worry about anyone starting a 13 hour train to St. Louis. Same would apply to most routes. Possible exception is the OKC-Wichita-Newton route where you can run 55 mph and no slow track today.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
I think part of the difference is that the Tulsa to St Louis route isnt being upgraded as much, if at all. The consequence of that is it would take a lot longer to ride the rail to St Louis than it would to drive. In other words, yes indeed we would be connected to Amtrak,,, But who would ride it? The current bus would be quicker and cheaper. Plus the 12mill I gave was only the cost for doing Tulsa to the border, not from the border to St Louis, and again, not doing any real upgrades. I also have a feeling that the 8-10hour time given would have included that the St Louis side of things have the more expensive improvements which is not likely to happen as has been shown, so it would actually take even longer to get from Tulsa to St Louis.
From what I understand, the Tulsa OKC route needs lots of improvements in order to get it to the 2.5 hour time scale. We could possibly get Amtrak from OKC to Tulsa and it not cost as much. But who is going to take the train to OKC if it takes 5 hours or more to get there?
For that matter, how many are going to want to
take 2.5 hours to get to OKC when a bus trip would be quicker? You could probably buy some snazzy buses and pay for 5 or so dedicated round trips a day between OKC and Tulsa, for less than the cost of the yearly maintenance of the Amtrak line.
Basically you may be comparing apples to oranges. One route may include more improvements, the other not, in their estimates. The cost is related to speed. You could get to either city for "Jack Squat" if your willing to take forever doing it. The faster you want to go, the more improvements it takes, and thus more cost.
The question has come up here and at the meeting whether the pursuit of either commuter or intercity rail could occur simultaneously and whether one hurts the chances for the other.
If you believe in the value of alternatives to single-occupant automobiles and accompanying positive effects on development patterns, energy consumption, mobility for those with limited choices, and quality of life then you probably want to see both.
The two fill different needs and are at the same time complementary as noted by Councilor Westcott at the meeting.
I suggested at the meeting that the South Central Corridor be "understood" to extend to Broken Arrow. That way your local, frequent corridor trains from OKC would serve a dual role moving intercity and commuter travelers within the Tulsa Metro Area. Equipment costs, maintenance, and administration overhead could be saved. The best example I can think of is where the Chicago-Detroit trains continue on to Pontiac.
Intercity rail development is either driven by Amtrak itself, or more commonly now, the state. All corridors developed post-1980 are sponsored by state government.
Commuter rail development and operational funding is usually driven by a locally managed authority (Think Trinity Railway Express in DFW or The Music City Star in Nashville) or in some cases, the state (New Mexico RailRunner or New Jersey Transit) with healthy involvement from the metropolitan planning organziation. The systems with state funding service a significant portion of the state's population.
The ones that don't usually don't get much/any aid from the state.
Local funds are never tapped for intercity rail, except for stations and station services.
Commuter rail is an eligible use for Federal Transit Administration "new start" capital funds. Competition is tough for these funds, but there may be some changes with the next surface transportation law re-authorization that will allow cities to quantify benefits beyond congestion relief in their grant applications.
Federal intercity rail capital will come through the Federal Railroad Administration as discussed above.
On newsok.com (Daily Oklahoman) there is an article (//%22http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-gov.-brad-henry-sees-hope-in-road-investments/article/3326924%22) quoting Governor Henry about the upcoming economic recovery plan (stimulus).
Lots of talk about roads and then this:
"We're also working on some other kinds of potential infrastructure," Henry said.
Hmmmm
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
On newsok.com (Daily Oklahoman) there is an article (//%22http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-gov.-brad-henry-sees-hope-in-road-investments/article/3326924%22) quoting Governor Henry about the upcoming economic recovery plan (stimulus).
Lots of talk about roads and then this:
"We're also working on some other kinds of potential infrastructure," Henry said.
Hmmmm
Just want to let you know that I appreciate your input here and encourage you to keep on keeping on.
As one who really dislikes the impact that cars have on the physical form of our cities and the costs (social and monetary) they impose on our local governments and hates driving considerable distances I hope that your efforts are successful. I wasn't able to make your Starbucks on Brookside meet-up but if there's ever a call to action please let me know. I've already written to my state reps and senator (I think a few times) and never heard back.
Thank you for your effort there and the encouragement!
There will be more activity on this in 2009.
Wow. They really did include rail and transit in the stimulus package wish list. (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20081203_16_A%5C%22)
The state's preliminary list includes $778 million in highway and bridge
projects, $49 million in transit infrastructure and $27 million in railroad
infrastructure.
With an operating loss of $381.1 million for FY 2008, Amtrak should be derailed....
Third Quarterly Report on Amtrak's FY 2008 Operational Reforms Savings and Financial Performance (//%22http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=2385%22)
quote:
Amtrak's operating loss for FY 2008 was $381.1 million, $93.9 million less than budget due largely to better than expected revenues, partially offset by higher than budgeted wages and fuel, power, and utility costs.
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
With an operating loss of $381.1 million for FY 2008, Amtrak should be derailed....
Third Quarterly Report on Amtrak's FY 2008 Operational Reforms Savings and Financial Performance (//%22http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=2385%22)
quote:
Amtrak's operating loss for FY 2008 was $381.1 million, $93.9 million less than budget due largely to better than expected revenues, partially offset by higher than budgeted wages and fuel, power, and utility costs.
It matters not to me whether our rail system is profitable. I really care that it is efficient, like any other public service.
We don't hold the Federal Highway Administration to the same expectation so why the rail system? We don't build highways like the Creek Turnpike and then scrutinize them annually for profitability.
And quite frankly, until our regional rail systems are brought up to standards better than that of the third world is it reasonable to expect them to be profitable?
quote:
Originally posted by OurTulsa
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
With an operating loss of $381.1 million for FY 2008, Amtrak should be derailed....
Third Quarterly Report on Amtrak's FY 2008 Operational Reforms Savings and Financial Performance (//%22http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=2385%22)
quote:
Amtrak's operating loss for FY 2008 was $381.1 million, $93.9 million less than budget due largely to better than expected revenues, partially offset by higher than budgeted wages and fuel, power, and utility costs.
It matters not to me whether our rail system is profitable. I really care that it is efficient, like any other public service.
We don't hold the Federal Highway Administration to the same expectation so why the rail system? We don't build highways like the Creek Turnpike and then scrutinize them annually for profitability.
And quite frankly, until our regional rail systems are brought up to standards better than that of the third world is it reasonable to expect them to be profitable?
I think the turnpike system does pay for itself overall although a particular segment may not.
I agree with the rest of your post.
TITLE 49 > SUBTITLE V > PART C > CHAPTER 241 > § 24101
(a) Findings.—
(1) Public convenience and necessity require that Amtrak, to the extent its budget allows, provide modern, cost-efficient, and energy-efficient intercity rail passenger transportation between crowded urban areas and in other areas of the United States.
(2) Rail passenger transportation can help alleviate overcrowding of airways and airports and on highways.
(3) A traveler in the United States should have the greatest possible choice of transportation most convenient to the needs of the traveler.
(4) A greater degree of cooperation is necessary among Amtrak, other rail carriers, State, regional, and local governments, the private sector, labor organizations, and suppliers of services and equipment to Amtrak to achieve a performance level sufficient to justify expending public money.
(5) Modern and efficient commuter rail passenger transportation is important to the viability and well-being of major urban areas and to the energy conservation and self-sufficiency goals of the United States.
(6) As a rail passenger transportation entity, Amtrak should be available to operate commuter rail passenger transportation through its subsidiary, Amtrak Commuter, under contract with commuter authorities that do not provide the transportation themselves as part of the governmental function of the State.
(7) The Northeast Corridor is a valuable resource of the United States used by intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation and freight transportation.
(8) Greater coordination between intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation is required.
PURPOSE.—The purpose of Amtrak is to provide efficient and effective intercity passenger rail mobility consisting of high quality service that is trip-time competitive
12 with other intercity travel options and that is consistent with the goals of subsection (d).'';
(d) Minimizing Government Subsidies.— To carry out subsection (c)(12) of this section, Amtrak is encouraged to make agreements with the private sector and undertake initiatives that are consistent with good business judgment and designed to maximize its revenues and minimize Government subsidies.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
I think the turnpike system does pay for itself overall although a particular segment may not.
I agree with the rest of your post.
OTA uses a cross-pledging system regarding turnpike revenues. This means that a particular turnpike will never be "paid off" because the revenues it generates are put into a pot and then spread out across all turnpikes. Isn't it great to know that the Turner Turnpike, built in the 1950s, still isn't paid off?
Interest continues in Amtrak service along the Interstate 44 corridor from Saint Louis.
Springfield News-Leader article (//%22http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008812290345%22)
Studies under way on Amtrak service to city
Springfield remains in an "Amtrak-less" wilderness.
But rail passenger service between St. Louis and Kansas City grew this year.
And studies on Amtrak service between St. Louis and Springfield continue, said Brian Weller, director of Multi-Modal Operations for the Missouri Department of Transportation.
"In fact, we'd like to see Amtrak service between St. Louis, Springfield and Kansas City," Weller said.
Missouri Amtrak currently gets an $8 million subsidy, Weller said.
New service would require added subsidy -- as well as new stations, upgraded track, and new crossing signals.
Meanwhile, for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, ridership was up 30 percent to 151,690 passengers for the two daily round trips on Union Pacific tracks between Missouri's two largest cities.