Meeting on Tulsa Amtrak

[Matthew.Dowty]

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.

[pfox]

i'll be there...

[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.)

[AMP]

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

[Chicken Little]

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.

[TeeDub]

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.)

[RecycleMichael]

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[TheArtist]

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. []

[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.

[RecycleMichael]

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.

[Matthew.Dowty]

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.

[Chicken Little]

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.

[marc]

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.