Meeting on Tulsa Amtrak

[Matthew.Dowty]

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.

[Matthew.Dowty]

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..  

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:

1. History-frugal engineering budget in 1897
2. Ownership changes-maintenance deferred after railroad merger mania of the 1990s
3. Bypass track needed in West Tulsa
4. Signal system needs to be installed

[Matthew.Dowty]

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.

[Matthew.Dowty]

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.

[Matthew.Dowty]

On newsok.com (Daily Oklahoman) there is an article 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

[OurTulsa]

quote:Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma

On newsok.com (Daily Oklahoman) there is an article 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.

[Matthew.Dowty]

Thank you for your effort there and the encouragement!

There will be more activity on this in 2009.

[Matthew.Dowty]

Wow.  They really did include rail and transit in the stimulus package wish list.

The state's preliminary list includes $778 million in highway and bridge
projects, $49 million in transit infrastructure and $27 million in railroad
infrastructure.

[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

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.

[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

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?

[Red Arrow]

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

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.

[Matthew.Dowty]

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.
( 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.

[dsjeffries]

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?

[Matthew.Dowty]

Interest continues in Amtrak service along the Interstate 44 corridor from Saint Louis.

Springfield News-Leader article

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.