Tulsa needs to find a way to get Amtrak service

[Red Arrow]

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.

[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?

[TURobY]

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... []

[akupetsky]

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.

[TheTed]

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.

[TheArtist]

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.

[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.

[TheArtist]

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?

[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.

[booWorld]

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.

[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?

[booWorld]

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.

[nathanm]

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.

[booWorld]

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.

[PonderInc]

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