Tulsa rail service among goals as Ridley is appointed to Governor's cabinet

[Transport_Oklahoma]

Ridley named transportation secretary

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Oklahoma Department of Transportation Director Gary Ridley said Friday he will stress maintenance of Oklahoma's network of roads and bridges and expansion of passenger rail lines in the state as Gov. Brad Henry's new transportation secretary.

snip

The state also needs to expand passenger rail service to open up new corridors north to Newton, Kan., and to Tulsa, he said. Currently, only Amtrak's Heartland Flyer serves the state, traveling daily between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth, Texas.

http://www.kjrh.com/news/state/story/Ridley-named-transportation-secretary/kQLOvts4j0SL2J6XtbY_kQ.cspx?rss=784

As someone who follows this closely, this is the most pro-active statement I have heard Mr. Ridley make about rail. 

IMO this was no accident.  There has been grass roots work the last 30 days to try and raise the priority of this issue.  Oklahoma must not let the opportunity for rail development provided by the ARRA funds pass us by.

[swake]

Ridley named transportation secretary

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Oklahoma Department of Transportation Director Gary Ridley said Friday he will stress maintenance of Oklahoma's network of roads and bridges and expansion of passenger rail lines in the state as Gov. Brad Henry's new transportation secretary.

snip

The state also needs to expand passenger rail service to open up new corridors north to Newton, Kan., and to Tulsa, he said. Currently, only Amtrak's Heartland Flyer serves the state, traveling daily between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth, Texas.

http://www.kjrh.com/news/state/story/Ridley-named-transportation-secretary/kQLOvts4j0SL2J6XtbY_kQ.cspx?rss=784

As someone who follows this closely, this is the most pro-active statement I have heard Mr. Ridley make about rail. 

IMO this was no accident.  There has been grass roots work the last 30 days to try and raise the priority of this issue.  Oklahoma must not let the opportunity for rail development provided by the ARRA funds pass us by.

Newton Ks and Tulsa. So Tulsa is as big a goal as a little town in Kansas. In fact the little town in Kansas is mentioned first.

We all know how this is going to go.

I am against spending any additional money for Amtrak service if Tulsa is not part of the expansion. In fact, if a firm and fast timetable for adding Tulsa is not started and funded I am for ending the state subsidy that the Heartland Flyer gets.

[mjchamplin]

What is it about Newton, Kansas that makes it particularly necessary for rail development? Why didn't he just say Wichita?

I suppose it's nice that he's mentioning it, but I'm with Swake. I'm skeptical.

[SXSW]

To be fair Newton is where it would intersect the existing E-W line, and any route to Newton would include a stop in Wichita. 


Question: we all want to see Tulsa connected to OKC, but then would you rather go north to Kansas City or to St. Louis?  If Chicago's the ultimate goal destination it seems to be more of straight shot from KC, plus it connects Bartlesville to Tulsa.

[cannon_fodder]

Predictably, I too am skeptical.  I would LOVE LOVE LOVE workable rail service or workable public transit of any kind really.  Local or statewide or regional or heaven forbid national.  But until it is to the point that it enables a person to forgo the expense of a second family car it will struggle.  Chicken or the egg and all that.

Where was I?

Oh yeah.  I still predict the rail line will go in to Wichita and will be tentatively announced sometime this year.  Here's how it will go down.

1) It is announced that Federal money has been approved for rail work in Oklahoma.

2) Kansas has Federal Money for rail too

3) Oklahoma can get more bang for it's buck by connecting to Kansas's Wichita rail line (Newton), which links into existing lines.  Things will bring travelers TO Oklahoma and economical improve the State and blah blah blah.

4) A spur line will be added to Tulsa so travelers from Eastern Oklahoma can link up with the national network that is being built.  The Kansas line is the priority as it will utilize Kansas' investment and maximize the return.  
Tulsa will get a line (when the next round of Federal money is released, which may be as soon as 2012 / when the State pays off this portion of the line / insert some other non-definite time frame).  

5) Tulsa's delegation will enthusiastically support the project which will route OKC as a central hub on any new rail network while reducing Tulsa to a spur line (even worse than our pass through Interstate status) with an ethereal promise for a line sometime in the future.   Ignoring the fact that routing MORE passenger rail service through MORE of Oklahoma would be BETTER for the entire State, not too mention my selfish interest in Tulsa.

6) The wheels will start to roll on the Wichita line in the not-too-distant future.

7) When the money has been approved for the Wichita line, talk of a Tulsa line softens and eventually dies off entirely.


Sorry for my pessimism.  But I've learned that when Oklahoma City wants something they will tell Tulsa we'll get ours too and then do everything they can to make sure every dime stays in OKC.  Need money for an NBA team?  No problem as long as you help us out later.  Want funds for a Museum?  Sure, so long as we get dams out of the pork exchange.  Rail service to Texas?  A great step forward, Tulsa would benefit from something similar.

Honestly, I'd go 6:1 the Wichita line is deemed a priority.

Tulsa should get with Joplin, Fayetteville  and Springfield and work on getting a line put in to cover the VAST empty area of rail service between OKC, KC and St. Louis.    Tulsa, Joplin, Fayettville, Springfield, Bentonville.  A lot of sizeable towns surrounded by passenger lines but not serviced.

Hell, if we were dreaming we'd work on a master line going fro OKC, to Tulsa and up to KC, Des Moines and on to Minneapolis.  Rail service between Minneapolis, Ames (Iowa State), Des Moines, St. Joseph, KC, Joplin and Tulsa then on to OKC would be a damn good line I would have to think.  BAh!  Too much RR Tycoon years ago.

It might all be for naught if they don't improve the speed of service  OKC to San Antonio in 12 hours isn't impressing anyone for $75 one way.     I think it's a good deal and would be TONS of fun, but it isn't really thrilling business travelers or saving any time.  If it was the same cost as driving (which I think it is), saved time, AND you didn't have to drive I think a ton of other people would do it.   But as it stands, 80mph and more stops than by car doesn't beat the person driving.  [San Antonio as an example because it is a fun long weekend spot].  But damn, a long weekend somewhere fun without having to drive would be awesome . . .

Amtrak google map:
http://mapmash.googlepages.com/amtrak.html


/totaly ramble

[cannon_fodder]

BY way of follow up, and sorry for the wiki source but it really does the best job, our rail usage for both freight and passenger is pathetic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_country#Passenger_km_per_head_of_population

We rank right up there with Turkey for rail miles per person.  By some units of measure the US is literally of the bottom of the scale.  Now we are so behind the curve (thanks "Big 3" for buying up and shutting down rail service then lobbying for the subsidizing roads to the point that rail died) that it's hard to get started again.

[patric]

Question: we all want to see Tulsa connected to OKC, but then would you rather go north to Kansas City or to St. Louis?  If Chicago's the ultimate goal destination it seems to be more of straight shot from KC, plus it connects Bartlesville to Tulsa.

Tulsa to St Louis, hands down.
I-44 corridor will (eventually) get you to Chicago faster than going thru KC, but who knows if a new rail alignment might end up being a higher speed.

[TheArtist]

 "But damn, a long weekend somewhere fun without having to drive would be awesome . . ."

I am not about to shell out a billion dollars just so someone can have some fun in San Antonio. Take the damned plane. Which brings up something else. Our airport is lackluster in its # of flights and destinations. If it werent for the maintenance bases and such it likely would have withered up and died a long time ago. Lets get this city "rolling" and make it the kind of city people and businesses want to come to first.  More likely to see people leaving our city on rail, and staying, than coming in.

Dollar for dollar I see easily 5 times the benefit to the city economically, development potential, and for more people/daily usage, to do rail IN the city and between its suburbs than between Tulsa and OKC or some other city. Cost FAR less, with FAR more benefit. Yet Mr Transport_Oklahoma nary says a word about it. He has a one track mind that's gonna lose us our currently best opportunity to get Tulsa any rail funding. He puts on as if he is on Tulsas side, but really his own interests are above what would truly be best for Tulsa and this state.

But, again, go ahead and push for the Tulsa OKC thing only, not get it, and miss the opportunity to get some funding for rail in Tulsa. We are just fracking stupid enough to go this route. Mr Transport_Oklahoma, if your stupid enough to not realize you and the other Tulsa to OKC crowd are being played, quit posting this crap on here. By maintaining the illusion that there is some possiblility to this farce, its detracting from what could really be done and is actuall hurting, not helping us.

[TheArtist]

Tulsa to St Louis, hands down.
I-44 corridor will (eventually) get you to Chicago faster than going thru KC, but who knows if a new rail alignment might end up being a higher speed.

Thats another nice pie in the sky dream. But there is no will to spend the much higher amount of money to do that on the St Louis side. NONE at all. They are not going to do it and we cant force them to. On top of the fact that it would cost more than the other line on the Oklahoma side to boot. So if we would have a devil of a time getting the other route in Oklahoma, how much of a chance would we have of getting the even more expensive route in Oklahoma, then getting the other states to go for it too?  We have discussed all this stuff ad nauseum before, why do people keep bringing it up as if there is a snowballs chance in heck? Its a distraction thats going to hurt us. For goodness sakes, focus on what IS currently possible and try to get that, or we will lose even that.  I just dont understand.

 

[TURobY]

But, again, go ahead and push for the Tulsa OKC thing only, not get it, and miss the opportunity to get some funding for rail in Tulsa.

It's silly to think that OKC giving money to Tulsa to work on inner-city rail is any more likely than the Tulsa-OKC route.

[TheArtist]

It's silly to think that OKC giving money to Tulsa to work on inner-city rail is any more likely than the Tulsa-OKC route.

So you think that it would be easier for us to get a billion or so out of OKC than 100 mill? Wow...ok. Go for it then.   

[rwarn17588]

Tulsa to St Louis, hands down.
I-44 corridor will (eventually) get you to Chicago faster than going thru KC, but who knows if a new rail alignment might end up being a higher speed.

Good luck building high speed rail through the Ozark Mountains.

[SXSW]

If the federal govt. is paying for a highspeed rail network and it includes Tulsa then I'm all for it.

[TURobY]

So you think that it would be easier for us to get a billion or so out of OKC than 100 mill? Wow...ok. Go for it then.   

Honestly, yes. It has to do with which one benefits OKC more. Rail in Tulsa has no benefit to OKC, so they will never pass it. However, a connector line between the two cities means that we can begin operating as an OKC-Tulsa metroplex (think smaller DFW). This increases the ability to draw events and conventions if we operate as one large city, instead of two medium-sized cities.

Obviously, I would prefer both and even prefer Tulsa rail more, but I'm realistic in how state government currently works. It has to show a direct benefit to OKC for anything to get done here.

[SXSW]

Honestly, yes. It has to do with which one benefits OKC more. Rail in Tulsa has no benefit to OKC, so they will never pass it. However, a connector line between the two cities means that we can begin operating as an OKC-Tulsa metroplex (think smaller DFW). This increases the ability to draw events and conventions if we operate as one large city, instead of two medium-sized cities.

Obviously, I would prefer both and even prefer Tulsa rail more, but I'm realistic in how state government currently works. It has to show a direct benefit to OKC for anything to get done here.

Not unless Tulsa is paying for the majority of it, which would probably be the case if it's a sales tax hike or bond proposal a la Vision 2025.