Amtrak

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

(EDIT)

I want to ride trains and I don't care if Amtrak runs it or some private group. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it regardless of your opinion. Travelling on turnpikes, even well maintained ones, simply isn't as cost efficient as rails in the big picture. Driving to OKC is a collosal waste of energy, land and time. In your mind all those people riding trains on the coasts are just nostalgic?

(EDIT)

Problem is, passenger rail service isn't cost-efficient nor self-sustaining.  That is why Amtrak has been heavily subsidized for years- since it's inception in 1970.  I'm really surprised no one has mentioned the subsidies on here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8410479/

Government subsidies mean each and every one of us is paying part of the fare for riders on Amtrak.  Creating a Tulsa to OKC route would just require more subsidies, and IMO more wasteful gov't spending.  As it is now, they are already looking to cut 18 routes just to keep subsidies at $1.2 billion.

Time-wise Amtrak is a logical solution to avoid the congestion in the Northeast and Southern California.  I don't see where scheduled rail transportation from Tulsa to OKC would be a benefit, as it would limit when you could come and go from OKC, then how do you get around once you are there?

They have good transportation infrastructure to get you around the city, say if you went from NYC to Boston, you can take local rail to your ultimate destination.  No such thing here, especially if your ultimate destination is in the suburbs.

I'm sure overall, it helps with polution and cutting fuel consumption on the coasts, but out here, it's just not practial.  There's not near the ridership demand to create a schedule of enough trains running back and forth to make it convenient.

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

(EDIT)

I want to ride trains and I don't care if Amtrak runs it or some private group. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it regardless of your opinion. Travelling on turnpikes, even well maintained ones, simply isn't as cost efficient as rails in the big picture. Driving to OKC is a collosal waste of energy, land and time. In your mind all those people riding trains on the coasts are just nostalgic?

(EDIT)

Problem is, passenger rail service isn't cost-efficient nor self-sustaining.  That is why Amtrak has been heavily subsidized for years- since it's inception in 1970.  I'm really surprised no one has mentioned the subsidies on here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8410479/

Government subsidies mean each and every one of us is paying part of the fare for riders on Amtrak.  Creating a Tulsa to OKC route would just require more subsidies, and IMO more wasteful gov't spending.  As it is now, they are already looking to cut 18 routes just to keep subsidies at $1.2 billion.

Time-wise Amtrak is a logical solution to avoid the congestion in the Northeast and Southern California.  I don't see where scheduled rail transportation from Tulsa to OKC would be a benefit, as it would limit when you could come and go from OKC, then how do you get around once you are there?

They have good transportation infrastructure to get you around the city, say if you went from NYC to Boston, you can take local rail to your ultimate destination.  No such thing here, especially if your ultimate destination is in the suburbs.

I'm sure overall, it helps with polution and cutting fuel consumption on the coasts, but out here, it's just not practial.  There's not near the ridership demand to create a schedule of enough trains running back and forth to make it convenient.

The subsidies have been mentioned numerous times throughout this thread.

[sportyart]

So any new news, meeting, ideas...anything?

[PonderInc]

I've heard a lot of news stories lately talking about building more "super highways" in the US.  It seems the interstate highway system just isn't big/wide/fast enough. (Either that, or a handful of influential people have family in the construction/oil/automotive business...) In fact, just today there was a guy on NPR talking about how we should be able to drive coast-to-coast at 100 MPH.  To do this would, of course, require building our own American version of the Autobahn.

As Spock (Mr. not Dr.) would say, "That is not logical."

If you think rail is expensive, think about the costs involved in building these "super highways."  Right-of-way, labor, materials, environmental impact, etc.  Then think about how silly it is to promote even MORE automotive traffic at this point in history.  (And just imagine the kind of gas mileage you'd get at those speeds.  What's that formula?  Every 5 MPH over 60 is like paying an additional $.20 per gal of gas.  So add $1.60 to the current price.  That sounds efficient!)

If people really care about traveling cross country at high speeds (on land), we need to invest in the infrastructure for bullet trains, which would easily top the 100 MPH speeds using a fraction of the fuel, taking up a fraction of the real estate, and emitting a fraction of the pollution per passenger.

[robbyfoxxxx]

In Europe, some of the trains have the ability to load your car onto the train,and you sit in coach, then at your destination, you and your car are unloaded.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by robbyfoxxxx

In Europe, some of the trains have the ability to load your car onto the train,and you sit in coach, then at your destination, you and your car are unloaded.

That might be one of the more brilliant ideas I've ever heard. Seriously.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

(EDIT)

I want to ride trains and I don't care if Amtrak runs it or some private group. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it regardless of your opinion. Travelling on turnpikes, even well maintained ones, simply isn't as cost efficient as rails in the big picture. Driving to OKC is a collosal waste of energy, land and time. In your mind all those people riding trains on the coasts are just nostalgic?

(EDIT)

Problem is, passenger rail service isn't cost-efficient nor self-sustaining.  That is why Amtrak has been heavily subsidized for years- since it's inception in 1970.  I'm really surprised no one has mentioned the subsidies on here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8410479/

Government subsidies mean each and every one of us is paying part of the fare for riders on Amtrak.  Creating a Tulsa to OKC route would just require more subsidies, and IMO more wasteful gov't spending.  As it is now, they are already looking to cut 18 routes just to keep subsidies at $1.2 billion.

Time-wise Amtrak is a logical solution to avoid the congestion in the Northeast and Southern California.  I don't see where scheduled rail transportation from Tulsa to OKC would be a benefit, as it would limit when you could come and go from OKC, then how do you get around once you are there?

They have good transportation infrastructure to get you around the city, say if you went from NYC to Boston, you can take local rail to your ultimate destination.  No such thing here, especially if your ultimate destination is in the suburbs.

I'm sure overall, it helps with polution and cutting fuel consumption on the coasts, but out here, it's just not practial.  There's not near the ridership demand to create a schedule of enough trains running back and forth to make it convenient.

The subsidies have been mentioned numerous times throughout this thread.

And it's also been mentioned that all forms of transportation are subsidized. Just try to buy a tank of gas without paying the federal fuel taxes sometime...

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:Originally posted by robbyfoxxxx

In Europe, some of the trains have the ability to load your car onto the train,and you sit in coach, then at your destination, you and your car are unloaded.

That might be one of the more brilliant ideas I've ever heard. Seriously.

It is a brillian idea--though in Europe, the cars tend to be quite a bit smaller.  Don't know how many Ford Explorers you can get on a train.  I guess those who drive mega-SUVs are not that likely to use mass transit anyway.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:Originally posted by robbyfoxxxx

In Europe, some of the trains have the ability to load your car onto the train,and you sit in coach, then at your destination, you and your car are unloaded.

That might be one of the more brilliant ideas I've ever heard. Seriously.

It is a brillian idea--though in Europe, the cars tend to be quite a bit smaller.  Don't know how many Ford Explorers you can get on a train.  I guess those who drive mega-SUVs are not that likely to use mass transit anyway.

AMTRAK has a train like this where you can take your car along, I think it is called the Auto Train.  It runs mostly along the east coast, like between Washington DC and Orlando or Ft. Lauderdale FL, I think.  As far as I know, it is still in operation.

[Transport_Oklahoma]

quote: So any new news, meeting, ideas...anything?

Things are starting to happen.  But these efforts take time and dedication.

At least one elected official is now working on the issue.  

I have collected some names of those of you who have been interested enough to contact me.  

Let's start thinking about a date in early August to get together.  Maybe at the Central or Allie Beth Martin library meeting room?

[Transport_Oklahoma]

quote: Problem is, passenger rail service isn't cost-efficient nor self-sustaining. That is why Amtrak has been heavily subsidized for years- since it's inception in 1970. I'm really surprised no one has mentioned the subsidies on here.

If your hung up on transportation subsidies, you are going to have to cease using probably 85% of the roads in Oklahoma and start hiking on the indian trails.  You won't be able to catch a ride on Amtrak or transit either [8D].  

Except for SOME of the turnpikes and the most heavily traveled roads, most just couldn't be built or, more importantly today, maintained without cross-subsidies.

The Legislature seems to be moving away from a user fee financed transportation system.  The diversion issue was way overblown anyway.  Almost all motor fuel tax revenue goes to transportation.  Car tag fees do not.  But then they never did.  How could they?  Big trucks only pay something like $20 for their tags.  

We need safe roads and credit is due to the Legislature for making progress on that.  Even if it is being done with general revenue.

[PonderInc]

Here's an excerpt from the meeting agenda for this week's Incog meeting (8/31/06):

3.      Study of Passenger Rail Service from Tulsa to Saint Louis Missouri  

In March of 2001, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT)completed a study of high speed passenger rail service that considered the Tulsa to Saint Louis connection among others.  That study determined that with the appropriate capital improvements, a Tulsa to Saint Louis line would take between 8 and 9 hours serving approximately 500 travelers.  The Destination 2030 transportation plan incorporated the findings of the ODOT study including the observation that service from Tulsa to Saint Louis would be more feasible if the line from Springfield to Saint Louis was improved.  In June, the Missouri Department of Transportation has requested Amtrak to study the implementation of passenger rail service from Saint Louis to Springfield, Missouri.  Staff recommends the Policy Committee consider a resolution encouraging ODOT to request Amtrak to study the Tulsa to Springfield line concurrently or as part of the Springfield to Saint Louis study.

~~~

I made two trips to St. Louis this summer by car.  I would have loved to take the train instead!  After driving for hours, dealing with bridge repairs, road construction, and traffic, I was fantasizing about being able to take the train...rather than being cooped up in my little car.  And even though I drive a very fuel-efficient car, it still cost me about $80 round trip each time, just for gas.

I want to support this effort to consider a Tulsa to St. Louis route. (Indeed, I would support almost any rail option of any kind!  Rail travel is by far the most comfortable, pleasant form of transportation...and it makes environmental sense as well.)  Any ideas of how to show my support?  I've already emailed INCOG, but haven't heard back.

[OurTulsa]

Ponder, just call INCOG and ask for Tim Armer (584.7526??).  He heads the transportation department.  He will have a list of 'must-contacts'.  

I too would love to have this service as well.  I don't like the idea of 8-9 hrs. to make it to St. Louis when vehicles take 5.5 hrs. and air will get you there in 1 hr. but I guess we have to start somewhere.  

For Oklahoma, it just seems to make sense that if you are going to look at a link between Tulsa and Springfield, you might as well extend that all the way to OKC.  

I cringe at the thought of referring you to any of our representatives in DC but...  Istook, who appeared to be Rail transits most ardent detractors at least will be out of there, and if we are fortunate not in our Capitol.  Imhoff may not be much better.  Dan Boren's office may be worth contacting.  While his district may not include Tulsa County he does rep. counties that the rail line would serve:

He may also understand the benefits of alternatives to road construction and the potential economic impact of linking a portion of his district to a larger existing transportation network.

here is a link to his office: http://www.house.gov/boren/index.shtml

[Transport_Oklahoma]

Hey thanks for the INCOG intercity rail update!

This effort has momentum now.  Councilman Westcott is on a roll.

I wonder how much time ODOT should be given to respond to Tulsa's request?

Maybe they already have agreed to it.  I don't know.

The study shouldn't be controversial.  

But if ODOT delays, I have an idea why.  

It is time for negotiation of the state's annual contract with Amtrak.  They are short about a million dollars to cover the cost.  So they may feel uncomfortable asking for a study to increase service when they are scrambling to fund the existing one.

But, IMO, one of the key reasons they have had difficulty getting the program funded properly is its lack of geographic scope.

[Transport_Oklahoma]

quote: For Oklahoma, it just seems to make sense that if you are going to look at a link between Tulsa and Springfield, you might as well extend that all the way to OKC.  

Of course you are correct.  

If done right, a Tulsa-Oklahoma City commuter rail link would become one of the busiest passenger rail routes in the southwest.

But the track capital costs west of downtown Tulsa go up dramatically.  Well beyond what political capital there is available today.

Let's get this segment going and leverage that into support for a quality link to OKC in the future, probably in conjunction with a Turner Turnpike rebuild.