Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities

[carltonplace]

I would rather see short transit nodes in midtown rather than high speed or commuter rail. Brookside to Downtown, to TU, to Cherry St, etc.

[Red Arrow]

I would rather see short transit nodes in midtown rather than high speed or commuter rail. Brookside to Downtown, to TU, to Cherry St, etc.

Commuter rail could work with Park & Ride in BA and with some kind of circulator system (even buses) downtown.  See the New Mexico Railrunner.  http://nmrailrunner.com/

I believe a downtown circulator system (rail preferred) is a prerequisite for high speed rail.  People coming to town will not want to get a taxi for everyplace they want to go.  Taxis may not always be accommodating.  I remember going to the NYC Boat Show a few years in the 60s.  We drove to a Park & Ride on the NJ side and took the bus to the city. Getting to the Boat Show was no problem as the bus let us off very close to the show but going to dinner was a bit different.  There were 5 of us and the taxis were only allowed to take 4.  The first year my sister was still small enough that one taxi said pile in.  The next year we had to walk.

[Oil Capital]

Commuter rail could work with Park & Ride in BA and with some kind of circulator system (even buses) downtown.  See the New Mexico Railrunner.  http://nmrailrunner.com/

.

The Railrunner is not particularly strong evidence that a Tulsa -Broken Arrow commuter rail would be successful.  

First, because one has to have a pretty low bar for judging success to consider the The Railrunner, with its average weekday boardings of 4,500 on a system of 97 miles of track and 13 stations to be a success worth emulating; and

Second, because the 97 mile Railrunner with 13 stations, that goes all the way to Santa Fe, has little in common with the possible Tulsa-BA commuter rail, with approximately 15 miles and maybe 4 stations (not to mention that Tulsa has less traffic congestion).

[dsjeffries]

http://www.koco.com/news/30977173/detail.html

OKLAHOMA CITY -- A passenger train running between Tulsa and Oklahoma City could soon be a reality.

Rick Wescott is the head of an advisory board looking at the issue. Wescott said if legislators approved the plan it would only take three years for service to begin.
Now, a private company wants to help link the two cities. Wescott says they could do it by turning an existing rail line into a passenger railway.

"I talked to a private company a couple of weeks ago, who interestingly enough would be willing to pay to rehabilitate the existing line that the state owns, and also pay to put the rolling stock on the rail and pay to operate the service, all at their cost, at no cost to the taxpayers," said Wescott.

Wescott won't name the company yet, but does say they claim the project would only take six months. The task force examining the railroad expects to release a final report by the end of the year.

____________________________________

And this from KJRH:
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/private-company-interested-in-tulsa-to-okc-passenger-rail-service

TULSA - A private company has expressed interest in bringing passenger rail service between the state's two largest cities, according to a member of an advisory board looking into the issue.

Linking Tulsa and Oklahoma City by passenger rail is often met with a lot of skepticism, mainly because the idea has been tossed around for years. Yet, nothing has ever taken off.

Former Tulsa City Councilor Rick Westcott said despite the skepticism, passenger rail between the two cities is really not as far out as it would seem. Wescott says if a plan were approved by the legislature, it would take no more than three years for service to begin. "If anybody tells us it's going to take more than three years, they don't have all their facts," said Westcott. Westcott is chairman of the board that advises the state task force studying this issue.

Westcott says a private company has expressed interest in developing a passenger rail line between the two metropolitan areas. He says they would do it by turning an existing rail line that transports freight into one that could transport passengers. "I talked to a private company a couple of weeks ago, who interestingly enough would be willing to pay to rehabilitate the existing line that the state owns, also pay to put the rolling stock on the rail and pay to operate the service, all at their cost, at no cost to the taxpayers," said Westcott.

Westcott says the company told him they could have it all done in about six months. Westcott did not want to identify the company because he said he did not want to jeopardize any potential negotiations between the company and the state. The task force studying this issue was created in 2011 in a bill authored by State Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa. Like Westcott, Crain believes passenger rail service would be in Tulsa's interest.

"We need to start thinking about 50 years from now, 60 years from now," said Crain. "What is it that we need to have in Tulsa in order to allow people to come and go in our community, to do business, to live, to enjoy the adventure of being in Tulsa?"

The task force is expected to release its final report by the end of the year, although Crain said it could ask for more time if necessary.

[LandArchPoke]

I would be really curious what the speed of this line would be... since they are just wanting to refurbish the line I doubt it will run much faster than 50-60 mph. If they really want successful rail transit between the cities a major overhaul of this corridor needs to happen, or even picking a different route to connect to Oklahoma City. I just hope this doesn't turn into the state giving large tax breaks to a private company, and then in two years this becoming a financial mess and the state taking it over or just killing rail transit to Tulsa in general again.

[DTowner]

I would be really curious what the speed of this line would be... since they are just wanting to refurbish the line I doubt it will run much faster than 50-60 mph. If they really want successful rail transit between the cities a major overhaul of this corridor needs to happen, or even picking a different route to connect to Oklahoma City. I just hope this doesn't turn into the state giving large tax breaks to a private company, and then in two years this becoming a financial mess and the state taking it over or just killing rail transit to Tulsa in general again.

Is it better to get some sort of rail line up and running or wait for the long and expensive dream of high speed rail?  While there is always risk that a slower line might fail in part due to longer travel time, it would at least offer the opportunity to get some type of rail going with which Oklahomans could experience the advantages of rail travel between Tulsa and OKC.  One of the problems with selling rail (and other public transportation) in Oklahoma is that many have never experienced it and it is not what they are accustomed to using.  Incremental steps are important.

[AquaMan]

If it did 60 mph it would be comparable to the average Turnpike speed when adjusted for: road repairs, accidents, weather, rest stops, and traffic. No matter how fast you drive those factors usually results in a 60-65mph average for the trip. On a train those items are not as relevant. Of course there may be stops along the way for Stroud etc.

Bring on this train! I don't care about its speed. I hope they have drive on rail cars so that I won't have to rent a car in OKC  and that it connects to Dallas/Ft Worth.

[Townsend]

Bring on this train! I don't care about its speed. I hope they have drive on rail cars so that I won't have to rent a car in OKC  and that it connects to Dallas/Ft Worth.

If there's a non-stop to DFW, I'd jump on.

[TheTed]

Realistically, I don't see any way it competes with driving in terms of time. Two hours is probably the best case scenario.

But the thing that people fail to take into account in the comparison, is that the time factor is not apples to apples.

You drive and you have to be awake, alert, sober, concerned with t-storms, snow, etc. That's where the train hooks me, the fact that I can get on a train at midnight and not have to stay awake or refrain from having a beer or three. Plus it's just relaxing. You can just disengage your brain and stare out the window.

And based on every other rail line in this country (with the exception of amtrak's auto train from dc-fla) there would be stops and there wouldn't be car carriers. That's just pie in the sky at this point.

[Red Arrow]

If it did 60 mph it would be comparable to the average Turnpike speed when adjusted for: road repairs, accidents, weather, rest stops, and traffic. No matter how fast you drive those factors usually results in a 60-65mph average for the trip. On a train those items are not as relevant. Of course there may be stops along the way for Stroud etc.

Bring on this train! I don't care about its speed. I hope they have drive on rail cars so that I won't have to rent a car in OKC  and that it connects to Dallas/Ft Worth.

I've flown over a lot of that track in my Cessna.  It will be lucky to average 60 mph, even if the track is in good shape due to the number of towns it goes through and the radius of many of the turns.  I doubt it would be able to compete time-wise with the Turner Turnpike.  On the other hand, not putting up with the turnpike, riding instead of driving etc could be fun.  Drive on rail cars would be good since OKC is about the same as Tulsa for public transit.  

[Conan71]

If it did 60 mph it would be comparable to the average Turnpike speed when adjusted for: road repairs, accidents, weather, rest stops, and traffic. No matter how fast you drive those factors usually results in a 60-65mph average for the trip. On a train those items are not as relevant. Of course there may be stops along the way for Stroud etc.

Bring on this train! I don't care about its speed. I hope they have drive on rail cars so that I won't have to rent a car in OKC  and that it connects to Dallas/Ft Worth.

I did it bi-weekly for 2 1/2 years.  1:30 to 1:40 for a 110 mile drive, door-to-door, including stop lights once off the interstate.  I can think of perhaps two or three wrecks that whole time which slowed traffic and two of those were during the Christmas snow storm of '09.  That was going to be a four hour drive no matter what.  Not only that, my car was where I wanted it when I got there.  Such a line at 50-60 MPH would be great for recreational purposes and perhaps business in close proximity to the terminals unless there's simple and speedy mass transit on the other end.  If they did have a car-carrier you'd likely wait another 20 minutes on each end getting your car loaded and unloaded- my guess on time?  4 hours one way.  I'd just as soon drive.

Westcott seems brighter than to be taken in by claims of a private company who says they can do a track rehab in six months and not require one penny from the state or feds.  Unless it's an established railroad like BNSF, he got a load of smoke blown up his nether regions.  This reminds me of the huckster who was going to build a fully-enclosed NASCAR track up by Vinita. 

I don't see any near term profitability on such a line, especially with fares which would compete with the cost of driving- let's face it, 99% of people don't consider wear, tear, upkeep, and a fraction of their car payment in considering their net cost.  "What's the gas going to cost me?"

If the company can do it, tell them to put their money where their mouth is.  I suspect the rail ROW is owned by the railroads or the feds, so it's not as easy as it sounds.

[AquaMan]

I did it bi-weekly for 2 1/2 years.  1:30 to 1:40 for a 110 mile drive, door-to-door, including stop lights once off the interstate.  I can think of perhaps two or three wrecks that whole time which slowed traffic and two of those were during the Christmas snow storm of '09.  That was going to be a four hour drive no matter what.  Not only that, my car was where I wanted it when I got there.  Such a line at 50-60 MPH would be great for recreational purposes and perhaps business in close proximity to the terminals unless there's simple and speedy mass transit on the other end.  If they did have a car-carrier you'd likely wait another 20 minutes on each end getting your car loaded and unloaded- my guess on time?  4 hours one way.  I'd just as soon drive.

Westcott seems brighter than to be taken in by claims of a private company who says they can do a track rehab in six months and not require one penny from the state or feds.  Unless it's an established railroad like BNSF, he got a load of smoke blown up his nether regions.  This reminds me of the huckster who was going to build a fully-enclosed NASCAR track up by Vinita. 

I don't see any near term profitability on such a line, especially with fares which would compete with the cost of driving- let's face it, 99% of people don't consider wear, tear, upkeep, and a fraction of their car payment in considering their net cost.  "What's the gas going to cost me?"

If the company can do it, tell them to put their money where their mouth is.  I suspect the rail ROW is owned by the railroads or the feds, so it's not as easy as it sounds.

110 miles at 1hour 40 minutes is 66 mph if my math still works. That amounts to 6 mph faster. Marginal difference. I haven't had your luck with road construction and traffic but then I often go in the fall when OU football traffic is common. The last trip I took was two weeks ago and only found a couple miles of road work.  Mostly its just trucks causing slowdowns as they try to make it up the hilly portions. I tried to stay at 70-75 but still only averaged 65 for the trip.

For some odd reason, much of the rest of the country can find a way to make railroads work, including the line from OKC to DFW, but we can't see it happening for tons of reasons. Maybe its our education system. I see no reason not to talk to a group that says they know how and have the money.

[DTowner]

I did it bi-weekly for 2 1/2 years.  1:30 to 1:40 for a 110 mile drive, door-to-door, including stop lights once off the interstate.  I can think of perhaps two or three wrecks that whole time which slowed traffic and two of those were during the Christmas snow storm of '09.  That was going to be a four hour drive no matter what.  Not only that, my car was where I wanted it when I got there.  Such a line at 50-60 MPH would be great for recreational purposes and perhaps business in close proximity to the terminals unless there's simple and speedy mass transit on the other end.  If they did have a car-carrier you'd likely wait another 20 minutes on each end getting your car loaded and unloaded- my guess on time?  4 hours one way.  I'd just as soon drive.

Westcott seems brighter than to be taken in by claims of a private company who says they can do a track rehab in six months and not require one penny from the state or feds.  Unless it's an established railroad like BNSF, he got a load of smoke blown up his nether regions.  This reminds me of the huckster who was going to build a fully-enclosed NASCAR track up by Vinita. 

I don't see any near term profitability on such a line, especially with fares which would compete with the cost of driving- let's face it, 99% of people don't consider wear, tear, upkeep, and a fraction of their car payment in considering their net cost.  "What's the gas going to cost me?"

If the company can do it, tell them to put their money where their mouth is.  I suspect the rail ROW is owned by the railroads or the feds, so it's not as easy as it sounds.

The article above says this idea involves a RR line owned by the state.  Is this true?

[Conan71]

I tried to stay at 70-75 but still only averaged 65 for the trip.

Tell me you aren't the old geezer hogging the left lane in a cruise control drag race with said semi truck

The turnpike proper is about 1:10, 12 to 15 minutes to either house after exiting. 

[Hoss]

Tell me you aren't the old geezer hogging the left lane in a cruise control drag race with said semi truck

The turnpike proper is about 1:10, 12 to 15 minutes to either house after exiting. 

Slacker.  I've done it in 60 minutes flat.