I posted about this earlier this year. The FRA comment period is over but you can contact your state and federal representatives if you support this. Tell them to redirect highway funds to get this moving in earnest.Tulsa to Dallas, Saint Louis, and KC would be super cool. Get 'er done.
FRA map proposes route connecting Tulsa to Oklahoma City, Kansas City
A route that Green Country hasn't enjoyed since the 1960s could be making its way back.www.fox23.com
I was incorrect and the FRA study comments page is still up.
fralongdistancerailstudy.org
I am not sure taking away highway funding is the way to go. We maintain 7,000 nuclear weapons and it is the single largest defense weapons project to update them at over 1 Trillion dollars. We don't need more than 1,000. It is ridiculous. You don't need to nuke Moscow, Beijing, Shanghai, Tehran, Saint Petersburg, Shenzen, Pyongyang, and their aircraft carriers 100 times each.
I am talking about state infrastructure funding. Two years of 10% would get most of it done within the state. But there is a lack of will. And vested construction interests colliding with OTA to suppress this type of transportation alternative.
Tulsa doesn’t rank in the Top 50 of most populated cities. It doesn’t matter what politicians think or tell you.
We are in the top 50 populated cities. Just outside the top 50 populated metros.
Lots of smaller cities have service.
www.amtrak.com
It doesn’t matter how you phrase it, Tulsa doesn’t have enough people to justify service.
Maybe some day if Tulsa can grow to the size of Minot or Independence or, hey dream big, Little Rock or Toledo.
Correct. There are well defined metrics. If you don’t meet the baseline, you don’t move on to the next round of consideration. There simply aren’t enough people in Tulsa, Metro Tulsa or NE Oklahoma to merit service over other areas. Tulsa has known this since statehood. It’s why it promoted itself as an aviation hub until transcontinental flight became routine.
I disagree. You are oversimolifying a complex situation.
Based on other routes, they seem to pick the "anchor" stops and then fill in with places in between. They might say, we want to go from St. Paul to Chicago to Kansas City to OKC to Dallas, what's along that route that's worth serving, or where we can get some political support if we service? I assume that's how Little Rock ended up on the Texas Eagle route between St. Louis and Dallas. That train actually has 6 stops in Arkansas alone.
Any chance they’re looking at the passenger numbers in OKC and determining adding Tulsa would not be economically feasible based on the experience in OKC?
Could be, I have no idea, but I definitely agree that seems like a reasonable thing if so.
www.amtrakconnectsus.com
Yes and that is unfortunate. Our leaders have made it pretty clear they don't care about it. And they have a lot of influence.
I know about this. It is sickening and perpetuates a broken promise encoded in a 1996 law.Could be, I have no idea, but I definitely agree that seems like a reasonable thing if so.
But do we think more people would go from Milwaukee to Green Bay, or Minneapolis to Duluth, than OKC to Tulsa? I have no idea other than Duluth and Green Bay are a lot smaller than Tulsa. I really don't know but the non-political explanations don't seem to explain some of the other routes.
Do we think more people would go from Wichita to OKC than Tulsa to OKC? Wichita has a current depot so I'm sure it's cheaper than adding in Tulsa but I doubt the traffic will be greater than Tulsa.
This will make drboobay go crazy - "Heartland Flyer Extension, Connecting Kansas communities with the Amtrak network". Maybe they think the Ponca City stop is close enough for Tulsa?? 😂 There will be like 9 Amtrak stops in Oklahoma but not one in Tulsa.
Newton/Wichita – Oklahoma City - Fort Worth
This new corridor provides Texas and Oklahoma residents with increased mobility options between their states, as well as improved connections with Amtrak’s national network.
You’re obviously very passionate about this subject. May I ask why? Is there something more here than simply supporting Amtrak?
I feel passionate about state government showing appropriate respect and support for the Tulsa metro.
It feels pretty clearly like an F U to Tulsa. The state, whoever that is, seems to want OKC to be a national powerhouse city and at best don't want that for Tulsa.
It’s been this way for the last 100 years imo. Some things never change.
That was an anti-Masonic beef that you progressives had a problem with back then.
Wait, we had a problem with the Masons or a problem with the beef with the Masons? The Catholic church seems to be the biggest haters of Masons these days, I guess Masons have moved on from just alienating progressives? I didn't even know I should have a beef with them. I'll add them to my checklist when you let me know which side I'm on.
A large portion of the early monied establishment of Oklahoma were masons. Progressives in that era sought the diffusion of power, including elite clubs like the Masons that were perceived as stacking the deck against the rest of society.
Amtrak would be a nice addition. It links up well with lots of other cities that OKC doesn't. We need people to raise hell and be advocates. Tom Cole is the chair of the friggin' appropriations committee. He needs to appropriate.
What do you know, rich people screwing non-rich people. Ironic that trains were used in a way that 100+ years later is foiling a plan to get trains. How sad would it be to only get one trip to a city in your life and have it be OKC?
Is there a reason why poor people can’t take a bus to visit other cities ? Not sure I follow the reasoning here as there appears to be other alternatives to trains.
It's incredibly slow and uncomfortable when you're talking Greyhound or similar. High speed rail would give options to travel long distances with only slightly longer travel times than travelling by air.
It would be nice to have alternatives to air. The aeroplane industry does not want this.
