We’ve road in different busses. The ones I’ve recently been in have been quite comfortable. I thought we were talking about standard Amtrak like the Heartland Flyer and not high speed rail?
Amtrak
- Thread starter TulsaRulzOSUdrools
- Start date
I think the goal is high speed. So I spent a couple of summers on these tour buses, probably a little better set up than your avg. Greyhound bus. But I used to ride a commuter bus frequently between Boston and my hometown as well. 50 minute trip would frequently take 1.5-2 hrs because of stops, similar to what a Greyhound would make. The tour bus wouldn't make stops until we got to the next destination. I never did well sleeping in that situation and I found the seats to be extremely uncomfortable for that long period of time. Mind you it's not like today where there;s satellite TV and wifi (I promise no one knew what the hell WiFi was back then), it was you and your Sony Walkman or a book for the duration.
I was responding to this - "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."
The main thing I know about bus travel is this, which makes me prefer not to do it.
Horror on Canadian bus as seat mate beheaded
You threw me off because no one is currently talking about high speed in Tulsa. The discussion is for regular Amtrak. I don’t see where the train from OKC to Dallas is any faster than a greyhound btw.
Wonder if Amtrak is safer than Greyhound per passenger. 25 people have been killed in Amtrak derailments over the past ten years. I don’t have a total for Greyhound nor do I have the total number of passengers riding it. Assume both modes of transportation are fairly safe
The road construction companies run the OK Dot and they don't want rail. Much bigger issue than airline interference.
It’s that way in Texas as well. Look at Houston’s Katy Freeway which built up to a total of 14 lanes while removing a rail right of way to do so. Rail could have lessened the loading on the freeway corridor but it was not to be.
Don’t hold your breath on the high speed rail from Dallas to Houston, either although Amtrak has an interest in making it happen.
Houston doesn’t do a bad job w light rail imo. Carried 14M passengers last year. I believe it’s the 12th most traveled light rail system in the country. Anyone who has driven much in Houston understands the appeal of light rail.
While that’s true, the light rail could have greatly increased ridership with a line out to the energy corridor along I-10 west of beltway 8.
I agree with drboobay. If train is so bad, then why is there effort to connect OCK? The new routes will connect OKC to a lot of the main cities in the lower and upper midwest - KC, St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Detroit and south down to Austin and Houston. Amtrak says the new routes will connect 160 cities, but not Tulsa? There are a lot of little deadend spurs proposed to link cities off the main routes - trains will be added on spurs to Duluth, Green Bay, Ft. Collins, Nashville, Baton Rouge, Knoxville, Louisville, Iowa City, Pueblo, Rockford, Scranton. These aren't "we're going through anyway, let's add a stop" - these are all spurs that do nothing but go to these places and then turn around and go back. But nothing for Tulsa? I mean, you're paying for it, why not get it?
Interestingly, some of these routes are faster than driving.
Similar threads
