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.
Interesting read, especially the parts about how the new trains are better than the old trains, nicer and faster, even the non-bullets. The new train from St. Paul to Chicago is the same duration as the drive if drive traffic is good, and that's a huge if. Most of the time, the train will be faster. A few interesting points.
"In total, Amtrak hopes to add new service in 160 communities in 16 new states, including outposts like Pueblo, Colorado; Madison, Wisconsin; and Salisbury, North Carolina."
"All US regions would see some improvements, but one of the goals of the plan is to better align service with new population centers in the Sun Belt and US South."
"But on other fronts, the Amtrak rescue seems to be flying below the culture war jockeying. In February, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican, sought federal funds for a “corridor ID” study, the first exploratory step to expanded service. And GOP-dominated Texas took a first step putting itself forward for funds, exploring expanded service in the “Texas Triangle” between Houston, San Antonio and Dallas."
“If a community applies in this grant program and the governor and the Senate delegation are not behind it, it is not going to happen,” he said.
This time around, rail advocates feel more confident that political brinkmanship can be avoided. That’s because the legislation was written in a way that makes it more attractive even for states that have been hostile in the past. States that apply for funding for new service will be offered not just the capital funding for construction, but operational costs will be heavily subsidized, especially in the early years: 90% of the operating costs for new service will come from the feds in the first year, followed by 80% the second year and 70% the third, and so on.
“It’s not a deal that states have ever been offered,” said Magliari. “It’s a much lower bar to get over and it gives service a chance to prove itself.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...k-s-75-billion-plan-to-revive-us-train-travel
"In total, Amtrak hopes to add new service in 160 communities in 16 new states, including outposts like Pueblo, Colorado; Madison, Wisconsin; and Salisbury, North Carolina."
"All US regions would see some improvements, but one of the goals of the plan is to better align service with new population centers in the Sun Belt and US South."
"But on other fronts, the Amtrak rescue seems to be flying below the culture war jockeying. In February, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican, sought federal funds for a “corridor ID” study, the first exploratory step to expanded service. And GOP-dominated Texas took a first step putting itself forward for funds, exploring expanded service in the “Texas Triangle” between Houston, San Antonio and Dallas."
“If a community applies in this grant program and the governor and the Senate delegation are not behind it, it is not going to happen,” he said.
This time around, rail advocates feel more confident that political brinkmanship can be avoided. That’s because the legislation was written in a way that makes it more attractive even for states that have been hostile in the past. States that apply for funding for new service will be offered not just the capital funding for construction, but operational costs will be heavily subsidized, especially in the early years: 90% of the operating costs for new service will come from the feds in the first year, followed by 80% the second year and 70% the third, and so on.
“It’s not a deal that states have ever been offered,” said Magliari. “It’s a much lower bar to get over and it gives service a chance to prove itself.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...k-s-75-billion-plan-to-revive-us-train-travel
“If a community applies in this grant program and the governor and the Senate delegation are not behind it, it is not going to happen,” he said.
This is our problem. Lack of political will. Our district 1 congressman, for example, is leading the charge to kill Amtrak. We have no political leaders at the state or local level advocating for Tulsa.
This could change if Monroe wins the mayoral race.
The FRA long distance study is a totally different thing. Not driven by Amtrak or mainly by the states. But political will is still needed to take a plan and act on it. Federal money is necessary.
This is our problem. Lack of political will. Our district 1 congressman, for example, is leading the charge to kill Amtrak. We have no political leaders at the state or local level advocating for Tulsa.
This could change if Monroe wins the mayoral race.
The FRA long distance study is a totally different thing. Not driven by Amtrak or mainly by the states. But political will is still needed to take a plan and act on it. Federal money is necessary.
Last edited:
Your statement is a good description of the last 50+ years. Tulsa has grown to over a million population metro area with almost zero help from the state of Oklahoma. I’m not sure there’s a metro area in the US that gets less from it’s own state. .
Yep it is pretty much a big FU.
But Tulsa city officials get some blame too. Bynum has shown no interest.
I honestly think we might that might change with that expansion of the VA, OSU-Tulsa, OU-Tulsa Medical and OU Polytechnic. OU medical is getting ready drop over 150M in campus expansion of cancer stuff.
The VA thing was not state government. the OU and OSU initiatives are good, but it's not really legislatively driven IMO (though I acknowedge there is some legislative approval for funding). It's simply those universities seeing opportunity. The federal tech hub designation for autonomous craft presents a nice opportunity for them in Tulsa. The cancer center was greatly needed BTW and I am delighted to see it.
I don't want to be a broken record. As a practical point, we need local push to get others to pay attention. Maybe the new mayor will feel it's important. I am guessing Karen Keith has the inside track and I don't know her position on passenger rail. Like I said, I have traded emails with Monroe Nichols and he is a big advocate. It's not the only issue of importance to me, but it's a factor as to why Monroe is getting my vote.
Maybe.
High speed rail passenger service map shows link from Kansas to Oklahoma - Oklahoma Energy Today
The movement by some Oklahomans for rail passenger service from Kansas to Oklahoma City appears to be part of similar efforts by the organization, the U.S. High Speed Rail Association. But not the route proposed by proponents in Oklahoma. The Kansas to Oklahoma link is included in a...
www.okenergytoday.com
Are they not just building high speed lines that can handle low speed as well? That only makes sense if you are building the lines, build them to handle upgrades in the future. From what I've read a newly formed HSR track only costs 10% more than a newly formed conventional line.
I am unsure. The Oklahoma rail advocacy group I follow is not too optimistic about HS rail anytime soon, and think it can distract from getting essential service in place timely. I don't now why - perhaps it is due to the equipment requirements and not the upgraded lines.
BTW the market analysis suggested that the long distance route from Dallas to NYC, via Tulsa, Springfield and St. Louis, was one of the highest demand routes they studied. An unfortunate part, though, was that one direction of the Tulsa service would probably be in the middle of the night. Not ideal. But not sure either if any of this goes from concept to reality. The San Antonio to Minneapolis via Tulsa and Kansas City had lower potential ridership, but they really liked the tribal access elements on that line. Same issue though - Tulsa likely to see overnight service.
The only situation that could increase HSR cost more is the land you have to buy. You put less curves in an HSR track so that it can maintain its speed. That likely costs more money for the land, to avoid those curves. But they will at least spend that, even if they made conventional lines. So the added cost still stays at 10%.
Last edited:
Union Station is a beautiful building. Inside is something to see. They don't build them like that anymore.
That late night issue doesn't bother me. I doubt it bothers too many people intent on saving money either. Set your alarm and go to sleep for the duration of the ride. Now for those wanting to ride only for the romanticism of the ride, it would be a little bigger deal. I guess you get your romanticism on the return ride.
My 82 year old mom has a niece in kc.
Not that she is likely to be around when this comes to fruition but she would not get up middle of the night for a train. She has no car. No direct flights. So folks like her stay home instead of going due to the schedule.
My experience is that it's possible to have plenty of romanticism overnight in a train
Why would they want to exclude Tulsa? That doesn't make sense. They would make money including Tulsa as people from here would more like be willing to work in okc if they can get back and forth on train
OKC is thinking about OKC.
They think there is more state level funding support to add a connection to Newton. And they are right. Both OK and KS are somewhat supportive whereas no state players give a crap about service to Tulsa.
They think there is more state level funding support to add a connection to Newton. And they are right. Both OK and KS are somewhat supportive whereas no state players give a crap about service to Tulsa.
So we’ve been looking at a bucket list trip taking Amtrak out to the west coast to visit my sister in law near San Diego. I lamented how the app could get me there but not back and the unfriendliness of it for users.
Then they updated the app and now it seems to work much better. Still haven’t reserved our spot on the train yet. I’ll let you know how that goes.
Then they updated the app and now it seems to work much better. Still haven’t reserved our spot on the train yet. I’ll let you know how that goes.
my Wife, and I took the grandkids from Niagra Falls to NYC. we had a great experience and it was not expensive.
I had a great experience going from NYC to Albany for business several years back.
I really believe our fellow alum Monroe Nichols will give a serious effort to getting us back on the passenger train map if he becomes Mayor. He and I have traded emails about it.
I really believe our fellow alum Monroe Nichols will give a serious effort to getting us back on the passenger train map if he becomes Mayor. He and I have traded emails about it.
There's talk about adding more departures on the enhanced Twin Cities to Chicago line because ridership has been good. It's a good route, it's a terrible and boring drive that can often be very long because of traffic and the total time is not that much longer than futzing around with flying. And of course it's easy to get around Chicago without a car. Need to find more of those routes to be useful for everyday riders.
I haven't lived in OK for a very long time but it feels to me that OKC doesn't just want to win, they want Tulsa to lose. Like making Tulsa smaller makes them look bigger. True or not?
