Are you dense? Taxpayers pay for roads & airports all the time. Commercial ports, some of the time. I believe we have paid supplemental taxes for improvements once or twice on Port of Catoosa. But I don't remember for certain.
Tulsa passenger rail
- Thread starter drboobay
- Start date
No that was quoted as a reminder to you of what I had said before. But go ahead and question me on everything.
You don't half build it and expect the same results as if you built it all the way. Rail began to be used less and less, so we let it go earlier last century. That was a mistake because of things that would only be evident later on last century, and more evidently this century. Now is the time to build it back.
The laughing face on every post that shows intense disagreement with you is getting old to me, and I assume to others.
I’ve always thought trains were the oddest technocrat obsession. Convenient under narrow circumstances but never seems to prove it’s value when people have any other option for travel and the reasons are fairly obvious
The disproof of this is in Europe. It is used way more than planes over there, and competitive with cars.
The plan is to build a more complete medium speed rail line, with plans to build a high speed rail in between major cities. That makes it a much more viable mode of transportation. It helps catch us up to Europe and Asia, who are light years ahead of us. They have done this a little bit at a time. Now we have to play catch up.
hmmm I wonder if there are any differences between the US and the places you mentioned that make this a poor comparison
Significantly more cars per person in the U.S. than in Europe for one. Now is this because trains are more readily available in Europe? Is it because the population in the U.S. is more spread out than in Europe? Is it because Americans just love their cars and the freedom they provide ?
Um.. Alex, can i have Socialism and Societies used to Government Edicts for $1000
Only poor because we are one country. If you add all of Europe together, they are closer to equal with the US. The further west you get yes, the population density gets more sporadic. But that shouldn't eliminate it from the equation.
You serve the cities just like you serve the rural areas. Because the rural areas have to drive to a city to take advantage of it is a sacrifice you pay for living in a less populated area. There are costs and benefits to rural living. If it helps with climate change that is an added benefit to all areas. There are many reasons to rebuild it, some of them being of direct economic benefit, and some of them being of less direct economic benefit.
It is worth the effort even if it fails to reach its fullest capacity.
Umm, can I have aspects of our society that you have approved of being socialist in their benefits. There are socialist aspects in American capitalism that are necessary. A working society demands that. Transportation modes, and assistance in changing the ratios of transportation modes utilized, falls within that category.
Last edited:
If you want a more equitable comparison, whose population is even more sparse, there is Canada. They are way ahead of us in passenger rail, despite the fact that they still don't have high speed rail. It's not bankrupting their country.
Gas Subsidies: 20B/yr
Electric Energy subsidies,
Electric Car subsidies,
Wind subsidies,
Battery subsidies in various categories,
Solar subsidies,
and a million other energy subsidies: all average around 10-15B/per industry, per year.
Train subsidies: 2B/yr.
_____________________________________________________________
Seems like a cheap subsidy to try and make it work.
Electric Energy subsidies,
Electric Car subsidies,
Wind subsidies,
Battery subsidies in various categories,
Solar subsidies,
and a million other energy subsidies: all average around 10-15B/per industry, per year.
Train subsidies: 2B/yr.
_____________________________________________________________
Seems like a cheap subsidy to try and make it work.
I am not really here to debate the pros and cons of subsidized rail service existing. It is a given that it exists. It should also be acknowledged there is no political will to shut off public funding of rail subsidies. Instead it is expanding.
My point is a narrow one. We are placed at a competitive disadvantage when an expanding infrastructure bypasses us. If everyone else is getting on the grid, we have equally good if not better reasons to be included. I am quite passionate about this particular point.
My point is a narrow one. We are placed at a competitive disadvantage when an expanding infrastructure bypasses us. If everyone else is getting on the grid, we have equally good if not better reasons to be included. I am quite passionate about this particular point.
Question. What exact infrastructure are we talking about here? I admit that I know zero about trains in Oklahoma. Would we be building a new rail line, passenger train(s), ticket station, etc..
Probably upgrading existing cargo lines, working with owners of those lines for access, and establishing or reestablishing a passenger depot.
State money already goes towards OKC service to fort worth and both the governor and OKC mayor are supporting expanding OKC service north to Newton KS. So our tax dollars are already going to passenger rail but we get no access. State and city officials are ignoring Tulsa service despite a 1996 state law that mandates at a minimum service be established between OKC and Tulsa.
That said there is a federal study in play right now where the concept of a Tulsa hub has been proposed by the central region working group. Our city and state officials don't care but unaffiliated planners can see us as a beneficial hub location.
So there is a window of opportunity for the citizenry to bypass our officials and/or get them to pay attention.
We should take advantage of some of that 35M allocated to new studies for expansion. And screw that Newton connection. Don't we have a more direct route to Kansas City & St Louis already established?
Last edited:
There you go. We subsidize all kinds of activities because we want to encourage their success and/or growth.
If we have libertarians on this board who feel we should stop all such subsidies on principle, well I guess that's an intellectual argument we could all have. I even have some sympathy for that perspective.
But we live in the real world! I no more believe there is a libertarian utopia than I believe there is a socialist utopia. We live in a messy world and try to make sensible decisions to navigate it. I am much more interested in acting that sitting around and debating. Not acting rashly, mind you. But this has been discussed since the late 90s and I think this is the time for action, not more debate. The action on gets us into the discussion in a more serious way - it's no guarantee of success - but no action means nothing happens.
Exactly! The OKC - Tulsa - Kansas City path benefits the state broadly. The link from OKC to Newton leaves out 40% of state residents from any benefit. I am not against it really - just think it isn't the right priority.
The OKC to Tulsa line was about to go live about 9 years ago; cost of upgrading was low. But the company that was going to operate the line made some bad business decisions at the last minute. This would be the least expensive route to restore from an upgrade perspective, but the state also sold off the line about 7 years ago in another betrayal of the law.
The Tulsa to Kansas City segment would be much more expensive to upgrade. But so what - it also makes the most sense for Oklahomans and for the central region as a whole.
Tulsa to Dallas and Tulsa to St. Louis are great bonuses from a regional perspective, but I would say we have nonstop air service on both routes, so a lower priority for the city to push. But again, the FRA planners are looking at it beyond only the parochial interests of Tulsa or any one community.
Last edited:
I've often thought that Tulsa could use an L type rail that went down Yale with spurs down 11th street to downtown and up to the airport, down 51st east and west (maybe out to a park n ride at 129th or so and down to Riverside), and then east and west down 71st and set up some park and rides from near Riverside and from just east of Garnett. There you could catch small loop TTA buses to close stops. Unfortunately, something of this nature would be a 25 year project, BILLIONS of DOLLARS in construction costs, and then you'd have to figure out the logistics of the engineering part of it. Either that or you build it as a loop around the city (Airport, 169 around to the Creek down to US 75 and north to the IDL. Make bus connections at various points. What I wouldn't give to be able to jump on a train from 71st and Hwy 169 to get to the airport or even downtown for a game.
Meetings going on this week in KC to finalize recommendations including a north south long distance route that COULD include Tulsa.
Make you voice heard if you support this. Remember a route will be recommended. But will Tulsa be included?
fralongdistancerailstudy.org
Make you voice heard if you support this. Remember a route will be recommended. But will Tulsa be included?
Homepage
Federal Railroad Administration Amtrak Daily Long-Distance Service Study The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is conducting an Amtrak Daily Long-Distance Service Study to evaluate the restoration of daily long-distance intercity rail passenger service and the potential for new Amtrak...
fralongdistancerailstudy.org
we need to develop a system like Eurorail and Japan. national, regional and local
That's exactly what we are trying to do. It's not owned by several countries like Eurail, but that's because it services several different countries, not several different states. What do you think this subsidized effort through Amtrak is, but us trying to develop something similar to Eurail? You don't even know you are playing the part of captain obvious.It is an important week. A north south route through the central US will be proposed as part of the congressional mandated study of long distance corridors. We could be on it. Or not.
The obvious route is unused easements along I-35 with road improvements, property acquisition and imminent domain.
Perhaps but the OKC to Newton segment is already part of a separate initiative. I would be surprised is that is all they are planning. The Tulsa route has some other advantages including serving more tribal and economically disadvantaged communities along the route.
You can see some of the north south options on this map.
FRA’s Long-Distance Study Produces Map of Expanded Amtrak Services
A map that was recently shared at town hall meetings shows a dramatically expanded long-distance network.
railfan.com
The southern route from tulsa to dallas doesn't make much sense with the route to dallas from OKC already existing. The route from OKC to Tulsa is of better use.Perhaps but the OKC to Newton segment is already part of a separate initiative. I would be surprised is that is all they are planning. The Tulsa route has some other advantages including serving more tribal and economically disadvantaged communities along the route.
You can see some of the north south options on this map.
FRA’s Long-Distance Study Produces Map of Expanded Amtrak Services
A map that was recently shared at town hall meetings shows a dramatically expanded long-distance network.
On another note, the Brightline is a real treat. Worth flying into Orlando and flying home out of MIA if you are a train buff.
It’s as good or better than anything in Europe, though a bit slower. It does keep killing people left and right. That will likely delay or end expansion to Tampa and leave a spur to Tallahassee on unrealized future plans.
It’s as good or better than anything in Europe, though a bit slower. It does keep killing people left and right. That will likely delay or end expansion to Tampa and leave a spur to Tallahassee on unrealized future plans.
I believe the idea is rural and tribal access, which is part of the mandate.
Doubtful they will recommend everything anyway.
Can they build it for under California’s $200 million per mile? The Brightline was $7.5 mil per mile which doesn’t seem cost effective either since net operating losses are $175 million a year on $45 million in revenue. I flew from Orlando to MIA round trip for $175.09 last week. 3.5 hours from hotel lobby to hotel lobby. Brightline travel times were comparable and the price was 3 dollars less. Nice view though.
People don’t seem to have a full picture of what it costs per mile when they start talking about building HSR out for thousands of miles.
People don’t seem to have a full picture of what it costs per mile when they start talking about building HSR out for thousands of miles.
Last edited:
This is not high speed rail necessarily. More likely it is regular speeds as would be the case with most passenger routes. And using existing rail lines but with some ungrading necessary.
That's because I don't know the answer
Every segment will have a different cost to upgrade for passenger service. That much I have read.
And I do know that cost is one of the factors to be considered in the study.
The immediate outcome of the study will be a set of recommended long distance routes that goes to congress. So we are far away from implementation. But if you are not part of the plan, you are not part of what (if anything) gets implemented IMO.
Higher construction costs, inflation, or decision to elevate many stations and rails?
Why not, seeing as how there is so much tax money to abuse. It's a matter of supply & Demand.
I have a feeling this LA to Vegas line is long run going to be really successful stuff.
Because everyone wants to be trapped on a train with drunks, drug abusers and the destitute. LA is a car city. This isn’t London. They aren’t getting into the Tube to Victoria or St Pancras before taking another train cross country. Where are they going to park to get on the train? How is that cost effective versus just driving? You seen the price of Ubers in Las Vegas once they get off the train?
Similar threads
