https://www.krmg.com/news/local/krmg-in-depth-tulsa-metro-remains-without-passenger-rail-service-despite-1996-state-statute/2UVBQ4XGQ5AHHPPQIGPL5CDJXI/

so where is the violation ??

i don't see one .. in that text at all . .

so where is the violation ??

i don't see one .. in that text at all . .

From the article:

Evan Stair, President of Passenger Rail Oklahoma, a non-profit advocacy group, pointed us to Oklahoma Statutes Title 66, sections 321 through 325

“The Oklahoma Department of Transportation, and the legislature, and Governor Stitt, have all forgotten about the requirements to provide service to Tulsa within state statute,” Stair told KRMG Monday.

The law includes a section titled “Purpose,” which states: “The purpose of the Oklahoma Tourism and Passenger Rail Act shall be to do all things necessary to restore passenger rail service to the state, to enhance the state’s position as a tourist destination site and to improve the quality of life for residents of this state by offering an alternative mode of intrastate and interstate travel.”

In the section titled “Definitions,” it spells out the requirement to include Tulsa County as well as Oklahoma County in a passenger rail system.

It reads: “Passenger rail service” shall mean interstate or intrastate passenger rail service, including but not limited to a route linking stations in Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties with other primary points in the national railroad passenger system.

But that law has never been enforced, and this week plans were announced to try and expand the “Heartland Flyer” line, which runs from Ft. Worth, Texas to Oklahoma City, north to Newton, Kansas.

The article also links to the State statute itself.

https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2022/title-66/

You really want that rail line to be revived? Wasn’t the proposed travel times something like 2+ hours? There isn’t anything that said ODOT had to build a new alignment rail line which is what should be done. Why the f@ck would you want some horribly slow rail line built just for the sake of it being rail? Interim bus service would be much better until HSR can be worked out.

How can this state law force Amtrak to build an expansion to KC from Tulsa? If they, a private company, don't want to, it seems inconceivable to force them to. Seems one that won't hold up in court, if they go against it.

Again, where are Tulsa’s politicians? Of course Oklahoma City and ODOT are going to ride the easy wave of the path of least resistance… Kansas and Amtrak have been working overtime the past couple of years once it was made apparent that the Biden admin was going to invest in passenger rail. They stepped up and started moving the ball down the field. Why would ODOT and OKC turn them away?

I guarantee you if Tulsa shows up with money in hand and political backing, Holt will find the money and will also go get political backing to make this happen. So far Tulsa has only shown up to express their disappointment. Kansas has shown up with money and effort. You can only argue at the referee for so long, but at the end of the day you have to drive to the basket. Why haven’t Tulsa’s politicians gotten this done while they have the most pro-Tulsa Governor in recent history? With a single tweet and stroke of the pen Stitt could have entire offices at ODOT, OTA, and the Attorneys office making this happen. No Tulsa politician has his ear? This is OKC’s fault?

^^^^ exactly but the currently proposed route is a goddamn joke.

Insert my downer vibe as usual....

Rail in Oklahoma, well no matter what form it takes, it's going to always struggle. Unless or until the state/feds/Amtrack an agree to link a path all the way from Dallas, to Kansas City (including Tulsa) then we're going to be sitting exactly where we are now, which is a joke. And those lines are going to have to run a real path, not stopping at 50 little dots on the map on the way making it an incredibly inefficient trip.

And those destinations on each end, unless you have a hub there that can connect you to somewhere else, then you're limiting who is going to make use of it. Chicken/Egg for sure.

Also a "promise" in a government document means buttkiss. Ask the tribes of Oklahoma what they were promised.

How can this state law force Amtrak to build an expansion to KC from Tulsa? If they, a private company, don't want to, it seems inconceivable to force them to. Seems one that won't hold up in court, if they go against it.

It doesn't require Amtrak. All it says is that the State connect Tulsa and OKC to the national rail network. If the State needs to build its own rail line to Tulsa ( see New Mexico Railrunner) then so be it - that is the law. When the rail line to Sapulpa was sold it had a requirement that the buyer implement passenger service on the line within so many years. I don't remember exactly what that time requirement was, but it has long passed.

Alas, Tulsa doesn't have rail because J.T Bynum doesn't want it. He has said many times that they are all-in on autonomous cars and rail is obsolete.

It doesn't require Amtrak. All it says is that the State connect Tulsa and OKC to the national rail network. If the State needs to build its own rail line to Tulsa ( see New Mexico Railrunner) then so be it - that is the law. When the rail line to Sapulpa was sold it had a requirement that the buyer implement passenger service on the line within so many years. I don't remember exactly what that time requirement was, but it has long passed.

Alas, Tulsa doesn't have rail because J.T Bynum doesn't want it. He has said many times that they are all-in on autonomous cars and rail is obsolete.

I agree with Bynum that the current state of rail is obsolete. Very few people are going to take a 3 hour train between OKC and Tulsa. Now HSR is another story but that isn’t even being discussed.

I agree with Bynum that the current state of rail is obsolete. Very few people are going to take a 3 hour train between OKC and Tulsa. Now HSR is another story but that isn’t even being discussed.

It isn't being discussed because Tulsa isn't discussing it. OKC is already connected to the national rail network and has daily service to one of the largest metros in the US. OKC also has a streetcar to move people around who arrive without a car. Tulsa has neither of those things, and doesn't seem interested in getting them. If a train did go from OKC to Tulsa at 120 mph how would someone get around Tulsa when they got there? A car?

I'll bet Lawton would be much more interested in a rail connection to WRWA and downtown OKC. When I was stationed at Ft Sill my entire unit would have killed for easy access to OKC.

Tulsa would be better served expanding their already existing “BRT” system than building a mediocre at best streetcar for themselves.

Tulsa would be better served expanding their already existing “BRT” system than building a mediocre at best streetcar for themselves.

Again, J.T. Bynum wants autonomous cars. Tulsa has to wait for that idea to die first before anything else is entertained.

Again, J.T. Bynum wants autonomous cars. Tulsa has to wait for that idea to die first before anything else is entertained.

Then why are they currently expanding their BRT service?

J.T. Bynum isn't running for re-election. He has a year-ish left. I doubt whoever comes next will be any more excited about trains, especially knowing the massive price tag that would be necessary to start basic service to OKC. We would be better off investing in our airport, bus service, or any number of other items before tackling that monster. I love trains and regional connectors, but the reality is that the price is just too high for Tulsa right now.

You are all missing the alternative that Tulsa has proposed over and over that is cost effective. If the state won't spend the money to fix the line between OKC and Tulsa then connect Tulsa to Kansas City, KS or Springfield, MO/St. Louis instead of Oklahoma City.

ODOT has refused connecting Tulsa to somewhere other than Oklahoma City because they claim to think that might impact the Heartland Flyer. They have chosen to work to spend money to benefit service from OKC only Instead of following the law.

J.T. Bynum isn't running for re-election. He has a year-ish left. I doubt whoever comes next will be any more excited about trains, especially knowing the massive price tag that would be necessary to start basic service to OKC. We would be better off investing in our airport, bus service, or any number of other items before tackling that monster. I love trains and regional connectors, but the reality is that the price is just too high for Tulsa right now.

It isn't going to get cheaper in the future.

Who is J.T. Bynum and is he any relation to Tulsa mayor G.T. Bynum?

Maybe once the Heartland Flyer gets going more and is extended and our leaders see the direct benefits they’ll take it more seriously. But yeah I get your frustration. A Tulsa to OKC like should be included in the rebuild and expansion of I-44 on a new direct alignment. Take the old rail line and convert it to a trail.

The old Sooner Sub line from OKC-Tulsa is used (relatively) frequently for freight. It's also a vital rail link to a crude oil transload terminal in Stroud that feeds a pipeline to Cushing. It may not be very good for time-sensitive passenger rail, but it's still very useful for long-distance and local freight - especially because any new HSR corridor will most likely *only* be used for passenger trains for the foreseeable future.

Insert my downer vibe as usual....

Rail in Oklahoma, well no matter what form it takes, it's going to always struggle. Unless or until the state/feds/Amtrack an agree to link a path all the way from Dallas, to Kansas City (including Tulsa) then we're going to be sitting exactly where we are now, which is a joke. And those lines are going to have to run a real path, not stopping at 50 little dots on the map on the way making it an incredibly inefficient trip.

And those destinations on each end, unless you have a hub there that can connect you to somewhere else, then you're limiting who is going to make use of it. Chicken/Egg for sure.

Also a "promise" in a government document means buttkiss. Ask the tribes of Oklahoma what they were promised.

All Amtrak regional corridor and long-distance lines have intermediate stops. As I've noted several times, these intermediate stops contribute a good deal to the overall ridership of the service and connect communities without transportation options into the national passenger rail network. These intermediate stops provide economic benefits for the communities they stop in, and do not significantly add to the overall total travel time. The Heartland Flyer does not stop at every community it passes through either - in reality, it makes only 5 intermediate stops in it's journey between OKC and FTW. The proposed expansion to Newton would have 6 intermediate stops between OKC and NEW - Edmond, Guthrie, Perry, Ponca City, Arkansas City, and Wichita.

The Heartland Flyer currently terminates at Fort Worth Union Station, where you can connect to communities in north Texas and beyond via TRE/TexRail/FWTA/DART, as well as Greyhound and Amtrak. The proposed northern terminus at Newton also connects you to communities in Kansas and beyond via Greyhound and Amtrak. Importantly, the proposed Heartland Flyer expansion schedule perfectly aligns with the current schedules of the Texas Eagle and Southwest Chief so passengers can make easy connections to those trains in NEW/FTW. In my personal opinion, the downer vibe is totally misplaced here, with one exception - the connection from the Heartland Flyer to the eastbound Southwest Chief to get to Kansas City is done at a very inconvenient time - 3am - and you arrive in KCMO at ~7:30am. Now that said, there are ways to mitigate this drawback; if demand is high enough (and funding is available) it absolutely would be possible for Amtrak to offer "thru-car service" between the Heartland Flyer and Southwest Chief in Newton - that way at least one coach gets transferred between the two trains so passengers don't have to disembark in NEW to change trains. This is exactly how the Texas Eagle operates west of San Antonio - Amtrak trades a few cars with the Sunset Limited so passengers continuing through don't need to disembark and wait several hours in the depot at SAS.

You are all missing the alternative that Tulsa has proposed over and over that is cost effective. If the state won't spend the money to fix the line between OKC and Tulsa then connect Tulsa to Kansas City, KS or Springfield, MO/St. Louis instead of Oklahoma City.

ODOT has refused connecting Tulsa to somewhere other than Oklahoma City because they claim to think that might impact the Heartland Flyer. They have chosen to work to spend money to benefit service from OKC only Instead of following the law.
Where are you hearing that from? How would that impact the heartland Flyer? This whole situation makes no sense. We are widening the entirety of I-44 to six lanes with potential to be expanded to 8 down the line with truck lanes in spots. Why not build rail along it that can at least ensure average speed of 120MPH? Anything more is icing on the cake.

The old Sooner Sub line from OKC-Tulsa is used (relatively) frequently for freight. It's also a vital rail link to a crude oil transload terminal in Stroud that feeds a pipeline to Cushing. It may not be very good for time-sensitive passenger rail, but it's still very useful for long-distance and local freight - especially because any new HSR corridor will most likely *only* be used for passenger trains for the foreseeable future.
I didn’t know that. Could freight be better off using a new alignment if built alongside a passenger rail line within I-44 ROW? I only ask because I don’t see a lot of projects improving freight rail lines in the same way roads are improved with new alignments and such.

I know there are issues that and connections to rail yards and other companies but it seems like it could be worthwhile.

Where are you hearing that from? How would that impact the heartland Flyer? This whole situation makes no sense. We are widening the entirety of I-44 to six lanes with potential to be expanded to 8 down the line with truck lanes in spots. Why not build rail along it that can at least ensure average speed of 120MPH? Anything more is icing on the cake.

Three of the articles I linked to mention the state not wanting to connect Tulsa anywhere but Oklahoma City:



5/10/01 – City of Tulsa releases study showing the cost effectiveness of a Tulsa to Kansas City line. Sen Dave Herbert criticizes Tulsa area legislators who had not backed his one cent gas tax for rail. Study author notes Tulsa had little reason to back the tax after not getting the promised Heartland Flyer phase 2 as required by state law. If this line to Kansas City could be completed, Tulsa area reps could be on board for the tax.
https://tulsaworld.com/archive/outlo...85dab44a1.html

10/24/01 – State Transportation Sec Hershal Crow does not support a Tulsa to Kansas City route. Says it would hurt the Heartland Flyer and isn’t the preferred route by Amtrack, they prefer Newton, KS because of “options”.
https://tulsaworld.com/archive/rail-...7ad9fd8e6.html

12/13/06 Study requested by the city of Tulsa shows that Tulsa to Springfield would required upgrades of $19 million in Oklahoma and $19 million in Missouri vs the $152 million for normal speed track between Tulsa and OKC and $850 million for HSR
https://tulsaworld.com/archive/tulsa...4b8c6c1e4.html

^^^ I misread your quote as it saying the state doesn’t want to connect it to OKC. My bad.

I didn’t know that. Could freight be better off using a new alignment if built alongside a passenger rail line within I-44 ROW? I only ask because I don’t see a lot of projects improving freight rail lines in the same way roads are improved with new alignments and such.

I know there are issues that and connections to rail yards and other companies but it seems like it could be worthwhile.

There are some significant hills along the I-44 right of way that would require a lot of earthwork to level out for railroad traffic. Nothing impossible but it wouldn’t be able to follow the same grade profile as the interstate. That is why many railroads meander around as they have to stick to less than 3% grade, 2% or less being ideal.

You are all missing the alternative that Tulsa has proposed over and over that is cost effective. If the state won't spend the money to fix the line between OKC and Tulsa then connect Tulsa to Kansas City, KS or Springfield, MO/St. Louis instead of Oklahoma City.

ODOT has refused connecting Tulsa to somewhere other than Oklahoma City because they claim to think that might impact the Heartland Flyer. They have chosen to work to spend money to benefit service from OKC only Instead of following the law.

MoDOT has studied the corridor between STL and Springfield for the return of passenger service in the past. This corridor is primarily comprised of the BNSF Cuba Subdivision, so it's kept up to a high standard of maintenance... and If memory serves, they concluded that the demand is certainly there. Between Springfield and Tulsa is the BNSF Cherokee Subdivision - also maintained to a high level. The primary stumbling block is when this route from St Louis to Lawton (via Springfield, Tulsa, and OKC) was originally built by the St Louis - San Francisco ("Frisco") railroad nearly 140 years ago, it was not built as a high-speed route - and according to MoDOT's analysis, nearly half of the route is on curves. Passenger service is technically possible over this line - indeed the Frisco ran the Meteor passenger train over the full length of the line until the mid 60's - but it is just nowhere near time competitive vs the highway. The large number of curves mean lower maximum authorized speeds; as of 2008 the maximum speed allowed for freight on the Cuba Sub was 45mph. My understanding is the situation on the Cherokee sub is similar, and of course we know the state of the Sooner sub is now pretty poor. This translates to MoDOT estimating a 6-hour travel time from Springfield to St Louis - basically double the trip time by car and 2 hours longer than intercity bus service. It would take a substantial amount of effort to upgrade this line for competitive passenger service between OKC, TUL, and STL.

As much as I would really love to see passenger service restored here... it's going to be a significant challenge to make it happen in a way that is even remotely competitive vs other modes of travel, so I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. It's going to come down to a choice between substantially upgrading the Sooner, Cherokee, and Cuba subdivisions for faster travel speeds, or building an entirely new high-speed corridor closely paralleling I-44 - and I have a sneaking suspicion that when that choice is eventually made, it will be in favor of a new HSR corridor. Either way, I fully expect Tulsa's return to the national passenger rail network to be expensive.

One thing that ODOT could do today would be to request Amtrak establish thruway bus service between Tulsa and OKC. It's far from ideal, but much like the current thruway bus between OKC and Newton, this would allow train passengers to book travel to/from Tulsa fully through Amtrak and enable easier connections and scheduling, and also allow Amtrak and ODOT to get a better idea of real demand for eventual train service. Otherwise, outside of building a new HSR corridor, the only other opportunity I see for some level of passenger service to happen in the near-to-medium term would be to hire an operator to run sightseeing/excursion trains instead.

MoDOT has studied the corridor between STL and Springfield for the return of passenger service in the past. This corridor is primarily comprised of the BNSF Cuba Subdivision, so it's kept up to a high standard of maintenance... and If memory serves, they concluded that the demand is certainly there. Between Springfield and Tulsa is the BNSF Cherokee Subdivision - also maintained to a high level. The primary stumbling block is when this route from St Louis to Lawton (via Springfield, Tulsa, and OKC) was originally built by the St Louis - San Francisco ("Frisco") railroad nearly 140 years ago, it was not built as a high-speed route - and according to MoDOT's analysis, nearly half of the route is on curves. Passenger service is technically possible over this line - indeed the Frisco ran the Meteor passenger train over the full length of the line until the mid 60's - but it is just nowhere near time competitive vs the highway. The large number of curves mean lower maximum authorized speeds; as of 2008 the maximum speed allowed for freight on the Cuba Sub was 45mph. My understanding is the situation on the Cherokee sub is similar, and of course we know the state of the Sooner sub is now pretty poor. This translates to MoDOT estimating a 6-hour travel time from Springfield to St Louis - basically double the trip time by car and 2 hours longer than intercity bus service. It would take a substantial amount of effort to upgrade this line for competitive passenger service between OKC, TUL, and STL.

As much as I would really love to see passenger service restored here... it's going to be a significant challenge to make it happen in a way that is even remotely competitive vs other modes of travel, so I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. It's going to come down to a choice between substantially upgrading the Sooner, Cherokee, and Cuba subdivisions for faster travel speeds, or building an entirely new high-speed corridor closely paralleling I-44 - and I have a sneaking suspicion that when that choice is eventually made, it will be in favor of a new HSR corridor. Either way, I fully expect Tulsa's return to the national passenger rail network to be expensive.

One thing that ODOT could do today would be to request Amtrak establish thruway bus service between Tulsa and OKC. It's far from ideal, but much like the current thruway bus between OKC and Newton, this would allow train passengers to book travel to/from Tulsa fully through Amtrak and enable easier connections and scheduling, and also allow Amtrak and ODOT to get a better idea of real demand for eventual train service. Otherwise, outside of building a new HSR corridor, the only other opportunity I see for some level of passenger service to happen in the near-to-medium term would be to hire an operator to run sightseeing/excursion trains instead.
Doesn’t greyhound already do this for like $20 daily?

You are all missing the alternative that Tulsa has proposed over and over that is cost effective. If the state won't spend the money to fix the line between OKC and Tulsa then connect Tulsa to Kansas City, KS or Springfield, MO/St. Louis instead of Oklahoma City.

ODOT has refused connecting Tulsa to somewhere other than Oklahoma City because they claim to think that might impact the Heartland Flyer. They have chosen to work to spend money to benefit service from OKC only Instead of following the law.

Oklahoma is NOT going to spend money connecting Tulsa to KC or STL unless Missouri and those cities want to do so. You/Tulsans keep complaining that the state wont connect to OKC so therefore the state should connect Tulsa to other metros but they lie deep in other states, OK would only cover the 100 or so miles to the border; then what?

I agree that might be a better plan for Tulsa (and Im sure they'd rather connect there than to big brother) but those cities don't seem interested, unlike Kansas/Wichita which has been leading the way for expansion of the OKC route through Wichita to Newton and Amtrak's recognition of OKC-DFTW by increasing frequencies. It is NOT Oklahoma leading the way, they already have the OKC-DFTW route, but it does make sense to connect OKC to Chicago since Wichita/KS is interested/leading the way. No?

Perhaps bus service, like FLEX or something, is a better idea for TUL-OKC? Another thought, could we go OKC-Stillwater-TUL?

There’s no excuse for this sh!t. State leaders just don’t give a f@ck. We have historic investment in infrastructure and I’m seeing new rail plans for Wisconsin, Utah, Arizona, Pennsylvania, why can’t we have a real long term plan? I agree a thruway would be a good interim plan as I’ve taken that to Newton before.

I think it's more than jjust the state. It also appears that Tulsa wants to ahve it's cake and eat it too. They don't appear to WANT rail service, but are DEMANDING it instead. How I say this? Didn't Tulsa not vote for the gas tax (per posts from SWAKE)? If Tulsa wanted rail, they'd vote for the tax, lead the effort to establish service, and work with the state and OKC (or whatever city they want to connect to) to remove roadblocks, convince Amtrak of the viability, and explore interim alternatives to build/prove the market. OKC did this for the Heartland Flyer as did Ft Worth, Wichita and KS are doing this currently and that state already has rail (and Newton isn't THAT far from Wichita).

It is clear that Wichita and KS wants to connect to OKC (and TX), so their thought is why not expand the Heartland Flyer in the most logical way, up north from OKC. You can find countless data of them leading this effort, with Oklahoma saying "ah yes, as we could reconnect Guthrie, Perry, and Ponca". Meanwhile, Tulsa pouts since they're "left out". Maybe move the city to the central corridor? Or help upgrade the tracks? Or provide leadership "ala Wichita/KS, OKC, FTW" to make something happen.

Thruway bus is a great idea, esp after additional daily frequencies are added OKC-FTW. They could also try to convince MO to expand their Thruway service from Springfield, again, just requires leadership from Tulsa then the state would get onboard.

I think it's more than jjust the state. It also appears that Tulsa wants to ahve it's cake and eat it too. They don't appear to WANT rail service, but are DEMANDING it instead.

Well, it is what the state promised over and over when Tulsa backed the Heartland Flyer and what is what written into state law. Why shouldn't Tulsa demand what is legally required?

As for the gas tax proposal, phase one of THAT plan again was more service to Oklahoma City to Newton, phase two HSR to Tulsa, but the additional tax wouldn't raise but a small fraction of the money needed for HSR, meaning phase two for Tulsa was never going to happen. Again. And don't forget, at the same time OKC's Congressman was killing any federal funds for HSR in Oklahoma.

Should Tulsa's legislators have voted for the tax? What would you do?

yes because Tulsa does benefit by OKC benefitting, just like OKC benefits by development going up in E Tulsa and Green Country.

It's not always about Tulsa having what OKC has, sometimes the bigger city needs to prosper in order to compete nationally. OKC is better located, IS the capital city of the state,d and has a much larger population. I get the butt hurt on the "law" that was made but it apparently was a political move made by those who don't know the rail situation between the two; it is economically unfeasible at the moment to get rail to Tulsa or from Tulsa to Missouri; no party involved appears to have momentum and Oklahoma would only be on the hook if the connected citie(s)/state(s) lead the way.

This is my argument, if Tulsa really wants rail then they'd have the same leadership momentum that they have had for the Mid America Industrial Park - oh, and funds to secure those development by the state also largely came from OKC but nobody is crying about it or whining that the development should have gone to OKC like some in Tulsa are with Kansas's desire and leadership to connect Newton to OKC.

Hope you can see this point.

oh, and funds to secure those development by the state also largely came from OKC but nobody is crying about it or whining that the development should have gone to OKC like some in Tulsa are with Kansas's desire and leadership to connect Newton to OKC.

There have been several comments whining about the state trying to lure all those developments to MAIP/NE OK instead of OKC on this very forum lol

no, there's been whining on this site about the GOVERNOR using the state to lure all those developments to Tulsa at the EXPENSE of OKC (in otherwords, the state never supporting OKC development efforts but the city itself doing it alone).

Nobody in OKC is complaining about their tax dollars going to Tulsa developemnt but Tulsans' sure are quick to complain if OKC ever gets a bone via the state (like the do with regard to national rail).

Potential mew rail routes including an update to the Heartland Flyer: https://www.kosu.org/local-news/2023-08-16/could-a-new-passenger-train-be-chugging-your-way-potential-new-oklahoma-routes-identified

Potential mew rail routes including an update to the Heartland Flyer: https://www.kosu.org/local-news/2023-08-16/could-a-new-passenger-train-be-chugging-your-way-potential-new-oklahoma-routes-identified

Curious why the route from Amarillo east doesn't go to OKC. Would be closer and would make much more sense that to connect at Arkansas City, or wherever the heck that is.

There are no existing viable lines that go to Amarillo out of OKC.

There are no existing viable lines that go to Amarillo out of OKC.

if i remember correctly, the railway dies off at Erik and never makes it to Texas... i could be wrong, but i think that is where it ends. so yes, the only existing lines would be to take it up to the northern BNSF lines through woodward and then down to amarillo.

if i remember correctly, the railway dies off at Erik and never makes it to Texas... i could be wrong, but i think that is where it ends. so yes, the only existing lines would be to take it up to the northern BNSF lines through woodward and then down to amarillo.

Correct, and that line doesn't even make it to OKC.

https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?style=standard&lat=35.73982452242507&lon=-98.58856201171874&zoom=8

Correct, and that line doesn't even make it to OKC.

https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?style=standard&lat=35.73982452242507&lon=-98.58856201171874&zoom=8

interesting. i always thought the weatherford line went all the way to geary. through hydro and bridgeport. today i learned something.

interesting. i always thought the weatherford line went all the way to geary. through hydro and bridgeport. today i learned something.

Looks like on Google Maps the right of way still exists. However it is very much not in use. Here is a screen capture from Google Streetview of I-40 looking down onto the right of way. The structure in the middle is a bridge deck with no rail on it, but you can still see what looks to what may still be rail in the right of way (grown over by weeds of course)

https://i.gyazo.com/782e35d695cd0cf44a875b1eaf335532.jpg

The line was the Rock Island. When they went bankrupt, the ATSF was interested in operating the line from Memphis to Amarillo. One day a business car came into the GM yard, and we ( the switch crew) asked whoever to come inside. On a large table was a thick open large folder of the the line, milepost by milepost. The ATSF was going to eliminate several crew districts, and run the trains with 3 rather than 4 man crews. The catch was having OK and TX buy the line and lease it back. But with no political clout in Arkansas, and I’m sure the objection of the MOPAC, and FRISCO, no monies, so the deal fell thru. And now it’s all on the old FRISCO via Tulsa-Enid-Amarillo.

There are no existing viable lines that go to Amarillo out of OKC.

They need to build one along I-40. It’d be much more convenient to go to LA that way.

Rail lines that were abandoned should have had a clause that allowed the right of way to be kept for future rail use. So many have now been built upon. Think Pops in Arcadia is built on the old right of way.

Railroads do have the power of eminent domain, not just for mainline trackage but also for facilities.

BNSF is using eminent domain on some properties in Hudson, CO right now to build a large intermodal facility replacing the downtown Denver Rennicks Yard.

So, really right of way preservation is only helpful for lines that may be under threat of significant challenges, for example a sky scraper being built on an abandoned right of way. Otherwise, small buildings and homes can be cleared off a potential ROW rather easily (relatively).

If the railroad held an easement, the abandonment of the line automatically terminates the railroad's easement interest, and the interest generally reverts to the owners of the adjacent land owning the fee simple interest from which the easement was granted. The state could have purchased the MKT from OKC to Bartlesville for a recreational trail but passed, and as they say, that train has left the station. Here’s an article about the Supreme Court ruling from 2014……
https://www.calt.iastate.edu/article/us-supreme-court-says-ownership-abandoned-railroad-right-way-reverts-landowner

Apologies if I missed this previously, but I didn't realize the west-route and airport routes being examined for passenger rail were dead and officially being recommended instead for BRT down Reno...

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2023/08/18/okc-transit-plan-connect-norman-edmond-tinker-air-force-study/70603113007/

Apologies if I missed this previously, but I didn't realize the west-route and airport routes being examined for passenger rail were dead and officially being recommended instead for BRT down Reno...

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2023/08/18/okc-transit-plan-connect-norman-edmond-tinker-air-force-study/70603113007/

east west if it was getting built was going to go to sante fe station ... the union station ship sailed a long long time ago ..

and for the record this is a poor choice for the RTA to make .. rapid street car / light rail to tinker would be the much better choice and heavy rail to the airport/ west okc would be the better choice ..

and for the record this is a poor choice for the RTA to make .. rapid street car / light rail to tinker would be the much better choice and heavy rail to the airport/ west okc would be the better choice ..

I like it when you talk like that, BS lol

east west if it was getting built was going to go to sante fe station ... the union station ship sailed a long long time ago ..

and for the record this is a poor choice for the RTA to make .. rapid street car / light rail to tinker would be the much better choice and heavy rail to the airport/ west okc would be the better choice ..
+1 but it was also a really stupid choice to rule out Union Station for any sort of rail connection potential.

Real actual transit won’t be a reality for OKC or Oklahoma for the foreseeable future. We will have half assed infrastructure in that for the time being and that being said we need to primarily focus on car based transportation with a slow transition to offering people alternatives. Personally I’d prefer quality over quantity but the leaders that be don’t see it that way.

At the very least ODOT and the OTA are very resourceful and as much crap as I give them they do a fantastic job given the budget they have.

Union Station is in a pretty awesome spot if it ever were to be used as a station again, assuming the area around Scissortail Park gets built up in an efficient way. Not only that, but there’s the Scissortail Bridge connecting to the southern end of the park and anything that gets built in the future, possibly even connecting it to the south side of the river. I’m not hopeful that that’ll ever happen for reasons stated in the article, but if the City/RTA/ODOT ever did decide to undertake it in the future when Oklahoma City is more built up and rail transit is more utilized, it could be a gem of a station for the city, state, and region at large. Shoot, even as it exists today, it’s an incredible building just to have. Among my favorite parts of going to Scissortail is just being able to view the structure up close.