If you're grandma can't do it on her own, then you're not doing it right.

This is the only part of what you said that i completely agree with.

I agree with bombermwc.

An OKC to Tulsa train would be a novelty item, just like the Heartland Flyer. How many people drive to the DFW area daily vs. taking the Flyer? It is a matter of travel efficiency, the combination of time and cost to travel somewhere. I live in the OKC core and can drive to downtown Tulsa in 75 - 80 minutes (5 mph over the speed limit). Taking a train that takes 120+ minutes in addition to the time to travel to the train station, wait for the train and then ride share to a destination is not travel efficient. I probably would not use the train even if it was free, just because of the additional time involved. It is no different than long distance train travel. Why spend 2 days on a train when you can fly to the same location in 2 - 3 hours? If OKC - Tulsa is economically viable, someone like Brightline will do it and be more efficient that Amtrak.

If I don't want to do it then it means it's dumb and a waste of time. Pretty simple really.

If I don't want to do it then it means it's dumb and a waste of time. Pretty simple really.

You missed the whole point. It’s not about what I want to do. If taking the train doesn’t provide a tangible advantage to the alternative, most people won’t use the train. The Heartland Flyer is a prime example.

Would have to disagree with the notion that the flyer is merely a novelty item. Granted, its current schedule (or lack thereof) leads a lot to be desired, but a lot of people use it, even if you don't. I've taken it several times to Ardmore when my spouse leaves to visit family a few days ahead of me. Plenty of OU students use it to go back home to the DFW area during breaks. My blind aunt used it to visit family in ardmore several times a year because she can't drive.

Many people have made points previously about who would use a train between Tulsa and OKC, even if it took longer, so I won't get into that other than to say we aren't talking about 2 days versus 2 hours and public transportation is not intended to operate at a profit, just like fuel taxes and vehicle registrations do not provide a profit to the government.

so I won't get into that other than to say we aren't talking about 2 days versus 2 hours

2 days vs 2 hours had nothing to do with OKC - Tulsa. It applies to long distance train routes.

You missed the whole point. It’s not about what I want to do. If taking the train doesn’t provide a tangible advantage to the alternative, most people won’t use the train. The Heartland Flyer is a prime example.

Just because YOU think others will only use it as a novelty doesn't mean anything.

I was just looking at pricing on the heartland flyer and it's sold out the next two days so apparently someone is using it. I lived in Mesta Park, worked in software sales for 5 years and took the train for work 12-18 times per year. I certainly was not alone based on the conversations I had with others on those train trips. You mentioned some disadvantages (though some way exaggerated related to the train service here) but here are the advantages I saw over driving and flying in certain circumstances.

Advantages:

- Price: If a client or prospect wanted a last minute meeting, I could book a $40-$60 train ticket when a same week round trip flight to Love Field or DFW would've been between $300-$500 and gas would've been between $70-$90.
- Comfort: The seats are very comfortable and often even when the train was pretty full, there was enough room for solo travelers to have a full row and its a very smooth ride. Way more comfortable than flying and a ton more comfortable than doing everything that is required when driving.
- Convenience: The station was a 3-5 minute drive from my house and it often dropped me off a few blocks from where I needed to go. If not, I'd rent a car from the onsite car rental spot or uber depending on how long I planned to stay. At DFW or Love field I had to rent a car or take an expensive uber ride no matter what followed by a 20 minute to an hour + drive depending where I needed to go. If it was a single day trip, I could get there at noon, have a meeting or two and grab a beer with a client downtown before jumping back on the train at 5:30. There's no security checkpoint so no need to get there 30-60 minutes early. You just get there before it leaves and get on.
- Reduced Stress: Relaxing, working or sleeping on a train for an 8 hour round trip over a day is a sh*t ton less stressful than having to pay attention to the road for at best a 5 and half hour round trip if you're speeding and there's no traffic but in reality, there's always a ton of traffic, especially if you have to travel during rush hour, and the drive takes 6 hours under ideal weekday conditions or more likely, 7-8 hours.
- Productivity: If you're driving somewhere between 6-8 hours, all you can do is drive. I got 6-8 hours of time back per round trip. The train has wifi so on a day trip, I could get a full work day in before and after my meetings if I wanted to and not lose some or all of that to time behind the wheel. I enjoyed spending that time planning for meetings, taking care of other sales/client issues, etc instead of having to jump out of the car and run directly into my meeting after driving for 3-4 hours.
- Safety: The train is way safer than driving, especially on quick day trips where I frequently had to fight falling asleep behind the wheel on the way home. Driving fatigue is real and I enjoyed avoiding that when I could. I'd still get home at 9:30 but it didn't feel like a complete beatdown.
- Car Maintenance: Each of those years, I avoided putting between 4800 and 7200 miles on my Tahoe (24,000 - 36,000 over 5 years) along with the wear and tear that goes with them and that only accounts for the point to point mileage with nothing added for inner metro travel around DFW.

The Heartland Flyer is certainly not perfect and may not be as convenient for everyone, It could use more frequencies and it would be awesome if it were a little faster, but it is definitely more than a novelty for a bunch of people and has a practical use for both business and pleasure travel.

As far as an OKC-Tulsa train goes, I would use it for many of the same reasons I mentioned above but you can eliminate flying as a viable option unless you have a PJ. There have been times over the last decade and even this year when I've made that drive 1-4 times a week. I generally enjoy driving but hate driving the same route over and over and over again and between all the idiot semi drivers trying to pass while going up hills and just generally being tired of driving it, I am absolutely sick of driving on the Turner Turnpike. They could raise the speed limit 85 on the entire thing and I'd still rather take a 2-2.25 hour train over driving it every time and there are a decent number of frequent commuters who feel that way. At the minimum driving time that's between 2 hours 40 minutes and 10 hours per week that I'd get back as well as 240 to 960 miles (2,880 and 11,520 miles per year) I wouldn't put on my car if taking a train over driving.

If I was pressed for time or needed to go way out to BA or something like that, I'd probably bite the bullet and drive but if not, I'd much rather sit back and not have to focus on the road. It wouldn't be a solution for everyone but if the departure and arrival times were good and there were enough frequencies as well as special trains for thunder games, etc...I think a bunch of people would use it both ways even at a 2-2.25 hour trip. Additionally, if they were able to get speeds up from 45 mph - 60 mph with $2.35 million, it would be hard to imagine that it would be wildly cost prohibitive to bump that up to the 70-80 range (like the Flyer) if there was a will to do it at the state/federal level...which would further reduce travel time.

Maybe they could get the Chinese to build us a fantastic elevated high speed line......

Considering the Chinese are about as much of an expert in high speed rail as Japan and European countries they could teach us a thing or two about building quality rail within a reasonable budget. The US infrastructure costs are one of the biggest things holding our country back at the moment. There's no reason high speed rail should cost 5x more here than it does in Spain or other countries with more difficult terrain and similar labor pool costs.

Yeah I mean probably Uber, lime scooters, etc just like most people I know do if they live downtown in either city, are going out and will be drinking, are going out in somewhere that has decent transit like Denver but the light rail doesn’t make it all the way to their destination, and when visiting another city in general. You, your circle of friends and possibly your generation (I don’t know how old you are so sorry if assuming) might not do this much, but that type of thing is extremely common. Additionally Fort Worth’s train station has an enterprise rental car facility onsite as well as several other companies a short walk or Uber from the train station. I used to utilize that all the time if traveling for business last minute when flights to DFW or love were insanely expensive when I needed to go. Sitting on a train for 30 minutes to an hour longer than the drive but being able to relax or work during that time was great and if I only needed to go to Fort Worth it was often comparable in total travel time to flying.

For one, now that the tracks have been upgraded…it would not take double the driving time even with 4 stops, it should at most be just under an 2.5 hours but more likely closer to 2 hours even.. As long as the train ran from downtown to downtown, has a schedule that works and can travel at 60 mph (as it can now), I think it could work. If additionally, you ran some express trains, it would only be about 10-20 minutes longer than the drive…which for most people I know that commute frequently between OKC and Tulsa…the trade off of being able to relax, work or whatever and not have to drive the damn turnpike all the time would be worth it most of the time even at an 40 minutes longer. Especially if just going to Thunder games or events in either direction. If you’re going to either city for something that involves travel way outside of downtown and are on a tight schedule…it would probably be easier to drive but I would guess that the final destinations for people traveling to both cities decrease the farther you get from the cores.

That said, realistically I think it needs to be upgraded to run at 70-85 mph to be adopted as an option on a wide scale which should be possible.

Thanks for those links in the previous post. Did not realize they had been talking about upping the speed that much on that corridor. I was under the impression they were still looking at service with speeds averaging 40 ish MPH.

I personally think anything less than 75 MPH is likely a waste of time for rail between OKC and Tulsa. It needs to be somewhat competitive time wise and needs to have a decent enough frequency. 1 trip there and 1 trip back a day will not cut it. We need service like 4-6 times a day for it ever to be a realistic alternative too.

I see the argument bombermwc made all the time. How do people get around when the arrive at the airport? They don't fly with their car in their checked baggage. Transit at the destination point is irrelevant in Oklahoma for trains just as much as it is for an airport. Uber/Lyft have been it that way and there's also no reason Hertz, Enterprise, etc. couldn't have a rental location in the downtown cores of both cities if train service happened regularly. All the things you mentioned as well.

Maybe they could get the Chinese to build us a fantastic elevated high speed line......

No thanks - don't want to CCP to touch anything in America, if you've ever been to China outside of the 1st tier downtown areas. ...

@Phi Alpha - selling out 2 cars on the Flyer isn't really hard to do. They dont have many seats in the first place. But that's sort of my point. It is a novelty because it's not large enough to be able to support itself with its ticket intake. A Tulsa to OKC line would be the same. There just aren't enough people that want to deal with all the mess at each end.

Now, you take that same line and run it on a trip that takes more than 2 hours, and I think you have something. Stop competing with a car, and compete with the airplane. The train will always be slower but air travel is such a horrible cluster of awful these days, you might win a lot more fans with rail. I know the line doesn't exist, but just think about OKC to Denver. Depending on the route, the rail line may not be that far off from a car (even slightly faster) but isn't going beat the plane. But when you include the 2 hours for security, the train makes up some ground. That's the kind of longer distance travel (sort of medium distance) that I think these trains have a much better chance of being successful at.

The shorter lines, they just won't be able to win. If they could, we'd see a line from Dallas to Winstar instead of the constant stream of busses and cars that NEVER end. The convenience factor of having your own vehicle for the short distance, is just a practical reality. I would argue that the statement about relaxing or working on the train is very much a 1% view compared to the overwhelming majority. I'm not saying its going to fail just because I wont use it. I'm saying it's going to fail because there won't be sufficient user base to make it profitable without us having to subsidize it.

Many people have mentioned the Flyer. And how many years out of it's operation has it been able to fully fund itself?

...
Many people have mentioned the Flyer. And how many years out of it's operation has it been able to fully fund itself?

Probably never, and probably never will.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/072115/how-amtrak-works-makes-money.asp says "No country in the world operates a passenger rail system without public support."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/072115/how-amtrak-works-makes-money.asp says "No country in the world operates a passenger rail system without public support."

When will this simple truth ever be grasped by more Americans? Same goes for public transit.

The rhetoric is usually something like "why should your tax dollars be spent for other people to ride a ______ when you never ride it? If only we didn't have to pay for something that doesn't make a profit, you could get a tax cut."

Except the people who are targeted by this rhetoric never actually get the tax cut.....

What happened to the America that believed in serving the greater good and fell into this "every man for himself" nonsense?? I know the answer, but this is already more political than I wish it were, but it is the truth.

I was just looking at pricing on the heartland flyer and it's sold out the next two days so apparently someone is using it. I lived in Mesta Park, worked in software sales for 5 years and took the train for work 12-18 times per year. I certainly was not alone based on the conversations I had with others on those train trips. You mentioned some disadvantages (though some way exaggerated related to the train service here) but here are the advantages I saw over driving and flying in certain circumstances.

I live in Mesta Park and take it once every other month or so. I agree with all of your points. It's actually gotten to the point where every train from Friday through Sunday is pretty much completely full. Not sure if they've always done this but there is definitely dynamic pricing now where if you wait until the day or two before and there are still seats left it's going to cost you like $45-50 one way. So from a cost perspective now it is more than you are going to pay in gas just driving down which is unfortunate. However, one way tickets can be $20 if you book enough in advance.

They definitely need to add another car and/or second daily service train even if only on the weekends. I also wish they would consider an express train and skip most of the stops. It's pretty frustrating when it seems like they are required to stop at each station when not a single person gets on or off. Surely they already know this from the ticket sales? If the train is full it's not like someone is buying a ticket last minute. You'd probably save 20 minutes at least if it just went from OKC-Norman-Gainesville-Ft Worth and avoided all the other stops.

Yeah with flying you pay a premium for the convenience as you do with owning a vehicles…that’s why those industries are profitable. Not everyone can afford that and it doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be other options…even if slower right now.

@Phi Alpha - selling out 2 cars on the Flyer isn't really hard to do. They dont have many seats in the first place. But that's sort of my point. It is a novelty because it's not large enough to be able to support itself with its ticket intake. A Tulsa to OKC line would be the same. There just aren't enough people that want to deal with all the mess at each end.

Now, you take that same line and run it on a trip that takes more than 2 hours, and I think you have something. Stop competing with a car, and compete with the airplane. The train will always be slower but air travel is such a horrible cluster of awful these days, you might win a lot more fans with rail. I know the line doesn't exist, but just think about OKC to Denver. Depending on the route, the rail line may not be that far off from a car (even slightly faster) but isn't going beat the plane. But when you include the 2 hours for security, the train makes up some ground. That's the kind of longer distance travel (sort of medium distance) that I think these trains have a much better chance of being successful at.

The shorter lines, they just won't be able to win. If they could, we'd see a line from Dallas to Winstar instead of the constant stream of busses and cars that NEVER end. The convenience factor of having your own vehicle for the short distance, is just a practical reality. I would argue that the statement about relaxing or working on the train is very much a 1% view compared to the overwhelming majority. I'm not saying its going to fail just because I wont use it. I'm saying it's going to fail because there won't be sufficient user base to make it profitable without us having to subsidize it.

Many people have mentioned the Flyer. And how many years out of it's operation has it been able to fully fund itself?

The airline industry has massive subsidies, they just hide it better. How many trillions have we spent on airport terminals, runway improvements, air control towers, etc. etc. Tulsa alone has something like 200 million plus going into an air control tower and a few small projects like that. 200 million would go a long way for rail in our state too. There's a lot of the small regional flights that are subsidized too (Stillwater to Dallas and many others nationally).

You make the point that is key - you can't fully compete with cars or really airlines. It's finding that middle ground of routes long enough a car is inconvenient but short enough a plane isn't the easiest that connect major population centers. Routes like between OKC/Tulsa, Dallas/Houston, Dallas/Austin, Houston/Austin, etc are actually ripe for train travel if it is done correctly. Meaning fast speed and high enough frequency and dependability. Under 70 MPH and less than 5 trips a day will never make train travel work anywhere in the US.

i mean this thread is just more and more of the "well i don't personally see a use for me....so it must not be useful for anyone" argument.

The airline industry has massive subsidies, they just hide it better. How many trillions have we spent on airport terminals, runway improvements, air control towers, etc. etc. Tulsa alone has something like 200 million plus going into an air control tower and a few small projects like that. 200 million would go a long way for rail in our state too. There's a lot of the small regional flights that are subsidized too (Stillwater to Dallas and many others nationally).

You make the point that is key - you can't fully compete with cars or really airlines. It's finding that middle ground of routes long enough a car is inconvenient but short enough a plane isn't the easiest that connect major population centers. Routes like between OKC/Tulsa, Dallas/Houston, Dallas/Austin, Houston/Austin, etc are actually ripe for train travel if it is done correctly. Meaning fast speed and high enough frequency and dependability. Under 70 MPH and less than 5 trips a day will never make train travel work anywhere in the US.

^^^^
The more large cities Amtrak connects, the more it will be used. I'd be a frequent user if there was a line from Denver to OKC.

^^^^
The more large cities Amtrak connects, the more it will be used. I'd be a frequent user if there was a line from Denver to OKC.

Same here. Would beat the hell out of that drive and would be cheaper than flying.

i mean this thread is just more and more of the "well i don't personally see a use for me....so it must not be useful for anyone" argument.

That's not what we're saying at all. We're saying that when you invest like this, you need to invest in a way that makes sense and in a way that stands a chance of being successful. You dont shove millions of public dollars at something like this in hopes and dreams of bringing rail back to an area. A lot of what is being pushed, just does not make sense.

As okcrun said, part of my own frustration is the addition of all of the stops along the way. It's inefficient for the engine to stop and go like that (bad fuel economy) and the cost of the stop and go isn't recouped by the 1 person that might get on in podunk america. These need to be point to point express lines and the routes need to make sense. Pushing rural rail that isn't going to be attractive to rural america, is pointless. When your stop is halfway to the destination already, then you've lost that customer before you started. It's WAAAAY faster and a million times more convenient for that person to just drive.

I'm all for rail. But the way we've been trying to do it (and on the cheap mind you) just isn't the way that's going to make it successful in the long run without all of us paying to keep it afloat. And is that really the best thing?

i mean this thread is just more and more of the "well i don't personally see a use for me....so it must not be useful for anyone" argument.

That's not what we're saying at all. We're saying that when you invest like this, you need to invest in a way that makes sense and in a way that stands a chance of being successful. You dont shove millions of public dollars at something like this in hopes and dreams of bringing rail back to an area. A lot of what is being pushed, just does not make sense.

As okcrun said, part of my own frustration is the addition of all of the stops along the way. It's inefficient for the engine to stop and go like that (bad fuel economy) and the cost of the stop and go isn't recouped by the 1 person that might get on in podunk america. These need to be point to point express lines and the routes need to make sense. Pushing rural rail that isn't going to be attractive to rural america, is pointless. When your stop is halfway to the destination already, then you've lost that customer before you started. It's WAAAAY faster and a million times more convenient for that person to just drive.

I'm all for rail. But the way we've been trying to do it (and on the cheap mind you) just isn't the way that's going to make it successful in the long run without all of us paying to keep it afloat. And is that really the best thing?

I'm all for rail. But the way we've been trying to do it (and on the cheap mind you) just isn't the way that's going to make it successful in the long run without all of us paying to keep it afloat. And is that really the best thing?

I agree with this. So now the question is how do we get past trying to do it on the cheap????

It is going to require more public funding to make it viable in the manner described by many here. It will not be a revenue generator for the US government no matter how we go about restoring passenger rail to viability, so we need to remove that argument from consideration. And it will be the national government that will develop and operate any viable national rail network. That is how it is done in every developed nation that has such a system as a national asset.

Removing the outsized influence of entities with a vested interest in keeping as many vehicles on highways as possible will be the difficult part.

Removing the outsized influence of entities with a vested interest in keeping as many vehicles on highways as possible will be the difficult part.

You are correct.

Trying to reduce 70+ years of infrastructure built on the automobile is going to be hard. Gas stations, businesses, hotels, etc and in some places an entire city's tax base built upon what is built along the interstate and frontage roads.

If you build an efficient train system that took people from populated point A to B and bypassed these stops, there would be outcry from communities. Just look at the power of turnpike placement in Oklahoma.

Lucky enough for the auto industry, trains over long distances (especially west of the Mississippi) are not efficient compared to other methods. Most railroad tracks follow alignments from 100+ years ago, stop often in sparsely populated places far too often along the way, and can get expensive (just like airlines) when you have to pay for multiple tickets/seats, versus the automobile essentially costs the same on a trip versus one person or a family of four and can take you right where you need to go.

How much time would the Heartland Flyer save if it didn't stop in Ardmore, Pauls Valley, Purcell, Gainesville on its four hour journey to Fort Worth? Right now it averages around 50 miles an hour on its four hour journey. Would it be essentially the same as driving?

The trade-off for airlines is speed versus the costs involved. You are paying to be in Los Angeles or New York in around three hours departing from OKC. A train can't match that speed.

A few post back someone mentioned a train that could theoretically go from OKC to Denver. However, using existing infrastructure, you would go north through Newton, and then west towards Colorado, with about 15-20 stops along the way. Where maybe Wichita would see sizable detrainments and entrainments?

^^

That is a huge part of not doing it "on the cheap". In order for HSR to take the place of, or provide another alternative to, mid-range flights of 500 miles or less, entirely new rights of way are needed to straighten out the connections from population centers. The Texas HSR project is encountering all kinds of opposition even in rural areas where the plan is to elevate the tracks over agricultural areas to maintain access to areas divided by the line.

You are correct.

Trying to reduce 70+ years of infrastructure built on the automobile is going to be hard. Gas stations, businesses, hotels, etc and in some places an entire city's tax base built upon what is built along the interstate and frontage roads.

If you build an efficient train system that took people from populated point A to B and bypassed these stops, there would be outcry from communities. Just look at the power of turnpike placement in Oklahoma.

Lucky enough for the auto industry, trains over long distances (especially west of the Mississippi) are not efficient compared to other methods. Most railroad tracks follow alignments from 100+ years ago, stop often in sparsely populated places far too often along the way, and can get expensive (just like airlines) when you have to pay for multiple tickets/seats, versus the automobile essentially costs the same on a trip versus one person or a family of four and can take you right where you need to go.

How much time would the Heartland Flyer save if it didn't stop in Ardmore, Pauls Valley, Purcell, Gainesville on its four hour journey to Fort Worth? Right now it averages around 50 miles an hour on its four hour journey. Would it be essentially the same as driving?

The trade-off for airlines is speed versus the costs involved. You are paying to be in Los Angeles or New York in around three hours departing from OKC. A train can't match that speed.

A few post back someone mentioned a train that could theoretically go from OKC to Denver. However, using existing infrastructure, you would go north through Newton, and then west towards Colorado, with about 15-20 stops along the way. Where maybe Wichita would see sizable detrainments and entrainments?

Someone alluded to the lack of people getting on at small town stops...I feel like a good number of people get on the Flyer in small cities. Especially Ardmore.

You missed the whole point. It’s not about what I want to do. If taking the train doesn’t provide a tangible advantage to the alternative, most people won’t use the train. The Heartland Flyer is a prime example.

It is not. The main thing that holds the Heartland Flyer back from being more popular is that it has only 1 round trip per day - but even then it's still a popular service. I recently used it for a weekend getaway to Dallas, leaving on Thursday and returning on Monday, and the trip down was completely sold out with 3 cars on the train. The return trip still had 3 cars, and it was packed (though not entirely sold out). When taking the train, I can get from downtown OKC to downtown Fort Worth in just about 4 hours - not that much longer than driving - and not have to deal with traffic or parking at my destination, the seats are roomy and comfortable with tons of leg room, I can easily take my huge suitcase on board, I can get up and move around whenever I want, and the scenery is better than what you see from I-35 particularly through the Arbuckles. When the Wa****a river is full in the springtime, that couple of miles through Big Canyon is gorgeous. Once in Fort Worth, a combination of local transit and Lyft/Uber can get me wherever in the DFW metro I want to go, and their local transit is honestly quite a bit better than what we have here.

If Amtrak can work with ODOT/TxDOT to get additional trains rolling between OKC and FTW at more convenient times like they've talked about for the last few years as part of the Amtrak ConnectsUS plan, it will do quite a bit to enhance the popularity of the Heartland Flyer. They would also do well to establish a stop at Thackerville for the Winstar casino. Could even make 1 round trip frequency an express train,

Again, just because it doesn't provide a tangible advantage to you, doesn't mean it's dumb and a waste of time. It obviously provides benefit to many and ridership continues to grow - ridership for FY23 (October 2022-September 2023) hit 72,379 passengers, which is the highest ridership for the service in a full decade. Service expansion will only continue that growth.

It is not. The main thing that holds the Heartland Flyer back from being more popular is that it has only 1 round trip per day - but even then it's still a popular service. I recently used it for a weekend getaway to Dallas, leaving on Thursday and returning on Monday, and the trip down was completely sold out with 3 cars on the train. The return trip still had 3 cars, and it was packed (though not entirely sold out). When taking the train, I can get from downtown OKC to downtown Fort Worth in just about 4 hours - not that much longer than driving - and not have to deal with traffic or parking at my destination, the seats are roomy and comfortable with tons of leg room, I can easily take my huge suitcase on board, I can get up and move around whenever I want, and the scenery is better than what you see from I-35 particularly through the Arbuckles. When the Wa****a river is full in the springtime, that couple of miles through Big Canyon is gorgeous. Once in Fort Worth, a combination of local transit and Lyft/Uber can get me wherever in the DFW metro I want to go, and their local transit is honestly quite a bit better than what we have here.

If Amtrak can work with ODOT/TxDOT to get additional trains rolling between OKC and FTW at more convenient times like they've talked about for the last few years as part of the Amtrak ConnectsUS plan, it will do quite a bit to enhance the popularity of the Heartland Flyer. They would also do well to establish a stop at Thackerville for the Winstar casino. Could even make 1 round trip frequency an express train,

Again, just because it doesn't provide a tangible advantage to you, doesn't mean it's dumb and a waste of time. It obviously provides benefit to many and ridership continues to grow - ridership for FY23 (October 2022-September 2023) hit 72,379 passengers, which is the highest ridership for the service in a full decade. Service expansion will only continue that growth.

Wa****a LOL

Agree with your points.

Someone alluded to the lack of people getting on at small town stops...I feel like a good number of people get on the Flyer in small cities. Especially Ardmore.

This has been my observation as well. The Rail Passengers Association produces a fact sheet on routes every year, which includes activity (boardings AND alightings) by station. In FY22, the most recent year for which this fact sheet is available (https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3478/29.pdf), Fort Worth was the busiest station (56,708), followed by OKC (44,268), Norman (10,949), Gainesville (5,236), Ardmore (5,025), Pauls Valley (2,328), and Purcell (1,376). Smaller communities need love and travel options too, y'all - and they DO get used.

This has been my observation as well. The Rail Passengers Association produces a fact sheet on routes every year, which includes activity (boardings AND alightings) by station. In FY22, the most recent year for which this fact sheet is available (https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3478/29.pdf), Fort Worth was the busiest station (56,708), followed by OKC (44,268), Norman (10,949), Gainesville (5,236), Ardmore (5,025), Pauls Valley (2,328), and Purcell (1,376). Smaller communities need love and travel options too, y'all - and they DO get used.


Converted to average daily ridership....

Fort Worth - 155
OKC - 121
Norman - 30
Gainesville - 14
Ardmore - 13 to 14
Pauls Valley - 6
Purcell - 3 to 4

“No one uses X.”

*evidence of people using X*

“Not that many people use X.”

Converted to average daily ridership....

Fort Worth - 155
OKC - 121
Norman - 30
Gainesville - 14
Ardmore - 13 to 14
Pauls Valley - 6
Purcell - 3 to 4

So 20% of the daily ridership comes from stations between the two main stations. 11% being from actual small towns.

^^

That is a huge part of not doing it "on the cheap". In order for HSR to take the place of, or provide another alternative to, mid-range flights of 500 miles or less, entirely new rights of way are needed to straighten out the connections from population centers. The Texas HSR project is encountering all kinds of opposition even in rural areas where the plan is to elevate the tracks over agricultural areas to maintain access to areas divided by the line.

This is why HSR needs to be coupled with freight rail expansion. Many of the national freight lines are over capacity especially when being forced into major hubs like Chicago. Freight companies can do pretty much anything they want and this would allow for cheaper, faster, and easier right of way acquisition. Then double or triple track and electrify the lines to share between high speed passenger service and freight.

The only way to get around doing things 'cheap' is to get the airline lobby to back off and get the federal government to fund rail investment. That's where partnering with freight rail would be invaluable because they have a very effective lobby group and could go toe to toe with regional airlines for DOT funds.

Brightline is the future of passenger rail. They have adopted the Japanese investment model somewhat. Japan Rail (JR) makes most of their profit off real estate. Mixed-use development on top, inside, and around stations is where the $$$ is at and is the purpose of infrastructure in the first place. Brightline build several high-rises above the Miami station and made a ton of money off of that which helped go towards expanding services. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have a similar model in mind for Vegas. This could be replicated everywhere in the US.

So 20% of the daily ridership comes from stations between the two main stations. 11% being from actual small towns.

Or ~90% is OKC metro (OKC/Norman) and Ft Worth. Not saying that warrants necessarily cutting out the small towns entirely but they need to at least figure out a way to not stop if there are no ticketed riders at a given station. If they do add a second daily train there is really no reason it shouldn't be an express train between the two metros in both directions.

Guys, you're right, there are some people, but it's NOT many people. Less than 300 people on one train a day is NOT many people. That is not a sustainable profitable venture. That's one crappy regional jet leg to DFW.

Doing this the right way is at least tripling that on multiple trips a day on a HSR. Hell, have that thing stop at DFW and you've really got something. But otherwise, this is just a nifty little thing for enthusiasts. 300 people a day....it's laughable. Watch I-35 just going south from OK to TX for 30 minutes and you'll be several times over that.

I'm not going to argue that some people don't get on at the small towns. It's just not efficient and isn't any good for services. It's a VERY old-school method of thinking of rail like a local taxi. Fine, if you want it to be that, then you're going to have to be ok with it being slow, stop often, and not ever be funding sufficient. You're going to be paying for that through some sort of tax forever. If you're ok with that, fine, done. But I dont think we need to go back to the 1800's. My vision of rail is to get that mid-range regional jet traffic. You can turn those in to a longer distance trip just like you would with an airplane. But the local stuff? No, it's just not going to be logical or useful to any MEANINGFUL number of poeple. Again, not talking a 2 or 3 car train. I'm talking 10 cars. 3 cars is "oh look at that cute little heartland flyer that just went by. you dont get to see that often". We need it to be often enough and large enough that people ignore it like an AWACS in MWC because its so common, it's not "special".

Definitely not advocating hsr from OKC to DFW, that would KILL 'will rogers' and never make it into the Oklahoma City International Airport we're all hoping and desiring for. Can you imagine if you could get to DFW in (say) 90 min on HSR and then take a flight to just about anywhere you want? WHY would Oklahoma do that to its largest city?

,,,,,,,,

I think we need to always consider an OKC First type of mentality on these things - yes we want OKC to be connected (to DFW, Tulsa, and Wichita/Newton) but we want OKC to be the node and/or get the most benefit and not just kill ourselves for the sake of convenience, speed, or usage. If we're going to add a second train, make it start at FTW in the morning to feed Oklahoma City with Texans this time. Let's get OKC the benefitting city, rather than just the feeding city to TX.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's a plan for 3 round trips OKC-FTW and one round trip OKC-NTN per day. That if implemented would be the best solution, particularly if it followed a morning FTW-OKC-ICT-NTN for train 1 with evening return, a morning NTN-ICT-OKC-FTW for train 2 with evening return, and an OKC-FTW express say mid-day with a quick turn back for train 3. Train 1 and 2 would stop every town UNLESS there's no pax/mail or we could pick cities that are essential stops (like say Wichita, Norman, Ardmore) along with the OKC and FTW nodes while the train 3 would just be OKC-FTW. I'd like to see the OKC RTA solve the OKC-Norman situation with commuter rail and not have the express train 3 do that.

My point is, we don't cut out the small towns off routes (except express) but also we don't stop everytime just because there's a stop is along the route, this isn't a long distance train (it's a "Flyer") so Amtrak should be more prudent with stopping at the small towns unless theres a reason for the stops (pax, mail, dwell time, emergency, maintenance), and even if there's pax or mail it shouldn't be a long stop.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's a plan for 3 round trips OKC-FTW and one round trip OKC-NTN per day.

That if implemented would be the best solution, particularly if it followed a morning FTW-OKC-ICT-NTN for train 1 with evening return, a morning NTN-ICT-OKC-FTW for train 2 with evening return, and an OKC-FTW express say mid-day with a quick turn back for train 3. Train 1 and 2 would stop every town UNLESS there's no pax/mail or we could pick cities that are essential stops (like say Wichita, Norman, Ardmore) along with the OKC and FTW nodes while the train 3 would just be OKC-FTW. I'd like to see the OKC RTA solve the OKC-Norman situation with commuter rail and not have the express train 3 do that.

My point is, we don't cut out the small towns off routes (except express) but also we don't stop everytime just because there's a stop is along the route, this isn't a long distance train (it's a "Flyer") so Amtrak should be more prudent with stopping at the small towns unless theres a reason for the stops (pax, mail, dwell time, emergency, maintenance), and even if there's pax or mail it shouldn't be a long stop.

That is Amtrak's goal, yes. As of right now, only the 1x/daily extension from OKC to WIC/NEW has received planning funding, but they want to add 2 additional round trips between OKC-FTW. Because the extension to NEW is primarily intended to be a mid-continent connector between the Southwest Chief and the Texas Eagle, the schedule for this train will largely remain the same as today's train and thruway bus. In the Corridor ID grant application paperwork for the expansion to NEW, the proposed rough schedule was described as follows: Depart NEW southbound at 4:20am, arrive OKC at 8:15am, depart OKC at 8:25am, arrive FTW at 12:25pm - then depart FTW northbound at 5:25pm, arrive OKC at 9:39pm, depart OKC at 9:49pm, arrive NEW 1:46am.

If/when additional OKC-FTW frequencies are studied, my best guess is that they'll space them out throughout the day. I am just a nerd with zero insider information, but I'm imagining something along the lines of adding a morning train departing FTW northbound somewhere around 8:30am which would arrive in OKC around 12:30pm; after a quick turnaround in OKC it'd depart southbound around 1pm and arrive back in FTW around 5pm - then an afternoon train departing FTW northbound around 1pm which would arrive in OKC around 5pm; after a quick turnaround in OKC it'd depart southbound around 5:30pm and arrive back in FTW around 9:30pm.


My point is, we don't cut out the small towns off routes (except express) but also we don't stop everytime just because there's a stop is along the route, this isn't a long distance train (it's a "Flyer") so Amtrak should be more prudent with stopping at the small towns unless theres a reason for the stops (pax, mail, dwell time, emergency, maintenance), and even if there's pax or mail it shouldn't be a long stop.

Everyone gets so hung up on the intermediate stops... but as someone who's ridden the Heartland Flyer pretty regularly, those stops really aren't a big deal and don't significantly add to the overall travel time. It should be noted that currently the only station along the route with a scheduled dwell time for trash removal and smoke break is Ardmore, and that dwell is usually 5 minutes or less. At all other stations, the train stops only just long enough to alight and board passengers - generally only a minute or two. Amtrak's on board crew does know whether or not they should expect to board or alight passengers at any given stop, but at least in my experience it's rare that they have a stop without anyone getting on or off. The one time I can remember it happened, we pulled up to the platform and stopped, a conductor quickly verified the platform was empty, and then we continued on - all in like 10-15 seconds. The duration of a stop is directly proportional to the number of passengers boarding or alighting, but even so they're almost always very quick. This situation may change if the additional frequencies end up significantly increasing ridership to/from these intermediate stations, but right now it's really not an issue and the intermediate station stops add *maybe* 15 minutes to the overall travel time - if that.

I'll concede that to you baralheia. My question for some of the new plans is how that's compounded if we have a line that has 10 stops. Simply because those add up. So I question the efficiency (and fuel efficiency) of stop and go traffic like that vs a long-haul non-stop. Thinking of the line from Tulsa to DFW in the proposals. If you stop at say McAlister, ok. But if you stop at 10 small towns along the way, then each one of those can start to add up over the longer-haul.

But i'll also concede that in my mind, i'm thinking the really only way for these to be successful long term, is to treat them like regional jet airlines. Medium range point to point connections. You wouldn't make the regional jet airport hop for the same reason. Yeah, that's not exactly apples to apples, i know. But at the 10k foot (pun) level, it's sort of the same idea.

I'll concede that to you baralheia. My question for some of the new plans is how that's compounded if we have a line that has 10 stops. Simply because those add up. So I question the efficiency (and fuel efficiency) of stop and go traffic like that vs a long-haul non-stop. Thinking of the line from Tulsa to DFW in the proposals. If you stop at say McAlister, ok. But if you stop at 10 small towns along the way, then each one of those can start to add up over the longer-haul.

But i'll also concede that in my mind, i'm thinking the really only way for these to be successful long term, is to treat them like regional jet airlines. Medium range point to point connections. You wouldn't make the regional jet airport hop for the same reason. Yeah, that's not exactly apples to apples, i know. But at the 10k foot (pun) level, it's sort of the same idea.

In truth, your comparison is apt - that's not unlike how Amtrak envisions it's future as well. Although they still recognize the importance of long-distance routes, their primary focus for network expansion is in what they call "corridor services" - state supported routes under 750mi in length. This focus is also why money from the infrastructure bill is already flowing to states through the Corridor ID program to kickstart service development plans for these routes, and why the long distance routes we've been discussing (such as the proposed routes that would serve Tulsa) are still only in the early conceptual phase. But part of what Amtrak is intended to do is not just serve the major cities at the endpoints of a route, but also the communities the train passes through. In many cases, Amtrak is the only carrier that serves some of these places, like Purcell or Pauls Valley, providing essential transportation services that they wouldn't otherwise have. And because they're already along the route, it's trivial from a time and efficiency standpoint to have the train stop there - unlike, say, a regional jet. But you're right, if there are too many stops along a given corridor, it can start to negatively impact the overall travel time so that must be balanced with the actual community need and potential ridership of any given stop. As long as the stops are carefully chosen, it's my opinion that intermediate stops along a corridor are a net positive to the train - and in the case of the Heartland Flyer, I think they've done a good job of choosing appropriate stops.

In the case of a potential train to Tulsa via OKC, I think the only intermediate stops that make sense at first blush (without being privy to any studies) would be in Stroud, Bristow, and Sapulpa, with Chandler being a strong "maybe". The only one of these that has facilities that could serve a passenger train *today* is Bristow.

I'll concede that to you baralheia. My question for some of the new plans is how that's compounded if we have a line that has 10 stops. Simply because those add up. So I question the efficiency (and fuel efficiency) of stop and go traffic like that vs a long-haul non-stop. Thinking of the line from Tulsa to DFW in the proposals. If you stop at say McAlister, ok. But if you stop at 10 small towns along the way, then each one of those can start to add up over the longer-haul.

But i'll also concede that in my mind, i'm thinking the really only way for these to be successful long term, is to treat them like regional jet airlines. Medium range point to point connections. You wouldn't make the regional jet airport hop for the same reason. Yeah, that's not exactly apples to apples, i know. But at the 10k foot (pun) level, it's sort of the same idea.

Most successful rail systems have local and express routes.

And 100,000,000 people along the routes.

KDOT will be hosting a meeting to give an update on its Passenger Rail Service Plan Development (SDP) this Wednesday, Dec. 11, from 1 to 2 p.m.

You can learn more here: https://www.ksdot.gov/passrail/

Amtrak was a Biden pet. I think you can count on cuts to rail now instead of expansion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK8p9XqcfKg

Unless they are able to build their own lines and stop having to share with freight, this is all doomed to the slow lane in a long slow death.

The heartland flyer has been in service for a quarter century and ridership has only increased, with serious talks about expanding the schedule.

Amtrak shows only about 6,000 riders a month, or 200 a day. Thats not many. What is our cost per rider now?

Amtrak was a Biden pet. I think you can count on cuts to rail now instead of expansion.

^This. Billionaires don't ride trains. More tax cuts for private jets, though.

^This. Billionaires don't ride trains. More tax cuts for private jets, though.

Huh....... political commentary. Imagine that!

It wasn't a Biden pet, it started 20 years before he was here folks. Don't turn this into some BS political crap that doesn't exist.

Amtrak shows only about 6,000 riders a month, or 200 a day. Thats not many. What is our cost per rider now?

Looks like tickets are $31 one-way. Don't what the cost to Amtrak is

It wasn't a Biden pet, it started 20 years before he was here folks. Don't turn this into some BS political crap that doesn't exist.

I don't think this is political but is reality that funding for mass trans and train support was a priority for this administration and seems to not be supported as a priority by the incoming. That can have effects on the rate of funding and how long it takes for the long term vision is fulfilled. Virtually nothing of this size and scope is the domain of any particular admin, but can be affected greatly by where that admin wants to spend money or enable investments.

Do you all think commuter trains can be profitable in Oklahoma, at least in the next 10-15 years? I don't see a lot of Oklahomans use "poor people" transportation (bus, train, etc.) unless they absolutely have to. I would think most would rather drive or fly (obviously, I'm in this camp).

The cost to make a fast commuter line that could connect Purcell, Norman, Moore, SOKC, downtown, Edmond and Guthrie would be absolutely ridiculous but I think it would get riders.
Same with Shawnee, Mid/Del, Downtown, airport, Yukon and Mustang. I think both lines would have enough to cover to operating costs but I can't even imagine what the build cost would be for both of these. This makes way more sense to me than building more turnpikes in the metro and surrounding.

Do you all think commuter trains can be profitable in Oklahoma, at least in the next 10-15 years? I don't see a lot of Oklahomans use "poor people" transportation (bus, train, etc.) unless they absolutely have to. I would think most would rather drive or fly (obviously, I'm in this camp).

I get what you're saying, but the way you said that sounds kind a-holey..."poor people". Come on.

I've said this for years, unless you can make a commuter train faster than a car or at least more convenient, then you are fighting a losing battle. We lack the population and the density to make one work here. If I have to transfer 2 trains to get from MWC to NW OKC or Yukon to Edmond, and it takes an hour...well you've lost. It has to be cheap, fast (compared to a car), and easy. We have none of that today.

On the worst of traffic days going from 50th ish and Hefner Parkway down to Moore, it takes 40-45 minutes. When it's not stupid, it takes 30. When there's no traffic, it's 15-20. I honestly think you'd have to see about double that to make any sort of train faster. And if there aren't lots of express lines also running with the multi-stop lines, well you're also losing.

When we lost the street cars, we lost a foundation we'll never get back. But we're all at least 50 years (if not more) away from being even close to where this is going to happen and be sustainable. We might be able to build something that looks like a commuter line on re-habbed freight lines that then we have to share space with. But that also makes things slower. It might last for a while but you'll see it either have to be subsidized to survive or high ticket prices. Ticket prices would be the death of it and then you tell me why it should be subsidized instead of things like public health or other services that the citizens need much more?

'Tis doomed folks, unless your version of success is the Heartland Flyer with it's microscopic ridership.

I love trains. I love mass transit in general. I think it makes for a healthier and more pleasant city. Unfortunately, the OKC of today is just not set up for it to be a daily event for most. I could see one line from Edmond to Norman possibly working for big events. But for daily use? In 2025 it’s too convenient for most to drive. There are a couple of events on the horizon, though. Right now, a lot of people are driving 5 and 10 year old cars that are paid off. Have you seen the prices of new or even slightly used cars? Welp. I also think long-term the cost of gas keeps rising. So there may be economic factors coming into play. When that really starts to take hold, OKC is going to be in a world of hurt. Better to plan now.

I get what you're saying, but the way you said that sounds kind a-holey..."poor people". Come on.

I've said this for years, unless you can make a commuter train faster than a car or at least more convenient, then you are fighting a losing battle. We lack the population and the density to make one work here. If I have to transfer 2 trains to get from MWC to NW OKC or Yukon to Edmond, and it takes an hour...well you've lost. It has to be cheap, fast (compared to a car), and easy. We have none of that today.

On the worst of traffic days going from 50th ish and Hefner Parkway down to Moore, it takes 40-45 minutes. When it's not stupid, it takes 30. When there's no traffic, it's 15-20. I honestly think you'd have to see about double that to make any sort of train faster. And if there aren't lots of express lines also running with the multi-stop lines, well you're also losing.

When we lost the street cars, we lost a foundation we'll never get back. But we're all at least 50 years (if not more) away from being even close to where this is going to happen and be sustainable. We might be able to build something that looks like a commuter line on re-habbed freight lines that then we have to share space with. But that also makes things slower. It might last for a while but you'll see it either have to be subsidized to survive or high ticket prices. Ticket prices would be the death of it and then you tell me why it should be subsidized instead of things like public health or other services that the citizens need much more?

'Tis doomed folks, unless your version of success is the Heartland Flyer with it's microscopic ridership.

Having worked for the BNSF/ATSF for 38 years as a conductor, it’s going to be impossible to run regularly scheduled commuter trains Edmond to Norman, unless someone pays an extraordinary amount of money to double track the entire line, and that means bridges. And even then how many people will use it. Remember the trolley and its expectations. I would love it had we kept our original trolley and interurban, and expanded them rather than roads and cars. The current main line was never built for commuters. How many people will drive across Edmond and park their cars, to ride downtown?

Wasn't BNSF going to be the operator of the commuter train?

I think that's part of what he's saying. It's not practical. Freight owned lines will always prioritize freight. And if you owned the line, wouldn't you prioritize your own traffic and make the loaner wait?

The amount of money it would take to build these lines is astronomical. And frankly, is a pipe dream that will not happen. And the longer we wait, the more expensive it will get as we build more and more. It will be to the point where it's never going to be economically feasible for the system to pay for itself.

Some cities have gone above ground to get around that. but that's expensive in a whole other way. And maintenance for those systems is a LOT higher. Detroit even had to give away rides to get people on their downtown system. Little Rock is more like OKC's downtown system. It's "cute" but it's not really a major demand item. Few people can utilize that to get to and from work in the core.

It's just not gonna happen folks. Busses, yes. Those will be around and will be what serves this need for the next 50 years. Their flexible nature in where the line goes make then too easy to deploy and adjust on the fly. Bridge closed? go around. Trains can't do that. Need more seats, just swap that shuttle bus for a larger size one from another route at lunch by just having the driver move between vehicles. As much as I do not like the bus method, it still just makes the most sense. Embark is here to stay yall.