Amtrak News/Updates

[Mississippi Blues]

So, the idea is to persuade people to NOT use highways. If it takes 2 hours to drive to Tulsa by car but 4 1/2 hours by rail, few will use thec rail. The l-44 route should be used to build new straight rail with maybe 1 stop at Stroud.

4.5 hours is quicker than the current options for taking passenger rail to Tulsa. That doesn’t mean 4.5 hours is what anyone should be content with, but it seems those (generally speaking - no one in particular) that focus largely on the speed aspect overlook how many people value convenience. That doesn’t mean that speed isn’t important, speed plays into convenience, but if there’s a viable alternative it’s usually not difficult to get people to adjust their mentality.

In an ideal world, there could be an express service that goes directly from Okla City to Tulsa at higher speeds or at least makes no more than one stop, probably Stroud like you said, and a separate local route that stops at various towns along the route to service the local population. I suspect it’ll be a long time before we will have to seriously entertain such a conversation, though.

Edit: or an express route via Stillwater, like UrbanistPoke suggested. That’s an interesting thought I haven’t considered.

[HOT ROD]

yes, the Stillwater route makes a lot of sense and checks a lot of boxes.

Let's get the word out so this can be considered, I agree it would be the best option while keeping costs as low as possible. Certainly doesn't have to follow the road or 'back-road' to conenct the two metros, and connecting both to the 2nd largest university is the cherry on the top.

[baralheia]

A better route that for the life of me has never been looked into is connecting Tulsa and Oklahoma City through Stillwater. There seems to be an obsession with the DOT and transportation officials and Tulsa/OKC officials for the I-44 route with never studying any alternatives. Just because that the 'straight-line' or as the bird fly's route.

The current freight lines are so curvy, go through so many towns, it's highly forested, the terrain is way more difficult, etc. that it is cost prohibitive to get to a legitimate speed to make it worth not driving. The Turner now has very limited right of way which makes it even less desirable of a corridor for high speed rail or even moderate speed rail given there's little option to save on right of way costs that'd be needed to builder a straighter route to allow for high speed trains.

Connecting through Stillwater would add only 30 miles from downtown to downtown of OKC & Tulsa (if you can get much faster speed this route is would be a matter of maybe 10 minutes or less in additional time). You would also connect the university on game days to both markets plus would then connect Tulsa to Wichita via rail too. The only issue would be extending the rail line that now terminates in Stillwater over to I-35 to the Newtown corridor track that the north Heartland Flyer will use. That would be cheaper than upgrading the I-44 corridor that the biggest city it'd connect is Stroud to OKC & Tulsa. Economically, that would be so much better for the state connecting another major research institution within 30-45 minutes of both urban cores.

Tulsa - Stroud - OKC is about a 110 mile route via current freight lines
Tulsa - Mannford/Pawnee - Stillwater - Guthrie/Edmond - OKC is about 140 miles * which could be lessened by 10 miles if they utilized the Cimarron right of way from Hallet to the Y to reconnect back into the freight line. Would require 20 miles of brand new track to get from Stillwater to the I-35 connection to the Heartland Flyer north corridor.

Upgrade these corridors to allow 125 mph trains and you could get from Wichita to Tulsa in about 90 minutes, OKC to Tulsa via in about 60 minutes, OKC to Wichita in about 75 minutes, OKC to Stillwater in about 35 minutes, Tulsa to Stillwater in about 40-45 minutes. Then keep extending east on the new I-42 corridor and another 40 miles from downtown Tulsa you're at MidAmerica (less than 30 additional minutes) and 100 miles you'd be in Springdale. OKC to NWA in about 2 hours via Stillwater/Tulsa.

It's not a bad idea - but it has problems... the biggest of which is there is no rail route through Stillwater right now. An OKC-TUL train could definitely use the BNSF Red Rock sub north out of OKC, then turn eastbound on the Avard sub at a point called Black Bear (NW of Perry), which would take you all the way into Tulsa. To get to Stillwater, a passenger train would need to switch to a spur that's owned by the Stillwater Central Railroad (SLWC) in Pawnee and then back down ~22 miles of track into the city. From what I understand, the Pawnee-Stillwater spur has not been maintained well and I don't even think SLWC has run freight out there in a year or three, so getting a passenger train there would not be easy or cheap. That entire segment of track would likely need to be fully rebuilt to support higher-speed passenger operations. If you wanted to build some new rail south of Stillwater to connect back to the Red Rock Sub, it could be done but I don't think it'd be cheap either. This connection once existed, but was abandoned in the late 50's per the Abandoned Rails site; the old route took advantage of the flat terrain along the Cimarron River to connect back to the Red Rock sub just north of Guthrie at a point known as E.O. Junction. This probably could be shortened somewhat if rebuilt, but we're still talking about needing to build/rebuild at least 40 miles worth of track... and I'm not certain how feasible or cost effective that would really be.

One other option could be a connection between Stillwater and Davenport; SLWC has talked about rebuilding a former line between Davenport and Cushing. If that were done, it could be extended to reconnect with the line in Stillwater, enabling a routing via the Sooner Sub from OKC to Davenport, Davenport to Stillwater to Pawnee, Pawnee to Tulsa. That said, Davenport to Cushing is looking less and less likely as time goes on; it's been in discussion for about a decade now.

[macchiato]

I assure you an OKC - Tulsa connection using existing rail would not take 4 hours. The Flyer currently gets to Fort Worth within that time frame.

[baralheia]

I assure you an OKC - Tulsa connection using existing rail would not take 4 hours. The Flyer currently gets to Fort Worth within that time frame.

It would, unfortunately, take longer than you might think using the current rail infrastructure. It's important to note that the Heartland Flyer can make it to FTW in 4 hours largely because it can operate at 79mph for the majority of it's route due to the good condition of the track and few curves requiring speed restrictions. On the other hand, the Sooner subdivision line that goes between OKC and Sapulpa would need a fair amount of upgrades to support higher passenger speeds - but even then speeds would still be limited in many areas due to how curvy the track is. There's about 130 curves along that line - many of which have permanent speed restrictions on them, per someone who used to run trains over the line. It wouldn't take 4 hours - but without some significant investment in track straightening, it would still struggle to compete with driving time-wise. You can see what I mean if you look at the official Oklahoma State Railroad Map (caution: large download) - the purple line marked SLWC between OKC and Sapulpa is the Sooner Sub. All of those little wiggles back and forth in the line illustrate how curvy the route is. Back when the line was still used for passenger service, the Frisco's quickest train between downtown OKC and downtown Tulsa - the Meteor - took 2½ hours to complete the trip, including stops in Sapulpa, Bristow, and Chandler. And that was when the track was still in good condition with superelevation through the curves. The Eastern Flyer demonstration trains added an hour to that, and only ran between Midwest City and Sapulpa instead of downtown to downtown. Without significant investment in the line to improve track condition, straighten curves where possible, and add superelevation where curves can't be avoided, I would not expect passenger service to be competitive here. I really wish I could say otherwise because I badly want a train between here and Tulsa!

[Mountaingoat]

I assure you an OKC - Tulsa connection using existing rail would not take 4 hours. The Flyer currently gets to Fort Worth within that time frame.

It sure as h**l would on the existing tracks. Follow their winding route on google earth or a map. If you read the post it's why l said new tracks should be built generally along the l-44 route.

[UrbanistPoke]

It's not a bad idea - but it has problems... the biggest of which is there is no rail route through Stillwater right now. An OKC-TUL train could definitely use the BNSF Red Rock sub north out of OKC, then turn eastbound on the Avard sub at a point called Black Bear (NW of Perry), which would take you all the way into Tulsa. To get to Stillwater, a passenger train would need to switch to a spur that's owned by the Stillwater Central Railroad (SLWC) in Pawnee and then back down ~22 miles of track into the city. From what I understand, the Pawnee-Stillwater spur has not been maintained well and I don't even think SLWC has run freight out there in a year or three, so getting a passenger train there would not be easy or cheap. That entire segment of track would likely need to be fully rebuilt to support higher-speed passenger operations. If you wanted to build some new rail south of Stillwater to connect back to the Red Rock Sub, it could be done but I don't think it'd be cheap either. This connection once existed, but was abandoned in the late 50's per the Abandoned Rails site; the old route took advantage of the flat terrain along the Cimarron River to connect back to the Red Rock sub just north of Guthrie at a point known as E.O. Junction. This probably could be shortened somewhat if rebuilt, but we're still talking about needing to build/rebuild at least 40 miles worth of track... and I'm not certain how feasible or cost effective that would really be.

One other option could be a connection between Stillwater and Davenport; SLWC has talked about rebuilding a former line between Davenport and Cushing. If that were done, it could be extended to reconnect with the line in Stillwater, enabling a routing via the Sooner Sub from OKC to Davenport, Davenport to Stillwater to Pawnee, Pawnee to Tulsa. That said, Davenport to Cushing is looking less and less likely as time goes on; it's been in discussion for about a decade now.

I did mention that there is no rail route through Stillwater that would connect to the line that'd take you into OKC. I do however think that it would likely be cheaper to build new track to make that connection and fix up the line between Stillwater and Tulsa than it would be to build along the I-44 route whether it was to straighten the track or acquire additional right of way along the Turner. It would likely be better as I had mentioned to cut the Pawnee section out of that existing line and once you hit 412 past Mannford just use that right of way to go west to Stillwater, would cut at least 10 miles off the route that way too. The benefits of investing in the Stillwater route is that it's nearly halfway between OKC/Wichita which means that not only would you connect Tulsa with OKC you could connect to Wichita as well while an I-44 route would not be able to serve double duty. You'd also be connecting a major secondary market that has strong travel patterns even on non game days between both OKC & Tulsa versus connecting Stroud.

The terrain along US 412/Cimarron is far less challenging than I-44 too so if you're upgrading track to serve at least 75 mph than 412 is the superior corridor for that. Plus the demand for gamedays too would be a nice revenue boost too for any passenger rail service. Imagine being able to take a train, tailgate all day go to a game and just sober up or nap on the ride back after a game. For both OU or OSU football, basketball, etc.

I would think the turnpike authority could be interested if you pitched it as a chance to finish the Y spur - instead of having it dead end at 177, extend it all the way to I-35 and sign it as I-242 or something once I-42 is established with rail running down the center right of way. Could serve as an additional freight route between all the major cities too if you double track it. There is also no east/west freight route out of NWA so if you long term are thinking connections between all these areas and do a partnership between turnpike authority, a freight rail company, and Amtrak or someone like Brightline, etc. for passenger rail it make sense at least to me and feel far more viable than the I-44 corridor in terms of economic benefits and potential demand for freight and passengers operations.

[OKCisOK4me]

It sure as h**l would on the existing tracks. Follow their winding route on google earth or a map. If you read the post it's why l said new tracks should be built generally along the l-44 route.

100% accurate... the line as is has a 40mph speed limit due to condition of current track. Also, even if upgraded to a higher weight limit and continuous welded rail, there are still too many curves in this line to allow anything above 60mph. That's not going to compete with Turner.

Of note, Amtrak on the Heartland Flyer route in Oklahoma, is 70mph, while in Texas, it is only 55mph and because it is BNSF, freight gets priority over Amtrak. Be thankful the time to Ft. Worth is only 4.5 hours on average cause it could be worse!

[PhiAlpha]

I did mention that there is no rail route through Stillwater that would connect to the line that'd take you into OKC. I do however think that it would likely be cheaper to build new track to make that connection and fix up the line between Stillwater and Tulsa than it would be to build along the I-44 route whether it was to straighten the track or acquire additional right of way along the Turner. It would likely be better as I had mentioned to cut the Pawnee section out of that existing line and once you hit 412 past Mannford just use that right of way to go west to Stillwater, would cut at least 10 miles off the route that way too. The benefits of investing in the Stillwater route is that it's nearly halfway between OKC/Wichita which means that not only would you connect Tulsa with OKC you could connect to Wichita as well while an I-44 route would not be able to serve double duty. You'd also be connecting a major secondary market that has strong travel patterns even on non game days between both OKC & Tulsa versus connecting Stroud.

The terrain along US 412/Cimarron is far less challenging than I-44 too so if you're upgrading track to serve at least 75 mph than 412 is the superior corridor for that. Plus the demand for gamedays too would be a nice revenue boost too for any passenger rail service. Imagine being able to take a train, tailgate all day go to a game and just sober up or nap on the ride back after a game. For both OU or OSU football, basketball, etc.

I would think the turnpike authority could be interested if you pitched it as a chance to finish the Y spur - instead of having it dead end at 177, extend it all the way to I-35 and sign it as I-242 or something once I-42 is established with rail running down the center right of way. Could serve as an additional freight route between all the major cities too if you double track it. There is also no east/west freight route out of NWA so if you long term are thinking connections between all these areas and do a partnership between turnpike authority, a freight rail company, and Amtrak or someone like Brightline, etc. for passenger rail it make sense at least to me and feel far more viable than the I-44 corridor in terms of economic benefits and potential demand for freight and passengers operations.

By far the easiest and most realistic option is to rework the track on the current line as they were proposing to a few years ago for the Eastern Flyer which would’ve cut the travel time down fairly substantially. I don’t think any option involving laying new rails down a new right of way is going to be realistic for a long time. Hopefully some of these long haul routes will have enough funding to allow for something like that if approved but I have a feeling they’ll try to rework old rail right of ways before laying something along the turnpike or anywhere else. Either way, I don’t think there is any way that going through stillwater would be a viable option chosen as part of one of these national routes. Just too far out of the way for it to make sense on either of them.

[oklip955]

How was Stillwater serviced by rail back in the day? I know a number of rail routes were abandoned in the area. I think rr right of way should stay in place for future use. Now how to recover some of this is the question.

[UrbanistPoke]

How was Stillwater serviced by rail back in the day? I know a number of rail routes were abandoned in the area. I think rr right of way should stay in place for future use. Now how to recover some of this is the question.

Unfortunately Stillwater never had any type of rail connection west or really even directly east. It had connections east toward Tulsa via the Pawnee line that still exists and southeast to Cushing which I think that line is abandoned now/does not have right of way that exists anymore. https://www.american-rails.com/ok.html#gallery[pageGallery]/1/

Any type of rail connection through Stillwater would have to be new build. The best way to make that happen in the current funding environment would be to do some sort of partnership with a freight rail company like maybe BNSF or someone similar that could take over the route and expand it and pay for a portion of the costs. Partner with OTA and say a train ticket between OKC and Stillwater or Tulsa and Stillwater would cost $25 then pay OTA the $5 toll cost as part of that per passenger so they still get their 'toll' per person and then let the rail companies utilize the 412 right of way owned by OTA. Get OTA to partner on the extension from Stillwater to I-35. Stillwater needs a faster car connection to I-35 too than Highway 51 and it's always been dumbfounding to me why the Y stops at 177 versus going all the way to I-35.

[UrbanistPoke]

By far the easiest and most realistic option is to rework the track on the current line as they were proposing to a few years ago for the Eastern Flyer which would’ve cut the travel time down fairly substantially. I don’t think any option involving laying new rails down a new right of way is going to be realistic for a long time. Hopefully some of these long haul routes will have enough funding to allow for something like that if approved but I have a feeling they’ll try to rework old rail right of ways before laying something along the turnpike or anywhere else. Either way, I don’t think there is any way that going through stillwater would be a viable option chosen as part of one of these national routes. Just too far out of the way for it to make sense on either of them.

No doubt it's the most realistic/easiest. However, it will be VERY expensive to ever get that corridor where you could facilitate trains faster than 75 mph. Frankly, I don't see how it would be very worthwhile to have train service between the two if it's only averaging 40-45 mph or so. The idea is to build rail that is viable for commuters/travelers that can ease longterm congestion in this region. In 25 years when OKC is pushing 2 million or over and Tulsa is pushing 1.5-7 million and NWA is over 1 million the traffic along I-44/412 is going to be awful. I'd rather not have to 8-10 lane the Turner, etc. and spend some of that money building legit regional train travel that can then longterm connect into the Texas HSR system and up to the St. Louis/Chicago HSR corridors that are being planned too.

[Swake]

No doubt it's the most realistic/easiest. However, it will be VERY expensive to ever get that corridor where you could facilitate trains faster than 75 mph. Frankly, I don't see how it would be very worthwhile to have train service between the two if it's only averaging 40-45 mph or so. The idea is to build rail that is viable for commuters/travelers that can ease longterm congestion in this region. In 25 years when OKC is pushing 2 million or over and Tulsa is pushing 1.5-7 million and NWA is over 1 million the traffic along I-44/412 is going to be awful. I'd rather not have to 8-10 lane the Turner, etc. and spend some of that money building legit regional train travel that can then longterm connect into the Texas HSR system and up to the St. Louis/Chicago HSR corridors that are being planned too.

The new upgraded Turner should have been built with space in the median for high speed rail. OTA would get a cut of every ticket and at 200+ MPH you could travel the entire turnpike route in under 26 minutes. Downtown to downtown in probably under 45 minutes.

If the state were forward thinking.

[Snowman]

... Stillwater needs a faster car connection to I-35 too than Highway 51 and it's always been dumbfounding to me why the Y stops at 177 versus going all the way to I-35.

When they built the turnpike spur, there was way less west of Western road, so the stoplights would not be there yet and speed probably was higher further into town. So would be easy to for OTA to look at that kind of situation and expect a low percentage of people would take the option of a tolled route if it were present.

[PhiAlpha]

No doubt it's the most realistic/easiest. However, it will be VERY expensive to ever get that corridor where you could facilitate trains faster than 75 mph. Frankly, I don't see how it would be very worthwhile to have train service between the two if it's only averaging 40-45 mph or so. The idea is to build rail that is viable for commuters/travelers that can ease longterm congestion in this region. In 25 years when OKC is pushing 2 million or over and Tulsa is pushing 1.5-7 million and NWA is over 1 million the traffic along I-44/412 is going to be awful. I'd rather not have to 8-10 lane the Turner, etc. and spend some of that money building legit regional train travel that can then longterm connect into the Texas HSR system and up to the St. Louis/Chicago HSR corridors that are being planned too.

Back in the day the travel time was 3 hours even to go 117.2 miles with 11 stops between OKC and Tulsa that was an average speed of 30 MPH (with time stops included). (Link 1)

The Eastern Flyer travel time between Sapulpa and Midwest city was supposed to be 2 hours and 50 minutes without any upgrades to the tract (Speed limit of 40-45 mph) and that was with 4 stops in between (comes out to an average of 34.4 mph with the stop time included). Tack on probably 10 more minutes to OKC and 10-20 more to Tulsa if access to the BNSF/UP lines was granted. (Link 2)

The plan was to realign a few sections, add signals and a few other upgrades that would bring the Sooner Sub up to Class III which would've allowed speeds up to 60 MPH and the cost on that was only $2.35 million.(Link 3) According to ODOT and WATCO, those upgrades were made in 2016 and passenger train speeds of 60 MPH are now possible(Link 4)

If they were able to spend $2.35 Million to upgrade from 40-60 mph, then conceivably it should be possible and not overly cost prohibitive (especially compared to laying 100-120 miles of new track) to get it up to turnpike speeds (70-80 mph) which has been the opinion of OK rail advocates who are way more knowledgeable on it than I am (Link 5).

All of that to say, if conventional rail is all that's on the table, it would make a ton more sense to do it along the current line. The class III upgrade should make it significantly faster than the 3+ hour trip that was initially proposed (it should be somewhere between just under 2 hours and 2 hours, 20 minutes) and express trains and/or additional track upgrades would make it faster. I also don't think it makes sense to completely bypass every town between the two city centers if it's just conventional rail and infrastructure is already in place. Now if they were going to go for high speed rail eventually, laying new straight track along the turnpike with a few stops on the line would be a better plan but for standard conventional rail, the cost of using the current track and ROW and upgrading where necessary wouldn't be in the same stratosphere as adding a new line along I-44, would accomplish the same thing and likely serve more people between the two cities. No point in hunting deer with a howitzer.

1. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid...28514310520985
2. https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=...60219357350533
3. http://chrome-extension://efaidnbmnn...H4W0QYlBZDxeds
4. https://www.facebook.com/friendsofpa...FvLzjdpw831zPl
5. https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news...-tulsa-and-okc

[mugofbeer]

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

[PhiAlpha]

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

[cinnamonjock]

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

In 1977 the town of Vulcan, WV, asked the Soviet Union to build them a new bridge after they were refused by the state and federal government: https://www.wvencyclopedia.org/print/Article/2433

[bombermwc]

Back in the day the travel time was 3 hours even to go 117.2 miles with 11 stops between OKC and Tulsa that was an average speed of 30 MPH (with time stops included). (Link 1)

The Eastern Flyer travel time between Sapulpa and Midwest city was supposed to be 2 hours and 50 minutes without any upgrades to the tract (Speed limit of 40-45 mph) and that was with 4 stops in between (comes out to an average of 34.4 mph with the stop time included). Tack on probably 10 more minutes to OKC and 10-20 more to Tulsa if access to the BNSF/UP lines was granted. (Link 2)

The plan was to realign a few sections, add signals and a few other upgrades that would bring the Sooner Sub up to Class III which would've allowed speeds up to 60 MPH and the cost on that was only $2.35 million.(Link 3) According to ODOT and WATCO, those upgrades were made in 2016 and passenger train speeds of 60 MPH are now possible(Link 4)

If they were able to spend $2.35 Million to upgrade from 40-60 mph, then conceivably it should be possible and not overly cost prohibitive (especially compared to laying 100-120 miles of new track) to get it up to turnpike speeds (70-80 mph) which has been the opinion of OK rail advocates who are way more knowledgeable on it than I am (Link 5).

All of that to say, if conventional rail is all that's on the table, it would make a ton more sense to do it along the current line. The class III upgrade should make it significantly faster than the 3+ hour trip that was initially proposed (it should be somewhere between just under 2 hours and 2 hours, 20 minutes) and express trains and/or additional track upgrades would make it faster. I also don't think it makes sense to completely bypass every town between the two city centers if it's just conventional rail and infrastructure is already in place. Now if they were going to go for high speed rail eventually, laying new straight track along the turnpike with a few stops on the line would be a better plan but for standard conventional rail, the cost of using the current track and ROW and upgrading where necessary wouldn't be in the same stratosphere as adding a new line along I-44, would accomplish the same thing and likely serve more people between the two cities. No point in hunting deer with a howitzer.

1. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid...28514310520985
2. https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=...60219357350533
3. http://chrome-extension://efaidnbmnn...H4W0QYlBZDxeds
4. https://www.facebook.com/friendsofpa...FvLzjdpw831zPl
5. https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news...-tulsa-and-okc

So what's the plan for how they get around on either end once they get there? Both cities have crap public transit that doesn't go to a LOT of the city. Do they just have to rely on an Uber once they get there? It works very well for airlines, so i'm not saying it wouldn't work here. But point to point is only part of the conversation. If you dont have start to destination worked out too, then it's all for not.

I still would argue that the vast majority of people won't use this unless it beats a car in terms of speed and convenience. Long distance is one thing where a flight definitely does that so I'm not driving. But if the train is going to go slower than my car, stop 4 times along the way, take twice as long as my car, and then I have to figure out transport once I get there.....well you're really not winning over customers. There are only so many people that would do that just to purposely make the point that it can be done. It has to be easy and flow smoothly for it to work for the broad public. If you're grandma can't do it on her own, then you're not doing it right. I would also say that you're going to have to fill more than 2 train cars to each way to make it profitable too. What I would prefer that we NOT do, is open something like this up and then have to subsidize it to keep it going with empty cars running back and forth.

We're not built like Europe folks and a lot of the benefits of trains, as much as we all like them, were lost decades ago to other forms of transit. Passenger rail especially. A lot of freight moves this way, but that's a much different story to passenger rail.

[PhiAlpha]

So what's the plan for how they get around on either end once they get there? Both cities have crap public transit that doesn't go to a LOT of the city. Do they just have to rely on an Uber once they get there? It works very well for airlines, so i'm not saying it wouldn't work here. But point to point is only part of the conversation. If you dont have start to destination worked out too, then it's all for not.

I still would argue that the vast majority of people won't use this unless it beats a car in terms of speed and convenience. Long distance is one thing where a flight definitely does that so I'm not driving. But if the train is going to go slower than my car, stop 4 times along the way, take twice as long as my car, and then I have to figure out transport once I get there.....well you're really not winning over customers. There are only so many people that would do that just to purposely make the point that it can be done. It has to be easy and flow smoothly for it to work for the broad public. If you're grandma can't do it on her own, then you're not doing it right. I would also say that you're going to have to fill more than 2 train cars to each way to make it profitable too. What I would prefer that we NOT do, is open something like this up and then have to subsidize it to keep it going with empty cars running back and forth.

We're not built like Europe folks and a lot of the benefits of trains, as much as we all like them, were lost decades ago to other forms of transit. Passenger rail especially. A lot of freight moves this way, but that's a much different story to passenger rail.

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.

[jedicurt]

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.

[Mesta Parker]

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.

[Jake]

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

[Mesta Parker]

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.

[cinnamonjock]

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.