Amtrak News/Updates

[Mesta Parker]

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.

[PhiAlpha]

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.

[UrbanistPoke]

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.

[UrbanistPoke]

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.

[HOT ROD]

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. ...

[bombermwc]

@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?

[TheTravellers]

...
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/article...akes-money.asp says "No country in the world operates a passenger rail system without public support."

[CaptDave]

https://www.investopedia.com/article...akes-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.

[okcrun]

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.

[PhiAlpha]

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.

[UrbanistPoke]

@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.

[jedicurt]

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.

[mugofbeer]

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.

[PhiAlpha]

^^^^
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.

[bombermwc]

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?

[bombermwc]

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?

[CaptDave]

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.

[scottk]

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?

[CaptDave]

^^

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.

[PhiAlpha]

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.

[baralheia]

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.

[PhiAlpha]

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.

[baralheia]

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, 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.

[Mesta Parker]

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, 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

[Jake]

“No one uses X.”

*evidence of people using X*

“Not that many people use X.”