View Full Version : Heartland Flyer's 10th Anniversary



Doug Loudenback
06-14-2009, 12:58 PM
A ceremony commemorating the Heartland Flyer's 10th anniversary was held yesterday morning at the Santa Fe Depot.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/10thanniversary.jpg

If you really like passenger trains in Oklahoma City, you missed a great event if you weren't there (uh, I don't remember Tom Elmore being present :ohno: ).

Several dignitaries made a few politely-brief-and-to-the point speeches and a good time was had by all. A few of the pics that I took are shown below. Click on a photo for a larger view.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_01s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_01.jpg)

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_04s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_04.jpg)

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_06s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_06.jpg)

Joe Kyle, ODOT's Rail Programs Division Manger, was speaking ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_13s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_13.jpg)

... and during his remarks a Burlington Northern passed by and gave a toot ... analogous to an Air Force fly-over, I guess ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_14s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_14.jpg)

After the speeches, it was time to break paper ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_19s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_19.jpg)

... except that the paper (doubtless, Texas paper) broke prematurely ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_21s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_21.jpg)

... not to worry ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_22s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_22.jpg)

The powerful locomotive SMASHES through the paper barrier in its way

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_26s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_26.jpg)

Read and see more about the event here: Doug Dawgz Blog: Heartland Flyer At Age 10 (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/06/heartland-flyer-at-age-10.html). The article is also a little about Dean Schirf, corporate secretary of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, who is retiring this month. The Heartland Flyer's presence in Oklahoma City is in no small measure due to his efforts back in the 1990s to get passenger service restored to Oklahoma City.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_24s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trains/heartlandflyer/amtrak2009_24.jpg)

Doug Loudenback
06-15-2009, 11:18 AM
I've beefed-up the area about a quick-trip to Ft. Worth a bit with a better map, Ft. Worth photos, and a few quick-trip recommendations. Click Doug Dawgz Blog (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/#quicktrip)

OKCisOK4me
06-15-2009, 04:02 PM
"(uh, I don't remember Tom Elmore being present )"

That's a fantastic and interesting observation!

Doug Loudenback
06-15-2009, 06:13 PM
"(uh, I don't remember Tom Elmore being present )"

That's a fantastic and interesting observation!
Well, maybe Saturday wasn't his day to do railroads. You know, like back in college when some one comes into your room and says, "Have you seen Joe Blow," and the reply was, "Not my day to watch him."

bombermwc
06-16-2009, 07:43 AM
The bad side is that the Heartland Flyer has yet to make any money. It's been losing money since it opened. It takes too long to get to Texas with all the stops, and then it goes to Ft. Worth instead of to Dallas. As long as it's faster to drive than take a train, then people aren't going to ride it in any numbers. It's really unfortunate though. This line really COULD be a great connecting line between OKC and DFW. If it were a faster line and went to DALLAS instead, it would be great. I don't see it happening, but in my vision, i'd have it as a high speed line (and have it connect to Tulsa) ending at a DART site. That way you can ride from OKC to Dallas in 1.5 hours and catch a DART to the mall or whatever and then come home all in a normal day's time. Not like the 5am - Midnight timeline it takes now...ugh.

If you're looking for a relaxing slow and "i don't care how long it takes" ride, this is it. Unfortunately, I don't think enough people exist that are looking for that. As awesome as it is to simply ride the rail for the kick of it, they still have to make money or it will go away.

Doug Loudenback
06-16-2009, 08:23 AM
You're right about what you said. Public transportation, in fact, has no history of making money ... the old trolley system in Okc didn't, neither do the buses that replaced the trolleys. Public subsidy for public transportation is likely here to stay. I don't see the Heartland Flyer going away, though ... expanded, probably down the line, but I don't think it will be let go of. it would be a little quicker if Texas would upgrade its side of the route so that the train doesn't have to slow down to 59 mph (79 mph is OK on the Oklahoma side).

metro
06-16-2009, 08:33 AM
Hard to believe it's been 10 years already. I also heard they are offering like 20% off or something for the 10th anniversary.

Doug Loudenback
06-16-2009, 10:58 AM
Yes they are, until the end of this month.

OKCisOK4me
06-16-2009, 11:57 AM
You're right about what you said. Public transportation, in fact, has no history of making money ... the old trolley system in Okc didn't, neither do the buses that replaced the trolleys. Public subsidy for public transportation is likely here to stay. I don't see the Heartland Flyer going away, though ... expanded, probably down the line, but I don't think it will be let go of. it would be a little quicker if Texas would upgrade its side of the route so that the train doesn't have to slow down to 59 mph (79 mph is OK on the Oklahoma side).

Not to mention the fact that the route is only single tracked and freight trains are priority since the route is owned by BNSF.

Until BNSF chooses to double track this route...which I doubt will happen since they've spent the last 5 to 10 years or so double tracking their Transcon route...you (not you Doug, but mwc) will have to live with it being a slow route. The only other way this will happen is that a new route gets built on right of way, purchased from BNSF by government bodies being either state/federal or both and then new lines being built by our tax dollars. That would cost mucho deniro.

Doug Loudenback
06-16-2009, 01:05 PM
Quite right, again. On the one occasion that I took this trip (about 4 or so years ago), I recall having to pause at a siding to let the BNSF train pass by on one or two occasions. We do have a long way to go ... but I'm pretty sure that we'll get there by the time my grandchildren are grown and have babies! At least, we're moving in the right direction, as slow a process as that is.

It will be interesting for those still alive on the 20th Heartland Flyer anniversary to see what, if anything, has changed from today.

soonerguru
06-16-2009, 01:10 PM
The bad side is that the Heartland Flyer has yet to make any money. It's been losing money since it opened. It takes too long to get to Texas with all the stops, and then it goes to Ft. Worth instead of to Dallas. As long as it's faster to drive than take a train, then people aren't going to ride it in any numbers. It's really unfortunate though. This line really COULD be a great connecting line between OKC and DFW. If it were a faster line and went to DALLAS instead, it would be great. I don't see it happening, but in my vision, i'd have it as a high speed line (and have it connect to Tulsa) ending at a DART site. That way you can ride from OKC to Dallas in 1.5 hours and catch a DART to the mall or whatever and then come home all in a normal day's time. Not like the 5am - Midnight timeline it takes now...ugh.

If you're looking for a relaxing slow and "i don't care how long it takes" ride, this is it. Unfortunately, I don't think enough people exist that are looking for that. As awesome as it is to simply ride the rail for the kick of it, they still have to make money or it will go away.

I've ridden it several times and it is very comfortable. It's a leisure trip. Although, there are numerous people who ride it every single week for transportation.

What is the deal with the "making money" part? I don't get it. Do roads "make money?" Of course not. They're subsidized by your tax dollars.

This "making money" thing is a canard, probably set up by shills in the road industry.

The fact is that Heartland Flyer's ridership has increased every single year, and is one of the best performing routes on the entire Amtrak network.

Luke
06-16-2009, 01:52 PM
What is the deal with the "making money" part? I don't get it. Do roads "make money?" Of course not. They're subsidized by your tax dollars.

I think the point is, why would any investor put money into a system they 100% know will not see any return. Any business who does this goes bankrupt and shuts down. Why should the taxpayer be forced to be part of a business venture that they know will absolutely lose money?

Doug Loudenback
06-16-2009, 03:09 PM
I think the point is, why would any investor put money into a system they 100% know will not see any return. Any business who does this goes bankrupt and shuts down. Why should the taxpayer be forced to be part of a business venture that they know will absolutely lose money?
Well, then, are you ready to shut down the city's bus service, and, should we ever get it, some light rail service? By your logic, it would seem so since those types of ventures do not make money ... they lose money.

So why have them at all?

If the city wants to have rail service between cities, it is wholly a fiction to think of such services in any way dissimilar to intracity public transportation. If one wants those services, gotta pay the piper. At $2M annually for the Heartland Flyer, paid for by those across the state, I kinda think that we're getting a heck of a sweet deal, though Tulsa and Muskogee, etc. may see the matter differently.

Luke
06-16-2009, 05:51 PM
Well, then, are you ready to shut down the city's bus service, and, should we ever get it, some light rail service? By your logic, it would seem so since those types of ventures do not make money ... they lose money.

So why have them at all?

Excellent points! Throw in public schools and we're set!

;)

Actually, I think given the chance, a private sector alternative would be cheaper, better and more efficient than anything the government is able to do.

Heck, there is so much creativity on this board, WE could probably come up with something!

Doug Loudenback
06-16-2009, 06:21 PM
Actually, I think given the chance, a private sector alternative would be cheaper, better and more efficient than anything the government is able to do.

Are you kidding? The private sector was responsible for ENDING passenger rail and bailed out not only here but around the country -- the private sector having operated passenger trains for eons could not, in the end, run them at a profit. Some went bankrupt. Others just quit. As I said here (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2007/08/okc-trains-part-2.html#trainswane),


The Katy ceased its Oklahoma passenger operations by July 1965, followed by the Frisco in May 1967, followed by the Rock Island six months later, leaving the Santa Fe's Texas Chief as Oklahoma City's only surviving passenger train. The other two were Santa Fe's "The Tulsan" between Tulsa and Kansas City and the "San Francisco Chief" which passed through Woodward and Alva on its runs between Kansas City and the San Francisco area. Statewide, an April 20, 1970, Oklahoman article's headline was, "Passenger Trains Fading Fast." It said, "Of 70 passenger trains that ran through Oklahoma in the golden years of railroading, only three remain. The thread that holds even these three trains on the rails stretches thin; they may disappear soon." "The city had as many as 50 passenger trains a day during the period during and just after World War II," the article says. A "50 Years Ago Today" item in the November 10, 1967, Oklahoman said, "50 Years Ago – During the year 1917 there were as many as 10 Santa Fe railroad passenger trains through Oklahoma City daily, 16 Frisco, 10 Rock Island, eight Katy and four Fort Smith & Western." For further reading, see the March 10, 1968, Oklahoman, page 19, "Train Whistle Ever More Lonely", and the May 9, 1965, article, "Trains Don't Stop Any More."

As for Santa Fe, its passenger service remained in operation here until it opted into the National Railroad Passenger Corporation in April 1971.

Santa Fe's run in Oklahoma City as a passenger carrier ended at the end of April 1971, even though the route was continued on May 1, 1971, as part of the US government's new "Railpax" system.
Puhleease ... tell us how the private sector is going to get involved, even improve, passenger rail in Oklahoma City. The private sector did have a chance and it wanted to escape the opportunity. The private sector will not be returning.

bombermwc
06-17-2009, 10:10 AM
Amtrak survives because of the subsidies...hands down. Should it be that way, probably not. Can we do anything about it, no. If they didn't have the subsidies, they would fold and we would have zero rail access anywhere in the U.S. If we want it, we'll have to support it. But at the same time, the system needs to be able to correctly support the lines....ie BNSF needs a seperate freight line and it needs to be upgraded all the way to Dallas. But the million dollar question, who is gonna pay for it?

Luke
06-17-2009, 10:49 AM
1) Shut down amtrak, use the tax dollars to bus people on the same routes... cheaper and quicker. Heck, fly them, it's still cheaper! At least that's a start.

2) Cut amtrak employee pay, which by some counts is as high as 20% MORE than airline employees. Their cushy benefits packages are costing the taxpayer way too much also. At least that helps.

3) If it's for nostalgic reasons, keep amtrak running, but make the routes self sufficient by reflecting it in the ticket price. Those who long for nostalgia will pay the $450 round trip, right?

5) Of course, the best option is to bid out regions of rail routes to private companies in much the same way airlines operate. Unprofitable routes would be shut down. If the heartland flyer is one of the least-subsidy-needing route, then we here in OKC would be fine.

Doug Loudenback
06-17-2009, 12:48 PM
Amtrak survives because of the subsidies...hands down. Should it be that way, probably not. Can we do anything about it, no. If they didn't have the subsidies, they would fold and we would have zero rail access anywhere in the U.S. If we want it, we'll have to support it. But at the same time, the system needs to be able to correctly support the lines....ie BNSF needs a seperate freight line and it needs to be upgraded all the way to Dallas. But the million dollar question, who is gonna pay for it?
Well, I guess since it was your suggestion, that person would be you. :kicking:

Doug Loudenback
06-17-2009, 01:16 PM
Whoa, Luke, you are an ultimate and true radical! Nothing wrong with that ... we all have our opinions. But but but ... I'll respond in your message parts ...


1) Shut down amtrak, use the tax dollars to bus people on the same routes... cheaper and quicker. Heck, fly them, it's still cheaper! At least that's a start.
Fly them, it's still cheaper? Maybe your're right ... I have no data other than the reported number of passengers over the last 10 year span, which is 625,000. Offhand, I don't know the one-way price for flying to DFW or the alternatve. Let's say that it is $100, conservatively speaking. $100 x 625,000 is $62,600,000 by my math (always should be considered suspect). Oklahoma's share of the Heartland Flyer is, I think, $2,000,000 annually, which would be $20,000,000 over the last ten years. Cheaper? Probably not.

But, your real point is that the route (you said Amtrak, but I presume you didn't mean nation wide, just locally) should simply be shut down -- no passenger rail at all seems to be what you're saying. Maybe you're right, but I disagree.


2) Cut amtrak employee pay, which by some counts is as high as 20% MORE than airline employees. Their cushy benefits packages are costing the taxpayer way too much also. At least that helps.
I have no data about that. Please produce your sources and let's have a look.


3) If it's for nostalgic reasons, keep amtrak running, but make the routes self sufficient by reflecting it in the ticket price. Those who long for nostalgia will pay the $450 round trip, right?
Oh my, oh my. You obviously have little value in your scheme for the value of rail, now or in the years to come. If you think that when the time is right Oklahoma (or Oklahoma City) can simply say, "We'll opt in now that the time is right," we live on different planets. $2M/year is a pretty cheap price to pay to keep the city on the national rail system, as small a piece as it is at the present time.

You had no 4.


5) Of course, the best option is to bid out regions of rail routes to private companies in much the same way airlines operate. Unprofitable routes would be shut down. If the heartland flyer is one of the least-subsidy-needing route, then we here in OKC would be fine.
This has been previously discussed. Public transportation DOES NOT pay for itself, never has, never will. Airlines, barely surviving, eek out a profit because of convenience and demand. Several have already folded, and doubtless others will follow.

According to your plan, Luke, the city, the state, the United States, should ALL be without public transportation unless it turns a profit, which in most instances it will not. Dream on, teenage queen, that just ain't gonna happen. (no disrespect intended, I just like that phrase).

But, hey, maybe you're right. So, as a starter, let's shut down the local city bus line and save a ****-load of local money ... god knows the COPTA bus system makes no money ... unless and until some private investor steps in and charges what the actual cost would be ... assuming there are enough who would stop driving their cars to make that feasible ... what's your guess?

Luke, from your comments, I'd suppose that you are opposed to any public subsidy for any form of public transportation. Am I right? That's a fair enough thing, if that be the case, even though we obviously disagree. Public transportation ... well, who needs such a thing, anyway. Don't the Australian aborigines get along well enough without it (assuming a fact not in evidence, i.e. maybe they have a public transportation system, I just don't know)?

metro
06-17-2009, 01:28 PM
Doug, we might as well quit building roads as well, because they aren't turning us a public either. Some people live in fantasy land.

Doug Loudenback
06-17-2009, 01:48 PM
Doug, we might as well quit building roads as well, because they aren't turning us a public either. Some people live in fantasy land.
Agreed. No more roads. If private enterprise won't fund 'em, to hell with public highways ... but but but wait ... what about city streets? No use at all. After all, we've all got internet now, so what's the need to move around at all? :kicking:

metro
06-17-2009, 01:51 PM
No worries, I'm buying me a bronco (horse that is), saddle, and a lasso next payday, so heck with the roads and "traffic congestion." I'll make my own roads. Wait...I can't put my horse on a streetcar? Hey Doug, can I teleport myself over for lunch?

OKCisOK4me
06-17-2009, 01:51 PM
Amtrak survives because of the subsidies...hands down. Should it be that way, probably not. Can we do anything about it, no. If they didn't have the subsidies, they would fold and we would have zero rail access anywhere in the U.S. If we want it, we'll have to support it. But at the same time, the system needs to be able to correctly support the lines....ie BNSF needs a seperate freight line and it needs to be upgraded all the way to Dallas. But the million dollar question, who is gonna pay for it?

Okay, let me tell you something you may not know, or understand. Let's put it into perspective. BNSF's Transcon route which runs from Chicago to LA has been double tracked for many years but there were several portions in SW Kansas, most of NW Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle and the Abo Canyon region in Central New Mexico that were single tracked. This route handles upwards of 120 trains per day. And it's primary freight is intermodal. Look that up on Wikipedia and you'll find what goods are transported this way (virtually 95% of all the products you'll find in your household).

Their route that runs from Kansas City, through Oklahoma City, down to Dallas and on to the Gulf Region is used primarily for grain transport--I'm sure you've seen those brown unit trains running during the fall season. For three quarters of the year this route handles roughly one train every hour, or 24 trains per day, give or take a few. Peak is during the fall, maybe 40-45 tops. Other freight includes one RoadRailer, various automotive trains, though not as much since the GM plant closed its doors, mixed through freight and local traffic hauls.

The count on our line is 6 times smaller than the count of the Transcon line, therefore the revenue is much less. If you understand basic economics then you'll understand that this route of ours will not be upgraded for years to come, if at all. It does what it needs to do and has plenty of passing sidings to work well for BNSF.

Doug Loudenback
06-17-2009, 02:17 PM
No worries, I'm buying me a bronco (horse that is), saddle, and a lasso next payday, so heck with the roads and "traffic congestion." I'll make my own roads. Wait...I can't put my horse on a streetcar? Hey Doug, can I teleport myself over for lunch?
Yes, if you'll share the technology.

Luke
06-17-2009, 02:22 PM
Whoa, Luke, you are an ultimate and true radical!

Radical... logical...

;)


But, your real point is that the route (you said Amtrak, but I presume you didn't mean nation wide, just locally) should simply be shut down -- no passenger rail at all seems to be what you're saying. Maybe you're right, but I disagree.

If Amtrak were a private business, it would fail. I just don't see how logical it is for the government to lose hundreds of dollars per passenger and it just be OK. And "just disagreeing" doesn't make the problem OK. Nostalgic reasons aren't affordable.


I have no data about that. Please produce your sources and let's have a look.

Heritage Foundation.

How To Run A Railroad (Or At Least Amtrak) (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed020403a.cfm)


Amtrak's new management also expressed no interest in renegotiating the railroad's costly labor contracts. Amtrak's unionized workforce earns about 20 percent more than the unionized employees of airlines, and this gap is widening as troubled airlines renegotiate labor contracts to reduce costs and cut losses.

Granted, that was 2002. But, I have a sneaky suspicion not much has changed in that department.


Oh my, oh my. You obviously have little value in your scheme for the value of rail, now or in the years to come. If you think that when the time is right Oklahoma (or Oklahoma City) can simply say, "We'll opt in now that the time is right," we live on different planets. $2M/year is a pretty cheap price to pay to keep the city on the national rail system, as small a piece as it is at the present time.

If it's as valuable as you say it is, then it should be profitable. I don't see value in ripping the taxpayers hundreds of dollars per passenger. Besides, the rails will still be hauling freight in 10, 20, 50 years (as long as the government doesn't price THEM out of it too!). As long as rails are there, options for passenger traffic is too.


This has been previously discussed. Public transportation DOES NOT pay for itself, never has, never will.

That's something that is perpetuated. Shuttle services, jitney services, greyhounds, private bus circulars, private taxi circulars... all exist in one form or another throughout the world and to some extent (although more limited) in the US.


Airlines, barely surviving, eek out a profit because of convenience and demand. Several have already folded, and doubtless others will follow.

By this statement, you intuitively understand that supply and demand is fair and should be at play. And that those businesses who can't make it, fail.

That's how it SHOULD work. Unfortunately, our taxpayer dollars are more and more often being thrown at these bad companies who can't sustain themselves.


According to your plan, Luke, the city, the state, the United States, should ALL be without public transportation unless it turns a profit, which in most instances it will not. Dream on, teenage queen, that just ain't gonna happen. (no disrespect intended, I just like that phrase).

Imagine, the iPhone. The Internet. Electricity. It was all "impossible" at one point in time.

Self-sustaining transportation doesn't even sound THAT far fetched. When the government (via taxing us and subsidizing them) undercuts any possibility of competition, we will never see self-sustaining mass transit. And worse, lower quality, higher tax cost and horrible efficiency come along for the ride too.

I would definitely recommend this to read for just an idea of what private mass transit could do...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/technology/10google.html?_r=2&oref=slogin


But, hey, maybe you're right. So, as a starter, let's shut down the local city bus line and save a ****-load of money ... unless and until some private investor steps in and charges what the actual cost would be ... assuming there are enough who would stop driving their cars to make that feasible ... what's your guess?

I would TOTALLY be up for that. And watch it succeed better, more efficiently and cheaper than what we currently have. Taxis succeed. Shuttles succeed. There's no reason why mass transit wouldn't succeed.

Luke
06-17-2009, 02:35 PM
Doug, we might as well quit building roads as well, because they aren't turning us a public either.

I'm not sure...but, I think I understand your point.

Privatization wouldn't make roads go away. It would make them better, more efficient and we would all save money.

Luke
06-17-2009, 02:37 PM
Agreed. No more roads. If private enterprise won't fund 'em, to hell with public highways ... but but but wait ... what about city streets? No use at all. After all, we've all got internet now, so what's the need to move around at all? :kicking:

Again, privatization of roads doesn't make them go away.

Luke
06-17-2009, 02:42 PM
No worries, I'm buying me a bronco (horse that is), saddle, and a lasso next payday, so heck with the roads and "traffic congestion." I'll make my own roads. Wait...I can't put my horse on a streetcar? Hey Doug, can I teleport myself over for lunch?

Again, again, privatization of roads doesn't mean we won't have any. It does mean they will be kept cleaner, safer, cheaper and more efficient.

Doug Loudenback
06-17-2009, 03:05 PM
Luke, you've said a lot of stuff above that I don't have time for right now. But, let me just leave you with this as food for though:

Beginning in the early 1900s, Messrs. Classen & Shartel developed the Oklahoma Railway Company (Okc trolleys, interburbans). The rail, as such, didn't turn a profit. However, since they pretty much controlled where those tracks would go, they made a ****load of money purchasing and reselling land along the routes. When that notion played out, Classen began talking about closing routes, etc., and, of course, in 1947 I think the whole trolley system was abandoned.

There 's your private enterprise at work ... yes, did some good things for the city for as long as it was beneficial to the owners ... but after that ... go fish.

I'm all for people making money where there's money to be made, but I don't think that public transportation is one of those places. In my view, public transportation falls within the ambit of things government has a responsibility to provide for its citizens, whether that be local, intrastate, or interstate. No point in debating that point with you because neither of us will change our minds. I'm just glad that I don't live in the country or state or city that you would hypothetically construct if you could. It wouldn't suit me at all.

Luke
06-17-2009, 05:30 PM
Beginning in the early 1900s, Messrs. Classen & Shartel developed the Oklahoma Railway Company (Okc trolleys, interburbans). The rail, as such, didn't turn a profit. However, since they pretty much controlled where those tracks would go, they made a ****load of money purchasing and reselling land along the routes. When that notion played out, Classen began talking about closing routes, etc., and, of course, in 1947 I think the whole trolley system was abandoned.

I'm not sure I see what's wrong.

But, I do enjoy and appreciate the friendly debate. It keeps me thinking. Hopefully it does you too.

:)